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

Not-An-RfC on RfCs

I propose to add the following to the guidance on RfCs for source reliability.

Before raising an RfC please consider the following:

1. The answer must not be obvious. For example, Reuters is obviously reliable, and the National Inquirer is obviously unreliable, and RfCs on either may be considered disruptive.
2. There must be evidence of ongoing disagreement between good-faith editors over the reliability of the source. If the question is whether a source (e.g. a primary-sourced opinion) may be included, this is not a matter for a source reliability RfC, because it is not a question of reliability it is one of weight. WP:NPOVN is second on the right down the hall, thanks for asking.
3. There must be evidence of a problem rising to the level of an RfC. A source used in three articles can be discussed but probably does not require an RfC; RfCs are needed to establish consensus where reasonable people may differ, or where the reliability of a widely-used source may have changed.

Opinions (Not-An-RfC on RfCs)

1. Support as supporter. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
2. Support, sensible criteria. Schazjmd (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
3. Object If there is more to be said in WP:RFCBEFORE then the appropriate place is the WP:RFC talk page. If the problem is the flood of bad RfCs from people who want blanket approval/disapproval of sources, I blame the bad advice that was added to the top of this page ("In some cases, it can also be appropriate to start a general discussion about the likelihood that statements from a particular source are reliable or unreliable" etc.). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Marginally support as is; however, inclusion of more criteria and their clarification and their refinement might be even better. See my proposal for clarification in Discussion. EDIT: After rereading, the first criterion does read as a ban for deprecation for obviously unreliable sources, which was probably unintended by the author of the otherwise brilliant proposal but there is a real risk of introducing conflicting rules to the guidelines/policy. Amend the first point to include such possibility. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC) Edited 00:47, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
5. Support in principle Perhaps it would be better as a guideline at the top of this page rather than as a strict rule. Springee (talk) 02:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
6. Support, although I agree with Springee that it is better considered a guideline than a strict rule. Realistically speaking anything that falls under the first point will tend towards WP:SNOW anyway, and most things that fall under the second point will as well (although that can still leave problems when eg. someone is asking a patiently obvious question that they actually intend to use as the answer to a less-obvious question - I feel like it might be more useful to have a separate essay describing that problem, since it's not an issue limited to WP:RSN, even if it comes up a lot here due to people interpreting a specific objection as a general objection to the entire source.) And the third point is already somewhat covered by the existing guideline that reminds people that such sweeping RFCs are generally for things that are widely used in articles. But all three points are common enough issues that it cannot hurt to remind people about them. --Aquillion (talk) 04:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
7. Support, and concur with Springee. Also agree with most of Szmenderowiecki's points below, though it would need to be compressed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
8. Support. These seem like reasonable steps. I would also suggest that the person starting the RFC should explain why they are doing so, either in the opening statement or in the top response in the survey section. Simply asking "is x reliable" is insufficient. -- Calidum 14:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
9. Support in principle. I may think we need to change a word or two, and maybe cut down on some of the snark, but fundamentally I agree with the spirit of this entire thing. --Jayron32 15:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
10. Support overdue and badly needed. --JBL (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
11. Support with Springee's suggestion being my preferred method of implementation. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:16, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
12. Support with the added parameter that the "obvious" answers are only those which have no significant information change since last discussion (or ever for those which have never been discussed). While Reuters is obviously reliable now, it is improper to attempt to say that things that are "obviously reliable" will not ever become unreliable, and in fact we've seen multiple sources that were "obviously" reliable become unreliable quickly with new information. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
13. Object to proposed phrasing. In particular, the second bullet is rather snarky and, I believe, shifts some disputes that belong here to WP:NPOV. The notion that it is always the case that [i]f the question is whether a source (e.g. a primary-sourced opinion) may be included, this is not a matter for a source reliability RfC, because it is not a question of reliability it is one of weight is a bit silly; oftentimes many disputes over inclusion (and whether or not something constitutes due weight) intersects strongly with the reliability of the source in that context. This board is appropriate in discussing questions of reliability that may play a role in further discussions surrounding whether or not inclusion is WP:DUE. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:43, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
14. I abhor the practice of stripping a dispute of its context and then going to RfC with what purports to be an open, general question about the reliability of a source. I support the general idea behind this not-RfC, but I think it doesn't go far enough and I would like to propose a one-year moratorium on RfCs on this noticeboard, during which time the noticeboard restricts itself purely to evaluating the reliability of a source in the context of a specific dispute. If this noticeboard fails to resolve the question then the escalation should be an RfC on the article talk page for the community to evaluate the source in context. I believe this would improve the quality of our decision-making.—S Marshall T/C 09:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
15. Support, and thank you for proposing this. I'd say these criteria should be common sense, but the proliferation of unnecessary RFCs on this page shows that guidance is needed. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
16. Support - Way, way, way past time that a halt was called to these context-less, WP:FORUM-style discussions that do nothing to actually help editors edit. This is a page for discussing sources not media in general and particularly not a place for deciding which media outlets you think are morally bad (which is typically the real rationale behind condemning a certain outlet). Sources are things that are used to support information in an article, and if the RFC cannot be linked to specific article-content then it just shouldn't happen. FOARP (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
17. Support I'm rather neutral to the specific details of how to implement these recommendations. In general, we need to stop the use of RSN as a general forum on media, as well as a venue to blanket mass removal of certain media categories, such as the recent attempts to deprecate all national media from many countries. MarioGom (talk) 23:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
18. Oppose due to condition 1. Telling editors that they cannot bring an RFC for an unreliable source is completely at odds with the deprecation process, and while I know many editors are uncomfortable with or oppose the deprecation process, this guidance is an inappropriate roundabout way to end that process. As for obviously reliable sources, if the other two conditions are met, it may not be clear just how reliable a source is or how best to use it. John M Baker (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
19. Strong Oppose due to condition one. The reliability of sources changes over time and the meaning of "obvious" is completely subjective. Something cannot be "obvious" if it is not discussed, if something is "obviously" not reliable or "obviously" reliable, the outcome of an RFC will reflect this. I would be willing to support the remainder of this proposal if condition one is completely struck from the proposal. RedAlert 007 (talk) 08:33, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (Not-An-RfC on RfCs)

• Is condition 1 necessary? If there is an ongoing disagreement between good-faith editors (condition 2) rising to the level of an RfC (condition 3), then surely the answer cannot be deemed obvious. JBchrch (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
• Additional criteria to be considered and reformulation of what is proposed.

Criterion 1. The answer must not be obvious. Opinion on the general reliability should not be solicited if there is broad consensus the outlet is generally reliable or unreliable, unless there is an event (i.e. change of ownership, amendments to laws regulating freedom of speech and freedom of press in the country where the outlet is based, or a change in staff) that significantly influences the quality of the publication in question.

Criterion 2. is fine as is.

Criterion 3. The outlet in question should have multiple instances of usage. If the source has been used in relatively few articles, it may be discussed, but triggering an RfC is not recommended.

Criterion 4. Check if there were recent RfCs. An RfC should not be solicited if recent RfCs were close to unanimous or unanimous in their conclusions, unless a reasonable editor may conclude that the events that happened in the meantime significantly altered the quality of coverage.

Criterion 5. RfCs and responses to RfCs should not be guided solely on webpages that evaluate reliability and/or bias of the publication (i.e. Media Bias Chart, Media Bias/Fact Check, Newsguard etc.). These pages might be somewhat useful, but they do not have strong methodology. Instead, propose specific examples of what you feel shows (un)reliability of the publication and scholarly articles (if available) that evaluate the source.

Recommendations for those answering RfCs:

1. Presume that the publication is reporting news and investigating properly unless the pattern of reporting flaws is such that a reasonable reader would agree it is unreliable. A single instance of an error (particularly if a correction was issued) is not sufficient to declare that the source is unreliable or such that needs additional considerations. No source is perfect.

2. If citing older articles, do not apply hindsight. Stories should be evaluated on the basis of what was known at the time of their creation.

3. When voting, try to be as short as possible. General discussion on the motives to vote should be presented in the Discussion subsection. Use 2-3 lines at most to justify your answer. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• I am assuming we're talking about source reliability as to add to RS/P? or is this meant in general? --Masem (t) 23:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
• If 1 is retained, I suggest using The New York Times and The Daily Mail as examples instead of Reuters and the National Inquirer. Reuters may be unfamiliar to the reader and some readers may be familiar with one of the famous 7 stories The National Enquirer actually got right. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• The problem is that we did have a huge discussion about the Daily Mail (multiple times, even), so even if it is obvious now it at one point wasn't, we should assume that a small but not insignificant minority of editors will continue to see it as non-obvious. Even if the National Enquirer occasionally gets stories right, I've never seen anyone seriously defend its usability as a source (and the fact that them getting a story right is rare enough to be noteworthy obviously doesn't really recommend them.) --Aquillion (talk) 04:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• I would add something to explain when to file an official RFC asking about general reliability vs when to hold an informal discussion about specific context reliability.

Specific context reliability can certainly be discussed at RSN... but if it rises to the point of needing a formal RFC, that RFC should usually take place on the article talk page, not at RSN or RSP.

Also, while a formal RFC on general reliability is appropriate at RSN, I think multiple specific context discussions (to show that the issue is indeed of a of “general” nature) are needed as a prerequisite before posting it. Blueboar (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't find appealing the idea to discuss the specific context reliability on the talk page of the article. There is a centralised venue for these requests for a reason, and I believe way more Wikipedia editors go on centralised noticeboards to see if they have something wise to say rather than click the "random page" link and go to the talk page to see if there's a dispute. If we were to search these several specific content disputes to escalate into an RfC about general reliability of the source, we'd need to keep them in one place to retrieve them when needed and not scatter them around Wikipedia. The editors, though, must first try to resolve the dispute on the talk page, and only then seek further input from the community if the dispute could not be resolved there.

I don't even see having the RfCs on the pages of relevant news sources at issue. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 02:21, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Question for Peter Gulutzan: in your !vote you state that the appropriate venue for this discussion would be the RFC talk page. Since this is a discussion about RFCs specifically about reliable sources, and not all RFCs community-wide, what benefits would there be to holding the discussion there? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Every RfC should be specifically about something, but it doesn't follow that for every talk page that has RfCs there should be different instructions on how to hold an RfC. I'm not sure what "not all RFCs community-wide" means, but if it's acknowledging that WP:RSN RfCs aren't products of any "Wikipedia community", I agree. Bypassing common rules and pretending WP:RSN is special won't help that. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

What we're all dancing around here is that "general reliability RFCs" are actually a bad thing and simply shouldn't happen any more. They have no positive impact on Wiki. They neither serve as a guide for specific reliability (people can and will always argue that their circumstances are special) nor prevent the use of "bad" sources (because the "bad" sources are not actually bad in every contest). FOARP (talk) 09:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest this as a guideline at the top of this page. In the interest of keeping things short I would skip #1 based on the idea that such RfCs would be SNOW closes. For #2 I would emphasize that editors should show prior examples of RSN discussions that include discussions related to the source's general reliability (either as a general question or part of the discussion of a specific use). Finally, this shouldn't be applied to RfCs related to specific use examples (is this source reliable for this specific claim). Springee (talk) 02:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• As this came to mind while replying elsewhere, I wonder if we can point to the Ad Fontes media bais chart [1] and note that we are pretty much never going to question the block of sources that sit at its apex (those it ranks "Fact Reporting" or better and fall within "Middle" on bias - eg the ones that Ad Fontes has outlined as Reliable) those stress that that bias chart does change over time and sources can move in or out of that range. There can be singular article/events with one of these sources (as to be discussed at RS/N but that doesn't impact the reliability of the source overall. --Masem (t) 18:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
• The only issue I might see for "obvious" unreliable cases is that it would make it a bit more difficult listing them at RSP, unless we'd be willing to alter the existing procedures there. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• In condition 1, the National Enquirer is a poor example of an inappropriate RFC. While the Enquirer is obviously not reliable, there was not a strong consensus as to whether it is merely unreliable, or should also be deprecated. (While the weak consensus was deprecation, there was no consensus to create an edit filter.) Indeed, since deprecation requires an RFC, I am not sure that there is any example of a source that would be an inappropriate RFC because of its obvious lack of reliability. Also, while I am completely comfortable with Reuters as a generally reliable source of news, a famous journal such as Nature or the New England Journal of Medicine might be a better example of an inappropriate RFC for an obviously reliable source. John M Baker (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Nature is known to publish sensational claims that then turn out to be unlikely, see the Cerutti Mastodon site for an example, so I wouldn't use it as a "gold standard" for reliability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Point taken. But the "gold standard" doesn't have to be a periodical. For example, the Oxford English Dictionary is unquestionably RS. John M Baker (talk) 15:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Definitely no to the idea that we should use the Daily Mail (which was and remains a controversial decision) as our example of the "perfect" bad source. FOARP (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, I'll go further: the DM ban was the cause of the problems we're trying grapple with here. The mass-banning of media sources was exactly what people who opposed the ban warned would happen and here we are. FOARP (talk) 11:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

IDK if it was intended at the time, but, paraphrasing this masterpiece, what I'm saying is that all the problems we have with deprecation are ones we create ourselves. Deprecation isn't broken by default, it is functional, high-performing, and to the point. You make it problematic. You son-of-a-bitch. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

RfC: WikiLeaks

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

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

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

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

Voting for question 1 (WikiLeaks)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Option 2, WikiLeaks is a collection of primary sources, and it should be treated as such. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 There should be an evaluation of each Wikileaks document and be treated as a primary source. Sea Ane (talk) 12:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 Wikileaks verifies the authenticity of documents before releasing them, which accounts for sometimes lengthy delays between receiving and publishing them. There are no verified cases of any of the documents released being fraudulent. That is a higher standard than most reliable sources. That of course does not mean that that the information in the documents is necessarily accurate, since that depends on the original authors. TFD (talk) 12:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4 per Aquillion, JBchrch, and MjolnirPants. Wikileaks itself is a collection of raw primary source documents (raising serious WP:OR issues when used directly), and the organization itself has questionable reliability and processes. Any information from them should be cited though reliable journalistic sources (i.e. not-Wikileaks), which could be counted on to do their own fact checking. - GretLomborg (talk) 06:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1-2 Wikileaks is a reliable repository of authentic leaked government and business documents. Wikileaks has an extensive partnership with the best journalists in the world. The United States diplomatic cables leak for instance are genuine US government embassy reports. The usage of the different stored documents needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis based on policies concerning the usage of government and business sources. --Guest2625 (talk) 10:25, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2. Wikipedia has a process for verifying the authenticity of documents. If the authenticity is verified and there is no other appropriate source that can be used then I see no reason why wikileaks should not be ok as a source. However its usage should be strictly limited to cases where the authenticity of the document is verified and its the only available source. RedAlert 007 (talk) 12:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 and 2 - Generally, they are reliable. I think that if the information can be verified using a different more reliable source it should. But unless there is reason to doubt the document I would take it as accurate. Not the policy for here but I tend to apply WP:AGF to new outlets as well. Also, I would ask Wikipedia to consider a policy on using documents gathered using FOIA requests. DoctorTexan (talk) 06:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC) (Moved to this section from discussion by Alaexis_¿question? 09:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC))
• Option 2 I can't think of a single case where a document released by wikileaks has been fabricated which rules out 3 and 4 for me, however due to the sensitive nature of the material they often release editors should be extra judicious in their use of the source and use RS analyzing the releases if possible. Additionally, attribution should always be required. BSMRD (talk) 03:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 It might be reliable on some cases, but it acts as an primary source, and therefore it should be cited with related reliable news sources if necessary. Ahmetlii (talk) 20:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Voting (question 2) (Wikileaks)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion (WikiLeaks RfC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bundesverfassungsgericht's interpretation ( BvR 1864/14 ) of TierSchG §3 Satz 1 Nr. 13.

EDIT: Ok, this discussion has gotten a bit out of scope so let me rephrase my original question as the implications of that are a discussion for another talks page...

The law as it is written is obviously a primary source.

We now have a decision by the Bundesverfassungsgericht that didn't change the law or it's meaning but the judges provided a precise interpretation/explanation of said law in justifying their decision.

Is this court's decision a (reliable) secondary source for the law?

In this particular case we're talking about the court decision "BvR 1864/14" and the explanation of TierSchG §3 Satz 1 Nr. 13. contained therein. KuchenHunde (talk) 10:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

This is in part a discussion about the use of German sources in an English Wikipedia article due to lack of precis English sources. I hope this is the right notice board.

Over on the Legality of bestiality by country or territory Wiki page there has been a "years long discussion". about the Legal situation in Germany, specifically weather or not bestial acts are entirely prohibited or only when the animal is forced.

This is the passage that would be supported by this source:

❌ Illegal if the animal is forced, Legal if the animal is not forced

Now I'm a bit unsure as to what constitutes a primary or secondary source in the context of law. Am I correct in my assertion that the relevant law (Here "TierSchG §3 Satz 1 Nr. 13".) as it is writing is the Primary source and any published interpretation of that law would be a secondary source?

In this case the Bundesverfassungsgericht "Published their interpretation". of this law in December 2015 when they rejected a constitutional complaint about it. If I understand this correctly this would be a very reliable secondary source for the meaning of TierSchG §3 Satz 1 Nr. 13. and a primary source for the rejection of said constitutional complaint?

However in the discussion on the talks page there were accusations that using their interpretations would be original research so somewhere there has to be a misunderstanding.

Now as an aside this ruling is already used in the "German Wikipedia article". (as far as I could find uncontested since 2016) as a source for the claim that (roughly translated) "prohibition anchored in the Animal Welfare Act only applies if the animal is forced to behave in a manner that is contrary to species. Accordingly, sexual intercourse with animals is not generally prohibited in Germany" so one of the two articles is wrong. KuchenHunde (talk) 12:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

References

The problem is that the BVerfG doesn't really say "Illegal if the animal is forced" and "Legal if the animal is not forced" explicitly. It examines the criminal offense found at §3 para. 13 TierSchG, explains the technicalities of how it should be interpreted and determines that this provision does not breach the German Constitution. I think you need a better, more explicit source if you want to add these statements to the article. JBchrch (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying the "legal if the animal is not forced" part is not supported by this source? Because the BVerfG is very clear that this passage of the TierSchG is limited in two ways: "sexual act" and "forcing" to do a “behave contrary to species”. As this seems to be the only law regulating this sort of thing "sexual acts" that don't meet the criteria for "forcing" the animal would be legal, correct? Or would it be better to just write what is illegal an let the reader figure out the rest?

Der Tatbestand des § 3 Satz 1 Nr. 13 TierSchG wird in doppelter Hinsicht durch die Merkmale der „sexuellen Handlung“ und des „Zwingens“ zu einem „artwidrigen Verhalten“ begrenzt

KuchenHunde (talk) 00:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The court doesn't examine whether bestiality is legal or illegal in Germany. It only examines whether §3 para. 13 TierSchG is constitutional or not. This is why the source is not adequate. To determine whether something is legal or illegal, you need a broader analysis or the legal system as a whole. This type of analysis is generally provided by secondary and tertiary sources (legal articles, government reports, legal textbooks). This is specifically the case when the content you are trying to add is disputed. JBchrch (talk) 15:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

KuchenHunde (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC) What the court was examining in BvR 1864/14 is actually irrelevant to this discussion as we're not talking about the result of their decision but rather their explanation concerning the meaning/scope of § 3 Satz 1 Nr. 13 TierSchG ! Given That all sources I've seen so far that make any claim about the legal situation around Bestial acts in Germany are all centered around this sentence from the TierSchG it seems, to me at least, that having a crystal clear interpretation of what exactly it encompasses (in this case by the BVerfG) would provide some clarity. Even reputable news sources seem to have different interpretation. As an example: The BBC has been consistent in being explicit that the fine only applies when the animal is forced while other international news articles (like APNews) seem to rely on questionable translations of the law. (see further down on appropriate translation for "dadurch", specifically "in this way", and how that might change how one would interpret the English translation)

"BBC in 2012".: The German parliament's agriculture committee is considering making it an offence not only to hurt an animal but also to force it into unnatural sex.

And: A fine of up to 25,000 euros (£20,000) is proposed if someone forces an animal to commit "actions alien to the species".

"BBC in 2016".: Germany's animal protection laws set out fines of up to €25,000 ($27,700; £19,000) for forcing animals to participate in what is termed as unnatural behaviour

Now that I'm reading them would those two BBC articles be a better source for this claim? The first one very clearly lays out the legal situation as of 2012 and the upcoming change and the article in 2016 merely serves to confirm that the proposed legislation from the first article made it's way into law. I mean they are also secondary sources and while I would call the BVerfG a more reliable source on this subject matter when it comes to international publications the BBC seems to be very highly regarded.

No because the BBC articles don't use the terminology "illegal if forced" or "legal if not forced". At best, they say that it will become/is illegal to "force an animal" into unnatural behaviour (although this is not the prevalent language in both articles). But if you add the conditional language ("if") yourself, then you are not complying with WP:V. Regarding What the court was examining in BvR 1864/14 is actually irrelevant, please refer to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. JBchrch (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

They ofc don't use the exact wording but doesn't every Wikipedia article require some rewording for for an article not to be overly long and unnecessarily complicated? Regarding your input concerning WP:CONTEXTMATTERS isn't the relevant context that it is an official statement by the BVerfG that goes into great detail as to what exactly TierSchG §3 Sentence 1 No. 13 means? How does what exactly they were deciding influence the validity of their analysis? KuchenHunde (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The statute making any sexual contact with an animal illegal is crystal clear. "It is forbidden to use an animal for one's own sexual activities or to train it or make it available for sexual activities of third parties and thereby force it to behave in a manner contrary to the species." Individuals are prohibited from personally engaging in bestiality, and from providing an animal for others to have sex with. And thereby force it (animal) to behave in a manor contrary to the species. The "force" refers to sex with a human is not a "natural" act for any animal. The laws says nothing about "forced sex" or the use of violence. The law was challenged in 2015, the plaintiffs claimed the law as written which prohibited any sexual contact with animals, violated their right under the constitution to sexual self determination. But the complaint was not accepted for admission for decision. Meaning the complaint was dismissed for having no constitutional significance. So to claim the constitutional court interpreted the law as saying that only forced sex with violence is illegal, and that consensual sex was legal. Is a bold assertion. But that assertion just isn't supported by any reliable news sources. Extraordinary claims, requires extraordinary sources. Shiloh6555 (talk) 04:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

It might seem that way from the English translation of TierSchG § 3 Satz 1 Nr. 13 but keep in mind that this is a law written in German Legal Language and as such it's meaning might not be intuitive to even a native German speaker. You interpreting the translation and deriving a meaning from it would be original research! (Also: Laws usually aren't there to define causality but actions) "Extraordinary claims, requires extraordinary sources" I wouldn't agree that the TierSchG only protecting animals from obvious harm is an extraordinary claim but luckily having an exact explanation of what that particular law means by the BVerfG is an extraordinary source that you don't get for many laws.

"So to claim the constitutional court interpreted the law as saying that only forced sex with violence is illegal" (forced meaning: physical violence or a behavior comparable to the use of physical violence) Literally just read their justification for why the complaint was dismissed. They were very clear on how TierSchG § 3 Satz 1 Nr. 13 is limited in scope, one being the term "force" (see above) KuchenHunde (talk) 10:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

If you insist on trying to interpret a law written in a language you don't speak let me point out that "in this way". is also a valid (and I'd argue in this context more appropriate) translation of "dadurch". While there isn't an official translation of the German TierSchG that I could find "this". translation by the aaalac uses the following wording:

It is prohibited [...] to exploit an animal for own’s own sexual acts or to train it or make it available for sexual acts by third parties and in this way to force it to behave in a manner which is unnatural for its species.

Suddenly the meaning isn't as crystal clear anymore. KuchenHunde (talk) 11:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

if your meaning isnt crystal clear it shouldn't be in the article. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS applies here. Delderd (talk) 15:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Exactly! So if the meaning of TierSchG § 3 Satz 1 Nr. 13 isn't crystal clear on it's own then why are you so insistent on keeping Germany as "Illegal" in the article when that would at least put it as "Unclear/Unknown". Of course the meaning gets to the point of being "crystal clear" when you read BvR 1864/14 which is why I cited it as a source!

as I said back in February last year when these same arguments were being used, "WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS applies here with '[having] to wait until it's been reported in mainstream media or published in books from reputable publishing houses.' That hasn't happened here, all of the mainstream media's reporting on the case, including the associated press, have said that the courts ruled that bestiality was still illegal." You're using your own interptetation of the law, and not what the actual news reports are saying. Delderd (talk) 19:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Again, the statue is crystal clear. And still in effect, exactly as written as of 2021. "It is forbidden to use an animal for one's own sexual activities" It makes no mentioned of "forced" sexual activities, or the use of violence. The word force is used to describe a behavior that is a result of any sexual contact with a human. "And thereby to force them to behave contrary to the species. "und dadurch zu artwidrigem Verhalten zu zwingen. Shiloh6555 (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Laws are WP:PRIMARY sources (they are almost textbook examples of primary sources that must be used with extreme caution, since interpreting and understanding them is an entire skillset requiring years of study and often relying on knowing related precedent, otherl laws, etc.) And the claim that German law allows bestiality in any form is patently WP:EXCEPTIONAL. You need a secondary source for this - even if it seems crystal-clear to you, how do you know what the relevant precedent means? Do you know every other possible law that could apply, and the full legal context in which this law is being used? I am skeptical, but if you did you still could not use that to write the article, since it would be WP:OR. Find a secondary source discussing it; otherwise it has to be removed entirely. --Aquillion (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Aquillion. The German constitution court's own headline says, "Unsuccessful constitutional complaint against the regulatory offense of sexual activity with animals." Not the offence of "forced" sexual activity. The constitutional complaint was not admitted for decision. Meaning the complaint was essentially dismissed. Which is why mainstream media sources such as AP news, DPA (Germany) and AFP (France) all reported that the challenge to the existing ban had failed. So to claim every one of those news agencies got it wrong. And that the court actually determined that consensual bestiality was still legal in Germany. Is clearly an exceptional claim. Shiloh6555 (talk) 05:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Aquillion that interpreting laws (especially when written in a language you don't speak natively) meet the criteria of WP:OR. Regarding the need for a secondary source: We have exactly this in the aforementioned decision by the BVerfG (BvR 1864/14)!

While it is a primary source for their decision contained therein is a very detailed explanation as to the exact meaning and scope of TierSchG §3 Satz 1 Nr. 13. This would make it a secondary source for this and, I'd argue, a very reliable one since it's an official release by the supreme constitutional court of Germany. Here is what they have to say about it (highlighting different forms of the German word "Zwingen" -> "to force" in bold since google translate is inconsistent):

BvR 1864/14 Section 6

German original

Google translate

Der Tatbestand des § 3 Satz 1 Nr. 13 TierSchG wird in doppelter Hinsicht durch die Merkmale der „sexuellen Handlung“ und des „Zwingens“ zu einem „artwidrigen Verhalten“ begrenzt. Diese unbestimmten Gesetzesbegriffe sind weder im angegriffenen Tierschutzgesetz noch in der Gesetzesbegründung definiert. Sie sind aber der näheren Deutung im Wege der Auslegung zugänglich (BVerfGE 78, 374 <389>; 75, 329 <341>); ihre Bedeutung ergibt sich aus ihrem Wortsinn (BVerfGE 71, 108 <115>; 82, 236 <269>) und entspricht dem Alltagssprachgebrauch. Zudem handelt es sich um Begrifflichkeiten, die auch in anderen Gesetzen und im Tierschutzgesetz selbst verwendet werden. Es ist davon auszugehen, dass weitgehende Einigkeit über ihren engeren Bedeutungsgehalt besteht (BVerfGE 126, 170 <197>) und sie insofern durch die Gerichte weiter konkretisiert werden können

The offense of Section 3 Sentence 1 No. 13 TierSchG is limited in two respects by the characteristics of “sexual act” and “compelling” to “behave contrary to species”. These indefinite legal terms are not defined either in the challenged Animal Welfare Act or in the explanatory memorandum. However, they are accessible to more detailed interpretation by way of interpretation (BVerfGE 78, 374 <389>; 75, 329 <341>); their meaning results from their sense of the word (BVerfGE 71, 108 <115>; 82, 236 <269>) and corresponds to everyday language usage. In addition, these are terms that are also used in other laws and in the Animal Welfare Act itself. It can be assumed that there is broad agreement on their narrower meaning (BVerfGE 126, 170 <197>) and that they can be further specified by the courts

BvR 1864/14 Section 9

German original

Google translate

Der Begriff des „artwidrigen“ Verhaltens steht zudem in engem Zusammenhang mit dem weiteren Tatbestandsmerkmal des „Zwingens“ zu einem solchen Verhalten, der eine tatbestandsbegrenzende Wirkung entfaltet. Nach der Gesetzesbegründung soll das „Erzwingen“ zwar sowohl durch körperliche Gewalt als auch auf andere Weise möglich sein (vgl. BTDrucks 17/11811, S. 28). Eine Auslegung anhand der Systematik des § 3 TierSchG und im Hinblick auf Sinn und Zweck des Verbots ergibt, dass es sich bei dieser anderen Weise des Zwangs um ein Verhalten handeln muss, welches mit der Anwendung von körperlicher Gewalt vergleichbar ist.

The concept of “inappropriate” behavior is also closely related to the further constituent element of “compelling” to behave in such a way that has a limiting effect. According to the explanatory memorandum for the law, “enforcement” should be possible both through physical violence and in other ways (cf. Bundestag printed paper 17/11811, p. 28). An interpretation based on the system of § 3 TierSchG and with regard to the sense and purpose of the prohibition shows that this other type of coercion must be a behavior that is comparable to the use of physical violence.

BvR 1864/14 Section 12

German original

Google translate

Der Schutz des Wohlbefindens von Tieren durch einen Schutz vor artwidrigen sexuellen Übergriffen ist ein legitimes Ziel. Diesem in § 1 Satz 1 TierSchG zum Ausdruck kommenden Grundprinzip kommt nach Art. 20a GG Verfassungsrang zu. Es liegt im - grundsätzlich weiten - Einschätzungs- und Beurteilungsspielraum des Gesetzgebers (vgl. BVerfGE 102, 197 <218>; 104, 337 <347 f.>), zum Wohlbefinden der Tiere und ihrer artgerechten Haltung auch den Schutz vor erzwungenen sexuellen Übergriffen zu rechnen.

Protecting the well-being of animals by protecting them from inappropriate sexual assault is a legitimate goal. This basic principle expressed in § 1 sentence 1 TierSchG has constitutional status according to Art. 20a GG. In the - fundamentally wide - scope for assessment and assessment of the legislature (cf.BVerfGE 102, 197 <218>; 104, 337 <347 and 347>), the welfare of animals and their species-appropriate keeping also includes protection against forced sexual assault calculate.

So if any news source (which themselves are a secondary sources on this) makes claims about TierSchG §3 Satz 1 Nr. 13. that are inconsistent with the BVerfG's interpretation I'd argue that use of the interpretation found in BvR 1864/14 is warranted given that it was made by an governmental institution of Germany and not a news organization KuchenHunde (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The BvR 1864/14 decision is a primary source. That source being a legal decision. Its difficult for the average person to fully understand or correctly interpret. Which is why Wikipedia requires reputable news sources to determine what BvR 1864/14 established. News services reported that BvR 1864/14 was an "Unsuccessful constitutional complaint against the regulatory offense of sexual activity with animals." The assertion that BvR 1864/14 instead established that only "physically forced" (rape) was illegal and thus consensual bestiality was legal. Is an interpretation that is clearly contrary to what was widely reported. There is not a single reliable news source that reports that non forced sex with animals is legal in Germany. "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[2] the contribution."[3] So simply using your own interpretation of BvR 1864/14 isn't acceptable. Shiloh6555 (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just don't see how BvR 1864/14 is a Primary source for the meaning of TierSchG § 3 Satz 1 Nr. 13 as they didn't change the wording or meaning of the law. When reading through their decision in this context it matches the description of WP:SECONDARY pretty well and doesn't match the description of WP:PRIMARY at all. Did you perhaps missunderstand the context in which we are talking about their decision? As WP:SECONDARY established: "Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context" and the court's decision is obviously a primary source for the court's decision...

Regarding reputable news sources: I'm pretty sure wikipedia doesn't require "news sources" just reliable secondary sources regardless of weather or not they were published by a news organization. Regardless of that I haven't found many news sources that said anything about the courts justification of their decision but the few that do are also very clear that this law is limited to forced sexual acts. as an example these two: "heise.de". and "lto.de". KuchenHunde (talk) 10:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Your first article literally says "Sexual act with animals remains an administrative offense," unless that translation is incorrect?

and why do you keep waiting so long to respond? Delderd (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

In this case, BvR 1864/14 certainly is a primary source. Its a legal decision which you have been interpreting, and claiming only you understand its true meaning and significance. Wikipedia does not allow original research. In this scenario, you MUST produce independent, reliable news sources that back you interpretation. An interpretation I might add, that isn't accepted by mainstream media sources. I have, and can again. Give a very different interpretation of BvR 1864/14. One which is fully in line with the widely reported mainstream view. But this has already been argued and decided previously. It doesn't matter how right you think your interpretation is. You have to produce some verification other than your own or another's personal interpretations of BvR 1864/14. Shiloh6555 (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

If KuchenHunde wants to continue discussions concerning the legal meaning of BvR 1864/14 in the main article. That's fine. But I don't believe KuchenHunde has provided any reputable news sources that warrants any change to the existing "Illegal" in Germany status. Shiloh6555 (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I just provided you two "news sources" (not that tat's required for Wikipedia as the guidelines just require reliable secondary sources) by reputable German publications. Not my fault that there aren't in-depth international articles about the obscure topic of the legal situation around Bestiality in Germany.

Could you perhaps explain to me how a Court decision That didn't change anything about a law or it's meaning is "close to an event" or "written by people who are directly involved" if non of the judges had a hand in the governmental process that lead to the writing and passing of the law (WP:PRIMARY)? And how The judges analyzing the meaning Of this particular passage by looking at the wording of the law and exploring the meaning of the terms used in the context of the TierSchG isn't "an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources"(WP:SECONDARY)?

Regarding Delderd remark: I won't go into to much detail as that's really out of scope for this Noticeboard but do you ever read anything but the headlines? Because here on Wikipedia the policy about headline is very clear(WP:HEADLINES): "News headlines including subheadlines are not a reliable source if the information in the headline is not explicitly supported in the body of the source"! The whole Article mirrors the courts explanations with this very explicit quote at the end: "weil der Tatbestand nur [dann greift], wenn das Tier zu einem artwidrigen Verhalten gezwungen wird" -> "because the offense only [then applies] if the animal is forced to behave contrary to the species" KuchenHunde (talk) 15:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

most headlines don't directly contradict their articles like you're suggesting. Its more likely you're misinterpreting what the article says to support your own viewpoint.

and if the topic was so obscure, why did the ap report on it in the first place? Plus it was all over the news when Canada ruled that bestiality was still legal because of a loophole, you really don't think nobody would be talking about Germany making it legal again?

You really need to take a look at Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, you're checking off most of the boxes (WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH, "Adding citations that are inadequate, ambiguous or not sufficiently explicit," WP:REHASH, "Not accepting independent input," and the aforementioned WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS). Delderd (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

At this point, with the amount of sources that are not reporting the points made by this source, and the "niche"-ness of it, the notion that bestiality is legal if it's not forced upon the animal is WP:UNDUE anyway. You are not going to WP:GAME the rules by finding the one source that supports your viewpoint, when all the other sources by highly-reliable outlets don't mention it at all. In addition, I have actually spent money on this, and taken a look at what I could find on my professional Beck-Online database. None of the secondary sources I could find—including a Neue Juristische Wochenschrift summary of the decision—mention the idea that bestiality is legal if it's not forced. Driving home the point that we are in WP:UNDUE, if not WP:FRINGE, territory. JBchrch talk 17:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying that the opinion of the BVerfG is WP:UNDUE? I'm sorry, I just wanted to get an outside opinion on weather or not the BVerfG's decision BvR 1864/14 passes as a secondary source for TierSchG §3 Satz 1 Nr. 13. 'cause for my personal life if the BVerfG tells me "Jedoch greift der Tatbestand des § 3 Satz 1 Nr. 13 TierSchG nur, wenn das Tier zu einem artwidrigen Verhalten gezwungen wird." (Google Translate: "However, the offense of § 3 sentence 1 no. 13 TierSchG only applies if the animal is forced to behave in a manner that is contrary to the species.") Then I'm going to take their word for it, especially after their explanation of what the term "zwingen"->"to force" means in the context of the TierSchG. What could that possibly mean other than if there is no use of force then it's not against this law? I mean I've seen this sentence from the BVerfG quoted in a few articles (not sure what's in the Beck-Online database) so it's not just me thinking that this is an important to know part of this law. Only thing I haven't seen a lot is articles that were explicit that things not covered by this law are legal (Why would they?). There were these two, admittedly less reputable, sources: "juragentur.de". and "lawblog". that made it explicit, one credited to a small law news organisation and the other on the private blog of a lawyer. The latter actually got a Grimme Online Award "link". so it's not just some random blog that nobody reads... KuchenHunde (talk) 09:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

KuchenHunde is not accepting the true meaning of the statute. The statute was passed as a total ban on bestiality. The "force" is a "compulsion" to species inappropriate behavior. The statute makes no recognition whatsoever of "consensual" or even "forced" sex acts. The sex is what "forces" the animal into a inappropriate and unnatural act. This "forcing" of an inappropriate and unnatural behavior, is what triggers the offense. "However, the offense of § 3 sentence 1 no. 13 TierSchG only applies if the animal is forced to behave in a manner that is contrary to the species."Again, having sex with an animal. "Forces" it to behave in a manner contrary to the species. Which is the whole point of the statute. Shiloh6555 (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know who you are or where you live but I'm actually a zoophile living in Germany so I actually have an interest in knowing what the legal situation here is. I'm honestly pretty happy with this law but it sadens me to see how my homecountry is missrepresented internationaly by people who don't even speak the language thinking they know a law better based on a google translat than oure supreme constitutianal court... Like srly we even have the "ZETA-Verein". some of who's members are puplically out as zoophiles and don't exactly make a secret out of the fact that they are sexually active with their non human partners. If this law really said what you claim it does and not what the BVerfG explained it to mean you'd think that, given how many bigots are out there to call the cops on them, they'd be in constant trouble with the local Veterinäramt/Police, but they're not! I'm not entirely sure where I head it (I think it was "this". episode of Zooier than Thou) but iirc one of them told the story of his interaction with the Veterinäramt and it basically boiled down to them asking a few questions, taking a look at his dog and letting them be...

P.s. I still don't understand your claim of BvR 1864/14 being a primary source in regards to TierSchG §3 Satz 1 Nr. 13 given how it doesn't fit the description at all. KuchenHunde (talk) 16:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Our or anyone eles's "Personal "interpretation" of BvR 1864/14 is considered to be original research. "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. In this case, the widely reported interpretation of BvR 1864/14 was that it upheld TierSchG §3 Satz 1 Nr. 13. According to which "It is forbidden to use an animal for one's own sexual acts or to train or make available for sexual acts of third parties and thereby force it to behave in a manner contrary to the species."

The assertion that BvR 1864/14 reinterpreted ierSchG §3 Satz 1 Nr. 13. As meaning only "forced" sex acts was forbidden, and "consensual" bestiality was still legal in Germany. Is clearly a bold assertion. One that simply isn't evident in the mainstream reporting. If/when you can produce press reports confirming your conclusions. This can be addressed again. Your current, everybody is wrong and I'm right based on a personal interpretations of BvR 1864/14 is not acceptable. Shiloh6555 (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@kuchenhunde NAMBLA was allowed to operate in the usa, that didnt make child molestation legal.

Malcom J. Brenner is an open zoophile who's talked about molesting his dog, he's still free. The host of your ztt podcast was recently exposed with his real name, nothing's happened to him yet.

It usually takes actual physical evidence for someone to get punished, unfortunately; just talking about can't get you in trouble. Delderd (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Shiloh6555 I have yet to see anything backing up your assertion that BvR 1864/14 is a primary source. There is no "reinterpretation" of TierSchG §3 Satz 1 Nr. 13. going on in there! As you've pointed out several times: The constitutianal complaint was rejected. Nothing about the law or it's meaning changed! The only thing that is of note for this discussion is that they provided a detailed explanation of this law and it limitations. Now if you can't read it because you don't speak the language please just ask someone who does instead of authoratively asserting that you know what they said better than a native speaker.

P.s. If an article quotes TierSchG §3 Satz 1 Nr. 13. (or in the case of international articles a possibly missrepresentative translation) in their explanation of the BvR 1864/14 decision and you take your interpretation of what is and isn't illegal from that quote then we're back at square one as that would be primary research!KuchenHunde (talk) 15:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

See WP:RSLAW § Original texts. Please not that I speak the language and am familiar with German law, so I can confirm that this decision is not a reliable source to source what you want to source under WP:V because it doesn't speak about the legality of bestiality, it speaks about the constitutionality of §3 Satz 1 Nr. 13 TierSchG. At this point, please consider WP:STICK. JBchrch talk 15:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you @JBchrch That Identifying_reliable_sources_(law) link was really all I wanted from this notice board as I somehow missed that one. I still won't let this missrepresentation of the country I live in stand but at least now I know that I'll have to find another reliable source that qualifies as secondary for the purposes of Wikipedia editing.

I think that concludes this thread, how does the archiving work? KuchenHunde (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks KuchenHunde. Achiving takes place automatically 5 days after a section is inactive, your don't have to do anything manually. JBchrch talk 18:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

KuchenHunde I didn't read this whole thread, but this might be of use: "News headlines—including subheadlines—are not a reliable source if the information in the headline is not explicitly supported in the body of the source." News headlines typically aren't written by the authors of the piece, but a different editor, and so sometimes misrepresent the article, to the dissatisfaction of the author. --Distelfinck (talk) 20:21, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I've seen and even referenced WP:HEADLINE bevore, the overarching problem here is that there just aren't in debth articles (by credible sources) taking a closer look at the legal situation here in Germany. The articles that are currently cited ("BBC"., "AP".) Don't make any claims about the overall legal situation here in the body of the article at all and merely quote something that is obviously a translation of TierSchG §3 Satz 1 Nr. 13. (bringing us back to the problem of finding an interpetation of that law) KuchenHunde (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Its now been 6 years since the widely reported decision of BvR 1864/14. Yet not a single reliable news report can be provided that supports the assertion that consensual bestiality is legal in Germany. Shiloh6555 (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Irish slaves myth article

I can't believe I have to do this but here it is.

On the Irish slaves myth article there is content sourced to a labour historian who is not recognised as an expert in the topics we are covering (Ireland and transatlantic slavery, Irish economic and social history etc). What's even worse is that this labour historian published his work in a Marxist political magazine and none of it has been reviewed by other scholars who do have experience in this area of research. Have a look: http://www.rebelnews.ie/2020/07/13/4961/

He published the same piece again in History Ireland, which is not ipso facto reliable (but may be if credible historians publish there): https://www.academia.edu/44867788/Kelly_Empire_Inequality_and_Irish_Complicity_in_Slavery

The History Ireland piece wasn't reviewed by scholars and has no citations.

He then published the same piece in another political magazine: https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/08/07/ireland-and-slavery-framing-irish-complicity-in-the-slave-trade/

I tried offering suggestions on how to rewrite the section but the entire discussion degenerated into ad hominem attacks (one editor is accusing me of trolling, and claiming that Brian Kelly is more credentialed than I am).

Are essays published in unscholarly political magazines RS for academic history articles? I don't think so.Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

We are talking about this person, right? Brian Kelly (historian). I haven't really delved into the sources yet, but it would seem to me that the topic is squarely within his academic ambit. Is there reason to think this is not so? Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

There are a multitude of reasons.

Brian Kelly is a labour historian who publishes on labour, racial and ethnic relations in the post-antebellum US. He's never published so much as one scholarly book or article having to do with Ireland, transatlantic slavery, or Irish involvement in transatlantic slavery (which is what this section is focused on). He writes about US history, specifically labour history, and focuses on the post-emancipation period.

Secondly, none of those articles in question were reviewed by other scholars who have formally published on the subject.

Thirdly, no scholar who's been designated as an authority on this subject has responded to any of these articles. This guy is just some obscure labour historian who has no standing in this particular field.

Finally, there is content in his article that is contradicted by the work of several subject matter experts. But I really shouldn't have to review his work myself. The fact that no one has reviewed his work should be enough to disqualify him here.

The standard simply can not be that anyone who mentions the word "slavery" in his/her research and publishes an essay in a magazine that is virtually unheard of can be used to "balance" material published by scholars who are recognised as experts within a particular subspecialty. As it stands right now, there is content on that page sourced to a scholarly book that was published by a scholarly press and reviewed by other historians, sitting next to a magazine essay by Brian Kelly that was never assessed by anyone.Jonathan f1 (talk) 02:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the tangent, but since this discussion might attract people with interests and knowledge related to the Brian Kelly article: that page needs a lot of attention and would greatly benefit from (among a great many other things) having at least one reliable, independent source. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I checked out the article, and I can tell you why there's a 'promotional tone' to it. Viewing the edit history, it appears that the same editor who's using Brian Kelly in the Irish slaves myth article has been editing his bio page.Jonathan f1 (talk) 02:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

On second glance, there is only one confirmed edit by this particular user on the BK article. But most of the BK edits were made by an IP.Jonathan f1 (talk) 03:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I've seen the arguments made on the talk page; and a few remarks.

1. I personally found Hesperian Nguyen very disruptive in the discussion, Bastun was pretty OK. On the other hand, Bastun had a point. I also tend to write rather verbose responses, so I perfectly understand it if a person writes a dozen of lines in the answer, but he was absolutely right about WP:TEXTWALL. I have read it whole, but be reminded that excessive verbosity can be interpreted as a sign of disruptiveness and anyway few would read it; see WP:TLDR. This, however, is not to be discussed here.

2. As for Brian Kelly in general. The topic requires both knowledge of the history of Ireland and history of slavery to be able to compare each of these. Most of the researchers quoted were specialised in the history of Ireland and not that of slavery, so it's good if he's a historian of slavery; moreover, he has written on the Irish-Afroamerican relations twice (also here), even if most of his works were about labour relations (and his slavery articles are cited). In any way, I'd not dismiss the person as unqualified to write about Irish attitudes to Blacks (and comparisons of indentured servitude to slavery) and certainly the person did show in these papers to have background knowledge of the history of Ireland. We should certainly not omit him only for being a Marxist/CRT adherent. On the other hand, neither Liam Hogan should be omitted. Just WP:BALANCE contradictory opinions, but don't WP:SYNTH them. You don't know if all the researchers assessing poverty/richness were using the same indicators and the same time frame - but to exclude that opinion because other sources say otherwise is an exercise in WP:OR. The question of slavery and Irish is not settled - we are not to advocate for who is right.

3. As for History Ireland: it is a historical magazine for laymen - some really good researchers publish there, such as here, here, and here. There is strong editorial oversight over the content published, and the editorial board is composed of historians, so I have no doubts that the resource itself is reliable and the works are reviewed. Secondary research papers are more preferable in a lot of contexts, still this is a source I wouldn't hesitate to use at all.

Going to RebelNews.ie (not to be mistaken with Rebel News, which is far-right): it is a radical left organisation (with appropriately radical opinion pieces and no distinction between news and opinion), but at least, IMHO, unlike WSWS (see above), its tone is more in line with WP:RSOPINION, the language they use is less loaded, and I haven't found any dubious assertions of fact, libellous statements etc., after some scrutiny on the resource. I'd generally use it with caution because of very strong bias. The research as presented by Kelly can be cited per this guidance, point 2 at the very least, but caution should be made while doing so. On the plus side, it is rather well resourced. The CounterPunch essay is essentially a copy for RebelNews.ie coverage, so no need to duplicate the citation.

Tl;dr: I see no reason to remove citation of Brian Kelly; definitely use History Ireland; proceed with RebelNews.ie with caution, but you may cite it. Also, I agree with Firefangledfeathers in that the article on him badly needs attention. Sorry for the long post. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 03:33, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps I should provide a little background here before calling it a night. This is going to be incredibly complicated to explain to people who haven't been following this type of scholarship, so try to bear with me please.

The Irish slaves myth is a pseudohistory which asserts that Irish people were the first slaves sent to the Americas, and that they were treated worse than black Africans. This myth is used by both white supremacists in the US for racist purposes as well as Irish nationalists in Ireland as a way to galvanise Irish people into supporting Irish unification (Unite Ireland and Right Great Wrongs). Since both groups are essentially trying to hyper-inflate their victimhood, attempts are made to write Irish people out of the history of the transatlantic slave trade.

One of the problems with the ISM article is that some of the editors there are trying to do exactly that. Every historian who has published professionally on this subject -- scholars widely recognised as experts in this area, such as Nini Rodgers, Liam Hogan, Jane Ohlmeyer, Liam Kennedy, Donald Akenson -- have explicitly argued that Irishmen, both Protestants and Catholics, were involved in the transatlantic slave trade and that Ireland's economy benefited from slavery in a myriad of ways. The current trend in this type of scholarship is transnational historiography, which looks at the history of the Black Atlantic World beyond national borders. In other words, these historians don't confine their focus to Ireland's borders or even the Anglo-Caribbean and Anglo-American colonies.

So where does Brian Kelly come in? It's an interesting question. He's an obscure labour historian who operates strictly within American history rather than British or Irish history. The only reason he decided to publish essays on this subject (in political magazines) is to challenge the claims made by these other historians and deflect all of the blame for slavery onto the British. Here's a social media posting of a Brian Kelly excerpt,

https://www.facebook.com/groups/167806117588/permalink/10160069589647589/

"It is impossible [...] to spend more than an hour digging in to the Irish connections highlighted in the UCL database [detailing compensation to slave holders] without being knocked over the head with the obvious fact that those slaveowners ‘resident’ in Ireland who were compensated by the British government after emancipation represented, overwhelmingly, the cream of the Anglo-Irish elite, drawn from the (Protestant) landed gentry and with a large proportion of them playing prominent roles in overseeing British colonial administration in an Ireland then under fairly intensive military occupation." (emphasis mine)

In other words, those "Irish slaveowners" were really "British" and not "Irish", and we should thus "frame complicity" for slavery around this understanding.

The problem is that his conclusion is false. Had he bothered to look at the records outside of Ireland -- Irishmen working through the empires of France and Spain, or Irish-Americans -- he'd be knocked over the head with the obvious fact that many of these slaveholders weren't in fact the "cream of the Anglo-Irish (British) elite", and many weren't even Protestants.

Historians have already done this. Liam Hogan compiled a list of slaveholding Americans with unique Irish surnames from the 1850 census and found over 8,600 slaveholders who owned almost 100,000 slaves[4]. It's a dubious practice linking surnames to ancestry, but this was Kelly's method.

Historian Nini Rodgers has also cautioned that the Irish were in no sense confined to Anglo-Caribbean and Anglo-American colonies, as many had established commercial relations (and networks that often connected to Ireland) with other European empires, particularly Irish Catholics and their coreligionists in France and Spain. Jane Ohlmeyer has similarly written that, "By 1660 Irish people [Protestant and Catholic], mostly men, were to be found in the French Caribbean, the Portuguese and later Dutch Amazon, Spanish Mexico, and the English colonies in the Atlantic and Asia where they joined colonial settlements, served as soldiers and clergymen, forged commercial networks as they traded calicos, spices, tobacco, sugar, and slaves." (see here [5])

In addition, Nini Rodgers, Liam Hogan, Jane Ohlmeyer et al. have also explored the ways in which slavery benefitted Ireland's national economy, a topic British and American historians have explored extensively for decades (in the context of British and American economic histories). Unfortunately Kelly either downplays or completely ignores this subject, which may have something to do with his Marxist political leanings (not many Marxists are keen on acknowledging the advantages or socioeconomic benefits of free trade). You can read some of Nini Rodgers work in this area here [6].

What I am trying to argue, hopefully convincingly, is that Kelly's credentials as a US labour historian simply aren't good enough to establish him as an authority on transatlantic slavery and Ireland's relationship to the Black Atlantic World. He has an extremely narrow view of this subject, and in many places he's just way off the mark. He also has political motivations that are shared with some of the editors on the ISM article, which is why I'm in this dispute to begin with.

So what do we do here? If this were a hard science the solution would be simple. If an editor were to source content on a quantum mechanics article to the work of a mathematician, who is not recognised as an expert in quantum mechanics, we would not designate him as an expert simply because some of the work overlaps (this is probably not a good example, since quantum mechanics and mathematics overlap way more than Kelly's research and the subjects covered in the ISM article). What we would do is raise the bar for reliability and expect that he at least publish his work through conventional scholarly channels (refereed journals or, if it's a book, through a legitimate academic press) and have his research reviewed by scientists who publish on quantum mechanics. Unreviewed magazine articles wouldn't cut it and they shouldn't suffice here either.Jonathan f1 (talk) 05:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect, Szmenderowiecki, but it is simply false to say that Brian Kelly publishes on transatlantic slavery and Ireland's interaction with the Black Atlantic World. He mentions slavery because he publishes about labour relations in the Reconstruction era of the US. That's not even remotely close to the topics we're covering. He talks about "Irish" and "black" relations in the context of American social history, which has almost nothing to do with the much broader topic of Ireland and transatlantic slavery.

I just don't know what else to say. I feel like I'm in a rabbit hole where US labour history is Ireland and transatlantic slavery and Ireland and transatlantic slavery is just Ireland.

Every single one of those historians I cited publish directly on this topic. Here's some of Akenson's work: [7]

That's what a scholarly book about Ireland and transatlantic slavery looks like.

Here's some of Nini Rodgers' work: [8]

These are books directly on topic, published through academic presses and reviewed in professional academic journals.

Brian Kelly has published nothing professionally on this subject and that one measly essay in that political rag is in contradiction to work that's been published as serious scholarship and vetted.

This is why editors who don't know how to review academic history shouldn't be editing articles like the ISM.Jonathan f1 (talk) 06:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Brian Kelly is a reliable source. He may be a controversial scholar but I don't see anything wrong with the attributed use of the source. Consensus to remove this source for reliability is unlikely. Behavioral factors impeding discussion on the talk page should be reported to administrators but it's their call whether they think intervention will be helpful. The only advice I can give you here is to continue the discussion on the talk page. Spudlace (talk) 06:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

A historian who specialises in US labour history after the Civil War, who has never published one scholarly article or book on Ireland and transatlantic slavery, and wrote an unvetted essay in a magazine, is a reliable source for an article on Ireland and transatlantic slavery? And can be used to challenge content that was sourced to a scholar who, unlike Brian Kelly, is widely recognised as an expert on the subject of the article, published her work through an academic press, and had it reviewed by other historians? If this is the consensus here, I'm done contributing to this project. Good luck.Jonathan f1 (talk) 06:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

1. I warn about WP:TEXTWALL once again - treatises essentially copying the talk page arguments are unlikely to be read by others and are likely to annoy folks instead.

2. Are you asking for advice or are you using WP:RSN as a WP:SOAPBOX? If the former is the case - you have my answer; you may want to wait for other opinions that might not agree with me. You needn't explain to me what Irish slaves myth is, because trust me, I've done my research before posting, I've analysed the subject matter (which I actually encountered a few times), and I've applied Wikipedia policy to the best of my knowledge, taking into account all variables that I deemed necessary to get to the answer. Also, see WP:VNT. We are not here to determine truth, but we are here to determine reliability, which is why I am here, and I hope you are here too.

2a. The fact you voluntarily decide to apply higher standards (which is fine) does not mean that Wikipedia policy, by which we are bound, does not allow the sources to be cited - it's just you decide not to. Also, voluntary standards should not be imposed on others, as they then stop being voluntary. To be sure, you can always roll back to Wikipedia standards (which were created in a way they were for a reason) and find similar self-published resource written by a professional on the topic, and we will be fine with it.

3. Marxism is not something that automatically disqualifies the editor. And it's not for you to determine if the editor is off the mark or not, as this is WP:OR, which is not allowed. If you believe the other option is correct and he is wrong, the only thing available to you is to trawl through Google Scholar, Google Books and maybe some shadow libraries (which I admit are often helpful), and find more resources that have the viewpoint you contest marginalised to the point it stops being WP:DUE.

I kindly suggest to be WP:COOL while editing. If you can't, take a break. Really, it helps. :) Szmenderowiecki (talk) 06:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

When editors have almost no understanding of the subject in question it may require a lot of typing to explain a position.

I'll make this short and sweet and then wait for other editors to comment.

The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:

The piece of work itself (the article, book)

The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)

The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)

Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.

Those are the standards I'm applying.

Is Brian Kelly considered authoritative on the subject of Ireland and transatlantic slavery? No, he's a US labour historian whose area of expertise is in labour, racial and ethnic relations after the American Civil War. The scholarship that this article is dealing with is not something that historians casually dabble in. There's a large canon of research in this area and several scholars who are recognised as sources of authority, who have published directly on this subject. Can you show me one article published by Brian Kelly on this subject in a professional academic journal? One book published through a recognised academic press that was reviewed by subject matter experts? Where is Brian Kelly cited in the work of all these other historians who publish here? No one cites Brian Kelly because the full extent of what he knows about this subject could be written on the back of a postage stamp (five words: it's all the Brit's fault.)

Who was the publisher of the work? Harvard University Press? Cambridge University Press? Oxford University Press? Nope, an unscholarly magazine.

Was his essay vetted? Nope.

He challenged the arguments of several scholars who are regarded as experts in this sphere. Did they respond to his magazine essay? No, they didn't. No one even wasted their time.

I'm applying RS criteria as outlined by Wiki and Brian Kelly fails on each count. It's astounding that this wasn't a quick decision.Jonathan f1 (talk) 07:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

It really is, but not for the reasons you think. Brian Kelly is a published historian and academic, and is therefore absolutely a reliable source; History Ireland is a reliable source; Liam Hogan - although "only" an amateur historian - is also a recognised expert in this field and is a reliable source. Nini Rodgers is a reliable source. You can't exclude the one you don't like because his political ideology disagrees with yours. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jonathan f1: We have heard your arguments, there's really no need to repeat yourself - actually, not hearing pleas for coolness may make matters worse for you, and that's not a threat, that's actually policy on Wikipedia. I sincerely wish you don't get in trouble. I therefore ask you again to take a break, and revisit the noticeboard in a few hours' time (better in the evening UTC time) to see whether there is any new input made by other editors. I also ask you not to comment below each commenter's remarks, as it may be considered impolite by some editors. Yours, Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

This is my last edit here and then I'm done. I'm also done editing the ISM article if no competent editors weigh in.

Brian Kelly's unreliability has nothing to do with his political ideology (which I only brought up to explain why he ignores evidence or downplays certain aspects of this history). Liam Hogan shares the same Marxist/socialist ideology with Kelly but I agree he's a reliable source. And it's because he's recognised as an expert on Ireland and transatlantic slavery and Brian Kelly is not.

Here's a description of Brian Kelly's academic background [9].

As I've been saying for a day now, his specialty is in American race, labour and ethnic relations in the post-Civil War South. He only ever writes about slavery in a US context, usually to explore how certain ethnic groups (like the Irish) interacted with slavery politics in the US, or what social relations were like after the US abolished slavery. While this may seem related to you because he writes the word "slavery", this is a completely different area of history beyond what the ISM article is covering.

You (or some other editor) cited Brian Kelly to challenge (or "balance") content from Nini Rodgers who is by all hands considered the foremost expert in this area. Here's some of Rodgers' publications on the subject [10]. I won't waste time citing all the scholarly articles she's published on the topic, although they are easy to find.

Can you show me one scholarly article published by Brian Kelly directly related to Irish involvement in transatlantic slavery? One scholarly book? Don't show me some piece he wrote about how Irish immigrants in Boston were anti-abolitionists, as that's beyond the scope of the article and not related to the material you sourced. Your only argument as to why Kelly's reliable is that he's a historian. Well history is splintered into a million different subspecialties and having expertise in one doesn't mean you're authoritative in another.

Here's an article by Bryan Fanning, who is also recognised as an authority [11]. He mentions virtually every leading expert in this particular area of research and says nothing about Brian Kelly.

There's a serious problem in that article. Every leading expert who was written about the Irish slaves myth has said that it's used to obscure the interaction between Ireland, Irish people and slavery throughout transatlantic history. But in the body of the article you have content sourced to Brian Kelly that does exactly that (claiming that all profits went to the British), which contradicts Nini Rodgers' work. Rodgers never even said anything about which "class" in Ireland was the most complicit in slavery, which you would've known if you actually read her work (see for example this review: [12]). So that whole section is out of context and essentially straw-mans Rodgers.

And finally, if you had any experience reviewing articles published in History Ireland you'd know that the publication isn't by itself an RS. History Ireland is the kind of magazine that tries to make scholarship accessible to consumers, but it doesn't vet its opinion pieces the way academic journals do. It has even published Irish slaves myth content in the past. Here's one historian calling them out for it [13]. Here's a public apology the editor of HI had to issue to Liam Hogan [14].Jonathan f1 (talk) 09:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

So a man who is an expert about American history writing about...American history... is not an expert because it also happens to be about the Irish in America? This may violate fringe or undue, but I can't see any reason why he is not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I am presumably the "you" in your latest wall of text above. Once again, I did not introduce anything by or about Kelly into the article, and your post is again verging on a personal attack (I'd originally written "verging on", but I reread your post before posting, and noticed you're alleging anyone who doesn't agree with you is incompetent). Do not assume what I have read or failed to read, or what experience I have or haven't. Re Fanning: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Re History Ireland: it is the sign of a good, reliable source that it can acknowledge that it sometimes gets things wrong, and when it does, it says so. You now have five editors agreeing Kelly is a reliable source. That still does not take away from the fact Hogan, Rodgers, et al, are also reliable sources used in the article. See WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE - they can all be used, and you can certainly state that Kelly has stated is a minority view or is contradicted by another source. That's how we end up with a neutral article. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

But steven, this section of the article has nothing to do with American history, not even close. It has to do with Ireland and transatlantic slavery and the ways in which Irish people in and outside of Ireland and the Irish economy benefited from slavery, which necessarily covers exiled Irishmen who operated through other slave empires such as France, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands in addition to England (and later Britain). This is way above Brian Kelly's paygrade.

Look, it's very simple. We have an over-abundance of sources that we all agree are reliable (and are recognised as authoritative by other historians who are reliable) and no reason whatsoever to source content to a US labour historian. This dispute started because the editor Hesperian Nguyen is from Ireland and doesn't want Irish people associated with black chattel slavery. She shares that in common with ISM proponents. Her problem was that none of all these reliable historians say what she wants the article to say (and have matter-of-factly written the opposite) so she dug up Brian Kelly, reduced the section to a few lines and sourced half of them to Kelly (and gave him the last word). I challenged her sourcing, she was completely dismissive of my suggestions, the entire discussion degenerated and here we are.

Bastun, it's my understanding that RS standards for academic history articles are quite high. They want a source that's gone through the typical process scholarship has to go through before and after it's published, or they want a source that may not be a scholarly article or monograph but is published by a historian who's published scholarship and is recognised as an expert in the specific topic we're covering. Obviously if Nini Rodgers or Donald Akenson publish an article in History Ireland we can cite that. And obviously Brian Kelly is reliable for topics having to do with US labour history during Reconstruction and can be cited up and down the page on those particular articles. But when it comes to the topic of Ireland and the Black Atlantic World, Kelly has no scholarship and his HI essay wasn't vetted. Here's an article Nini Rodgers published in HI [15]. Look at the depth, nuance and complexity with which she writes about this subject and compare it to Kelly's essay.

I'll compromise with Hesperian Nguyen right now: If she can find us just one scholarly book or article published by Brian Kelly on the subject of Ireland and transatlantic slavery I'll concede the whole section to her and she can source whatever she wants to that HI essay.Jonathan f1 (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

My dear, didn’t you just declare that "This is my last edit here and then I'm done.” If you’re going to be overly dramatic, get disruptive, and then rage quit at least keep your word. No need to make a liar of yourself on top of everything else. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

"Transatlantic" so yes American history.Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Just popping in again to say that while I think I might come down on the side of the text in question being undue, this idea that "a historian of U.S. slavery can't opine on the Irish role in the slave trade" is madness to me. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

WP does not get edited on the basis of wagers and challenges. You are blowing the Kelly aspect of the article out of all proportion! He merits two sentences, total, in the article! One, in respect of who benefited from the slave trade, where the article says Kelly "cautions against indicting 'the country as a whole' as "overwhelmingly the benefits of Ireland’s involvement in transatlantic slavery went to the same class that presided over the misery that culminated in the horrors of famine and mass starvation." It is not the blanket write-off that you're claiming. And the second sentence criticises O'Callaghan's book. Should we remove that criticism?! My last word on this - you've attacked many people and wasted thousands of words that would have been much more productively spent improving the article. As to standards for article sourcing - read WP:SCHOLARSHIP. That's it. Don't know where you're getting all the other stuff from. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:11, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I would like to humbly suggest closing this thread and taking things back to the article talk page. Ultimately, I agree with Bastun's assessment above of a tempest in a teapot that is now acting as a time sink. While I see things to contest here, the reliability of an academic in the area really isn't one of them, and I think I see consensus to that effect. Cheers, all, and happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

While History Ireland is not peer reviewed, it is edited by academics and therefore is reliable in the same sense that a book written by a journalist and published by a non-fiction imprint of a reputable publisher is reliable.

Kelly is clearly an expert on slavery and labor in the United States and therefore a competent authority on the myth of Irish slavery in America. His political views are irrelevant, since reliability is based on factual accuracy rather than opinion.

TFD (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• I have a headache from reading this entire thread, which is made worse by the fact that I could have just looked this guy on on google scholar to arrive at the same answer.

He is absolutely a reliable source for this use. A American labor historian writing about the transatlantic slave trade and comparing it to earlier American labor institutions in a context in which he is essentially endorsed (via being published in History Ireland) by specialists in the subjects OP is denying Kelly is an expert in (specialization is usually not requisite for expertise, as one generally needs a high-level understanding of related subjects in order to make contributions in one's specialty) is, without a doubt, a reliable source, and the justification and responses from the OP only underscore that. I too, have difficulty believing this needed to be brought here, though for markedly different reasons. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree to the extent that while he may on the surface be a reliable source for his field, this particular area is one where his personal politics colour his factual accuracy. Its a common tactic when dealing with Irish history to attempt to de-Irish sections of the populace. "No true Irishman" etc in order to place all the blame for Ireland's ills on the British/English (who were substantially to blame for quite a few of them). Its not a tactic limited to slavery. Fortunately its always countered by historians who say what the situation actually is, rather than what people want to hear. See Blueboar's comment below. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:10, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I would also point out that since the Irish slave myth is a conspiracy theory, not a valid academic theory, that we are unlikely to find many if any peer reviewed articles about it. In comparison, scientific journals might not would run articles debunking the conspiracy theory that the moon landing was faked. So our best source is probably experts writing in serious non-academic journals. TFD (talk) 23:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• This is daft, it is obvs a reliable source. Depending on what it is being used for it may require attribution or even be undue weight to include. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
• Having read the wall of text, I would say that the issue here ISN’T reliability, but DUE WEIGHT. Kelly qualifies as “reliable”, but he has a distinctly a minority viewpoint. He is contradicted by multiple other sources that are far MORE reliable. So... the question becomes: how much article space should we devote to his minority views? My analysis would be: Perhaps some... but not much. Blueboar (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes I agree that too much from this source may be WP:UNDUE. It seems we've had a lot of postings recently arguing about weight instead of reliability. Spudlace (talk) 06:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I would say none to be honest. There is no evidence his views have any wider acceptance, if there were, they would be in more reliable publishing. And there are plenty of much more reliable sources (by our standards) to say on the subject, so just use them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:10, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Middle East Monitor

[16] How reliable is it? I'd like to have some feedback before I can use it as a source for a potential translation for this article. Thanks in advance for every answer. Nacaru 20:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Previously discussed in 2012 and February and May of 2019. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable, known for conspiracy theories and is terrorist group's Hamas unofficial channel in English.Free1Soul (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I haven't looked into this question, but Free1Soul's comment seems to be greatly exaggerated. MEMO has been smeared by its ideological opponents, which is presumably the basis for this user's comment, but we should look into it carefully. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Could you give examples citing sources to justify your comments?     ←   ZScarpia   13:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable Here[17], for example, we have a borderline anti-semitic cartoon, together with a quote from someone who calls the Israeli strikes in Gaza "war crimes". There is no mention of why Israel made airstrikes in Gaza. Although some degree of bias is acceptable, this strays too far. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

That is an inadequate description of the article, which is about ex-IAF pilot Yonatan Shapira. You wrote: '... together with a quote from someone who calls the Israeli strikes in Gaza "war crimes".' The phrase you included in quotation marks, "war crimes", doesn't appear in the article. The closest that anything comes to that, is not some extraneous "someone", but the subject of the article himself: 'A former Israeli Air Force pilot, Yonatan Shapira, has described the Israeli government and army as "terrorist organisations" run by "war criminals."' You describe the attached cartoon by Mohammad Saba'aneh as "borderline anti-semitic", using that as a justification for describing MEMO as unreliable. Could you provide a justification for your description? Would you describe any source which publishes a cartoon of a soldier acting oppressively as unreliable, or only when the soldier in question is acting in a "good cause"?     ←   ZScarpia   13:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable, small website with extremist ties.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 08:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable fringe, conspiracy site. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Comment. The skeptical views above appear to be all reflex lockstep 'judgments' (see Falk discussed below, vigorously opposed by the same group) against MEM, some in part based on the fact that the MEM page lines up several quotes from pro-Israeli spokesmen dismissing it as a Hamas/terrorist linked conspiracy site. Adoring nanny takes exception for example to MEM citing a quote from an Israeli pilot stating his view that bombing Gaza is a war crime. Well, the article registers that fact. The pilot in question did express that view. Stating a view that an editor dislikes cannot be used to discredit the source. If so the London Review of Books would be unreliable because the other day it noted that Gilad Sharon, Ariel Sharon's son, suggested the following as a 'solution' to the conflict with Gaza: ‘You strangle them. No water, no electricity, no food, no gas, no medical treatments. Nothing.' Likewise Il Giornale (a pro-Israel right wing newspaper) would be deemed not RS because the same Sharon is reported as saying the solution for Gaza is to raze it to the ground, as the Americans did with Hiroshima because the Japanese dragged their feet over surrendering. I don't use MEM much at all. But it runs a lot of reportage and carries translations from Middle Eastern agencies like Anadolou (Turkish) that the mainstream ignore.Nishidani (talk) 08:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Should only be used with attribution, the MEM is most certainly not an official arm of Hamas or anything along those lines, but they are very explicitly a biased organisation with regards to anything to do with politics or the Israel-Palestine conflict to a far greater degree than most organisations, so anything they say on those matters should be attributed. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• Attribution in some circumstances. The suggestion that the website is "Hamas's official channel in English" is baseless and unsupported by any evidence. The idea that it is a "fringe conspiracy site" had not been supported by any evidence here. Both these statements carry no weight, as they seem simply to be statements of political position and dislike of the political stance of the website. I would suggest that the site is biased on the question of Palestine, as are all Israeli and Arab news organisations (perhaps all news organisations full stop) and that on questions relating to Palestine it should be attributed in cases where there is the possibility that the claim made might be disputed in any way. Boynamedsue (talk) 18:56, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

  • The Daily Telegraph: "Other organisations at Crown House are Middle East Monitor (Memo), a news site which promotes a strongly pro-Brotherhood and pro-Hamas view of the region. Memo’s director, Daud Abdullah, is also a leader of the Brotherhood-linked British Muslim Initiative, set up and run by the Brotherhood activist Anas al-Tikriti and two senior figures in Hamas. Memo’s “senior editor”, Ibrahim Hewitt, is chairman of Interpal, the Hamas and Brotherhood-linked charity."[18]
  • The Times of Israel: "MEMO, Rich added, had repeatedly peddled conspiracy theories and myths “about Jews, Zionists, money and power. This has included questioning the suitability of Matthew Gould for the post of UK ambassador to Israel simply because he was Jewish.”[19]
  • BBC News: "One of his UK hosts, the London-based Middle East Monitor - a pro-Hamas publication" [20]
  • Haartez: " Corbyn is also scheduled to appear soon at a conference of the conspiracy-theory peddling anti-Israel organization Middle East Monitor, along with the anti-Semitic and Holocaust denier cartoonist Carlos Latuff."[21]
  • Jewish News: "The piece was originally written by an anti-Israel activist and posted on Middle East Monitor (MEMO), a self-ascribed news site that has links to the Muslim Brotherhood...directed by Daoud Abdullah, a senior researcher at the London-based Palestinian Return Centre – an organisation outlawed in Israel for its connections with Hamas and acting as the terror group’s de-facto arm across Europe...The material produced by MEMO and MEE is heavily shared on the official Hamas website and social media accounts. It is not merely copied but proudly displayed with the name of the UK site. In 2016 Hamas posted material from these two sources 51 times, making for an astounding 42% of all external tweets...And so, the next time you read an article on MEMO or MEE, written by a “senior editor”, “journalist ” or “Middle East expert”, don’t forget that you’re reading an article edited by the head of a charity with documented links to funding terror, including festivals of hatred showcasing children encouraged to murder."[22]
  • i24 News: "MEMO is a UK-based Islamist pressure group, which the UK Jewish community’s antisemitism watchdog accuses of crossing the line into antisemitism. The CST told i24NEWS: “MEMO’s work includes supposed anti-Zionism that is actually strikingly familiar from older forms of antisemitism, but with Jews removed and so-called Zionists used instead.”[23]

  Is this enough evidence for you? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:24, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Not really, no. Being pro-Hamas does not disqualify a source, as I said above. Nor does being pro-Likud, pro-Tory, pro-Democrat or pro-Sinn Fein. If it were "Hamas's unofficial channel in English", suggesting direct Hamas control, as the user said above, that, for me, would mean it is not a valid source. Just as the pro-Israeli sites you link above which are linked to the state of Israel and support its position should not be discounted merely for that fact. Accusations of antisemitism are a slight concern, but there are accusations of racism against many publications, the existence of such accusations does not disqualify those sources. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that pretty much every notable source or organisation that expresses a pro-Palestinian or especially pro-Hamas viewpoint will be accused of antisemitism by somebody at some point. In some cases those claims will be correct, in others they will have no connection with reality. The simple existence of such claims is therefore insufficient to impact reliability. Thryduulf (talk) 19:01, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Do you have links to articles by MEMO that have peddled these "conspiracy theories and myths"? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree with this, the nature of these alleged conspiracy theories is important. It is very common for people to use the term "conspiracy theory" completely inaccurately. And publishing conspiracy theories on occasion evidently does not make a source unreliable. The Telegraph and other reliable sources have been accused of this, and with some justification tbh. And if we disregarded any American media organisation that had dabbled in Russiagate conspiracy theories, we wouldn't have much left...Boynamedsue (talk) 08:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the BBC article cited, editors might like to note that its author was John Ware, perhaps not the most impartial person to have contributed material touching on Israel and politics to it.[24][25] Ware is, of course, part of the consortium now running The Jewish Chronicle, not an ally of MEMO. Regarding claims attributed to Dave Rich, that MEMO objected to the appointment of Matthew Gould as UK ambassador to Israel solely on the grounds that he is Jewish, the truth of that can be judged by reading the relevant MEMO article itself. Gould was, of course, involved in the meetings of himself, Liam Fox, Adam Werritty and Israeli officials which led to the resignation of Fox.[26][27]     ←   ZScarpia   22:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• Not reliable. Small website without a positive reputation. Hamas links and antisemitism an issue. Jill Jacobs for instance points out in The Washington Post that MEMO has engaged in temple denial, which is antisemitic denial of history. 11Fox11 (talk) 07:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

The problem here is the use of the word "alleged" to qualify "temple" in a headline. You see, if this is the kind of thing that is being argued as "antisemitism" sufficient to disqualify a source it is somewhat unsurprising that allegations of antisemitism in this type of source fail to convince so many users here. The Jerusalem Post frequently engages in Nakba denialism and denials of the Deir Yassin massacre, and the racist myth that Palestinians were immigrants to Palestine, and yet this is considered fine, apparently. Yes, there may be areas where any media organisation might have blindspots and biases, and this organisation is not an authority on the history of Palestine, but nobody is seeking to use it as such. This is, unfortunately, another case in which Israeli sources are held to different standards than Palestinian ones for political reasons. A kind of wikipedia apartheid, if you will. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

To the point of reliability, Middle East Monitor has been cited in the Guardian as a "a thinktank with Palestinian sympathies", the BBC, its interviews cited by the NYTimes. Its not a news organization, its more of a partisan think tank, and in general I would suggest those be avoided, and that is true for all sides including JCPA and other such sites that are cited regularly. The bs above about "Hamas unofficial channel in English" is just that. By the rules, can sometimes be used attributed. But in general if somebody asks for a better source just get a better source. For interviews and such think it is fine on its own. nableezy - 16:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• Should only be used with attribution sounds about right. It appears to have a strong lean but quickly searching, I'm not seeing evidence that it gets facts wrong. Hobit (talk) 13:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Jeune Afrique

I'm interested in what you think about this source as well. The reason I'd like to know is the same one as my post above, and it seems to bear "information" about Morocco that no one else has access to and it is sometimes quoted in reliable sources such as here. Thanks in advance. Nacaru 00:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

According to Le Monde, Jeune Afrique is a reputable outlet (an "institution"), although it has received some criticism for being too friendly with the powers that be [28][29][30]. It has recently interviewed French President Emmanuel Macron [31]. All in all reliable, but additional sourcing is welcome. JBchrch talk 00:46, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

The French equivalent of WP:RSP (Observatoire des sources) considers it generally reliable. See this discussion.

PS. As an aside, from what I read in the discussions in the French RSP, articles that are sponsored (Contenu sponsorisé) are poorly disclosed (that is, they are, but the notice is only mentioned at the very bottom of the page), and I confirm that. Chinese state media are known to be buying media space in the outlet. That said, since Jeune Afrique discloses it, it should be a minor concern for you, and for Morocco coverage, you can easily trust it. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 01:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Jeune Afrique is a solidly above average source which provides detailed coverage of a part of the world which is sorely undercovered by the international media. They have a good reputation as well as a long history of quality journalism. Szmenderowiecki does raise a relevant point about sponsored content and we should be careful of that but it is clearly marked even if its at the end. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree, this is a good source. Promotional paid content excluded, of course, and care must be taken to avoid those.PrisonerB (talk) 08:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

It is an excellent source, especially for francophone Africa. It is worth remembering it is likely to take editorial lines that generally support existing regimes in certain cases, so it may require attribution on controversial matters. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Falk & Tilley (ECSWA), Israel Practices towards the Palestinian People and the Question of Apartheid

Can this report, republished in the The Palestine Yearbook of International Law Online via Brill, be used for the following sentence at Demographic engineering, despite the fact that the report was removed from the UNESCWA website after political pressure[32]?

A 2017 report by Richard A. Falk, professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University, and Virginia Tilley, a political scientist from Southern Illinois University Carbondale, originally published by the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (UNESCWA) wrote that "The first general policy of Israel has been one of demographic engineering, in order to establish and maintain an overwhelming Jewish majority."

User Free1Soul claims that the report by these two eminent academics is "disgraced" due to the UNESCWA retraction, but I have not seen any reliable source making such a claim.

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but as opinions of these two scholars (not UNESCWA). While UN subsequently retracted the report (EDIT: indeed under pressure of Mr Guterres, because initially it was accepted), the authors (who are both Middle East scholars) stood by it and it still constitutes valid research (political pressure is not something that renders the work unreliable/untrustworthy, only other researchers' conclusions about poor quality). Also, please shorten the sentence, so that it could harmonically merge into the paragraph. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

The fact of its "unendorsement" by the UN has even made it into scholarly sources Eric Walberg (7 November 2017). The Canada-Israel Nexus. SCB Distributors. pp. 35–. ISBN 978-0-9986947-0-2. "commissioned and approved by the UN but has not obtained an official endorsement from the Secretary General of the UN. Hence, it does not represent the views of the UN." In another, Seada Hussein Adem, refers the reader to pages 14 to 17 of the report.Seada Hussein Adem (5 April 2019). Palestine and the International Criminal Court. Springer. pp. 157–. ISBN 978-94-6265-291-0. so the report is out in the wild, endorsed or not.Selfstudier (talk) 21:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• The report was retracted by the UN. The report is as reliable as other unpublished work by Falk like antisemitic cartoons he posted on his blog.[33][34]. Onceinawhile uploaded this entry to Wikipedia without even saying the UN retracted and rebuked.Free1Soul (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

  Not reliable. The 9/11 conspiracy theories make this much worse. Free1Soul (talk) 16:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

• Not reliable Antisemitism renders a source WP:QUESTIONABLE in regards to Israel. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Thats a BLP violation, one that should have either evidence or be met with sanctions. nableezy - 23:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually, apartheid accusations against Israel are not that uncommon, particularly among the American left, and they even came to organisations like B'Tselem (Israel) and Human Rights Watch, so I wouldn't call it WP:FRINGE. Exactly the same source (when reported by Reuters) has been inserted into this Wikipedia article, and that despite the article being extended protected and under active arbitrage coverage.

Also, I'd probably like some better sources than Israeli publications, because, you know, Jews are very sensitive, or even hypersensitive to the critique of Israel, exactly dismissing it as "anti-Semitism". It goes both ways - some critique of Israel is legitimately anti-Semitic, some critique of something being called anti-Semitic isn't anti-Semitic (which I believe is the case here), so if other RS report on it as being part of an anti-Semitic attack, I have no objections; but since Jews are party here, even Haaretz, which is known to be probably the most lenient major Israeli publication to Palestinians, doesn't help to establish claims of anti-Semitism. The case is even weaker given that the story was broken by UN Watch, which is known to have a strong pro-Israeli bias and seems to have been targeting Richard Falk specifically, see here. It is contextually unreliable for such claims (though otherwise a very respectable outlet). PS. The scandal has received no coverage of which I'm aware from non-Israeli sources and was just a short flash of interest, therefore not WP:SUSTAINED.

I also don't agree with the assertion that the work was not published, as the definition says "made available to the public in some form", and it was - it has even racked up 25 citations from Google Scholar (rather unusual, let's agree for unpublished documents); nor can it be reasonably argued it's WP:SPS, so it must be reputably published.

See also these discussions for reference.

Your statement of "Jews are very sensitive" is discriminatory and has no place here. JTA is not Israeli, nor is this 2017 source.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 08:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

If the only sources you have are the Jewish Chronicle and the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, apart from mentioned above, I rest my case.

As for possible 9/11 conspiratorial thinking, it can't be denied he is sympathetic to the conspiracy's main points, but neither can it be denied that his belief in some 9/11 conspiracies strips him from qualifications he has as a political scientist. It's like saying a scientist stops being trustworthy because he was convicted of sexual assault.

Finally, whatever happened to Virginia Tilley? Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

You're gonna have a little problem with your "No Jews Allowed" rule, buddy: Richard Falk is Jewish. JBchrch talk 23:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Probably undue, regardless of reliability. Falk's work is not about demographic engineering, it just happens to mention it. (t · c) buidhe 03:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

  Buidhe, the idea that a source needs to be “about” the topic of an article for it to be usage is not policy based. But I don’t mind following it, so long as we apply it consistent across the article. Onceinawhile (talk) 05:35, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe, I just reviewed the FA Greek case, an excellent article which you wrote. Many of the sources you used in that article were not “about” the Greek case. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• The removal does not make a report unreliable automatically but the cartoons published by Falk indicate his strong bias. For such a topic, I'm sure that there are dozens of other books, articles and reports which can be used, do we truly need this specific one? Alaexis_¿question? 05:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable and WP:UNDUE As showed by Freesoul its not a report but one sided propaganda piece.And per Buidhe even if it was reliable it shouldn't be used --Shrike (talk) 05:50, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• undue/unreliable. The report was retracted by the publisher (UN), so it is just the personal views of Falk and Tilley. Considering Falk is known for posting antisemitic cartoons (already above) and for conspiracy theories: "in his off-hours Mr. Falk moonlights as a prolific purveyor of conspiracy theories" (Sohrab Ahmari, WSJ), this isn't reliable nor due. Falk isn't even a reliable source for what he himself said, as in the past he has denied posting 9/11 conspiracy theories, yet Reuters states: "But Falk’s Jan. 11 blog post unequivocally refers to a cover-up regarding the events of Sept. 11, 2001. “What may be more distressing than the apparent cover up is the eerie silence of the mainstream media, unwilling to acknowledge the well-evidenced doubts about the official version of the events: an al Qaeda operation with no foreknowledge by government officials,” Falk wrote. Falk is very far outside mainstream, though he does have a following in Iran (Teharan Times recently quoted as " Iran as an Islamic system is the only country that is “genuinely” fighting terrorist groups such as Daesh and state terrorism exercised by Israel and the United States.").--Geshem Bracha (talk) 08:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• Attribute experts Falk and Tilley, biased or not, are experts in their areas so the report (which has been published) is usable if attributed to them. Although the report was controversial at the time for being the first to allege Israeli apartheid inclusive of Israel as well as in the occupied territories, recent reports by blue chip human rights organizations B'Tselem (Israeli) and Human Rights Watch (international) have produced similar conclusions and so it is no longer considered controversial.Selfstudier (talk) 09:35, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• comment I have stricken User:Szmenderowiecki comments in this discussion as he didn't reach 500 edits --Shrike (talk) 09:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

  Where is it written that such users cannot opine here??? Alaexis_¿question? 11:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

  It's based on an ARCA ie if this discussion is considered as being within Arbpia guideline, Israel-Palestine related, "broadly construed". It's somewhat debatable since the underlying article, Demographic engineering, is not carrying the Arbpia warnings and might only be considered incidental to IP area. I think the strikeout is not really justifed, tbh.Selfstudier (talk) 12:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

  I see, thanks. Alaexis_¿question? 13:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Selfstudier and Alaexis: the section on Israel is obviously part of the conflict (definitely not incidentally) and User:Nableezy has added the notices. Doug Weller talk 09:10, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

  Right, Nableezy has added the Israel material and notices in view of the objection to Falk and after I wrote my comments; it's trivial to get the same information elsewhere which just tends to support my view that not only is the Falk material uncontroversial in and of itself, subsequent unquestioned rs has relied on his material for their material.Selfstudier (talk) 09:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable with attribution as a source of two subject matter experts. Due weight is another question. Also most probably better to remove the clause that mentions being originally published by UNESCWA. The organization appears to want to distance itself from the report, although they have not retracted the report or stated it has errors. --Guest2625 (talk) 11:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable as the attributed view of established experts in the field. WP:SCHOLARSHIP is clear on this, and the ad hominem attacks by some editors above notwithstanding, both authors clearly meet the requirements here. nableezy - 16:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable. The two scholars are area experts, and the quote for which they are cited ( "The first general policy of Israel has been one of demographic engineering, in order to establish and maintain an overwhelming Jewish majority.") is a commonplace. Detailed documentation of it is all over numerous relevant wiki articles, and, for example, in Jerusalem planning has long sought to ensure a 70/30 (later adjusted to 60/40 ration between Jews and Arabs. Between 1967 and 2016, 14,595 Palestinians were stripped of their right to live in East Jerusalem, and the reason was to create a Jewish majority even there. The objection appears to be dislike of the authors, particularly Falk, not for the point both authors make. The view therefore cannot even be treated as an exceptional claim.Nishidani (talk) 20:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable Falk's report has pretty much been discredited and this fails WP:REDFLAG. And as others have pointed out, Falk is quite fringe. As per the ADL: "It is outrageous that the U.N. Human Rights Council continues to support such a wildly conspiratorial and highly biased extremist as a reliable ‘expert,’...Richard Falk has given the Human Right’s Council yet another black eye and his continued affiliation with the international body only serves to undermine its credibility. His outrageous assertion that the Boston terror attack can be traced to U.S. and Israeli policy is not surprising, given his notorious record of anti-Israel and anti-American propaganda.”[35] Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, by red flag, are you suggesting that it is an exceptional claim to state that Israel's government is focused on demographic engineering?! John McEnroe wrote a book relevant to that suggestion. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes. And I have no idea why you're bringing up some tennis player's book. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Given your incomprehensible perplexity at the allusion, I guess one will have to spell it out, that it was a gentle way of suggesting your remark cannot be taken seriously.Nishidani (talk) 21:54, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Red flag has nothing to do with the issue. There has been no evidence given that the report was discredited. The passage in question is not controversial. The authors are experts. A scholarly report commissioned by the UN but subsequently not endorsed as reflecting the views of that body (which in any case are mostly based on political compromises), then published in another venue, retains its validity, its status is not defined by the UN but by the expertise of its authors and the venue of its subsequent publication. Were it otherwise the UN would be recognized as exercising an authority over what can or cannot be said of the conflict.Nishidani (talk) 21:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable; the UNESCWA retraction has no significance because the paper derives its weight and reliability from its academic publishing, which remains in good standing. But I would avoid making them the only source. Partially this is because other sources exist saying the same thing (so citing it to just their opinion gives the impression that it has less support than it does.) Beyond that, I do not personally think it is an exceptional statement at all; it seems completely uncontroversial to say that Israel's policies are heavily driven by a need to engage in demographic engineering in order to maintain a Jewish majority in Israel if they want to be a Jewish state. But since so many other sources exist saying this, there is no reason to drag our heels on providing them or to get excessively caught up in a dispute over just one. Some other sources:

• [36] Bookman, Milica Z. "The Demographic Struggle for Power: The Political Economy of Demographic Engineering in the Modern World". Israel is cited as one of the main examples throughout the book.
• [37] Tzfadia, Erez, and Haim Yacobi. "Identity, migration, and the City: Russian immigrants in contested urban space in Israel." Urban Geography 28.5 (2007): 436-455.: "Settling Jewish immigrants in frontier cities and regions was part of a governmental scheme termed by McGarry (1998) “demographic engineering.” The massive expropriation of Palestinian land and houses and their transformation into Jewish state property through legislation (Forman and Kedar, 2004) was one of the most effective means of implementing this program. In Lod, for instance..."
• [38] Molavi, Shourideh C. "Contemporary Israel/Palestine." The Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Middle Eastern and North African History.: Has an entire section about demographic engineering in Israel that is too long to easily quote here, but which goes into extensive detail, but the key conclusion Taken together, the Jewish state begets practices of demographic engineering to ensure a Jewish majority,and simultaneously, the Jewish majority is then made a prerequisite for the consummation of the Jewish state.

There are many more sources. I would collect them, read them, and rewrite the bit in question a bit to reflect what they say. There is some room to debate how to phrase it, but I do not think that the fact that Israel practices demographic engineering is contested - in particular the bit in the lead that says In addition, numerous policies of the Israeli government have been characterized as demographic engineering is inappropriate in that it describes an established fact as an opinion; unless someone can find a source disagreeing with the ones above, it should simply say that Israel practices demographic engineering (and go into a bit more detail as to why, which the sources are fairly clear on - demographic engineering is necessary for Israel to exist as a Jewish state - it should say something like Israel practices demographic engineering in order to maintain a Jewish majority and its identity as a Jewish state or words to that effect.) I'm honestly a bit baffled that people are treating this as controversial - the controversial part is not that Israel practices demographic engineering, the controversial bit is whether it has a right to exist as a Jewish state, which (while it doesn't use the exact terms McGarry did) it effectively says justifies demographic engineering towards that end. So rather than present a well-established fact as mere opinion, I would be careful to include Israel's reasons for its policies. --Aquillion (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable - I was indeed on the fence for a long time with this one, it's a complex matter, but Aquillion's comment (thank you Aquillion) pushed me towards a "reliable" side. - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:39, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable. The publisher (the UN), withdrew its support for this. It was then reprinted in Electronic Intifada and an on-line yearbook of law, but with them reprinting the UN disclaimers etc. The result is a self-published work by Falk and Tilley. Falk is known for self-publishing 9/11 conspiracy theories[39][40] and other junk and his unvetted self published writings can not be considered reliable. 11Fox11 (talk) 05:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The “conspiracy theories” stuff looks like a smear job without substance. Per [41] he explicitly denied any belief in the position that his ideological opponents claimed he had. And your analysis of the publication history is incorrect and has been explained in more detail in comments above. Onceinawhile (talk) 05:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

This Reuters piece, already quoted above, analyzed the Falk's denial of the denial and rejected it, stating that "Falk’s Jan. 11 blog post unequivocally refers to a cover-up regarding the events of Sept. 11, 2001". This is a reliable source on Falk. 11Fox11 (talk) 06:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

All government investigations include some form of cover-up. All of them. Why? Because government bureaucracies are consistently incompetent and mistake-prone, and it is not politically expedient to highlight these mistakes when people have been killed in a national tragedy. Falk’s political opponents extrapolated and speculated about the kind of cover-up Falk was referring to, but I am not aware of any substance behind the claim that he was pushing a conspiracy theory. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

You might have a point if this were about 9/11. Falk however is an established expert on international law and on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and no when Brill publishes something in the Palestine Yearbook of International Law it is not a "self-published" work, and even if it were, as the work product of two established experts, this would still be a fine source per WP:SPS. People disliking what a reliable source says is not, and has never been, a reason to remove it from a supposed encyclopedia article. Which is what every single "not reliable" vote here is aiming to do. Maybe stop with the obvious logical fallacies and focus on what our policies say, which is that this is an obviously reliable source as WP:SCHOLARSHIP. nableezy - 15:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Falk is thoroughly discredited, reliable sources note his conspiracy theories. As for the copy hosted at The Palestine Yearbook of International Law Online, it is classified as "other", has the heading of "UN DOCUMENTS", and is a one to one copy of the retracted UN report including copyright notices and acknowledgements. There is no indication of peer review or any scientific process. The yearbook reprinting a retracted report due to relevance to the yearbook does not make the report reliable. Furthermore, the same yearbook in the same issue reprinted hundreds of pages of UN documents in the same back portion of the yearbook, such as:

1. Draft United Nations Security Council Resolution S/2017/1060 (Dec. 17, 2017)
2. United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/ES-10/19 (Dec. 21, 2017)
3. United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/72/13 (Dec. 6, 2017)
4. United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/72/15 (Dec. 7, 2017)

After 300 pages or so of UN documents, it also reprinted:

1. Law for the Regularization of Settlement in Judea and Samaria, 5777–2017 (Israel)
2. Statement Issued by the Central Council of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)
3. Statement by (United States) President Trump on Jerusalem

This portion of the yearbook (the back portion), is merely a dumping ground for primary documents relating to the topic of the yearbook. These primary documents are published as-is, without any peer review or any process. 11Fox11 (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

You can keep saying he is discredited, but he isnt, and no reliable source has questioned his expertise on this topic. You can keep talking about irrelevant things like 9/11 but this isnt about 9/11 so I dont quite see the point in arguing about this. You can keep saying things about primary documents, but a report by third party academics is not a primary source. nableezy - 16:00, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable. The Palestine Yearbook of International Law is a well-respected publication. 11Fox11 should learn what "self-published" means before trying to apply an irrelevant policy. Like others here, I'm amazed at the attempt to remove "in order to establish and maintain an overwhelming Jewish majority" which anyone who knows anything about the subject knows to be a primary objective of Israel and Zionism before it. Zero^talk 06:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• I think that part of the issue is that few people disagree that Israel makes maintaining a Jewish majority a central policy goal (Israeli officials are often very unambiguous about this); but people who support what Israel is doing generally object to any specific academic term for it. Partially this is because those words tend to also apply to a lot of really unequivocally awful stuff; eg. this source (while discussing the term's use in another context) mentions that demographic engineering, as an all-encompassing package of demographic policies, comprises ‘ethnic cleansing’ as one of its measures and then immediately notes that the use of the term in that conflict is predominant in the non-apologetic historiographical literature on violence against minorities, which I read as a scholarly way of saying people don't tend to describe something as demographic engineering if they think it's a good thing. Rather than trying to omit the sources that do use the term in relation to Israel, it might be worth looking for similar sources describing who uses it and who doesn't in relation to Israel - such sources probably exist. But this is probably a better discussion for the article talk page. --Aquillion (talk) 07:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Parts of the yearbook may be peer reviewed papers. The back portion of the yearbook, including this document, is a dumping ground of primary material namely hundreds of pages of UN documents, court decisions, Israeli laws, PLO statements. Look at the Table of contents of the issue and this is what is there from page 201 (after the actual articles and one book review). 11Fox11 (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

You have a very serious misunderstanding of what primary means. Falk and Tilley are not primary sources on this topic. nableezy - 15:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The inclusion in the primary document dump of the yearbook lends this discredited report the same weight as the Statement by (United States) President Trump on Jerusalem reprinted in the same portion of the yearbook. The original publisher, the UN, unendorsed this. So this is the same as material posted on Falk's website. 11Fox11 (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

You seem to think that just repeating things like discredited makes it true. The work product of two established experts in the field is reliable even if it were on Falk's website. And you also seem to be ignoring that Virginia Tilley is likewise an established expert in the field. But good luck with the attempt at proof by repetition, maybe itll work. Doubt it, but who knows nableezy - 16:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The situation (per scholarly source at the top of this discussion) is "commissioned and approved by the UN but has not obtained an official endorsement from the Secretary General of the UN. Hence, it does not represent the views of the UN." That does not mean discredited, not even close. Try some other argument.Selfstudier (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Obviously not reliable A retracted report, written by a known conspiracy theorist (not intended as a smear, but Falk's activities as a 9/11 truther are well known). Surprised we're even discussing this. For what it's worth, I believe the claim is accurate, it seems rather uncontroversial to say Israel has attempted to engineer a Jewish majority. So no problem with stating that, but this particular source is not suitable. Jeppiz (talk) 17:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Jeppiz, please substantiate the claim but Falk's activities as a 9/11 truther are well known. Per above, my reading is that these are distorted claims made by his ideological enemies but I can't see much evidence for them. Your statement is making him sound like he is actively pushing a conspiracy, but I believe his "activities" were a blog post suggesting that the government might not be sharing everything it knew, which he later clarified that he did not mean in a conspiracy theory way. That is not the behaviour of a "9/11 truther". Onceinawhile (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Sure. First, it was not just blog posts. Falk wrote the preface to the book The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11 which claims that the Bush administration was involved in the 9/11 attacks.. Second, the Secretary General of the UN condemned Falk's pushing of conspiracy theories Reuters, That is much more substantial than just ideological enemies (who??) distorted his claims in a blog. Jeppiz (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Entirely irrelevant, nobody is using Falk as a source on 9/11. nableezy - 20:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, IMO anyone who has pushed conspiracy theories (if that's true) in one topic is probably unreliable for any topic. The point is certainly relevant. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

No, a set of users bringing up unrelated topics to dismiss an expert in this field is not something that is found in WP:RS. Falk is professor emeritus of international law at Princeton. He is a former Special Rapporteur and has been published in a huge number of peer-reviewed journal articles on the Arab-Israeli conflict and international law. Tilley is a professor at Southern Illinois University who has likewise been published in peer-reviewed works on this topic. What, exactly, in WP:SCHOLARSHIP allows for the dismissal of these scholars because of one of their views on another topic? Quote from policy please, dont just hand wave to some belief that you have that is not found anywhere in our policies. nableezy - 16:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

It's a pretty well recognised principle that if a source spreads some conspiracy theories or other similar types of nonsense, then it is considered unreliable in general. See, for example, the Daily Mail: over 95% of the material it publishes are probably uncontroversial and factually correct, the concern is that it repeatedly pushes unfounded rubbish. The principle is documented at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Deprecated_sources. Now see the definition of a source at WP:SOURCEDEF; it is not limited to publishing organisations but also includes The creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and as the policy says: Any of the three can affect reliability. So yes, if an author has spread conspiracy theories in any topic, they are generally unreliable as a source for all topics. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

An academic expert in this specific field who is freaking professor emeritus at Princeton cannot under any reading of WP:RS be considered unreliable in general. If Falk were writing on his blog on this topic he would meet WP:SPS which says Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. And thanks for WP:DEPRECATED, that requires an RFC to deprecate a source, not one editor making assertions that when the policy they claim supports it does not back them up. Yes, any of the three can affect the reliability. And if you continue reading WP:RS youll see where it discusses WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Falk is a widely cited expert in the fields of international law and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If youd like to try to deprecate a person with some 26000 citations to his work (a fifth of those just in the last five years) you are welcome to try. But itll take an RFC to do that. Not you making assertions not actually based on policy, and in fact directly contradicted by it. Even if he were writing on his blog Falk would be reliable on this topic per Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. His work in the relevant field is what is at issue here, and in that relevant field he was professor at Ohio State, Harvard and Princeton. His work has been published by some of the most respected publishers on the planet. You want to make an RFC to deprecate that type of source feel free. Oh, and please tell me why Virginia Tilley is being ignored here? She is likewise the author of peer-reviewed works on this topic. Why are you ignoring her entirely? This specific article has been cited by 26 times itself. And youre going to say Wikipedia should deprecate the author? Let me know when the Daily Mail is racking up citations to its work in Political Studies. nableezy - 17:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Should also maybe read what this effort to discredit Falk was actually about, and not just accept as gospel what people trying to disqualify an actual expert on the topic has to say because they dislike his views. He hasnt spread any conspiracy theories anyway, but his views on 9/11 are entirely irrelevant to his area of academic expertise, which this article firmly falls under. nableezy - 19:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable, fringe. Astounding this is even discussed. As User:Jeppiz shows, Falk, the first named author, is known for 9/11 conspiracies. As User:Adoring nanny says, Falk also had an antisemitic cartoons issue. Whatever his pre-emeritus credentials, his reputation is shot in the emeritus phase. He was even condemned by his emeritus employer, the UN. As User:11Fox11 shows, the Brill yearbook reproduction is brought up here disingenuously as it appears there not as a research article but as a reproduction of a multitude of UN documents that the yearbook reproduced from the period. It is not peer reviewed. The actual publisher here, the UN, withdrew the publication. 9/11 conspiracy theorists are not reliable sources.--Hippeus (talk) 19:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

It is a BLP violation to call a living person a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. The number of users making such derogatory claims on a living person when no reliable source does so is obscene. And every single person making that claim had better start putting up rock solid sources that directly back up that contention. The Reuters source says no such thing. UN Watch is not a reliable source to disparage a living person. And calling a a journal article that already has 26 citations to it fringe is what is astounding. nableezy - 19:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Not a journal article. Not peer reviewed. Reproduction in a yearbook of a document the UN unpublished, alongside other UN documents from the period. As for 9/11, he was condemned by the UN chief: U.N. chief condemns rights expert's 9/11 comments, and from the discussion above there are plenty of other sources on 9/11 conspiracy theories here.--Hippeus (talk) 19:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The introduction to the article says Appreciation is extended to the blind reviewers for their valuable input. The UN chief condemned one part of one blog post he made. He did not call him a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. Unless you provide reliable sources that substantiate what you said about a living person you should withdraw it. nableezy - 19:56, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

More than enough reliable sources have referred to him as a conspiracy theorist,a promoter of conspiracy theories, and he has praised conspiracy theorists like David Ray Griffin. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended content

. ADL: "“It is outrageous that the U.N. Human Rights Council continues to support such a wildly conspiratorial and highly biased extremist as a reliable ‘expert,’”[42] NY Times: "The authors included a former United Nations human rights investigator, Richard Falk, which particularly galled many Israel supporters who regard him as an anti-Semite and a discredited conspiracy theorist."[43] NY Times: "He has compared Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians to Nazi atrocities and has called for more serious examination of the conspiracy theories surrounding the Sept. 11 attacks."[44] SF Gate (written by Joel Brinkley, Pulitizer-prize-winning journalist): "9/11 conspiracy theorist should leave U.N. job"[45] Jewish Chronicle: "Richard Falk, a former UN special envoy who has supported 9/11 conspiracy theories and praised the work of notorious antisemite Gilad Atzmon."[46] The Atlantic: "It turns out that "Palestine expert" on the UN Human Rights Council, the law professor Richard Falk, is something of a 9/11 Truther" [47] The New Republic: "Richard Falk, Conspiracy Theorist" [48] JTA: "Richard Falk, a former U.N. rapporteur on Palestinian rights, has earned opprobrium for likening Israel to Nazi Germany and for amplifying baseless conspiracy theories about the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States."[49] Tablet Magazine: "...Richard Falk, a known 9/11 truther and promoter of anti-Semitism...Falk is an equal opportunity advocate of conspiracy theories, not just about America, but about Jews"[50] New York Magazine Intelligencer: "The Conspiracist’s Guide to Osama bin Laden’s Bookshelf...and New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 by David Ray Griffin and Richard Falk. One thing these titles have in common is they all cast doubt on the so-called “official story” of bin Laden’s signature claim to fame"[51] Wall Street Journal: "His political lunacy has left Mr. Falk with few friends in respectable circles, but it has also helped him find a professional niche at the U.N. Human Rights Council. U.S. diplomats, time and again, have failed to remove him from his post—even after he came out as a 9/11 conspiracy theorist on his blog in January 2011."[52] The Telegraph: "Richard Falk, a retired professor from Princeton University, wrote on his blog that there had been an "apparent cover up" by American authorities...And he described David Ray Griffin, a conspiracy theorist highly regarded in the so-called "9/11 truth" movement, as a "scholar of high integrity" whose book on the subject was "authoritative".[53] Reuters: "But Falk’s Jan. 11 blog post unequivocally refers to a cover-up regarding the events of Sept. 11, 2001."[54]

Since two blue chip human rights organizations have since not only confirmed but have expanded upon the findings of Falk and Tilley, then as far as I am concerned that fact by itself is sufficient confirmation that the report is an acceptable document.Selfstudier (talk) 21:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

What utter bs. A selection of sources saying that Israel supporters claim he is something and a set of opinion pieces from Israel supporters saying he is something is not anywhere close to the level of sourcing that WP:BLP requires for such a claim. Im going to open an RFC on this, it is insane that users can commit BLP violating edits to wipe away actual scholars on the level of Richard Falk in the topic of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Insane. nableezy - 23:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable per the convincing rationale by Jeppiz; and per my above general comments on source reliability, combined with the arguments and evidence later presented by Hippeus and Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d. ProcSock (talk) 01:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• Obviously unreliable, fringe and undue. per Jeppiz and Hippeus. - Daveout(talk) 03:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable per Aquillon, whether it is due weight is another matter but this is clearly a well-regarded academic opinion that I see no reason to consider unreliable. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:49, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment For those arguing that the document is unpublished, it is published here as well:-

1) https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/mepo.12265

2) https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=ps_pubs

3) https://www.proquest.com/openview/fbf5c248e3ad13eb65ee4a8a19a11294/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=26627

it is also available for download in multiple locations all over the net and the position that this report is discredited or of no value has absolutely no merit.Selfstudier (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable. Published or not published, this is advocacy. The association of an author with conspiracy theories, being described as "went off the political deep end a long time ago" in The Wall Street Journal, preclude this source.PrisonerB (talk) 08:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Thats actually an opinion piece by the Sohrab Ahmari. I leave it to the reader to judge if Sohrab Ahmari is more of a reliable source than Richard A. Falk and Virginia Tilley. nableezy - 14:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment The discussion has honed in on whether Falk's overall reliability has been impugned by his fringe views on 9/11. The content of dispute pertaining to the Israeli conflict is not fringe: "The first general policy of Israel has been one of demographic engineering, in order to establish and maintain an overwhelming Jewish majority." Jeppiz notes that this is not a controversial statement and that other sources can be used instead of Falk. Spudlace (talk) 07:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable per Aquillon and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. NightHeron (talk) 10:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

El Rompehielos

Is elrompehielos.com.ar [The Icebreaker] a news source or blog? Is it reliable? Thanks, Tyrone Madera (talk) 19:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Best avoided. All coverage is made by anonymous people, which by itself is already a very bad sign. The company behind that only operates for 4 years, which is another warning (though not necessarily that bad). What makes me most wary is this document from the municipality of Ushuaia that more or less says they approved 15 thousand pesos ($400 at the time) for paid advertising and propaganda for February 2019. I wonder what that "propaganda" is for, but I imagine it has to do with the Falklands/Malvinas.

I think there are way better sources than that, even in local Patagonian press, or maybe National Geographic, for the information about a natural UNESCO site. It should be somewhere in the books, and probably you may find some government materials for that, but cite them and not El Rompehielos. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 03:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Szmenderowiecki, Thank you very much for the help! That's, uh, not good. I will avoid it. I was actually looking for coverage of the Carlos J. Gradin Museum of Archaeology in Perito Moreno with this source, so the topic is not quite as resource-rich as with Cueva de las Manos.

While we're on this topic, how about this source?

• McCouat, Philip. "Art and Survival in Patagonia: How Destroyed Patagonian Indian Cultures Live On Through Their Art". Journal of ART in SOCIETY. Retrieved 2021-05-22.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

Thanks again, Tyrone Madera (talk) 19:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tyrone Madera:Unfortunately, though this is a better source, it still fails Wikipedia's set thresholds. It's not crap, but it's 100% self-published and the guy who posts there is a lawyer and not a historian of art, historian of Patagonia or the sort, therefore you can't use it. However, he provides a trove of resources on which he bases his findings - go and read them, and probably you will get a reliable article by an expert in the field that is going to state more or less the same. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 04:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Szmenderowiecki, Thanks. That's all of the sources I have questions on for now. You've been a great help! Tyrone Madera (talk) 23:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Lab Leak Again

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

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

And our article at COVID-19 misinformation currently says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• • And I guess Science now allows peer-reviewed publication of "conspiracy theories" by David Relman Theories of accidental release from a lab and zoonotic spillover both remain viable [55] 2601:602:9200:1310:1C00:1701:D1FF:B995 (talk) 09:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
    • That's a letter. Alexbrn (talk) 10:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Letter to the editor, peer reviewed scientific paper, who cares, as long as it supports my favorite conspiracy theory! The TRUTH is out there!! --Guy Macon (talk) 12:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
        • Guy Macon WP:NPA applies to you as well. I have no time for the conspiracy that it's intentional, nor do I personally believe it originated in a lab. I happen to think that there's enough coverage to warrant mentioning. Jeppiz (talk) 13:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
          • There is sero evidence that I was talking about any Wikipedia editor as opposed to making a general statement. The phrase "Letter to the editor, peer reviewed scientific paper, who cares, as long as it supports my favorite conspiracy theory!" clearly refers to those who believe in conspiracy theories. I have a lot of evidence that such people exist elsewhere on the Internet, but of course no Wikipedia editor has ever believed any conspiracy theory. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clear that up. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
          • @Jeppiz: We seem to be mostly in agreement. It is worth mentioning. That's why I've made sure it gets reasonable mentions where it's WP:DUE. However, [this reverted edit] doesn't appear to be due. There's a reason we don't spend much time discussing the details of the zoonotic event on the already incredibly long COVID-19 article, and a reason why we have the entire Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 article. Please don't jump to conclusions about these edits, and focus instead on where particular info is DUE or UNDUE. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
            • @Bakkster Man:, thanks. You're right my edit that you link to may have been too strongly worded. It was a bit provoked by the less-than-optimal revert reason ("crappy sourcing") but I should have been a bit more nuanced myself. I agree WP:DUE is relevant when discussing this hypothesis and it shouldn't be given too much coverage, no argument there. Jeppiz (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
              • @Jeppiz: The "crappy sources" comment, while brusque, was actually probably correct. I'll point out that the original revert comment citing WP:PROFRINGE was probably more appropriate, and the revert afterward returning the content cited the politically-slanted (aka, potential crappy source) National Review.

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the page you cited:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• First of all: this is not a biomedical claim per WP:BMI and therefore WP:MEDRS should not be required to source such a statement (otherwise we would need a review to publish anything on this subject). In this case we just need reliable sources per WP:RS. Secondly: it is important to distinguish the conspiracy theory that the virus was created purposefully in a laboratory from the very realistic and plausible theory that the virus is of natural origin but accidentally escaped from a lab that was studying it. This second theory is a possible origin for the virus and is being investigated by the WHO as a possible origin for the virus [56] The WHO considers this a possible although "extremely unlikely" origin for the pandemic (this would also be a WP:MEDRS source by the way). Also, this estimation has been heavily criticised in this recently published letter on science which states: [57] As scientists with relevant expertise, we agree with the WHO director-general (5), the United States and 13 other countries (6), and the European Union (7) that greater clarity about the origins of this pandemic is necessary and feasible to achieve. We must take hypotheses about both natural and laboratory spillovers seriously until we have sufficient data. The mentioned sources are accusing the WHO of not investigating sufficiently the accidental lab leak hypothesis and believe China is not being sufficiently transparent. Therefore: the accidental lab leak hypothesis is scientifically sound and considered possible by the WHO, the scientific community and several major world governments. There is substantial consensus that it should be thoroughly investigated further and may very well be the origin of the pandemic (which is currently unknown). Wikipedia's articles should reflect this consensus. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Some people caught a disease last year" isn't epidemiological data any more than the statements Based on remarks by Plutarch, Caesar is sometimes thought to have suffered from epilepsy. [58], or In October 2017 the deadliest outbreak of the plague in modern times hit Madagascar, killing 170 people and infecting thousands. [59], the latter is sourced to the Wall Street Journal. The statement On 7 July 2020, Bolsonaro said that he had tested positive for COVID-19. [60] is sourced to CNN. Geogene (talk) 16:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Gtoffoletto: While reasonable minds might differ, given the prevalence of conspiracy and misinformation around the topic, I think this can reasonably be perceived as relating to human health. From the American Academy of Family Physicians: Many members of the public, including HCWs, have been exposed to conspiracy theories (especially on social media) such as the claims that novel coronavirus was intentionally created by the government or that health organizations have exaggerated COVID-19’s lethality for pharmaceutical and political gain. Such misinformation calls into question authorities’ integrity and undermines efforts to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake.[61] At least in an instance where MEDRS sources are at odds with news media sources, this seems reasonable to prefer the MEDRS. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• reliable per Alaexis( somethings got to give, this should be ok...IMO)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable News Corp (the owners of WSJ) has continuously pushed unreliable content regarding China and COVID-19: [62] [63]. It is also important to note that in China, the hospital is used as primary care, and it is commonplace to go there for minor illnesses such as cold & flu. This fact is also mentioned in the WSJ article. Because of these two reasons, I would say the WP:SYNTH that WSJ claims that the hospitalizations have links to COVID is not reliable and should not be used. Jumpytoo Talk 23:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The WSJ article is commenting on the report from the US [64] and not directly on the China situation. It is improper to question the WSJ on reliability in this specific area related to US politics, but we do have to recognize that the statements made by the report or the people the WSJ spoke to related to the virus outbreak should clearly not be treated as MEDRS to alter the perception of the lab leak story. --Masem (t) 23:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The WSJ is one of the most highly-regarded newspapers in the world and has won 37 Pulitzer prizes as of 2019. Its editorial board is independent from that of other News Corp Publications, and we allow for different levels of reliability for different sources published by the same corporation. The question of general reliability (which this response points towards) is whether a source has a reputation for editorial independence, strong fact checking, and accuracy in reporting. The WSJ cearly does. The question of whether or not it has specific issues with general reliability as it pertains to COVID-19 would need to point to evidence that it lacks editorial independence, strong fact checking, or accuracy in reporting. I don't see evidence of that here. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable as a news source (not a MEDRS), unusable due to other issues in this specific context The real problem isn't that WSJ isn't reliable or biased in matters regarding US politics or whatever. Even if we ignore everything about MEDRS, the issue is that the only thing the WSJ has which could be usable basically boils down to "based on a US intelligence report (with many question marks about said report attached), some people in Wuhan were sick with some undetermined illness in late 2019". Placing this in any article about COVID would be misrepresenting the source (unless we spent a couple sentences explaining the many issues with the alleged intelligence report, which would be UNDUE and quite frankly NOTNEWS-level of excessive) and would lead the readers to make the improper synthesis that the sickness was COVID (a claim not supported by the source). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• For those who might have a distaste for Science publications, here is what they have on letters: Letters (up to 300 words) discuss material published in Science in the last 3 months or issues of general interest. Letters should be submitted through our Manuscript Submission and Information Portal (https://cts.sciencemag.org). Letters may be reviewed. The author of a paper in question is usually given an opportunity to reply. Letter submissions are acknowledged upon receipt by Science’s automatic system, but letter writers are not always consulted before publication. Letters are subject to editing for clarity and space. Letters rejected for print publication may be posted as eLetters. And considering the controversial nature of the topic, I am sure the 13-author letter was not peer reviewed before publication into Science. Seems like some wikiactivists think they have more expertise than editors there. 205.175.106.86 (talk) 00:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended quotes

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

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

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

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

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

• Lends no more credence to the theory - There's actually a great deal of evidence that the WSJ story is based on rehashed and repackaged disinformation spread by third parties with no connection to Wuhan. Overall, there is very little *actual evidence* to back up the unsubstantiated claims. See this twitter thread and this surprisingly on point NY Post piece. Psaki is saying this is not a CIA report, or official intelligence. It's the inter-governmental equivalent of a rumor. I think until we have an RS quoting a primary source that has evidence of multiple covid-19-like illnesses in a reasonable proximity to the outbreak, it doesn't belong in any article except as a passing note in Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable per the Washington Post, the lab leak hypothesis is no longer a conspiracy theory or unfounded, it's now credible. [65] Geogene (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Question. This is just a matter of context, but what do we know about the alleged program of biological weapons in China, reardless to COVID? I am not familiar with publications about it. Yes, China signed agreements, but it means little. One recent CNN article [66] say this: "The Chinese government is party to the major international agreements regulating biological weapons which prohibit developing, producing, transferring or stockpiling of bacteriological and toxin weapons. The US government has said that it believes China maintained an offensive biological weapons program even after joining the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention in 1984.". OK. But what exactly US government (and other sources) say about the offensive biological weapons program of China? My very best wishes (talk) 03:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Reliable for the ongoing investigation's existence; unreliable for biomedical statements of fact -- I've been following the WHO working group reports.[67] I recommend two sources of particular interest, this Politico summarization of experts' opinions, wherein virologists explain the newfound interest in the lab leak possibility, and this recent preprint (with comments at [68]) which states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• "If the question is “are both hypotheses possible?” the answer is yes. Both are possible. If the question is “are they equally likely?” the answer is absolutely not. One hypothesis requires a colossal cover-up and the silent, unswerving, leak-proof compliance of a vast network of scientists, civilians, and government officials for over a year. The other requires only for biology to behave as it always has, for a family of viruses that have done this before to do it again. The zoonotic spillover hypothesis is simple and explains everything. It’s scientific malpractice to pretend that one idea is equally as meritorious as the other. The lab-leak hypothesis is a scientific deus ex machina, a narrative shortcut that points a finger at a specific set of bad actors. I would be embarrassed to stand up in front of a room of scientists, lay out both hypotheses, and then pretend that one isn’t clearly, obviously better than the other."[69] --Guy Macon (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"I have now asked the Intelligence Community..."[70] 173.224.187.47 (talk) 02:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The Lancet, Science Based Medicine, and Snopes/AP

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

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

Wikipedia:Biomedical information has an RFC

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

References

Valid Sources?

Can you please take a look at following sources and let me know which can be considered valid? The sources are being considered to be referenced to the article Battle of Saragarhi.

Tribune India [71]. The Vintage News [72] Business Insider [73] The Statesman[74] Times of India [75] Google Book [76] Page 35 Google book [77] Page 48 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.81.206.173 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Myself I would not use newspapers for articles about history (not that these are unreliable, but there are higher quality sources), I have no access to the last two books/articles to judge them. So, these sources may be fine for uncontroversial facts (eg. that statue), but certainly not for disputed informations (eg. causalties). Pavlor (talk) 20:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

From WP:RSP: The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. It tends to have a bias in favor of the Indian government. I would suggest avoiding it. 2600:8800:1880:68:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 23:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• There are certainly better sources than these for the topic, I would recommend replacing them with peer reviewed academic journals or books. It's usually considered better to avoid newspapers for historical topics even if they are otherwise reliable.

The Tribune is generally reliable as a newspaper and its article is about a performance and memorials for the battle. Since none of this concern the events in the battle itself and are essentially uncontroversial mundane reporting, it appears usable for its content. The Business Insider (RSP entry) and Vintage News articles appear like blog posts, the former has no byline and I would recommend removing these. The Statesman is a high quality newspaper and might be usable for this topic, although scholarly sources are still preferable over it. The Times of India (RSP entry) is at best marginally reliable and should not be used for any historical topics.

Regarding the two books, I don't have access to either of them but going by their publishers they are not high quality sources either. The first one is published by Vision Books, a company which generally focuses on financial and business publications and has some editorial oversight but is inadequate for this topic area. The second book is published by the Sikh Cultural Society of Great Britain which is not an academic publisher and is likely to eulogise the Sikh combatants of the battle. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 03:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

News sources are the most reliable sources for news, which is what happened yesterday and today. So if the battle had been fought May 25th 2021, then of course we would use reports by major news correspondents. But a reporter for the entertainment section of the Indian edition of Business Insider lacks the expertise to determine that the Battle of Saragarhi stands alongside Thermopylae as one of "the three greatest last stands ever taken in history." Journalists don't delve into the details of military history and compare the conclusions of their learned papers. Few of them have undergraduate degrees in history. Their employers' factcheckers don't have the expertise of peer reviewers at academic journals. An American journalist might for example have included Custer's last stand in the list. TFD (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

For the uninitiated, this anon wants to push the idea that 21 defenders killed 600 attackers at the Battle of Saragarhi (a claim often repeated in Facebook posts, blog posts, and even some news articles). The more reliable sources cited in the article suggest that this figure was 180 (although apparently 600 dead bodies were found at the site after another force recaptured the fort from the attackers)

After posting here, the anon created an account impersonating me (User:AtmaramU), and added a few other sources to the article. Two of these seem to be somewhat decent (although still not reliable IMO, to support the "21 soldiers killed 600 invaders" claim contested by better sources). I've let two of them remain in the article, pending others' opinions. The first source is an article in Sainik Samachar, a journal published by the Ministry of Defence; the second is the The Statesman article linked above -- although someone mentioned that this is a high quality newspaper, I'd like to point out that the author Buddhadev Nandi is not an expert on the topic: he writes general-interest articles and news reports for several publications. utcursch | talk 17:54, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect to everyone, I created an account to avoid editing anonymously. If you look at the conversation on the Battle of Saragarhi and here, I have not been disrespectful but followed "Be Nice" and "Be Respectful" policy here. Why Mr.User:Utcursch is under the impression I am impersonating him is beyond me and nor did I need to have any discussion on such nonsensical claims. Getting back to topic 180 is a very disputed claim and have been contradicted by various sources that also state that the numbers were 450, whereas majority states 600. So I picked the reliable sources after all the deliberation and discussion here, with respect to everyone's opinion, added it to the article. Infact, if you look at the edits, you will see that I made the change from 180 casualties to 180 - 600, keeping the disputed number neutral due to conflicted sources. On the other hand, Mr.User:Utcursch is the one enforcing the number 180. Even the sources that he used, three of them are unreliable, two of them have already been considered unreliable here in the discussion, which are the Vision Books Publisher and the article from The Sikh Courier International Volumes 38-42. And what Mr.User:Utcursch did is, removed all the sources that I added which were considered reliable here in the discussion above such as Tribune India, including Google Book from Lancer International Publisher authored by Military officers and above all the most strongest sources by Dennis Showalter (2013). Imperial Wars 1815–1914. Dennis Showalter is a "Military Historian". And Mr.User:Utcursch removed this source as well. So you can that this user is the one pushing the idea that 21 defenders killed 180 attackers at the Battle of Saragarhi. Whereas I kept the dispute neutral by stating 180-600, keeping all numbers into consideration as per various sources. AtmaramU — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtmaramU (talk • contribs) 00:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I did remove Tribune (a news article), but I did not remove Dennis Showalter or Lancer. And let's not pretend that your username is not based on my real name: the recent edits on the article make it pretty obvious that you're sock of an existing user. utcursch | talk 02:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Since the casualties appear to be a contested aspect of the battle, I'd recommend against using any news articles altogether. The Tribune and The Statesman are reliable for current events but not necessarily for historical topics, preference should be given to scholarly sources as I have already mentioned in my earlier comment and note TFD's explanation on why this is so. Newspapers on many occasions have a tendency to reproduce popular misconceptions and pop history due to lack of expertise on the topic, sometimes subject matter experts publish editorials which might be usable but that does not appear to be the case here.

Imperial Wars 1815–1914 (2013) by Dennis Showalter states that there were 450 casualties (which includes killed and wounded) on the attacking side. ABC-CLIO published Afghanistan at War: From the 18th-Century Durrani Dynasty to the 21st Century (2017) by Tom Lansford states that an estimate of 180 were killed on the attacking side. These are the only two sources currently used for the casualties in the article which I would consider to be of adequate quality.

The army sources such as 1968 publication in the Sainik Samachar, the 2019 ThePrint editorial authored by a retired officer or the 1987 book authored by two officers and published by Lancer are not scholarly sources either. Officers while educated on military history don't have the same level of expertise as historians or research scholars. Note that these sources are less susceptible to pop history but have other considerations such as promoting recruitments or bolstering morale, etc which might effect their reliability and prevent them from being independent sources, in this case by being too close to the topic (The currently existing Sikh Regiment would consider itself to have been a participant in the battle). Tayi Arajakate _Talk 04:20, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

The Business Insider (RSP entry), Vintage News and The Times of India (RSP entry) are highly unreliable sources and I wouldn't recommend using them. The Statesman is a high quality newspaper and might be usable for this topic as well as Tribune India, although scholarly sources are still preferable over it like the ones you included Sainik Samachar, an army Journal which is highly reliable. Imperial Wars 1815–1914 (2013) by Dennis Showalter states that there were 450 casualties, therefore is great source as well. Tom Lansford is a Political Science associate professor and is not a Military historian and his source is less reliable from ABC-CLIO published Afghanistan at War: From the 18th-Century Durrani Dynasty to the 21st Century (2017), especially taking into consideration he doesn't have the same level of expertise as historians or research scholars or Military officers. 1987 book authored by two officers and published by Lancer are OK considering that the officers used available records from the Regimental centre as stated in the beginning of the book.

HaughtonBrit (talk) 12:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

HaughtonBrit, can I ask why your have pasted copy pasted large parts of sentences from my comments? Some of it looks like a misconstruction of what I had stated while others don't even make sense.

Showalter's book isn't a "great source" because it says there were 450 casualties, it's an usable source because its authored by a subject matter expert. Lansford's book is published by an academic publisher and he is not an associate professor but an academic dean and a tenured professor. Most social science subjects have large overlap with history and scholars working in such fields develop expertise in history related to the concerned area. (see, WP:HISTRS#Who is a historian) In comparison, none of the other sources are academic ones.

There's a reason why I had used the phrase "might be usable" despite calling The Statesman an high quality newspaper, they are not necessarily reliable beyond current events. I had referred to The Tribune in a similar context where I described it as reliable for contemporary memorials and shows dedicated to the battle and not the events in the battle itself. Sainik Samachar is also not a scholarly source, it's a magazine published by the Ministry of Defence. Lancer is an in-house publisher for the armed forces. Military officers are not academics and by no means comparable to historians and research scholar, in this case they are not even an independent source. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Tayi Arajakate I sincerely apologize as I should have referenced you in the comments but I am glad that your clarified because my understanding of what you stated earlier differs completely. Showalter's book is a "great source" the information provided is by a "Military Historian" himself that 450 casualities are inflicted. Tom Lansford is the Academic Dean, Gulf Coast, at the University of Southern Mississippi and a Professor of Political Science. He is also stated as Assistant Dean for the College of Arts and Letters, and Associate Professor of Political Science, at the University of Southern Mississippi in Long Beach, Mississippi, USA. He is not a "Historian" or "Military Historian" nor has provided his source of information. On the other hand, LANCER is the foremost military publishing house in India since 1983. Its also an INDIAN DEFENCE REVIEW, a quarterly journal on military operations and strategic affairs launched in 1986 and remains the "Most Quoted" worldwide. And the two officers who authored the book are Military experts who used the available sources from the Regimental centre. This makes the source credible enough. Statesman and The Tribune, reliable sites, though can be used given the number of casualities it stated, which is what the source presumably is needed for. Definitely not for the overall event of the battlefield. Sainik Samachar has been producing journals since 1909 about the India's Armed Forces. The journals written are based on the evidence and sources available within the regiment and the Digest of services. This is fairly reliable. Just like you gave your opinion to the questionnaire, I provided mine too and so did others. That's all.HaughtonBrit (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Lancer isn't "an Indian Defence Review", it is the publisher of the Indian Defence Review which is irrelevant here. You just copy pasted some promotional text from the Lancer's website. Officers using in-house material and in-house publishers does not make them more credible than academics, if anything since they are talking about their own regiment, it's a conflict of interest. Casualties are a part of the events of the battle, if there's a dispute over the figure, you should not be using news articles and military personnel with an apparent COI as your sources. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 01:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Copying and pasting was to provide the information directly from the publisher Lancer's website to make it clear what the source is about. And I disagree with COI. Indian Defence Review is relevant and like I said earlier and the officers are not using the in-house material but the sources stored in the Regimental centre including Digest of Services of the Indian Army dated back to British colonists period and are highly reliable which even the academic scholars refer to for research. Its OK to use these sources. HaughtonBrit (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

IDR is not being used as a source so it's irrelevant here. Secondary sources don't become reliable by virtue of using primary sources. Since you don't seem to understand COI and refuse to follow guidelines, I'm not going to bother anymore. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 03:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

We certainly have conflict in opinion and I likewise don't think you are understanding the points I have provided. I don't think that you are understanding the irrelevance of COI but regardless, let's end here because we are just going in a cycle of endless discussion. HaughtonBrit (talk) 03:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

HaughtonBrit, can explain how army sources talking about their own regiment is not a conflict of interest? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Tayi Arajakate, why are you bothering again? The records, sources and notes were taken during the battle under British colonial period, a British Empire before its decommissioning in 1947. We should end this discussion. Thank you.HaughtonBrit (talk) 11:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

HaughtonBrit, I'm bothering because I would rather not have poorly sourced articles on Wikipedia. Are you trying to argue that because the sources use primary sources, they do not have a conflict of interest?

Please read what conflict of interest means. "Records, sources and notes taken during the battle" are called primary sources. Secondary sources make use of these primary sources to develop an overview of the event. That does not mean all secondary sources are reliable and independent, this noticeboard is primarily for determining which are and which are not. I would recommend reading WP:PSTS to get a better understanding. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Tayi Arajakate

I have already read the informations provided and maybe you can read it too and like I said many times before that there is no conflict as far as the sources are concerned. I am keeping the quality of sources in consideration keeping the guidelines in perspective. This noticeboard is to provide opinion and not to push it on others. Now we can end this.HaughtonBrit (talk) 01:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

The Sainik Samachar publication, ThePrint editorial and the Lancer book do have an obvious conflict of interest. They are all associated with the Indian Army, which considers itself to have been the defending side in the Battle of Saragarhi. You assert that they don't have a conflict of interest but haven't provided a reason that makes any sense.

This noticeboard isn't a forum, it's for discussing the reliability of sources based on guidelines. If your assertions contradict guidelines then you would be called out on it, you are always free to stop participating in the discussion. But in the end, if you don't want to understand the guidelines and remain adamant that you are always in the right, then you will not be able to contribute constructively. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:49, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

The Sainik Samachar publication, and the Lancer book do NOT have a conflict of interest and can be considered reliable. All the sources come from the documents/Notes/records from the British Colonists of British Empire. What you are doing is misrepresenting the policies and guidelines and can be called on it. You already decided to stop participating in the discussion but continued to do so regardless. I am not the one being adamant as I have provided my opinion and never did I reply to your opinion that you initially made here nor did I try to push my opinion on you like you have been consistently doing it on me. We all have right to provide our opinion here on this noticeboard. HaughtonBrit (talk) 15:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

HaughtonBrit, I'll ask again, can you provide a meaningful reason for the assertion that they do not have a conflict of reason? In fact, since you have now accusing me of "misrepresenting the policies and guidelines", I would like you to substantiate that as well, do understand that unsubstantiated accusations of impropriety are a violation of the policy on civility. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 01:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Tayi Arajakate I have already explained enough. We don't need to go in the cycle again. If you fail to understand or comprehend, that's another topic. We can take the discussion to our talk page. Thank you. HaughtonBrit (talk) 01:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

HaughtonBrit, let me get this clear, is "all the sources come from the documents/Notes/records from the British Colonists of British Empire" your explanation to why the sources do not have a conflict of interest? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 01:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Tayi Arajakate Repeating again since you decided to revert the comments. I have already explained enough. We don't need to go in the cycle again. We can take the discussion to our talk page. Thank you. HaughtonBrit (talk) 02:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

You shouldn't edit your own comments once they have been replied to, you can strike out the portion you don't want to include. The question is a simple one, just needs an yes or no. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 02:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Like several other Indian newspapers that pick up material from Facebook posts and WhatsApp forwards, both The Statesman and The Tribune have repeated the dubious claim that the Battle of Saragarhi is included among the "eight stories of collective bravery" published by the United Nations / UNESCO (this is a hoax, as pointed out several times on the article's talk page). This alone shows why these news reports are not a reliable source for information about the battle despite the newspapers themselves being generally reliable sources for current events. utcursch | talk 18:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Strongly Disagree. The Statesman and The Tribune are reliable in particular to casualty information they provide and stating that the information is provided by whatsapp and facebook without any source is just a personal opinion enforced to discredit the sources. AtmaramU — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtmaramU (talk • contribs) 19:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

AtmaramU, if I understand the dispute on the page correctly, you want to include the claim that 600 on the attacking side were killed. I would suggest trying to find scholarly sources which substantiate the claim (google scholar may be helpful) instead of arguing for the inclusion of news articles. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 01:46, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

TimesofIndia, VintageNews, Business Insider, Print.in are downright unreliable. Others are fine as they carry some weight. People involved here in back and forth discussion should take a break. It’s a pain to scroll through. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1016:b004:23d4:c505:5950:7e41:d275 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 02:55, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• This is a case where the suitability of the source is dependent on the use to be made of the source material - ie, it must be fit for purpose. The answer I give is therefore in respect to the proposed purpose and not the reliability of the sources for other purposes. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history) gives some guidance. Journalistic sources have little if any place as sources for such an article and particularly for statistics. The journalistic sources proposed are not contemporaneous with the event but are recent. Ideally, we should be relying on scholarly sources, which would report the sources of such claims and these, in turn, could be verified. Two sources supporting the number of wounded actually report 450 "dead and wounded". This is clearly inconsistent with a claim of 600 (or more) dead. A claim of 600 dead is referred to in the text of the article but it is qualified - since not all of those dead could be attributed to the battle but to subsequent action. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 06:36, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Source for (partial?) non-hereditariness of "samurai" status?

This source has been cited for the claim that samurai/bushi/buké/shi status was only "largely" hereditary in pre-modern Japan. As far as I can tell from this edit summary and this talk page comment, the editor who has been adding the word "largely" has not actually read the source in question, so I believe this is a case of WP:CITEWIKI, but the Wikipedia page in question (Edo society#Samurai) actually says

There were social stratifications within the samurai class: upper-level samurai had direct access to their daimyō and could hold his most trusted positions, with some achieving a level of wealth that allowed them to retain their own samurai vassals. Mid-level samurai held military and bureaucratic positions, and had some interactions with their daimyō if needed. Low-level samurai could be paid as little as a subsistence wage and worked as guards, messengers and clerks. Positions within the samurai class were largely hereditary and talented individuals could not rise above a few social steps beyond their birth.

which I read as not referring to "samurai status" itself but rather specific jobs/ranks within the social class in question.

Input from someone with access to the original source or with knowledge of this topic area (of which I admit I am relatively ignorant—I'm mostly interested in the literature of Nara through Kamakura periods and am just a "casual reader" when it comes to the military aristocracy of Japan in the late medieval / early modern period) would be especially helpful, but any third-party opinions would be appreciated.

The user is also arguing that "samurai status" was not hereditary at all,[78][79] so any additional sources on that front, one way or the other, would be helpful: everything I've ever read has stated, implied, or "assumed" the hereditary status of the social class in question; I would consider these sources to be generally reliable for the content in question (all are published by either Continuum International Publishing Group or university presses, and the authors include a Japanese literature specialist, a historian on the editorial board of the journal Sino-Japanese Studies, a "Sinologist and East Asian literary scholar who was a professor and administrator at Columbia University for nearly 70 years", and a historian of early modern Japan), but third-party opinions would be most welcome.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

One clarification is that I never said samurai aren't hereditary at all. Just that the primary dictionary definitions do not reduce them to that, instead describing them as retainers of the Daimyo. natemup (talk) 16:09, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• In context its referring to positions/rank held by members of the Samurai class. Not the 'class' itself. Which seems to be a pointless distraction anyway from looking at the cause of the dispute, as with many warrior-caste systems, rank within was hereditary, with little movement overall up/down, but individuals of distinction would of course be promoted/demoted. Hence the use of 'largely'. Both the class itself, and positions within the class were largely hereditary, and I am unaware of any serious scholorship that suggests otherwise. (There are of course in Japan some notable regional exceptions where the usual class structure was not so rigid, but AFAIK not at this time and place). Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, my understanding is that, in general, if your father was a samurai, you are a samurai, but this does not preclude people whose fathers were not samurai becoming samurai. (I've read Musashi!) I think the use of "hereditary" is in accordance with this, without the clarifier "largely", hence the large number of reliable sources that do so. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Kootenai Valley Times

The website, Kootenai Valley Times, is being used in the article Owen Benjamin about a zoning dispute between the article subject and his neighbors to make claims about "Benjamin's supposed use of his 10 acre property to form as a potential cult or 'Aryan Style' compound". The diff for the content being added to the Wikipedia page is here and a link to the source article is here. There is also a discussion at BLPN, where Morbidthoughts suggested I bring the source reliability issue here (WP:BLPN#Owen Benjamin). The website for the source is owned, edited, and managed by Mike Weland (see "Kootenai Valley Times" about page) with no evidence of editorial oversight or other processes for fact-checking, and the article about the zoning dispute is also written by Mike Weland, who lives in the same small community. Most of the article is quoting various aspects of the complaints against Benjamin, and the website in general has little content and many days have no more than one new posting, with most of the content looking like press releases from local schools, police, and community organizations. I believe this is a self-published source that should not generally be used on a BLP per WP:BLPSPS, especially not for this type of labeling. Any additional input is appreciated. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:24, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• And I'll say again, and I invoke User:MjolnirPants, that this looks like a small, local newspaper whose reporting we do not need to disparage just because it's small, and that it can be used with caution. In this case, what it reports on are things said in city or council meetings, on what various people said about this one thing, and there really is no reason to suppose that they are lying. Content should be handled with care, and opinions should clearly be phrased as such, of course. Drmies (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't think this is a case of the people lying at city council meetings or the website lying about what they said, but rather whether the source is reliable enough for including those types of labels and allegations on a BLP article. The reliability standards are meant to make the information in Wikipedia's articles better, not about disparaging sources. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Yea, this looks self-published. Weland seems to be the only writer for the site and he is the owner. There are two other employees, but it looks like they only deal with sales/advertising and not with editorial content. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

• It is an online newspaper/radio station serving a small town of 2500 people, supported by advertising from many local businesses. It was published on newsprint paper in the past. Weland is not the only writer. The paper recently published a detailed summary of the last Idaho legislative session written by Jim Woodward (politician), the local state senator. The content may seem banal to big city folks but after reading about ten articles, I see no signs of crank or kook content. They clearly have an interest in investigating the scourge of fentanyl addiction in their community, for example. I consider it a reliable source for news of Bonners Ferry, Idaho and surrounding Boundary County, Idaho. In the spirit of full disclosure, my great-grandparents settled in Northern Idaho around 1880, and I still have many relatives there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The articles by Jim Woodward read like editorials or guest posts rather than news articles [80], similar to this April article by Creston Mayor Ron Toyota [81] or this March article by the Boundary Community Hospital Marketing Director [82], which are all listed under the "News" category on the site. While there is a separate "Letters" category, the site does not seem to identify which articles are submitted editorials or whether those articles have any editorial oversight or fact-checking. Aside from a few articles by Bruce McClure and Deborah Byrd from another website, EarthSky.org (such as [83]), the other articles that had an author byline (going back to January in the "News" category) similarly look like submitted content rather than news content written by staff writers, such as [84] [85] [86] [87]. Being from a small town, there are many good sources for local community information, but that does not mean those sources are reliable enough for contentious labels in a BLP, especially when they are the only source using terms like "cult" (and not even in their own voice). – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
    • The other source is stronger and uses less value laden terminology, but the existence of two separate media outlets covering the issue in this lightly populated area indicates that it is worthy of inclusion. In my view, both references should stay in the article for the benefit of readers trying to learn more. I think the word "cult" should be removed. Boundary County, though, is the location of Ruby Ridge and that greatly influences the local discourse. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
      • I did not know that, and so thank you for that additional bit of information, which is very helpful to understanding the context. I think that is actually a good argument for directly mentioning the alleged "'Ruby Ridge style' compound" in the way the stronger source does rather than the "'Aryan Nations' style compound" from the Kootenai Valley Times source. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
        • For additional context, the Aryan Nations], considered a historically important nationwide white supremacist terrorist group, was headquartered for decades in Kootenai County, Idaho, a short distance south of Boundary County but still in the Idaho panhandle. Sane people in that part of Idaho are sensitive about these fanatics. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
• Here is some WP:USEBYOTHERS: [88][89][90][91] It is enough, for a small local paper, that I at least don't feel it's reasonable to keep calling it "self-published". Is there any other reason to be skeptical of them? --Aquillion (talk) 09:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
• I am a regular reader of the site, owing to some time I've spent in the region. It's a small-town newspaper, full stop. It has three employees (all stories are written by the majority owner, Mike Weland and the other two employees handle sales), is widely accepted locally, has been cited by other, larger outlets, and I challenge anyone disputing this to find an example of fake news on the site. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:47, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
• I would oppose the specific edit in dispute. A 3 person paper is hardly more than a self published blog in terms of editorial oversite. The issue in this case is the description is both subjective and loaded. Consider the difference between describing something as "a large home with a security fence" vs an "aryne style compound". One simply implies the size of the home and that the owner is concerned about security. The other suggests the owner may be racist. The use of this description suggests the editor/author may be biased with respect to the issue at hand and thus we should be careful about subjective comments/opinions within what might otherwise be a fact based article. Another question that could be raised here is if this content is DUE in the BLP article. Springee (talk) 13:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
• From what I've read so far, this would qualify as a self-published source. From WP: V "Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of content. Further examples of self-published sources include press releases, material contained within company websites, advertising campaigns, material published in media by the owner(s)/publisher(s) of the media group, self-released music albums and electoral manifestos" (emphasis mine). So in context of BLP's the source is unusable. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
• Springee raises an important question by asking about DUE WEIGHT. Even if we were to deem a 3 person “local news” site marginally reliable, I would question the appropriateness of using it in a BLP unless larger more reliable sources also report on the same information (and in which case, we can cite those sources). Blueboar (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

  Blueboar, I had a discussion with Masem about that, and both of us agreed and laid out reasons why coverage this sparse should be appropriate, given Benjamin's diminished celebrity. You can read it at WP:BLPN#Owen Benjamin. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

  • I would agree with Masem’s reasoning in that thread. I think any mention of the spat between Benjamin and his neighbors is basically UNDUE ... at this point. That could change in the future (if the story grows beyond being a local spat and gets reported on in more regional news sites), but right now it just does not rise to the level of being the sort of encyclopedic information that is suitable for a BLP. Blueboar (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

    I disagree, but I certainly find that to be a very reasonable position, and won't try to litigate it here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:08, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

The onus of proving it is rs lies with the editor who wants to use it. It probably does, because Weland was a reporter at KBFI and the site looks professional. But just because someone is qualified, does not necessarily mean the news service is. More importantly, as other editors have mentioned, weight requires more coverage than just a local newspaper. Presumably if it is important, national news sources will pick up on the story. TFD (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• I read the source when I lived right out side Bonners, I still read them. That said they are a self published source and should not be used. The edit in question uses Bonners Ferry Herald as well which is better. No comment on due weight for inclusion in the article. PackMecEng (talk) 16:24, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
• I find it funny that there are three editors in this thread with a local connection to such a sparsely populated part of the country. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

  True facts! I was surprised you were there. Here is a picture I took at the black mountains south of Bonners.[92] My in laws retired up in Naples and we went with to help get the place ready. Lovely place but we missed having you know, things around. PackMecEng (talk) 02:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

  PackMecEng, Very nice. I had some family up near Sandpoint, and a friend I made through them further North, with whom I bought some property, and we're planning a couple of cabins. Haven't done much more than clear the land, and Covid didn't help, but hopefully before too long I'll be summering up near Bonner's Ferry pretty regularly. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

  Not super liberal Sandpoint!? Did you happen to see the kerfuffle with the dueling Trump sign vs the inclusiveness sign in Bonners? PackMecEng (talk) 02:47, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Very serious crime, but only deprecated sources

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

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

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

Should we cite the available sources?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Sun (Malaysia)

I reviewed a page that cited this newspaper. The link that's cited [93] reads very promotional which made me doubt the reliability of this source. I didn't find any existing discussions on this so I thought to start a new thread (I also have another hidden agenda here - that is to observe and learn how experienced editors determine the reliability and steps they take!). Thank you. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:10, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

This and this explain why no media outlets based in Malaysia, including The Sun, should be considered reliable sources. Additionally, The Sun is owned and operated by the Berjaya Corporation colossus and its founder Vincent Tan, about whom his reliably-sourced enWiki entry pretty much says it all: Tan's success in the Malaysian business sector has been attributed in part to his close association with prominent Malay political figures. Even The Sun's coverage of relatively innocuous topics like sports should not be considered reliable, as Tan owns several professional football teams around the world. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nomadicghumakkad: Normally when I get a source like this, I try to go section-by-section to see if they have different reliability. Some papers have sections that are marked advertising, which is obviously not a reliable source, while others are more opinion-y/analysis-heavy in ways that impact its reliability as a news source.

Looking through this particular source, which I have never seen before, it doesn't really look like it does a lot of its own reporting; the majority of the information that I clicked through was syndicated content from Reuters, AFP, or Bernama. The lattermost source isn't editorially independent of Malaysia's government, so I'd expect there to be editorial independence issues regarding at least some the content that it serves. Some of its content seems to be more entertainment than news (its True Crime section (see here) certainly gives off a tabloid-esque feel. But, I'm not sure if it's just tone (which doesn't impact reliability except inasmuch as we shouldn't use it for extraordinary labels) or if that manifests as a factual problem. Its "supplement" section appears to be entirely advertisements (and I think that it's clearly marked by this section heading, though I'm not sure it's obvious even to all native English speakers that this is the case). The "Gear up!" section appears to be something between advertorial and an opinionated product review section. Its "going viral" section has a heavy human-interest focus, which can create quality concerns, though some pieces just feel like native advertising. Regarding sports coverage, I don't necessarily see Tan's ownership as a problem; the vast majority of the sports stories appear to be syndicated in that space (to the extent that I can't find a sports article written by its staff). If you need to use it to cite Bernama for something related to Malaysian Badminton, it's probably to cite the reprint published in The Sun while noting in the citation that it's from a wire service. If you want to cite The Sun's original reporting original reporting on this sort of stuff, it also seems fine; I don't see a reason to not use them. I can't quite tell if it's reliable to publish its interviews, since punctuation in some of the quotes provided by the paper isn't something that can easily be pulled out of verbal speech.

Overall, it's floating between WP:MREL and WP:GUNREL for me regarding its original reporting. The syndicated content should be evaluated by the reliability of the source of the reporting itself, and it would be preferable to link to that source rather than this newspaper. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:36, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

On a separate note, there is a website called "The Malaysia Sun," which is different than the source we are discussing here. The link provided appears to be for a news organization called the "The Sun Daily". The title of this section should probably be revised so as to avoid confusion (and I may want to refactor my comments in light of this). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey Mikehawk10, thanks for this. I would consider this particular source cited unreliable then because of the tone it follows. The Sun (Malaysia) provides same website at their wiki page. Logo is also same. So I don't think you need to refactor here. Thank you. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 07:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

CBN - Christian Broadcasting Network

I see this source pop up from time to time. We have an article about it, Christian Broadcasting Network: a "conservative evangelical Christian religious television network and production company [f]ounded by televangelist Pat Robertson". Based just on that description, it should be obvious that we shouldn't be using this for any kind of remotely controversial statement of fact, and that it should be treated as a WP:BIASEDSOURCE.

But I see that we cite it on an awful lot of pages.

The place I noticed it being added today was at Ark Encounter, using it to back up a claim that "Ark Encounter opened a new $3 million virtual reality experience". It's actually cited to Faithwire (which is why it caught my attention -- "wire" in the name is always suspicious for its association with press releases) but the story originated at CBN... sort of. CBN published an almost sentence-for-sentence close slight reword of the official press release. Unambiguous churnalism.

I'm opening this section not to ask whether it should be used to back up this particular claim, but to ask whether this churnalism is normal for CBN? If it regularly publishes reheated press releases, we should be reevaluating this much-used source. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:09, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I've seen virtually this exact same question asked at a talk page for something creationism-related, where CBN republished a press release from the Discovery Institute which made opinionated statements and wanted to repeat those statements in wikivoice because CBN published it. My advice would be to follow your first suggestion, and only use it for the most uncontroversial claims of fact, or to source notable opinions. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:19, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

This is a tough one because in the area in which they’re most used (Christian music) they’re actually very reliable. The problem is that real potential for damage exist in other topic spaces like politics, history, science, and society. Balancing those two isn’t going to be easy and I don’t envy the closer. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, they may be useful for topics directly related to Evangelical Christianity, where we need a source that documents an Evangelical perspective reliably in the context of that perspective. If CBN does an interview with a leader or spokesperson from an Evangelical group like the Southern Baptist Convention, it may be the best source available, especially since one might assume that they would be the most likely to accurately reflect those views (and that such a leader or spokesperson could be more likely to be honest with such a source). Same for music. A Creationist museum like that Ark is a difficult one, they are likely to be one of the few sources covering it, but they obviously have a clear and admitted bias. Hyperion35 (talk) 17:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: Regarding the topic area of society specifically, what are you seeing that makes you predict damage to the project? I'm not super familiar with the source, but I'm wondering what you've seen (and also the scope of what you mean by "society"). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:47, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• Depends on context. Having a bias does not automatically make a source unreliable. Having a FRINGE viewpoint can make it UNDUE in a given topic, but that is a separate issue from reliability (and one that also dependent on context).

I am increasingly thinking that we need to hive WP:BIASED off from WP:RS, and expand it... so we can more fully explain how bias interacts with both WP:V and WP:NPOV (and to better explain how to appropriately discuss and cite what biased sources say.) Blueboar (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn’t presenting a fact from a fringe viewpoint without acknowledging the fringe status of that viewpoint inherently be a reliability issue? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

No... How best to accurately describe a viewpoint is actually a Neutrality issue, not a reliability issue. Blueboar (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Why is that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Because to describe the nature of a viewpoint (accurately), we need to put our own opinions about the viewpoint to one side. If we are going to describe a viewpoint, our description needs to be based on how sources describe it (and not just one source... it should be a summary of a majority of sources). That is the core of our NPOV policy. Blueboar (talk) 00:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• Depends on context the context is above, and it's not about Having a bias does not automatically make a source unreliable. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:36, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• As WP:BIASEDSOURCES says, 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. In light of this, the reliability looks like it would depend on context. It's probably reliable for the fact that Ken Ham became a science teacher in Australia and for other non-extraordinary biographical information described in the article. I wouldn't use it for facts on evolution, seeing as its particular bias will affect its reliability (with respect to fact-checking) regarding that topic. The question is more on which topics its bias affects; it seems to be mostly reliable (even its written coverage on China-issued sanctions against Johnnie Moore Jr. seems to be unobjectionable and its coverage of a story on dwindling bipartisanship doesn't appear to have any obvious factual errors or things that scream "this is a politically biased source to the extent it impacts reliability"). It seems to be politically and theologically conservative (and more or less self-describes as so), and I wouldn't generally use it as a sole for extraordinary facts (especially for BLPs and/or pre-history/history), but it seems fine when the topic doesn't really come into the crosshairs of its religious affiliation. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with points made by @Mikehawk10

based on WP:BIASEDSOURCES.HaughtonBrit (talk) 02:48, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Mental Floss

What is the reliability of Mental Floss for their "historical trivia"?

In the talk page discussion for Ball (association football), a Mental Floss source was removed for incorrectly claiming that the ball used in association football was invented by Buckminster Fuller.

And in the talk page discussion for Henry Woodward (inventor), Mental Floss again seemed to make a questionable claim.

In Milunka Savić, an editor tagged a claim from Mental Floss as potentially unreliable.

Banana peel cites Mental Floss to claim an origin for the use of banana peels as comical gags, but the Mental Floss article itself doesn't contain any references. Glieze (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to say that it's not a reliable source. There are too many issues, and the lack of sourcing for a lot of surprising claims is also a bad sign. Mangoe (talk) 01:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Mental Floss is a listicle website/youtube channel, and it should never be cited for anything. Most of it is probably true, but it's an infotainment site not a scholarly source. We should expect more scrupulously professional and scholarly sources than the Mental Floss, Watch Mojo, etc. etc. type of sources. --Jayron32 17:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

TheBlot nomination to move to spam list

TheBlot website (launched in 2013 by the businessman Benjamin Wey is a tabloid magazine based in the US.

• https://www.theblot.com https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Wey

(Website link)

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

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

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

The links:

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

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

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

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

(See Reuters and Washington Post above)

• Here is one about Roddy Boyd, a former journalist for The New York Post. The journalist exposed Wey’s dubious activity and was attacked by theBlot tabloid

https://web.archive.org/web/20160620135300/https://www.cjr.org/analysis/shadowy_war.php

Source: Columbia Journalism Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

3) Furthermore, the source is a yellow press tabloid in character, similar to Daily Mail or The Sun but much worse as it covers the topics related

to spam websites border-lining with indecent topics and sensationalism just to catch any reader’s attention. --DrIlyaTsyrlov (talk) 22:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Twitch Tracker

• twitchtracker.com
• twitchtracker.com/criticalrole/subscribers

An IP account just added Lately, Twitch subscriptions are averaging around 29,000 paid subscribers to Critical Role Productions citing the website Twitch Tracker. Previous Twtich & YouTube numbers in the article cited news articles. I can't find much about this analytics site; does anyone know if it is considered reliable? Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 23:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Pop history source that disagrees with its own cited (specialist) source?

[94]

Basically, Kaneko Hiraku is a Japanese historian with a PhD in the relevant field, from a prestigious university, who now works (or at least worked at the time of publication in 2009) as an assistant curator of the historical resources collection at the most prestigious university in Japan.[95] He quotes, and then briefly analyses, a long passage from the Sonkei-kaku Text of the primary source, the Shinchō-ki. He presents this passage as a possible late (fanciful) addition based on an imaginative expansion of another older source, while recognizing that, since other additions made to the same text are generally seen as important historical resources, the passage in question can't be rejected outright.

Thomas Lockley is an English lecturer in a prestigious Japanese university who sometimes teaches classes on topics he is interested in,[96] through English, with English immersion apparently being the primary goal of the courses. In the last few years he has apparently written a few popular history books (and one non-specialist article for the semi-annual organ of his faculty[97]) in English (and one book for Japanese readers with the title Read in English: The Japanese History and Culture That Foreigners Really Want to Know[98]). His "About the Author" sections and the like almost never mention either (a) where and in what field he got his degrees, (b) his work résumé (which includes at least two decades of TEFL and other seemingly-general pedagogical work,[99] including at Kanda Foreign Language University[100]), or (c) the fact that seemingly all of his peer-reviewed publications are on language education rather than history.[101] Lockley's books and that one article generally cite the Kaneko passage described above, but where Kaneko's description ignores the fact that Yasuke was apparently given a "さや巻之のし付" (i.e., a dagger with a scabbard and a decorative sheet of gold/silver attached to the scabbard), perhaps because Kaneko saw it as unimportant, Lockley takes it to be "a short, ceremonial katana". In at least one later Zoom/YouTube lecture, where he doesn't cite either primary or secondary sources (but is clearly still referring to same passage), Lockley places even greater emphasis on his interpretation of this passage.[102]

Lockley (self-disclosure here and here) actually added this text to Wikipedia before his own writings on the subject were published,[103][104] so at the time, as far as Wikipedia was concerned, the text was unsourced OR, but now that his books and that one article have been published it's a little greyer. We could just replace the citation, but we also know that his cited sources (both primary and secondary) don't agree with his conclusions, and since he doesn't seem to have any qualifications in the relevant field, I wonder if it would be better to rewrite the text to be more in accordance with what Kaneko wrote. Thoughts?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Remove the pop source and use the expert-in-the-field work. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

American Community Survey

I am being told that the American Community Survey conducted by the U.S. Census is not a reliable source and its inclusion is misleading (so my additions were removed to Portland, Oregon and Tacoma, Washington). I think the American Community Survey is a highly reliable source and should be included.The diffs are:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portland%2C_Oregon&type=revision&diff=1025674364&oldid=1025607899
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tacoma%2C_Washington&type=revision&diff=1025674215&oldid=1025606056

The References are:

• "B03002 HISPANIC OR LATINO ORIGIN BY RACE - Tacoma, Washington - 2019 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates". U.S. Census Bureau. July 1, 2019. Retrieved May 28, 2021.
• "B03002 HISPANIC OR LATINO ORIGIN BY RACE - Portland - 2019 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates". U.S. Census Bureau. July 1, 2019. Retrieved May 28, 2021.

Patapsco913 (talk) 05:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Generally reliable and primary.The American Community Survey is a generally reliable source that is widely used and is perfectly usable for what you are trying to do; sources even consider it to be a principal source of high-resolution geographic information about the U.S. population (though errors may be greater in certain communities than others). The margins of error tend to be a bit larger than the census data, which may be why the other editor seems to want to wait until the Census results are released, though since Wikipedia is constantly a work-in-progress. while the links you are providing are also primary source links, though they seem to be used appropriately in that context, and I think inclusion improves the articles. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:48, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree fully with Mikehawk10. When full results of the 2020 Census appear (early December 2021), just don't forget to update the info. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 05:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Consistency between articles is important. Giving undue weight to the ACS without an adequate prose disclaimer (which was not provided) would be misleading to readers and imply that there was a census conducted in 2019. There's a long-held consensus for U.S. city articles to not update racial/ethnic data until the official census. SounderBruce 07:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Could you please provide the link that states the consensus? I can't find it. Besides, if the only issue is with the lack of disclaimer, what is only needed is to add the clarification that this is ACS, and not census data. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I could add some prose to differentiate it from the Census apart from the heading such as: "According to 2019 US Census Bureau American Community Survey one-year estimates (which is conducted annually for cities over 65,000 via sampling), Portland's population was 77.3% White (70.5% Non-Hispanic White and 6.8% Hispanic White), 5.6% Black or African American, 0.8% Native American and Alaskan Native, 8.2% Asian, 0.3% Pacific Islander, 2.2% Some Other Race, and 5.7% from two or more races." see full my commentary on Talk:Portland, Oregon#Use of 2019 United States Census Bureau American Community Survey. Patapsco913 (talk) 12:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• The source is scrupulously reliable, but as a primary source, should be prefaced with the "According to the US Census Bureau's American Community Survey, in year X, yada yada yada" is probably the way you want to attribute it. I wouldn't use the data to present anything in Wikipedia's voice except raw statistics, and I would always attribute it directly in text so the source is known. --Jayron32 17:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

"Mixed article" website

The year and place of birth of a BLP was added by an IP, cited to https://www.mixedarticle.com/jill-mortimer-wikipedia-hartlepool/ . The article there does not inspire confidence, and shows no source for the year or place of birth. Since this person was elected as an MP various editors have tried to find her date of birth but the only published information is that she was "aged 56" on publication date. I have reverted this edit on the basis that it does not appear to be a Reliable Source, but would welcome other views. PamD 07:20, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Avoid it. I see no indication of their having strong editorial oversight, and ans-wer (of which "mixedarticle.com" is part of) seems to be some obscure Nepalese website. Particularly for a BLP, don't use it. PS. While I can forgive them making a typo in normal cases, misspelling DMCA as DCMA (and repeating the mistake even as they later post the right acronym) is not something that casts them in good light. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:22, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Just like Szmenderowiecki mentioned, it can be avoided. DCMA as important link doesn't match the abbreviation at the bottom of the page that states DMCA. This weakens the credibility of the source itself.HaughtonBrit (talk) 13:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

There isn't a single thing about that website that inspires any confidence in anything. The fact it goes on about how her Wikipedia article is to be developed is rather odd to say the least as well. Makes me wonder if it isn't a front for a group of paid editors. Canterbury Tail talk 14:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

True. Same thoughts. Can't agree more.HaughtonBrit (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Sportskeeda generally unreliable?

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

sportskeeda.com is currently used as a source in ~2000 articles, heavily focussed on Indian sport and popular culture. Concern about this source has been expressed before here by Hipal and here by Fishhead2100. A look at the website shows their editorial oversight seems pretty lax. Their list of content editors doesn't even include anyone for pop culture topics. I'm wondering if they need to be considered generally unreliable except in the case of pieces from professional journalists. —valereee (talk) 14:26, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't have anything to add from before. They don't clearly distinguish their own content from submitted content that I can see. It would be useful to find some of their corrections, or their articles that clearly need corrections. --Hipal (talk) 16:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of citations from sportskeeda be removed for being unreliable. Here are some interesting links of theirs: becoming a writer, becoming an editor, and their affiliate program, which from what I can tell is that they will pay you to link to their articles. From their writer's page: Writing at Sportskeeda is a great way to make your content reach thousands (sometimes millions) of readers. It also helps promote your personal brand, and even earn you some money!. Hmm... they even promote the conflicts of interest there!

Their only requirements for writers are that you have samples of previous work, a CV, and be proficient in English, but not a proper journalist (however they recommend 'freshers' to not apply). To be an editor would understandably be more strict, but it's even less detailed and all it really says they want is an exceptional command over English and extensive knowledge of sports. They do not mention journalistic experience in either page.

I would recommend that the source be deprecated. It in every way appears to be a content farm. SWinxy (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I would support deprecation as well. I've in the past seen Sportskeeda publish inaccurate information and they don't appear to have any process for corrections. From the above, they are quite obviously a content farm and the encouragement of COI publishing is a nail in the coffin for me. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I've come across Sportskeeda in YouTuber BLP articles and I have to say I think that it's a low quality source that appears to have very little editorial oversight. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Very little? That's gracious. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:26, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

"...heavily focused on Indian sport and culture." That's not quite accurate. They have have non-Indians writers. They cover WWE/AEW (pro wrestling), tennis, NFL, UFC, basketball (NBA, college basketball), and other non-Indian leagues/sports. They have a pop culture section where it's has a lot of non-Indian content. Just because they have a good number of Indian writers and sections for Indian sports articles doesn't mean the site is 100 percent Indian focused. Just because Sportskeeda has been used as a source doesn't equate to reliability. WP:UNRELIABLESOURCE has been outlined as you can see. When it comes to it being removed, the WP:PW has Sportskeeda on that project's list of unreliable sources. So it's never used to source pro wrestling articles. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 00:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Based on comments from @SWinxy, @Tayi Arajakate and @Fishhead2100, I would also support deprecating it and/or marking it unreliable. -- DaxServer (talk) 12:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I am in agreement with the majority here and support the unreliability of Sportskeeda. Editorial oversight, personal gain for financial reason leads it to being deprecated.HaughtonBrit (talk) 13:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

One thing I forgot to mention is that their fact checking process is not known. In the realm of pro wrestling, it's mostly linking to previous in-house articles while at times regurgitating (that's what dirt sheets usually do) what Dave Meltzer (long time wrestling "journalist") says whether true or not. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 20:39, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

News media on the lab leak theory

Matthew Yglesias has an outline on how news media have mishandled reporting of the laboratory incident hypothesis for COVID-19: The media's lab leak fiasco. It's well worth a read as it highlights systemic issues with media reporting in the early days of COVID, especially on misrepresentations of scientific consensus and statements by Tom Cotton. We may want to review any news articles we cited from that era to make sure that we are not repeating their mistakes in Wikipedia voice. feminist (+) 14:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Feminist, that was a good read. There is a long post on this topic above [105]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CutePeach (talk • contribs) 09:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding (IJMMU)

Hi. Is IJMMU a reliable source? Its editorial team are academics and it does have an impact factor, at least in 2015. Taha (talk) 17:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

It is not, and that is a fake impact factor, further proof this is not a reliable journal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Based on its fees, it is a reliable source of six to twelve grands (€) per month for the person(s) behind the Global Institute for Multidisciplinary Knowledge and Responsible Future. –Austronesier (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

LOL. (t · c) buidhe 15:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Igromania as a reliable Gaming Source

Would Igromania be be considered a reliable source on video games per Wikipedia_talk:VG/S/A8#Russian_print_magazines? I'm considering adding it as reliable to WikiProject Video games/Sources. Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

It cannot be considered reliable because it's in Russian and only those who can read Russian can get benefit from it but for the majority of English or non-Russian speakers, it won't be of any help. Also its hard to verify and validate the content that the source references to and to make sure that the reference actually provides proof about what the content states. If there is an English translation of Igromania site, then surely it can be reliable but since its all in Russian, it cannot be reliable. HaughtonBrit (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

This is totally wrong. There is nothing wrong with citing foreign language sources per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources and indeed it would be difficult to cover many foreign language topics without using them. I have no opinion on the reliability of Igromania, but the fact that it is written in Russian is irrelevant. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:34, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

no not totally wrong. Problem is how do you verify the foreign language reference with the English content on the article to make sure they both match? This is the main concern because anyone can make a false statement on the article and reference the foreign language source with it possibly causing vandal. HaughtonBrit (talk) 19:38, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes its totally wrong. Go read WP:V and come back when you have. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, you are misrepresenting Wikipedia policy (WP:NONENG), which clearly says Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. Just as we allow paywalled and offline sources, we allow sources written in languages other than English. Continuing to quote from this policy, As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page. (See Template:Request quotation.) Umimmak (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually (WP:NONENG) clears my concerns. Thank you for sharing this.

Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance.  I haven't misrepresented Wikipedia policy as no policy was mentioned in my statement earlier. It clearly states that If you quote a non-English reliable source (whether in the main text or in a footnote), a translation into English should always accompany the quote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations." So editors can use a reliable non-English source as long as the quote from it is translated by reliable source. This was my only concern which is clear now. So if Igromamia can be considered reliable then quotes will have to be translated by reliable source before sharing. Igromania seems to be valid registered domain but the credibility of its reliability is doubtful. Other opinions are welcomed to help the questionnaire which except one, no one has shared their thoughts yet about reliability of Igromania.HaughtonBrit (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@HaughtonBrit: The point is that it's preferred to use English material but non-English material is welcome, especially if the cited info doesn't appear in English language sources. Also Russian is not a secret code: there are Russian speaking editors who can read the material and translate it WhisperToMe (talk) 17:03, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: Yes you have point but as long as the non-English material is translated by reliable source for verification of the cited info, non-English source can be reliable in that case and then can be added to the cited info on the article.HaughtonBrit (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@HaughtonBrit: Indeed the policy Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources states that "official" translations (ones done by reliable sources) are generally preferable to ones done by Wikipedians themselves. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Just to set the record straight, "quoting" in the policy refers to actual quoting, as in taking a chunk of text from a source and adding it to an article. There is no general requirement to translate cited sources. Alaexis_¿question? 18:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Igromania is/was generally reliable (the print magazine is no longer published), I am not aware of issues with it and wasn't able to find anything. Given the nature of the area they are working in, I think most of the time it should be possible to find English-language sources. Alaexis_¿question? 06:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Lab leak theory STILL redirects to COVID misinformation article

This is such an obvious wp:npov breaking stance that it's hard to see how can serious editors still scuff at continuing the status quo. EVERY DAY more articles come out about investigating what you guys keep calling "the misinformation". There are over 20 links of mainstream news articles arguing against the archaic activistic views of wikipedia. I see more energy put into blowing the UCoC story instead of this news-relevant story. 2601:602:9200:1310:9D25:707:D2C5:95C2 (talk) 08:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

While there are indeed many new articles about it, there is little new evidence, and evidence that exists is circumstantial and sometimes has unclear origin (as in anonymous intelligence reports), so I don't think we shouldn't swing too much in the opposite direction until there are higher quality sources. I'd support redirecting it to Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. Alaexis_¿question? 09:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

The lab theory is an obvious WP:FRINGE theory lacking any evidence whatsoever. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Whether it is fringe (or not) is irrelevant... it is a notable theory. We do have to cover it. So the question is simply HOW to cover it, and WHERE best to do so. Blueboar (talk) 13:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE is our guideline for handling such topics. Questions about how to cover it should be discussed at the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Origins of SARS-CoV-2 as they have nothing to do with RS. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Part of the issue is that there are (at least) two lab leak theories - a conspiracy theory about an intentional leak that is given essentially no credence at all in reliable sources, and a separate theory of an accidental leak. The second theory is not the mainstream theory but it's more minority than fringe given multiple reliable mainstream sources are saying it is (very) unlikely but more evidence is needed before it can be completely ruled out. You are correct though that this is not an issue for this noticeboard. Thryduulf (talk) 11:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Right-wing deference and COVID-19 misinfo by San Diego news station

I have some concerns generally about the political slant, editorial independence and reliability of KUSI-TV, a television station in San Diego. In January 2019, the station said CNN had refused to have on one of their reporters for political reasons, but had no evidence for the claim. When U.S. Congressman Duncan D. Hunter did an interview with KUSI-TV in December 2019, while he was in the middle of a federal indictment, the station stuck to questions provided by his team. And in August 2020, they ran a highly flattering "exclusive" with notorious anti-vaccine activist (and later Capitol stormer) Simone Gold, framing her as "censored" and writing about "why the medical community, and Democrat legislators won’t embrace the drug as a valid treatment option for those infected with coronavirus" and "the success they have had using Hydroxychloroquine to treat patients infected with coronavirus." Needless to say, this recent track record of imbalance to the U.S. Republican Party and political right is concerning for what is supposed to be an independent station. Reposting as this was initially archived before any discussion. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 11:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Any evidence they make stuff up?Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Did you read the part about CNN and the part where they said hydroxychloroquine helped cure COVID? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 11:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I read the article you linked... and I don’t see where they say hydrocychloroqine cures Covid. What they report is that some doctors said it helps treat Covid. This is fact... there were doctors saying this. (And please note that there is a difference between a treatment and a cure). Blueboar (talk) 12:03, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

My mistake. And yes, there were some people with medical degrees saying this (Gold and Stella Immanuel, the alien sex demon lady, come to mind) but it doesn't mean a newsroom should run a glowing, completely uncritical puff piece on them. That has to knock this station's credibility, or at very least their editorial judgment. And calling it "censorship" as they do is in fact untrue. This sentence from the article, "Since President Trump promoted hydroxychloroquine as a beneficial treatment, the media, big tech, and Democrat officials have been adamant about not allowing anyone to speak in favor of the drug", is indistinguishable to me from a Breitbart piece. That wasn't a Gold quote – that was their reporter. Any local media outlet warning about someone being "smeared by the mainstream media" is clearly thus distinguishing themselves from the mainstream media (the bulk of WP:RSP). To be clear, the vast majority of local news stations are not like this. The linked piece is thoroughly problematic by itself, and with a documented history of related pandering as provided by the other sources, I think this source's reliability needs to be thoroughly considered. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 12:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Bias and reliability can overlap, but they are not the same thing. I certainly would not give this source much WEIGHT (due to its bias), but I would place it on the reliability scale I would place it on the “reliable” side of the line. It does retract when it gets facts wrong. Blueboar (talk) 12:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I looked at it but honestly as far as reliability is concerned, its weak. You can look for corroboration from a second source. Also the news makes updates and correction periodically which is the similar case with most local TV channels. Just my two cents. HaughtonBrit (talk) 13:49, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Not for noting, but the San Diego Tribune piece making the allegations was written by an opinion columnist and it looks like the piece is subject to WP:RSOPINION. The particular piece regarding Hydroxychloroquine isn't a great look, but this is why we have WP:MEDRS (reputable national stations seem to have been similarly bad in their coverage of the vaccine-autism debacle, including at least one listed at WP:RSP as generally reliable(!) that stated in the voice of the magazine that there was a conspiracy to cover up alleged autism-causing effects of chemicals in vaccines). If there's a pattern of this sort of stuff, then I'd be a bit more concerned. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:MEDRS goes into play. The popular press in general is considered an un reliable source for medical claims. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I do not think enough attention is being given presently to the Hunter article, which shows non-independence, and the CNN article, showing deliberate publication of lies. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 03:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

The article in the San Diego Tribune was written by Charles T. Clark, a columnist. It appears to be an opinion piece, and I'd hesitate to label a source based upon that. The AP article about CNN doesn't appear to be a good look for the source. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Here is another in-depth article reporting on their interview with Congressman Hunter, including quotes from experts on journalism ethics: "This … only proves my point that this was not really journalism — it was a free ad. Had it been real journalism, the reporter would have asked follow-ups, challenged contradictions, and brought in additional points of view." I personally do not think that the Union-Tribune piece is a column; it is not labeled as such and does not read like a column (though I will admit it is strange to see a columnist do traditional news). This is a random example I just found on their website of what a column from that newspaper looks like: labeled "Opinion", description of the author below the byline, and "Commentary" and "Opinion" tags at the bottom. Here is another write-up of the CNN debacle, this time from The Hill. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 14:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• It is certainly reliable (as a primary source) for a statement about what Congressman Hunter said in the interview (it is unlikely that they misrepresented his views). The fact that they threw him softballs or did not ask follow up questions is irrelevant to that. Again, I am not seeing deliberate misrepresentation, here... this seems more like a NPOV issue than a reliability issue. Blueboar (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Some organizations I wanted to talk about.

In particular:

• The New Humanitarian (formerly known as IRIN) (https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/)
• International Crisis Group (https://www.crisisgroup.org/) (Think tank; I've seen the think tank discussions but I wanted to ask about this particular one here.)

Currently my focus on these websites is to expand the article for Second Congo War, but these have been cited various times before (see here), including in said article:

On 16 January 2001, Laurent-Désiré Kabila was shot and killed by a bodyguard, Rashidi Mizele, at the presidential palace in Kinshasa. The government initially stated that Kabila was wounded but still alive when he was flown to Zimbabwe for intensive care.

For reference and completion, here's an excerpt from Foreign fighters in the Syrian civil war citing Crisis Group I found while going through some links:

Of the thousands of Turks who fought for the Islamic State and then returned to Turkey, only a few have been convicted.

I would like to know your opinions on whether these are reliable or not.

Note: Some changes were made to this by the user starting this discussion. A change in the excerpt was made.

References

Caehlla (talk) 13:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I've been using ICG reports for articles about the conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia in the 90s and the post-war situation there and I found them accurate and relatively unbiased. The criticism section mentions some issues but nothing to render them not reliable. Alaexis_¿question? 15:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• Caehlla Would avoid citing it for Second Congo War, which has tons of high-quality printed sources (academic papers + books). Even though both of these sources you mention above seem to have a decent reputation, similar to quality news organizations, scholarly sources are going to be more authoritative. Try WP:TWL or WP:RX to get access to paywalled sources. (t · c) buidhe 15:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

  You have a point. I actually would disagree a bit since, as you and others have pointed out, these seem to have a decent reputation. But certainly this is something for me to keep in mind. Thank you. Caehlla (talk) 16:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Both ICG and IRIN seem reliable. IRIN especially is trusted news source on humanitarian crises. ICG uses field research and also uses High level advocacy as their methodology.HaughtonBrit (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Alright. So, thank you for answering. Although we may need more answers to truly form a consensus, current opinion seems to indicate that these sources are indeed reliable. Caehlla (talk) 06:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Reliability of "The Appeal"?

There is an interview with a birth parent of children in the Hart family murders which I want to use as a source. The Appeal (magazine) is by Tides Advocacy and the about page is https://theappeal.org/about/ . It seems like a legitimate source to me but I would like some feedback as using the interview of the birth parent is a BLP dimension (the adoptive parents and the children have been dead for more than two years and no other people were involved in the murders, so the Hart family case itself is not a BLP case) WhisperToMe (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Looks legit and reliable source to me especially since they work with public officials, advocates, academics, and other journalists. And if you have secondary source to corroborate, that helps too. I consider TheAppeal reliable.HaughtonBrit (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I think what also helps is that the interview was conducted by Roxana Asgarian, who (based on her name being the same) also wrote articles sent to The Washington Post and The Oregonian about that case. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Interviews are tricky. Reliability depends on a) the publication, b) the journalist conducting the interview... and c) the person being interviewed (are they an expert, do they have an agenda, etc). In this case, I would say that the interview is reliable for an attributed statement as to what was said in the interview, but not necessarily for a factual claim written in WP’s voice. Blueboar (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

The article itself is mostly the journalist writing but Asgarian includes some excerpts stated by the interviewee. I want to use Asgarian's statement that a woman is the birth mother of three of the children and that she's white, and use the birth mother's interview statement on how she felt about government agencies not contacting her. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:42, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• Are we asking for a reliable source that the person in question said the things they said in the interview or that what they said in the interview is itself true? Those are two different questions and exactly what we are citing will determine whether or not the source should or should not be used as it is being used. Even if it is the first and not the second, WP:UNDUE comes in to play as well. --Jayron32 17:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

No Consensus on Platforms - Need Assistance

Hello. Here is a list of platforms that I need to know are usable as references when there are articles published on it offering significant coverage by independent authors. Need assistance with it. Please help as I am acquiring knowledge to become a better wikipedia editor. Was unable to find them on https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Spam_blacklist and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#. Here is the list.

Daily Payoneer (https://www.dailypioneer.com/),Female First (https://www.femalefirst.co.uk/), NYK Daily (https://nykdaily.com/),Entrepreneur India (https://www.entrepreneur.com/), Haute Living (https://hauteliving.com/), JPost (https://www.jpost.com/), Ocean Drive (https://oceandrive.com/), V-Magazine (https://vmagazine.com/), Android Headlines (https://www.androidheadlines.com/), This is 50 (https://thisis50.com/), The Source (https://thesource.com/), Hype Magazine (https://www.thehypemagazine.com/), Hype Fresh (https://www.hypefresh.co/).

I think discussion on this can really help the community of Wikipedia editors. --Skybluepants24 (talk) 12:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Skybluepants24, that's a very diverse group of sources for which there is not going to be a singular answer. One of them, Entrepreneur (RSP entry) is on the perennial list but the list is not supposed to be an exhaustive one, you should check if there has been any previous discussions on the others in the archives of this noticeboard, there is a search bar for it at the top. It would also be helpful if you could elaborate on what context you want to use them in. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Most of these are sniped sites or black hat SEO and I would remove them from any article I saw them in. The Source's web content is no longer reliable as tehy allow pay-for-publishing without identifying it as such. BEACHIDICAE🌊 15:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Healthgrades and Courthouse News

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

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

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

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

Bukharian Jewish Link editorial

There has been some question raised over whether this editorial on the website Bukharian Jewish Link counts as a reliable enough source for This text at the BLP article Yitzhak Israeli. I think I know what the answer is, but there's someone who doesn't agree, and I'm seeking additional input on the matter so that there is a clear weight of consensus behind it. One editor removed the text, I protected the article in question (I've never edited the article myself, never once heard of the person before I protected the article, and have no strong opinion about the subject matter other than enforcing Wikipedia BLP policy), and now there is an editor who insists that the source is reliable and that the text must be returned. Can we get some consensus on this so we can put the matter to rest. --Jayron32 16:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Visually confirmed loses in the Syrian war

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