Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Reliable sources

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nishidani (talk | contribs) at 14:47, 30 September 2021 (→‎Discussion: RfC: CounterPunch). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    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:
    Shortcuts
    • RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
    • While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
    • This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.
    Start a new discussion

    RfC: Business Insider culture reporting

    Which of the following best describes the reliability of Insider for its original culture reporting?

    Note this is section specific in efforts to try and find some narrow consensus as all previous discussions focusing on the sites as a whole have ended "no consensus".

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

    --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:32, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Survey (BI)

    • Option 1 at least anecdotally, I've used the site and found the writing to be pretty good on culture topics. That doesn't mean every article is suitable for Wikipedia per other rules and guidelines, like NOTNEWS. For example this article might be suitable in gaslighting or influencer. It's journalism that quotes academic experts. -- GreenC 06:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you for your input, GreenC. NOTNEWS and other policies/guidelines are always a consideration, regardless of the source. --TheSandDoctor Talk 06:39, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 I have yet to see anything from Business Insider Culture that would not qualify as a WP:RS. ––FormalDude talk 08:08, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 but I'm willing to change my view if someone can offer a counterexample showing unreliable culture reporting. I haven't seen one yet; the reporting appears to be objective and factual, although somewhat gossipy and therefore somewhat unsuitable in my view (but then I tend to avoid pop culture articles anyway). ~Anachronist (talk) 13:14, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1, after going back and forth between 1 and 2 a few times. I often come across culture articles of theirs that are useful and as reliable as other sources, particularly other internet-focused sources like The Daily Dot (RSP entry) and The Daily Beast (RSP entry). I wouldn't necessarily weight them hugely for notability, and I might be careful when it comes to BLP-sensitive claims—it sometimes seems a bit sensationalist/tabloidy. However, even in articles like this, I've not really seen fact-checking concerns. I don't like that they've not addressed a correction I requested on this article that, in the first sentence, misspells the person the interview is about (it's "Thorn", not "Thorne"). However, I am yet to get a correction acknowledged by newspapers of record or indeed any source, even in cases of simple misspellings. — Bilorv (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it's unreliable for BLPs and not very usable for notability, surely that's an option 2 - David Gerard (talk) 20:17, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Utility in notability is not related to reliability, whilst WP:GREL is about Generally reliable in its areas of expertise—this allows for a certain amount of areas of non-expertise (for instance, The New York Times is not a MEDRS per WP:MEDPOP) and for cases where the source is not going to be reliable even within its areas of expertise. I think it would be consistent to go for either options 1 or 2, but I opted for 1 because I don't think the issues are severe enough to lump it in with much worse "marginally reliable" listings. — Bilorv (talk) 23:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 - doesn't lie that I know of, but questionable when used as evidence of notability. The considerations in the previous RFC Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_324#RfC:_Business_Insider still apply - they're notorious for space-filling clickbait and churnalism. If you're looking for endorsement of BI as WP:DUE, this is not the board for that - David Gerard (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      This is specifically for original reporting though, which would seemingly exclude churnalism per its definition? I am aware of WP:DUE and how this isn't the board for that and that wasn't the question asked. --TheSandDoctor Talk 19:32, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      That would still be Option 2 in a guideline, because the sort of detailed and specific per-article source assessment you're looking at wouldn't be covered by a broad guideline. "Option 1" is clearly not correct, per the serious issues noted by multiple editors in the previous RFC. If you're not in fact trying for WP:DUE, then you've failed to make clear what precisely you're trying to push through here, and precisely which editing conflict you had in mind - David Gerard (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @David Gerard: What I had in mind for this was like how Fox News is split 3 ways at RSP. I figured there might be an ability to possibly gain consensus one way or the other per section, but apparently not. --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Rolling Stone was also just split this way. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:41, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2. BI split into three different editorial teams: business, news, and lifestyle [1]. BI Culture would fall under lifestyle. In reality, I don't any evidence in RS that truly differentiates the various BI brands, so I would default to the previous RfC that showed a history of clickbait, bad editorial practices, and some factual errors. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:06, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 - There are a lot of churnalized clickbait. Sea Ane (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1. We should stay neutral regarding the issue of "clickbait", as it's subjective and not all that helpful in determining fact-checking standards. The New York Times publishes headlines that could be considered clickbait. And I see that coming up frequently as a bit of an emotional, knee-jerk reason to discredit this publication. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 23:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd add to this that headlines are not reliable, the body of articles is what we're talking about, so if "clickbait" is just in the headline then it doesn't matter much (though it would be strange to encounter, say, a publication with exceptional fact checking in its articles but lies in its headlines). — Bilorv (talk) 23:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1. As earlier said here, yes https://www.insider.com/culture is RS for culture - I think maybe pop culture more than respected for opinions on music or paintings. In particular the coverage seems largely delving into TikTok and other social media items, and is good reportage of current events and reasoned explanations. Items like “beaning” or breaking your schools soap dispenser are not highbrow topics, and may not be available elsewhere — and they do good coverage. They seem to have good editorial control and reporters on staff. e.g. Charlotte Colombo covered The history of Only fans. Or Madison Hall and the Insider survey the influencer index. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2. There's too much PR n it for it to be really reliable as a matter of course, just as most publications on popular culture. DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @DGG: Do you have any examples or is this more of just a gut feeling? Polygon (website) is considered RS for pop culture topics, how is this significantly different? --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 per David Gerard.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 04:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1. Generally okay for culture (headlines to be avoided though). Alexbrn (talk) 05:42, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2: It's often a useful source, but the amount of PR and churnalism they publish makes it hard to label this as generally reliable. MarioGom (talk) 20:03, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @MarioGom: Churnalism would seemingly be n/a given the wording of the question and seems to come up without recent solid systemic examples as a sort of thought-terminating cliché. Do you have any recent examples or is this more of just a gut feeling? The concerns I have seen don't involve this section, were corrected as you'd expect from a site with editorial control, or are often years old (publications can change over time, see WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS); we have also proven previously with other publications that sections can be individually assessed. Polygon (website) is considered RS for pop culture topics, how is this significantly different? --TheSandDoctor Talk 22:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1: I note that in the previous RfC's discussions, a key reason for the "no consensus" result was the question about how functional the editorial oversight was. Here, User:Markbassett has presented assertions that this specific section of BI does have suitable editorial oversight, an assertion that no other editor has disputed, and while I cannot speak to the quality of the editorial oversight in this case, I note that according to the BI contact page, "Life" does have separate editorial oversight. Should specific objections be raised to the editorial oversight of this team, then I would be willing to reconsider my position, but until then I believe Option 1 is appropriate. Summoned by the bot; unclear to which RfC, and so drew the short straw BilledMammal (talk) 11:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion (BI)

    • Which???. This needs clarification - the title and link is for BusinessInsider.com but the Question is for Insider.com ? Also ‘culture reporting’ seems to mean ‘content at insider.com’ as a subsection and not ‘used as RS for facts about Culture events’. Can that be confirmed or otherwise clarified ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:31, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Markbassett: They both are effectively the same entity in that they have been changed to have the same name. I just named this section as such as editors will probably have more familiarity under that title. Regarding the second point, I am not sure that there is a difference? --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User:TheSandDoctor The way it is worded asks if https://www.insider.com/culture is RS for culture - I think maybe pop culture more than respected for opinions on music or paintings. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Markbassett: I believe that to be implied as anything entertainment related (music, film, tv, etc.) would presumably be filed under "entertainment", but it is too late to update the question at this time as there have already been comments based on its current wording. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved to "discussion" as this isn't really a !vote thread. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC: Polish sources

    A dispute has been raging in June and July about reliability of some sources in the context of Jan Żaryn, a conservative Polish politician, which spilt into WP:NPPSG, hence the scope of the request. Details will be mentioned in the "Discussion" section on the dispute, so that the RfC question fits in here.

    Please evaluate the following resources in the following manner:

    Thank you. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Survey: Polityka

    Webpage: [2]

    • Option 1. Volunteer Marek has referred to it as an analogue of The Nation for Poland, and that assessment is pretty much correct, with all implications arising from this assessment (RS, partisan source (left-of-center to left-wing), might need care in WP:DUE and WP:BLP issues, but reliable for facts). In other words, pretty much usable. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'd agree with "Option 1" and Szmender's reasoning if specific mention of BLP issues is made. Volunteer Marek 19:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1. No idea why the article Polityka wasn't linked? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1, superb source.Mellow Boris (talk) 07:35, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm posting it again as a separate remark since my previous note has been removed by Mellow Boris[3] Mellow Boris (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic and is a new account. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I registered on 21 May 2020, more than a year ago.Mellow Boris (talk) 09:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You made 64 edits in total, scattered within 7 days throughout the year (not including entries you made today). The bulk was regarding the area under discussion. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Survey: OKO.press

    Webpage: [4]

    • Option 1/2. They feature a fact-checker, although users should be cautious about using "according to OKO.press fact-checker" statements, because at least one was found to be essentially an opinion piece (but it should not be excluded altogether - users should use their best judgment to determine whether the whole piece is actually about fact-checking, and only after determining that they should). On the other hand, for assertions of fact and for their investigations, I see no reasons for unreliability. Moreover, their coverage has been extensively used in scholarly works for citing factual coverage: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14] etc. That said, it is partisan and disproportionately uses heavily loaded labels (such as fascist or homophobic, which should generally be avoided per MOS:RACIST) and the same caveat as with Polityka applies here. In neither the case of Polityka, nor oko.press, should this caveat be an automatic reason/excuse for suppression of information, even in light of discretionary sanctions, including BLPs. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 - it would be more appropriate to say that they "have appropriated the language of fact checking". Their "fact checks" don't actually check any facts but offer opinions of a subjective nature and then they call it "fact checking". Like, anyone can CLAIM to be a "fact checker", but such a claim does't automatically make you Snopes or Politifact. In fact, by now, there's lots of hyper-partisan outlets (mostly on the right, but as in this case, sometimes on the left) who dress up their partisanship or even outright spreading of misinformation as "fact checking". Also, as Szmender notes, the overall tone of Oko's pieces is overwhelmingly hyperbolic and hysterical (a simple disagreement is presented as a "vicious attack" etc) and that's not even getting to the issue of cherry picking and selective use of context. Volunteer Marek 19:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1/2. IMHO they are trying to be a Polish Bellingcat, but they are much more active, not as well respected internationally, and partisan. I do actually agree with their editorial line more often than not, but they are "new". Not seeing any red flags outside that, but they do have a very obvious bias and don't pretend it to hide it. Just like there are obvious pro-government media in Poland these days, there are obvious opposition media and they are smack right there. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1. Superb reputation. Won Index of Censorship award in 2020 [15]. International media uses them, quotes them: [16][17][[18][19].Mellow Boris (talk) 07:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm posting it again as a separate remark since my previous note has been removed by Mellow Boris[20] Mellow Boris (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic and is a new account. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I registered on 21 May 2020, more than a year ago.Mellow Boris (talk) 09:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You made 64 edits in total, scattered within 7 days throughout the year (not including entries you made today). The bulk was regarding the area under discussion. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1/2, per Szmenderowiecki. François Robere (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1, as I said in previous discussions, Oko.Press is cited by the first class Italian center-right[21] and center-left[22] newspapers. I think it is to be considered reliable.--Mhorg (talk) 12:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And as others have already pointed out, being quoted somewhere does not establish reliability. Volunteer Marek 03:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not really a fact-checker but a decent source nonetheless. Option 2/3 for anything non-political. Option 3 for political coverage. Highly biased and partisan outlet that is clearly "on a mission".--Darwinek (talk) 02:49, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3: Open about being pure political attack site.Extremely hyberpolic and emotional writing aimed at pursuing political agenda.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MyMoloboaccount (talk • contribs) 19:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1, excellent reputation like Snopes for Poland. International awards and used by others.--Astral Leap (talk) 13:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1, it is reliable as pointed out above. I was alerted by bell to here.V.A. Obadiah (talk) 07:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)----<--- — V.A. Obadiah (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Option 3 - small, newly created extremely biased - without question unreliable especially for the BLP’s and historical/political issues (see other rationales above) - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1. They are critical of the current government, but press is supposed to be critical. They have received an international award and are well received in Poland.Nyx86 (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Survey: naTemat

    Webpage: [23]

    • Option 2. Pretty tabloidish in some parts of coverage, but still usable for others. [24], for example, does not mention that in fact, the video had been selectively cut (though refers to CNN, saying this is "nonsense"). That said, its news sections (Świat, Dzieje się) are OK. There are better sources than that, though. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2. The assessment above seems correct. I'd avoid it for anything controversial. Tabloid. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2, since its reporting leans towards sensational.Mellow Boris (talk) 07:42, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm posting it again as a separate remark since my previous note has been removed by Mellow Boris[25] Mellow Boris (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic and is a new account. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I registered on 21 May 2020, more than a year ago.Mellow Boris (talk) 09:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You made 64 edits in total, scattered within 7 days throughout the year (not including entries you made today). The bulk was regarding the area under discussion. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Survey: gazeta.pl

    Webpage: [26]

    • Option 1. Gazeta Wyborcza without the paywall, less investigative journalism than in GW and slightly less bias, because it does more routine reporting. Can't say much about kultura.gazeta.pl and kobieta.gazeta.pl for articles for Polish entertainment purposes. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1/2. When I looked into them a while back I got the impression that they were the GW attempt at tabloid market, as such their reporting is lower quality. But in general, still relatively good. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1, same reputation as the superb Gazeta Wyborcza with which they share many things but not the paywall.Mellow Boris (talk) 08:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm posting it again as a separate remark since my previous note has been removed by Mellow Boris[27] Mellow Boris (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic and is a new account. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I registered on 21 May 2020, more than a year ago.Mellow Boris (talk) 09:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You made 64 edits in total, scattered within 7 days throughout the year (not including entries you made today). The bulk was regarding the area under discussion. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1, per Szmenderowiecki. Can't say about the particular sections without context. François Robere (talk) 12:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 but would lean to Option 2 if the portal continues its "tabloidization".--Darwinek (talk) 02:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 Generally reliable but politically engaged.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 Generally reliable but... it's really not that good. It's basically riding on the high reputation of Gazeta Wyborcza from the 90s and early 2000's. These days? It's mostly click bait garbage. Look at it: [28]. Look at the stories: Wooly mammoths are coming back! Shocking salaries of medical workers! Speeding tickets are brutal (sic - their words)! Etc. etc. etc. Volunteer Marek 01:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1, per Szmenderowiecki.--Astral Leap (talk) 13:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1, it is reliable as pointed out above. I was alerted by bell to here.V.A. Obadiah (talk) 07:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)----<--- — V.A. Obadiah (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

    Survey: Telewizja Polska (Wiadomości on TVP1, TVP Info, etc.)

    Webpage: [29]. Note. We are NOT discussing pundits or talk shows.

    Option 2/leaning 1, not syndicated from PAP, pre-2015. TVP has had quite a lot of influence from whoever ruled, and indeed the news were skewed towards whoever ruled Poland, [36], [37], but it was a far smaller extent than today. A sample from protest coverage has actually shown TVP in quite a positive light [38], but it's more of a sample rather than a general assessment.
    Option 1 for non-controversial non-political coverage. Sports, culture, and news reports in which the government, or the party, has not got interest, or some really trivial facts, like opening of a motorway, are not something shouldn't be able to source to them; though often this info is syndicated from PAP. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's complicated, which is to say, I mostly agree with Szmenderowiecki. In fact I'd even consider Option 4 for modern "political or otherwise controversial content". It's propaganda-level - "all hail the current political party and its glorious leaders", extremely biased and simplistic. It is of course important to note that their older articles, as well as the ones on non-controversial issues, are still ok-ish. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 to 4. Filled with anti-LGBT, anti-immigrant, anti-EU, and other far-right bullshit from the Polish government. It was better under previous government, but that just shows that they are independent editorially from the government.Mellow Boris (talk) 07:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm posting it again as a separate remark since my previous note has been removed by Mellow Boris[39] Mellow Boris (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic and is a new account. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I registered on 21 May 2020, more than a year ago.Mellow Boris (talk) 09:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You made 64 edits in total, scattered within 7 days throughout the year (not including entries you made today). The bulk was regarding the area under discussion. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 for anything post-2015, unless it's for something completely trivial (in the sense that it is narrow, numerical, and easy to verify) like the weather or sports scores. The opening of a motorway might seem trivial, but major infrastructure projects are often a political affair, so even that sort of coverage can be abused. I'll lean towards option 2 for anything pre-2015 if it can be shown that, despite its bias, the outlet was generally reliable pre-2015. François Robere (talk) 12:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 for non-political coverage. Option 1 even for political coverage but before 2015. Option 3 for political coverage post 2015.--Darwinek (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 Generally reliable but sometimes politically engaged.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4, recent OSCE report [40][41] writes: "the public broadcaster became a campaign tool for the incumbent, while some reporting had clear xenophobic and anti-Semitic undertones".--Astral Leap (talk) 13:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4, due to xenophobia issues above. I was alerted by bell to here.V.A. Obadiah (talk) 07:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)----<--- — V.A. Obadiah (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Option 3, maybe 4. Since 2015 this is just government PR.Nyx86 (talk) 15:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Survey: Polskie Radio

    Webpage: [42]

    • Same assessment as TVP. There is virtually no difference between the two. The news on the webpage have virtually the same structure and the controlling body (National Media Council, RMN) is the same, i.e. the government. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • More or less. There are differences between programs, Polskie Radio Program III used to be very respected in culture, but recently it got mangled by the new management and like all state media, suffers from lack of quality when it comes to anything political/controversial. Again, we need to be careful not to discard it in other areas, however, it was historically reliable, and it still is on non-controversial topics.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:58, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 to 4. Like TVP. Filled with anti-LGBT, anti-immigrant, anti-EU, and other far-right bullshit from the Polish government. It was better under previous government, but that just shows that they are independent editorially from the government.Mellow Boris (talk) 07:44, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm posting it again as a separate remark since my previous note has been removed by Mellow Boris[43] Mellow Boris (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic and is a new account. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I registered on 21 May 2020, more than a year ago.Mellow Boris (talk) 09:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You made 64 edits in total, scattered within 7 days throughout the year (not including entries you made today). The bulk was regarding the area under discussion. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Survey: TV Republika

    Webpage: [44].

    • Option 2 for non-syndicated content; option 3 for pundits A lot of what they publish is in fact syndicated from PAP, which should not be taken into account because it does not belong to TV Republika. Their own news reporting seems OK, though materials on history should not be used, unless an expert in the field actually writes/speaks to them. Materials previously published in the three sources below should not be used, either. Pundits are unreliable. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 to 4. Like TVP. Filled with anti-LGBT, anti-immigrant, anti-EU, and other far-right bullshit from the Polish government. It was better under previous government, but that just shows that they are independent editorially from the government. Separating PAP from non-PAP here would be cumbersome.Mellow Boris (talk) 07:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm posting it again as a separate remark since my previous note has been removed by Mellow Boris[45] Mellow Boris (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic and is a new account. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I registered on 21 May 2020, more than a year ago.Mellow Boris (talk) 09:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You made 64 edits in total, scattered within 7 days throughout the year (not including entries you made today). The bulk was regarding the area under discussion. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Options 2 and 3, per Szmenderowiecki, with the caveat that syndicated pieces are usually available through several outlets, so whenever one is available that is better than TVR it should be preferred over it. François Robere (talk) 13:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3, as it is very biased.--Astral Leap (talk) 13:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3, as pointed out above. I was alerted by bell to here.V.A. Obadiah (talk) 07:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)----<--- — V.A. Obadiah (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

    Survey: Do Rzeczy

    Webpage: [46]

    • Option 3/4. While some might argue that I am being excessively harsh towards conservative sources, the case here is essentially Washington Times or Washington Examiner, but they have a notoriously fringe position on COVID; rejecting scientific consensus altogether and spreading COVID misinformation as can be seen on prominently displayed editorials by Warzecha, Lisicki, etc., [47], [48], [49], [50] and in news coverage such as here: [51], [52]. The same goes for lockdowns and other COVID-related issues. No, mass media need not conform to WP:MEDRS standards but at least they should not spread misinformation. And yes, [53] they promote anti-immigrant discourse by essentially fear-mongering; and for them, climate science has more to do with hoaxes and religion than science. WP:ABOUTSELF statements are attributable to the website, but otherwise it merits at least the red label. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify my criteria: WSJ and The Australian also host quite a lot of climate deniers, lockdown and vaccine sceptics, and so on. The reason why they are considered reliable and Do Rzeczy (or Gazeta Polska, which in fact employs quite a lot of journalists from Do Rzeczy) is not is that the former strictly divide their opinion section from the normal reporting (which is good for WSJ and quite good for The Australian) while the latter do not. In fact, the only suggestion that it is an opinion piece is the URL of form dorzeczy.pl/opinie/* instead of dorzeczy.pl/* - they don't make it otherwise visible, and yes, not every opinion piece is under "Opinie" subsection. They quite often regurgiate debunked theories about COVID (PCR Ct (cycle threshold) number being apparently too high, vaccines overrated, I think I've even seen some mask disinfo too), or, in case of normal reporting, reporting on Geert Vanden Bossche in the first link ([54], [55], [56], [57] - quite a crank, as you can see), and, in the second link, using LifeSiteNews, which itself is deprecated. And that's not isolated to COVID, I've seen this trend for lockdowns and scientific topics in general. The same, to a slightly lesser extent (though not COVID, fortunately), concerns Gazeta Polska. At times it's better not to make any reporting than to make bad-faith reporting, as is the case here.
    Even for normal news, meh. This article about the abolition of Latin in the Catholic Church is sourced from partly a blog and partly LifeSiteNews. I mean, there are certainly better outlets than that to find coverage on the same topic. For me, if you insist on right-of-center publications, it can be either Wprost (same owner, but better quality) or Rzeczpospolita, which is more centrist than right-of-center now, but still.
    We don't strive for diversity of opinions at the expense of reliability.
    As for superhistoria.pl, it was not impacted by the change made by VM, so I don't take it into consideration (though yes, I know it's affiliated). This might, in fact, merit a separate discussion or even RfC - history supplements to Polish newspapers, i.a. because of heightened requirements for antisemitism in Poland topics. I stick to dorzeczy.pl only. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I concur that their coverage on controversial or political issues is highly biased, but I am not sure they need to be totally depreciated. Articles like [58] or [59] - the first two I checked - seem fine. I'd say the source can be used on non-controversial issues, and on issues related to politics and medical topics, has to be attributed. Well, for medical, it probably should confirm to MEDRS which it doesn't, so there's that. If we really want to depreciate it from some areas, I'd like to see examples of specific controversial sentences referenced to it? In the end, the conservatives need to have their POV represented too (as long as it is clearly attributed). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:ABOUTSELF statements can be sourced to virtually any outlet. It's an exception than a rule not to do that. Other than that, I see no legitimate uses of the source. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 to 4. This is a source that criticizes the Polish government for not being sufficiently anti-LGBT, anti-immigrant, and anti-EU.Mellow Boris (talk) 07:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm posting it again as a separate remark since my previous note has been removed by Mellow Boris[60] Mellow Boris (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic and is a new account. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I registered on 21 May 2020, more than a year ago.Mellow Boris (talk) 09:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You made 64 edits in total, scattered within 7 days throughout the year (not including entries you made today). The bulk was regarding the area under discussion. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4, per Szmenderowiecki. I don't see any reason to be lenient with outlets that publish that sort of nonsense. François Robere (talk) 13:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 for non-political coverage like history, religion, art etc. Option 3 for political coverage (including Covid of course).--Darwinek (talk) 02:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 Reliable for history, religion, art etc. Option 3 for politics.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4 per Szmenderowiecki, this is a highly biased sourced that is not appropriate for use.--Astral Leap (talk) 13:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4, Covid crackpottery is not good. I was alerted by bell to here.V.A. Obadiah (talk) 07:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)----<--- — V.A. Obadiah (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Option 3 to 4. Very biased and with disinformation on some subjects like COVID.Nyx86 (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Survey: niezalezna.pl

    Webpage: [61]

    • Option 4 3. Even worse than above. Instead of Washington Examiner, we deal with Polish Breitbart here. Mistaken for Najwyższy Czas. For my evaluation, see comment under Piotrus's one. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • You may be right, but what are your reliable sources about the bias / other problems with this source? The first two links we use are [62] and [63]. The first is on history and doesn't seem controversial, the second is on the politics and outside the general theme of stressing a controversial comment by a German politician doesn't seem to be factually wrong (it's just quoting, mostly). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I've mistaken it with Najwyższy Czas!, which is quite awful. Mea culpa. Regarding niezalezna.pl, the first article you mention, the one about Dowbór-Muśnicki, is syndicated from dzieje.pl (a historical news arm of PAP), the second article is syndicated from PAP (to which they seem to have appended a clickbaity title), so in fact, we may need to evaluate syndicated content from Polish Press Agency in general for the purposes of this request for comment. It makes a big difference in this case if the reporting is syndicated. As for their own content, [64] they syndicate some content from TVP Info, which is not a good sign (in fairness, they are at least honest about it, as you can check it at the bottom of the page). They've also head some fear-mongering about immigrants reported as plain news, and use pretty much the same tactics as TVP Info does, such as exemplified here: [65], [66] (the first link also seems to be a house ad for Albicla (Parler for Poland), but I don't mind it too much, in fact). Fortunately, any more questionable articles that appear sometimes on climate change or science, vaccines and so on (and which are inadequately disclosed as such on Gazeta Polska or Do Rzeczy, are conveniently placed under "opinion" section. However, the methods of their own reporting (not syndicated content) are not what I believe to be compatible with either option 1 or 2, and often mimic the ones that TVP uses, which I have rated accordingly.
    Articles for culture or history are almost entirely syndicated from PAP. Filarybiznesu.pl (niezalezna.pl's economic section) doesn't seem bad but will need attribution in most cases. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 to 4. This is a source that criticizes the Polish government for not being sufficiently anti-LGBT, anti-immigrant, and anti-EU.Mellow Boris (talk) 07:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm posting it again as a separate remark since my previous note has been removed by Mellow Boris[67] Mellow Boris (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic and is a new account. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I registered on 21 May 2020, more than a year ago.Mellow Boris (talk) 09:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You made 64 edits in total, scattered within 7 days throughout the year (not including entries you made today). The bulk was regarding the area under discussion. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Survey: Gazeta Polska

    Webpage: [68]

    • Option 3/4. In fact, it's the same as Do Rzeczy, minus the coronascepticism and plus the xenophobic/Germanophobic front pages and content ([69], [70], [71], [72], [73]). And yes, they like conspiracy theories about Smolensk air disaster (the other two outlets do not mention it that prominently but try to say there's some middle ground between MAK's report and the assassination theory), and [74] they aren't at good terms with climate science. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Note. I'm commenting on post-2005 Gazeta Polska. It did have a different editor-in-chief prior to 2005 - I have not read their coverage before that, so I can't comment on it.
    • Comment - one consideration here is the vintage. The Gazeta Polska that existed before 2005 is a pretty different animal that has existed since. Volunteer Marek 19:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 to 4. This is a source that criticizes the Polish government for not being sufficiently anti-LGBT, anti-immigrant, and anti-EU.Mellow Boris (talk) 07:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm posting it again as a separate remark since my previous note has been removed by Mellow Boris[75] Mellow Boris (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic and is a new account. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I registered on 21 May 2020, more than a year ago.Mellow Boris (talk) 09:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You made 64 edits in total, scattered within 7 days throughout the year (not including entries you made today). The bulk was regarding the area under discussion. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3/4, per Szmenderowiecki. François Robere (talk) 13:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I can't read Polish, so I won't attempt to affirmatively evaluate the source here, but the rationales given above are a bit concerning as far as WP:BIASEDSOURCES and WP:HEADLINE are concerned. We can't declare a source generally unreliable on the basis of its non-article cover pages, nor its political position per se. We have to evaluate the sources on the basis of their ability to conduct fact-checking, editorial independence, and editorial control. I'm not really seeing source reliability analysis here along those lines. I am, however, seeing explicit references to political positions as a reason to oppose reliability, which we should avoid. And, while some of the front pages might inspire concerns, the spirit of WP:HEADLINE would be to evaluate article content rather than things that are often not created by researchers and journalists who wrote the articles and are written to grab readers' attention quickly and briefly. Obviously, headlines and covers aren't the exact same thing, but I'd think that the same logic applies in analyzing them. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Mikehawk10 You are quite correct. Please see my edits here about the flagship news program of Telewizja Polska which introduced some academic studies. Most other sources discussed here are niche enough that they are rarely mentions by scholars... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Between Option 3 and 4, per Szmenderowiecki.--Astral Leap (talk) 13:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4, xenophobia issues. I was alerted by bell to here.V.A. Obadiah (talk) 07:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)----<--- — V.A. Obadiah (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Option 3-4 per Szmenderowiecki.Nyx86 (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

    OP note

    As has been said, the discussion in the article on Jan Żaryn has become a mess. Not delving into intricacies of that waste of resources and time that could have gone to the International Bureau of Weights and Measures for display (Jan Żaryn), some details that you might find useful.

    OKO.press has been objected to by three editors, Volunteer Marek (VM), Lembit Staan and GizzyCatBella, on the grounds that it was too partisan and was otherwise unreliable for BLP purposes. Ultimately, one of the fact checks they have produced ([76]) has been found to be unusable as a fact-check, but the reasons for exclusion were different (unreliability, non-notability of the sentence discussed, possible differences in understanding of the words). Other articles have not been universally accepted as either prefectly usable or absolutely unusable. In a similar fashion, objections have been made to include the other three sources from the first four, though no particular determination has been made.

    As for the other six resources, on 18 June at around 1:40 AM GMT, VM decided to delete, in three consecutive edits, seven sources from WP:NPPSG#Poland (a pre-RSP listing watch list), on the basis that the !voting in the previous discussions was unduly influenced. According to the edit summaries, VM said that accounts that have not been extended confirmed violated the discretionary sanctions enforced for Eastern Europe topics and antisemitism in Poland when submitting their opinion on the resources [500/30 restriction applies only to the anti-Semitism articles, not E Europe articles in general, though in particular cases, admins might institute these restrictions - my note], alleging that the voting was manipulated by sockpuppets and asserting that most of the voters who voted contrary to VM have been either WP:SPA or otherwise inexperienced users. Rosguill reverted the deletion, but changed the rating, believing that the claims were substantiated. The change went as follows:

    OKO.press: rough consensus for RS -> no consensus; TVP, Polish Radio, TV Republika, Do Rzeczy, niezalezna.pl, Gazeta Polska: unreliable -> no consensus

    Bob the snob was indeed blocked for sockpuppetry, and Mellow Boris was tagged throughout as a probable SPA, but otherwise no other editor has been found to be guilty of any wrongdoing as far as I'm aware. Engagement in the discussions has been minimal, so in fact, there can't be any consensus (or "no consensus") labels put on discussions with 2-3 editors, as they are not representative. The only one that solicited more attention was about Gazeta Wyborcza and OKO.press, and even there the summary was rather incorrectly changed, in my opinion.

    I invite users to evaluate resources once again, and hope more opinions could be solicited based on that.

    Pinging all users who were participating in the discussions on RSN that were affected by VM's edits on NPPSG and Jan Żaryn discussing reliability of any of the given resources. (except for SarahSV, my condolences): @Abcmaxx, Darwinek, MyMoloboaccount, Mellow Boris, Volunteer Marek, GizzyCatBella, François Robere, Mhorg, CPCEnjoyer, Lembit Staan, Piotrus, Buidhe, GPinkerton, Astral Leap, V.A. Obadiah, and Rosguill: Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    You list four possible options but your agreement with my assessment of Polityka suggests one of the options should explicitly address BLP issues. Like "generally reliable but use with caution when it comes to BLP, particularly opinion pieces from the source" or something. Volunteer Marek 19:40, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I essentially said: copy the assessment from The Nation. It has the caveat for BLPs and I believe it to be an appropriate safeguard. As I have mentioned, the caveat should not, in my opinion, mean that the source is unusable for BLPs, but we should handle it with more care. It's more of Option 1/2 for BLPs. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion proper

    Rosguill reverted the deletion, but changed the rating, believing that the claims were substantiated.: minor correction. I believe that VM's complaints in themselves are enough dissent, in the absence of a wide consensus for reliability, to merit listing as "no consensus". I have not recently evaluated VM's objections and have no opinion about whether the arguments are sound. signed, Rosguill talk 21:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Szmenderowiecki Since you are discussing 500/30 and sockpuppetry, I have to say that you are display an amazing level of competency on intricate wiki rules and politics, given that you started editing just few months ago, effectively since April, meaning that you've been here for less than half a year. Would you mind sharing a secret on how one can go from registering an account to understanding past ArbCom cases, policies like RS, reviewing DYKs and so on in just few months? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:59, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Four months is plenty of time to learn the ropes on how Wikipedia works. This comment is essentially casting aspersions that Szmenderowiecki is a sock without evidence. If you think that Szmenderowiecki is a sock of Icewhiz or whoever then you should present evidence at SPI, and not casting bad-faith aspersions here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hemiauchenia - Where do you see the word "Icewhiz" in the above question not addressed to you? - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    GizzyCatBella, do you not want people not involved in your content dispute to participate here? The above question is an aspersion and anyone can point this out. In the same vein, your spamming of "new account with few edit" notes in every section above, with regards to Mellow Boris is an aspersion as well considering they were pinged here. Tayi Arajakate Talk 19:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Look Tayi Arajakate, you are obviously not in the loop, so please be cautious with your judgments. I'm simply disappointed when people ask legitimate questions and others say "you can't make that accusation, file SPI" and then you file an SPI, but that stays open for months. --> [77] - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User Mellow Boris, who is in that SPI investigation, has no evidence of sockpuppetry presented against him yet on the SPI page, and the last edit in that investigation was done by you on 19 August, and btw you filed the request on 27 July. I mean, you were discussing the potential socks for 20 days and now the discussion is dead for almost the same time. Were I a checkuser, I'd have declined the request to check users (those not mentioned in the evidence presented) in the first place for want of evidence of apparent sockpuppetry.
    I don't know the case, and you were the one who filed it, so I wish you good luck to prove it and get rid of the offenders (if any), as of course less socks => more fairness & less disruption. It's surely in the interest of the community, but it's also in your particular interest as a filer to get the case done. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Szmenderowiecki - Regarding some of the editors you pinged:

    • The new account Mellow Boris reactivated his account after one month of inactivity[78] to come here with their view[79].
    • New account V.A. Obadiah hasn't been active since April 27, 2021,[80].
    • Newish account CPCenjoyer hasn't been active since June 29/2021.[81]

    I'm speculating Mellow Boris just randomly, luckily, logged in to Wikipedia after being dormant for one month and found your message but how are the last two suppose to hear about your ping? - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:16, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I got the ping message and commented with a reasoned rationale. This innuendo is unseemly.Mellow Boris (talk) 09:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You made 64 edits in total, scattered within 7 days throughout the year (not including entries you made today). The bulk was regarding the area under discussion. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I pinged all accounts that were not blocked (or under current sanctions), which did not have a notice of WikiBreak/death/whatever excluding their possibility to edit and that participated in the discussion. If they had been inactive, they wouldn't have received a notification in the first place. If you believe the users you mentioned to be violating any policy or being WP:NOTHERE, please go ahead with an ANI/SPI complaint, and their !vote will be struck if such determination is made.
    @Boris Mellow: Please do not remove the SPA tags, this makes you no good. Whether these are sound will be determined by the closer. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Szmenderowiecki - Inacurate - you also pinged accounts that are now blocked - GPinkerton - [82] - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:32, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, my bad, but they won't receive the notification anyway. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    But all this means that we're back to the situation where "consensus" is constructed on the basis of input from multiple accounts that are either brand new or pretty much brand new and who don't even qualify to edit the articles under the 500/30 sanction. Volunteer Marek 21:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Volunteer Marek Indeed. Is there a way to bring this entire thread to the ArbCom's attention? They did discuss whether to extend 500/30 to related discussions a while ago, didn't they? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, let's begin with the fact that if you have evidence of sockpuppetry, long-term abuse or off-wiki coordination, we can always change the outcome because these votes will eventually be deemed invalid, and probably before this RfC closes. But first let's have the evidence of brand-new account/IP abuse. Not all under-500/30 accounts should be automatically suspect, just as no person who looks like a Mexican and who recently received an American passport should be automatically under increased scrutiny for voter fraud.
    Secondly, as far as I am aware, there is no 500/30 limit for RfCs or for RSN discussions, unless the topic can be reasonably construed to involve a topic being under such restrictions. This is not the case here. What you seem to propose here (correct me if I'm wrong) is to give more weight to established editors (like you) and attach less weight to whoever is not an ECA, but that's really an WP:EQUAL violation. Tagging possible SPA accounts is appropriate but disregarding anyone who hasn't done X edits and been here for Y days if there is no policy or ruling mandating that is not.
    However, if ArbCom has the possibility and wants to intervene here, the relevant policies are changed (or if ArbCom says the intervention is exceptional and a good reasoning is presented), why not? That said, I think this remedy should be used only in extreme cases, and so far I'm only seeing one "suspect" user vote that you propose to disregard. ArbCom should in any case generally exercise restraint. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    we can always change the outcome because these votes will eventually be deemed invalid - unfortunately that's not how this works. RSN and Wikipedia in general is littered with heaps of RfCs and discussions where the outcome was swayed or even determined by banned users with sock puppet accounts and no one ever went back and "changed it". Your example of "Mexican with American passport" is not only fallacious but also quite offensive along several dimensions - I suggest you strike it. Volunteer Marek 07:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Szmenderowiecki I very briefly dipped my toe into this dispute some months ago, and (wisely IMO) decided to get the hell out. Unfortunately, it seems the same people are arguing the same points they were last time I checked in. Perhaps it might be wise to list this as a proper RfC to get more fresh eyes on this, instead of rehashing the same debate that has been going on for months. BSMRD (talk) 05:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not want to repeat myself but essentially I would raise the point of funding for these outlets. Now state media is never truly independent, and TVP/PR has never been free from government pressure, that goes from governments of PZPR, SLD, PO and now PiS. The level of partizanship has increased drastically last few years though, not seen since the 1980s. Now the right-wing and far right in Poland are very media savvy; Do Rzeczy, Sieci, TV Republika, Gazeta Polska and a host of others are funded by either PiS backed institutes or other pro-gorvenment figures and organisations and are nothing more than cheerleaders. That's why they have a much higher output than sales because if they were to compete merely on economic terms they would be long gone, especially with the sheer amount of defamation losses in courts. They are designed to be inflammatory and controversial and it doesn't matter what they publish because they're never held to account and even if they are, it's financial collateral. Before anyone accuses me of political bias there are plenty of independent right wing publications such as Rzeczpospolita newspaper and Dziennik Gazeta Prawna and there's also the Catholic Tygodnik Powszechny; furthermore TVN has had some spectacular failures regarding neutrality and I would be careful with naTemat.pl, as it could be just Tomasz Lis' way of muscling in to vent his personal opinions and grudges. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


    Comment: It seems to me that lists of "reliable" and "unreliable" sources should not be regarded as automatically relieving Wikipedians of an obligation to think critically and to collate information found in one source with information appearing in other sources. I have found excellent articles, by first-rate historians, in popular periodicals – and, conversely, articles of dubious value in otherwise well-regarded journals. Nihil novi (talk) 02:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a general caveat for the whole RSP list, not only for Polish sources (see WP:RSPUSE, para 2). That people often tend not to read the fine print is not RSP's, nor this RfC's, problem. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 07:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Another side of the coin is that depreciated/lower quality sources can spread guilty by association. "This person published in bad source X so their academic articles are unreliable too". Again, not a problem with RSP... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Bad RFC

    • Bad RFC on all - This is a complete disaster. People who (in the main? in part?) do not understand Polish are assessing pretty much the entire Polish print/TV media landscape for general liability, seemingly based on "this is right wing", "this said good things about PiS". What is the actual content dispute you are asking people to arbitrate here? And why is the relative status of these source important? FOARP (talk) 15:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    We really can't discuss such a huge swath of sources in this way,.Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    And even if we could, we shouldn't absent any 'clear' indication of what the actual dispute is supposed to be about. We are told this has arisen out of an article about a Polish politician but clearly this is related to a particular aspect of that person - and what is it? And why are general RFCs on all these media sources needed to arbitrate it when apparently the actual thing being discussed is not general, but specific? FOARP (talk) 07:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Funny thing is, the article on that politician doesn't even use any of most of these sources!!!!. It's just a false excuse. Volunteer Marek 07:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe you can adjudicate a general case coming out of a specific content dispute (which indeed took place, I just attempted to wrap it up so that you don't need to waste time reading through tons of text), or at the very least that's been quite a practice for some time. It may be wrong, but it is commonplace and seems to have become a new standard. You are certainly a person who's been here for longer - I have no benefit of remembering the olden days when the grass was greener and RfCs were topic-specific, so I can't even judge if the way the disputes were previously adjudicated were the ideal (or at least a better) way to establish quality of sources. RSP and NPPSG are apparently conducive to this type of general-grade RfCs based on specific cases of disputes.
    The rationale is given in my note, which is the first post in the discussion. You can believe it not to be good enough, but I tried my best to explain why such admittedly big RfC is needed. In fact, archives 328 and 329 of RSN contain an even broader scope of Polish sources (based on which the NPPSG Polish list was initially established), the only difference being that the opener (Abcmaxx) did not call it an RfC. Additionally, the closer should reasonably exclude or diminish the weight of !votes whose rationale is only the wrong political stance when determining the close because of WP:BIASED. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is such a bad RFC that I don’t even have a desire to comment. Do you desire a few editors, various brand-new suddenly appearing here, to establish the reliability of the nearly entire Polish media industry? Just like that, in one shot? Really Szmederowiecki? I’ll add more later if I find energy for it, but in my opinion, such an approach should be rejected. (Please also refer to critical comments above) - - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bad RfC. Assessing the reliability of sources tends to be difficult and it is normal to consider questions such as the quality of their editorial oversight, the frequency of errors that they make, and the response that they make to these errors. Unfortunately, as much as we try to avoid it, this can require a degree of WP:OR and as such this means that editors need to be able to spend more time reviewing these requests than others, and a large influx of sources to be assessed degrades our ability to do so as editors time is finite.
    This issue, which already speaks to the problems with this RfC, is exacerbated by the nature of the sources in question. Specifically, the fact that they are Polish language sources, a fact that greatly complicates the ability of our editors, who typically do not read Polish, to assess them. This means that an already time consuming process is further extended.
    As such, I believe this RfC would be better held over many months, such that the workload is spread out and editors can commit the proper amount of time to reviewing each source. Further, while there are some circumstances that holding an RfC without having a specific reference under dispute is suitable, I don't believe this is one of them, and would ask that if future RfC's are held, an example of a problematic reference is provided with them. Summoned by the bot; unclear to which RfC, and so drew the short straw BilledMammal (talk) 11:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    A peer-reviewed paper by Segreto and Deigin's reliability has been challenged at "Investigations into the origin of COVID-19"

    Links: authors-are-not-virologists rebuttal, authors-are-not-virologists-2 rebuttal, lack-of-citations rebuttal, authors-are-not-virologists-3 rebuttal, bioessays_poor_reputation rebuttal, bioessays_poor_reputation-2 rebuttal, Talk:Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19/Archive_8#Talk_page_consensus_on_high-quality_"Lab_Leak"_sources.

    Source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.202000240

    Article: COVID-19 lab leak theory.

    Content: The paper hypothetizes that SARS-CoV-2's cleavage site and specific RBD could result from site-directed mutagenesis, a procedure that does not leave a trace

    I open this noticeboard given that in the last talk page discussion about it, some editors said that a consensus was reached to find the source unreliable for its main claim regarding COVID-19 origin, and that any further discussion would be best placed in a RS Noticeboard.

    Please discuss whether the source is reliable for the topic.Forich (talk) 22:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This source was cited 42 times. A recent review mentions this source, along with Relman DA (2020) (Opinion: to stop the next pandemic, we need to unravel the origins of COVID-19. Proc Nat Acad Sci 117(47):29246–29248), as a support of the hypothesis that that SARS-CoV-2 may have been manufactured in a laboratory. Nothing in that review suggests Sergio&Deigin is not reliable. However, it seems this source: Segreto, R., Deigin, Y., McCairn, K. et al. Should we discount the laboratory origin of COVID-19?. Environ Chem Lett 19, 2743–2757 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-021-01211-0 should be used instead, because it is more recent, and it is authored by the same authors. --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    See Template:Origins of COVID-19 (current consensus) #3. I don’t think anything has changed since. It’s not an RS. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As a medical source, per WP:MEDRS, there are extra considerations. Keep in mind there was another study refuting their finding linked to on that same page, and also consider whether there is enough secondary source strength to warrant its use. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk)
    Is this local consensus supposed to overturn our policy? This source meets all requirements that we apply to top-quality reliable sources. WP:MEDRS is noit a policy, but just guidelines. However, it seems this source is outdated, and the more recent source (see above) should be used instead.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no separate standard to that applies to MEDRS that does not apply to RS. One is no less a "policy" than the other. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyway, here is the abstract of the 2021 paper by the same authors:
    "There is a near-consensus view that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2), the causative agent of COVID-19, has a natural zoonotic origin; however, several characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 taken together are not easily explained by a natural zoonotic origin hypothesis. These include a low rate of evolution in the early phase of transmission; the lack of evidence for recombination events; a high pre-existing binding to human angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2); a novel furin cleavage site (FCS) insert; a flat ganglioside-binding domain (GBD) of the spike protein which conflicts with host evasion survival patterns exhibited by other coronaviruses; and high human and mouse peptide mimicry. Initial assumptions against a laboratory origin by contrast have remained unsubstantiated. Furthermore, over a year after the initial outbreak in Wuhan, there is still no clear evidence of zoonotic transfer from a bat or intermediate species. Given the immense social and economic impact of this pandemic, identifying the true origin of SARS-CoV-2 is fundamental to preventing future outbreaks. The search for SARS-CoV-2′s origin should include an open and unbiased inquiry into a possible laboratory origin."
    --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Still WP:PRIMARY, still published by non-credentialed authors who have little expertise in viruses, or virology, or especially viral genetics. BTW, that envir chem lett paper is an Editorial, meaning it is not peer-reviewed, and is thus simply the opinion of the authors themselves.
    The only ways in which this should be used is in how it is cited or discussed by secondary peer-reviewed review papers published in topic-relevant journals. They must tell us how we interpret the proposed ideas and how we perceive the credibility of its authors. BTW, from examining the authors list here, this is just an editorial by all the folks who have any semblance of scientific training in DRASTIC. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a RS. Segretto and Deigin's qualifications have not changed. They are still bucking against the majority consensus opinion of the scientific community, and BioEssays has no relevant expert editors in virology or similar topics. This is an opinion paper at best, it is not a review, it appears to be peer reviewed (it went through one round of revision), but it is published in an essays outlet, and does not contain much, if any, original research). It should be treated as an opinion piece published in a non-topic relevant journal. And, so it becomes a question of whether the opinions of the authors are particularly relevant to the topic or notable/DUE. And I would say they are not. Deigin's highest qualification is an MBA. He has never done any work on viruses, or in biosafety. Segretto's closest work is in fungal ecology, though she does have a PhD. She has not worked in high level biosafety labs or in environmental health and safety. Not every paper that is published in a scholarly journal is useful for our purposes. Especially ones that are purely primary opinion, and are not well respected by the scientific community. The consensus has not changed, that the ideas in this paper are not likely, that any genetic engineering of the virus is extremely unlikely, etc. For all these reasons, this is not an RS. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    BioEssays is a peer-reviewed journal with impact factor of 4.5 (not a top journal, but still quite decent). Why invent new rules that are not found in our policy?
    According to the policy, it IS a quite reliable source. However, as I already explained, it is outdated.
    For records: it is quite unlikely SARS-CoV2 was engineered.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    BioEssays is not well respected, especially not in the field of virology. Citations (e.g. impact factor) are not the only way to evaluate the reliability of a scientific source. This is far from the first time the reliability or usefulness of a piece published in Bioessays has been called into question. It has a long history of publishing pieces that are pure opinion, speculation, "out there" idea, that some have described as belonging more in the lay press or in blogs than in a scientific journal. It's interesting stuff, but people would be concerned if you cited it for a statement of fact in a dissertation. Example: The journal has been accused of using milquetoast peer-review, in which the ideas of the papers published within it are given only a cursory review, and not truly critiqued or subjected to the rigorous criticism normally demanded by the scientific community. Like in this paper about declining sperm counts. [83] or this paper by Gutierrez, Beall, et al in 2015. See criticism: [84]. Or Speijer in 2020 [85]. [86]. Or this cancer paper proposing the "TOFT model" [87]. [88] or the ativastic model: [89]. I'm not saying that Bioessays doesn't sometimes publish good stuff. it does. I even really like the Evolution essays they publish sometimes. But the point is that they often publish stuff that is a little out there. And not respected by the broader community. They like to publish stuff that is on the edge. Groundbreaking, fascinating, controversial. The editors of this journal have even said as much: [90] But this is exactly the opposite of what we need for reliable sources on Wikipedia. We need stable, tried and true, endlessly vetted secondary review papers which evaluate this stuff for us. Not the primary essays which propose these novel and controversial ideas. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "It's a peer reviewed journal therefore it's default reliable" is not a good argument. Sourcing guidelines are not blunt instruments. Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology an Elsevier journal once published a paper that suggested cephalopods are aliens. Editors should always have discretion as to which sources are used. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We cannot invent ad hoc rules.
    The question was quite clear: "Does this source meet RS criteria"?
    The formal answer is "Yes it does" (per our policy). However,
    • The source seems outdated (another, more recent paper by the same authors should be used instead, where they concede the natural hypothesis is an almost consensus view).
    • The source may not meet NPOV criteria: despite being reliable, it may represent minority of fringe view.
    That means, (i) instead of this, formally reliable source, another, more recent source should be used, and (ii) a decision about usage of this source should be made if weight issues are resolved. I believe, it will not be difficult to make a brief search to find relative weight of that source. It may be quite likely it expresses nearly fringe view.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No. See WP:SOURCE:

    All three can affect reliability.

    As per current consensus #3: Specifically, editors were not convinced by the credentials of the authors, and concerns were raised with the editorial oversight of the BioEssays "Problems & Paradigms" series.. i.e. bullets 2 and 3 are a fail. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: WikiProjects Medicine, Skepticism, COVID-19, Molecular Biology, and the Fringe Theories Noticeboard have been notified of this discussion.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I fundamentally disagree with this approach. Yes,
    • I agree that BioEssays is not a top journal, and its editorial board does not look impressive.
    • I agree that Environmental Chemistry Letters, where the second article was published, has no direct relevance to the topic.
    • I admit that the authors' own credentials may be not too impressive.
    However, if Wikipedia editors are allowed to invent additional criteria to reject some sources, some other Wikipedians may invent some other local rules to approve some sources that normally should be rejected. That is dangerous for Wikipedia as whole.
    Instead, I propose to use a more formal approach: to admit that that source meets formal RS criteria, but check how frequently this source is cited, and in which context. If majority sources ignore or openly reject this source, and I expect they are, this source should be rejected as fringe. Under this source I mean the 2021 article not the BioEssays article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is supposed to be mainstream and academically conservative about scholarly topics (as any encyclopedia would). Is this paper cited by others, and if so, in which context exactly? If it's only cited by papers in dubious journals and by non-experts (read: newspapers mentions fall in this category too), it's unlikely to be an accurate reflection of the academic mainstream. Looking at the list of citations on Google Scholar, many of these are obvious examples of this (self-cites by authors; cites in Env Chem Let by some other authors; pre-prints; predatory journals). All to say, the Google Scholar count is not any useful metric. There appear to be some citations from virological.org (which is basically a place for discussion amongst virologists and a repository for unpublished papers, so not exactly peer-reviewed but not entirely unacceptable per WP:SPS - at least, I'm not planning on citing it, but the authors I'm citing below are indeed virologists and not amateur detectives), but some of them are rather dismissive:

    Hence, analyses suggesting that the evolutionary origins of the RmYN02 S1/S2 cleavage site can be revealed by a simple nucleotide alignment (Segreto and Deigin, 2020) are overly simplistic. [91]

    Or, more dramatically, entirely unflattering:

    Proponents of theories for the unnatural origin of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) have asserted that the 12 nucleotide insert in the spike gene, which results in acquisition of a furin cleavage site in spike, may have arisen by laboratory manipulation (Relman, 2020; Segreto and Deigin, 2020; Seyran et al., 2020; Sirotkin and Sirotkin, 2020). Here, we compile evidence demonstrating that insertion/deletion (indel) events at the S1/S2 and S2’ protease cleavage sites of the spike precursors are commonly occurring natural features of coronavirus evolution. [92]

    Putting all that together; you have a paper which wasn't actually cited in other peer-reviewed research, certainly not positively (so it is extremely unlikely to be representative of the mainstream view); it's from non-experts and it's in a dubious journal. So, since it fails all three criteria, not an RS. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, that is not true.
    • A journal with impact factor of 4.5 is hardly dubious. Is is quite good.
    • Tyshkovskiy & Panchin's article [93], a direct responce to Segreto and Deigin, was published in the very same journal. If BioEssays is a dubious journal, why the two bioinformatic scientists from Misha Gelfand's institute publish their response there? The fact that they are real experts cannot be questioned by nobody in clear mind. The fact that leading experts respond to that article means it is by no means fringe.
    • The article was cited 42 times, which is pretty decent for the 2020 article.
    We all agree that lab leakage is highly unlikely. However, do not modify WP rules to remove the source that you don't like. If you misinterpret our policy to reject some source, somebody else may do the same to approve some other source.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fetishizing impact factor as an exclusive and all-encompassing way to assess the quality of journals will lead us down some very dark paths. I say this as someone who has published in many "high impact" journals (Science, Nature, Immunity). I don't regret it, but I also don't value those papers as exceptionally good, either. Examples of crappy journals with impact factors around that of BioEssays:
    I could go on and on. This is a bad argument.
    Saying that a quality scientist also published there does not make it a good journal. Good scientists publish in bad journals and vice versa. Andrew Wakefield's infamous MMR anti-vaxx study was published in The Lancet [94] [95]. Medical Hypotheses has published AIDS denialism (infamously [96]), but they have also published papers by V. S. Ramachandran and several nobel laureates. Doesn't make it a good journal. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 02:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, mind your tong. Nobody here is fetishizing anything. Impact factor does not guarantee credibility, but it is a relatively good predictor of quality. And, that was just one my argument out of several. Again, if BioEssay is bad for us, why it is not bad for Panchin? Or you reject Pancin's article as a good source too?
    Look, if we reject Segreto's article (who supports a lab leakage hypothesis), we must reject Panchin's article too. But we are not going to do that, right?
    --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep in mind, I am criticizing your arguments, not you. You seem to be a very reasonable person, and I have no reason to criticize or demean you in any way, and have tried hard to avoid doing so. I would describe Panchin's article as also an opinion piece published in a low quality journal, and therefore also would not cite it. BTW, it is also WP:PRIMARY and should be avoided for that reason as well. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 02:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if Wikipedians are allowed to arbitrarily decide what is an opinion piece and what is not, then its quality will deteriorate further.
    Ok, I trust you that you authored several Nature papers (which means you are pretty notable person and a true expert). But what if in reality you are just a 10th grade high school student? Why your opinion on Panchin matters? What if I respond you that I personally know his supervisor, and I guarantee he is a leading expert in bioinformatics, and his opinion (as well as the opinion of people working under his supervision) is 146% reliable (no matter where it is published)? That may be true, or I may lie, who knows? And what shall we do in that situation? Vote?
    Alas, that does not work like that. We either use some formal criteria, or Wikipedia will become even a greater mess.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:39, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Never said I published multiple Nature papers. I have published in the journals I referenced. The Nature article is a forthcoming topic review I have authored with my former advisor about flaviviruses. That is neither here nor there. Opinion pieces are not inherently bad. Expert opinion is often quite useful. But it depends on the person saying the opinion, as you have referenced. Sometimes, it's amazingly useful, and reliable, like in the many very great articles published in The Conversation which we cite with attribution.
    The thing that makes this Deigin and Segretto paper opinion, imo, is that it makes broad sweeping statements that are not verifiable or testable. Is that subjective? Yes. Is all RS-determination of non-WP:RSP sources somewhat subjective? Also yes. This is not a court of law, it is not a mathematical equation. There is some subjectivity in our interpretations of the sources and their qualities. And that is why consensus is more than just "Does it meet the formal criteria?" And why this noticeboard exists, frankly.
    The fact that this Deigin and Segretto piece is published by two people who no mainstream scientist discusses, references, or cites, is why they are fringe and would, therefore, be almost always WP:UNDUE to quote. The bad journal, non-expert authors, questionable editorial series, and WP:PRIMARY status are why this particular paper is not a WP:RS. Doesn't even particularly matter whether it's opinion for that part of the determination. As several other editors above have agreed. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 02:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    All of that would be completely correct if Wikipedia were edited by professionals. The problem is, however, that that is not the case. Many people even don't understand the concept of peer-reviewing. Imagine you are discussing all of that with 10 users who are 10th grade students, and they achieved a consensus that you are not right. What will you do in that situation? That is why more formal criteria are needed. And the approach is as follows: this source formally passes WP:V, but does not pass (or marginally passes) WP:NPOV.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As WP:1AM recommends, I would either 1) put it out of my mind and accept that the encyclopedia is forever a work in progress and it being "wrong" to me in one area does not diminish its overall greatness, 2) start an RfC, or 3) escalate it to this noticeboard, as Forch has done.
    Do you have a WP:PAG-based reason for circumventing consensus? Could you provide a quotation of the relevant passage? Because I am not reading that anywhere in the relevant policies. It appears to be your opinion on how Wikipedia should work, not an accurate assessment of how it does. Such opinions on altering PAGs should be placed on the talk pages of the relevant guidelines. They are not relevant here. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 03:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:V is if the content is verifiable to the source (reliable or not, vs WP:RS). I also see multiple claims from you that editors would be using their own special rules, when WP:PRIMARY is not that ambiguous. —PaleoNeonate – 04:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Shibbolethink, I am rarely editing science related topics, but I know most people here are pretty reasonable. In addition, the amount and quality of scientific publications allows easy evaluation of quality and notability of each source, so these should be not much disagreement in these topics even if we approach the problem totally formally. In connection to that, I find it very dangerous when some users decide to come to consensus about reliability of certain category of sources that are not described in the policy or guidelines. It is dangerous because in some other topics, such as history or religion, many users apply lower standards to sources, and if we allow local consensus to approve or reject some certain category of sources, that may lead (and is already leading) to huge NPOV and OR problems in some topics.
    Look, we both agree that this source should not be used. However, I came to that conclusion based on a letter and spirit of WP:V/NPOV, whereas you refer to some local ad hoc invented rules. Whose approach, in your opinion, is less dangerous?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The criteria we are using to judge this source are not ad hoc or invented. You are mistaken.
    The policies themselves describe the metrics we are applying, as several editors above have communicated to you. Primary vs Secondary, Author, Journal, Relevant expertise, acceptance by the wider scientific community, opinion vs scientific description of findings, etc. etc. are all described as ways to judge source reliability in WP:PAGs and essays. See: WP:SOURCE, WP:SCHOLARSHIP, WP:RSPRIMARY, WP:MEDANIMAL, WP:BESTSOURCES, WP:MEDPRI (policies and guidelines) and WP:RSE, WP:SCIRS, WP:RSUW (essays).
    I am not pulling these criteria out of nowhere. They come from the guidelines and essays above. We are not inventing ad hoc rules. We are applying the rules described in the above pages.
    Explanatory supplements explicitly endorse the idea of using context to judge reliability, See: Wikipedia:Inaccuracy#Appendix: Reliability in the context.
    You are the one who is asserting a new way to understand RSes and what counts and what does not count. If I am mistaken, please provide a quotation from a policy or guideline which describes your approach of ignoring consensus. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Shibbolethink, our disagreement does not affect the verdict about this concrete source (we both agree it should not be used). Therefore, this discussion is about the procedure in general. If you want, we may continue it, but feel free to stop at any moment.
    Actually, the disagreement is only about allowing too much freedom to Wikipedians in their decision of what source is reliable. Let's check you and my approaches (and I apologize in advance if I misinterpret you)
    • Primary vs Secondary. No disagreement, except one aspect. Being an author of peer-reviewed publications, you perfectly know that the Introduction and, partially, "Discussion" sections are the summary of the current state of the field: "Introduction" is a mini-review, and "Discussion" is a discussion of own results in a context of the results of previous studies. Therefore, even research articles are, partially, secondary sources. Of course, the author's own data are, by and large, primary.
    • Author My approach: The number of citations and/or h-index is a good measure. You propose to analyze if the author is an expert in this concrete topic. You approach works fine if your opponents are reasonable and well educated people, but what if they are not familiar with a subject or are civil POV-pushers? What is they establish consensus that this particular author's qualification in this particular field is insufficient?
    • Journal My approach: if the journal is generally relevant (e.g. Organic Chemistry, Biophysics, Biochemistry, Environmental Chemistry, etc are relevant to biomedicine) and its impact factor should be at least 1. Your approach seems to include a detailed analysis of event the journal's editorial board. Again, my approach is more formal (and less strict), but it allows less freedom for misuse by poorly educated of bad faith users.
    • Relevant expertise My approach: if the source/author was cited by several other sources, and there is no wholesale criticism/rejection, then it is acceptable. Your approach seems to require a detailed analysis of the content, which, again, may be a seed of endless debates and possible edit wars.
    • opinion vs scientific description of findings Don't see any difference with secondary vs primary.
    • At that point you stop and conclude the source fails WP:V. In contrast, I continue, and ask another question: "If this source passes WP:V, should we use it per WP:FRINGE?" And the answer is, most likely, "No". If our approaches lead to the same verdict, but my approach allows less manipulations, why do you think you are right, and I am not?
    I doubt my interpretation of our policy and guidelines is less correct than yours. I would say you demonstrate more creativity in policy interpretation. Actually, you are bringing the standards of scientific community into Wikipedia. Personally, I would wholeheartedly supported this approach, but it works only when all users are professionals, which is not the case (and will never be).
    --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    ...the Introduction and, partially, "Discussion" sections are the summary of the current state of the field: "Introduction" is a mini-review, and "Discussion" is a discussion of own results in a context of the results of previous studies. Therefore, even research articles are, partially, secondary sources. There is rarely any reason to cite the summary of the field from primary research article intros/discussions because, if the topic is DUE, it will have been discussed in detail in far more comprehensive secondary reviews. JoelleJay (talk) 09:02, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure where to jump in on this conversation so I'll add my thoughts here:

    • For scientific topics, I'd say that primary sources are fine for non-controversial statements, which this is not
    • When acting as WP editors, our opinions on whether the paper's arguments are convincing is less relevant than the consensus of the published material, which currently leans heavily towards zoonotic origins
    • Of the current 42 cites, a significant number are refutations and self-cites (totally fine, but should be omitted from assessing mainstream acceptance/support) and I can't see much independent support for the conclusions presented
    • It's cewrtainly fair to say that it's a highly minority opinion, bordering on fringe.
    • If included in the WP page, it should therefore certainly be contextualised as "A minority/niche position is that the virus could have a laboratory origin,[refs] however the mainstream consensus is that of natural origins.[refs]"
      • Conceivably the specific evidences for and against can be listed but that might be getting pretty technical.
    • I'd not be too concerned about the journal itself - the accuracy variation within journals is often greater than the variation between them and
      • In this context, impact factor isn't a great metric but more useful ones are hard or impossible to calculate e.g. was the paper rejected elsewhere and why, or what were the specific expertise of the reviewers etc.

    Hope that helps somewhat with an outside opinion. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 04:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • This [97] is clearly a secondary RS per our policies. This is NOT an original research publication, but rather a critical review or analysis of already published information. The fact it was cited 40+ times only makes the publication more notable and deserving inclusion. This is not a medical claim and not a medical question, as has been debated to nausea. Therefore, WP:MEDRS does not apply, although one might reasonably argue that it is a WP:MEDRS source as a review/analysis article. It does not really matter that authors are not virologists, but biologists. It does not mean that the authors are right. To make it balanced include some opposing views please. My very best wishes (talk) 14:39, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In other words, (a) BioEssays is generally an RS on biological subjects, and (b) I do not see anything to disqualify authors of the publications as knowledgeable biologists. This is NOT a misinformation, but a justifiable view that was widely cited and shared by a number of people. Sure, their views and analysis are disoutable, but it is important to cite BioEssays and biologists, rather than only politicians and journalists. I do not see why this needs to be censored. My very best wishes (talk) 19:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    But Deigin is not a biologist in any sense and Segreto is in an unrelated field of biology... JoelleJay (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, he seems to be a biotech enterpreneur by profession, but I do not think that makes their articles in Bioessays (more recently here) not RS. Most people seem to argue their views are undue on specific page, but the sources are definitely secondary RS. My very best wishes (talk) 16:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Problems and Paradigms is not a review series. Segretto and Deigin formulate novel analyses and take primary data they themselves have generated for the publication and interpret it. That makes this publication a PRIMARY source. Not a secondary review. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Shibboleth, no different to the joint China-WHO report then? Aeonx (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      If I were Shibboleth, I wouldn't bother replying with more than "false equivalance". Entirely ignoring the fact that most of our coverage on the topic is not even based on the WHO report anyway. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Huh? An official statement from a prominent medical body is WP:MEDRS, a very different standard. —PaleoNeonate – 04:50, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Segretto and Deigin speak only for themselves when they assert broad-based opinions. The WHO report speaks with the authority of a team of experts formally assembled by the WHO. Big difference. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does not matter if this is called "review". This is in fact a review/analysis article. Yes, sure, they are not speaking for the entire scientific community. No one does. I voted "RS" because such source would easily pass as an RS on a typical WP page about a biological subject, and there is nothing wrong with using it anywhere. Yes, this is apparently a minority view, but a very large minority. Personally, I am not a supporter of this view. My very best wishes (talk) 13:42, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      MVBW, you have always been a very reasonable editor in our exchanges. You are being reasonable here. But I still disagree, I see only parts of this article are secondary, much like how many primary articles have introductions that are secondary. But the components where they create their own alignments, hypothesize on the significance of those alignments, etc. are primary. As are their conclusions, which are novel to this paper. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you are mistaken. See Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources: "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources...". Author's own thinking. Every good review provides an analysis by authors. A bad review is just a collection of information. I do not think that one is so great, but just mentioning what it say should not be a problem. My very best wishes (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but most reviews do not include primary research investigations such as creating alignments and pointing out things about those alignments. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of them do. But here is my point. Would including such ref on a page would be helpful for a typical WP reader who is interested in this subject? Yes, it definitely would. My very best wishes (talk) 14:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of relevant information. We have a duty to our readers to maintain our standards of reliability in sourced info. Reading all the screeds of the DRASTIC team would probably be interesting to a user curious about this topic, but we still don't cite them. Because they are unreliable. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to jump in on the primary/secondary aspect. This one's definintely a mix. However there are big chiunks that are pretty primary, e.g. the sequence analysis of the furin site is original research in that paper as far as I can see. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 00:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussing the reliability of a source, without considering what article text someone proposes writing and in which article they are inserting it, can only take you a small distance along the road. Thinking that "Yes it is reliable => I can write whatever I want (about topic X) based on that source" is wrong. Arguing X is just a guideline so can be dismissed is wrong. Our guidelines are the application of policy to specific areas, and e.g. MEDRS is just the application of several policies to using sources for biomedical topics. WP:PSTS (policy) explains our dislike of primary sources and explains that a research paper is a primary source. Footnote C in that policy explains also includes "editorials, op-eds, columns, blogs, and other opinion pieces" as primary sources. Just having an opinion and getting a random journal to publish it is not sufficient on its own for Wikipedia to mention it. See WP:WEIGHT and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Shibbolethink makes several good points about the authors and the journal that suggest both are outside of their field of expertise while also pushing an agenda. -- Colin°Talk 14:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Every critical analysis/review article expresses an opinion by authors to some degree. That does not make a source non-RS. To the contrary, consider Current Opinion (Elsevier) Their review articles are great. Although yes, an opinion to some degree, they are generally very good WP:MEDRS sources. They are not "opinion pieces" as in CNN (and even an opinion in CNN is a valid RS if written by an expert). My very best wishes (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Colin, Shibbolethink is right in almost everything but one thing: this source is reliable (passes WP:V), but it, most likely, does not pass WP:NPOV. Your "Thinking that "Yes it is reliable => I can write whatever I want (about topic X) based on that source" is wrong." is WRONG. A correct statement should be as follows:
    "Yes it is reliable. However, before using that source, we must make sure it represents at least a significant minority viewpoint.
    Clearly, the facts presented during this discussion demonstrate that it is even not a significant minority view, and the authors themselves recognize that in their next publication.
    I think, if we want to follow the WP:V spirit and letter, the formal summary should be:
    Formally speaking, it is reliable, but it should not be used as an insignificant minority view.
    --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Paul Siebert, I don't see how your "correct statement" contradicts my statement you say is "WRONG". And that "correct statement" examines only one aspect (representing a significant minority viewpoint". That still doesn't allow anyone to cite that source and "write whatever they want based on it". WEIGHT would impact how much text to write, where to write it (lead, body, which article(s)), etc. And we still wouldn't be able to state it as fact, just as a minority opinion. And as others note, there may be more recent papers: people are allowed to change their opinions and what might have been thought important at one point may no longer be. Just saying "Yes it is reliable." is problematic. What on earth is it reliable for? Very little of it is reliable for anything more than the opinion of its authors at that point in time. My very best wishes is wrong. Merely citing other papers doesn't turn an opinion piece into a formal literature review (never mind a systematic review). -- Colin°Talk 15:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case, the point of determining whether an article is an RS is moot if you anyway argue it should not be included. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Paul Siebert, If we want to follow Wikipedia policy to the letter, we would wait for someone to close this discussion and determine the consensus established here, and that would tell everyone whether or not this publication should be considered reliable for use in the Investigations article. And if that consensus were to establish the source as reliable, it would have to be robust enough to overturn the consensus established on the relevant talk pages, which is that these publications are not reliable. We wouldn't just follow your opinion or my opinion of what we should do. We would follow the consensus opinion. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Since both you and I have no disagreement about this concrete publication (I think it should not be used too, unless someone decides to include Panchin's article, which is a quite reliable RS; in that case it may be instrumental to mention that Panchin analyzed a possibility that RaTG13 was an ancestor of SARS-CoV2, which was proposed by Segreto), no closure is needed. The outcome of our dispute relates to the policy interpretation, not to this concrete source.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Colin agreed. You can find the relevant discussions about how various users have intended to use the paper at the top of this discussion section. Or also in this consensus template. In brief, several users have wished to use this source to describe how the genetic engineering hypothesis of COVID-19 origins is viable, and not a conspiracy theory. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:39, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If those users wished to use this source to confirm viability of the hypothesis of artificial origin of COVID-19, then all of that is an NPOV issue, not V. Which is exactly what I said initially.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • RS; it's published in an indexed, peer-reviewed journal and widely cited in reputable sources. Except in an exceptional circumstance, no further information should be required nor investigation of the source undertaken. Any original analysis, by us, as to its content is an inferior form of peer review (done by laypersons) to that which it's already undergone. The MEDRS arguments are stretching that guideline, in my opinion, to cover any article or topic that touches in any way on biology, which is an unconvincing reach. The arguments about its conclusions not aligning with the scientific consensus are also entirely unconvincing. Consensus is what we use to make decisions on WP, not judge the merits of knowledge or purported knowledge. Our WP:UNDUE policy says that articles should represent significant viewpoints, not majoritarian viewpoints. That said, it would be appropriate to give any content cited to this source diminished weight in the article, also with respect to our DUE/UNDUE policy. Chetsford (talk) 22:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      By your criteria, the fraudulent vaccine-autism paper by Andrew Wakefield is also an RS, since it's in an indexed, peer-reviewed journal (Lancet) and it is widely cited in reputable sources. Crucially, what your analysis misses is that it is widely cited for the wrong reasons - i.e. the only citations from actually reputable sources are as an example of fraud (the Wakefield paper). Or in our case, refutations. WP:SCHOLARSHIP is the basic summary of this guideline - i.e. works by actual scholars in their fields and not random nobodies, especially not then there's a huge WP:REDFLAG hanging all over it (something that goes against the prevailing view within the relevant scientific community [virologists], is published by non-experts, and is a primary source, is certainly not the kind of thing that satisfies any of the "high quality reliable source" bit). This, critically analysing the context and the content of a source is the kind of reflection on sources that's entirely routine in serious academic studies, and that's certainly the viewpoint Wikipedia should be written from. Not a popularity contest of which thing gets more attention in US newspapers. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:44, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct me if I am wrong, but hadn't that paper been debunked? If yes, then the analogy is incorrect.
    And, yes, fringe source if published in a good peer-reviewed journal is RS. However, if that RS is fringe, it should be treated as such, i.e., ignored. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:57, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "By your criteria, the fraudulent vaccine-autism paper by Andrew Wakefield is also an RS, since it's in an indexed, peer-reviewed journal (Lancet) and it is widely cited in reputable sources" Not at all. My standard is "... it's published in an indexed, peer-reviewed journal and widely cited in reputable sources. Except in an exceptional circumstance, no further information should be required nor investigation of the source undertaken." The example you mention, as noted by Paul Siebert, was debunked which is obviously an "exceptional circumstance" in the plain meaning of the phrase. The rest of your comment ("the only citations from actually reputable sources are as an example of fraud" is a demonstrably false statement (e.g. here [98] where it's routinely referenced in a study by the ENS virologist Erwan Sallard and the CNRS virologist Etienne Decroly in the first quartile journal Environmental Chemistry Letters) so I won't bother doing a point-by-point reply. Chetsford (talk) 02:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not an RS Let's see, it pertains directly to human health, so WP:MEDRS is in full force (in a way that it wouldn't be for, say, choanoflagellate mucus or sauropod vertebrae); it's evidently a primary source; the authors lack relevant expertise; the journal deliberately skews toward the provocative; impact factor is a shoddy way of telling what journals are worthwhile. Also, 42 citations is a pitifully small number for a hot topic, particularly given that they include refutations, self-citations, and MDPI. XOR'easter (talk) 01:31, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am impressed how can we arbitrarily use formal criteria (if that leads to a desirable result) and use more creative approach (when formal criteria do not work as we want). Clearly, the spirit of WP:MEDRS is: "do not use research articles, because you may misinterpret the raw data from them, and a reader may take that as a direct medical advice". In other words MEDRS warns (not prohibits, for it is just guidelines) against usage of research articles when it may cause a direct harm to reader's health. In connection to that, I am wondering what concrete health risk may be caused by the fact that the two authors assert (wrongly, imo) that SARS-CoV2 was engineered, and, concretely, RaTG13 was its direct ancestor? I cannot imagine a situation when this information may cause any harm to our readers.
    Furthermore, 42 citations in less than 2 years is very good, just take a look at this list: majority of research articles in this list have even smaller number of citations.
    In addition, some articles in that list (for example, this one, which is quite a secondary source and RS) cite articles published in BioEssays (including Sirotkin's article about a plausibility of the lab leakage hypothesis, which was cited without obvious criticism). I am wondering why those authors are unfamiliar with the fact that that journal is unreliable?
    I am not a proponent of the lab leakage hypothesis, and of this concrete source, but we must avoid twisting our policy and guidelines to achieve our own agenda (even if it is quite noble).--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:28, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly, the spirit of WP:MEDRS is: "do not use research articles, because you may misinterpret the raw data from them, and a reader may take that as a direct medical advice". This is a total misreading of both the current language of and intent behind MEDRS. Here's a line from the recent close that fell strongly in favor of removing mention of medical advice from the lead:

    There's a solid consensus to begin this guideline with Option 2, i.e. to remove the bit about "medical advice" from the lead sentence. Supporters of this option offered the view that MEDRS exists to help editors find reliable sources in the fraught landscape of biomedicine literature, popular writings, et al. and is not intended to support those seeking health information per se.

    Furthermore, 42 citations in less than 2 years is very good, just take a look at this list: majority of research articles in this list have even smaller number of citations. The paper has only 16 citations in published journal articles. GS does not order hits by citation number so I can't see how you're able to make a comparison among similar papers unless you've looked at all the results, and anyway the search terms you use return all sorts of COVID papers from any time up to the present so it's useless for gauging relative impact.
    In addition, some articles in that list (for example, this one, which is quite a secondary source and RS) cite articles published in BioEssays (including Sirotkin's article about a plausibility of the lab leakage hypothesis, which was cited without obvious criticism). The citation to the Sirotkins is followed immediately by reasoned dismissal of their hypothesis. It was most likely included because it is one of the few (and first) papers remotely entertaining the idea, despite the attention it's gotten in the lay media; there's nothing compelling authors only cite high-quality research for a topic they're just going to rebut anyway, especially if HQRS doesn't even exist for it. JoelleJay (talk) 15:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition, some articles in that list (for example, this one, which is quite a secondary source and RS) cite articles published in BioEssays - This is another opinion editorial, and is explicitly labelled as such. It, therefore, is not a RS, not in the scholarly sense. It could be used with attribution of course, but should not be used for statements of fact. WP:RSOPINION. I would advise you to be more careful about what you label as obvious secondary RS. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Primary source that has been reputably published but it's certainly not HQRS, which is what this topic needs, regardless of whether you apply MEDRS to it or not. This is not a widely cited piece (citations in predatory journals, pre-prints, self cites and refutations are the predominant results on google scholar), it has not been published in a mainstream journal and the credentials of the authors are lacking. Context matters and the context is that there is no dearth of scholarly publications on this topic and that this publication in particular goes against the present scientific consensus (it admits as much). This doesn't mean it's just a minority view but one that is not a significant view among reliable sources. It'd be completely undue to include in practically any form, and if used at all needs to be based on review article(s). Tayi Arajakate Talk 02:31, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "it has not been published in a mainstream journal" Am I missing something? The journal is: (a) first quartile, [99] (b) indexed by SCOPUS and PubMed, [100] (c) published by Wiley & Sons. I must be missing something. Hopefully you can help me understand. Chetsford (talk) 03:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      By not being mainstream, I meant not being so for the topic area, i.e the field of virology. Tayi Arajakate Talk 04:42, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Alas, I presented an example of BioEssays articles that are cited by good CARS-CoV2 related publications as reliable (without any obvious criticism). If they are treated as reliable by peers, why should we treat them differently?--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Non-RS, primary source. As others have already said at length here, and as I have said in the diffs linked at the top of this thread, this source fails MEDRS and our standards for the high-quality RS required to cover fringe topics. That BioEssays apparently does not vet the credentials of its "Hypothesis" series authors is a red flag but the poor reputation of the journal is by no means the only reason to reject this paper, so it's not a great use of editor time debating impact factor etc. here. JoelleJay (talk) 09:19, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overall RS, with some parts of the source being primary hypothesis After reviewing the source and many of the comments above. There appears there may be some bias and WP:PUSH by the usual suspects whom have their own pre-formed perceptions on the various lab leak theories. Ignoring all that, just looking at the source and evaluating whether this is a reliable source of information is relatively straight-forward. The source is a WP:RS for the clear reasons mentioned above, however it does contain some secondary scientific analysis of both secondary and primary data and forms a novel hypothesis; the source is reliable for it's analysis on others data, but is not reliable for the primary data and subsequent hypothesis. Aeonx (talk) 10:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Instead of accusing other users of attempting to push a point-of-view (which is unhelpful, borderline WP:BATTLEGROUND); you really ought to substantiate your "clear reasons mentioned above". Is it the fact this is a primary source? Is this the fact that the author's credentials are unimpressive, to say the least? Is it the fact the source is only cited by at best dubious publications, with the few instances of not dubious publications citing it being refutations? Is it the fact that it's definitively at odds with other, more reliable and more recent sources on the matter (WP:REDFLAG)? What exactly makes you think that this is an acceptable source? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:26, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      The article contains both novel study data and other data, and provides analysis on both, at times independently and at times not. I believe it is possible to be more nuanced than perhaps you would like. Rather than categorise the source into primary or non-primary, how about addressing the content with more fidelity, examine which parts of the article specifically you interpret to be primary. I've already given my perspective, although you've summarily ignored that and instead launched a whataboutism argument. Which is frankly a false argument. The issue of WP:REDFLAG does not dispute a sources reliability, only it's relative weight in any given article. The reasons of why this is a [WP:RS]] are that it meets the policy criteria as detailed above by others. Me repeating that issue wasting other editors time, as indeed you appear to do. I'm concerned that given your past edits and edit warring with others that you might have an unconscious or intentional bias on this, not an accusation - just something for you to personally consider. Aeonx (talk) 23:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dubious first, I don't think there's any question that not everything published in what is normally a reliable publisher is a reliable source. There are plenty of examples, some here, of bad material published in good journals. If Bioessays indeed does not vet the credentials of its "Hypothesis" authors as suggested above, I agree that's clearly a red flag. Lack of author credentials alone is usually enough not to use something. It also isn't a journal with any specialism in the field of virology, another reason to be dubious about its use. Doug Weller talk 12:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not an RS. Has been discussed before, again and again and again, see here. Fails WP:MEDRS, WP:PRIMARY, WP:FRINGE, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:DEADHORSE, WP:FORUMSHOP, WP:IDHT, and probably a bunch of other such pages. I have no patience with users who think guidelines can be ignored because they are not policies; if that reasoning were valid, we should just delete all guidelines because they would never be used anyway. WP:CIR is another relevant page here: if I rarely edited science pages, I would not insist on my lay opinion for several days in the face of users who daily edit science pages contradicting me. They know what they are doing, they even explained why they are doing it several times, and there is nothing arbitrary in using the fine print of the rules in addition to their headlines. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I made this post on the policy page, because I think this discussion is an indication of different understanding of our policy by different users.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not an RS per Hob Gadling rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not RS. Not suitable for Wikipedia's purpose of reflecting accepted knowledge, WP:PROFRINGE instrument only. Alexbrn (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • RS, just barely. Paul Siebert makes a good point that any paper published in any non-predatory journal fulfills the minimun requirements for WP:Primary. However, we are discussing a specific claim that requires deeper judgment, and wikipolicies allow us to to invoke the case-by-case rule here. It is done all the time in WP:RSN, that's what it is there for. Here are my two cents onto the subject of reliability
    1) Authors: Deigin lacks proper scientific credentials, though Segreto is barely ok. So its not definitive what to make of a paper by them, I guess we can trust the more reliable of the two. This rule would apply to those papers with large number of coauthors in which one can be a Ph.D student or someone lacking expertise, but it should not hurt the credentials of the overall authorship group.
    2) Journal: There are precedents that Bioessays is taken seriously by top journals. For example, in Martin and Koonin (2006), doi:10.1038/nature04531, they cite Poole et al (1999), published in Bioessays. So it is a non-predatory journal that, at least in one ocassion, has entered the top levels of scientific discussion.
    3) The specific case of the Furin Cleavage Site claim: So, we have a claim going around in different sources saying that FCS is so peculiar and odd that it might have come from a lab instead of nature. Has this claim been repeated in News media? Yes. They tend to cite Nicholas Wade's opinion piece published at the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists as the source for it. If one reads Wade's article, he gives credit to a Deigin opinion article published in Medium as source for the FCS claim. That medium article is related to the Segreto and Deigin Bioessays paper, in my opinion, it is almost a preprint of it. Has this claim being repeated in top cientific journals? Yes. The Holmes et al (2021) review published in Cell mentions that The genesis of the polybasic (furin) cleavage site in the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 has been subject to recurrent speculation. Although the furin cleavage site is absent from the closest known relatives of SARS-CoV-2 (Andersen et al., 2020), this is unsurprising because the lineage leading to this virus is poorly sampled and the closest bat viruses have divergent spike proteins due to recombination (Boni et al., 2020; Lytras et al., 2021; Zhou et al., 2021). Furin cleavage sites are commonplace in other coronavirus spike proteins, including some feline alphacoronaviruses, MERS-CoV, most but not all strains of mouse hepatitis virus, as well as in endemic human betacoronaviruses such as HCoV-OC43 and HCoV-HKU1 (Gombold et al., 1993; de Haan et al., 2008; Kirchdoerfer et al., 2016). A near identical nucleotide sequence is found in the spike gene of the bat coronavirus HKU9-1 (Gallaher, 2020), and both SARS-CoV-2 and HKU9-1 contain short palindromic sequences immediately upstream of this sequence that are indicative of natural recombination break-points via template switching (Gallaher, 2020). Hence, simple evolutionary mechanisms can readily explain the evolution of an out-of-frame insertion of a furin cleavage site in SARS-CoV-2 (Figure 2). Here we see that Holmes et al omit citing Segreto and Deigin, or Wade. They introduce the FCS claim when they say "The genesis of the polybasic (furin) cleavage site in the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 has been subject to recurrent speculation." but with no citations there, which seems to be a mistake or at least, a failure in research protocol for a literature review to properly give credit where is due, in my opinion. It is very hard to believe that they missed the Bioessays paper during their the keyword search part of the review, I mean, just type furin cleavage site sars-cov-2 on google scholar and the Segreto and Deigin appears in the top 15 results. In conclusion, here, most of top newspapers trace the FCS assertion as Wade -> Deigin (Medium) -> Segreto and Deigin (2020, Bioessays), and the best secondary reviews omit them, so its a tie here. So, authors and journal passed the test, and specific case of analysis of the claim results in a draw, a not definitive conclusion, which means that overall its an RS, although just barely. Forich (talk) 04:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not convinced by pro-Deigin analyses. Clearly a WP:MEDRS standard applies here, and any such claim (as presented by Segreto/Deigin) must come through strict scrutiny. I will try to respond to what I understand to be necessary criteria before the article comes cited and mentioned
    • Is BioEssays a WP:MEDRS, as the claim is certainly within MEDRS scope? It is certainly a legitimate scientific journal, and the example Forich mentions is quite good to show that for genetics (though not exactly a related subdomain to the one being here in dispute), it is at least sometimes treated seriously. But we have more area of expertise than one touched in this question, and that is in particular virology. Shibbolethink convincingly, in my opinion, showed that the journal has a stated purpose to test new ideas, but Wikipedia is not supposed to be a dumpster of whatever new research and new ideas appear. So yes, the journal is OK, but we should bear in mind what journal does, that is, publish some really new ideas which have not yet been vetted (as is the case here). So, for the third criterion of WP:SOURCE, it's a pass grade but nothing close to spectacular. Just acceptable.
    • Are the authors qualified? The answer here, is no. Deigin has little to do with virology, biosafety, and has touched genetics only to the extent that it was concerned with aging. Not convinced about his virology skills at all. Segreto has much better credentials and her contributions to genetics, I believe, should not be disputed, but all the time she's been working with fungi, not viruses. Again, COVID or COVID-like diseases are not her domain of expertise, and there's no evidence she has received additional virology training before switching to publishing papers on COVID.
    • Is the work itself OK? Well, to begin with, we don't establish accuracy, or even prominence of a scientific (MEDRS-sense) idea using normal press. While the claim may resonate among the lay publications, it is totally irrelevant to the scientific consensus (or lack thereof) in the scientific community, which is what counts. There's one more troubling thing, though. The citations, from my review, rarely, if ever, supported their findings, and many more were in fact rebuttals. There is a good reason Holmes et al. avoided Nicholas Wade and the pair of authors discussed here. The former, who became one of the most active supporters of the theory, has published his opinion in a journal absolutely unrelated to the topic (Bulletin of Atomic Scientists), and he does not have the expertise, either (probably the least among the three of the people mentioned here). As Forich shows, the scheme is Wade -> Deigin (Medium) -> Segreto and Deigin (2020, Bioessays). But it's the Wade to Deigin transition that is by itself worrying. A person who is barely a scientist (and I'm being generous here) makes a claim based on an opinion (piece) of a non-scientist (he was merely a journalist for Nature and Science) and then passes through peer review of a journal that, by self-admission, likes to test the boundaries of science by publishing not-exactly-mainstream papers. This is all too fishy for me. As an opinion piece, provided that due weight is given, probably it could be used (though I don't even recommend doing that), but certainly not on par with other articles.
    Totting up: journal is acceptable, authors are not good enough, and to say that such a paper conforms to WP:MEDRS, or even WP:RS requirements is quite a stretch. Find some better sources. I see no reasons for consensus change. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • May be that one is better? Seems to be an RS, and it includes more authors. My very best wishes (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      While the journal is again OK by itself, it's off-topic for the claims they make. Environmental Chemistry Letters does not really cover genetics, and this article is so full of them that they must have chosen a better publication (just like Wade must have chosen a better publication for his hypothesis, too). The citations reveal three papers of the Deigin/Segreto pair (actually two, because two citations actually refer to one article), one which is unpublished (Shneider) and the other articles barely getting one citation at most.
      And yes, even though there are more authors listed, the main two authors still remain Deigin and Segreto, which does not really get rid of the problem of their lack of qualifications. I think this does not pass muster, either. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Environmental Chemistry Letters does not really cover genetics...". I am sorry, but such argument is wrong. For example, one can use any reasonable RS for claims about proteins (for example), not only something like Proteins (journal). My very best wishes (talk) 15:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, what? It absolutely matters where a biomedical claim is published -- see the third sentence of WP:MEDSCI. Even if you don't agree that this falls under MEDRS, it should be obvious that a journal reliable in one discipline is not going to be nearly as reliable in a completely different discipline. See WP:RSCONTEXT: Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. Environmental Chemistry Letters is a great journal for research in the fields its editors publish in...which categorically do not include anything remotely relevant to the Segreto paper:
    Subfields of editors based on major Scopus topics and papers
    • Eric Lichtfouse: biocathodes; biosorbents; wastewater bioremediation
    • Jan Schwarzbauer: PPCP; micropollutant; carbamazepine; PAHs
    • Didier Robert: photocatalytic activity; perovskites; titanium dioxide nanoparticles
    • Rengasamy Alagarsamy: sediment contamination; trace metal; pollution load
    • Jayanta Kumar Biswas: sediment contamination; trace metal; pollution load
    • Hong Chen: perovskite solar cells; electrocatalysts; water splitting
    • Nandita Dasgupta: nanoemulsions; titanium dioxide nanoparticles; ecotoxicity
    • Shiming Ding: chelex; porewater; sediment-water interface
    • Mark Fitzsimons: PPCP; micropollutant; carbamazepine; pharmaceutical contamination
    • Sophie Fourmentin-Lamotte: cyclodextrins; complexation; soil remediation
    • Santiago Gómez-Ruiz: mesoporous silica nanoparticles; drug liberation; nanocarriers; nanocatalysts
    • Giuliana Gorrasi: nanoclays; nanotubes; agro-waste
    • Nathalie Gova: PAHs; exosomes; organophosphorus pesticides; hair analysis
    • Jie Han: chemisorption/adsorption of estrone pollution; Ti anodization; wastewater heavy metal recovery; interestingly, he published zero papers between 2017 and September 2020, when he and a couple other editors started capitalizing on COVID with a broad array of completely unrelated-to-their-expertise opportunistic hypothesis editorials published in Env Chem Lett: "Have artificial lighting and noise pollution caused zoonosis and the COVID-19 pandemic? A review", "Unflushable or missing toilet paper, the dilemma for developing communities during the COVID-19 episode", "Electrostatic fine particles emitted from laser printers as potential vectors for airborne transmission of COVID-19", "Locked on salt? Excessive consumption of high-sodium foods during COVID-19 presents an underappreciated public health risk: a review", "Unprotected mothers and infants breastfeeding in public amenities during the COVID-19 pandemic"...
    • Andrew Hursthouse: antimony; urban soils; environmental contamination
    • Inamuddin: enzymatic fuel cells; bioanodes; ultrafiltration
    • Hanzhong Jia: elemental carbon; particulate matter; soil contamination
    • Branimir Jovančićević: paleoenvironment; petroleum pollutants
    • Sunil Kumar: cyclodextrins; sludge composting; solid waste management; pig manure
    • Rock Keey Liew: bio-oil; pyrolysis; biochar
    • Cong Li: haloacetic acid removal; disinfection byproducts; wastewater treatment
    • Lingxiangyu Li: environmental nanoparticles; ecotoxicity
    • Yangxian Liu: flue gases; coal-fired power plant; denitrification
    • Yong Liu: aerosols; liquid-air interface; FTIR analysis of fluoroanions and carboxylic acid salts
    • Xingmao Ma: phytotoxicity; ZnO nanoparticle; ecotoxicity
    • Sixto Malato: microcontaminants; wastewater reclamation; micropollutants
    • Christian Mougin: soil biochemistry; cyanobacterial toxins; agricultural soil
    • Sonil Nanda: gasification of organic wastes; biochar; bioenergy
    • Dai Viet N. Vo: dry reforming methane; steam reforming; syngas; bioenergy; wastewater; biomass/waste valorization
    • Mehmet Oturan: soil washing; nonionic surfactants; electrocatalysis
    • Srinath Pashikanti: biotransformation; nuclear fuel and electronic waste treatment
    • Shivendu Ranjan: nanoemulsions; TiO2 nanoparticles; nanofibers; ecotoxicity
    • Mashallah Rezakazemi: fluid dynamics/modeling; microporous membrane systems; bioreactors
    • Claire Richard: photochemistry; photocatalytic degradation of pollutants
    • Tatiana Rusanova: Ag nanoparticles; nanofibers; immunoassay detection of contaminants/toxins; optical acidity sensors
    • Mika Sillanpaa: brown carbon; biomass burning; radiative forcing; electrochemical oxidation; soil washing; biosorbents; wastewater
    • Vasudevan Subramanyan: electrochemical oxidation; soil washing; wastewater
    • Ngoc Han Tran: micropollutant; antibiotic resistance in wastewater and rivers; wastewater treatment
    • Polonca Trebse: UV filters; oxybenzone; toxic effects of waste materials on microbes
    • Isabel Villaescusa: biosorption; heavy metal removal from wastewater
    • Stuart Wagland: waste disposal facilities; refuse-derived fuels; secondary raw material; municipal solid waste
    • Chuanyi Wang: photochemistry; biosorption; environmental pollutant removal
    • Ruiyang Xiao: micropollutant; environmental pollutant removal; radical-mediated disinfection
    • Shaocai Yu: haze; air pollution; particulate matter
    • Zhien Zhang: gas, water, solid waste treatment technology; solvent- and membrane-mediated CO2 capture; whatever this paper is: "Efficiency investigation on energy harvesting from airflows in HVAC system based on galloping of isosceles triangle sectioned bluff bodies"
    As you can see, not a single one of its 47 editors has any expertise in genetics or biology in general, let alone viral genetic engineering. Publishing papers in fields well outside a journal's stated specialty is a big red flag for reliability, especially when seemingly zero effort was made to recruit editors with even minimal background in virology/epidemiology. Like Szmenderowiecki already said, numerous other journals that are actually specialized in the type of data Segreto et al produced would have been far, far more appropriate. So we have to ask why their paper wasn't published in any of those, and the easiest answer is that it couldn't have been due to quality control by the editors. JoelleJay (talk) 18:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Szmenderowiecki: a journal on genetics would be the appropriate type of publication for a matter that is purely or mainly about genetics, but determining the origins of the genome cannot be solved only by looking at the genome of SARS-COV-2, just like we cannot know the origin of Cavendish bananas from looking its genome alone. We know that Cavendish bananas originate from Mauritius by way of a greenhouse in Chatsworth House where they were first cultivated and they are now fully dependent on cloning for reproduction. If we looked only at the DNA of this fruit, we wouldn’t be able to tell if it was a product of natural evolution or directed evolution, and we would rely on a genetics journal to answer this question. Also, was first published in médecine/sciences (10.1051/medsci/2020123), which even Alexbrn agreed is a reliable source. This topic area is plagued by editors with an extreme prejudice who nitpick at any little thing they can find, and there is no point in any of these discussions on these noticeboards. If you have something specific you would like to add to a specific article for the benefit of our readers, I can find multiple sources for you. Ruling out primary sources like this Segreto/Deigin paper only means that we can’t attribute the original source, as in some secondary sources they are not given credit. For example, this Reuters article quotes Fauci mentioning the Mojiang Miners, without crediting TheSeeker268 of DRASTIC. For now we can just reference the Reuters article, because no one will argue about that on this noticeboard, and when its published, we can reference Alina Chan and Matt Ridley’s to assure that TheSeeker is properly credited. --Francesco espo (talk) 00:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, first of all, I would ask you to set your "prejudiced editors" comments aside, 'cause that is not going to let you to anywhere good.
      Secondly, the Segreto/Deigin paper is reliant from A to Z on genetic evidence that they say indicates an alternative path might be a better explanation for the origins of COVID. This is not what this journal really writes about. Look at the content of the issue: [101] (or the previous issue, and point me to one article that is this deep into genetics as either of the two in question. They have simply chosen the wrong journal for that purpose. Yes, we have to compare genetic material between each other, but there are other, specialised publications. And, to finish this discussion, as I said, their work was not really cited much in respectable or influential publications, so it is unlikely they are a representation of a significant viewpoint, let alone good enough for facts when we have other publications (previous discussions have, unsurprisingly, seen similar conclusions).
      Thirdly, 10.1051/medsci/2020123 hasn't even been discussed here. Deigin et al. only cite him once (in their attempt to synthetise other papers seeking to uphold the lab leak theory), and whether Sallard et al. is admissible is another story (and it's not the same paper as Deigin's, or not even close to a translation from French), and evaluation of them is for another discussion. We stick to Deigin.
      Ruling out primary sources like this Segreto/Deigin paper only means that we can’t attribute the original source, as in some secondary sources they are not given credit. But do we need to mention them in the first place? My answer is no due to above reasons.
      For example, this Reuters article quotes Fauci mentioning the Mojiang Miners, without crediting TheSeeker268 of DRASTIC. Because Fauci's opinion is notable, unlike that of an Twitter activist aka amateur researcher; besides, Fauci needn't have consulted TheSeeker268 to get to their conclusion. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 01:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Szmenderowiecki, all good points, but I don’t understand what you mean about Fauci consulting TheSeeker268. It was TheSeeker268 who made the discovery about the Mojiang Miners, where the WIV later admitted to collecting RaTG13 from, after obfuscating it and even outright lying about it (on NBC news [102]). I’m not sure if you’ve read this Segreto and Deigin paper or if you understand the significance of tying the virus most similar to SARS-COV-2 to a mine where people died of a SARS-like illness, but Fauci does seem to have read the paper and called for the Chinese to clarify this matter. As Colin and Tayi Arajakate say above, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and what is missing from this discussion is any proposed context for any proposed text. I see a rough consensus not to use this paper for COVID-19 investigations, but I don’t think there would be a problem using it to explain Mojiang Miners incident in the COVID-19 lab leak and DRASTIC articles in conjunction with secondary sources. I do not see the point of this discussion if we are not focused on content. Do you agree? Tagging Forich and Paul Siebert. Francesco espo (talk) 23:26, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      What I meant is that Fauci and his advisors are not likely to be following DRASTIC on Twitter, and even if they do, they reasonably took all of their findings with a grain of salt and researched it independently, ultimately replicating their ideas (btw, not aware of their Mojiang Miners scoop, could you please send a link of proof that they were indeed the first). However, few scientists would want to publicly say "I've been making COVID guidance based on DRASTIC", and that's for a good reason.
      As for Segreto and Deigin papers, I've read them both, but my reasons remain unchanged + I see no evidence Fauci started to call for Chinese to clarify their involvement because of the Deigin's paper.
      what is missing from this discussion is any proposed context for any proposed text I don't see the text (yet), but if you insist on using Deigin and the text is not in the framing of "several amateur scientists, some of whom are known to be part of DRASTIC...", then it's an automatic no because their opinion is not an expert opinion; not to mention that inclusion of the text even in this framing would be seen as inappropriate where we are describing expert investigations into COVID and not Twitter activists/mycologists looking for what seems to contradict the main narrative). If you want to explain Mojiang Miners incident, on the other hand, you actually don't need MEDRS-quality sources (but you should be extra careful: just to state that such an incident existed does not need a MEDRS, but any genetic claims of links b/w RaTG13 and SARS-CoV-2 must use MEDRS; and extraordinary claims would require extraordinary sources). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 07:12, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • RS. I agree with the comments above from Paul Siebert, Chetsford, My very best wishes and Aeonx. I see other editors here are opposed to using this paper as a source as it is a primary source, but many of its findings can be found in secondary sources. I see many articles on Wikipedia citing primary and secondary sources in conjunction with each other because it’s important to attribute findings to their authors and enable readers to check the original source for themselves.--Francesco espo (talk) 23:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you pinged me, I have a feeling some clarification is needed. By saying that this source is reliable, I meant it meets WP:V standards, but that does not mean it meets WP:NOR/MPOV criteria. Numerous argumets presented during that discussion confirm it fails NOR/NPOV, which means it should not be used except in a context of its criticism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Will anyone uninvolved please close this whole discussion? Thank you. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 07:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Please, wait a little bit.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel uncomfortable with the direction this discussion is turning into. Firstly, Siebert keeps bringin up the matter of WP:V, which I feel is out of place here. The source exists, therefore it can be safely traced to a valid not self-published source. We are not interested here in discussing if the source is verifiable, we are asking about Reliability. Second, let me express the problem more clearly out there: the relevant wikipolicy is WP:SCHOLARSHIP, which says that Material such as a... research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.. Does Segreto and Deigin pass this test? The closing editor need to focus on that question, IMO. Now, the wikipolicy says one must follow When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised. Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves. This means that we use what RS say of Segreto and Deigin (here the debate is whether News sources or MEDRS are required). I do not suscribe to the view that the fact that Holmes et al (2021) omit citing Segreto and Deigin proves that it is unreliable. However, we can look at interviews and tweets of the authors in Holmes et al (2021) to discuss whether they engaged in discusssion with Segreto and Deigin. I remember Kristian Andersen and Angela Rasmussen having gone back and forth with Segreto on twitter, maybe someone can help me trace back what was their judgment of her and her ideas. Finally, we have from the wikipolicy, this: One may be able to confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking what scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. The closing editor need to take in consideration this, because a published paper that receives no citations is regarded as a document that simply did not entered the the mainstream academic discourse. In this citation count analysis, self citations do not count, of course. Forich (talk) 21:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO, the discussion isn't turning in any new direction. I asked these four questions just to make everyone's position more clear. By no means I wanted to affect the discussion's outcome, and, in my opinion, by answering these questions you will make discussion's closure easier.
    My poit was to demonstrate that the question "Is this source reliable?" is actually a composite question that contains at least four different questions. Different people understand this question differently, and answer accordingly, which leads to confusion. By splitting this question on four, I made the situation simpler, and it is easy to see that there is not much disagreement among the users. However, if you believe that the questions are incorrect, or you believe they should be amended/expanded/modified, please propose your own questions.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We should definitely not be using tweets or whatever to gauge how scientists judge the authors' conclusions. We don't even need to see what RS say about Segreto and Deigin at all: it is abundantly clear that someone with a doctorate in fungal ecology and someone with zero science background are wholly unqualified to write a paper on this topic, and the journals they published in are not particularly (or at all) specialized enough in the relevant fields for the content to be considered reliable. JoelleJay (talk) 22:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm quite a bit surprised, and unpleasantly so, by the recent WP:VOTE direction that has been taken. The outcome still appeared rather clear, despite the walls of text that lead to it. Was there any good reason to do this, besides perpetuating this discussion for a bit longer?
    — Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomCanadian (talk • contribs) 21:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    See above.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at the tweets from Segreto's account and this is what I found. She repeatedly tried to engage with Andersen but he did not answer to her and blocked her. Deigin also tweeted that Andersen blocked him. Here Eddie Holmes tweeted that he blocked Segreto for "descending into personal attacks on me: that I've lied, fabricated data, or am a CCP agent". My guess is that Holmes et al (2021) did not cite Segreto and Deigin because they had this beef in social media, and (if the behavior of Segreto mentioned by Holmes is true), it is a red flag against her reliability. Forich (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is Scimago's information on Bioessays, it places the journal at the Q1 (top quarter) of the area "Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (miscellaneous)" Forich (talk) 19:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    But do you agree that per MEDRS we cannot use it? In addition, the "primary vs secondary" question actually means that some expertise is needed for correctly interpreting S&D's data, and there is a rist to misinterpret them. And that is exactly what PSTS says: do not use a source if there is a risk to misinterpeet it. I agree that BioEssays is good per our policy, and the article was reputably published, but does it affect the overall verdict of the discussion?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would guess Holmes didn't cite Segreto et al because neither author has any standing whatsoever in virology, epidemiology, biosafety, or genome engineering and therefore Holmes didn't consider their paper worth mentioning. Authors are not obligated to cite every paper putting forward a hypothesis, especially amateur ones. JoelleJay (talk) 21:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Paul Siebert:, I vote on not banning Segreto and Deigin as we are currently doing in the consensus' third bullet point. If we don't like their conclusions it suffices to impose the weight of our best MEDRS (Holmes et al (2021)): the FCS is not that odd and can perfectly arise naturally and the source of the claim that FCS looks unnatural remains unnamed, as in Holmes, until and if a new MEDRS gives them the credit of coming up with that hypothesis.Forich (talk) 23:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Survey (Segreto and Deigin)

    Szmenderowiecki, Francesco espo, JoelleJay, Alexbrn, Doug Weller, RandomCanadian, JoelleJay, Tayi Arajakate, Shibbolethink, XOR'easter, Colin, Paleo, T.Shafee(Evo&Evo), RandomCanadian, Hemiauchenia, Pyrrho the Skeptic, Forich, and other participants of that discussion (I am not sure I listed all of you), please, do me a favour and answer the following questions (just "Yes"/"No"):

    • Leaving MEDRS/NPOV/NOR considerations beyond the scope, is the Segreto and Deigin's paper reliable per WP:V only?
    Answers
    • Yes --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No[a] Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Depends, it satisfies WP:V for the claims/findings of its authors, not necessarily for anything else. It should be handled per guidelines on primary sources with the consideration that it's reputably published. Tayi Arajakate Talk 19:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, because WP:V is context-based, and these fail on contextual usage due to the author, journal, editorial basis which are delineated as ways to assess exceptional claims.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, Forich (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No per shibbolethink XOR'easter (talk) 21:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No WP:BURDEN (part of WP:V) requires that "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 the contribution." (emphasis mine) A reliable source is then described in the next section, WP:SOURCE, "The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings [...] All three can affect reliability." Per my analysis and that of others, the paper is not a reliable source, and thus cannot be used to satisfy WP:V, since verifiability requires a reliable source. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. Context matters, and especially for minority (at best) claims only the strongest sourcing should be used. JoelleJay (talk) 22:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Irrelevant Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, certainly - based on WP:Verifiability. My very best wishes (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but that's an irrelevantly low bar in this case. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 05:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (your answer) (please, write it above this text)
    • Does the Segreto and Deigin's paper comply with the WP:MEDRS recommendations?
    Answers
    (your answer) (please, write it above this text)
    • Can the Segreto and Deigin's paper be considered non-fringe per WP:FRINGE, and does it pass the WP:REDFLAG filter?
    Answers
    • No --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No Tayi Arajakate Talk 19:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes - Forich (talk) 20:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No XOR'easter (talk) 21:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No Many of its claims have been contradicted or directly refuted by mainstream scientific publications, and the paper does not appear to have garnered any positive (as opposed to sources which then refute it or describe it in other unflattering terms; as described in the previous discussion) citations in such mainstream publications. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. JoelleJay (talk) 22:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes for the following reasons: (a) the publication express non-fringe minority views; a lot of other publications discuss the same possibility (hence this is not fringe) (b) BioEssays is a mainstream source on biological subjects, (c) the opinion/analysis in the paper just discusses well known scientific data. My very best wishes (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No I feel like I've been answering the same question for months. How much longer is this bloody article going to be shopped around by WP:PROFRINGE adherents? Alexbrn (talk) 04:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, Still very fringe position currently. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 05:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (your answer) (please, write it above this text)
    • Can the Segreto and Deigin's paper be considered as a secondary source in this context?
    Answers
    • No --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes[b] Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No Source seems like more of a database of primary research than an author's analysis in this context. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No Tayi Arajakate Talk 19:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No/Depends on how it's used. It is secondary only for undisputed facts, and primary for most of what people want to use it for. (e.g. the sequence analyses, considerations of genetic engineering. In these it creates novel hypotheses based on novel data, and thus is primary.)— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. But this is not the question that we are asking. It is a primary source from within the scientific community (albeit from a low-ranked journal) that has managed to be cited in RS secondary sources (news sources, not MEDRS). Whenever a secondsary source acknowledges a primary source, the two can and should be mentioned to backup claims. Forich (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No XOR'easter (talk) 21:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No per Shibboleth. "Undisputed facts" can be cited to better sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. As has been repeatedly discussed here and elsewhere. JoelleJay (talk) 22:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Irrelevant Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, simply by definition: it provides analaysis and interpretation of data published in other sources. My very best wishes (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, for parts relevant to this discussion (e.g. the furin site sequence analysis) much of it is original research. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 05:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (your answer) (please, write it above this text)

    In my opinion, your answers will be extremely helpful for closing that discussion.

    Thank you in advance. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    1. ^ Per definition, "In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." Saying "yes" would mean that not only we can check the info, but that it also comes from a reliable source, which it doesn't in this particular case. WP:V is by its nature inseparable from WP:RS
    2. ^ A secondary source "contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." Just fits the definition of the secondary source. But it is of a low quality because it's simply a piece of correspondence, i.e. an opinion piece

    Why does the reliablity of these author's matter? If someone is "investigating" the origins of sars-cov2, surely you could simply state that there are notable unreliable people with under developed resumes that are also investigating. If their opinion is not notable, then it probably doesnt need to be in wikipedia. 70.191.102.240 (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. I am not involved with this discussion but I just want to note that creating sections where editors are asked to log their !votes, and only their !votes (just "Yes"/"No") is probably not compatible with WP:CON (which is a policy) and WP:VOTE. I don't want to make a big fuss about it here, but let's keep in mind that this is not the direction in which this noticeboard should go. JBchrch talk 22:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO, that is not a big problem, because the outcome of the discussion seems obvious even without this survey. Actually, my point was to demonstrate that the (ostensibly) singe question "Is this source reliable in a context?" is in reality a composite question that may have no binary answer.
    In addition, just "Yes"/"No" is not mandatory, and, as you can see, that does not prevent those users who wanted to clarify their position from doing that. --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I've been away for a few days, and agree with RandomCanadian above that turning this into a vote was a bad idea. Paul above seems more interested in proving some abstract points than about using a source in an article to support a given text. I suggest an admin close this discussion and just close it without trying to describe a conclusion. Once again covid controversies prove to be a distracting timesink and a random mess of policy/guideline comments. Please, everyone has wasted too much time. The opening post saying "The paper hypothetizes ..." was all anyone needed to know: no it isn't suitable. -- Colin°Talk 09:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I am a little bit surprised by this your post. You correctly noted that that controversy became a distracting timesink, but it seems you resist to my attempts to finish it once and forever. It seems quite clear that the discussion can already be closed, and the result is obvious: "Although there are some reasons to argue that the source was reputably published (it may pass WP:V sensu stricto), it does not meet other important criteria, and cannot be used in Wikipedia to support the lab leakage hypothesis."
    It seems the only disagreement is if the source was reputably published. It seems you guys refuse to recognize the obvious: per our policy, and if we leave guidelines beyond the scope, it IS. Does it affect the outcome of the discussion? Obviously, it doesn't. Therefore, continuation of this discussion can and should be moved to the policy page, because it is not a discussion about this source, but about our vision of the policy.
    IMO, I helped to show the roots of our disagreement, and that demonstrated that there is no significant disagreement about the main point: if this source can be used. I think we have already achieved consensus about that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The questions you asked in the survey make little sense. I see folk have tried their best to answer them but still. At WP:V it says "To discuss the reliability of a specific source for a particular statement, consult Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard". Reliability is always in context with what fact or opinion someone is drawing from the source. There is a huge difference between "John says the earth is flat" and "The earth is flat". Most sources are reliable for what the author said, and many people are capable of describing uncontested established facts, even if they say things that are fringe or novel. Asking, for example, if a source is "reliable per WP:V only" isn't useful. Many sources, including this one, make a lot of claims. So the FRINGE question depends on what claim you are talking about. And many sources are a mix of primary, secondary and tertiary material so asking if an entire paper could be considered secondary is also not a useful question on its own.
    If you remain confused about policy and want clarification, I strongly recommend discussing it with a non-covid example. As you can see from some of the comments, editors are getting tired of being asked repeatedly about this paper. And frustrated that so many very straightforward sourcing questions get escalated to RFCs and noticeboards where the discussion gets contaminated by agenda-supporting votes. -- Colin°Talk 11:34, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not correct: The header of this page says "If your question is about undue weight or other neutral point of view issues, please use the NPOV noticeboard." And that is exactly what I have done: I demonstrated that to resolve the dispute we had separate WP:V and WP:NPOV related aspects. Anyway, this is not a discussion about that source, so it is better to move it to another place. I responded to you at WP:V talk page.
    • BTW, it seems we can close this discussion (I am not sure a formal closure is really necessary, because the conclusion seems obvious).--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    CounterPunch and Al Bawaba

    I will bundle these two sources together because they both appear on Alex Saab’s page. An editor has placed an unreliable source tag against a number of statements sourced to CounterPunch and Al Bawaba. Counterpunch appears in the Perennial list with the description "There is no consensus regarding the reliability of CounterPunch. As a biased or opinionated source, its statements should be attributed". Al Bawaba does not appear in the Perennial list. It is used as a reference nearly 1,000 times within Wikipedia. I found one discussion about the reliability of Al Bawaba from 2015 which is not useful here.Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_198 The statements that have been tagged are:

    • On 24 August, according to CounterPunch, the US asked that the period allowed for its response be extended to 7 October.
    • In August 2021, Saab's defence team asked that the site of his detention be moved from the island of Sal to Praia. It said Saab's health had deteriorated and that he needed access to specialist medical care for his cancer. On 1 September 2021, the Barlavento Court of Appeal granted Saab's request.(sourced to Al Bawaba)
    • Saab's defence team asked the Cape Verde courts to refuse Saab's extradition on the grounds that there were legal irregularities associated with his arrest. By September 2021, the request had reached the Cape Verde Constitutional Court.(sourced to Al Bawaba)

    In addition, the following statement sourced to CounterPunch was removed from the page with the edit summary "Per talk page. The most important reactions, including OHCHR's, ECOWAS Court's and Russia's are already covered by other sources. If other reactions are to be included, better sources should be used ".

    • Roger Harris, a board member of the Task Force on the Americas, wrote in CounterPunch that Iran, China, Russia, the United Nations, the African Union, ECOWAS, and Venezuela had written diplomatic letters to Cape Verde asking that Saab's extradition be refused based on the "principles of immunity and inviolability of consular rights.

    Relevant points here are that

    • The statements sourced to CounterPunch are attributed as required.
    • The statements are factual rather than opinion.
    • The statements do not appear to be controversial.

    I did ask on Saab’s talk page why the tags were added. The response was "Mostly BobFromBrockley's comments in its respective section, I will try to give more details briefly".

    Does anyone have any thoughts about the reliability of the two sources for the statements that have been tagged and the statement that has been removed from the page? Burrobert (talk) 13:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    If its uncontroversial then there is no problem to find other WP:RS especially in WP:BLP we shouldn't use sources with questionable reliability and the WP:ONUS for them was not met --Shrike (talk) 17:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "If its uncontroversial then there is no problem to find other WP:RS": that was not the question I asked. I asked whether the two sources are reliable for the specific statements. Whether the same information can be found elsewhere is not relevant. If another source disputed the information then that would make a difference but that has not occurred here. Are the two sources reliable for the specific statements?
    • "the WP:ONUS for them was not met": again that is not the question asked.
    Burrobert (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that CounterPunch, although it does have some very good content, has a lot of really poor content, including conspiracy theories. It shares writers with deprecated and generally unreliable sources such as GlobalResearch and Unz Review. And a lot of what it publishes is opinion rather than factual, and would rarely be due. Therefore we should both exercise extreme caution and take it on a case by case basis. In this particular case, as I suggest on the article talk page, it's hard to see why the author - a retired conservationist active in the Peace and Freedom Party, whose name and affiliation are currently red links - should be seen as authoritative. I also observed that the cited article appears to have been re-posted unchanged from Dissident Voice, which I don't think has any editorial oversight. A recent discussion of DV here reached a consensus that it is generally unreliable. The article really reads like a press release from Saab's defence campaign, concluding with a link to a petition in support of him.
    I'm less familiar with Al Bawaba, but their reporting on Alex Saab seems a little off to me. As NoonIcarus notes on the talk page, their reporting in the cited article[103] seems pretty partisan. It is also almost entirely made up of quotes from the defense team, suggesting it a lot of it is copied from a press release or similar. It seems Al Bawaba has quite a large number of articles on Saab,[104] which are all basically long verbatim quotes from the defense team. The latest, "Defense Team Responds, Alex Saab, is a Victim of a Failing Judicial System in Cape Verde",[105] makes not attempt at neutral reporting. I suspect this is a case of churnalism, with the co-ordinated PR campaign using an online magazine's desire for content to seed biased opinion in the newsphere. I don't know if this is a common MO for al Bawaba, but I think it needs to be treated with extreme caution. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly CounterPunch:
    • “really poor content, including conspiracy theories“ : some examples would be useful. It is such a vague statement that it is meaningless.
    • “It shares writers with deprecated and generally unreliable sources such as GlobalResearch and Unz Review”. I hope this guilt by association argument holds no weight with editors.
    • “whose name and affiliation are currently red links”: funny, because you added the red links. Generally that means you think they deserve their own articles.
    • Dissident Voice: the article was published by CounterPunch which is responsible for content on its site. CounterPunch has editorial oversight.
    • “The article really reads like a press release … “. The statement that is sourced to the article is a simple and uncontroversial factual statement: “On 24 August, according to CounterPunch, the US asked that the period allowed for its response be extended to 7 October”.
    Al Bawaba:
    • “the cited article[120] seems pretty partisan”. The statements that are sourced to the article are simple and uncontroversial factual statements: “In August 2021, Saab's defence team asked that the site of his detention be moved from the island of Sal to Praia. It said Saab's health had deteriorated and that he needed access to specialist medical care for his cancer. On 1 September 2021, the Barlavento Court of Appeal granted Saab's request”. and “Saab's defence team asked the Cape Verde courts to refuse Saab's extradition on the grounds that there were legal irregularities associated with his arrest. By September 2021, the request had reached the Cape Verde Constitutional Court”.
    • the second statement sourced to Al Bawaba is verified by the next sentence in the article which reads: "On 8 September 2021 the Constitutional Tribunal of Cape Verde rejected Saab's defence appeal ... ".
    Burrobert (talk) 02:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Burrobert:I've never heard of Al Bawbaa, so I won't comment on it without looking in a bit, but I do think that Counterpunch, although it does have some very good content, has a lot of really poor content, including conspiracy theories seems to be accurate. A list of some conspiracy and fringe theories published by the magazine are below:
    • The site has a history of publishing 9/11 conspiracy theories. A 2019 piece claimed that WTC-7 was not hit by a plane like the rest of the complex but was bombed! The bombing let to WTC-7 being destroyed from a fire that burned for 7 hours — until the building collapsed at 5:20 p.m.. A 2021 piece (here is the correct link) endorses the conspiracy theory that the CIA deliberately planted explosives in WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 in order to ensure their collapse, citing a report by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Another article seems to endorse the belief that "Zionists" were responsible for 9/11, stating that In the Western World, Corporatism has become ‘subject’ to Zionism and in consequence Capitalist Democracy has been usurped by the power of a concentrated accumulation of resources – and this- no mere product of ‘happenstance’ – but rather part of a systemic scheme whereby the rich are to get richer and the poor to get poorer? \ When 2.3 Trillion Dollars can ‘go missing’ from an Economy and disappear down a ‘memory hole’ as part of a historical revisionism aka denial; when the very day after the gone missing is ‘announced’ and the Rabbi Dov Zakheim as Comptroller is not held to account because it ‘happens’ there is an attack on the Twin Towers (also WTC 7) and the Pentagon which becomes the focus of attention and a casus belli for war then something is seriously wrong – and psycho political abuse is in operation? Let us also not forget the ‘weapons grade anthrax’ – such the ‘memory hole’?. This isn't the only piece that reiterates the antisemitic canard to attempt to tie Jews to 9/11.
    • On the note of the piece holding "Zionists" responsible for 9/11, there's even more antisemitic conspiracy at this publication! This 2014 piece states that It is forbidden by the censors who channel acceptable opinion to draw parallels with the Nazis’ modus operandi. But if the shoe fits … \ There is Israel’s Mengelian experimentation on caged Gazans, apart from saturation bombing, with nerve gas, depleted uranium, white phosphorous and flechette shells. More, the model of the Reichstag fire false flag has been readily replicated, not least in the 1954 Lavon Affair and, most spectacularly, in 9/11 (whence the five dancing Israelis at Liberty Park?). Practice makes perfect with false flags. Add extra-judicial murders made to order. (For those unfamiliar with "dancing Israelis", see this ADL piece.)
    • A 2017 piece in the magazine also appears to deny the Holodomor, calling it fiction.
    • A 2018 piece appears to deny the existence of the Xinjiang internment camps, calling it a bald and barefaced accusation... made with nary a shred of supporting evidence. The piece also denies widespread abuses against Uyghurs in the region, stating that The deluge of fake news from Western corporate media since the beginning of this year seeks to demonize the Chinese government, painting it as a gross violator of human rights, when the truth is the exact opposite. Another 2018 piece described the internment of over 1 million Muslims as wild allegations. Another piece seems to recommend The Qiao Collective's Chinese state media-filled resource compilation on the topic, as well as deprecated source The Grayzone.
    If the source were pseudonymous, I'd be inclined to put it in the same bucket as Zerohedge: it contains some good stuff but also conspiracy theories, and should be deprecated. However, since it's possible to attribute items to an author, I'd say that publications by the magazine are generally unreliable and not due unless referenced by a reliable secondary source. I'd be extremely hesitant to use the source in a [[WP:|BLP]]], even if it were given attribution, and I think that the source would be best avoided altogether in that context. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:27, 15 September 2021 (UTC) (See the RfC below for my current thoughts, which changed based off of vaccine conspiracies and an apparent jarring lack of editorial control.)[reply]
    Re Burrobert on CounterPunch: Conspiracy theory content: who is Israel Shamir, Counterpunch's resident intelligence correspondent? Alternately known as Jöran Jermas and Adam Ermash, Shamir is a fringe writer who has devoted his professional life to exposing the supposed criminality of "Jewish power," a paranoid anti-Semite who curates a website full of links to Holocaust denial and neo-Nazi sites, defenses of blood libel myths, and references to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Ali Abunimah, Hussein Ibish, and Nigel Parry have warned their fellow Palestinian activists to avoid contact with Shamir--Reason.com 2010; Counterpunch [allowed] one of its most popular contributors, Paul Craig Roberts, to air his [9/11] Truther arguments on their website --Stephen M. E. Marmura International Journal of Communication, 2014; “It’s one that you run into time and time again,” [9/11 and now Covid truther Mark Crispin Miller] said on an October 11 episode of CounterPunch Radio. “To the point that I now believe that anyone who uses that phrase [conspiracy theory] in a pejorative sense is a witting or unwitting CIA asset.”--Observer.com, 2017; Alison Weir, Israel Shamir and Gilad Atzmon] are three crypto-antisemites who have been openly circulated in the progressive world, appearing in supposedly leftist publications like CounterPunch in particular... CounterPunch...has published antisemitic writers for many years--Spencer Sunshine, Journal of Social Justice, 2019; CounterPunch keeps citing Global Research well into 2020--Emmee Bevensee, Centre for Analysis of the Radical Right , 2020 (Sunshine lists several examples here; The left-wing magazine CounterPunch has published a significant number of articles condemning Beijing’s repression of Uyghurs in Xinjiang. However, it has also occasionally featured pieces that deny any such thing is taking place.--CodaStory, 2020. See also Jovan Byford here. This may be a small proportion of what CounterPunch publishes, and it has certainly improved since the 2000s, but it means we need to exercise extreme caution. Guilt by association: This isn't guilt by association; it's about assessing reliability on a case by case basis. An article in this publication by an author who also writes for reliable sources might be worth using; an article by an author mainly known for publishing in GlobalResearch, ZeroHedge, Unz, Infowars etc is worth avoiding. Red links: I added links on the assumption that organisations/people we consider noteworthy are likely to be notable in their own right and therefore should have articles. If they're not notable, we need to be certain they are due, so I think red links are an important part of building Wikipedia. If you think they're notable, maybe start the article. Editorial oversight: Sure, CP has editorial oversight over what it publishes, but when it is syndicating articles from sloppier sources, such as Dissident Voice, we need to exercise extra care. Uncontroversial content: I'm not saying we definitely don't want to use this, but I flagged it with "better source" because if it is indeed uncontroversial we should be able to find a better source not drive traffic to a press release from partisans in the story. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Starting at the top:

    • "A 2019 piece claimed that “WTC-7 was not hit by a plane like the rest of the complex but was bombed! The bombing let to WTC-7 being destroyed from a fire that burned for 7 hours — until the building collapsed at 5:20 p.m.”." I am far from being conversant with US 9/11 history (more familiar with the original 9/11 involving the CIA-engineered coup against Allende). I believe the official story is that WTC-7 was not hit by a plane like the rest of the complex but was substantially damaged by debris when the nearby North Tower of the World Trade Center collapsed. The debris ignited fires on multiple lower floors of the building, which continued to burn uncontrolled throughout the afternoon. The difference between the two versions seems to be the word “bombed” which the writer does not explain so it is hard to comment any further.
    • “A 2021 piece endorses the conspiracy theory that the CIA deliberately planted explosives in WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 in order to ensure their collapse, citing a report by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth” I can’t see the reference to the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. However, the final line in the story is: Note: Yes, this is satire.

    Burrobert (talk) 06:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Burrobert: My apologies for the link screw up; the piece I linked was indeed satire, but it was also not the piece I was attempting to link nor describe. I have updated my comment above to reflect the proper link, which is also located here for your convenience. Obviously, labeled satire can’t be counted against the reliability of the publication—but the 2021 9/11 conspiracy-laden report is something that Counterpunch presents as if it should be taken seriously. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 14:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      And, to add on to the above, the website has a troubling history with the bogus vaccine-autism conspiracy theory. Granted—there is WP:MEDRS for a reason—but this doesn’t provide strong reasons for us to trust their fact checking process. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC: CounterPunch

    Which of the following best describes the reliability of CounterPunch?

    — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion: RfC: CounterPunch

    • Option 4: CounterPunch has a history of publishing false and fabricated information, including numerous conspiracy theories, and should be deprecated.
      1. As I noted in my comments above, the site's history of publishing 9/11 conspiracy theories is widespread. A 2019 piece claimed that WTC-7 was not hit by a plane like the rest of the complex but was bombed! The bombing let to WTC-7 being destroyed from a fire that burned for 7 hours — until the building collapsed at 5:20 p.m.. A 2021 piece endorses the conspiracy theory that the CIA deliberately planted explosives in WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 in order to ensure their collapse, citing a report by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Another article seems to endorse the belief that "Zionists" were responsible for 9/11, stating that In the Western World, Corporatism has become ‘subject’ to Zionism and in consequence Capitalist Democracy has been usurped by the power of a concentrated accumulation of resources – and this- no mere product of ‘happenstance’ – but rather part of a systemic scheme whereby the rich are to get richer and the poor to get poorer? \ When 2.3 Trillion Dollars can ‘go missing’ from an Economy and disappear down a ‘memory hole’ as part of a historical revisionism aka denial; when the very day after the gone missing is ‘announced’ and the Rabbi Dov Zakheim as Comptroller is not held to account because it ‘happens’ there is an attack on the Twin Towers (also WTC 7) and the Pentagon which becomes the focus of attention and a casus belli for war then something is seriously wrong – and psycho political abuse is in operation? Let us also not forget the ‘weapons grade anthrax’ – such the ‘memory hole’?. This isn't the only piece that reiterates the antisemitic canard to attempt to tie Jews to 9/11.
      2. On the note of the piece holding "Zionists" responsible for 9/11, there's even more antisemitic conspiracy at this publication! This 2014 piece states that It is forbidden by the censors who channel acceptable opinion to draw parallels with the Nazis’ modus operandi. But if the shoe fits … \ There is Israel’s Mengelian experimentation on caged Gazans, apart from saturation bombing, with nerve gas, depleted uranium, white phosphorous and flechette shells. More, the model of the Reichstag fire false flag has been readily replicated, not least in the 1954 Lavon Affair and, most spectacularly, in 9/11 (whence the five dancing Israelis at Liberty Park?). Practice makes perfect with false flags. Add extra-judicial murders made to order. (For those unfamiliar with "dancing Israelis", see this ADL piece.)
      3. A 2017 piece in the magazine also appears to deny the Holodomor, calling it fiction.
      4. A 2018 piece appears to deny the existence of the Xinjiang internment camps, calling it a bald and barefaced accusation... made with nary a shred of supporting evidence. The piece also denies widespread abuses against Uyghurs in the region, stating that The deluge of fake news from Western corporate media since the beginning of this year seeks to demonize the Chinese government, painting it as a gross violator of human rights, when the truth is the exact opposite. Another 2018 piece described the internment of over 1 million Muslims as wild allegations. Another piece seems to recommend The Qiao Collective's Chinese state media-filled resource compilation on the topic, as well as content from deprecated source The Grayzone.
      5. And, to add on to the above, the website has a troubled history of supporting the bogus vaccine-autism conspiracy theory.
      6. Their editorial process is also rather suspect; the magazine has failed to vet the identity of freelance journalists to the extent that it has, in recent years, published literal propaganda made by the GRU without having a clue that the person they were giving a byline to did not exist. And, on top of that, the magazine didn't know that much of the language in those propaganda pieces had been plagiarized from other sources.
    Taken together, I don't think consider CounterPunch as a source to be something we can use to verify facts, except possibly in an WP:ABOUTSELF fashion. (And, even with respect to ABOUTSELF, I'd use it with caution given its issues vetting who its contributors actually are.) This publication should be deprecated as a source for facts. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just looking at the vaccine articles. One is by Richard Gale, who is a hardcore anti-vaxx activist[106] who writes regularly for GlobalResearch[DOTca/author/richard-gale] and The Defender,[107] usually with Gary Null. Several are by Anne McElroy Dachel[108] of anti-vaxx/pro-Ivermectin/Hydroxychloroquine blog Age of Autism.[109]. I hadn't realised quite how bad they were on this. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4. Per the investigation above, they have promoted numerous conspiracy theories, including antisemitic ones. Not reliable at all and should be deprecated; anything cited to it, if not covered elsewhere, isn't worth saying. Crossroads -talk- 03:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4 Huh, I knew this publication had a strong POV but I wasn't aware that they routinely spread conspiracy theories. One study describes them as a "an ostensibly left magazine that has given space to white nationalists and antisemites" [110]. Conspiracy theory expert Jovan Byford describes CounterPunch as an antisemitic and conspiracist magazine [111], and a Stanford researcher included CounterPunch on a list of prominent conspiracy sites [112]. Their contributors include numerous conspiracy theorists, including Israel Shamir, 9/11 truther Paul Craig Roberts [113], Wayne Madsen [114], Mark Crispin Miller [115] and others. Scholars Stephen Zunes and John Feffer documented how false claims made by CounterPunch and similar websites about the Albert Einstein Institution ended up on Wikipedia and Sourcewatch [116]. Other nonsense claims by CounterPunch can be found in the Algemeiner [117]. The 9/11 conspiracies, vaccine conspiracies, and Uyghur genocide denialism, as described by Mikehawk, is just icing on the cake at this point. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 09:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are over 2,500 references to CounterPunch on Wikipedia. The instructions are that "Requests for comment for deprecation, or for blacklisting or classification as generally unreliable of sources that are widely used in articles, should be registered here using rfc|prop. As usual with RfCs, consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based argument". I suggest putting the RfC in its own section rather than as a appendage of a previous discussion. Burrobert (talk) 10:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconding that request. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4: Regularly publishes conspiracy theories as per Mikehawk excellent analysis shouldn't be used in Wikipedia --Shrike (talk) 10:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to comment on the claim that "experts" are regularly published in this source. The fact that they printed in source that promulgate white supremacy and other conspiracy theories raise a big question about their expertise and WP:DUE inclusion on their opinion. If their opinion is really notable we can source to more reputable source if its not then its probably WP:UNDUE to include. --Shrike (talk) 13:31, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4: - Very good research above, demonstrating why it can't be used. Inf-in MD (talk) 11:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4. The above research is both informative and alarming. If there are 2500 references to this source on Wikipedia, we should create the consensus necessary to remove them. Generalrelative (talk) 14:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I do not know the source, so I will not really submit a vote here (though so far the deprecation case is pretty clear); but I will ask the closer to look in the 10 discussions about CounterPunch and determine in particular:
      If the print version of CounterPunch is any better (see first discussion of CounterPunch);
      Whether deprecation is needed in certain subject areas only (such as 9/11, anti-Semitism, vaccines, China) or a blanket deprecation is needed, as previous discussions have yielded mixed results (and there have been quite a lot of them). That is, are not simply the opinions of folks publishing there, but also the quality of news reporting low. So far, the only case made on this field was about being a conduit for Russian propaganda, but I don't really believe that's per se sufficient reason for deprecation, because whether that's a pattern remains to be seen (forget about PropOrNot, which is by itself dubious), but that certainly speaks much for unreliability.
      How (if to any degree) previous discussions about CounterPunch are to be reconciled with the findings of the current RfC and what seems to be an imminent deprecation.
    I specifically ask to double-check these because, unlike in the case of Rolling Stone, which I recently closed, a proposed solution is to deprecate it completely, regardless of content and time frame, which seems to be quite a change given that previous (including relatively recent) discussions gave a "yeah, better avoid it because of strong bias, but ultimately it's not the worst" rating. Ultimately the result of this RfC will greatly influence RSP position of the source. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Very good points Szmenderowiecki. Re the dissonance with previous discussions, my sense is that previously nobody bothered to provide examples of unreliability but generally voted according to political position, plus vaccine disinformation has become weightier since the pandemic and the GRU creating a fake persona to publish at CounterPunch was revealed after most of the discussions. (Possibly ironically, as to my mind CP has actually improved since the GRU op used it.) To specify the subject areas where it should be avoided: anything to do with US foreign policy, the war on terror, Russian or Chinese geopolitical interests or domestic politics, the Syria war, anything to do with Israel/Jews/the Holocaust. Vaccines should go with out saying per WP:MEDRS but worth mentioning to flag that they have been especially egregious in this area. It BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4 due to a concerning lack of editorial oversight, as well as the detail explanation above. This is particularly important given the amount of times it is used in articles. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note added to WP:UPSD as deprecated. Will update if the close ends up different, but it's snowing. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4 per Mikehawk10 and Dr. Swag Lord. I think the deprecation should be a blanket one, because many of the issues are egregious and spread across many topic areas. GretLomborg (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3+. Per Mikehawk10 and Dr. Swag Lord, the site has regularly published conspiracy theories and publishes several extremely fringe writers, including antisemitic ones, so it should be rated at least generally unreliable. I have reservations about blanket deprecation, because it does publish some notable writers who we might want to cite if due, so would prefer a case by case approach but with a presumption against use. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Bobfrombrockley: I don't think that we could meaningfully take a scalpel and carve particular islands of (un)reliability from the remainder of the publication. I've provided the various conspiracy theories that are being published; I think the scope of those conspiracies reflects the magazine's poor reliability for politics, generally. For me, a political newsletter being deprecation-worthy in the area of politics is fatal, especially for a publication that seems to describe its content as news articles. While we could interpret the deprecation-worthy areas to be very narrow with respect to those particular conspiracies listed above, I think that the publication of these conspiracy theories reflects so poorly over the entire editorial operation that CounterPunch shouldn't be used as a source for facts in articles. After all, how can we trust content from a source that publishes that "Zionists" are responsible for 9/11? Even if the absolute most that could be done would be to consider everything as WP:SPS given a clear lack of editorial oversight and fact-checking from the CounterPunch staff, the fact that their author vetting system has failed so badly (Alice Donovan did not actually exist, but was credited with articles that were literal Russian propaganda) makes me not feel fully confident to attribute the site's content to the particular person named as the article's author. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3+ or 4 it is. My very best wishes (talk) 00:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4, obvious fake news and conspiracies being pushed here. 11Fox11 (talk) 09:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 obviously. Counterpunch is essentially a group blog, and it does not confer reliability by being published there. However, when an expert in their field writes something on Counterpunch it is usable for that experts view. For example here is an article by Dean Baker. Is anybody going to argue that Dean Baker cannot be cited? The specifics matter here, and the effort to deprecate a source for links that nobody would ever use (pray tell how many of the counterpunch links that are actually used on Wikipedia are in any way objectionable?) in order to remove the citations that nobody can object to on their own standing is a tad concerning. nableezy - 13:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The impression that I get is that deprecation is for sources that "[publish] false or fabricated information" (either deliberately or negligently with little effort to get things right or make corrections), and it does not matter how much accurate information is mixed in with it. WP:DEPRECATED#Acceptable_uses_of_deprecated_sources says deprecated sources can still be used in WP:ABOUTSELF cases, and I think that would apply to the article authors speaking about themselves and their own views. Also if Dean Baker is actually an established subject-matter expert, I would expect he's published elsewhere and those sources can be cited for his views instead of a deprecated one. - GretLomborg (talk) 17:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    CounterPunch makes no claim to any editorial control, the only thing that matters for a site like that is the author. CounterPunch is not the source, it is a convenience link for the actual source, that being the author. For things like the Daily Mail, where the articles are written by staff members and controlled by editors, then the editorial process certainly is what should matter. CounterPunch is not that, it is essentially an op-ed repository. What matters with op-eds is the author. And of course Baker is published elsewhere, but this specific column may not be. If Baker published something on his personal blog it would be usable, so too would it be if he publishes on CounterPunch. nableezy - 20:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You say that Counterpunch is essentially a group blog, and it does not confer reliability by being published there...CounterPunch makes no claim to any editorial control. If that's the case, then this source would automatically fail WP:RS and would be considered WP:QUESTIONABLE, even if experts occasionally write for CounterPunch. However, I'm not sure it can be considered a "group blog" or an "op-ed repository" when they have a CEO, a mailing address, an editorial team, print editions of their magazines, their own radio show, their own merchandise, and their own books [118]. Not to mention, CounterPunch is a registered 501(c)(3) non-profit organization whose stated mission is to help readers make informed and balanced assessments – vital for a healthy democratic society – on the public issues of the day. It does this by providing credible reporting and commentary in its magazine CounterPunch, on its website (www.counterpunch.org) and by publishing non-fiction books. [119]. I don't believe 9/11 conspiracies or genocide denial is vital for a "democratic society" and is certainly not "credible reporting." Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Very much no, it would mean that determining the reliability of any particular piece would depend on the author. New York Times op-eds also are published in print. As far as the argmentum ad aburdum at the end there, who is citing 9/11 conspiracies or genocide denial? The things that are written by experts in the field they are writing in are usable sources even if self-published. CounterPunch should be treated as though it were a self-publishing outlet, where reliability is determined by the author. There are no staff writers there, every single piece is attributed to an outside contributor. That contributor determines the reliability. I dont actually understand why you think its tax status is relevant, but cool story? nableezy - 20:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You keep insisting that CounterPunch "should" be treated as a self-publishing outlet. This conflates with the reality of the situation: CounterPunch is not a self-published source. It has editorial control (albeit, highly inept editorial control). You may also want to check out WP:SOURCES. The work, author, and publisher of the work can all affect reliability. A piece of work written by a respected expert who gets published by Cambridge University Press is probably going to be a reliable source. A piece of work written by a respected expert who gets published by a conspiracy site like CounterPunch is probably not going to be treated as a reliable source. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 08:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Consult it yourself, youll find that That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. When an expert writes something, even on their own personal website, it is citable. When an expert writes something on CounterPunch it would still be appropriate to use as the work of an established expert. I dont think you actually know how wide, and silly, a brush your painting with here. Vijay Prashad (published by such university presses as OUP, University of California Press), Dean Baker (published by MIT, Cambridge, University of Chicago and on and on), Peter Mayo, Ralph Nader, Bernie Sanders are all currently featured on their front page. Any and all of these would be appropriate to cite for their own views, including their own views expressed on CounterPunch, and in all but the last two they are clearly established experts in their area of academic expertise. CounterPunch, the website, is very much a group blog. They do not make any claim to fact-checking, which means that the author's reputation is what should matter. nableezy - 19:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Any and all of these would be appropriate to cite for their own views, including their own views expressed on CounterPunch. I fully agree with you. You do realize that depreciation would still allow us to use CounterPunch for WP:ABOUTSELF reasons? However, you may run into problems if you attempt to use CounterPunch outside of the expert's article. They do not make any claim to fact-checking. This is again incorrect. Part of their mission is to provide credible reporting. What do you think credible reporting means? It means trustworthy and factual accounts. In other words: fact-checking. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It would fail ABOUTSELF, they aren't writing about themselves. The article by Henry Giroux there rn for example is about Paulo Freire, a topic Giroux is an unquestionably solid source on, and that piece should be able to be cited. Even if it is hosted on CounterPunch. Again, I have no idea why you are talking about their 501c3 registration or their mission statement, they have an editor in that a person selects which pieces to host and which not, but no they do not do any fact checking of the hosted pieces. The website at least is very much a group blog. nableezy - 20:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4, I have little to add to the excellent editors above me, all of the arguments I would make have already been made and I just want to endorse them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4 - Per all of the above. It is clearly not a reliable outlet. Grayfell (talk) 23:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4 Regularly publishes disinformation and should not be used on Wikipedia. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 10:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4 - Persistent publication of disinfo. Neutralitytalk 16:33, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2: It is kind of amusing, seeing editors list the mistakes that CounterPunch has done over the years, and using that as a excuse to ban them all out. Does anyone remember how MSM (say, New York Times) all "knew" that Saddam had WMD? Or that Muammar Gaddafi, for sure! was going to massacre the people of Bengasi? All lies; and lies that cost the lives of hundred of thosands of innocent people (At the same time as it greatly increased the profit of Western weapon-manufactures, and Western oil companies). Shall we then ban, say the New York Times for their persistent false info, wrt to Iraq and Libya? I think not. Nor do I think CounterPunch should be banned, even if it has gotten the story wrong, at times, Huldra (talk) 23:54, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I think that framing articles that baselessly claim that the "Zionists" did 9/11 as mistakes doesn't quite do it justice—factual mistakes result in corrections or retractions at reputable newspapers. None of those are present in the CounterPunch articles linked above. The fact that the content is live on their website shows a near-total lack of editorial control, a willingness to publish conspiracies without regard for factual accuracy, and a demonstrated lack of correcting verifiably false information. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Lol, NYT still has up that baselessly claim that the Saddam pursued atomic weapons, eg by Judith Miller: link; archive. Sooooo: " The fact that the content is live on their website shows a near-total lack of editorial control, a willingness to publish conspiracies without regard for factual accuracy, and a demonstrated lack of correcting verifiably false information"? Shall we ban the NYT, now? cheers, (PWS: I really, really hate double standards) Huldra (talk) 23:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Huldra I’m not seeing what you say is in that article in there... Where exactly does it say that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "More than a decade after Saddam Hussein agreed to give up weapons of mass destruction, Iraq has stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and has embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb", quting the Bush administration as if they were telling the truth,Huldra (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The New York Times editorial board issued a full apology for their reporting on WMD and Saddam Hussein. [120] [121] Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never seen NYT (or any other MSM) aplologise for the lies about Gaddafi, have you? Huldra (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4. Considering that now it's "no consensus" maybe start with Option 3 and defer to the editors' judgement. This days the accusations of promoting conspiracy theories get thrown at everyone but in this case it's hard not to agree with it. Alaexis¿question? 19:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Good grief. Utterly bizarre.

      If the people voting here can’t recognize at sight the following professional experts in their varied respective fields, who choose Counterpunch as a venue for their reports or views, then they should look them all up and reconsider their votes. They are all reputable professionals most with academic work to their name and reliably published elsewhere. The suggestion is that these scholars, writers, analysts wittingly associate their work with a conspiracy-powered website. Jeezus effen kerrist. How powerful we wikipedians are compared to them. We can wipe them all off on the strength of a poisoned well RfC.

      The suggestion here that it should be dismissed as reliable because of a few diffs of individual articles (yeah, you occasionally over 27 years see bullshit there, as in most newspapers) would operationally mean that wikipedia rules as offlimits any use of material coming from its archives from figures as varied as Alexander Cockburn (an acknowledge master of the genre), Uri Avnery, es:Gary Leupp (brilliant on the orient) Melvin Goodman (incisive and with a deep professional grounding in American security doctrines) security, Ralph Nader, Andrew Levine, Winslow Wheeler (works from Capitol Hill- knows everything about congressional budgets),Naomi Klein, Brian Cloughley, Mark Weisbrot, Serge Halimi, Norman Pollack,Neve Gordon, Norman Finkelstein, Noam Chomsky, Michael Brenner, Sheldon Richman, Ramzy Baroud, Vijay Prashad, Robert Fisk, Gareth Porter, Mel Gurtov,Henry Giroux, Rodolfo Acuña, Ray McGovern, Deepak Tripathi, William Quigley, Michael Neumann, Michael Hudson, Tom Engelhardt, John Feffer, Jeremy Scahill, William Loren Katz, Andrew Bacevich, Edward Said, Tariq Ali, Bruce Jackson, Sam Bahour, Marjorie Cohn, Russ Feingold, Andre Vltchek, Lawrence Davidson, Lawrewce Wittner, Stephen Soldz, Lenni Brenner, Karl Grossman, Frank Spinney, Paul Krassner, Gabriel Kolko, Stan Goff, Diana Johnstone etc.etc. I’ve been reading it selectively (reading only authors of that calibre) for twenty years and it comes as a complete hallucination to me that I have been sucked into some conspiracy promoting website

      CounterPunch belongs to a long and noble form of journalism dedicated to muckraking, not conspiracy theories. That is the tradition to which Alexander Cockburn, Jeffrey St. Clair and Joshua Frank subscribe.

      Cherrypicking diffs and you can prove that the New York Times is notoriously erratic in its reportage of facts. It isn’t of course but it got the Iraq, Afghanmistan, war on terror etc consistently wrong when CounterPunch consistently provided expert analysis by critics which consistently undercut the ostensible accuracy of mainstream reportage. The same goes for reportage on the Middle East (No mainstream newspaper, as opposed to specialist Human Rights organs like Amnesty International, B'tselem, Human Rights Watch) which the Washington Post, NYTs et al., almost never cite) gives much coverage to the massive contradictions in US and Western policy there. Counterpunch does. Nishidani (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Option 2 - The evidence presented against Counterpunch is enough to suggest that we can't rely on the publication's editors fact-checking the contributions. But, the evidence thus far suggests that a significant portion of the contributors, possibly even a majority, are experts in their field who are citeable regardless of the editorial staff. Randomly clicking on the current front page, the only articles not written by academics were ones written by a circuit judge and an activist. It's certainly not generally reliable, but if a significant portion of the source's content is written by experts in relevant fields then that sounds more like "Unclear or additional considerations apply" than anything else. signed, Rosguill talk 04:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Re Nishidani and Rosguill: I agree CP publishes some significant authors whose opinion might occasionally be due, which is why I argued for option 3 not 4. But the list of "reputable professionals most with academic work to their name and reliably published elsewhere" given here doesn't inspire confidence. Gareth Porter, who says that Assad isn't responsible for chemical attacks in Syria; Ray McGovern, who compared 9/11 to the Reichstag fire and said the DNC hack was an inside job; Tariq Ali, who claimed the White Helmets are actually al-Qaeda[122]; Lenni Brenner, whose work is cited by Holocaust denialists and has been called an "antisemitic hoax";[123] Diana Johnstone, whose work denies the basic facts of the Yugoslav war and who used her Counterpunch column to say that there's no evidence that Marine Le Pen is antisemitic. A 2015 analysis done by one anti-Zionist activist showed that the content by significant leftist writers such as Pilger was dwarfed by the quantity of content by white supremacists and cranks, with Gilad Atzmon, Israel Shamir and Alison Weir getting a large number of columns, and Paul Craig Roberts and Franklin Lamb being among the most published authors.[124] BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For its time, Lenni Brenner's work was pathfinding, a point of departure, not arrival. Anyone can play that game Bob. I see you cite Paul Bogdanor, 'An Antisemitic Hoax: Lenni Brenner on Zionist ‘Collaboration’ With the Nazis,' Fathom get at Lenni Brenner as another 'self-hating Jew' (by the way a large number of contributors to CounterPunch happen to be Jewish, and anti-Zionist, and are never forgiven for breaking ranks. I remember Bogdanor's reliability being questioned for one or two wikibios years back because of his perceived rhetoric of smearing and guilt by association, and consensually excluded. Suffice it to read his puerile attempt to take the measure of Noam Chomsky in the 2017 book. As for the rest, give me the name of a journalist with an impeccable record for making the correct call throughout their careers. Thomas Friedman? who fell, like several dozen other major names in the trade, Christopher Hitchens etc. hook line and sinker for the known fairy tale manufactured by the Bush administration to get a justification for invading Iraq? Every major journalist or scholar will have some skeleton in the closet. Not by that token must it be dragged out on every occasion to smear the general professionalism. Giorgio Bocca, one of Italy’s finest postwar journalists, when he was a 19 years old apprentice, raised almost completely within Fascism, paraphrased the Protocols of Zion to make a point about what he called Zionist imperialism back in 1939. He woke up to the bullshit he had been fed when war broke out, and joined the resistance. He became a star of postwar critical journalism, and happened to be in Israel in 1967 when the war broke out, writing for the mainstream Corriere della Sera. His articles noted that Israelis appeared untroubled by the implications of their occupation of the West Bank. This was unforgiveable and soon after, and for 2 decades he was hounded on numerous occasions by people waving photostats of his juvenile piece, suggesting he was a doctrinaire antisemite and not to be trusted in anything he wrote, merely because he made a negative murmur about Israel's problems. That was bullshit of course, and never affected the recognition broadly given him as a great investigative journalist. Examples of this tactic are becoming legion: especially now in the witchhunts for putative antisemites under every rug or nook and cranny. Dissent from an orthodoxy is not acceptable. And let me add, I find Gilad Atzmon well worth reading (and indeed listening to, esp. when he engages with Yaakov Shapiro, an ultra-orthodox rabbi who isn't hamstrung by fear of arguments). I find nothing scandalous in CP airing his views here and there. I don't share his views; I'm stimulated by the spectre of the straightjacket he thinks he was born in and his wild Houdini like philosophical struggle to wriggle out of those toils. He's dealing with a personal crisis of identity, and no one in the fold should feel menaced, since his use of 'Jew' is self-reflexive.) I'm not unnerved by prejudice. I am unnerved by attempts to police minority views out of sight. CounterPunch does not cater to conspiracies, or regularly run fake news as is being repeatedly asserted here. We should use it when the author is a respected expert in their field, and has useful information. That is not an endorsement of CP, but commonsense.Nishidani (talk) 16:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I honestly struggled with whether option 2, 3 or even 4 best fit my assessment of the situation; after all, even deprecated sources are technically OK for use if the article in question is a verifiable relevant expert. My concern is that I'm honestly unsure as to the balance of reputable vs crank on Counterpunch, and at such a juncture I think it would be foolish to push for anything other than an "unclear/no consensus" outcome. A lot of editors in this discussion (and other reliability discussions) clearly hold the perspective that any valid cause for doubt is reason for deprecation, which I think is a bit reckless. I would like to see more analyses like the Meldungen source you cite that actually attempt to answer what the balance of content is. signed, Rosguill talk 14:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, some of the outside contributors who have articles hosted on CP have cited WP as a source. The two I checked arent written by established experts and as such should not be cited. Please try to recognize that saying "CounterPunch" does something is essentially meaningless, given there are no staff writers and every piece is attributed to an outside contributor. That outside contributor cited WP, and that may well mean that column should not be cited. It does not mean that the work by actual experts (eg Henry Giroux writing about Paulo Freire are any less reliable. nableezy - 15:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2. The amount of unacknowledged borrowing from or accessing of, Wikipedia by (mainstream) journalists is highly notable: anyone who has worked to secure quality in several areas of the encyclopedia must be familiar with the experience of seeing, even in turns of phrase, recurrent unacknowledged reliance on our anonymous work. The frenetic know-all expectations of a 24/7 newscycle stresses the need both to be competitive in the market, and knowledgeable at speed by casting for data bases that provide one with a quick overview or research point of departure. We should be both proud of that, and, at the same time, demand of ourselves and the articles we assist in writing rigorous criteria to ensure that what is on a page is reliable. But that has a caveat.
    Wiki is programmed for neutrality - but that does not translate out as restricting what we add to it to 'mainstream newspaper sources', since they too have their editorial biases. The New York Times or the Washington Post will not tell its readers most of the details about the Middle East conflict that any reader of the mainstream Israeli press can garner, for example. The latter leaves that to the lower circulation, highbrow New York Review of Books, which, in its articles, extends the scope and focus to the less comfortable details you get in the Israeli press, or academia or on any number of 'muckraking' counter-systemic publications like Mondoweiss and Counterpunch. It makes that partition in coverage apparently on a rather cynical analysis of what the respective readerships can tolerate. Our neutrality therefore cannot acquiesce in the rather simplistic idea that the 'mainstream' press tells it all (WP:Systemic bias). In discussing RS on controversial topics, one would make a grievous error to make Wikipedia merely a pipeline or mirror of mainstream papers, official policy papers or the output of positioned and prestigious national thinktanks -most of which are locked into a normative narrow national interest perspective. The key point is to look at the quality of the authorship, not the venue, though I think one must give pause while considering that the absurd caricature we have above in a short laundry list of offbeat articles over 27 years should not undercut our awareness that a venue established by a distinguished family of professional journalists- Alexander Cockburn, Andrew Cockburn and Patrick Cockburn who work or worked for numerous mainstream papers and monthlies cannot be dismissed out of hand as fringe, unreliable, or their counter mainstream reportage trashed as incompetent paranoia mongering. I for one only read perhaps 5% of what Mondoweiss or Counterpunch offers, on the basis of the professional qualifications of the authors hosted. A blanket dismissal of such websites, as is proposed here, would seriously damage the comprehensiveness of our coverage. I join Rosquill and Nableezy: if the 4 options we are given are the straightjacket in which we must 'vote', option two is the way to go. Nishidani (talk) 09:15, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nishidani Is it correct to say the Cockburn family rather than Alexander specifically founded it? If so, does it being a family enterprise make it more reliable? Especially when the father was famous for publishing fake news from the Spanish Civil War on Moscow's orders, as per our article on him? BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:07, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    By that link I meant to show that the Cockburns, apart from Claud (whose memoirs I read with some skepticism when they came out in one volume) have for 2 generations cut their teeth on journalism, and the three sons, now two, were/are acknowledged to be very professional and highly knowledgeable writers in that field. Yes, their father was a communist, and faked news. Unless you religiously believe that the sins of the fathers are visited on their sons (Deuteronomy 5:9, corrected however at Deut.24:16), your point is guilt by association. Cockburn opposed appeasement on the other hand which notable parts of the British establishment commended. There are two forms of reporterly deception which wikipolicy doesn't appear to grasp in their complicit forms:one is outright misrepresentation of the facts (we cope with that by our RS criteria). The other consists of knowingly excluding crucial information that has been ascertained and written up by experts, scholars, etc. Our 'mainstream' guidelines fail to come up with measures to cope with this. Everytime I click on any number of endless links to the The Algemeiner, Tablet, Jewish News, I read rubbish, a soothing spin for a comforting community-wide POV, thoroughly addicted to suppressing any fact that might render their simplistic narratives more nuanced. None of them can call on the range of expertise CounterPunch draws on. Yet no one complains. The difference is only that CounterPunch is 'leftist' (whatever that means) or counter-consensual. Several of the erase-as-deprecatable find nothing wrong with that kind of source. Neutrality demands that all significant points of view, per WP:Due, be heard. Erasure of a source like this is simply censoring a legitimate source of querying of a mainstream narrative, frequently by authoritative scholars, journalists and writers. Worse, it is a form of laziness. One should read, where possible, everything relevant, rather than restrict what can be read for use to a handful of centrist news organs, which we all know, share variously particular interests and POVs. It's the devil's advocate side of good reportage.Nishidani (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 per excellent contributions from Nableezy and Nishidani and others. --NSH001 (talk) 09:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4. While editors have established that otherwise-reliable sources do write articles for it, Dr. Swag Lord makes an excellent point about WP:SOURCES; that the work, the creator, and the publisher all affect reliability. In this case, that means we have to take into account the fact that these sources choose to write a particular article for a publisher who regularly publishes false and fabricated information and not a more reliable publisher. Because of this, the only prudent course of action is to depreciate the publisher. Summoned by the bot; unclear to which RfC, and so drew the short straw BilledMammal (talk) 12:01, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4, at mosta 3+++. This site is full of crap and conspiracy theories by nobodies. Sometimes more significant people post there when they can't publish what they want to say elsewhere. No editorial oversight to speak of. Free1Soul (talk) 16:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4 - "All significant viewpoints" - if the only place you can find a particular point of view is CounterPunch, that's probably a sign that the point of view is not WP:DUE. We can, should, and must demand better from our sources. We don't need to dig in the deepest cesspits of muck to include fringe nonsense. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 per Nableezy, Nishidani, and Rosguill, and Option 3 per BobFromBrockley; in general anything but 1 and 4. We may mention that they have published authors with fringe views or who have promoted conspiracy, or that it should not be used for key facts or controversies, but that articles written by academic and subject-matters can be used if due, and caution to be careful. I do not understand how that means we have to take into account the fact that these sources [I assume they mean the author] choose to write a particular article for a publisher who regularly publishes false and fabricated information and not a more reliable publisher. Does that mean any academic or subject-expert is no longer reliable because they have written for CounterPunch? Either way, I err on the case of caution per Rosquill, and that it would be foolish to push for anything other than an "unclear/no consensus" outcome. I also concur that it would be helpful, rather than cite controversial CounterPunch's own articles (e.g. the Holodomor being 'fiction' refers to the etymological sense to emphasize that it was a genocide and deliberate, on which there is a dispute about among scholars; [t]here was a very serious famine in the USSR, including (but not limited to) the Ukrainian SSR, in 1932–33. But there has never been any evidence of a 'Holodomor' or 'deliberate famine' ...), to cite more analyses like the Meldungen source ... that actually attempt to answer what the balance of content is. Davide King (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4, full of conspiracy theories on 9/11 and vaccinations.Nyx86 (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4 - it’s a shame to see a once great publication come crashing down like this. I still remember at the outset of the wars after 9/11 (specifically the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq) when it used to publish exposes that nobody in the mainstream media dared to touch with a ten foot pole. Somewhere along the line things took a very wrong turn and now it’s just a cottage industry of conspiracy theories. The example of its position on vaccines is one I had no idea about till I read this comment section and one find especially disappointing and alarming. I can understand why it or anybody would see big pharma as the great satan but this can’t come at the cost of playing god with people’s lives. (Which in essence is what they are doing by telling people to not get vaccinated) Estnot (talk) 22:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Do you really think you can get away with that kind of counterfactual rubbish? Counterfactual rubbish. Again, ‘votes’ which are based on a blatant form of dismissive caricature that ignore the factual record and the fact that editorially, CounterPunch doesn't dictate a line. It hosts numerous contrasting viewpoints and leaves it to its readers individually to judge. E.g. numerous recent endorsements of anti covid vaccination and control methods such as here, here, here, and here (deconstructing conspiracy theories of Covid and China, or here and here, to cite just this last month or so.Nishidani (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    World Socialist Web Site

    How should we categorise the World Socialist Web Site, a socialist news website owned by the International Committee of the Fourth International? While they have a clear Troskyist slant and bias, they have also covered a range of international issues that have attracted international coverage including the 1619 Project (where they played a key role in rallying opposition), the Pike River Mine disaster in New Zealand and Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party. Are we allowed to cite the WSWS in articles? I did use a WSWS article in the Social impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in New Zealand#Migrants section. Is is safe to use articles from them if the story is covered by other more reliable and less partisan media? Just wanted to get some clarity on the issue. Andykatib 10:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Though they reliable for their own views per WP:ABOUTSELF. Their views are usually are WP:UNDUE and shouldn't be used unless it cited by WP:RS Shrike (talk) 10:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's an opinionated reliable source, and therefore can be used (with attribution when necessary) on any relevant page. It is exceptionally widely cited in academic sources, I've checked on google scholar, and I stopped looking after the 22nd page of citation results. --Boynamedsue (talk) 12:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that I necessarily disagree with that assessment, but I do vaguely recall this site having been discussed before albeit with a different conclusion. It might be worth to check the archives for older discussions.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:21, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • They don’t really draw a hard line between news and analysis/opinion so I would not use them without attribution, that being said they are seriously notable and will often be used by others as a representative Trotskyist viewpoint. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course the opinions of any newsorg are not forbidden by RS and undueness is not WP:RSN's business, but the above comments about opinions are irrelevant because the cite in the article you mention, i.e. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/09/07/nzim-s07.html, supports a fact and is recent. It doesn't look contentious, so if nobody disputes the fact on the relevant talk page, I'd say don't worry about it and the question here is unnecessary. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:48, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The difference is that the opinions of most newsorgs don’t appear in their news but in editorial or opinion pieces... You might notice that the linked article makes no such pretense, it begins with "In another attack on the basic rights of migrants...” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reliable only for opinion. Some notable socialists post there and they are cited, but there is no indication of editorial oversight and fact checking. Free1Soul (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks everyone for the feedback. Will treat the WSWS as an opinionated source. Agree with Free1Soul's assessment to treat it as reliable only for opinion. While they do have factual content, their ideology is first and foremost. They describe certain right wing figures and groups as fascist. They also describe other left-wing groups like the Democratic Socialists of America as "pseudo-left." Within this context, fascist and pseudo-left are opinion labels rather than factual ones. Will be very careful when using WSWS. Andykatib 21:33, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I absolutely advise to avoid this source for non-WP:ABOUTSELF coverage. Opinions are like assholes, so presenting a Trotskyist viewpoint might be needed somewhere, but that's patently not the case here.
    For the two facts you referenced (accomodation supplement not granted for temporary visa holders and the non-renewal of NZ$1M fund), here are better sources:
    Radio New Zealand - this one for accomodation supplement
    Radio New Zealand, Voxy.co.nz - somewhat less convincing but still better than WSWS - related to the aid to international students Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Szmenderowiecki, will check out these sources. Andykatib 23:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just a question for everyone, would it be possible to have an entry for the World Socialist Web Site for the table on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Sources. This will provide users with clarity about the WSWS' status as an opinionated source. Perhaps once we have reached a consensus on what classification to give it? Andykatib 09:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The WSWS are effectively a party newspaper, so the upper bar for it would be the Morning Star's "maybe reliable". In practice, it doesn't even meet that; the ICFI are pretty tiny (so we'd run into WP:FRINGE considerations regardless), and their attitude regarding both their former intellectual leader Gerry Healy, and other leftist groups, makes them incredibly suspect. Sceptre (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly reliable for some niche areas such as the history of American Trotskyism, but generally a poor source and increasingly so over the years, not because of their left-wing bias, which isn't an issue, but because of their increasing amplification of conspiracy theories. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Glad I'm not the only one who's noticed the website's conspiratorial claims, such as this one. The website has also published several articles denying both the Uyghur Genocide and the internment camps.[146][147][148][149][150][151] X-Editor (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In a similar vein, while they have an impressive amount of USEBYOTHERS considering their background, I was unable to find any examples of use by RS for topics other than labor news, so that would be the only topic that it would potentially be ok to use them on. My impression from reading though a few polemics is that WSWS is arguably fringe even within the context of US Trotskyism, and thus it would probably be unwise to cite them for perspectives even on that topic unless there was independent coverage suggesting that their view is significant. signed, Rosguill talk 21:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Occasionally they might be useful on uncontroversial biographic information and cultural commentary in the arts in cases the information in the main stream media might be somewhat limited. Imho their obituaries for people in the arts and reviews of cultural works are ok, at least the ones i've seen.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, that's a decent example of potentially ok coverage as well. signed, Rosguill talk 16:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What does it mean to "deny" the "Uyghur genocide"? The claim of a genocide against the Uyghurs is an extreme viewpoint that is rejected by all sorts of people, including the US State Department's legal advisors: [152]. Making acceptance of this extreme claim into a litmus test for reliability would be absurd. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:32, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes though the whole issue depends on what definition/notion of genocide you use. (attempted/Inded) associations with the holocaust are obviously nonsensical however an argument for a "cultural" genocide seems somewhat reasonable. However imho some of the "denial" articles look pretty dubious in their own right, they read like classic hyperbolic cold war propaganda, where the agenda trumps any sober and somewhat neutral analysis of the facts at hand.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a reliable, opinionated source. Their coverage of American history has been quite prominent over the last two years, and the WSWS has actually been the primary venue in which professional historians (Gordon Wood, James McPherson, James Oakes and others) have expressed their criticism of the New York Times' 1619 Project. On American history, I think it's accurate to say that the WSWS' coverage has actually been more representative of mainstream historiography recently than that of the Times, difficult as that may be to believe. The noted historian Sean Wilentz recently wrote about this historiographical debate here: PDF link.

    Articles in the WSWS are often opinionated, so attribution may be appropriate, but I've seen no evidence that it's less factually inaccurate than any other reliable political magazine. I would put the WSWS into the same category as magazines that cover current events, politics and history from an opinionated perspective, such as Jacobin, Reason, The Atlantic (which is probably closer to the dominant viewpoint among Wikipedia editors, and may therefore appear less opinionated), etc. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I have assembled 9 discussions of WSWS on RSN. Please see the summary in RSP and suggest any changes, if needed. The text seems to be more or less the consensus in my view. (Disclosure: I participated in the discussion in archive 341, too). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • No, I do not think I an not sure that "generally unreliable" summary properly summarizes the consensus. This is more like "unclear, or additional considerations apply". My very best wishes (talk) 00:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      The problem with this source is that it is usable in quite a narrow area, while a most other areas I found that the strength of the arguments (and their support) begs for redlisting, if not deprecation (as in case with China). Therefore, on balance, it is generally unreliable. Unclear would mean "folks, it's more or less 50/50". I don't see that 50/50. Propose your own summary. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I support Szmenderowiecki’s summary as well as their evaluation of consensus as it stands. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    OK then, this is hard to say. My very best wishes (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems like an inaccurate representation of this most recent discussion, but may be more appropriate if taking prior discussions (which I haven't read through) into consideration. signed, Rosguill talk 19:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a little puzzled here. The website is exceptionally widely used as a source by academics, that means we should also consider it reliable. It is no more opinionated than the Times, Telegraph or the Observer (all containing strong neoliberal biases) and we accept them. It seems that what people object to here is the nature of the bias (Trotskyist) rather than the actual reliability. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a very uncharitable reading Boynamedsue, given that many users who suggested it was unreliable for facts specifically said they didn't object to its Trotskyist bias or that it is a notable example of Trotskyist opinion. I think the issue is the conspiracist content. Re USEBYOTHERS, my sense is that (like GlobalResearch) its longevity means it has built up citations over the years simply by coming up in search engine hits (it is listed by Google News for instance), but it is rarely if ever used as a source by reliable news outlets. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    News outlets are inferior to academic sources, the World Socialist Website is cited frequently by academics publishing in peer-reviewed journals and books from academic publishers. This is a higher standard than news organisations. Here are the citations for just 5 WSW sources: 1. Hollywood enlists in Bush's war drive. 2. Zimbabwe: Mugabe’s ”Operation Murambatsvina”.. 3. HIV/Aids epidemic in Rural China 4. The US backs Ethiopia's Invasion of Somalia.. 5. Mass protests against housing shortages in South Africa.
    There are hundreds of similar citations for other articles. WP:USEBYOTHERS clearly shows this is RS, even though it does not always separate comment and opinion. It is useable for facts, but care must be taken to ensure what is actually added is fact, that can be examined on a case by case basis.
    As for "conspiracism", I do not see evidence of that in the links shown, though I disagree with most of the opinions it gives on Xinjiang. Boynamedsue (talk) 18:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "The website is exceptionally widely used as a source by academics, that means we should also consider it reliable.” Lol Boynamedsue, by that standard Inspire (magazine) or one of the Haqqani publications would be reliable because they’ve been cited as sources by just about every academic doing work on global terror. Academic use can’t be evaluated out of context and on its own doesn’t actually say anything at all about reliability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite right, but do you really think hundreds of academics are looking to analyse the politics of 4.12 International trot sects? If you take the time to look at how they are used, they are cited evidentially, for example:
    • David Walsh's WSW article “Hollywood enlists in Bush’s war drive.” is cited in an article in academic journal Cultural Politics in the following manner: "Much has been made of the rejuvenated relationship between Hollywood and the Bush administration post-September 11th 2001 – especially after Hollywood’s top brass (including Black Hawk Down producer Jerry Bruckheimer) pledged to “commit itself to new initiatives in support of the war on terror” just a month after the attacks on New York and Washington (Walsh 2001; Carruthers 2003: 168)."
    • J.Chan's WSW article "HIV/AIDS epidemic in rural China" is cited in an article in academic journal Asia Pacific Viewpoint in the following manner: "Blood collection centres had opened in Henan and elsewhere in the early 1990s, en- couraging peasants to donate blood and blood plasma in return for payment (J. Chan, 2001).Local blood banks aggressively sought donors and many poor peasants were happy to sell."
    For brevity, I won't include any more, but have a look yourself. It is used as RS by academics. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Both of those come from 2005. I feel there's (a) been a drift towards conspiracism at WSWS, and older content is more likely to be reliable than newer, and (b) academic citations tend to come from earlier on when there was simply less news content on the web and WSWS was one of the relatively few left-wing news sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Bobfrombrockley definitely has a point, I don’t remember them endorsing conspiracy theories in the same way back in the day. I will note however that it hasn’t been unsuccessful for them, they’ve actually managed to mainstream themselves by getting involved in public debates serving as a platform for completely non-trot voices (like in the kerfuffle over the NYT project) to express controversial opinions. If someone can find a source which gives us a clear year break or at least gives us a range in which they shifted we could probably craft a more precise consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    At best used by others can suggest reliability, but it is unable to actually establish it... And it definitely can’t override publishing conspiracy theories as they have been doing as of late. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The site is basically a lot of opinion with a few news articles on niche topics. Opinion pieces are not reliable sources wherever they are published and are only noteworthy if they are reported in other sources. The source could be useful for for events that received little or no major media coverage, particularly in articles about topics that receive little coverage. TFD (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Does Noah Carl writing in The Critic (British magazine) establish notability?

    A review by Noah Carl, writing in The Critic (British magazine), is used in the article Russell Warne to help back up a summary of one of Warne's books. I am concerned that the Warne article may fail WP:PROF and WP:GNG, so evaluating whether this source counts as coverage in a reliable, independent source will help me decide whether to launch an AfD. There are only a few other sources which could conceivably be called coverage of this individual.

    Carl and Warne are certainly both part of a tight network of fringe racial hereditarians who argue that there is a genetic basis for observed differences in IQ test performance between racial groups (if you're skeptical that this view is fringe, see this recent RfC), but I am unaware of any specific evidence that they are personally close. It's also worth noting that Carl is now an independent researcher since being sacked from his university position for "poor scholarship" and "selective use of data and unsound statistical methods which have been used to legitimise racist stereotypes".

    The Critic is described as "conservatively inclined", which certainly wouldn't be a problem if the author were reliable and independent. In this case, however, I'm not sure that is the case.

    Thoughts? Generalrelative (talk) 19:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The description of The Critic in its article - and it's of extremely dubious notability - reads like euphemisms for "crank". I would say that a fringe race scientist writing about another fringe race scientist in a fringe publication of questionable notability is WP:UNDUE and verges on promotional usage of Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, how on earth are Intelligence and Mankind Quarterly not on WP:CITEWATCH - David Gerard (talk) 23:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @David Gerard: they are on it. Look under "Pseudo-scholarship" for Mankind Quarterly (unless there's another publication called Intelligence and Mankind Quarterly, but I haven't heard of that before). An individual listing could be made also, if there's a need for it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:37, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    ah thank you, I keep forgetting the hidden sections :-) Intelligence probably survives by being one of Elsevier's more dubious moments - David Gerard (talk) 23:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you mean "Intelligence (journal)", our article writes "the "journal Intelligence is one of the most respected in its field" but has allowed its reputation "to be used to launder or legitimate racist pseudo-science"." It could be added as a borderline source. Or we could simply have add new category "Category:Race and intelligence controversy", which would act as a sort of catch-all. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:15, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Added as a new 'unreliable field' category here. It will likely need some cleanup after the initial listing tomorrow, but give me 2-3 days and things should make sense after that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks very much for doing that! Super helpful indeed. Generalrelative (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure it'll be that helpful, but I guess we'll see. I think the main issue will be that if it includes journals like Intelligence, the signal-to-noise (i.e. crap vs good citations) ratio will be pretty small, since Intelligence does not mainly publish bad scholarship. Do note that all the CiteWatch will do is compile publications involved in the controversy in some way, not only bad papers of dubious scholarly value involved in the controversy. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I hear that. However I still think it will be useful to those of us who are active in keeping race pseudoscience out of less high-profile articles. It's really a constant struggle, even after the emergence of a strong consensus on the topic at the main article Race and intelligence (here's an example we happen to be dealing with right now). So any additional tools we can use to monitor the situation are very much appreciated. Generalrelative (talk) 17:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If this new "unreliable field" category is going to be added at CiteWatch, we should be clear about what it will have to include. There are around 18 academic journals that Wikipedia editors have decided are sometimes inadmissible due to their sometimes being used "to launder or legitimate racist pseudo-science". I provided a complete list (as of about four months ago) here, along with diffs of the judgment that had been made to reject these sources in each case. I encourage others to look at the diffs provided there, and verify that this list of rejected sources is accurate. If this category is going to be added, it will have to be handled in a consistent way for all of the journals and books about which Wikipedia editors have made this judgment.
    Past discussions have not made it clear whether the broader Wikipedia community supports this basis for rejecting sources that otherwise satisfy WP:RS, because all of the past noticeboard discussions about it have been shut down before they could reach any conclusion (the discussion I've linked above being one such example). But now that a new discussion has been opened about this same question, we can try discussing it again.
    As should be clear from my comments in the earlier discussion, I'm opposed to this interpretation of RS policy, but either way this judgment will require a consensus of more editors than just the four of us. I'd like to hear the views of other uninvolved people. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 14:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Contrary to what Ferahgo claims, no discussions have been improperly "shut down". The RfC that Ferahgo links to was shut down by an admin because Ferahgo's RfC statement was lengthy, confusing, and tendentious, in violation of WP:RfC, which says that the RfC statement should be neutrally worded, short and simple. Ever since the 2020 RfC on race and intelligence (see [153]) reached a consensus (sustained on appeal) that the claim of genetic differences in intelligence between different races is a fringe POV, a small number of editors have been pressing to relitigate the matter. Ferahgo's malformed RfC was an example. After Ferahgo's abortive RfC, in order to resolve the matter I started a simple, neutrally worded RfC on the R&I talk-page (see [154]). It ended in a snow-close reaffirming the consensus that racial hereditarianism is a fringe POV. Both RfCs on race and intelligence had extensive participation by many editors -- about 50 in 2020 and 35 in 2021. Ferahgo's claim that the unreliability of sources that promote racial hereditarian theories of intelligence has to be relitigated is without merit. NightHeron (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. I would also add that the list which Ferahgo linked to should be read with a critical eye. For instance, she appears to imply that Nature Neuroscience was deemed unreliable by some overzealous editor. When one examines the context, however, it's clear that the letter –– not a "paper" as Ferahgo stated –– was removed from the Bibliography section of Race and intelligence because it does not directly relate to the topic. Indeed, the authors of the letter make clear that they are concerned specifically with “interindividual variation” rather than between-group differences (the fallacious leap from the one to the other is a common move for racial pseudo-scientists). Implying that this letter relates to the topic of race & intelligence by including it in the Bibliography constitutes a weaselly form of WP:SYNTH. Generalrelative (talk) 15:29, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In older versions of the article, the Posthuma Nature Neuroscience source had been cited as additional support for the material that was removed in this edit (as it relates directly to the point made by Hunt's book, which does specifically discuss race). Both the Hunt and Posthuma material had been in the article for about a decade, and then when the Hunt material was removed, the Posthuma source was removed a few months later. If this source had been removed in a different context, a case could be made that it was removed due to not being directly about race, but the actual context in which it was removed suggests that wasn't the reason.
    Let's also please not forget the discussion here, in which a discussion was underway about opening a new RFC to examine the question of whether the removal / exclusion of all these sources was compatible with RS policy. The subsequent RFC on the article's talk page was opened with the stated intention, as explained here and here, of pre-empting the planned RFC about sourcing from occurring. (See also this summary of the issue by Stonkaments). The community has never been given the opportunity to make a decision about the sourcing question, although I don't know whether this discussion is the correct place to try to resolve it.
    @Headbomb: in light of your comment above, that this category will only be a list of publications involved in the controversy in some way, do you feel this is an appropriate place to have the discussion about whether the decision to remove and exclude these sources from articles is supported by policy? I'm not seeking to derail this discussion, and if this question isn't relevant to what will be included in that category, I'll continue waiting for a time and place when this matter can be appropriately resolved. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This would be the place to discuss the removal of those sources from Wikipedia. WT:CITEWATCH would be the place to discuss removal from the listing. That said a) the results aren't even up yet b) no one is proposing anything of the sort, save for the discredited Mankind Quarterly and other similar garbage publications. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, thanks. Now we can, hopefully, finally get some opinions from uninvolved editors about the source removal issue. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:36, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Results are live at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Questionable1#Race and intelligence controversy. Note that Intelligence Journal really was Intelligence Bulletin, I've cleaned up the articles, but the compilation will reflect the old dump. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding the original question: Russell Warne has been deleted at AFD - David Gerard (talk) 15:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Intelligence (academic journal)

    David Gerard recently made these edits at Intelligence (journal), which I reverted. Per this and this edit summary, this is inappropriate. Not only does it misrepresent at least one of the sources cited, but it is using non-academic sources, two of which have a known political bias, to condemn an academic journal. That is entirely contrary to WP:SOURCETYPES. Aren't journalistic sources banned from race and intelligence? Is it the position of editors fighting pseudoscientific racism that all study of human intelligence is illegitimate? If so, that is an extreme position that is itself WP:FRINGE and completely out of step with cognitive psychology, psychiatry, and so on. If that is what people are fighting for, then it is time for a new RfC. That previous RfC never, ever justified that. This journal overwhelmingly publishes mainstream topics. I fear that some editors have become overzealous. Crossroads -talk- 01:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This is more suitable for WP:NPOVN than here I feel. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:37, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it the position of editors fighting pseudoscientific racism that all study of human intelligence is illegitimate? I'm not aware of anyone who has made this claim. But in any case, as Headbomb has suggested, if you're concerned about WP:NPOV then WP:NPOVN would be the proper forum to raise your concerns. Generalrelative (talk) 01:42, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, FYI, the reliability of the journal Intelligence for R&I topics was discussed explicitly at the recent RfC. If you're curious, see the exchange with Mikehawk10. Again, no one has, to my knowledge, ever advocated for anything like the kind of position which Crossroads has expressed concern over. Generalrelative (talk) 02:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad to hear that, although I think some of what was said in that discussion goes too far based on the sourcing I've seen. Outside of that one area of race-and-intelligence that sources have commented on, I see no reason to treat it as anything other than an ordinary psychology journal. Of course, WP:PRIMARY and WP:MEDRS still apply in all cases. Even then, if they published something that was against the position that race differences in IQ test scores are genetic, like something about the Flynn effect, that should be usable, since it goes against that bias. I brought up the matter here since I think the edit was inspired by this discussion and I am concerned that both it and what was being said here may be part of an effort to condemn the journal entirely. And, Headbomb, I don't entirely understand the meaning of its listing in CITEWATCH, but being listed there is part of my concern. I understand a 'caution regarding X POV' listing, but not a 'remove on sight' listing. Crossroads -talk- 03:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool, that was my understanding of the consensus among editors who discussed the journal at the RfC. I'm not sure what you saw there as going beyond what you stated, but in any case we don't disagree on the proper approach to using this source. And of course Headbomb can speak for themself, but note what they stated above: I'm not sure it'll be that helpful, but I guess we'll see. I think the main issue will be that if it includes journals like Intelligence, the signal-to-noise (i.e. crap vs good citations) ratio will be pretty small, since Intelligence does not mainly publish bad scholarship. Do note that all the CiteWatch will do is compile publications involved in the controversy in some way, not only bad papers of dubious scholarly value involved in the controversy. Generalrelative (talk) 03:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it the position of editors fighting pseudoscientific racism that all study of human intelligence is illegitimate? I don't know about editors specifically making this claim, but it does seem to be a rather common sentiment on the progressive left. This article[155] provides a good overview. Economist William Darity, for example, said: "There will be no reason to pursue these types of research programs at all, and they can be rendered to the same location as Holocaust denial research." Meanwhile, philosopher Peter Singer said: "If you ignore these things that contribute to inequality, or pretend they don’t exist, you make it more difficult to achieve the kind of society that you value....There’s a politically correct left that’s still not open to these things."
    Given this (well-documented) tendency to dismiss research that challenges one's views, we should be extra careful to judge sources as objectively as possible. We need to make sure we aren't selectively excluding sources simply because they align with one political view or another. Stonkaments (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an attempt to relitigate the previous discussion. No, we don't need to add scientific racism for false balance - David Gerard (talk) 22:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Singer has been almost universally derided for those comments... The most basic critique being that Holocaust denial research wouldn’t be the equivalent, Holocaust research would be. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Singer didn't mention Holocaust denial as far as I know. The problem clearly meant is that some people who lean towards all-nurture viewpoints, like Darity, are making the extreme leap to the idea that any research on how biology affects how individuals develop psychologically is equivalent to Holocaust denial in fringiness. This is extreme and itself fringe; it goes against the well-established findings on how genetics impact mental development in pathological cases like schizophrenia, as well as the fact that it is a mainstream area of research, as shown in this Nature editorial. Crossroads -talk- 00:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC
    At this point you're clearly not talking about Intelligence as a source, but instead appear to be attempting to relitigate the RFC by making general complaints about a field of study rather than anything that's RSN material - David Gerard (talk) 13:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I made that edit to Intelligence (journal) because, per WP:LEDE, the lead paragraph did not adequately summarise the contents of the article and the balance of views on the subject. It is remarkable that an Elsevier journal has such fame in the wider world - as I cited to RSes, that were already in the article - for race and intelligence pseudoscience, and leaving this multiply-RS-cited remarkable fact out of the first paragraph was clearly and obviously incorrect by Wikipedia policy and practice. That Intelligence is published by a respectable scientific publisher makes it more noteworthy, not less. It is whitewashing to fail to note such an important fact about the journal right there in the lead summary.
    BTW, you're supposed to ping editors when you talk about them - David Gerard (talk) 22:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Intelligence (journal) is so short, there is no distinct "lead" that necessitates repeating that. The next paragraph was not a separate heading and makes the actual point accurately. The text you added absolutely did not "adequately summarise the contents of the article and the balance of views on the subject." All three sources were misrepresented by making it seem they think of it only as disreputable racism, even though all of them note that the journal is otherwise respected. I didn't ping you here since you are already part of this discussion. I know I dislike unnecessary pings to discussions I am already part of. Crossroads -talk- 03:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Per the comments by Headbomb and Ferahgo in the section above, I think we should have a discussion about the broader practice of rejecting otherwise high-quality academic sources in relation to this topic. There is currently a discussion at Talk:Race and intelligence about rejecting In the Know by Russell Warne as a source, which was published by Cambridge University Press. A previous discussion at this noticeboard found Cambridge University Press to be a reliable source with respect to the topic of race and intelligence.

    This edit blanked five paragraphs of text cited to mostly high-quality academic sources, including some controversial figures such as Jensen, but mostly material cited to respected figures such as James Flynn (academic), Earl B. Hunt, Ulric Neisser and Donald T. Campbell. The link posted by Ferahgo above contains a few dozen examples of edits like that, but that one was one of the more severe cases. Until now, it has never been possible to have a community-wide discussion about this practice, but maybe we can have that discussion now.

    @Ekpyros: @Alaexis: Both of you have been involved in the related discussion on the article's talk page, so I think you should be aware of this discussion as well. Gardenofaleph (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    You and a very small number of other editors have been repeatedly trying to relitigate the RfC of 2020 at FTN (reaffirmed in the RfC of 2021 at the R&I talk-page) that reached a strong consensus that racial hereditarianism is a fringe POV. Your argument about Cambridge University Press is without merit, since several otherwise reputable presses on occasion publish fringe material (also true of Elsevier). The question of reliability vs unreliability cannot be determined for an entire publishing house.
    By the way, you are violating WP:CANVASS by selectively pinging two editors (Ekpyros and Alaexis) who share your POV and inviting them to join this discussion. NightHeron (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, Elsevier is not such an imprimatur of quality either - remember their history of pseudojournals assembled as marketing exercises - David Gerard (talk) 22:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And Elsevier published Homeopathy for years... XOR'easter (talk) 14:22, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    NightHeron, I only pinged those two editors because the other two main participants in that discussion, yourself and Generalrelative, are commenting here already.
    I feel that you have misled the community about what classifying the hereditarian hypothesis as a fringe theory would mean in practice. In your original RFC, Insertcleverphrase accused you of "trying to shut down sources that have a specific viewpoint, regardless of where they are from, or where they are published." In response, you denied that this was the intention of your RFC. But then after the RFC was over, you and Generalrelative went ahead and removed nearly all such sources from the articles, with the justification that "The issue of the admissibility of sources claiming a genetic link between race and intelligence was settled at the Fringe theories RfC last year." In the edit I linked in my previous comment, this even included removing sources such as Neisser and Flynn, which disagree with the hereditarian viewpoint but still include detailed discussions about it.
    If the community had been told honestly that this is what the "fringe" classification would mean, instead of your denying it would mean that, would they have reached the same conclusion to classify it as a fringe theory? Who knows? Thus far you've managed to prevent the community from having a meaningful discussion about this new approach to sourcing, so we've never been able to determine the answer. Gardenofaleph (talk) 23:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Gardenofaleph, Well, there was a second RFC which reaffirmed all that and which took place after the editing you're concerned about. Some editors may be unhappy with the results of that community wide meaningful discussion, but that doesn't mean that it didn't happen. MrOllie (talk) 00:08, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gardenofaleph: A strong consensus came out of two RfCs and several other discussions over the last two years that racialist theories about intelligence are fringe, and therefore subject to WP:FRINGE. A small number of editors have simply refused to accept this. Per WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV, we have to avoid FALSEBALANCE and UNDUE citation of sources that promote those fringe theories. Contrary to what you say, such sources are extensively cited in R&I, but in a context that makes it clear that their POV is rejected by scientific consensus. The current version of R&I contains many references to works by such famous proponents of racial hereditarianism as Arthur Jensen and J. Philippe Rushton, in addition to works by their less famous more recent adherents. Several editors worked on revising R&I in accordance with the consensus at the 2020 RfC; we were not censoring anything, but merely complying with WP:PROFRINGE and WP:UNDUE in removing some references or revising the text that cited them. There were continual objections from opponents of the RfC consensus, which were debated at length on the talk-page. A few of those editors have persisted since then in trying to relitigate those issues and reintroduce sources that were found, after thorough discussion, to be unreliable and/or undue. Their forum-shopping and POV-pushing around race and intelligence have turned this topic into a time sink. NightHeron (talk) 01:00, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It should also be noted that the comment you quote about the [in]admissibility of sources claiming a genetic link between race and intelligence was made in the context of a discussion of sources for scientific consensus. Sources by Jensen, Rushton, Richard Lynn, and the like, despite their claims of being scientific, are unreliable for describing what mainstream science says. They are, however, reliable for describing what the authors believe and so are cited many times in Race and intelligence, Scientific racism, and related articles in order to give an accurate summary of the fringe POV. NightHeron (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The summary you're giving here is simply not consistent with the pattern or removals from the articles. Quoting Generalrelative again, "Rindermann's work is seen as unreliable for any content on Wikipedia related to race and intelligence". This judgment is contrary to the existing consensus at this noticeboard, which found Rindermann to be "[an] appropriate expert in the human intelligence field." 100% of the references to sources with Rindermann as an author have been removed from the race and intelligence article. (There is one paper from him still included in the bibliography, but it is cited nowhere in the article itself.) Aside from Rindermann's book from Cambridge University Press, the removals also included a paper by Rindermann from PLOS One, which is a mainstream journal. [156]
    Rushton and Jensen have been dead for nearly a decade, so while I guess it's a good thing they haven't been completely been purged from the article, they have very little relation to current research about race and intelligence. The current research about this topic is being conducted by people such as Haier, Warne, Rindermann, Nijenhuis, Woodley, etc. All of these current researchers have been completely excluded or purged from the article, regardless of how high-quality the journals or academic publishers where their work is published. Arguing about whether or not all these removals were justified or not is one thing, but we need to avoid this sort of revisionism about your edits that you've already extensively discussed and defended at the time. Gardenofaleph (talk) 03:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gardenofaleph: You are confidently incorrect, as the kids say. Go back and check the diff you presented purporting to quote me. Not a huge mistake in another context, but rather ironic when you're accusing NightHeron of having misled the community. (By the way, how exactly are you alleging he misled the community? Your argument seems to be premised on the idea that the community is unaware of how WP:FRINGE works, and that NightHeron somehow hid this knowledge from everyone until it was too late. That can't be right, can it?) Now you've piled on by stating that NightHeron's summary above was simply not consistent with the pattern or removals from the articles and described it as revisionism, but failed to provide any reasons why an uninvolved observer might think so. Instead you're just repeating the same allegations over and over. I know this might sound like a radical idea, but perhaps just stop? There is clearly no appetite among the community to relitigate this in your favor. Generalrelative (talk) 04:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Note too that, in the statement you falsely attributed to me, you left out the part where Grayfell prefaced by saying My understanding of these discussions is that... When people go out of their way to be humble or circumspect, the least you can do is acknowledge that. Generalrelative (talk) 04:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's interesting that my comment at Talk:Steve Sailer from February was linked. Earlier today I looked up that study again to make sure it was as bizarre as I remembered. It was. The survey ([157]) is informative.
    Rindermann chose to publish a survey that extolled Steve Sailer and Anatoly Karlin (an anti-science blogger, open white ethnonationalist, and climate change denier) as reputable sources of information on science. I'm still at a loss for words about how weird this is. Rindermann even helpfully throws in editorializing about how it is "unfortunate" that another blogger on The Unz Review couldn't have also been included. That blogger is James Thompson, who is, of course, also part of the Richard Lynn/Mankind Quarterly group.[158]
    That study also cites OpenPsych, Richard Lynn, an article by Boghossian about the grievance studies affair, and a 2015 tweet from Steven Pinker. It's a trip.
    It's so transparently self-indulgent that I don't think anyone at Elsevier is paying any attention. Assuming they ever were. On various talk pages, I've seen some comments defending Intelligence because it is "peer reviewed". The problem here is that the pool of peers presumably includes the kind of people who would respond to a survey from a journal which has gone completely off the rails. It's the icing on the cake that they would also use that survey to share how much they trust alt-right bloggers for their science info.
    It's also noteworthy that this was published in 2020, after the journal had stopped listing Lynn and Meisenberg on the editorial board. There was talk that maybe this was the journal's attempt at cleaning up it's image problem, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating, so... This "study", more than anything, killed off the benefit of the doubt I was willing to extend to Intelligence.
    Presumably some legitimate scholarship will still come out of the journal, but it will be inherently less legitimate due to being folded in with fluff about "race realist" bloggers. Grayfell (talk) 05:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comment included the words There are also serious red flags over David Becker and Thomas R.Coyle publishing history. Becker I understand. But what did you mean about Coyle? Sesquivalent (talk) 07:44, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    More than some. . Using the data on its most cited articles, [159], I see in the top 10 articles only 1 which might be related to race in the sense of being published by someone who has also published about race and intelligence. The second ten has one of the same nature, not on race, but by a person who has to some extent also published on race. That gives 90% content which there is no reason to suspect, even if one thinks that studying what are socially called racial differences is illegitimate. "Why do angry people overestimate their intelligence? Neuroticism as a suppressor of the association between Trait-Anger and subjectively assessed intelligence" -- this is supposed to be racist? and this: "Cats (Felis silvestris catus)read human gaze for referential information" ? Almost all their content is like that. DGG ( talk ) 06:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the topic of discussion here is reliability of Intelligence for topics in the race and intelligence area, which seems to be the area for which it is best known. I would have no objection to citing Intelligence in an article on cats, since as far as I'm aware the editors of the journal have no history of promoting pseudoscience about cats. NightHeron (talk) 10:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That gives 90% content which there is no reason to suspect Any other publication discussed on RSN having 10% of its content being pseudoscientific conspiracy theories would be a slam-dunk for complete deprecation. You're not making clear why Intelligence should be any exception - David Gerard (talk) 12:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We routinely mark various publications with a 'reliability depends on topic' note. This journal apparently published fringe/nonsense on a particular topic, on a particular subject, for a particular period of time. It's received high praised as one of the most prestigious journals in the area of intelligence research, even from its critics. That should be enough to treat it with a scalpel, not a hammer. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I also support the scalpel approach. Addressing David Gerard's point: DGG's rough count included articles "which might be related to race", not articles which are definitively problematic. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This study is also in the Scopus "top-10", with 20 cites. The study doesn't mention race, but does mention that being of non-Danish ethnicity correlates with having a low IQ. In another context, in another journal, I would give this study the benefit of the doubt, but this isn't another journal. Who gets to make the call that this is "definitively" problematic? This is a walled garden and the 'high score' with Scopus shows this. The study is cited multiple times times in Mankind Quarterly, once in OpenPsych, twice in Intelligence itself, and twice in Personality and Individual Differences which has a similar reputation to Intelligence.
    If we're going to use the most-cited articles as representative, it needs to be done consistently. This is a walled garden, and articles doing the citing are often within this same fringe sub-group of a sub-group. Also more frequently cited than the cat behavior one is this article which sure seems to me to be definitively problematic. Does being more cited make this one a better example? If not, why mention the "most cited" thing at all? Let's not be selective. If nothing else, being highly cited is meaningless without this kind of context. Grayfell (talk) 01:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I second Grayfell’s point about this ecosystem being a walled garden with just the veneer of academic respectability. I don’t think we need to go through and figure out which articles are "problematic," I think its safe to assume that if it was published here and not in a respected/legitimate journal then theres something "problematic" about it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Crossroads: how is it "entirely contrary" to WP:SOURCETYPES? The language used there seems to be purposefully non-absolute... Academic sources are “usually” the most reliable, not “always” the most reliable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Many things, such as entertainment and current events, are not covered in academic sources. So, "usually", but not always available or uniformly better in every case. It's still pretty clearly contrary to the spirit of WP:SOURCETYPES to consider an entire academic journal unreliable just because a few news media sources say something negative. But even then, opponents of the journal can't have their cake and eat it too - all of those sources likewise call it a respected journal with the exception of race issues:
      Researchers with extreme views on race number relatively few but, having languished on the margins of their fields for many years, they are now managing to push their ideas into the mainstream, including into respectable scientific journals....Both Meisenberg and Lynn also serve on the editorial board of Intelligence, a psychology journal also published by Elsevier. The Guardian (note that since this article Lynn and Meisenberg are no longer on the editorial board - but the author is clearly calling it a respectable scientific journal)
      The ISIR is home to many great scientists, and its journal Intelligence is one of the most respected in its field....Journals and universities that allow their reputations to be used to launder or legitimate racist pseudo-science bear responsibility when that pseudo-science is used for political ends. New Statesman
      Intelligence, a more respected psychology journal that’s published by the major publishing company Elsevier, also occasionally included papers with pseudoscientific findings about intelligence differences between races. Smithsonian Magazine
      It's clear that we have no sourced basis for considering it unreliable outside of race issues. It is that topic - race and intelligence - that is the walled garden. Any claims beyond that are unsourced opinion. Crossroads -talk- 21:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If we're going to discuss this "walled garden" allegation, we should be clear about what it includes, because this allegation has been used to reject far, far more sources than just Intelligence, Personality and Individual Difference, and poor-quality sources such as Mankind Quarterly (which fails WP:RS anyway, regardless of whether it's a walled garden). Sources rejected with this justification have included those published in Perspectives on Psychological Science, [160] Human Nature, [161] PLOS One [162], Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences [163], and at least two books from Cambridge University Press. [164] [165] I could give diffs of the rejection/removal of each of these sources, but I don't think it's controversial to say that these papers and books I've linked to have all been rejected for this reason... as one example, here is Grayfell's "walled garden" explanation for rejecting the Human Nature source, and the rejection of one of the books from Cambridge University Press has recently been discussed on the article's talk page.
    As far as I know, aside from a few newspaper and magazine articles criticizing Intelligence (and aside from sources like Mankind Quarterly, which everyone agrees is unreliable), there are no sources that say these journals or academic publishers apply a lower standard of scrutiny than any other publications that meet the criteria of WP:SCHOLARSHIP. There also is no provision of RS policy, or any other policy, that supports rejecting sources for this reason. The policy linked above says, "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." WP:Walled garden is an essay about a group of Wikipedia articles that all link to one another but to none outside the group, and this essay has nothing to do with judgments about whether a source is reliable or not.
    The only other time this justification for rejecting sources has been discussed at the RS noticeboard was in this discussion about books from Cambridge University Press, and in that case the broader community rejected this argument. But that discussion clearly has not stopped sources from many different journals and academic publishers continuing to be rejected for this reason, so maybe now we can have a discussion about whether this overall basis for rejecting sources is supported by policy. Gardenofaleph (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The closing of the discussion that Gardenofaleph refers to did not support the indiscriminate use of any book published by Cambridge University Press. The closer wrote: The remaining concern was that the views of Rindermann and Hunt may be Fringe. The discussion indicated that there is a lack of sources supporting or opposing the notion that the views in these books are fringe, though when a viewpoint does not have wide support, we do treat it as fringe, and do not give it undue weight. That is, we can give the views of Rindermann and Hunt, sourced to their books published by the Cambridge University Press, but take care not to promote their views as widely accepted unless/until sources can be found which indicate their views are widely accepted. That closing (in February 2020) was superseded by the RfC at WP:FTN on Race and Intelligence that closed in April 2020 (and was reaffirmed by another RfC in 2021) that held unequivocally that the belief that there's evidence of genetic superiority of certain races to other races in intelligence is a fringe viewpoint, rejected by mainstream science. NightHeron (talk) 23:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have two specific concerns with Intelligence:
    Is a source which publishes pseudoscience in one of it's main areas still trusted for overlapping topics? It seems to me that this journal's reputation is mentioned in sources as context for why it's so noteworthy that the journal publishes pseudoscience. Otherwise, why even discuss these journals at all? From this context, the journal's supposed prestige is not mentioned as a defense of the journal, instead it is an indirect critique of those academics who are either oblivious to, or choose to ignore, these serious issues. I don't find this oblique criticism to be a compelling defense of this journal's reputation.
    Many articles in this journal are superficially unrelated to race, but are are still used/misused to support racist ideas. I gave one example, but many, many more can be found. If we're going to stop citing Intelligence for "race and intelligence" we also have to stop citing it for "population and intelligence" and "nation and intelligence" and "school system and intelligence" and at that point just "human intelligence". Again, the journal's name is just "intelligence" so I guess cat behavior is about all that's left. Grayfell (talk) 02:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And yet the sources speak of the journal as well-respected outside of that narrow topic. Why they do so does not change the fact that they do so. The vast majority of the journal's output is about individual intelligence, or if it does speak of group differences, is not about pushing a racial hereditarian POV. For example, is the Flynn effect pseudoscience? I certainly don't think so, and I don't think anyone else does either, since Race and intelligence speaks prominently of it to explain the observed group differences in IQ test scores as plausibly explained by environmental differences between socially constructed racial groups. Much of that research was published in Intelligence. In no way does problems about a small crop of racial hereditarian research reflect on all its human intelligence research. As for "used/misused to support racist ideas", that is very broad and can be applied to almost anything. People have misused all sorts of papers to promote racism, ones where the authors implied no such thing, so by that overly broad logic we have to deprecate every journal that published "used/misused" papers. Crossroads -talk- 03:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "And yet the sources speak of the journal as well-respected outside of that narrow topic.” can you be specific? If those sources have been shared I haven’t seen them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    See my 21:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC) comment. It was in reply to you a short distance above. I quoted 3 media sources. Crossroads -talk- 03:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I note you haven't given evidence that Intelligence is respected as a scientific source. And - as you've already had pointed out to you - its reliability as a scientific source for Wikipedia's purposes was strongly questioned in Talk:Race_and_intelligence/Archive_103#RfC_on_racial_hereditarianism. Your claim that its other articles deserve a carveout as scientific sources for Wikipedia's purposes seems not to be well founded. And, as I pointed out, any other source that was 10% pseudoscientific conspiracy theories would be a slam-dunk for deprecation, and you really haven't made a case that this one shouldn't be. We really just do not take sources with that level of unusable trash, and then say that the rest of the curate's egg is perfectly good - David Gerard (talk) 07:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources I quoted are specifically and clearly talking about its status in psychological science. I have no idea what you are trying to distinguish it from, but sourcs don't support that. The 10% number is not accurate as stated higher above. Regarding that RfC you linked, I already stated above that Outside of that one area of race-and-intelligence that sources have commented on, I see no reason to treat it as anything other than an ordinary psychology journal, to which Generalrelative replied about that RfC, that was my understanding of the consensus among editors who discussed the journal at the RfC. Academic publishing doesn't work like the news media - journals sometimes publish ideas or hypotheses that are marginal or fringe to show them to the wider academic community for critique, etc., plus there is academic freedom. This applies to every subject, but this one is particularly hot-button. This isn't like the Daily Mail not being trusted to report events accurately. And frankly, unless you are proposing to gut the anti-racial-hereditarian material at race and intelligence, Flynn effect, etc., much of which is cited to Intelligence, I don't see a reason to keep debating this. We don't do guilt-by-association or over-the-top "purity testing" demands beyond what sources say, nor do we cherry-pick what we want to hear from the sources on the topic. Crossroads -talk- 15:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    None of the media sources you quoted in your 21:19 comment said that they were well-respected and certainly none said that it was well-respected outside of that narrow topic. Newstateman comes close, but what you’re arguing appears to go beyond what the sources are saying. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    To restate my point, the three sources we have for this journal's positive reputation are also sources pointing out its problem with scientific racism. The scientific racism is not incidental to the journal. It is the only reason these three sources are talking about the journal at all. This context is not hidden or arcane, it's specifically provided by these sources. Grayfell (talk) 19:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm at a loss as to what to say further, to the point that it almost feels like people are not reading the sources I laid out, unlikely as that is. None of this negates what those sources say clearly about what is respected and what the journal's clearly specified problem area is. I can't make a few editors see what I clearly read in the sources. I asked earlier, "Is it the position of editors fighting pseudoscientific racism that all study of human intelligence is illegitimate?", and Generalrelative assured me that no one has made that claim; but since people seem to want to take down the official journal of the International Society for Intelligence Research, the overwhelming majority of whose papers are not about race, I remain concerned. Crossroads -talk- 00:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm, I really didn't want to get involved here again but this doesn't seem quite right. First off, when you asked your question about whether anyone was arguing that all study of human intelligence was illegitimate I replied I'm not aware of anyone who has made this claim. I did not and would not assure you that no one has made the claim because I don't imagine myself to be omniscient. Now some folks have begun arguing that the official journal of the International Society for Intelligence Research is largely unreliable, making claims that go beyond the discussion at the RfC which I linked to above. That may be concerning to you but they are not in so doing necessarily attacking all research into intelligence as illegitimate. Research on intelligence continues to be published in top-tier journals like Nature, Science and the various journals of the American Psychological Association. As I stated below, I'm not willing at this time to stake out a position on how reliable a source Intelligence is beyond the narrow topic of race & intelligence, but those who are arguing for a broad unreliability are not thereby arguing that all research into human intelligence is illegitimate. If someone does want to pop in here and argue that, so be it, but I have not seen such an argument yet. Generalrelative (talk) 00:38, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't mean to imply you were omniscient or even 'should' know what others think, though I get that my phrasing was unusual; but my point is that concerns remain for me that there may be overzealousness on the part of some on this topic. Crossroads -talk- 00:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool, thanks. And I probably shouldn't have been so defensive about it. I understand and respect your point. Generalrelative (talk) 00:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am discussing my problems with one journal. The question about "all study of human intelligence" doesn't seem appropriate to me, which is why I did not answer it. I could point to academic work on this topic that I think is reliable in various context, but that's not the point of this discussion, is it?
    The journal's status as the official journal of the International Society for Intelligence Research doesn't inherently make it reliable. It's not the only society, nor the only journal, on psychometrics, individual difference, etc. This society is not the sole representative of its field, and as far as I know, it never has been.
    To put it another way, that society is not inherently reliable just because it has some members who perform legitimate research, even if some of it is published in Intelligence. These respected members don't cancel-out the pseudoscientists. It looks like the journal treats them all the same, so why shouldn't we? Many of these pseudoscientists are still active in the field of intelligence research, and this activity isn't confined to work which is explicitly about race. Intelligence doesn't, apparently, exercise sufficient editorial oversight for race and intelligence, but it's very tricky to pin-down which articles this actually applies to. For several reasons, I think this is by design, at least partly. This behavior therefor reflects on the entire journal.
    If "race" is the issue which attracts independent scrutiny, we should be willing to use that scrutiny the same as we would any other attention. To insist that this journal's failures do not reflect on any other area seems strange, and would be to Wikipedia's detriment. Grayfell (talk) 00:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And that independent scrutiny every time has confined their negative statements to content about race, and almost always makes a positive statement about the journal outside of that. It is not at all tricky to pin down the tiny minority of articles and researchers this applies to. There is a world of difference between how sources talk about Intelligence and Mankind Quarterly, so there is no basis to treat the former as the latter (as always unreliable). Crossroads -talk- 04:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Mankind is worse. That doesn't make Intelligence acceptable.
    Saying "It is not at all tricky..." is not supported by these sources. Sometimes it is obvious, but sometimes it isn't, which is exactly why sources are commenting on it. Per sources, the outlet is superficially respectable, so the question sources are asking is why does an otherwise respectable journal keep publishing pseudoscience? You may personally think it's always obvious which are good and which are bad, but I don't accept that. As I've tried to explain, some articles appear reliable but this doesn't always hold up to scrutiny.
    Further: why does the outlet keep publishing this crap in the first place? Why does an outlet with a history of pseudoscience get a free pass for articles which are only indirectly about race? They published their more outlandishly articles knowing they would get outside scrutiny. How much attention are they giving to articles which don't get even that minimum level of scrutiny?
    One possibility is that Intelligence gives both race and non-race related article roughly equal attention. This attention isn't sufficient to prevent naked pseudoscience from slipping past. Therefor, nothing in the journal gets the benefit of the doubt
    Another option is that Intelligence has a different standard for race-related articles. If so, the journal does not, and cannot, make this distinction clear. Any article that relates to group differences, broadly construed, would therefor be less trustworthy. Grayfell (talk) 21:59, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a third option you aren't mentioning: that Intelligence publishes these papers because they aren't meaningfully different from what's published by other respectable journals or academic publishers such as Perspective on Psychological Science, Human Nature, or Cambridge University Press, as in the examples I gave in my comment above. [166] Intelligence gets more attention than these other journals and publishers because it is a journal specifically about intelligence, so papers presenting the hereditarian perspective about race and intelligence inevitably are published there more often than in these other journals. But in terms of the content of the papers, there is no meaningful difference between the hereditarian papers published in Intelligence and those published in any of these other places.
    In addition to your rejecting of the Human Nature source in the example linked above, you've also removed similar material that was published in two other journals: the Journal of Biosocial Science and Mens Sana Monographs. So I know that you're aware that in this respect there is nothing particularly unique or unusual about Intelligence or the papers published there. It's disingenuous of you to suggest that there is, unless you intend to argue that ALL of that these journals and publishers fail WP:RS. Gardenofaleph (talk) 03:08, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, please do not accuse other editors of being "disingenuous", which violates WP:NPA. Second, your point is invalid, because Intelligence (journal) is the official journal of the International Society for Intelligence Research, which is the principal organization that promotes the hereditarian POV on intelligence and prominently includes promoters of scientific racism. The journal is largely controlled by people with a strong POV on racial hereditarianism, whereas the other journals you mention presumably are not. NightHeron (talk) 09:52, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Without staking out a position on the current debate, I'd just like to note that there is one more source I recently added to the article Intelligence (journal) stating that Intelligence serves as a vehicle for scientific racism: Andrew S. Winston, "Scientific Racism and North American Psychology", Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Psychology [167]. Here's the quote: Despite careful, scholarly criticism in every era since the early 1900s, scientific racism in psychology has proven remarkably resilient. Although Arthur Jensen and Philippe Rushton both died in 2012, a small but very active community of researchers continue to pursue questions of race in relation to intelligence, brain size, crime, sexuality, reproduction, and dysgenics, with new work appearing in Personality and Individual Differences, Intelligence, and other journals. This international community is led by Richard Lynn, who for a number of years served simultaneously on the editorial boards of Intelligence and Mankind Quarterly, and as president of the Pioneer Fund. . . . The interlacing of scientific psychology with racial politics has now lasted over 100 years. The community of race scientists had sufficient funding, access to journals, dedication, and shared understanding to carry on a project that most psychologists had considered moribund by the 1960s. Note that the source does not take a position on whether being a vehicle for scientific racism is the primary thing the journal Intelligence is known for, just that this journal is a crucial part of the story of the persistence of scientific racism in psychology through to the present day. I don't see anyone disagreeing with this assessment here but I wanted to make sure that with the discussion of sources this one too was given consideration. Generalrelative (talk) 22:58, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this has the same implications as the sources already shown; it is basically saying the same thing about this small bunch of researchers and how they got their ideas out there. Crossroads -talk- 00:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with this assessment. The only real thing it adds is that it's not a journalistic source. Not sure about the peer-review standards of the Oxford Research Encyclopedias, but at the very least it's one more ref to add to the pile. Generalrelative (talk) 00:38, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Citation needed on Noah Carl

    The question is loaded with tendentious uncited material that is probably false.

    Carl and Warne are certainly both part of a tight network of fringe racial hereditarians -- almost certainly false.

    There is no indication Carl is a hereditarian at all. He is a quantitative social scientist, not a psychometrician, behavior geneticist, psychologist or geneticist. So not from any of the fields involved in research on intelligence, its possible genetic correlates, or genetic differences by race. He has no papers on anything genetic.

    I looked into him a while ago during, you guessed it, Wikipedia talk page controversies on these matters and did not see any place where he takes any position on race-and-intelligence hereditarianism except the standard academic freedom arguments that it's an open question and legitimate area of research and (even if those statements were not true) that it should not lead to vilification campaigns against those who publish about it. Well-known non- or anti-hereditarians such as Stephen Pinker, James Flynn, Stephen Ceci say much the same thing and are not classified as "fringe racial hereditarians" for it.

    Carl was an editor or reviewer of one of Kirkegaard's OpenPsych journals. Must be hereditarian, right? Actually there were 3-4 such journals, and Carl was connected to the one for quantitative social science (no apparent connection to hereditarianism) and as of the time I checked his publications and (I think) reviews were not hereditarian-related. He cosigned an article with most of the OpenPsych affiliates defending the aforementioned freedom-of-research position, but there was no place online where one can discover what, if anything, he believes about race differences in intelligence.

    Ah, but Carl published in MANKIND QUARTERLY! Case closed! Yeah, but just like James Flynn in the same journal, it was an anti-hereditarian paper. Carl found some data disconfirming a pet hereditarian idea that regional IQ increases with distance from the equator.

    Yes, but he wrote a paper with EMIL KIRKEGAARD!!! Not on hereditarianism, though. It was a social science paper on stereotype accuracy in Denmark.

    It might be fair to class Carl with people like Cofnas, Anomaly, and Winegard; social scientists who defend a similar (in fact considerably stronger) position on freedom to research hereditarianism. Some of them may have put forth an opinion on the likelihood of race differences but Carl has not.

    Carl is now an independent researcher since being sacked from his university position

    Carl received a large settlement when he sued the university for illegally firing him, and his independence may reflect financial independence resulting from that, not an inability to get another position. The university fired him as a virtue signal under political pressure and literally paid the price.

    for "poor scholarship" and "selective use of data and unsound statistical methods which have been used to legitimise racist stereotypes"

    These sound bites are conveniently quoted without a reference to any source where they can be checked. There is a long report from the university committee that investigated Carl. Having read it, my recollection is that they did not deign to name any specific problem with Carl's research (data, methods, conclusions). The sound bites may come from a shorter press release which contains general unverifiable denunciations for media (and student protestor) consumption. The papers by Carl that I looked at seemed to be standard social science. No apparent problem of poor scholarship, and in any case the papers being nebulously associated with racism had nothing to do with hereditarianism. Sesquivalent (talk) 08:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    You're questioning the content of the Wikipedia article. As a content issue, that should go to that article's talk page - David Gerard (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm saying that this RSN posting is inviting a rejection of Carl as RS based on false information, and some correction here is therefore in order. It is also relevant to the whole "walled garden" talk page theory being aired here. Sesquivalent (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The cites in the article seem high enough quality to validate it being stated in wiki voice there, and just as statements here. Fundamentally you're trying to relitigate the article, and the place to do that is on the article talk page - David Gerard (talk) 16:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The opposite is true. There is a cluster of articles, including Noah Carl, based on a couple of garbage sources written by involved parties. That this material stays in those articles is partly due to obscurity of the subject, and mainly due to WP:OWNership and edit-warring by a handful of well known (within Wikipedia) accounts. The time scale to make any difference to that article is too long to have any bearing on this discussion --- everything will be wikilawyered down to molecules. Here, we can use all available information rather than taking the article as gospel and sole authority. Sesquivalent (talk) 16:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely you mean all available reliable information not all available information? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The available (but false) information in the question did not cite any sources, reliable or otherwise. The information I provided can for the most part be checked -- you can easily find the abstract of Carl's paper in MQ, the entirety of his papers and activity in OpenPsych, and with possibly a bit more work, the documents from his investigation. What apparently cannot be found anywhere is any instance of him being a "fringe racial hereditarian", which is kinda important as it's the essential premise of the question. Sesquivalent (talk) 17:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll respond to a few of the above points now and if necessary will continue later. A few gross errors in the above:

    1) These sound bites are conveniently quoted without a reference to any source where they can be checked. It's actually pretty easy to check by clicking through Noah Carl. You will see there that it is a quotation from the Master of St Edmund's College, i.e. Carl's former employer. I suppose this counts as a shorter press release which contains general unverifiable denunciations for media (and student protestor) consumption, but so what? It's certainly a reliable source for the position of St Edmund's College on Carl's termination.

    2) Carl received a large settlement when he sued the university for illegally firing him, and his independence may reflect financial independence resulting from that, not an inability to get another position. Citation needed. The article states that Carl withdrew his claim; the case was settled by a confidential agreement between both parties.[168] Instead, it appears that Carl raised $100,000 online through cultural grievance publicity.[169] Do you have a citation for your claim otherwise? Or were you simply wrong to make this assumption?

    3) Update: Sesquivalent's original heading read "Citation needed. Noah Carl is not a hereditarian." David Gerard has kindly reworded it for neutrality. Generalrelative (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC) Per WP:TALKHEADPOV, A heading on an article talk page should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it. Presumably this applies to noticeboards too, no? If so, Sesquivalent's heading here is a clear violation on the guideline and should be changed, either by herself or another editor.[reply]

    4) Anyone familiar with Sesquivalent's editing behavior will recognize her charge of wikilawyering as projection. Edit warring has been used disproportionately by opponents of the existing consensus on race and intelligence, not those of us who support it. No one who looks at the history of these pages could possibly come away with any other conclusion. And the charge of OWNership falls flat given the overwhelming nature of the consensus that supports what we do.

    For my part, I'll admit that I may have been in error to assert that Carl is specifically a "hereditarian" and will be happy to substitute "advocate for scientific racism" if that is amenable to Sesquivalent. We will have no trouble providing ample sources to support that. Generalrelative (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it's not worth debating whether Carl is a fringe racial hereditarian, because his support of such hereditarians and close association with them is enough to answer this particular RSN question. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I tend to agree. Glad to hear I'm not alone on that. Generalrelative (talk) 17:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Firefangledfeathers: @Generalrelative: To clarify, you think that anyone who supports "hereditarians" or has close associations with them should not be considered a reliable source? Stonkaments (talk) 18:35, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue of close association is one of independence from the author rather than reliability. Carl's dismissal for poor scholarship and promotion of racism, on the other hand, speaks to his lack of reliability. Generalrelative (talk) 18:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Reiterating the request in the section heading—is there any citation for the claim that he was dismissed for "promotion of racism" ("poor scholarship" is so vague as to be practically meaningless)? The exact statement that St Edumnds made was: "There was a serious risk that Dr Carl’s appointment could lead, directly or indirectly, to the College being used as a platform to promote views that could incite racial or religious hatred". It sounds to me more like Carl was a victim of the PC police/"cancel culture"; the Varsity article says there were months of protests, and "more than 1,400 academics and students signed an open letter calling for the termination of Carl’s research fellowship". Stonkaments (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is verging into using RSN as a forum for your personal political views, take the comments about PC police etc elsewhere. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? This isn't about my personal political views; it's about unsupported accusations that Carl was dismissed for promoting racism, and the alternate explanation (that is well-documented in the article). It's relevant here to the extent those accusations are being used to discredit Carl's reliability. Stonkaments (talk) 19:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t see the term "PC police” used by any of the sources, where do you see it used? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The Spectator says Carl was fired "after being targeted by a left-wing outrage mob"[170]. Quilette says: "Dr Carl has been dismissed not because his research is fraudulent or inaccurate, but because there’s a risk it could lead indirectly to bad actors promoting views that could incite racial or religious hatred. It matters not whether the scholarship is true; the critical thing is whether it upsets people."[171] I can strike "PC police" and replace with outrage mob if you would prefer? But I believe it captures the same sentiment.
    Now, where do the sources say that Carl was dismissed for "promotion of racism"? Stonkaments (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Quilette is unreliable and that Spectator article is an opinion piece so you err in attributing that opinion to the Spectator. Do you have any reliable non-opinion pieces? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's an editorial from The Times[172] supporting the same argument ("Mr Carl argues that he is the latest victim of an authoritarian leftism...The circumstances of Mr Carl’s dismissal suggest that he makes a fair point. St Edmund’s College, his employer, caved in to a campaign aimed at running him out of town.") It doesn't get much more reliable/mainstream than that for an opinion piece, and why would you expect there to be a non-opinion piece that takes a stance on this? Stonkaments (talk) 19:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked for a reliable non-opinion piece, an editorial does not fit that request. Are you saying that such a source does not exist? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct—as I mentioned, it isn't reasonable to expect a non-opinion piece to make this sort of interpretation and take a stance on the matter. Journalists generally convey the facts, whereas opinion pieces give their interpretation of the facts. May I ask, what's your point? Stonkaments (talk) 20:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you aren’t in fact talking about facts or sources which support those facts then you are using this as a forum, thats the point. Your own personal interpretation of the issue is not appropriate to share. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am indeed talking about facts—namely, the fact that multiple prominent opinion pieces denounced Carl's dismissal, vs zero support for the claim that Carl was dismissed for "promotion of racism". Stonkaments (talk) 20:21, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have a source for that fact? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Horse Eye's Back, and will just point out for those who have not taken the time to look themselves that the answer to Stonkaments' query is there any citation for the claim that he was dismissed for "promotion of racism" is given in lead of Noah Carl. Here are two such sources referenced there: [173], [174]. I sincerely hope this clears things up. But in any case I will not be engaging further with this self-evidently specious line of discussion. Generalrelative (talk) 19:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Those sources only mention complaints and allegations of racism (with no supporting details). And no support for the claim that St Edmunds cited "promotion of racism" as a reason for Carl's dismissal. Stonkaments (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The school's statement is proof enough for me, though I wouldn't use it as such if we were writing an article. I don't much feel like debating the point. The substance of GR's main "reliable, independent source" question doesn't hinge much on the specific phrase "promotion of racism". Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is entirely tendentious argument concerning the Noah Carl article with facts that have been trivially cited already, and is nothing to do with RSN matters. Could someone not involved please cap this subsection? - David Gerard (talk) 23:53, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    ancient-origins.net is surely an unreliable source

    REMOVE
    The consensus here to add the site to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. (non-admin closure) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:39, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Which should probably be deprecated. Uses:[175]. See for instance [176] on giants in ancient America. This section on "ancient technology" [177]. Not all of its content is woowoo, but it happily hosts nonsense so nothing on it is reliably published. Doug Weller talk 12:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Deprecate It is self-declared fringe-promoting:

    The goal of Ancient Origins is to highlight recent archaeological discoveries, peer-reviewed academic research and evidence, as well as offering alternative viewpoints and explanations of science, archaeology, mythology, religion and history around the globe.
    We’re the only Pop Archaeology site combining scientific research with out-of-the-box perspectives.

    If there's any peer-reviewed academic research and evidence highlighted by them that's worthy of inclusion here, we will have the RS to cite anyway. –Austronesier (talk) 13:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not an RS Deprecate.Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I mean, we shouldn't have to formally deprecate something so obviously unreliable, but if it would be useful to have this written down then sure. Girth Summit (blether) 16:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the OP is correct it is used a hell of a lot, a good reason to depricate.Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, but I should remind the OP that, under the WP:SOFIXIT principle, there's no need to ask permission to remove obviously unreliable sources. They can just remove them. You don't need permission to make Wikipedia better. --Jayron32 17:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Jayron32: obviously that would be me, and of course I know I don't need permission. However, that wouldn't completely fix the problem as I know that it would continue to be added. As @Girth Summit: points out, it would be useful to have this in writing. Doug Weller talk 16:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would agree, yes we can remove it, but this is one of those sites that will forever be being added, and argued the toss over.Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I guess, but you're presuming that the people who would end up adding such a site would check WP:RSP first. I have never, since the Big Bang, seen a single person do that, and I expect not, until the heat death of the universe, expect one to ever do so. But if it makes you feel better, I won't stand in the way. Removing them when you find them is the useful task. The rest of this is just painting the bikeshed over and over. --Jayron32 16:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, I know they do not, but we can then go "depricated source", and make it clear it is against RS to add it. When they argue "Ahh but prove its not an RS" we can then point to RSP and say end of debate.Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • When something like this is done, it definitely does need to be added to WP:RSP. I may be the first person to do so (thought I suspect I'm not), but when links to Ancient Origins were pulled from two articles I was following, that was the first place I went to check its reliability status. That it's been nuked without first being listed there is a problem especially since looking at it on an article-by-article basis, not everything published there is problematic. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 11:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • I've been removing links to AO for years whenever I ran across them. Because they publish articles about giants, ancient aliens, and other assorted conspiracy theories and pseudoarchaeology. Their business model is to sprinkle 30% insane bullshit into 70% generally real archaeology, see fact check for media bias rated "conspiracy-pseudoscience". I just stepped up what I have always done once I noticed this conversation. Because that source should never have been used here. Nothing they publish can be trusted, even though some of it is factually accurate, because it is all sprinkled with woo.Heiro 14:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not an RS, Deprecate with extreme prejudice. If they said water was wet I'd check to make sure it still was. Heiro 16:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, per that very long list linked above, I think every example in article space should be rooted out and nuked (I jsut did a few dozen, but good lord there are over 500 of them, possibly thousands). I also wouldn't mind the entire site being added to the blacklist. Their entire business model is fringe and spam, there is no conceivable article on this entire website (Wikipedia) that would benefit from a citation to this "source". Heiro 16:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think I may have found them all. There ended up being fewer than I initially thought, around 100 in article space, not counting numerous archives and talk pages which I left untouched. Heiro 04:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just took a look at Pachacamac. It was used twice there, once in addition to a clearly reliable source, and the other time a couple of sentences before that source despite the fact that it was in the reliable source. Clearly spam. Doug Weller talk 16:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deprecate. I wouldn't bother saying so, except the horrifying degree to which it's actually used as a cite. Shall we do the formal RFC? - David Gerard (talk) 17:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      It looks like if we went for an RFC it would be a snow close as te only "objection" is "its not an RS no need to depricate just remove it".Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is snowing, no need for formal closure; I'm heading right off to the blacklist page. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deprecate as it's clearly willing to print anything that will get clicks. The caveat is that it often churnalises press releases on bona fide scientific results, which is probably why it's used in so many articles. Instead of "nuking" it as Heironymous Rowe has already started to do, it would be better to look for better sources that say the same thing, or tag it with {{better source needed}} rather than replacing it with {{citation needed}}. – Joe (talk) 06:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added to spam blacklist ([178]) by Beetstra. As for Joe Roe's point, dealing with the remaining uses and figuring out how to replace the churnalism is best left to editorial discretion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added to WP:UPSD as a blacklisted entry too, this should facilitate cleanup. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I have implemented what I read as the consensus in this thread by blacklisting the link. However, my decision was questioned by user:Peter Gulutzan as being out-of-process. It may be worth some further discussion and an independent closure of this thread. If that decides that we should not blacklist I will revert the blacklisting (but as the situation stands now, I see no reason why to revert). --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This site has been an ongoing issue, see MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/October 2018#ancient-origins.net, in another convo on this very subject in which you also took place. I'm sure they all blur together after 3 years and probably do not remember it, but we need a solution that stops this sites articles from being added as references and as external links. If there is another way to do that, I'm open to listening. But it sounds like the alternatives were tried in 2018 and we still have AO as references and external links in several hundred articles.Heiro 10:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Heironymous Rowe: the alternative is an edit filter (either in warn mode - which does not stop anything; or in block mode -functionally not different from the blacklist though you can give a custom message). XLinkBot is a deterrent, but often hardly sufficient (and normally restricted to IPs/new editors).
    Note, the user DacONJA mentioned in the 2018 spam blacklist thread may actually be another incarnation of user:Ancientoriginsnet .. the spam factor may be larger than I initially thought - I'll try a datadump. Dirk Beetstra T C 10:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Dirk Beetstra claims this thread proves a consensus for blacklisting. I claim that's incorrect but irrelevant anyway. The conversation is here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Peter Gulutzan: I'm pretty annoyed that you say there that this thread wasn't started about blacklisting but about reliability. I made it clear in the title of the thread that its unreliability was a given, and my first words suggested it be deprecated. It's my experience that in some but not all cases this means by blacklisting. I should have made that clearer, I admit. Doug Weller talk 12:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A non-neutral heading is incompatible with WP:TALKHEADPOV. "This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context." Which people on this thread realized that you were proposing to add ancient-origins.net to the spam blacklist, despite our guidelines? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Peter Gulutzan: a better question is: how many realize that we, often, do things completely in contrast with our written rules because it improves the quality of Wikipedia? --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I see now that WP:TALKHEADPOV applies for "article" talk pages so struck it. Is it okay to say that you're acknowledging that this particular action was against our written rules? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Peter Gulutzan: no, it is not against our written rules, it is directly in line with our 5 pillars. Dirk Beetstra T C 07:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess you might mean WP:5P5 and you earlier pointed at WP:IAR so that immunizes you from my references to guidelines and prior practice. I asked Doug Weller earlier "Which people on this thread realized that you were proposing to add ancient-origins.net to the spam blacklist, despite our guidelines?", perhaps I should have pinged asking for a yes|no answer from Austronosier Slatersteven Girth Summit Jayron32 Carter (Tcr25) Heiro David Gerard Joe. But discussion whether it belongs there is appropriate on the spam blacklist talk page. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you pinged me, here's my answer: Sure, blacklist it, it's shit. As I said before, WP:SOFIXIT applies, and it applies to adding shit sites to the blacklist as well. --Jayron32 14:15, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you had bothered to read the comments above you would see that I did realize it meant blacklist. And so apparently did the editor who actually took it to the blacklist. And it has been blacklisted for how many days now 3, 4? And since then 2 other editors have chimed in to agree explicitly with the blacklist. No one disagrees with the assessment that it needs to be deprecated and blacklisted except for you. You keep trying to split hairs on policy guidelines and multiple editors so far have pointed out to you that your interpretation is incorrect. And I stated all of this on your query at the blacklist thread you keep linking to yesterday. Heiro 14:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I read all the comments, yours included "I also wouldn't mind the entire site being added to the blacklist." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I found this thread after links to AO were dropped from two articles I follow. I understand why some editors want to see it blacklisted; it does wander into some beyond speculative territory. That said, it also publishes reliable information (albeit usually sourceable to other, more consistent places). I don't see evidence that AO is spamming WP with links; more that editors find the information they want to source at AO and the article in question is generally reliable so they use that as the link. Whether it's blacklisted or not, my point was that it should be listed at WP:RSP not just nuked and blacklisted silently. Make it clear to people what the concern and rationale are. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    But did you realize that Doug Weller was proposing to add ancient-origins.net to the spam blacklist ? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Peter, Dougweller says that is what he intended, multiple other editors agree it should be done (whether or not they understood he meant that at first is immaterial), it has been done, no one else seems to agree with your rational for undoing it or for not doing it in the first place. Do you have a rational for why this website should not be deprecated and why it should not be added to the blacklist to keep it from being returned to the roughly 250 articles which used it as a citation or an external link? Or are you arguing that because the conversation took place here and not 100% at the other board it is somehow invalid and has to be reversed on those grounds? Because, if so, IMO, that is nonsense.
    Carter, it was not "nuked and blacklisted silently", anyone with an internet connection can see the deliberation. You have been literally participating in it. If you want to take the time to add it to WP:RSP, please feel free. But AO needs to be deprecated and removed from WP articles because they publish pseudoscientific nonsense mixed with actual facts, with no disclaimer when they do so, with the woo presented right along with the actual facts on an equal footing. Until they were outed, the owner and authors published under pseudonyms to protect their other business interests from being associated with the publishing of woo, see here. Many of the articles I removed were cited to the author "April Holloway", the pseudonym used by an AO author mentioned in that article. Anything factual they publish will be available in reliable sources that we can use, we should be using them and not AO. Heiro 03:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Any one can see the discussion only after searching for it. When I found it, it was after the discussion was complete and the action taken. Again, I don't have a problem, per se, with the decision but I do think it needs to be listed at WP:RSP (which it still isn't). If there's a process reason it's not listed there, then that's either an indication of a problem with the action or the process. List it on WP:RSP and my concern goes away. (And don't feel I should add it there because I wasn't involved in the discussion, just caught up in its aftermath.) —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 11:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Peter Gulutzan: no, 5P, so also 1 and 2 are applicable here. IAR does not immunize me from anything, there are 9 people here that want this site gone and not re-added since it all gives more work. There is a consensus to invoke IAR. Their comments indicate that we have a consensus to ignore the rules and do something to fully stop adding this. I just executed that consensus. If I would have blacklisted that site on personal evaluation I would have invoked IAR personally (MY argument would have been that I thought that blacklisting AO would make Wikipedia better), and we would, maybe, have a discussion whether I would be right in that (and maybe revert my action if there was a discussion that stated that maybe it is reliable and should regularly be used). Your only argument here is that since the rules don’t prescribe it, it should not be done, and that is simply not how we work here. My action on WT:SBL is simply nothing else than reading through an AfD and deciding to close it as delete. I read the, at that time unanimous, consensus that Wikipedia is better of with not being able to use AO. Dirk Beetstra T C 05:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deprecate and blacklist. Publishes arrant nonsense; does not belong in any shape or form. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC) (Edit: appears to have been blacklisted since the OP, and I cannot therefore link to the most egregious examples; however, there is sufficient evidence for my comment above). Vanamonde (Talk) 18:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deprecate and blacklist- AO is a completely garbage source, and it lacks a reputation of fact-checking and accuracy that would allow us to use the occasional "good" content even if we did have a good way to distinguish it. –dlthewave ☎ 12:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't agree with what's been said in favour of the blacklisting action that resulted from the earlier comments on this thread, but see that my objections have been unpersuasive. I'll say no more here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    RfC: Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) as Source

    The Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) is a defence and strategic policy think tank established by the Australian Department of Defence. Reports from ASPI are increasingly being used as sources on WP both with and without in-text attribution.

    Which of the following best describe the work of ASPI:

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

    Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment @Vladimir.copic: The ordinary 4-option RfC for source reliability would allow for WP:BIASED sources to also be WP:GREL, which is in line with the reliable sources guideline. The current format doesn't really allow for that, since "neutrality disputed" would be mutually exclusive with "generally reliable". I'd recommend changing option 2 into the standard Unclear or additional considerations apply or the alternative marginally reliable or additional considerations apply. Otherwise, this is a Bad RfC.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC) (Seeing as the format for the RfC has been updated, I am striking this comment so as to not confuse people who decide to participate in the RfC below. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC))[reply]
    Thanks Mikehawk10. I originally had this format but I thought option 4 was unnecessary for this source and might make me look biased. Fixed it up now. Vladimir.copic (talk)
    • Option 2. Certainly they seem to have expertise in their field, but some serious concerns have been raised regarding their objectivity and I can't find any indication that what they published is substantially fact checked or peer reviewed. So, might be usable in some cases, but with case by case evaluation, and almost certainly with attribution (if at all) if other reliable sources don't corroborate what they're saying. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 As an ex-ADF member with an abiding interest in defence matters, I read ASPI papers and listen to their podcasts, but almost all of what they put out is opinion, although there are often some solid facts included in what they say. Founded by government and supported by defence industry, they are proponents to government of particular policies in the defence and defence industry area, and a pseudo lobby group, and they rarely compare and contrast ideas that clash with their own. Their work needs to be in-text attributed in most cases when it might be appropriate to use them. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 They're frequently cited as authoritative by many clearly established WP:RS, so they at least pass the WP:USEBYOTHERS criterion. For example:
    • New York Times: [179] (article mainly based off findings of an ASPI report, "Researchers at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute on Thursday challenged those claims with an investigation"),
    • New York Times: [180] (article mainly based off findings of an ASPI report, "according to new estimates by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, which analyzed satellite imagery"),
    • New York Times: [181] (article heavily cites ASPI, "This approach reached an all-time high last year, according to a report published last week by researchers at the International Cyber Policy Center of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, or ASPI.").
    • Guardian: [182] (article mainly based off findings of an ASPI report, "The revelations are contained in an expansive data project by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), which used satellite imagery and on-the-ground reporting to map...")
    • Guardian: [183] (article mainly based off findings of an ASPI report, "...according to analysts from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI).")
    • Guardian: [184] (article mainly based off findings of an ASPI report, "...an Australian thinktank has found....according to the latest satellite imaging obtained by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute....In total ASPI identified")
    • Deutsche Welle: [185] (article mainly based off findings of an ASPI report, "In a new report, Uighurs for sale, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) identified at least 27 factories across China where detainees from camps in the western region of Xinjiang had been relocated since 2017.)
    • Deutsche Welle: [186] (article mainly based off findings of an ASPI report, "The Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) published a report last week...)
    • Deutsche Welle: [187] (cites ASPI, "Fergus Hanson at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) thinks...")
    The above list is by no means exhaustive, and was quickly and easily compiled by searching "The Australian Strategic Policy Institute" on the news outlet websites and looking at the first few links returned. - GretLomborg (talk) 22:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 Looking at the above comments I think this source should only be used with in-text attribution or when the information is independently verified by another reliable source. There seem to be reasonable concerns around the independence of ASPI's work even though it is probably quite rigorous. Some of their work (like the unitracker) would be a stretch to describe as "factual reporting". Because ASPI's work is mainly on contentious topics, I think it is prudent to be explicit when using their work. The above argument of WP:USEBYOTHERS is compelling but the sources all explicitly point back to ASPI as their source. Australian sources (opinion pieces admittedly) and politicians have also questioned ASPI's independence ([188] [189]). Sources explicitly attribute the work to ASPI and I think we should do the same. Vladimir.copic (talk) 02:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: "the sources all explicitly point back to ASPI as their source": that's to be expected, because my list was compiled by explicitly looking for those pointers in WP:RS media. It's impossible (or at least extremely impractical) to find instances where a source is used by a WP:RS without being attributed at all. Also it should be noted that newspapers and Wikipedia have different attribution practices: newspapers typically only do attribution in-text since they don't use footnotes and you can't hyperlink newsprint, so a newspaper doing an in-text attribution doesn't imply that Wikipedia should follow the same practice. However, I think the key point is that ASPI wasn't just cited as credible in a larger story, but in many cases its reports are credible enough for high-quality WP:RS to base the factual content of whole stories off of them directly. Re: "Australian sources (opinion pieces admittedly) and politicians have also questioned ASPI's independence ([10] [11]).": I can't read the first link due to paywall/adblocker nonsense, but the second article actually supports the independence of ASPI, showing that it is not subject to government interference and it frequently takes positions different from its government (e.g. Iraq war is a bad idea), etc. I put zero weight in the opinions of any politician on the reliability of any source (it's likely that for every well known WP:RS you can think of, you can dig up some politician strongly denouncing it). The stuff about funding coming from places like Western governments, NATO, etc. has been a perennial controversy for all kinds of sources, but in every case I'm aware it's actually been irrelevant. Where they get their funding doesn't matter to Wikipedia. - GretLomborg (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I managed to read the first link you listed that I had trouble with earlier. It's an opinion piece and a rather tendentious one at that. As part of its argument it minimizes the re-education camps in Xinjiang. It said "There is no proof of the genocide of the Uighur people. There is proof of the detention of some for political purposes, and there is proof of the intimidation and repression of many others." I think the absolute lowest credible estimates of people detained in reeducation camps in Xinjiang is in the hundreds of thousands, and the main estimates here are all more than a million, which is definitely more than "some." That opinion piece seems to represent a view towards the fringes rather than a mainstream one. It's worth noting that the ASPI is one of the main bugbears for the Chinese government and Western fringe sources with an interest in denying or minimizing what's happening in Xinjiang. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 and attribute. A look at WP:USEBYOTHERS makes a convincing case that the Australian Strategic Policy institute is a highly-respected think tank that is relied on for facts by reliable sources. Academic sources that have cited it as a source for facts include numerous peer-reviewed papers across a variety of subjects, some of which are listed below in the collapsed section below (though this list is by no means exhaustive and probably could be expanded upon widely):
    Some peer-reviewed academic sources using ASPI
    • Schreer, Benjamin; Lee, Sheryn (19 October 2012). "The Willing Ally? Australian Strategic Policy in a Contested Asia". RUSI Journal. 157: 78–84.
    • Wallis, Joanne (3 February 2015). "The South Pacific: 'arc of instability' or 'arc of opportunity'?". Global Change, Peace & Security. 27 (1): 39–53.
    • Carr, Andrew (15 October 2018). "It's about time: Strategy and temporal phenomena". Journal of Strategic Studies. 44 (3): 303–324.
    • Lockyer, Adam (29 September 2015). "An Australian Defence Policy for a Multipolar Asia". Defence Studies. 15 (3): 273–289.
    • Moore, Clive (13 August 2007). "Helpem Fren: The Solomon Islands, 2003–2007". Journal of Pacific History. 42 (2): 141–164.
    • Riikonen, Ainikki (Winter 2019). "Decide, Disrupt, Destroy: Information Systems in Great Power Competition with China". Strategic Studies Quarterly. 13 (4): 122–145.
    • Sergi, Anna (13 June 2016). "Countering the Australian 'ndrangheta: The criminalisation of mafia behaviour in Australia between national and comparative criminal law". Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology. 50 (3): 321–340.
    More recently, there's been widespread use of ASPI's investigative reporting in news media, particularly with reference to Uyghurs and Xinjiang. When the ASPI report Uyghurs for Sale described Uyghurs being sold en masse, Los Angeles Times stated in its own voice that [i]t's the latest step in a campaign of forced assimilation into Han Chinese culture through mass detention, reeducation and labor that Beijing has implemented in Xinjiang since 2017 — one that now reaches global supply chains and U.S. consumers. China Digital Times stated that the report documented likely forced Uyghur labor in factories providing exports for global brands. Maclean's called it a major investigative report. Reporting from Coda Story seems to use ASPI for a source of facts, and put in their own voice that [a] series of advertisements on Baidu — China’s answer to Google — suggest that this incentivized market for cheap Uyghur labor has thrived throughout the pandemic. One advert, from April, offered “Xinjiang Uyghur workers, all female, 18-35 years old, proficient in Chinese, obey arrangements. Coda Story has commented positively on ASPI's research elsewhere, as well. The Times backs up its statement that Some have been put to work for companies that human rights campaigners claim supply parts to global brands with this very ASPI report. In general, there seems to be a lot of positive use of ASPI by reputable sources with respect to Uyghur forced labor transfers.
    But it's not just the one report that's being widely cited; ASPI is viewed as a credible organization that researches Chinese disinformation networks, and Xinjiang more broadly, as well. The Wall Street Journal supports its statement that [t]he Chinese government’s activity on Twitter and Facebook over its policies toward ethnic minorities in Xinjiang reached an all-time high last year, as Beijing sought to portray its approach, including use of widespread internment camps and surveillance, as beneficial to the remote northwestern region with an ASPI report. The Times cites an ASPI report to assert, in its own voice, that China has 380 detention facilities built or under construction in the far west region of Xinjiang, contradicting claims by Beijing that all “students” in its “education and vocational training centres” had “graduated”. USA Today seems to use them to identify a lower bar on the number of newly built detention camps in Xinjiang since 2017. And, as SupChina notes, the New York Times draws extensively on ASPI reporting in its own multimedia news reports on the destruction of mosques in Xinjiang.
    Overall, ASPI seems to be a highly respected think tank, and one that's generally reliable for claims of fact that proceed from its investigative reporting. And, its analyses seems to be cited by peer-reviewed journals. Being a think tank, however, its analysis framework of defensive neorealism is going to lead towards some bias in its policy recommendations and its forecasts of things along the lines of various opportunity costs. But, it does not appear that this affects the reliability of its investigative reporting, as evidenced by extensive WP:USEBYOTHERS in that realm, and I do believe the think tank is generally reliable for accurately reporting facts. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The Eltham and Burns' paper is worth quoting here as I think it nicely shows the reservations on independence of the think-tank that exist:
    Key think-tanks such as the Lowy Institute and the Australian Strategic Policy Institute are part of this academic-policymaker network and provide public contestability of policymaking. However, this network is defined, relatively insular, and possibly self-selective.
    And speaking of the institute's reaction to Australian government defence papers says: The Howard-created Australian Strategic Policy Institute has provided limited contestability, and has focused on budget and doctrine analysis. (My emphasis.)
    I hope I'm not too annoying here but I am a bit of a "read your sources" editor. Just because an academic source cites ASPI does not mean it is an endorsement of the think-tank's reputation or reliability. For example Wallis' paper mainly cites ASPI publications to explain the point-of-view of Australia or Australian government decisions. This is similar in the Moore paper and Schreer and Lee paper and, more importantly, Schreer has worked/written for ASPI so doesn't really count. As has Adam Lockyer (obviously must be a small pool of Australian academics in this field). Don't want to get bogged down in the weeds here as we seem to be on the same page: use with attribution. Just think it's important to dig into and consider sources sometimes. Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't the fact that Australian academics publishing in reputable journals have previously worked or written for ASPI a point in its favour re reliability, not a point against it? BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2, they are reliable within their field of expertise (geopolitics, security, info-pacific happenings) but I would not consider them generally reliable. I categorically do not consider think tanks and the like to be generally reliable, even the best ones (of which this is one) need to be handled with additional considerations and extreme care should be used when using them outside of their area of expertise. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good Option 2, significant opinions, usable with attribution. Their stuff is well-researched, solid and informative - but tends to reflect the opinions of their funders, e.g. this piece on China's DC/EP central bank digital currency strongly reflects Facebook's marketing pitch for its Libra (as it was called then) digital currency, and whoops, there's "Funding statement: Funding for this report was partly provided by Facebook Inc."! So I take their stuff seriously, but with a grain of salt; they may best be mined for their sources in turn - David Gerard (talk) 17:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1/2 Definitely a top-tier think tank. Their work on the Uighur genocide has been corroborated by the Associated Press and other sources. However, they seem to be largely agenda-driven and some of their research has been criticized by other government-affiliated institutions [190]. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 07:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As usual with many think tanks, it's heavily partisan in some geopolitical arenas. And it's definitely not independent, so the usual WP:INTEXT attribution considerations apply. MarioGom (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1: The frequency at which it has been cited and referenced means that for us to consider it unreliable would require exceptional evidence, evidence that I do not see presented here. However, reliable doesn't mean unbiased, and it seems to me that they have a relatively high degree of bias; this is something that I feel Vladimir.copic's Wallis' source speaks to. As such, while I believe the source is reliable, I believe it should be used with attribution. Summoned by the bot; unclear to which RfC, and so drew the short straw BilledMammal (talk) 12:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC: Perennial sources consideration for Caixin?

    @WhinyTheYounger:

    I'd like to start the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources discussion for Caixin.

    Which of the following best describe the work of Caixin:

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

    WhisperToMe (talk) 16:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    My view: Caixin based on hearsay seems to be generally reliable but limited by the fact the PRC government has authority over it. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:32, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Option 1/2, it's mostly generally reliable, but for anything closely related to the Chinese government I would exercise caution. I assume btw you're referring to both language versions of their news sites, caixin.com and caixinglobal.com? My understanding is that Caixin is broadly independent and free from government co-option; they have for instance criticized the government's censorship and published an investigation questioning the official COVID-19 death count in Wuhan. Western media sources also seem to view them favourably and describe them as reliable, e.g. the NYT described them as an influential and respected news organization, and the (Australian) ABC described them as the most influential financial news outlet in China and is widely regarded as one of the most outspoken and reputable in a tightly-controlled environment, and they have collaborated a lot with other reliable Western media sources (e.g. the BBC, WSJ, CNBC, etc.). I think caution should still be advised for things particularly close to the CPC – their criticism of the government's censorship came off the back of one of their own articles being censored, and as the as the NYT noted: while Caixin has always had more leeway than [state-controlled] organizations, it must still obey increasingly strict rules on what news organizations can publish. I would be particularly wary about WP:DUE concerns as it pertains to the CPC, as while they probably won't publish things that are factually inaccurate, censorship in the country may prevent them from fairly representing all sides of an issue. They would otherwise appear to me to be generally reliable. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 17:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2: Additional Considerations Apply. Caixin is, unquestionably, one of the most reliable sources based within mainland China. However, it is based within mainland China. As a result, the company is state-affilited and subject to state censorship (though it has also at times publicly told official censors to more or less buzz off, which is exceptionally rare in China). Much like The Straits Times, which is Singapore’s paper of record, we need to be cautious when using Caixin's news reporting within the field of politics or for extraordinary claims. For mainland Chinese media, this would be especially so for coverage of Chinese domestic politics or topics that are politically sensitive in China. For ordinary reporting on the activity of businesses, I think it would be perfectly fine to use with attribution.
    The source has historically engaged in partnerships with a number of highly respected publications, although these partnerships have raised some eyebrows. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Would they really need attribution for e.g. routine finance/business reporting? I don't think there's reason to generally worry about the factual accuracy of their news, and if it's not an issue they might be censored away from fairly covering both sides of, I wouldn't see a problem using them without attribution. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 06:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If they're the only one providing a fact, I'd generally attribute. I don't see a need to attribute "X business was founded in Y year and launched P product in Q quarter of 2020" or those types of facts that are unlikely to be contested. It's more for the reporting of "X company may have misled consumers and committed fraud" that I'd prefer to see attributed. "Ordinary" was the wrong choice of a word. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2. Caixin is probably generally reliable for factual accuracy in the facts it does report and general news, but any publications subject to the jurisdiction of totalitarian regimes without free press guarantees should be approached with substantial caution on any matters those regimes may be sensitive about. Since they may in those instances be subject to both self-censorship and in some cases outright censorship, they should not generally be treated as independent or objective on those issues. In this case, any reporting in Caixin about subjects which may be of concern to the Chinese government should be approached with that in mind, and confirmation looked for by reliable sources not subject to Chinese jurisdiction. If Caixin is the only source reporting something it should generally be attributed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • High end of Option 2 - I find it very useful in practice as a financial paper, but with considerations and attribution above - David Gerard (talk) 20:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 For factual reporting, not opinion or perspective. It does seem a shame to reduce the credibility of an outlet without an exact article or documented trend of reporting in mind. However the Chinese government has made no secret of the restrictions it places on the media. If Caixin is the only place we could get the information I would be happy for us to use it. My problem is more with what they don't say, then what they do. Dushan Jugum (talk) 20:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 Unless editors can provide actual specific evidence of the Chinese government manipulating content produced by Caixin, that they are based in China is not inherently enough to downgrade them. They produce reliable, factually accurate content by all accounts. Obviously the normal considerations apply for opinion pieces and such. BSMRD (talk) 17:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      The government has deleted an article of theirs previously. It would be incorrect to say that they "manipulate" content that Caixin produces, but censorship of their work has occurred, though I do think some of the participants in this discussion have overstated the degree to which censorship does/will happen. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 05:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      An article being deleted after publication doesn't necessarily affect reliability. Articles are pulled off in many jurisdictions for a variety of reasons, often following a Court order, and I never heard about that action being used to discredit the reliability of the affected media outlet. MarioGom (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      That really depends on the reason of the pulling off. When a court order found that the material in question was defamatory, that rather weighs against the source. If an article is pulled because of govt/business interference against media criticising the institutions in question, it means it hasn't got complete editorial independence, which is also a reason to be more cautious*. It doesn't matter if there was an outcry after that.
      *what is meant here is not interference due to exposure of state secrets, which is not covered by the freedom of press, but rather pre-emptory censorship or govt interference in matters which are not normally sensitive/classified. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1/2 Caixin is the gold standard for business news in China, something like FT. It's obviously constrained by the Chinese govt censorship, and that is something that has to be kept in mind. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1/2: It is unfortunate, but on occasion when considering a sources reliability we need to consider the context that they operate in, and in the case of Caixin, that means we need to consider them in the context of the fact that they operate in China, and the environment in China is, to put it mildly extremely problematic. The primary consequence of this is that Caixin will have gaps in their reporting; and while this does cause issues in regards to due weight, I feel that these issues are too nebulous for us to consider and rule on.
    What we do need to consider is the chance that they have to alter the stories they do issue in such a manner to comply with Chinese censorship, though it is important to balance this with the fact that no outright inaccuracies have been identified.
    Considering all of this, I believe the our best option is to consider them compromised on topics broadly relating to China or Chinese interests; on these topics, if a less compromised source cannot be found, they should be used only with attribution. Further, if other reliable sources conflict with them on these topics, weight should be given to these other sources. Summoned by the bot; unclear to which RfC, and so drew the short straw BilledMammal (talk) 12:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 with the only caveats being for obviously sensitive issues like the The Three Ts etc., which are unlikely to be covered in depth anyways. Particularly for matters of finance, Caixin is a gold standard. The concerns of censorship and Party influence, of course, are warranted, but those concerns are materially different than they would be for a fully state- or Party-operated outlet like Xinhua or People’s Daily—the primary worry here is of omission, it seems, rather than falsification. While serious, this presents much less of a problem in the context of an article where other sources can provide missing context. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 15:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC: Republic TV

    Should Republic TV (republicworld.com) be deprecated? Tayi Arajakate Talk 11:53, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Survey (Republic TV)

    • Deprecate - For an example of nonsense peddled by this channeled, check this news. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deprecate Despite being a possibility of genuine news related to entertainment, including but not limited to films, the blatant hoaxes, fake news, fabricated misinformation, and what not, that the organization publishes is quite rampant that makes it dangerous for us here — DaxServer (talk to me) 17:33, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose deprecation, I think that “generally unreliable” is still appropriate. Much like similar news orgs most of the blatant stuff seems to be contained within talk shows not within hard news segments. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Horse Eye's Back, I don't think that's accurate. All sorts of claims are made on their talk shows but the same claims are replicated all across their website and well within their "hard news". See for example, a search on Alt News produces pages after pages on fabrications and includes both talk shows and news stories. I'll try to tabulate a more comprehensive list on them, along with secondary sourcing once I get bit more time. Tayi Arajakate Talk 23:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I see coverage of errors in that link, what I don’t really see is fabrications... Being wrong and making a lot of mistakes makes you unreliable, being purposefully wrong makes you deprecatable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Horse Eye's Back, there are numerous fabrications in there? I don't know how this, this or this can be explained as anything else. Demonstrably false and completely invented stories, these don't even originate on social media but from them though not sure what difference it would make. Beyond this they are also persistently pushing conspiracy theories such as Love Jihad [191], Corona Jihad [192], how Sushant Singh Rajput was murdered [193], etc. Tayi Arajakate Talk 00:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It does seem likely that there are fabrications there, but again thats not the same thing as a source actually saying that they knowingly fabricated a story. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If I were fabricating something, I wouldn't publicly agree or give a hint of it that I'm fabricating. It is upto other to fact check and investigate if I did it this time or if there's a pattern. If there's a pattern, then that would mean I intentionally do it, even if the fact checkers don't say so? — DaxServer (talk to me) 08:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    How does one unknowingly fabricate stories? That too repeatedly and consistently in favor of a particular position. By the way, Affective Politics of Digital Media: Propaganda by Other Means (pp. 226–239) which is linked above for Love Jihad, does say that they are deliberately pushing the conspiracy theory. Tayi Arajakate Talk 08:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deprecate, considering its history of fabrications including multiple conspiracy theories, it'd be irresponsible to allow citations to this outlet to persist. In my mind, its equivalent to sources like Brietbart and Swarajya. Tayi Arajakate Talk 23:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Theres nothing magical about deprecation, we don’t auto remove deprecated sources... Citations to this outlet will still exist if we deprecate, someone is still going to have to go through one by one and evaluate whether its appropriate. Theres also no need for the source to be deprecated to start doing that, generally unreliable is enough to remove a source in >90% of use cases. If you’re concerned about the persistence of citations to this outlet then get at it dog! You’ve got no-one to blame but yourself. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I know what deprecation is and I'd prefer that a stronger consensus exists for removing them en masse before doing so, considering the number of articles they are cited on. Tayi Arajakate Talk 00:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Deprecation is *not* consensus for removing them en-mass, each one would still need to be done individually and with due care. I have begun assessing our use cases, no need to wait when we already have a clear consensus of unreliability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure exceptional circumstances may exist so each case needs to be considered individually but otherwise it is de facto that. Most questionable sources don't have widespread use so this doesn't really matter but that's not the case here. The edit filter would also be useful to discourage future cites to it. Tayi Arajakate Talk 08:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deprecate Known purveyor of fake news and conspiracy theories. There's really no point in ever using this source. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 07:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose deprecation (keep Unreliable). No sources provided that this outlet knowingly publishes fake news a la Daily Mail. The initiator should explain why the current status (unreliable) is problematic (not just that this source is used 1000s of times). Happy to change my vote if a proper case is made for deprecation. Alaexis¿question? 17:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Alaexis, if you are asking for examples which show that they deliberately publish fake news a la Daily Mail, then I did link them in my discussion with HEB above. I probably should have provided some examples in the discussion section below but anyways I will bring up some new ones, for example this where they took Rahul Gandhi and Asaduddin Owaisi's objection against a rule mandating the national anthem to be played before every film in cinema halls and turned it into them claiming that people shouldn't stand up for the national anthem, or this where they took an old photo, appropriated it as their own and claimed that they are bringing exclusive pictures from the Kashmir conflict. I don't know these can be regarded as being simple mistakes. This is just the tip of iceberg as well. Tayi Arajakate Talk 18:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, it does look like a trash source. And why is the current designation (unreliable, meaning that "Outside exceptional circumstances, the source should normally not be used, and it should never be used for information about a living person.") not sufficient to remove contentious information sourced to it? Alaexis¿question? 19:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Alaexis, the misinformation extends beyond contentious topics (through churnalism and sensationalism without any regard for fact checking) as well, there is no real way for us to tell whether something that can only be sourced to them is reliable information so an across the board removal is needed while it's also being continuously added as a citation and there is no strong consensus (i.e, in the form of an RfC) on it at present. Deprecation through a formal RfC would help us make the process easier, as in prevent it from getting bogged down in multiple individual disputes and improve awareness. Tayi Arajakate Talk 19:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, unreliable sources should not be used normally, so it should be an easy to remove it. I see that now most of references to it are in articles about various media personalities. Is it unreliable there too? Is there really a widespread problem with this source? Alaexis¿question? 05:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it is an unreliable source being used normally and deprecation as a process exists to discourage continued use like this. Most of the references aren't solely in articles about media personalities, they include all kinds of topics from sports and films to protests and conflicts. And yes it certainly should not be used for articles on media personalities or for any BLP. For instance after Sushant Singh Rajput's suicide, the channel (along with Times Now) pushed a conspiracy theory that he was murdered and went after people like Deepika Padukone, Rhea Chakraborty and various others throwing accusations of drug abuse, conspiracy to murder, etc against them. (see [194], [195], [196], [197]) Tayi Arajakate Talk 12:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deprecate, and purge citations. Demonstrating that there's knowing fabrication requires access to internal deliberations that we do not have; what we do have is evidence that RW has stuck to its fabricated stories even after obvious evidence of their being false became public [198], [199], not to mention numerous instances of egregious fake news with massive real-world impacts [200], [201]. If RW is used for contentious information, it obviously should not be; if it's used for uncontentious information, should be possible to replace it with a superior source. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deprecate, and purge citations. Known to give communal twist to regular news[1], conduct Trial by media[2], harass people based on speculation[3][4].--coolk (talk) 22:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deprecate. The evidence presented for deprecation is convincing and so far undisputed. Of particular note is that this unreliability is broad, and not limited to a definable area, and as such I believe deprecation is our only option. Summoned by the bot; unclear to which RfC, and so drew the short straw BilledMammal (talk) 12:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deprecate, full of conspiracy theories.Nyx86 (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ https://www.republicworld.com/india-news/politics/tablighi-jamaat-event-caused-covid-19-to-spread-to-many-persons-mha-to-rs.html
    2. ^ https://www.republicworld.com/tags/rhea-chakraborty
    3. ^ https://twitter.com/aarifshaah/status/1298949663307886592?lang=en
    4. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGPoqgesI-E

    Discussion (Republic TV)

    I am starting this RfC on the basis of a query at the Noticeboard for India-related topics. Republic TV currently has an entry at RSP, which marks it as generally unreliable with the summary, "Republic TV was criticized for spreading misinformation about COVID-19, the Love Jihad conspiracy theory, and other fabrications and factually incorrect information." Despite this it is still being used as a citation in over 1,800 articles HTTPS links HTTP links at present. Tayi Arajakate Talk 11:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC: GNIS

    Which of the following best describes the reliability of the US Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) database?

    • Option 1: The source is recognized as being generally reliable.
    • Option 2: There is no consensus or additional considerations apply.
    • Option 3: The source is recognized as being generally unreliable in most cases, though it can be used under certain circumstances.
    • Option 4: The source is recognized as being not reliable at all and should be deprecated.
    • Option 5: The source is:
      • Generally reliable for Place Names and Locations/Coordinates
      • Generally unreliable for Feature Classes, particularly "Populated place"
      • Does not satisfy the "Legal recognition" requirement of WP:GEOLAND.

    –dlthewave ☎ 20:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Background (GNIS)

    Thousands of US geography articles cite GNIS, and a decade ago it was common practice for editors to mass-create "Unincorporated community" stubs for anything marked as a "Populated place" in the database. The problem is that the database entries were created by USGS employees who manually copied names from topo maps. Names and coordinates were straightforward, but they had to use their judgement to apply a Feature class to each entry. Since map labels are often ambiguous, in many cases railroad junctions, park headquarters, random windmills, etc were mislabeled as "populated places" and eventually were found their way into Wikipedia as "unincorporated communities". Please note that according to GNIS' Principles, policies and procedures, feature classes "have no status as standards" and are intended to be used for search and retrieval purposes. See WP:GNIS for more information.

    In addition to the standard four options, I'm including a 5th which I believe reflects our current practices. –dlthewave ☎ 20:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Survey (GNIS)

    Discussion (GNIS)

    • Option 5, with the standard objection to creation of mass numbers of non-notable permastubs on "populated places" to start with; these should be on lists, not in permastubs. That aside, clearly this is not a vetted and fact-checked source for this purpose, nor in any way legally binding in order to create "legal recognition". Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 5, concur with OP and above. GNIS is filled with "populated places" that aren't. MB 22:27, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 5. In my experience, the coordinates are correct, but GNIS alone cannot establish whether a feature is a "legally recognized" place. Yilloslime (talk) 22:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 5. The coordinates are typically correct, though sometimes vague. The categorization is sometimes wrong and many, many articles have been created citing only the GNIS. It would be nice to identify articles that cite only the GNIS and *.hometownlocator.com (which seems to be derived from the GNIS) and consider them for deletion. Having only a GNIS ref (and *.hometownlocator.com) means that the subject probably existed at one time and that's about it. Cxbrx (talk) 23:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 5. GHIS is a coordinate dumpster of various databases and gazetteers, often obsolete, not verified by experts. Several years ago I remember an absolutely stupid discussion about some misspelled Armenin location. Lembit Staan (talk)
    • Any such overall characterization is an overgeneralization (invited by the bot) This important choice was omitted from the RFC. Certainly, the limitations of the source should be recognized. If there is a question or concern expressed about the content in an article (not just a challenge based only on the source) a cite to this source should not be considered enough to keep the material in. North8000 (talk) 11:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a nuanced answer, maybe "option 6", it should be considered "generally reliable for information about place names of any kind, but cannot be used to determine notability for stand-alone articles in any way, even if it calls a place a "populated place"." The issue is not that the GNIS is unreliable for information, it is that it is not a sufficiently in-depth source that would pass WP:GNG. It notes the existence of things, it does not contain source text we can use to write prose and build an article with. That should be the only consideration when considering whether or not to write a stand-alone article. --Jayron32 18:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We have actually run into reliability issues with GNIS: The "feature class" designations (railroad siding, crossroads, populated place, church, stream, locale, etc) are often factually incorrect, causing errors to be propagated into our articles. –dlthewave ☎ 21:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, that's a glitch in a computer database (which, I'll note, is currently being rebuilt). It's perfectly reasonable for reliable sources to have errors in them sometimes: if I read an OCR copy of a New York Times article talking about "Richard NLxon", it would not be grounds to request that Richard Nixon be moved to that title. At the same time, this would not be grounds to say that the New York Times was an unreliable source. jp×g 07:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 5 - I've had quite a bit of a experience with this source. The issues with this source are that we've used this in ways that it isn't intended to. It's meant to be a definitive database of names and coordinates, which is generally correct on. "Feature class" appears to only be an approximation and generally contrasts with other sources. I've found it telling that older 1980s USGS print gazetteers are generally much more accurate on feature class than the GNIS. And as a database, it shouldn't be used to determine notability. Hog Farm Talk 02:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 5 - I concur with many of the opinions already expressed. GNIS is a database for names and coordinates, and citations that are looking to explain more than this should not rely upon GNIS. Jurisdicta (talk) 03:22, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 5, it accurately shows that a "place" exists, but it can't accurately show if a place is populated or passes geoland.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 5; I have had some experience with this topic at AfD, in particular in regards to "unincorporated community", and there is clearly a significant issue with its reliability on this matter and as such we should not rely on its feature assessments, but as the issue is limited to that area there is no need for a broader classification of unreliability. Summoned by the bot; unclear to which RfC, and so drew the short straw BilledMammal (talk) 12:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. While it's clear there there are lots of shitty GNIS stubs from 2006 (and I !vote to delete them often at AfD), it's not clear to me that formal deprecation (even if partial) is an appropriate response to the situation, or that it will address the problem in a meaningful way. There is already a functioning solution to the issue of shitty GNIS stubs: they end up at AfD, and either sources are found and they're kept or sources aren't found and they're deleted. Perhaps we could add some language to WP:NGEO clarifying that GNIS often has stupid things listed as "populated places". What would putting GNIS on RSP accomplish -- would additional (or different) actions be taken at AfD? jp×g 07:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Verifiability dispute on Harry Partridge

    CLOSED
    Article was deleted and redirected per AFD consensus, so this dispute is no longer relevant. ––FormalDude talk 05:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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


    This is a dispute between me and User:101.50.250.88 which has been discussed at the article talk page.

    The question is whether this source:
    "An Interview with XTC's Andy Partridge" by Tracy Marshall. Manifesto. May 1999. Via chalkhills.org.

    Supports the addition of the following text to the article:
    1. Partridge was interested in drawing and animation from an early age.
    2. In an interview at the time, Andy described Harry as a "pudgy-looking kid in glasses" and expressed his hope he would work in the field of animation in the future. ––FormalDude talk 06:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    To be clear, this is a reference to an article/interview originally appearing in a printed magazine that happens to have been reprinted on the website chalkhill.com, a fan site that collects all kind of things on the band XTC. The reference is not to the website but to the interview in the magazine. The ISBN of the magazine appears to have been 9771475015004. I've e-mailed the proprietor of the chalkhill.com website, John Relph (john.relph at alumni.usc.edu) to ask if he can confirm the interview did appear as he's reprinted it, and perhaps provide additional information on the magazine. Additionally, beyond the two points of contention mentioned by User:FormalDude, there's a 3rd statement I want to include and am arguing for, namely this line:
    3. He and his father have claimed a character of his design "nearly" appeared as a background character on the animated sitcom The Simpsons in 1999, through a connection of Andy's, but that it fell through.
    This statement was also supported by a tweet by the subject of the article here: [202] 101.50.250.88 (talk) 07:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Flirty Fishing references

    Several of the references on this article seemed to be cached versions of a third party wiki that contains individual page PDFs of unknown origin. It seems to be that being unable to verify the origin of those PDFs they completely fail the guidelines.--222.109.91.138 (talk) 02:59, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, could you link to the sources you feel might be dodgy?Boynamedsue (talk) 15:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Any of the sources that come from Xfamily. It's just a wiki holding random PDFs of unknown origin. At the time of writing this citations 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10. The only thing that has a valid citation in that whole article is that the term "Flirty fishing" was notable enough to make it into a single news article once in the 90s.--222.109.91.138 (talk) 01:00, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, that article is an abomination. The topic may possibly be notable, but any legitimate article on the subject needs much better sourcing than this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that following my comment above, the IP 222.109.91.138 removed the citations to xfamily.org from the article -entirely appropriately, in my opinion, quite obviously. This edit was reverted by User:Thorwald, with a claim that "We have already debated this ad nauseam". I can find no evidence of any such discussion, and have accordingly restored the IP's edit. There are multiple issues with citing xfamily.org, most of which should surely be readily apparent to anyone even remotely familiar with Wikipedia policy. The provenance of the images is unverifiable, and we have no way of knowing if they are what they are claimed to be. We have no way of knowing if they have been tampered with. They may have been uploaded in breach of copyright. And even if they are genuine, and hosted legitimately, the use to which they are being put is WP:OR. Likewise I see no reason whatsoever to see the xfamily.org wiki, or other self-published documents to be even remotely WP:RS for anything.
    I now see that xfamily.org material is also being cited in The Family International, where clearly the same issues arise. That article too needs scrutiny. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:06, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The David Berg article, which is closely related, also cites this website. Stephen A. Kent in an academic who has studied this group relatively extensively, so that might be a good starting point for anyone looking for more reliable replacement sources. Grayfell (talk) 02:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If there are other sources available, that is clearly a good thing. The issue here though isn't sources that aren't currently being cited, but sources that are. Accordingly, I'd like to learn whether other people share my opinion (and apparently that of the IP above) that the xfamiliy.org website isn't even remotely suitable as a source for any article relating to The Family International. It would seem a simple enough question, given Wikipedia RS policy, but nevertheless it would seem to need answering, given User:Thorwald's (as yet unverified) claim that the matter has 'already been debated'. A claim used to justify citing unverifiable primary-source material for blatant WP:OR, along with content from a Wiki that has copied material from Wikipedia and other self-published material. I don't think it is too much to ask to suggest that rather than going off at a tangent, this noticeboard needs to actually addresses the concerns raised here by the IP. Isn't that what this notice board is supposed to be for? AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:48, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The Cinemaholic

    Is The Cinemaholic considered reliable? Asking per comments at Talk:Old (film)/GA1. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 22:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd say yes. They claim to perform fact-checking and "do not accept unsolicited guest articles, blogs, or posts". Additionally, the site has been cited by Screen Rant, Elle Australia and Yahoo! among others. Pamzeis (talk) 11:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Psychonomic Science

    You know when a scientific journal gives you bad vibes? And then you go find an editorial which says "In order to gain speed in publishing, we shall sacrifice as a regular practice the detailed editorial review usually given articles by the major scientific journals. Many articles will be published after only a review by the Editor."? (There was some follow-up in another editorial four years later, but that had a similar conclusion. With the concerning addition of publishing based on the "reputation and responsibility of the author(s)".)

    Journal database links: Springer NLM catalog WorldCat

    • Summary of information on the databases: it ran from 1964 to 1972 and was published bi-monthly. It was run by the Psychonomic Society, and was replaced by a bunch of other journals that they still run (I think they briefly ran co-currently). Their focus is on experimental psychology.

    Info on the Society: Psychonomic Society's About page. The founders were Clarence Graham, Clifford T. Morgan, S. S. Stevens of Harvard, and William S. Verplanck.[203] Morgan was the editor of the journal and as such, author of the editorials.

    I propose that the journal Psychonomic Science should be classified as generally unreliable. Especially because it has been used on articles within the domain of WP:MED and which therefore need to meet the higher standards of WP:MEDRS - for example, Neophobia and Functional specialization (brain). On top of the worrisome content of the editorials:

    • it had a habit of citing its own articles/articles from other Society journals (e.g.)
    • an author published in the journal may be published in it multiple times, even exclusively so (e.g.)
    • authors primarily citing themselves (e.g.)
    • citing the founders of the Society (e.g.)
    • publishing articles authored by the Society founders (e.g.)

    Finally, their focus on experimental psychology means they are largely primary sources by WP standards. Their explicit focus was on primary studies, so they weren't publishing heaps of reviews - I genuinely didn't come across any. I just found lists of citations that they thought relevant to given topics. --Xurizuri (talk) 03:20, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    There's no need to declare obviously unreliable sources unreliable in advance, as we'd be doing it forever. Or is there a specific problem on Wikipedia with this source? Alexbrn (talk) 03:56, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I find the examples above lacking in convincingness. More of concern is the removal of peer-review, that's the main issue here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    https://www.the7eye.org.il/ & court affidavits

    Hello,

    I would like to know if the7eye is allowed to be used on Wikipedia as a reference, especially on Walter Soriano page. Soriano has filed a lawsuit against the7eye and some other entities. Now, one of the reporters in one of the lawsuits, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Scottstedman, has used the7eye as a reference and made some COI edits that no one is accepting to revert despite false information.

    How come the7eye can be trusted in Soriano's case? If someone has filed a case against them, then why won't they be biased? I am hopeless now.

    https://www.themarker.com/law/.premium-1.8283173 = www.the7eye.org.il is one of the entities from the lawsuits. It is hardly run by 4-5 people.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Walter_Soriano = some background about the COI.

    Please let me know if in general www.the7eye.org.il/ is an accepted source or not as well in particular regarding Soriano.

    Also, are affidavits applicable to be used on Wikipedia?

    Thank you SAMsohot (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    That description doesn't tally with the article history. The editor you mention made four edits to the article in May, in which they removed a the7eye reference, [204]. Those are the only edits they have made to that article. As another editor said in the thread you started at the Teahouse, you do need to read WP:OUTING carefully. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 22:00, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bonadea: Apart from whether the site is acceptable or not, please see some findings I have posted on the talk page. And the only issues are the edits made by the three editors. Two IPs & Scottstedman.SAMsohot (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    VOA (Voice of America)

    The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
    RfC terminated by JayPlaysStuff, per WP:SNOWBALL. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Voice of America, similar to CGTN and Russia Today is a US government-funded channel and therefore cannot be trusted to give a neutral point of view on foreign affairs or on actions taken by the US government. Therefore I am proposing to deprecate the source at WP:DEPS. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 18:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • No Contrary to Russia there is a freedom of press in US and the board is editorially independent it similar to BBC in this regard --Shrike (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you truly believe that a state-owned news company would report negatively on the government that provides them funding? (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 18:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No Has it been shown to present a heavily-partisan view of news favoring the US to the same extent that led to deprecation of RT and CGTN? My impression is that it hasn't - it may be biased in favor of US's position, but it isn't seeming fabricating aspects or purposely covering up coverage as most state-owned media does. Simply being state-owned does not equate to "can't be neutral". (Otherwise we'd have to nix the BBC too). --Masem (t) 18:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    [205] this article gives an example of 'dirty journalism' done by VOA to push a pro-american agenda (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 18:21, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment The user is pretty new creating 3 RFCs without any WP:RFCBEFORE rises some questions --Shrike (talk) 18:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I have created them as they are all funded by the U.S. government. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 18:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not a good reason to start the process. Community resources are limited and such requests are not good. I recommend that you close them. All three of them. See WP:RFCEND. Renat 19:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree here. More blanket RFCs for deprecation is the last thing we need for RSN. MarioGom (talk) 19:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment You might as well merge the three into one since it's the same thing, basically. I don't disagree that they are government mouthpieces to some extent but bias by itself isn't sufficient reason to do away with them.Selfstudier (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment VOA has been repeatedly discussed before at RSN. I think it should be used with care, in particular when reporting about countries in direct conflict with the United States. That being said, I do not support deprecating it. MarioGom (talk) 18:42, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Is VOA's board sacked and its editorial policy overturned every time the White House's principal resident changes? No it isn't. I'm afraid the nominator has failed to distinguish between a public/state broadcaster and a government broadcaster. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      The level of independence you're suggesting is just not there for VOA. See the controversy around Michael Pack [206] for starters. But still, not enough for deprecation in my opinion. MarioGom (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Michael Pack is gone and experienced editors are back. See [207]. Renat 19:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Sure. My point is that VOA has not the level of independence to avoid Government interference. MarioGom (talk) 19:54, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No It is a fundamental misreading of WP:BIASED if OP's assertion that VOA cannot be trusted as a neutral source is regarded as a quality for deprecation; the guideline states that reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective (emphasis mine). I also don't see it reasonable to deprecate ABC News (Australia), Al Jazeera, BBC News, CBC News, Deutsche Welle, France 24, NHK, PBS, Radio France Internationale, Raidió Teilifís Éireann, RTHK, SBS World News, and TASS just because they all either directly or indirectly receive substantial funding from their respective governments. Editorial control, a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, and editorial independence are key for determining a WP:NEWSORG's reliability, and neither OP nor others have presented meaningful evidence against those three criteria for VOA writ large. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:12, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • In short, No the bias at Voice of America does not disqualify it as a reliable source. Bias is an inherent property of all media, and the presence of bias does not disqualify a media outlet as a reliable source. Unreliability is what disqualifies a media outlet from being a reliable source; so while the choice of information presented at VoA and every other media outlet may be biased, if the facts they present meet journalistic standards, they meet WP:RS. Any use of news sources should aim to balance bias among sources to best present a neutral point of view instead of naïvely assuming lack of bias at a single source. If someone is writing an article under the presumption that a source that is reliable is therefore unbiased, they will fail at WP:NPOV. VanIsaac, MPLL contWpWS 22:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty

    The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
    RfC terminated by JayPlaysStuff, per WP:SNOWBALL. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    US govt-funded channel. Similar to VOA, it cannot be trusted as a neutral source on foreign affairs or US government actions. Therefore I propose to deprecate it at WP:DEPS (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 18:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • We don't deprecate sources based on funding structure alone. Or we shouldn't. Other than that, RFE/RL has been repeatedly discussed before. MarioGom (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur with MarioGom's comment. If you have anything to share other than that, I'm very much happy to discuss the source, but its funding structure has been discussed at length. Same comment to the below section. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:06, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Radio Free Asia

    The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
    RfC terminated by JayPlaysStuff, per WP:SNOWBALL. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Similar to Radio Free Europe and VOA, is funded by the US government, so it cannot be trusted to give a neutral perspective on foreign issues or actions taken by the US government. Therefore I am proposing to deprecate this source at WP:DEPS — Preceding unsigned comment added by JayPlaysStuff (talk • contribs)

    • Same as above. We don't deprecate sources based on funding structure alone. MarioGom (talk) 18:44, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Generally Reliable. Even though RFA takes U.S. government funds, the consensus among RS seems to be that RFA is a reliable news agency. Highly reputable news organizations often cite specific numbers published by RFA, and even use RFA as the sole source for their reporting, as I note below, and noted in the prior RfC on this topic that took place in March of this year.
    Multiple RS have used RFA as their sources, including The Wall Street Journal (1, 2) and The New York Times, which has both cited it as the basis of their reporting (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) and directly republished stories written by RFA. As can be noted by clicking through the links, these sources cite RFA even when China is the subject of the events depicted in the articles themselves.
    There are reliable sources that have explicitly upheld the reliability of RFA as it pertains to issues of controversy, including the Uyghur genocide. According to The Atlantic, "from the day China’s detention campaign began in earnest, RFA’s Uighur Service—the only Uighur-language news outlet in the world that is independent of Chinese government influence—has frequently been at the tip of the spear of coverage. From the RFA offices in Washington, D.C., its team of 12 journalists has broken hundreds of stories, sometimes bearing sole witness to China’s alarming and escalating crackdown on Uighurs and other Muslim minority groups in the country." The magazine regularly cites reporting from RFA as a source for news in China, even on topics of controversy (1, 2). In other times The Atlantic has reported that RFA provides "independent news to many rural Cambodians".
    The Financial Times has also used RFA's reporting in order to write its own stories (1, 2, 3, 4).
    The Times has used RFA's reporting to write its own stories about events in North Korea, Burma, Xinjiang (1 2 3 4 5), Chinese technological surveillance, Chinese dissidents, Tibetan riots, and more.
    The RS that report this are not limited to those RS that are based within the United States and the United Kingdom. Al-Jazeera has also repeatedly used RFA as a source for their reporting on topics of controversy within China (1, 2, 3, 4) and Burma (1). Spain-based El País has used RFA as a basis for its reporting on the events in Xinjiang. RFA has even been cited by Argentina-based Clarín on topics involving North Korea.
    It seems to be generally reliable based upon the fact that other generally reliable news agencies regularly cite the group, even when the topic of the stories are the subject of public controversy. And, if The New York Times feels that RFA is reliable enough to directly republish their journalism, then I don't see why we have much of a case to say that RFA is anything but generally reliable for reporting facts on the ground. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bad RFC - we had one of these just eight months ago, which the nominator has completely ignored - David Gerard (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Fighter Pilots, RADAR operators, Civilian Pilots, Amateur Astronomers, Astronomers, Missile Operators, AWACS and Military High Commands

    With reference to this conversation, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pentagon_UFO_videos#Issues_with_NPOV_on_this_page, can we establish how reliable these actors are?Chantern15 (talk) 00:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)chantern15[reply]

    It's impossible to establish how accurate the claims are of such a wide swath of people. I know pilots I would trust with my life and pilots I wouldn't trust with a ham sandwich. Buffs (talk) 05:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no personages whose statements are automatically assumed by Wikipedia to be accurate, authoritative, and notable. It all depends on context and sourcing. Things published on a blog, heard on a podcast, quoted secondhand in a single news story, etc. are treated differently on Wikipedia than a widely-reported statement of military policy from the Joint Chiefs Of Staff, for example. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Basically, what was said above. One would need more context to make sense of the question. Sully Sullenberger may well be a reliable source for what landing on a river is like, but he may well NOT be a reliable source for, say, airline food preparation or software glitches. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your responses. My thoughts would be, when looking at UFO reports, more specifically, the 1-9% (Uruguayan report unexplained 2%, Blue Book, excellent data and unexplained ~7%, of course unclear how much of the 2% of the 2100 sightings in the Uruguayan report was excellent data, hence I have written 1-9%) which have excellent data but are unexplained, i.e. what one could call "True UFOs", how reliable would the reports of such observers be? For example missile operators in Montana (Rtd. Captain Robert Salas at Malmstrom AFB) reported that an UFO, or a group of UFOs over decades interfered (shut down missiles for ex., a no-go state) with nuclear missiles while they were in silos. So, with the mentioned examples, how reliable would we consider such reports from such individuals? I know that this is a broad net to cast, but if one of these people said, "I had solid RADAR-visual contact/s", "Or one of my subordinates did", how would or should Wikipedia weigh such statements?Chantern15 (talk) 00:20, 29 September 2021 (UTC)chantern15[reply]
    We're getting closer to contextualization, but for me, we're still not there. Was this said to, say, National Geographic? Or the Washington Post? Or was it said in passing in a private conversation? Such reports will largely, in my experience, be inescapably tied to the medium in which they are found. If you have a specific example, feel free to let us know. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm giving an internal link from Wikipedia, but this case is probably a good representation of what I am talking about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_Washington,_D.C._UFO_incidentChantern15 (talk) 03:49, 29 September 2021 (UTC)chantern15[reply]
    an UFO, or a group of UFOs over decades interfered (shut down missiles for ex., a no-go state) with nuclear missiles while they were in silos. If true, this would be the most important story of the century with serious, extensive coverage in all major newspapers and media with accompanying statements from the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senate Intelligence Committee, the Pentagon, etc. Yet it can only be found buried in the dark corners of UFOlogy or treated in passing as an anecdotal curiosity by some regional and national media, hence WP:EXTRAORDINARY, WP:SENSATIONAL and WP:FRINGE apply. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have links for what I mentioned here: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/jun/09/ufo-science-classes-us-students, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/15/arts/television/project-blue-book-history-true-story.html, https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/airmen-govt-clean-ufos/story?id=11738715, https://theconversation.com/are-we-alone-the-question-is-worthy-of-serious-scientific-study-98843, https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/20/us/ufo-sightings-history-scn-trnd/index.html, https://www.fox61.com/article/news/local/outreach/awareness-months/aliens-flying-discs-and-sightings-oh-my-a-short-history-of-ufos-in-america/520-f8c16e40-f61c-4903-8554-aa16c5feab7b, https://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/27/ufos-showed-interest-in-nukes-ex-air-force-personnel-say/, https://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2010/s3023532.htm, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ex-air-force-personnel-ufos-deactivated-nukes/, https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1979/01/19/what-were-those-mysterious-craft/1b9d1f3d-dddb-4a92-87b3-0143aa5d7a3e/, https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/washington-post-live/wplive/uaps-have-taken-us-nuclear-capabilities-offline-says-former-aatip-director/2021/06/08/26d751bb-4116-4e48-93e7-6c89568ff30a_video.html, https://www.wired.com/2010/09/tinfoil-tuesdays-ufos-neutered-nukes-air-force-officers-claim/, https://www.nicap.org/babylon/missile_incidents.htm, http://www.cufon.org/cufon/malmstrom/malm1.htm, https://www.military.com/video/nuclear-bombs/nuclear-weapons/ufo-disarms-nuclear-missiles/946264668001, https://www.greatfallstribune.com/story/news/2017/02/26/mansch-montana-ufo-sighting-still-resonates/98452858/, https://www.nbcnews.com/science/cosmic-log/aliens-land-headlines-flna6c10403785, https://www.the-sun.com/news/3125848/ufos-shut-down-nukes-us-base/, https://www.livescience.com/10146-ufos-disarm-nuclear-weapons.html, https://www.vice.com/en/article/kwkp79/a-bunch-of-alien-lovers-held-a-fake-congressional-hearing, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOt-vuGjq98 and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzdYD10u168. Unfortunately no senate intelligence hearings, but I don't know what goes on the classified ones, whether they may or may not have discussed this.Chantern15 (talk) 03:49, 29 September 2021 (UTC)chantern15[reply]
    Hard to tell from the ref bombing above, but I think you may be referring to one of the "UFO disclosure" publicity events/mock hearings held at the National Press Club over the years by UFO conspiracy believers. If so, the 2010 one could be briefly mentioned here if it already isn't. Regarding how reliable 'retired military people' are and how much weight should Wikipedia give them, "military, so reliable" isn't a thing here on Wikipedia, so we can only reflect how our non-sensational sources covered any statements made by them at these publicity events, i.e. as extraordinary claims. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:20, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC: The Daily Wire

    Question: Should the status of The Daily Wire be changed from Generally unreliable to Deprecated? See discussion at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Daily Wire

    • Option 1: Yes
    • Option 2: No

    Valjean (talk) 04:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Survey, The Daily Wire

    • Yes. It is so unreliable, pushes views contrary to many facts of great importance, and lacks a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, that it deserves deprecation with this one exception: can only be used in its own article, and then only if it's not unduly self-serving (per WP:ABOUTSELF). -- Valjean (talk) 04:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      [citation needed] Buffs (talk) 04:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. I'm sure other editors will post sources, so I won't bother. When I was doing research on the Palmer Report, academic sources I found frequently labeled the Daily Wire as a junk news source or a fake news source. Daily Wire is a pretty popular source so deprecation is probably a good idea in case an editor mistakenly believes it's a RS. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I’m confused, is the Palmer Report unbiased? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Use google please (talk • contribs) 08:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
      @Use google please: I modified your indentation to comply with WP:Accessibility. Palmer Report is a fake news website as per our article. I assume this is why User:Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d came across discussions of Daily Wire being a fake news website, since they were looking at sources discussing fake news websites which gave Palmer Report and Daily Wire as examples. Nil Einne (talk) 18:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Daily Wire has their own journalists division, Palmer Report just post op-eds of Twitter feeds. Use google please (talk) 07:54, September 29, 2021‎ (UTC)
    • No I'll go by what this NPR piece from July explains well. "The articles The Daily Wire publishes don't normally include falsehoods (with some exceptions), and the site said it is committed to 'truthful, accurate and ethical reporting.' But as Settle explains, by only covering specific stories that bolster the conservative agenda (such as negative reports about socialist countries and polarizing ones about race and sexuality issues) and only including certain facts, readers still come away from The Daily Wire's content with the impression that Republican politicians can do little wrong and cancel culture is among the nation's greatest threats." Add that its aim is towards Facebook engagement and clickbait-style attention grabbers, and that makes it generally unreliable, but not to the point where deprecation seems required. --Masem (t) 05:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No and more appropriately None of the above/Option 3: Treat as a partisan source for information on par with the HuffPost politics and Fox News politics. This shouldn't be an RfC in this manner as it's a False dilemma. Many others have requested an upgrade to the source on WP:RSPSOURCES. To frame this statement as such is an attempt to game the system. The same would be appropriately said if someone phrased the initial question as
      Should the status of The Daily Wire be changed to Generally Reliable Source or Neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable, and may be usable depending on context? See discussion at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Daily Wire
      • Option 1 Generally Reliable Source
      • Option 2 Neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable
      Buffs (talk) 05:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Example of misleading summaries Scores high for bias and low for reliability on https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/ In fact, click the source and you'll find it is actually "Reliable for news, but high in analysis/opinion content". Given the breadth of such responses, I question whether these opinions based on sources are mistakes, just highly biased interpretations, or intentionally misleading summaries. Buffs (talk) 05:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes - Noted for publishing blatant falsehoods and medical misinformation about COVID-19, along with rank homophobia and scaremongering worthy of the gay panic defense era. No one has cited any content of redeeming value which would be lost by deprecation. It's a partisan clickbait factory and we can and should demand far more from our sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      This is indicative of the kind of issue we're running into. People are citing links (or making a claim without any justification) and/or then giving misleading descriptions of said links:
      Please read such links before commenting (yes, even mine!). Such arguments are nothing more than guilt-by-accusation. Buffs (talk) 06:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      An NPR review of stories on The Daily Wire about the COVID-19 pandemic over the past two months found numerous stories about potential side effects from COVID-19 vaccines, but none that portrayed the scientifically demonstrated efficacy of the vaccines or that focused explicitly on the hesitancy that has slowed the U.S. rollout. Disinformation by omission is disinformation just the same. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I would suggest that NPR didn't look very hard then. Ben Shapiro mentioned the vaccine frequently on his podcast and encouraged people to go and get it frequently for ~the first 6 months of the year. Ben Shapiro of The Daily Wire, who has been a vocal proponent of vaccination all along, also told his followers today on Twitter, “Get vaxxed. I did. My wife did. My parents did." and has been doing so since late 2020 once vaccines were available. My quick scan of available show notes shows he mentioned it on nearly every show after Jan 22 through 9 Mar and then 2-4 times a week until July. If they didn't find it, it's because they aren't looking. Ex: 2/5 "the vaccine is ninety one percent effective seven days or more after the second injection". Feel free to browse yourself if you don't believe me (not the best transcript, but you can CTRL+F "vaccine" pretty quickly) Buffs (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Forgive my ignorance here, and I know the Daily Wire is largely Shapiro's outlet, but they are distinct voices, yes? Thus, proof that Shapiro is himself staunchly pro-vaccine is not the same as saying the Daily Wire is? Or am I mistaken about that? Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Valid question. Ben Shapiro used to be editor-in-chief of DW. He is now listed as Editor-Emeritus. The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production. Buffs (talk) 21:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      That being the case, it strikes me that both what you say and the NPR story may be entirely true and not in contradiction. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm tired of hearing people repeatedly assert on this RSN/RfC that Shapiro is pro-vaccine (implying pro-Covid vaccine) because Shapiro and DW are just giving lip service while using the vaccine issue as a launch-point to their other agendas; this is a classic DW tactic. Ben Shapiro posted a YouTube of himself launching his #DoNotComply campaign. That video appears to have been removed, and in its place is his organization spokesman, Jeremy Boreing ("co-founder, Co-CEO and god-king of The Daily Wire."); so that covers both the man and his organization. Shapiro and Boreing have directed their company DW to openly and publicly refuse the OSHA mandate and are encouraging other businesses to do the same. They have stated in interviews that they have built up a legal machine, and are ready for a legal war on this point — "we're prepared to go to battle", "we're going to use every method and resource at our disposal to defy" and "we are staffing up right now on the legal side". When they speak of the mandate they brush aside the point where the mandate doesn't actually require everyone get the vaccine, but employees could instead be tested weekly (which nowadays is usually a simple saliva swab). In other words, their actions speak louder than their words. If you listen carefully to their wording, the two men say they are "pro-vaccine" while letting the listener dub in that they meant pro-COVID vaccine. In one breath they give accolades to the Covid vaccine (an object), while a minute later issue subtle snide remarks about those who get it (people). Under their breath they give 2 seconds to briefly mention the 'opt-out with testing' as an option while spending the next 5 minutes ranting about how no one should be required to get a vaccine. Shapiro, Boreing, and DW are NOT pro-Covid vaccine, despite what one thinks they heard, so it is time to quit asserting it. Such covert and ubiquitous misdirection is one of the main reasons why DW has earned itself 'generally unreliable' status here on Wikipedia. It should be deprecated at this time. Platonk (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      The specifics of such a mandate have not been made public, so your assessment is based on speculation. The rest is accusations with no real evidence to back it up + WP:OR. Weekly testing (even if it is part of the mandate) is still an additional cost with the threat of a $14K fine if they don't. I'm not saying Shapiro is pro-vaccine (implying pro-Covid vaccine), I'm saying he's outright pro-Covid vaccine and has been since the vaccine was released. There is a wide chasm between saying "I think something is good and you should do it" and "I think the government should force everyone to do what I think is good". If you think Shapiro, Boreing, and DW are NOT pro-Covid vaccine because they don't support Biden's mandates, I don't think we can have a reasonable discussion. Buffs (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Buffs: My assessment is based on my evaluation, as is everyone else's. WP:OR doesn't apply because we are discussing DW's status on RSP, not discussing DW, and (most importantly) not editing content in wiki articles. "We" are not trying to have a "reasonable discussion" because WP:NOTFORUM. While I try to keep my comments to why is DW not a reliable source, why should DW be deprecated, how does DW misdirect, etc., you keep trying to argue DW's/Shapiro's points of view. Again... WP:NOTFORUM. Platonk (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • That specific article mentions nothing about medical misinfo about COVID-19 - the specific note to Daily Wire is in reference to the situation during the presidential campaign when Texas citizens had followed a Biden bus out of state, and that article discusses how DW described the situation -- which falls in line with the biased side of presenting the news per the NPR article. Also, having a homophobic stance is not a reason to deprecate a source, though still a very good reason to consider it unreliable. --Masem (t) 13:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes - Prim. per NBSB. It won't take long to find out rank garbage they publish on a regular basis. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No First, Buffs is correct that this is not a good RfC question. Second, deprecation should really be a last resort. It came about because some were concerned that a widely used source was unreliable. Is this source widely used? Third, the only meaningful evidence presented thus far is Masem's NPR article. NPR supports the current ranking of the source and does not support a deprecation. Deprecation is something that really needs to be reviewed as a blunt tool used far too often in cases where there isn't a problem (source was rarely ever used, source was already acknowledged to be poor etc). Springee (talk) 12:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, Unreliable for basically any and all matters of fact. It has been known to publish blatant falsehoods. It should be reliable only for matters of completely undisputed facts in its own article, as with other extremely partisan and possible disingenuous sources. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      [citation needed] Buffs (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unreliable. I would reinforce that it's a generally unreliable source, and mention criticism by climate experts in Climate Feedback, per this RSN discussion, of the Daily Wire's climate change coverage. That was more or less what I had to say at RSP talk, and I guess I'll restate it here for visibility. I mentioned it there because it wasn't present on the source's entry. The conversation there is worth reviewing, as Aquillon seemed to bring a lot more receipts. --Chillabit (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No in the absence of specific information concerning the deliberate biasing of the source. We need to be wary of the use of the source, but we also need to be wary in assuming that a source contains lies. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unreliable for the reasons I gave at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources (and per others there). Should not be cited for any statement of fact and shouldn't carry weight except when reported on by other, reliable sources. As for deprecation: meh. Abstain (in part per what I wrote below). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. Mostly copying-and-pasting my comment from the WP:RSP discussion, but: It does no original reporting and has repeatedly spread misinformation, especially about COVID ([208]) but also eg. the election ([209]), Greta Thunberg ([210]), climate change ([211]), and the George Floyd protests ([212]); academic sources describe it as a low-quality source ([213]) and as unreliable ([214]) and have used it as an example of misinformation and junk news ([215][216][217][218]). The issue isn't simply that it is partisan, the issue is that its purpose is to publish intentionally false stories in order to advance its partisan goals. Academic coverage largely describes it as publishing intentional misinformation, which is the sort of thing that requires depreciation if it seems like there are people still trying to use it. --Aquillion (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Robert McClenon, ^^THIS^^ comment by Aquillion is relevant to your comment above. See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Daily Wire for other comments with documentation from RS. I hope you will reconsider your "no". We must "assume" that sources like TDW that fully back Trump must be "a source contains lies." They have no choice. Sources that defend his lies must contain lies. -- Valjean (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • You keep making the claim "We must 'assume' that sources like TDW that fully back Trump..." You need to provide evidence that they "fully back Trump" first. From 2016 to 2021, Daily Wire spoke out against Trump's excesses: Donald Trump is a liar (2016) up to Trump is deeply irresponsible 2021. Your remarks are full of assumptions that aren't backed by the facts. Buffs (talk) 22:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Aquillion, are you normally in the habit of citing undergrad papers that aren't peer reviewed? Springee (talk) 18:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      As noted below, these particular sources are a perfect example of how such accusations, despite being sourced, are not grounded in the content of the sources:
      • It does no original reporting demonstrably false. The NPR article above states "produces little original reporting", so, by definition, it produces at least some. It largely produces analysis. Likewise, lots of publications don't produce "original reporting".
      • This article is an ungraded undergraduate paper/advocacy piece that equates criticism of the media (regardless of how valid/invalid) as tantamount to blindly supporting Trump, equates asking about the origins of COVID-19 as "COVID misinformation", and speculating/guessing as to what the future impact the virus may have on economics as disinformation. Likewise, more criticism of the media's portrayal of COVID in a negative light with Trump and a positive light with Biden isn't COVID denial/misinformation. It's criticism of the media, which has a known leftward slant.
      • misinformation (about) the election: No where in this article is there any misinformation about the election. They criticized Wallace and Biden. Daily Wire also reported how others called it a "****-show" and that both sides lost calling both sides "a new low" in debate performance. Shapiro himself called it a "[bleep]-show". That's HARDLY misinformation in ANY way.
      • misinformation about Greta Thunberg: One host called her "mentally ill" in an interview and Daily Wire apologized for the comment (as noted). Calling political opponents mentally ill, while distasteful, is not uncommon
      • "misinformation on the climate" from another ungraded undergraduate thesis: In fact, the only thing this paper cites is criticism of the most extreme predictions (example, Al Gore's claim that Miami would be underwater by 2016) Criticizing the extremes is hardly criticizing the core science.
      • misinformation about George Floyd protests There's no misinformation even cited in the article, only criticisms (example, making people in public wear masks, but protestors in closer proximity are not required to do so).
      • one source describes as a low-quality source The same source put it on-par with Daily Kos and labeled it "hyperpartisan" and not "Fake News".
      • one source describes as unreliable Given that you've cited this source now twice despite criticism, I'm forced to believe that you're being misleading intentionally (if I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me). No where in this entire article do they use the word "unreliable". Daily Wire is only mentioned once as a pejorative without documentation to back it up: "Relying on nationwide panels of internet users who donate their feeds to the project, it was found that after the Capitol rampage progressive Facebook users were routinely fed mainstream media such as CNN and NPR, whilst conservative users sources considered rather less reliable (such as The Daily Wire and Breitbart most salient)". They do not categorize anything in the article as "unreliable".
      • misinformation and junk news 1 Subscription only; unable to view
      • misinformation and junk news 2 There are two criticisms of Daily Wire. The first criticism is that they wrote an article about tweets of "media figures" who threatened violence. Indeed, members of the media threatened to "burn this place to the ground" and "Burn the entire f***ing thing down". There is nothing inaccurate about this report. The second, verbatim, is "Finally, junk news outlets have also promoted unsubstantiated claims that Democratic Party leaders were pushing conspiracy theories. A Daily Wire article with over 162,000 engagements claimed that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi had asserted that the Republican party were involved a conspiracy to “come after your children" But if you look at the source material and her full remarks, it's clear that the quotation is completely accurate. Saying "a group is coming after your children!" is or isn't a "conspiracy" is really splitting hairs or is, at a bare minimum, subjective.
      • misinformation and junk news 3 The actual quote: "Friday June 5th, that initially showed a significant drop in unemployment rate from 14.7% in April to 13.3% in May. This was soon corrected by the Department of Labor to 16.3%, and accompanied by a statement that the inaccuracy stemmed from incorrect labelling during interviews...A Daily Wire article with over 87,000 engagements...celebrated Trumps false claims of success...The Daily Wire published a correction article the next day. So the basis for the "junk news" rating is that they reported on the same information and that it was good for Trump, DoL printed a correction, and DW printed a correction. I'm hard pressed to know what a competent news organization should have done otherwise (especially considering every news outlet had to do the same thing). 
      • misinformation and junk news 4 Whitmer indeed threatened and extension of "safety measures" and blamed the protesters as the reason she had to do it. Nothing about that statement is inaccurate.
      Your significant over reliance on COMPROP is misguided. First, their definition of "junk news" is "whether their content is extremist, sensationalist, conspiratorial, or commentary masked as news". Daily Wire openly admits they are a conservative news organization and that they do analysis of news from a conservative perspective...that hardly fits the category of "sensationalist", especially looking at the articles you chose to cite. Second, you seem to assume that commentary here equates to evidence that they are "junk news" rather than simply an analysis of what was said on a source they call junk news (two separate categories). Buffs (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Buffs: Regarding the paper in Studies in Conflict & Terrorism you were unable to view, the relevant quote (p. 9) is here: "Besides these organizations-specific Facebook pages and groups, Facebook also hosts open groups that are not related to a specific organization, ranging from “news” groups that share and discuss articles containing misinformation from outlets such as Ben Shapiro’s Daily Wire, to groups dedicated to the sharing of right-wing extremist memes". --Chillabit (talk) 18:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Chillabit Thanks. So...that's the "proof" it's misinformation? Facebook, the company, hosts open groups and just calls it "misinformation". That's pretty weak. Any reference with that? Who wrote it? Buffs (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      As far as this (and most of your other) complaints go, the point is that, on the whole, high-quality secondary sources classify its output as misinformation, to the point where it is broadly and widely used as an example of a source of that nature. Your personal belief otherwise and your personal arguments that you believe them to be right has no weight or relevance; our evaluation of sources is based on how they are covered - their broad reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. --Aquillion (talk) 02:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Are you saying that an undergrad report or even a masters thesis is something Wikipedia counts as a high quality source? Buffs correctly points out flaws in the sources you provided and notes that they don't prove things like DW was inventing claims. If you were using those sources to prove that the DW shouldn't be "reliable" or "considerations apply" I would totally agree. However, you are arguing they are sufficient to deprecate the source. So what standard do you think is needed to rise (or sink) to the level of deprecation and can you show that DW has passed that line? Springee (talk) 02:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      can you show that DW has passed that line? This question has been answered by multiple people already. At this point you come across like you haven't read the extensive detail already in this discussion section - David Gerard (talk) 12:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      When arguments for deprecation rely solely on disparaging terms, their arguments are no more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Buffs (talk) 16:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, deprecate. The Daily Wire knows slightly better than to push conspiracy theories itself directly; instead, it promotes the promoters of the conspiracy theories rather than stating them in editorial voice. e.g. vaccine refusers [219][220][221], promoting ivermectin for COVID [222], and election recount conspiracies [223]. I found these in a few minutes just by typing common conspiracy subjects into the search box; that Daily Wire's promotion of nonsense showed itself so rapidly strongly suggests a deeper dive would only find more. It pitches itself to the audience keen for discredited nonsense; its purpose is to promote false stories to advance partisan goals. Aquillion nails it also. Any newsworthy content on the Daily Wire is a reblog - most of the articles are reblogs of more credible sources. There is no gain whatsoever in using Daily Wire as a source in Wikipedia, beyond the most basic sparing WP:ABOUTSELF appropriate to a deprecated source - David Gerard (talk) 17:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Literally all of your summaries are misleading (which is a problem throughout this discussion). Every single thing you find wrong here is simply a statement of fact, not advocacy. They aren't "promoting false stories to advance partisan goals." If it is, the media are all doing the same thing:
      [Nikki Minaj is anti-vax? everyone reported that. Founder of DW Ben Shaprio encourages people to get vaccinated on a nearly daily basis on his podcast and has done so since they became available
      [Some in GOP oppose women in the draft? This was widely reported too
      BLM opposes 'racist' vaccines? This was widely reported too
      this does not promote ivermectin it only reports that Joe Rogan used it. NPR did the exact same thing. Both articles pointed out that the FDA discourages this use.
      promoting election recount conspiracies? Hmm, it seems that many reputable sites also reported what happened. DW opposed Trump's election shenanigans almost from the beginning
      Any newsworthy content on the Daily Wire is a reblog Literally every article you cited was written by a DW staff member, not reblogged.
      In short, what you've written is completely misleading. Buffs (talk) 22:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, deprecate Daily Wire has fallen over the cliff into outright conspiracy and disinformation. No respect and no reputation for fact-checking, the exact opposite in fact... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, deprecate Nothing reliable about it these days. Volunteer Marek 18:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. According to the NPR article cited by Masem it's biased but doesn't normally include falsehoods. I looked at the purported misinformation examples provided by Aquillion and I'm not convinced. The George Floyd-related examples are "one Daily Wire article ... disparaged New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio for for allowing public gatherings to protest but not allowing businesses to open or religious gatherings to occur" and "a Daily Wire opinion piece even defended the US record on race, stating that it was “the only civilization in history to oppose racism and for one reason only: Christianity”". The Covid-related misinformation is DW hosts' opinions from February 2020. In the hindsight we can definitely say that there were wrong but it doesn't make it misinformation. Just to remind, "unreliable" status means that "the source should normally not be used, and it should never be used for information about a living person," it's not clear at all why the deprecation is necessary. Alaexis¿question? 19:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, deprecate. I was engaged in a project to evaluate the use the Daily Wire citations in Wikipedia, locating them using this search tool [224]. At the start, there were about 125 articles containing a link to dailywire.com. Today, there are 41. In my work, I found that most of the DW citations were used as a citation alongside one to five other non-DW-citations and the DW citation was therefore unnecessary (I would remove the DW citation). In others, I found that the DW article itself contained links to other articles published by those not on RSP which could serve just as well (I would replace the DW citation with the better source). After reading many DW articles, I found DW to be very opinionated (bad), partisan (not necessarily bad), and it had a hardcore agenda (very bad) in most of its articles. Often, the author would take some minor point from an entire scene/incident/issue and rag on just that one point to the detriment of coverage. Under no circumstances could one view these articles as "news" or "news coverage". It was pure editorializing. Sure, some of those articles weren't "technically" wrong for the precise reason that the author was quoting someone else (often of marginal reliability), however by forwarding false or mostly false or heavily skewed viewpoints, then adding its own opinions, I agree that Daily Wire should be treated with no more value than any other non-subject matter expert's personal opinion... which we consider a primary self-published source with very limited use as a citation in Wikipedia. Unfortunately, there are those editors on Wikipedia that don't understand the meaning of GUNREL and think that leaves open a door to using Daily Wire (and other GUNREL sources) as citations as long as they use inline attribution. I support deprecating. Platonk (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, deprecate, for the reasons stated by Aquillion and Platonk. John M Baker (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No but with a caveat: The Daily Wire grossly quotes without appropriate context “Lawn Boy” by Johnathan Evison. Here is The Daily Wire Quote: “What if I told you I touched another guy’s d***? What if I told you I sucked it? I was ten years old, but it’s true. I sucked Doug Goble’s d***, the real estate guy, and he sucked mine too.” (redaction of words in source), along with a more full quote. Now, here’s the bit that’s deceptive: They do not clarify that both the kid and Dick Goble were young at the time (another quote from the book they neglected to mention: “eight or nine other kids, including my hero, Doug Goble”), and the part they quoted, in isolation, certainly strongly implies that the book shows an adult (“Real estate guy”) having oral sex with a 10-year-old kid. While the quote from the book was accurate, quoting just the passage without a more full context makes things look worse than they are. That said, since they did accurately (albeit without enough context) quote the book, it was not a bald face lie. I reserve deprecation for straight up dishonest or fabricated content (for example, Rolling Stone is merely “Generally unreliable” even though they allowed two out right fabricated stories to be published in the last seven years). Samboy (talk) 12:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      But it's worse than that. The source starts off with "found that books graphically depicting pedophilia" which is in Daily Wire's voice. They then go on to quote someone who appeared before the board "Both of these books include pedophilia, sex between men and boys". While they only presented the latter as a quote rather than their own voice, they do not clarify that the person they're quoting was simply wrong at least about one of the books. Indeed when taken together with the earlier bit, it's quite likely most readers will think that according to the Daily Wire, the book includes "sex between men and boys" even before they see the bit from the book they quote latter. They then go on to quote parts in a way which further re-enforces this view. As you've acknowledged no where do they make it clear that the scene they're discussing involved a recollection of something that happened between two children. Nil Einne (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Didn't really catch this until now, but they mention other books...and a quote of that book. Perhaps it's in those. Without clear context, it's hard to know. Buffs (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      For the record, “generally unreliable” means that we almost never use the source, and that claims which only come from the source can be deleted or marked “citation needed” (with very few limited exceptions). I recently deleted a contentious BLP-violating claim sourced from Rolling Stone; now that Rolling Stone is “generally unreliable” for political and WP:BLP claims, no one contested my removal of the questionable claim. Samboy (talk) 14:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • NO - Deprecation is overkill. Usage should continue to be limited, but not deprecated. The Daily Wire is an opinion source, not a news outlet. As such, it is reliable as a primary source for attributed statements as to the opinions of its contributors, but not for unattributed statements of fact. Whether a specific opinion should be included in a specific article is a function of DUE WEIGHT, not reliability. Usage is subject specific. Blueboar (talk) 14:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, deprecate, per resources provided above. Too much unreliable / conspiratorial opinion, not enough news. Anything worth covering would be covered by much better sources. --K.e.coffman (talk) 14:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Deprecating a source for having "too much unreliable / conspiratorial opinion" is a rather extreme and hostile position to be taken, and begs the question that other sources including those on the left with extreme opinion pieces should simply be removed too (which I don't think we want). Tagging the source as "generally unreliable" and using WP:UNDUE to consider if TDW's opinion is worth inclusion (which given its stance likely never would be in most cases) is sufficient and avoids having the same question of deprecation on this basis of being a bad opinion being used to question other sources. Deprecation should only be used when we know the source fundamentally misreports/falsifies information to be completely unusable like Daily Mail. --Masem (t) 14:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not worth it having DUE / UNDUE discussions as suggested, about a fundamentally unsuitable source. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I can absolutely see TDW being used in an RSOPINION manner alongside other conservative sources (Fox, etc.) if there is a section on a controversial topic that is weighing liberal press opinions against conservative press opinions - though in the larger picture of things, such sections heavily weighing press commentary from either side would likely be a problem under RECENTISM. But as Blueboar states, deprecation should only be used for fundamental flawed sources that are known for outright fabrication of news to the point of being flat out unusable in any context. --Masem (t) 15:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Who are the Daily Wire authors who may fall under RSOPINION in your view? --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'll let Masem answer for himself, but, to throw my opinion in, Shapiro would probably be the most prominent example. His podcast is top ten on Apple podcasts and has significant exposure. He'd be on par with Hannity (whom I despise). Buffs (talk) 18:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • Ooooh! That doesn't help. In a list of "people as sources", Hannity and Shapiro would be near the top of those we can only use in their own articles. -- Valjean (talk) 18:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I am absolutely not saying this must be used, I'm only pulling an example that is an opinion but not Shapiro but that would fit the type of RSOPINION that TDW would be suitable for potential inclusion in discussion of one side of the views related to cancel culture via these series of opinions [225] at TWD (Parts 1, 5, and 6 specifically marked "Opinion", the others would be unusable under the current "generally unreliable"). There are of course many other "Opinion" authors at TDW that aren't Shapiro on other topics. But there are also a lot of other factors that have to be considered in context of where they would be used, what other sources are used in support of the same viewpoint as well as those in counter-points, etc; just being an opinion piece in TDW absolutely does not mean we should include it because of all the complicating factors that an UNDUE analysis would have to consider. --Masem (t) 18:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                    • That's pretty much all I'm looking for for such usage. Perhaps "The View" would have been a better comparison. Both shows are highly opinionated. But they are notable for the reach they have and the general points of view that are discussed as part of the public political dialogue in America. Citing them for what they said should not be controversial. It serves as both a primary source ("yeah, Ben said that" or "yeah, Whoopi said that") as well as evidence that their dialogue was widely disseminated (both shows have a substantial base viewership) and, in general, is representative of the views of their political persuasion. I'm NOT looking to have any DW article as the source for some wild claim. Buffs (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                      • You seriously want to compare Daily Wire to The View? The View is a show that has been running for 25 years on a 73-year-old commercial broadcast television network. DW is merely 6 years old. The View has multiple hosts at any one time, with a mix of people from both sides of the political spectrum in each show and tries to present and discuss all angles. DW, as best I can tell, has only one viewpoint. I'm not promoting The View (I don't like it and don't watch it), but even I know that V and DW are worlds apart. Platonk (talk) 23:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Yes, seriously. People espousing political views/perspectives...that's pretty much DW in a nutshell too. They invite debates and discussion with all kinds of views on their audio and video programs, for example, the Sunday Special: Vox Founder Matthew Yglesias John Stossel (staunch libertarian) Michael Shermer (founder of Skeptic Magazine), as well as tons of debates you can find on YouTube (some under the Daily Wire banner and some are under Turning Point...I'm referring to the former). DW, as best I can tell, has only one viewpoint treating all conservative views as some sort of monotone monolith is part of the problem here. They are not all the same. Ben Shapiro, for example, is highly pro-vaccine, Jewish, and has TONS of criticism of Trump, his policies, and his treatment of the election results. Contrast this with people like Hannity who are practically Trump yes-men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talk • contribs) 16:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                          • With due respect, it seems to me there's conflation occurring again here. In response to "the Daily Wire only has one view," you respond "conservative thought is diverse." Both propositions may be true. Perhaps there are diverse views at the Daily Wire, but you're not actually making that argument. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                            • Actually, I am making exactly that argument and just pointed out multiple long-form discussions hosted by DW where libertarian, liberal, and other voices were welcomed. Shapiro's positions, as demonstrated, are in stark contrast to remarks above "We must 'assume' that sources like TDW that fully back Trump must be 'a source contains lies.' They have no choice. Sources that defend his lies must contain lies" which literally being used to support deprecation based on the idea that anyone agreeing with Trump about anything should be deprecated. Others at Daily Wire (Boering, for example) choose not to get vaccinated and have explained that, because they are healthy and are willing to accept the consequences if they get the virus, they shouldn't be required to take it which is in opposition to Shapiro's stance. I can go through dozens of different points where different hosts/components of DW differ. But the point is that they are indeed a diverse group of ideas and do not all subscribe to "one view". Buffs (talk) 18:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Besides Shapiro, who else? I'm trying to understand how WP:RSOPINION applies here. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                    • K.e.coffman, I'm not sure if you're addressing me or Masem, but here's my understanding, using some examples.
    All content (and that is literally ALL!!!) at Wikipedia must be based on RS with only ONE exception, WP:ABOUTSELF. That allows, sometimes in exceptional cases, the use of even blacklisted sources in a bio article about themselves, and nowhere else. (That's how we can document the "sum of all human knowledge" for conspiracy theories, lies, pseudoscience, etc.) IOW, for example, Trump (one of the least reliable people known) cannot be cited anywhere but in his own article, unless RS have quoted him (and they do because he is notable), in which case a RS can be used to cite him in other articles. The RS may be giving that content due weight.
    If it weren't for WP:ABOUTSELF, we could never cite someone who has no regard for truth, and/or habitually spews lies, and/or misleading propaganda, and/or pseudoscientific nonsense all the time. That applies to people like Trump, Giuliani, Hannity, Limbaugh, Carlson, Jones, Mercola, Tenpenny, and maybe even Shapiro. (I'll let you judge which might apply to each, and RS do have plenty to say about their lack of reliability.) We couldn't use primary sources or an unreliable source like The Daily Wire to cite them. OTOH, we could cite them if a RS cited them because the RS may be used to judge due weight.
    I obviously disagree with some of what I think (I may be wrong) Masem has said above. If something in The Daily Wire is not found elsewhere in a RS, then it doesn't have enough due weight for mention in any other place than the TDW and/or Shapiro article. Other contributers at TDW should write for reputable sources if they want to get mention here. The fact they write for TDW shows very poor judgement. Obviously there are exceptions to every rule, so take the above with a grain of salt. I'm sure someone can come up with some form of exception. -- Valjean (talk) 00:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, if TDW is the only one, or one of a very few number of sources that would fall into the usable RSOPINION class that opine on a minority viewpoint, then yes, per UNDUE, we should not be including them at all. But if TDW is in general broad agreement with a large body of other opinion sources (but with there own specific takes in a few places) - this is why I used cancel culture as an example where a body of opinions that bemoan cancel cancel readily exist that coverage of that view is not UNDUE - then it should be a reason to consider, but that's only a necessary but not sufficient condition for inclusion of TDW's opinion. A plethera of other factors related to RSOPINION and other factors come into play at that point.
    What is key towards my argument (in that I support maintaining "generally unreliable" and opposed making it "deprecated") is that none of the evidence above shows the same types of problems that works like The Daily Mail or with state-owned works like RT to make us even doubt the veracity of their opinion pages. We can argue their opinion is very unlikely to be used in any reasonable WP article, and that's a completely fair assessment, as I agree the threshold to include TDW would be rather high. But there's no reason to pre-emptively say we can never use it based on the evidence given - nothing suggests the Daily Mail-type problems, and the sources that try to discuss TDW in depth do speak to its bias problems but attempts to stay factual. All that to me points to treating similar to Fox News, with very delicate hands but not hands off. --Masem (t) 01:49, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Masem hits the nail on the head. Use of it could be easily used to show a general or notable ATTRIBUTED opinion on a subject. Deprecating it feels spiteful. Buffs (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deprecate per Aquillion and Platonk above. Cheers, all, and happy Tuesday. Dumuzid (talk) 14:52, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 without doubt major conduit for new right disinformation (while masquerading as libertarian source with "objective slant"). Acousmana 15:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No The current status is already an over-generalization, and this would make it even worse. North8000 (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deprecate　ー　The examples provided here are sufficient. The Daily Wire's tabloid language is consistently deceptive. Arguments that it is technically not fake news are either pedantry or sophistry. Any opinions published by this website would almost always require reliable independent sources contextualizing why those opinion are encyclopedically significant. Grayfell (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Buffs has done a really good job showing that the examples are really poor. They may show extreme opinion but nothing that rises to the level of deprecation. At the same time the generally respected Adfontes media puts three DW is a bucket similar to Salon. There is a serious disconnect between what sources say vs what editors feel. Springee (talk) 22:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting how you present what you "think" as being in a different category from what other editors "feel". Almost like "facts don't care about your feelings"? The examples, and my own eyes, are sufficient for me to conclude that this outlet is extremely misleading. These opinions are not "extreme" in the same way that saying "pop tarts are a sandwich" is extreme, they are extreme in how they ignore very important context that would undermine their own ideological positions, and they are extreme in how they phrase things in an emotive, misleading way while pretending to be dispassionate and "rational". This is a form of fake news, and this set of tactics is a constant from this outlet. Grayfell (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, since it's been mentioned twice now, I will mention that Ad Fontes Media is not generally reliable on Wikipedia, per WP:RSP. If you want to make the case that it's "generally respected", you have your work cut out for you, but that's clearly a separate discussion. I don't respect Ad Fontes Media, neither for this discussion, nor in general. Grayfell (talk) 22:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a constatation, but I noticed that the position changes depending on the chart version/year. In 2018 it was "extreme/unfair representation of the news", "hyper-partisan right". —PaleoNeonate – 22:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Literally the majority of Buffs' responses were "nu-UH, I think this source is wrong." Come on. It's a list I threw together rapidly from a Google Scholar search, and I'll grant that there's some stuff in there I wouldn't put in an article, but there's a ton of really solid stuff there, too. "I don't agree with this peer-reviewed paper's definition of misinformation" or "I, personally, think the Daily Wire was right here even if this academic source says it was misinformation" is not a meaningful argument. Overall I presented a solid snapshot showing that academia largely views the Daily Wire as a source of politically-motivated misinformation, and I stand by that assessment. --Aquillion (talk) 02:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not reliable. Do not deprecate. The DW does not have a reputation for fact-checking or accuracy. However, they are making efforts in that direction. They do have a corrections policy[226] and have corrected their articles [227][228][229][230][231][232]. In light of this, deprecation would be going too far at this time. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, deprecate DailyWire aggregates items from other sources, rewriting to fit an agenda. There is no reliable fact checking or verification of the items. DW can not be treated as a Reliable Source because the chain of newsgathering editorial control is broken: in other words, as an aggregator, they can not supervise their content creators (unlike, for example, the AP, or CBS, or TBS, or BBC, or WP, or CT, or... <I'm being US centric here, but those are media sources I know>). — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 05:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      More guilt by accusation? They do original reporting too (note above). Quoting someone and giving analysis/opinion is not the same as "rewriting to fit an agenda". Likewise, There is no reliable fact checking or verification of the items? Really? Media bias for DW is assessed as "Reliable for news, but high in analysis/opinion content". What's your source? Buffs (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It is "assessed" by an unreliable blog. As I mentioned above, Ad Fontes Media is not reliable, nor is it particularly trustworthy. Its methodology is shallow and inconsistent and the premise itself is simplistic. Taking political compass memes too seriously is a bad idea, for several reasons. Grayfell (talk) 21:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No Changing the status does nothing to improve articles. Under the current rating, no article in the publication would be considered reliable unless it was written by an expert, that is, someone who had papers about the topic published in the academic press. It's like killing a cockroach with a cruise missile. TFD (talk) 05:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes – there can't be any possible reason to use this source, with the WP:ABOUTSELF exception mentioned by Valjean. --bonadea contributions talk 14:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes The fact that occasional valid content appears is irrelevant. If it is not deprecated, we'll have endless pointless discussions about trying to use dubious or false content sourced from its generally unreliable publication. SPECIFICO talk 03:14, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Re "endless pointless discussions"... For two weeks I've been watching this relentless campaigning about Daily Wire initiated by Buffs. I wish he'd give it a break. He started in on it on my User talk page (Sept 15), edit warred on an article (Sept 15-Sept 17), argued more at the article's talk page (Sept 17-Sept 19), on another editor's user talk page, and even more on his own talk page (Sept 17). I watched two editors get temporary blocks, and witnessed one ridiculous marathon ANI (Sept 16-17). After 48 hours of watching the biggest wiki BATTLE I've ever witnessed, I made an about-face and walked away from all the drama. I have ignored him since then, until I noticed Buffs tried three times in under 24 hours to unilaterally remove Daily Wire from WP:RSP on Sept 26-27 (1st, 2nd, 3rd removals). And so here we are. Platonk (talk) 05:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We should avoid tying issues related to behavior of a single editor to the assessment of reliability of a website. Just because one bad seed pushed a specific website in an inappropriate manner does not necessarily make that website a bad website - though it is possible that a separate evaluation of that website not tied to that editor will reveal faults. --Masem (t) 12:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, when you slant it like that. How about "A few people had a disagreement. Buffs tried multiple options (including attempting one-on-one discussions as required in a collegial discussion until it was clear that nothing was going to be gained. After having insults hurled at him and removing them from his talk page and despite CLEAR guidance that it was allowed, he was blocked, so he reached out for help. He also noticed that a summary on WP:RSP was placed unilaterally by an IP address and reverted it. Another editor who swore he wouldn't interact with me ever again, then proceeded to simply undo anything I'd done and then placed a rigged RFC here (both options get what he wants and doesn't address anything I brought up...and refused to add any more options/allow a different RfC)?" Reasonable people can disagree. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean I'm a problem. You don't have to be here if you don't want to be.
    If y'all are going to disparage/badmouth me on a public page, the least you could do is tag me. Calling discussions and disagreements "ridiculous" is absurd. So is calling me "one bad seed". Buffs (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was merely responding to SPECIFICO's remark ("If it is not deprecated, we'll have endless pointless discussions about trying to use dubious or false content sourced from its generally unreliable publication.") with an example of such endlessness which was actually related to this discussion. There is no need to go into long defenses and extend said endlessness. This RSN/RfC is quite enough, and I hope it's the last I see of this topic. Platonk (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You were not "merely responding" and you know it. You took a chance to have one more jab at me/chance to needle me when it wasn't warranted in the slightest. If you don't want to see this topic, you don't have to look. Buffs (talk) 18:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Buffs: Knock it off! Your style of writing towards me on this topic has not been merely uncivil, but has been dismissive, overbearing, bullying... and ongoing. That's the umpteenth time you've told me I could walk away instead of dealing with your tendentious behavior. Knock off the BATTLE and PA and stick to the subject matter. Platonk (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, deprecate. Per Aquillion and David Gerard. Any content from DailyWire is better sourced elsewhere. Cedar777 (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes Sometimes when I'm bored I listen to the various Daily Wire podcasts. Even though they word things differently, it would be completely wrong to say they have differing opinions. 99% of the time it's all just the same disinformation but re-packaged for a different audience depending on the podcast. In the 1% of cases where it isn't there's better sources to get the information anyway. So no big lose. That said, people could probably make the same argument for MSNBC and them endlessly repeating "the walls are closing in" on Trump over the Russia thing, but whatever. This isn't an RfC about MSNBC. If it was, I'd probably vote the same way. In the meantime though, DW should clearly not be used as a reference for anything. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WP:Deprecated sources seems to be at odds with the general direction of this RfC. Reading that information page i get the impression that Daily Wire would be de facto deprecated and the question would be ...often cited by unaware editors, or those that come up in discussion the most often – for example, due to real-world controversy, borderline reliability, or a tendency to be promoted on-wiki... vs. instruction creep. SPECIFICO and Platonk's arguments would then be most relevant. fiveby(zero) 13:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Daily Mail deprecation RFC came about because it was a clearly terrible source, but some editors insisted it was excellent and insisted on using it anyway; this meant there was a genuine dispute over the matter. This is the same reason this RFC exists: an editor insisting at length that it's a quality source in the face of the evidence it isn't - David Gerard (talk) 14:27, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Malformed survey

    A solid percentage of people reviewing this have voiced that this is a partisan source, but is generally reliable for facts (I think it would be reasonable to say that climate issues should use caution). Few have argued for deprecation. Framing this discussion as if this is nexus of the dispute is absurd/hyperpartisan and inappropriate for the guidelines of an RfC (it is not a neutral statement). It is inappropriately framed as a False dilemma: the options should be more broad than this as the result is "Yes: get rid of it all" or "No: it's just not a reliable source". Likewise, many statements in prior discussions have been based on sources that don't say what the authors claim. Claiming "I don't need sources because others will provide it and I'll retroactively agree" is absurd. Establisher of this RfC has not pinged users who were previously involved. Buffs (talk) 05:01, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The following options should be added:
    Option 3: Treat as a partisan source for information on par with the HuffPost politics and Fox News politics
    Option 4: Treat as a generally reliable source for information
    Buffs (talk) 05:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah. When this RfC is completely finished, you can create one with those options.
    The discussion at RS/P produced such excellent and strong criticism from many good reliable and scholarly sources that I was tempted to go for full blacklisting, but decided to go for what was suggested there, which was deprecation. -- Valjean (talk) 05:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah. When this RfC is completely finished, you can create one with those options. When the conclusion prevents such a discussion? Yeah right. Like I said, this is an attempt to game the system. Buffs (talk) 05:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Why can't we use the same format as Metalmaidens.com listed below for this RfC? Oh, right, it would prevent you from getting the exact result you want and prevents me (or others) from offering any alternatives. Yep: WP:GAME. Buffs (talk) 05:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I chose this because the rules for RfCs allow several different formats, and, based on the direction and recommendations in the previous discussion, this seemed to be the logical choice. All the arguments and sources presented there undercut your attempts to get TDW rated as a good source when it's actually a horrible source. -- Valjean (talk) 05:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't a neutral statement, therefore it fails RfC criteria. Sources used as a rationale for such options in the past are misleadingly summarized; Example: "Scores high for bias and low for reliability on https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/" when in fact it states ""Reliable for news, but high in analysis/opinion content" As such, neither option is an appropriate choice, but you've excluded those options and ignored other discussions on that page as well as other discussions in the past. So, no, that isn't a faithful summary of the previous discussions on the subject. Buffs (talk) 05:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    If you don't want to get blocked for personal attacks and assuming bad faith, you should strike your GAME and other personalizing comments. -- Valjean (talk) 05:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I see your actions as an attempt to game the system. I asked for you to include options I want and you've refused. Given that you've also stated you control the conversation now and that I can't start an RfC until this one is over, I stand by my assessment. This isn't the place for such discussion. If you want to discuss it further, you know the proper venues. Buffs (talk) 05:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I have removed a lengthy, tendentious section inserted by Buffs which makes wholly-unsupported and unsupportable accusations of connections to pedophilia. If Buffs believes a mass-market novel published in the United States by reputable mainstream publishers and favorably reviewed by a number of mainstream sources is "pedophilia," Wikipedia is not the place to promote their (wrong) beliefs. This insinuation borders on a personal attack and is wildly inappropriate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you are confusing Lawn Boy and Lawn Boy. My comments are that WP has the exact same standards as DW and the mother in question. Restore my comments. Buffs (talk) 07:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrong. You know nothing about books and nothing about the First Amendment. As evidenced by the book's Amazon entry, Jonathan Evison's coming-of-age novel Lawn Boy was published by Algonquin Books, favorably reviewed by the NYT, the Washington Post, and a variety of other mainstream outlets, given starred reviews by Library Journal, Booklist, and Publishers Weekly, and named a 2018 Editors Choice pick of Booklist. The novel is factually and legally not "pedophilia" and for you to suggest or state that it is, is frankly outright libelous toward the author. You may not use this platform to smear Jonathan Evison, a living person and a noted novelist, as a purported advocate of pedophilia - or to smear me for defending the work as being of literary merit. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Off-topic, but I am reminded of Cuties. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I completely disagree with Buffs' assessment of the Daily Wire, but can understand their frustration by this RfC. There was a discussion opened about whether to [effectively] upgrade the Daily Wire at RSP, and while that was ongoing an RfC opened about whether to downgrade it. If the opposite were the case: if we were talking about deprecation and Buffs opened an RfC proposing to upgrade it to no consensus, that would be roundly seen as disruptive. There is a key difference, of course, is that the source clearly is unreliable for statements of fact. Still, I wouldn't be opposed to adding other options. I considered not !voting, but since I guess we haven't had a real RfC on this source before... meh. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Consulting the Media Bias Chart: Disclaimer, I know Adfontes isn't the infinite oracle of wisdom here but I think it's interesting to compare how a source scored there vs how Wikipedia treats them. The Daily Wire is rated as 34.41 and 14.43 for reliability and bias (positive bias = right, negative = left). What sources have similar scores (looking at absolute bias), Salon is 33.72, -18.08 so less reliable and more biased. New Republic is basically the same reliability but a bias of -18 vs 14.4. The Week is again about the same reliability but bias of 12. Vanity Fair is 36.15 and about the same bias. The Daily Beast and MSNBC are both about 2pts better in reliability and about the same for bias. None of this says Daily Wire is good but it does suggest our attempt to deprecate are overkill. These are all sites that fall into the "Analysis or High Variation in Reliability" bucket. Aquillion has listed a number of references but are they good? The first one I clicked on was a masters thesis [233]. Is that our standard now? This paper doesn't make a strong case for depreciation [234]. It basically says the DW criticized another news source for bias. If that was our standard then CNN would have to do away for their fixation on talking about "what Fox News just did". No question it isn't quality reporting but it's not the sort of thing that justifies depreciation nor is it something none of our acceptable sources would engage in. This one is an undergrad thesis [235]. The strongest material in here is a group that seems to repeatedly use the Daily Wire as part of their misinformation briefs but they don't provide examples of why the articles are wrong rather they are looking at web engagement. When the Daily Mail was deprecated, if I'm not mistaken, there were concrete examples of where they did something wrong. In the recent Rolling Stone discussion again there were clear examples of the source getting things wrong, refusing to correct etc. Here we have a lot of editor opinion (and undergrad opinions) but little in the way of true substance. Absent that true substance we shouldn't deprecate. Springee (talk) 18:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The Oxford Internet Institute's Programme on Democracy & Technology does have a FAQ for what they consider "junk news". Very much a guess here, but it appears that their newsletter is based on their aggregator results, with the methodology possibly described in this preprint. However, I can't find any specific discussion of Daily Wire on the site. fiveby(zero) 14:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ooops, missed the listing in the preprint, Daily Wire is coded 'RB', 'S', 'Cr': "Right-wing bias", "Style", and "Credibility". fiveby(zero) 15:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is still a problematic source on several grounds. 1. This is a pre-print. Did this paper get published and where? 2. They don't provide evidence. That may not be important for what they are trying to do with the paper but it is important if we are going to deprecate a source based on their unsubstantiated claims. This is really the big problem with this whole discussion. The evidence used to deprecate is basically editor opinion or flaky mentions. Compare that to what was used to move Rolling Stone down in the recent RfC. In that case we had clear examples of problems and stories that were all but invented etc. The fact that academic sources think so little of DW is a good reason to keep them in the generally unreliable camp but not to deprecate them. Springee (talk) 16:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, LIKEIT/DONTLIKEIT seems to often rule this noticeboard. Just taking a closer look at the strongest material in here. fiveby(zero) 16:52, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC: Metalmaidens.com

    Which of the following best describes the reliability of Metalmaidens.com?

    Note: The site is currently used as a reference on 37 articles

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

    --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Survey (Metalmaidens)

    • Option 2 if I am expected to provide any answer. In the absence of any background information about the source, I have no information to assess the source. If the Original Poster meant to provide us with background information, it is not available. If the Original Poster is sending us on a scavenger hunt to research the source, I won't do their work for them. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Robert McClenon: To me it seems more like an unprofessional fan site akin to WP:METALEXPERIENCE than anything but clearly others have previously felt differently. I don’t appreciate the aspersion talking of scavanger hunts; that wasn’t my intention in the slightest. In an effort to make a neutral RfC question, I didn’t include my personal opinions in the question posed. It wasn’t to make you do my work as was stated. I have included a comment now in the discussion section down below, which I apparently missed when posting last night. —TheSandDoctor (mobile) (talk) 21:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 Did some research and it seems like at one time they certainly put in the effort to cover the topic, provide editorial oversight, work with independent writers, print and distribute, etc., but without more information, for example, seeing the masthead of the print magazine, learning the backgrounds of the owners and contributors, and other details it is unclear if they are a reliable source. For interview quotes, perhaps. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion (Metalmaidens)

    • The source seems more like a fan made zine of questionable quality. —TheSandDoctor (mobile) (talk) 21:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at the "about us" section, it appears to be a husband and wife team with a small group (half a dozen) occasional guest contributors, and as such I would consider it no different to a blog. However, I don't believe that it is suitable for an RfC; the use is too limited for the formal process, and would be best discussed on the individual articles should an objection be raised about its removal. Should that discussion fail, then the matter could be brought here as a standard question.
    Perhaps if all those approaches fail, then it would be appropriate for an RfC, but until then I don't think it is worth the collective time and effort it would take to assess this as an RfC. Summoned by the bot; unclear to which RfC, and so drew the short straw BilledMammal (talk) 13:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    https://www.the7eye.org.il/

    Hello,

    Can a census be reached for this blog-like website? https://www.the7eye.org.il/ It is run by only a few people and is used by COI on Walter Soriano.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SAMsohot (talk • contribs) 15:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Based on their about-page and google translate [236] they are a former print magazine, now afaict some sort of group-blog. Possibly individual writers can be considered WP:RS for some things. If they are WP:DUE is another question. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a discussion further up the page? Selfstudier (talk) 23:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps this should be merged as a subsection —PaleoNeonate – 06:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    They do have editorial board [237]. They considered pretty respected in Israel as media critique magazine. I have no idea who is Sorino and if they had COI with them --Shrike (talk) 06:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, that's better. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC: Julian Assange kidnapping plans

    The below content was removed from Julian Assange in this edit, with the suggestion that it is "weakly sourced" and "UNDUE", and removed a second time here. I'm placing the RfC here with a note at NPOVN. The sources are as follows: [1][2][3][4]

    References

    1. ^ Johnson, Jamie (27 September 2021). "CIA discussed kidnapping or assassinating Julian Assange with British help, officials claim". The Daily Telegraph. London: Telegraph Media Group.
    2. ^ White, Debbie (27 September 2021). "CIA 'discussed kidnapping or assassinating Wikileaks founder Julian Assange'". The Times. London: Times Newspapers Ltd.
    3. ^ Borger, Julian (27 September 2021). "CIA officials under Trump discussed assassinating Julian Assange – report". The Guardian.
    4. ^ Dorfman, Zach; Naylor, Sean; Isikoff, Michael (26 September 2021). "Kidnapping, assassination and a London shoot-out: Inside the CIA's secret war plans against WikiLeaks". Yahoo! News.


    Should the article Julian Assange include the following information, sourced to The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, The Times and Yahoo News:

    According to former intelligence officials, following the Vault 7 leaks senior officials in the CIA discussed plans to either kidnap Assange from the embassy or assassinate him, going so far as to request "sketches" or "options" for doing so. No plans were approved, partly because White House lawyers raised concerns about the legality of such an operation. Some officials, interviewed as part of an investigation by Yahoo News, stated that they were sufficiently concerned about the proposals that they alerted staffers and members of the House and Senate intelligence committees.

    Cambial foliage❧ 23:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    !Voting

    * Include In addition to the cited RS,[1][2][3][4] several other mainstream reliable sources have published articles about the investigation:[5][6][7][8][9] The argument that the available sourcing is weak does not bear scrutiny. This is clearly highly relevant to Assange's biography and represents encyclopaedic content. Following the initial report, several news organisations have reported on the story and sought comment from the agencies/governments involved. Cambial foliage❧ 23:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    * Include (reasons pretty well the same as Cambial Yellowing above) Prunesqualor billets_doux 07:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Johnson, Jamie (27 September 2021). "CIA discussed kidnapping or assassinating Julian Assange with British help, officials claim". The Daily Telegraph. London: Telegraph Media Group.
    2. ^ White, Debbie (27 September 2021). "CIA 'discussed kidnapping or assassinating Wikileaks founder Julian Assange'". The Times. London: Times Newspapers Ltd.
    3. ^ Borger, Julian (27 September 2021). "CIA officials under Trump discussed assassinating Julian Assange – report". The Guardian.
    4. ^ Dorfman, Zach; Naylor, Sean; Isikoff, Michael (26 September 2021). "Kidnapping, assassination and a London shoot-out: Inside the CIA's secret war plans against WikiLeaks". Yahoo! News.
    5. ^ Allsop, Jon (28 September 2021). "A scary reminder of the press-freedom stakes in the Assange case". Columbia Journalism Review.
    6. ^ Choi, Joseph (27 September 2021). "Trump administration mulled kidnapping, assassinating Julian Assange: report". The Hill. Washington: Nexstar.
    7. ^ Vaillancourt, William (26 September 2021). "CIA Reportedly Considered Kidnapping, Assassinating Julian Assange". Rolling Stone.
    8. ^ "Julian Assange: CIA soll Bericht zufolge Ermordung des WikiLeaks-Gründers erwogen haben" [CIA reportedly contemplated assassination of Assange]. Der Spiegel (in German). 28 September 2021.
    9. ^ Bourke, Latika (27 September 2021). "Trump administration floated kidnapping, killing Julian Assange: report". The Sydney Morning Herald. Nine Publishing Co.

    Other discussion

     Question: Why was this RfC started here and not in the Julian Assange article's talk page? M.Bitton (talk) 23:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The removing edit summary referred to the content as "weakly sourced" (as well as UNDUE). This is the noticeboard to discuss the strength or reliability of a source or sources. Cambial foliage❧ 23:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a difference between discussing the sources and starting a RfC about the inclusion of some content (which is subject to consensus). M.Bitton (talk) 23:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The preamble addresses this. Both reliability of sources and npov have been cited as a reason for removal. There cannot be a separate rfc for each aspect, so that noticeboard has been notified as has the article talk. Cambial foliage❧ 23:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of the sources like The Guardian are reliable. If the material is DUE is another matter and this should indeed normally be discussed at the article's talk page. —PaleoNeonate – 23:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Cambial Yellowing: Have you tried discussing the issue with SPECIFICO and other page watchers before launching the RfC, per WP:RFCBEFORE? If not, I suggest you withdraw this RfC, try to do that, and then if necessary reopen the RfC at Talk:Julian Assange. JBchrch talk 23:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I first added the removed content to Julian Assange, and I support waiting for consensus to restore it. I cannot speak for the editor who called it "weakly sourced," yet being familiar with the discussion (which only just started 8 hours ago), I believe the issue is not the reliability of any particular source, but with the fact that all sources to date rehash a single, 2-day-old Yahoo! News story and provide no original reporting. If we include this content under such circumstances, we must trust not multiple sources but one source that, no matter how reliable it may generally be, has not in this instance been independently corroborated. That is its weakness, and since the item relates such explosive accusations about living people—in particular, then-President Donald Trump and then-CIA director Mike Pompeo—we have genuine cause for concern. Basketcase2022 (talk) 00:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As with almost any investigative news story one could name over the past century, this was broken by one news organization before others. Other papers have subsequently picked up on the story and sought their own commentary from the involved parties. As the text above contains content about neither Pompeo nor Trump the concern expressed about claimed "accusations" towards those individuals is misplaced. Cambial foliage❧ 01:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Approving restoration of content sourced to either the 2-day-old Yahoo! News story or other uncorroborated reports based on it opens the floodgate for adding that story's other sensationalistic elements, such as their scandalous allegations against Trump and Pompeo. To expect otherwise is naïve. Is that really what we want to do? Basketcase2022 (talk) 02:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    whatever we do, let’s not rely on a tiresomely obvious logical fallacy in doing so. Cambial foliage❧ 07:45, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: Since the disputed content, still based on this single source, has now been restored, I look forward to seeing how it plays out. Naturally I hope for the best. Basketcase2022 (talk) 12:45, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bad RfC Are you asking us to evaluate whether specific content is due in the article? There are several other considerations beyond reliability here. This board is not the correct place for this RfC. I imagine that this would be best handled on the article talk page if you would like an RfC, or on the NPOV noticeboard if you’d like more unstructured discussion. RSN is a place for evaluating a particular source's reliability, not the inclusion of specific content. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    THis is not an RS issue, as it is a wp:undue issue.Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think there should be an RfC on this either here or at UNDUE. It is a conduct issue and personally I'm fed up of lists of WP:TLAs edit comments reverting any changes they don't like instead of being specific or doing something else constructive. NadVolum (talk) 14:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Then take it to wp:ani, this is about sources, not users.Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

     Question: I only see a single source in the first diff, why does the opening statement suggest that the edit summary from that diff applied to all four sources provided? That seems to be either a mistake or deeply and profoundly misleading. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    All four sources had been identified and linked to on article talk in a section devoted to that aspect of the article before that edit was made. All were in the article when it was removed at the second diff. So it’s neither a mistake nor misleading. Cambial foliage❧ 06:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you ever add cn tags to texts from century old encyclopedias?

    As examples, the Jewish and Catholic Encyclopedias. I recall adding some cn tags to an article that was almost all from the Jewish Encyclopedia, only to have them all removed on the grounds the JE is a reliable source. Sadly I can't recall the article. This applies of course to other very old tertiary sources. I can see where maybe a reference to old scholarship in such an encyclopedia could be an rs, but even then I would be concerned that opinions may have changed, there might have been new discoveries, etc. Doug Weller talk 11:10, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I would have said no, as they are cited, the RS tag would be the one if you think they are not an RS. I would also say that without good reason (I.E. an RS contradicting it) there is no reason to assume they are not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would say “cn” is the wrong tag. The text is cited. The issue is that the cited source is likely out of date, and needs to be replaced with something more modern. We need a different tag for indicating that. Not sure which one, however. Blueboar (talk) 12:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • In general, I would say that if a source is from the Enlightenment or later I would consider it sufficiently reliable for use for all but the most exceptional claims, but care does have to be taken, and if they are contradicted by more modern sources then the more modern source should be given greater weight of consideration.
    I will note that this doesn't always apply; sometimes we require more modern sources, such as in Medicine, and other times we can use ancient sources, such as Euclid's Elements in Mathematics (although I might question their use, as these reliable sources have been extensively covered by more modern source). To a certain extent this is a judgement call, and you have to consider how fast a field changes, and the methodology used at the time the source was produced.
    To address your specific question, I would say to assume those encyclopaedias provide accurate information unless you can find reason to believe otherwise for the specific information cited.
    I will also mention that I vaguely recall reading a policy or essay that aligns with much of what I wrote, but I cannot find it at the present time. BilledMammal (talk) 12:08, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly a better tag would be {{Better source needed}}, and noting your reason in talk - David Gerard (talk) 12:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems fair to tag statements in such articles with something like that, since it's not clear at a glance which uncited statements happen to be taken from the old encyclopedia mentioned at the end of the article and which weren't. XOR'easter (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe {{Obsolete source}}, depending on what you're looking at? --Chillabit (talk) 07:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We should avoid using century old encyclopedias as sources where possible, especially for scientific topics where knowledge has considerably advanced since then. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The Enlightenment! I generally use the 1980s as a good cutoff! Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In general, I would consider the 1980's as a far too late cut-off; for instance, I am currently writing an article on the 1948 Modus Vivendi between Britain, Canada, and the United States, and to do so I am heavily relying on an excellent 1974 work by Margaret Gowing, as one of the few sources that cover this important agreement (its implications were broad, but the "hook" of it would be that it involved Britain giving up her veto on the use of nuclear weapons by the United States), though supplemented by more modern sources, as well as a '62 work by Richard Hewlett and a '76 work by Peterson et al.
    With that said, I am a bit of a romantic for old books†, and am probably a little too predisposed towards allowing their use. While tracts from the Enlightenment are from a period where the methodology starts to become recognizable to modern academics, on reflection I would change my above statement back to "post-Enlightenment", and suggest that while Enlightenment works should not be blacklisted, they should only be used carefully and with attribution, for matters that more modern sources have not commented on.
    Interestingly, I'm not even the worst on this matter; I recently came across an article uncritically using Josephus as a reference (and worse, a bad translation of Josephus) for some truly extraordinary claims!
    † My current reading material is a second edition (1924) of "A History of the Art of War in the Middle Ages" by Charles Oman, and while a decent portion of the work has been superseded, and there are aspects that would not be seen in more modern works, both in terms of moral judgements and terminology, it remains usable with sufficient caution - although I would question why a more modern edition, such as the 1974 revised edition, was not used instead. Incidentally, I think I will add that work to my backlist of articles to write - it is easily notable enough.
    BilledMammal (talk) 07:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The cutoff really depends on the topic. It should be the period when the consensus for the current view on the particular topic was formed. Anything that is based on sources predating that period, there should be an in-text attribution à la "according to...". If long pieces of text solely depend on such a source, a {{better source needed}}-tag is appropriate. –Austronesier (talk) 07:36, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That puts it very well; thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 08:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm also thinking that at times we might want to add another opinion for NPOV purposes, and then would have to rewrite some of the text to directly attribute it rather than indirectly through the template. I'll also note that I think it's important to differentiate between encyclopedias and ordinary texts. Doug Weller talk 09:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I think there's plenty of old-as-hell sources that are perfectly (and uncontroversially) usable. Fox Island (Detroit River), for example, is a GA I wrote which cites an 1850 article about an 1820 property sale. I can't think of any reason to claim that as apocryphal. Obviously, textbooks about surgical procedures or electrical engineering from the time will be found wanting, but it's not as though information simply "goes bad" (and, of course, an 1850 textbook about surgical procedures would be an excellent source for how surgery was performed in 1850). jp×g 10:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Fashion Model Directory

    I see this site being brought up just once before at RSN without a definite answer. Fashion Model Directory is used as sourcing for much of Clément Chabernaud, and it looks a bit IMDB-ish, but I’m really not very familiar. They say they recruit bloggers to write for the site so …? ☆ Bri (talk) 13:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Image use

    Article: Hijabophobia

    Content: File:Matthias Laurenz Gräff - "Liebende Eltern".jpg

    A user has removed the image from the page claiming there should be a reliable source saying the depicted work has links to the Hijabophobia. Is it so? --Mhhossein talk 13:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=1047373722"