Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

List of archives

, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458

Additional notes:

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

Start a new discussion

RealClear media

Moved from WP:RS/P

I'm wondering about the status of RealClear media, IOW RealClearPolitics (RCP) and RealClearInvestigations (a redirect to RCP). My initial impression is that they are aggregators, but also with own, very biased, content. All I find is this thread opened by User:JzG in November 2019:

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_278#RealClear_media

Valjean (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed this use at our conspiracy theory article Russia investigation origins counter-narrative:

Jeanine Pirro, a long-time friend of Trump, described Mueller, FBI Director Christopher Wray (a Trump appointee), former FBI Director James Comey and other current/former FBI officials as a "criminal cabal," saying "There is a cleansing needed in our FBI and Department of Justice—it needs to be cleansed of individuals who should not just be fired, but who need to be taken out in cuffs."

Here we have a combination of types of sources. All content at Wikipedia (other than WP:ABOUTSELF) must come from RS, even to document the most ludicrous pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, etc. If something is not mentioned in RS, it does not have the due weight to be mentioned here. Period. That makes this use of RCP, if it is deemed unreliable, very dubious. The NYTimes and Salon should be enough. -- Valjean (talk) 17:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• Definitely Unreliable. Doesn't clearly mark the difference between opinion and news content on the columns it publishes, and the rest is just aggregation (including a number of questionable sources like the Washington Examiner). For instance, "Donald the Dragon Slayer"[1] today is labeled as "Commentary" and not listed in its "Editorials" section. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

  What's wrong with labeling an opinion piece as "Commentary"? Commentary literally means "expression of opinion". feminist (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

  Nothing, I guess. That piece also clearly introduces the author as "a columnist for RealClearPolitics". For example The Guardian (at least the British one) is considered generally reliable, but some times I have to squint if I want to quickly figure out whether something is labelled as opinion. Random example, this is in "News" section and more specifically in "Business" section, though below the article it is labelled as "Coronavirus / comment". If one wants to know more about the author, they would have to link the author's name to read a profile page where the author is described as "a columnist, author and small business owner". Politrukki (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• If we're going to discuss RC's reliability, it should be done at WP:RSN rather than here unless there have been additional threads on the matter already. -- Calidum 19:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree. I'll move this there, so feel free to continue there. -- Valjean (talk) 23:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Sources

• Generally Reliable--RCP has a very strong editorial board, with many award-winning journalists and writers: [2], and the site has a rigours fact-checking process: [3]. They are most well-known for their robust polling, which is published in numerous high-quality sources: The Guardian, Reuters, CNBC, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal. Likewise, Real Clear Investigations also seems to be referenced by reliable sources such as The Washington Post and NPR. RCP & RCI aggregates from different sources, though they do seem to have their own columnists. News vs. opinion is always clearly marked. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 03:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • While it's an interesting offering, the RCP Fact Check Review is a review of fact checks done by other organisations. The existence of this review doesn't add a lot of credibility to their own content. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
• Judge by WP:RSOPINION. RCP is mainly known as an American conservative-leaning news and poll aggregator. It is mainly used on Wikipedia for its election predictions, the same way we use the Daily Kos (RSP entry) for its election predictions despite its unreliability. It also sees some use for its opinion pieces, which is usually appropriate depending on the identity of the opinion piece's author. Overall I don't think RCP publishes much straight news, if at all, so I would treat it as similar to Reason (RSP entry), The Spectator (RSP entry) or The Weekly Standard (RSP entry). feminist (talk) 13:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • As for this specific page, it appears to simply include transcripts of a video. Authenticity is not in doubt when you can actually listen to the video. But why not just cite Fox News directly? feminist (talk) 13:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable - This is primarily an opinion site and partisan aggregator, not a reliable news source. It cannot reasonably be considered a RS. Go4thProsper (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable - Original material is not factually reliable, and aggregated material may not be accurately attributed. The Wall Street Journal has reported that RealClearPolitics for two years has been a significant source of links to Russia Today stories, and the provenance of the RT headlines was obscured. While much of the aggregated material may be reliable, it should be cited to the reliable source, not to RealClear. John M Baker (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable They have a gatekeeping process demonstrated by multiple contributors organized in an editorial hierarchy; a physical presence by which they can be held liable for libel; and RS consider them reliable as evidenced by the fact their original reporting has been sourced by Reuters [4], Government Executive [5], Albuquerque Journal [6], CBS News [7], TIME [8], CNN [9] etc., etc. Both the current executive editor and the current White House correspondent are separate recipients [10], [11] of the Aldo Beckman Award for Journalistic Excellence from the White House Correspondents Association which is pretty much the Oscar for White House coverage and its recipient is elected by WHCA member journalists. If RC is not reliable, we need to rethink our standards of reliability.
  That said, stories that are simply aggregated by RCP are not implicitly reliable, opinion / commentary columns are not reliable for anything other than the opinion of the writer per WP:RSOPINION, and extraordinary claims should be credited to the source and not presented in WP's voice regardless of the reliability of the source (at least when reported only by a single source). Chetsford (talk) 04:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable. RealClear Media hosted (and may still host) a secret Facebook page promoting far-right memes and extremist conspiracy theories. This family of websites is mainly opinion pieces and aggregation of pieces published elsewhere. As for their sites that claim to do original reporting, their "RealClearInvestigations" site is backed by right-wing foundations and published an article supposedly revealing the identity of a protected whistleblower—something that reputable/mainstream news organizations chose not to do, because it would endanger the whistleblower and violate anti-retaliation principles. And as the Wall Street Journal reported in Oct. 2020, the aggregator has consistently funneled readers to Russian propaganda, while obscuring the source from browsing readers. All of this points to clear unreliability. Neutrality^talk 19:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

The WSJ story you site describes RealClear as "mainstream" and their poll average as "famous." Furthermore, I am unaware of any requirement that an RS refrain from publishing the identity of a whistleblower. For comparison, is the NYT unreliable because they blew a CIA program to catch terrorists via their finances [12]? Obviously that put lives at risk. Meanwhile, the NYT, which routinely advocates for restrictions on oil drilling in the USA, is owned in considerable part by Carlos Slim, who obviously benefits from such restrictions. In sum, you are condemning RealClear for things we appear to accept from other sources. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• Unreliable for anything except perhaps its attributed polling averages (which seems to be the only thing it is really well-known for, looking over sources and usage, and which is probably better cited to a WP:SECONDARY source anyway.) Outside of that it is largely noteworthy as an aggregator; and there's no reason we would cite them rather than the sources they aggregate. For the (largely opinion) original stuff they do post, there seems to be little distinction between opinion and fact. More importantly, they have in particular been publishing false material about the 2020 election and surrounding events recently, which is a definite strike against their reliability. Generally speaking I don't think it makes sense to use a handful of passing mentions as an argument for WP:USEBYOTHERS when the NYT just wrote an entire in-depth teardown essentially saying how unreliable it has become. EDIT: I would say that per the NYT source it is particularly unreliable after 2017 because of this: Interviews with current and former Real Clear staff members, along with a review of its coverage and tax filings, point to a shift to the right within the organization in late 2017, when the bulk of its journalists who were responsible for straight-news reporting on Capitol Hill, the White House and national politics were suddenly laid off. The shift to the right would be fine on its own, but firing their reporting team isn't. And that led to the other issues the article identifies - inaccurate coverage of the 2020 election, unsubstantiated or false stories, stories that raise ethical concerns, and so on. None of this sounds like the write-up of a source we could use as an WP:RS; it appears they gutted their news team sometime in 2017 and switched to basically pumping out spin, with increasing disregard for fact-checking or accuracy. --Aquillion (talk) 10:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable for the reasons explained by John M Baker, Neutrality, and Aquillion. They do seem to be known for polling averages more than anything else, which also leads to a WP:DUE concern; how often is a poll average, of which there are many, actually worth writing about? In that case, we'd be turning to secondary sources anyway, as Aquillion suggested. Less-than-stellar publications are sometimes the ones to "break" a story (because it was leaked to them, or because they were listening to the police scanner, or whatever). When more solid reporting confirms the story and mentions where it first appeared, that doesn't necessarily count in favor of the marginal publication's reliability for our purposes. XOR'easter (talk) 01:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Exactly this. The National Enquirer broke the John Edwards extramarital affair, but that doesn't mean the Enquirer is suddenly reliable either, all it means is a stopped clock happened to briefly coincide with the time of day. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
  • How true. I subscribe to and follow over 4,000 journalists and media sources of all types, including the use of many Google Alerts, so I see what is written by the most unreliable of sources. For example, The Daily Caller often has "news" details that is cutting edge (IOW on the wrong side of the knife...), but those details are not yet found elsewhere, so I do not use TDC as a source or even mention those details. I wait until RS pick up the story. TDC will usually frame these interesting details in a misleading story that misleads its readers, and we shouldn't send readers to such trash. When the details appear in RS, the setting is more neutral and factual, and we can then use those sources as documentation of those interesting details. They now have the needed due weight and proper sourcing. So be patient and wait for RS to cover such stuff. -- Valjean (talk) 16:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
• Reliable per User:Chetsford. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
• Unreliable, completely, given their track record of demonstrably false claims, fringe opinion pieces and the like. One cannot even call it "reporting" anymore, given the mass layoffs of actual journalists in 2017. Zaathras (talk) 01:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
• Comment We have a lot of people declaring "not factually reliable" as an undemonstrated assertion. The standards for RS are the same as our general standards; if RS consider them reliable, they are reliable. We have demonstrated that RS consider RC reliable by the fact that their original reporting is widely, and regularly cited by RS. We have demonstrated that RS consider RC reliable by the fact that their journalists have received some of the most significant awards given by and from the journalistic craft. Unless we have RS widely declaring RC to be unreliable, our individual assessments of RC is irrelevant. So far only one source has been offered which sort-of hints at that; we don't blacklist an entire media outlet because of one false positive - otherwise we'd be non-RS'ing the New York Times over the Caliphate podcast scandal that just broke or Rolling Stone for A Rape on Campus. All other arguments appear to rely on personal analysis. Content analysis is research and personal content analysis is OR. A policy-based argument, supported by sources, has been offered demonstrating reliability. The same has not been offered demonstrating unreliability. Chetsford (talk) 05:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Is this really the standard? Then the assessment should also take into account reporting from the New York Times, which writes that, during the Trump administration, “Real Clear became one of the most prominent platforms for elevating unverified and reckless stories about the president’s political opponents,” and that it ran “stories that most other news outlets, including some that lean conservative, would not touch because the details were unsubstantiated or publication of them would raise ethical concerns.” John M Baker (talk) 04:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes, we definitely should take that into account. But taking a report about a source into account is different than giving that report veto power. As I said, above, the ability to find one or two instances of RS questioning a source should not be treated as some gotcha! reason to deprecate a source. If that were all it took, we would have no sources left. Here [13], WIRED reports "News organizations, including The New York Times, have reported the story without trying to get to the bottom of it, or even finding out basic information such as where or when the alleged party took place."; here [14] Rolling Stone is found liable for a demonstrably fake story; here [15] The Intercept writes that the Washington Post published a story about hacking that is "demonstrably false" . In each of these cases, we have far more evidence of RS considering the NYT, Rolling Stone, and WaPo reliable than unreliable. Similarly, as demonstrated in my !vote, the same applies to RCP. Chetsford (talk) 14:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
      • But the New York Times article is not comparable to the claims that the New York Times, Rolling Stone, and Washington Post published individual false stories (not that I think that the linked critiques of the NY Times and the Post are particularly compelling). Rather, the Times has provided an overall assessment of RCP's current reliability, and it has done so in terms that are utterly inconsistent with finding a source to be reliable. That should weigh far more heavily than individual examples where an established reliable source chose to refer to RCP uncritically. Nor do I think that the test of reliability should be the treatment given by reliable sources. If that were the case, we would certainly have to reinstate the Daily Mail, which just in the past few days has been cited by The Independent (Dec. 31, 2020), The Times (London) (Dec. 29, 2020), The Times (London) (Dec. 29, 2020, again), The Sunday Telegraph (Dec. 27, 2020), and the Kansas City Star (Dec. 24, 2020), among others (all examples from NewsBank). The test should be whether a source is in fact reliable, based on reported facts, and not on whether media sources sometimes choose to use it without further examination. John M Baker (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
        • When sources considered reliable mention and provide an analysis of less reliable sources it's often useful to WP to support article content rather than using unreliable sources, but it doesn't mean that we should by extension consider those reliable (which is precisely why an independent interpretation of their claims is useful)... —PaleoNeonate – 00:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• Generally discourage - especially if editors must determine the usable material from the obvious propaganda themselves. —PaleoNeonate – 00:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable per User:Chetsford with the RSOPINION restrictions feminist noted. I think I would consider much of their material analysis but absent a source directly contradicting them I would say it is usable in that capacity. Springee (talk) 12:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
• It's aggregation and partisan opinion content, so should be treated accordingly. So if we're talking about their original content then no, of course we shouldn't use it for statements of fact in Wikipedia's voice (i.e. unreliable), but there may be uses for attributed opinions of certain authors in exceptional cases (as usual, RSOPINION does not mean that every/any opinion carries WP:WEIGHT on its own, but it's possible there are uses for them). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable. There's been far too much of this fad for wholesale banning of sources via deprecation—it has the stench of political bias, smacks of censorship, and suggests editors are no longer able to judge reliability on a case-by-case basis. Deprecation is used to exclude purely factual, documented information. (Example: the NY Post and Daily Mail were the only two sources who saw fit to report details of the sexual assault charges against Jacob Blake, and the only ones linking to the official police report—claims they're not "RS" was used to censor factual information.) These deprecation debates are little more than referenda asking: "Would you personally prefer if the source couldn't be used?" Saying RCP is "unreliable" because it accurately identified a "whistleblower" or linked to Russian articles is absurd. As to the claim that the same company had a "secret Facebook group sharing right-wing memes" is disqualifying, see the professor's quote about WSJ/Fox—then ask if false claims made by Amazon mean Bezos' WaPo should be deprecated. Broadly agree with User:Chetsford on this, especially that RCP has not been shown to publish false information, let alone routinely. Additionally, Lee Smith and others have done some very solid original investigative reporting for RCP. Elle Kpyros (talk) 18:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories about "something something conservatives are being silenced" aren't a rational argument. "NY Post and Daily Mail were the only two sources who saw fit to report details of the sexual assault charges against Jacob Blake" is pure lying hooey: it was fact-checked by reputable news agencies (such as USA Today [16] and Reuters[17]) that contradicted the lies the Daily Fail and NY Post were putting out. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. RealClearPolitics is described by reliable sources as "one of the most prominent platforms for elevating unverified and reckless stories about (Trump's) political opponents". Specifically, RCP aggressively promoted the "stolen election" falsehood that fueled a failed attempt to overthrow the US government a week or so ago. So that's a hard no from me.

  It appears that the "serious news" staff of RCP was laid off en masse in 2017, and replaced by Republican political operatives ([18]). Separately, of course, RCP has also published defamatory falsehoods (misidentifying the author of a high-profile anonymous op-ed), recycled and laundered Russian propaganda, outed a legally protected whistleblower, and so on—all in service of partisan ends, and all detailed here and elsewhere. Defending this source as reliable, in light of all this evidence to the contrary, is quite a stretch. Arguably, one could list it as "potentially reliable before 2017, unreliable afterwards", based on the staff turnover and shift in tone and focus.

  In any case, using a source known to publish defamatory falsehoods, reckless & unfounded partisan smears, election-related falsehoods, and foreign propaganda—as RCP is documented to do—is fundamentally a behavioral and competence issue. MastCell ^Talk 20:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable. Much of the website's content is labeled as opinion, and it is an aggregator, as many previous users have said. Many previous editors have focused on the opinion content on the site and its role as a poll aggregator, and these should be judged by WP:RSOPINION. It should be noted, however, that the site publishes original polling data, that have been widely cited by other sources we trust as reliable, including NPR. Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable Just another partisan source. I think Wikipedia would be a better place without too partisan and opinion based sources. I absolutely don't think those who look at things from one side's perspective tend to have reputation for fact checking. Hence, I don't think it's a WP:RS.Magnus Dominus (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)— Magnus Dominus (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Lordpermaximum (talk • contribs).
• Unreliable, and trying for deprecation - the conspiracy theory pushing suggests they've left tawdry conceptions of "factual reality" behind. Unfortunately, "factual reality" is where Wikipedia does its best to live, and so we can't follow RCP to where they're going - David Gerard (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable. This subject is an opinion aggregator, mostly using reprints of articles which appeared in right-leaning sources. The NYT article linked above by User:MastCell demonstrates that whatever "non-partisan" credibility they tried to hold onto was lost in the "sudden right turn" after Trump's election. These days they are just another source parroting "stolen election" lies. BusterD (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable - We can use WP:BIASEDSOURCES, as long as they are used in a neutral way or with attribution. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable - not a matter of bias one way or the other, it's a matter of uncritically reporting falsehoods. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

RfC: China Daily

Link: [19]

Should the source be deprecated? Firestar464 (talk)

MBFC Rating: [20]

02:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Media Bias Fact Check is not a reliable source and should not be invoked in talk page discussions, it says pretty much nothing of value about the quality of a source. That said I do think a RfC on China Daily is warranted. chinadaily.com.cn   is currently cited in 5,762 articles. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll add the usual options. Which of the following best describes the reliability of China Daily?

• 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 as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail

--Sunrise (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Survey (China Daily)

* Deprecate - My first impression on looking at it is that it's probably in the same category as RT (TV network) aka "Russia Today" which is already deprecated? Being owned by the "Propaganda Department" of the Chinese government and all... IHateAccounts (talk) 03:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we should be deprecating sources so lightly based on a first impression. --MarioGom (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@MarioGom: on detailed further review it is owned, operated controlled, and so forth by the same entity that owns and controls China Global Television Network, which is already deprecated for being a propaganda outlet. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Note to closer: this block is getting pushback, and not just from User:IHateAccounts. Unclear where it will end up. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Deprecation China Daily being owned by the CCP is no more a stopper for me than NBC being owned by Comcast. We should disabuse ourselves of the notion that state-owned media in non-western states is somehow inherently less reliable than state- or corporate-owned media in the west (to clarify, that's a general observation I've made of others - not you, and I don't think you're doing that here). Indeed, Bennett's indexing theory - certainly the most influential theory in the last 30 years in media studies - suggests that media in the west are already more or less state-controlled on matters of importance, even if they're not state-owned, the different perception of independence only due to their need to calibrate reporting to the multiple control levers present in multi-party states. I believe China Daily is generally reliable for all but reporting on the CCP and adjacent institutions where its use should be limited to WP:SELFSOURCE. Though, as with all sources, WP:DUE should be considered in every use. I draw this conclusion as follows:

-Media Bias Fact Check is unambiguously unreliable. For the purposes of RSN, I always assume it simply doesn't exist.

-The consensus of scholarship indicates that media in China can, and is, held judicially liable for defamation (e.g. this study by Benjamin L. Liebman[21], among others) and this includes state-controlled media.

-The China Daily has a gatekeeping process.

-The China Daily is sourced to RS which is, ultimately, the only standard we - as Wikipedians - can apply. Provided this is met we can't deprecate a source because we're uncomfortable with the governance or ownership structure. In just the last year its original reporting has been sourced (with attribution, but absent frightening caveats about the CCP owning it) by Science Magazine [22], the BBC [23], Barron's [24], Washington Post [25], NPR [26], and others. USA Today even used it as a corroborating source for one of their fact-checks [27]. If we deprecate China Daily while accepting sources that routinely source the China Daily for their content we're saying we know more about the China Daily than any RS. And if we know more than RS, there's no real reason to keep the WP:OR policy.

Chetsford (talk) 03:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

While I haven’t evaluated this particular source in detail, the above comment contains a number of arguments that are largely invalid or irrelevant. (I will ignore the suggestion that many of our usual RS are effectively state-controlled, as something that shouldn’t require refutation.) Starting with the bullet points, it's true that MBFC is unreliable and should not be considered. However:

• Defamation claims being permitted by a country’s laws is a minimal standard, not an argument in favor of reliability. Furthermore, the article cited is from 2006, before the more recent increases in state control. And even at the time, as acknowledged in the same article, defamation claims were also used as tools of media control.
• Having a gatekeeping process is likewise a minimal requirement. Presumably, one of the concerns in this case includes what type of reporting that gatekeeping process will allow.
• Simply being cited by RS does not make a source reliable. Instead, we want the source to be discussed in RS and to evaluate the contents of those discussions. The Daily Mail is also sometimes cited in RS; this is a common situation in which information from an unreliable source may become usable on Wikipedia because of a better source applying its own editorial processes to the information in question.

Additionally, much of the comment is about Chinese sources in general. While this can certainly inform the evaluation, any such information will be overridden by information about the specific source in question. Checking the WP article shows e.g. China Daily#Editorial control and China Daily#Disinformation allegations, which are issues that would need to be addressed.

It's true that state ownership doesn't inherently make a source unreliable, but it’s still a relevant consideration in countries that use the press for propaganda. (I think that some editors, when they mention state ownership, are using it as a shorthand for this type of argument.) The reason that ownership structure can be overlooked in some cases is not because the owners are unbiased, but because they are more likely to have credible policies about independence in reporting. This is not a “west/east” distinction, or any other system that tries to divide people by nation or culture - it’s a result of applying sourcing guidelines that ignore such things. Furthermore, introducing such distinctions (which are largely arbitrary to begin with) only serves to frame the discussion in terms of geopolitics and makes it harder to evaluate the issue neutrally. Sunrise (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Chetsford: just FYI Liebman appears to be saying the exact opposite of what you say he says. Also making that argument in this explicit context ignores the fact that the CCP is above regular Chinese law, it literally doesn't apply to them as party is above state unlike in those multiparty systems (your argument appears to conflate state owned and party owned media). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

To say that China Daily should be considered "generally reliable for all but reporting on the CCP and adjacent institutions" leaves very little for it to report on, given the CCP's influence over every aspect of China's economy, culture and society. It should be good only for its births and obituaries. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 14:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• I would say it's generally reliable for non-political stuff (like the manhole story that BBC reported based on a China Daily story) and generally unreliable for everything related to politics, broadly defined (see China_Daily#Controversy). Alaexis_¿question? 09:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose deprecation. First, context matters and no context is discussed here, not even one example. Second, being rated as left-biased (or right-biased) by some random organization is irrelevant to deprecation discussions. Reliable sources are not required to be unbiased. And finally, as much as ownership structure is now a thing for flagging content on Twitter or Facebook, that's not yet a Wikipedia policy. Ownership is part of what we look at when evaluating sources, but not the only thing at all. --MarioGom (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
• I’m surprised it hasn’t been deprecated already given their explicit existence as a propaganda organ of the Chinese Communist Party and long history of disinformation peddling. We have explicit cases of them spreading disinformation which are covered on their page. They have no respect and little credibility within the traditional media, Reporters Without Borders has condemned them etc. I strongly support deprecation. Nothing I’ve seen suggests its usable outside of about self which I will add given the immense nature of the CCP thats actually a lot of contextually appropriate use. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose deprecation. It's a state-owned / operated / supported news service, in essence no different form the BBC or PBS. Non-political news is the product of professional reporters. Any story displaying overt political bias is stating the government's official party line — which is important to know. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: China Daily is owned by the Chinese Communist Party not the Chinese state, it is political party-owned not state-owned. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's a distinction between the Communist Party and the Chinese state. I'd be surprised if we wouldn't have considered the Communist Party's Pravda a useable source for insight into Soviet thinking during the Cold War. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Then I don’t understand your point about them being in essence no different from the BBC or PBS which are entirely independent of the political parties in their respective states. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I thought it was clear: In China's case, the Party is the government. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tenebrae:, since you now agree "In China's case, the Party is the government", that makes this vastly different from the BBC or PBS, which are independent of political party in their countries. It's much more a propaganda rag with little factual reliability, with the best comparisons indeed being the factually deficient Pravda, or Russia Today, or 112 Ukraine (owned by Russian proxies), or Rodong Sinmun from North Korea. There are also precedents from Wikipedia regarding papers similar in ownership structure, if not political leaning, such as An Phoblacht, Anadolu Agency, The Electronic Intifada, HispanTV, or Press TV. See their entries at WP:RSP.

It might be viewed as a source (as you proposed) for occasional insight into official talking points of the Chinese Communist Party, but I would never trust Pravda, or Rodong Sinmun, or China Global Television Network, or "China Daily" for facts. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Tenebrae. Plus, we have literature that indicate the BBC tends to adopt framing in its reporting that mirrors that used by whatever party is in power at the time. (e.g. [28], etc.) We need actual evidence of unreliability, not merely expressions of our personal discomfort with the ownership group. "They're communists" is not a policy-based argument to deprecate a source. Chetsford (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, a better argument is conflict of interest in relation to certain topics, meaning it can be determined on a case by case basis... —PaleoNeonate – 20:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Then I don’t understand your argument about it being in essence no different from the BBC or PBS, if you’re arguing that the entire relationship between party and state is radically different than in a multiparty state like the US or UK then what do you mean by "in essence no different” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 and Oppose Deprecation: the arguments mentioned by Chetsford, MarioGom and Tenebrae are persuasive. Appropriate attribution should be made for statements related to China Daily's area of bias. Also, this RFC hasn’t been set up in our required neutral format. “Deprecate China Daily” isn’t a suitable heading for an RfC and the introduction is supposed to be neutral. Burrobert (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
• Deprecate. The fact that they are owned by the publicity department of the Chinese Communist Party is reason enough. Just as we treat (say) NewsBusters and CNS News together, because both are owned by the Media Research Center, so it should be with China Daily and the deprecated Global Times. For those who don't think that is sufficient reason, please consider China_Daily#Disinformation_allegations. To take one recent example, China Daily promoted tweets saying that the Hong Kong demonstrators were sponsored by Western interests. It also claimed that they were planning terrorist attacks on September 11, 2019.[29][30]. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Deprecation, however I would go with option 2 or 3, depending on the topic. Chinese state media is OK to cite as a WP:RS for non-controversial mainland news (such as China opening whatever high-speed train line or something like that), but for controversial topics such as Taiwan and the South China Sea, they should only be used with attribution to get the PRC's official opinion on such subjects. Félix An (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose deprecation and treat as we treat other semi-official or official media: somewhere in between options 1 and 2, with good judgement expected from editors as usual. Thanks to Chetsford especially for their careful consideration and comments. -Darouet (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

{u|Darouet} can you give examples of official state media (in particular in single-party non-democratic states) that we place between options 1 and 2? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option 4: Deprecate and put it in the same category as Global Times and CGTN/CCTV. In my opinion, Xinhua News Agency should also be deprecated. Brady (2015) wrote an excellent review on those so-called "media" as part of Beijing's global propaganda campaign. Despite the subtle and stealthy nature of China's overseas influence operations, there are numerous reports by reliable sources and countries with press freedom regarding Chinese state-controled media including China Daily disseminating false or fabricated information. For example, [31] [32] [33] [34] [35]. It is truly unbelievable that some editors could turn a blind eye and still promote the false equivalence of state-controlled propaganda organs and private media with editorial independence and well-established fact-checking processes. Normchou ^💬 22:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

References

• Oppose Deprecation The fact that they have not failed a fact check speaks strongly in their favour, even if it is obviously the state outlet of the PRC. Certainly however, on topics where the PRC feels strongly about however, it should be used only as a last resort, or in order to back up an official position of the PRC. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 03:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4 I think it should be treated similar to CGTN where it should pretty much exclusively be used for statements made by the Chinese government but some other areas unrelated to Chinese interests seem to be okay. Flalf^Talk 04:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose depreciation for the same reasons already pointed out by others. The discussion below is straying far away from WP:RS. Mottezen (talk) 06:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 It should be treated as we treat other state-controlled media in authoritarian single-party states: reliable (typically with attribution) as a source on government/party statements (e.g. as a source for statements from state public health officials as in the most of the uses by other reliable sources cited by Chetsford above), possibly reliable for non-controversial facts (e.g. numbers of stolen manhole covers, as in another of Chestsford's examples), but generally unreliable for anything controversial in which the Chinese state has an interest. Nobody so far has put forward arguments for why it should be treated less cautiously than other such state-controlled media. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose deprecation per MarioGom. China Daily is reliable for various topics, though of course they won't be neutral on politics. —Granger (talk · contribs) 07:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose deprecation: I don't see any convincing arguments for deprecation above. China Daily is an important source for news from inside China. Deprecating it would worsen the already worrying systemic bias with regards to China, in which we increasingly rely on sources outside China that themselves often have ideological biases and questionable accuracy. A brief tangent to illustrate this:

The Wall Street Journal published a news article about Chinese economic policy last month that severely mistranslated a statement by Chinese Vice Premier Liu He. The original description of his speech is as follows:

会议要求，国有企业要成为有核心竞争力的市场主体。国有企业首先必须发挥经济功能，创造市场价值。

The WSJ characterized that passage as follows:

'State-owned enterprises,' he said, 'must become the competitive core of the market.'

This has a very different meaning from what Liu He said in Chinese, and in context, it's almost a direct inversion of his meaning. This is how DeepL translates his statement into English:

The meeting called for state-owned enterprises to become core competitive market players. State-owned enterprises must first perform economic functions and create market value.

The point of the statement is that state-owned enterprises must become more market-oriented - something that has typically been viewed as a pro-market policy. The WSJ's mistranslation reverses that, and turns it into a statement about how state-owned enterprises should dominate the market ("core competitive market players" turns into "the competitive core of the market").

This mistranslation was pointed out by a reporter for Xinhua, Zichen Wang. The WSJ has still not issued a correction. The WSJ is considered a highly reliable source, and in most contexts it is, but like all sources, it has biases. Especially in the increasingly nationalist climate, those biases can impact accuracy in reporting about countries that are viewed as "adversaries" (in whatever country the newspaper is operating out of - the US, in the case of the WSJ). That's how we get the WSJ mistranslating a statement by a Chinese official and then failing to issue a correction.

It's important to continue using a mix of sources to cover China, including sources with a good record of factual accuracy from within China. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Strongly disagreed. WP:SYSTEMICBIAS is an essay, which may only represent minority viewpoints within the community. Moreover, "systemic ABC" is usually poorly defined and unfalsifiable (see some elaboration here), and one should not invoke it when talking about specific instances of an issue, such as "the reliability of China Daily". If factual evidence still matters—which the editor above seemed to think so given that they listed an example of a purported mistranslation to illustrate their point—then the overwhelming evidence that the Chinese state-controlled media have been spreading false and fabricated information should actually support Option 4: Deprecate. Normchou ^💬 02:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not a "purported" mistranslation - it's a black-and-white example of a mistranslation. Anyone who reads both English and Chinese can compare the original Chinese text with the WSJ's English rendering.

I raised this example because it illustrates an important point. All sources have biases, and those biases can affect accuracy. It's no secret that tensions between the US and China have escalated dramatically over the last few years, and that public opinion towards China in the US and a number of other allied countries has become extremely negative in a very short space of time. To think that this wouldn't affect American newspapers as well would be naive. Above, we have an example of a leading American newspaper, a solid RS, blatantly mistranslating a Chinese official, in a way that completely reverses the meaning of the official's statement. Who pointed out the mistranslation? A reporter for Chinese state media - a reporter who is likely much more familiar with the policy positions of Chinese officials than the typical WSJ reporter is. The WSJ has not yet issued a correction (it's had a month to do so), and indeed, correcting this mistranslation would probably require the WSJ to significantly revise its entire article (because the actual quote in Chinese contradicts the basic thesis of the WSJ article).

overwhelming evidence that the Chinese state-controlled media have been spreading false and fabricated information: This is an extremely broad, very poorly supported statement. In most areas, for example, I think it's clear that Xinhua is highly reliable. Like any source, we should be aware of its biases. For the most part, it will not report on issues that reflect negatively on the Chinese government. However, it will also accurately report on many issues within China that American newspapers like the NY Times and WSJ will scarcely ever report on (and if they do, their reporting is often not particularly reliable or leaves out important context). Our articles on China will not become more reliable by systematically excluding all Chinese sources. I think editors are capable enough to understand the biases that Chinese state media have, and to use them appropriately. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Strongly disagreed. False equivalence and bothsidesism neither make one's argument more convincing, nor help with reducing bias. All sources have biases by no means implies that all biases from all sources—not to mention false and fabricated information from only certain sources—should be treated in the same way when it comes to their negative effects on the Wikipedia project. Thus far, Thucydides411, the editor above, has only used a single, isolated, purported case to illustrate their point. Yet they do not bother about it while turning a blind eye and throwing out some random cliche like This is an extremely broad, very poorly supported statement when overwhelming evidence says otherwise: [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46]. By the way, as a native speaker of several Chinese languages, I disagree with that Chinese state media journalist's view that the WSJ's translation is such a big deal; 国有企业要成为有核心竞争力的市场主体 simply means SOEs should be the major/core player of the market—where many other players can also exist—with the additional requirement that such SOEs should have core/major competitive advantages. A basic understanding of economics—a quality that most of the readers of the WSJ should have—tells me that a "market", by definition, has more than one player, so the "core" is really just the "core player", because the qualifier "of the market" is already there. Regarding the specific structure of that market, it could be in the form of perfect competition, imperfect competition, monopolistic competition, oligopoly, etc. There is no indication in Liu He's speech that he is referring to a perfectly competitive market. Normchou ^💬 22:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC); edited 22:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC); edited 23:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC); edited 01:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

国有企业要成为有核心竞争力的市场主体 simply means SOEs should be the major/core player of the market: That's not what it means. It's absolutely clear in the Chinese original that "core" refers to "competitiveness". Just from the way the sentence is constructed, "core" cannot possibly refer to "market", and the phrase says nothing about SOEs becoming the "core player of the market". An unambiguous English translation would be, "SOEs must become market players with their own core competitiveness". The basic meaning here is that SOEs should be subject to market forces, rather than relying on subsidies. The very next sentence makes this even more explicit: 国有企业首先必须发挥经济功能，创造市场价值 (DeepL gives, "State-owned enterprises must first perform economic functions and create market value", and I agree with DeepL's translation). The reason why this is more than just an innocuous translation error is that it makes it look like Liu He is supporting nearly the exact opposite policy - state support for SOEs. I gave this as just a recent example of inaccurate reporting on China by an otherwise high-quality RS - inaccurate reporting that came to light because it was pointed out by a reporter for Chinese state media. This case isn't isolated.

their negative effects on the Wikipedia project: I haven't seen examples where use of China Daily has harmed Wikipedia. Deprecation is a sledgehammer, and if we use it too broadly, we actually do run the risk of ending up with an encyclopedia that has strong national biases. What we need, instead, is for editors to have a bit of common sense, to understand policies around bias in sources, to know when to attribute statements, and to evaluate reliability in specific contexts. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Wrong. 市场主体 literally means the "market's main body"(most common Chinese definition), so there is no issue with 国有企业要成为...的市场主体 being translated to "SOEs should be the core (player) of the market that ..." if one interprets the phrase this way, given the fact that there can be other "main bodies" in the market. The editor above, Thucydides411, should stop using machine translation to mislead themselves and others in this discussion. The more conducive way would be to first have a good understanding of the Chinese languages and the semantic and syntactic ambiguities specific to them. Normchou ^💬 23:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC); edited 00:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC); edited 01:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I understand your confusion now. You linked to the definition of 主体, which by itself can indeed mean "main body". However, the full phrase 市场主体 is the standard way of referring to any market player, large or small, in Chinese. Even native speakers who are unfamiliar with economics can get this wrong. You can verify that what I'm saying is correct by looking at actual uses of the phrase 市场主体. For example, here's a recent usage:

“前三季度，全国共注吊销市场主体779.7万户，同比下降7.9%。其中，注吊销企业262.6万户，下降10.0%；注吊销个体工商户507.1万户，下降6.9%；注吊销农民专业合作社10.0万户，下降3.3%。”杨红灿说。

The passage refers to 7.797 million 市场主体 being written off in the first three quarters of 2020. There obviously aren't 7.797 million "main bodies" of the market in China - and this is just the number that went under in 2020! And as a second example, here's a Chinese government website with instructions on how to create a 市场主体. They're obviously giving instructions on how to create a market entity, not on how to create the "main body" of the market. For what it's worth, Baidu Baike has a page defining 市场主体, and what it describes is any sort of market player. But really, just search the internet for the exact phrase 市场主体, read what comes up, and you'll very quickly realize that this is standard terminology for any market entity.

Maybe the WSJ made the same mistake, assuming that 市场主体 means the "main body of the market", although that would be surprising, given that you'd expect WSJ to find a translator who's familiar with economics. But whatever the reason, the WSJ did mistranslate this passage and nearly inverted its meaning; the mistranslation came to light because of a Xinhua journalist who noticed it; and the WSJ has yet to issue a correction. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Ummm wait, since when have you been fluent in Mandarin? You’ve claimed the opposite in your interactions with me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you translate what you mean by "fluent" into HSK or the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages? But in all seriousness, my own exact proficiency level is not at issue here. As we've seen above, even native speakers can make mistakes when dealing with unfamiliar technical jargon. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

If you’re trying to say that a native speaker has made a mistaken then yes your exact proficiency level does actually become an issue. Especially when you’ve never disclosed *any* Mandarin proficiency at all... Let alone the level you would need to correct a native speaker on technical jargon. Much the opposite in fact. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

You're venturing into ad hominem here. Do you think that 市场主体 means the market's main body, or do you think that it refers generally to any market entity? There isn't actually any real question about what the correct answer is (it's a technical term that means any sort of "market entity", regardless of size or importance), and personally attacking me does not constitute a convincing linguistic argument. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I highly dislike being mislead either by media outlets or wikipedia editors. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

市场主体 means market entity,[47] though I think it is a term of art and not all native speakers are familiar with it. Possibly the Wall Street Journal's mistranslation is due to the word 主体, which often means "main part", but in this phrase might be better translated as "agent". See also wikt:主體. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Another example to illustrate how poor coverage of China is in otherwise reliable sources, and how systematically deprecating Chinese sources will worsen WP:SYSTEMICBIAS on Wikipedia. Again, I use the Wall Street Journal, a source that is generally highly reliable, to illustrate my point. In a news (not opinion) article last June about Huawei and its founder Ren Zhengfei, the WSJ wrote,

Just over a month after his daughter's arrest, Mr. Ren visited a Huawei research-and-development center in Hangzhou, commanding employees to learn from the U.S. tech giant Google and 'surge forward, killing as you go, to blaze us a trail of blood,' according to a transcript confirmed by two Huawei executives.

That sounds pretty terrible, until you realize that the phrase Ren Zhengfei used (杀出一条血路) is a standard idiom in Chinese that is commonly used and not perceived as extreme. Imagine literally translating a violent English idiom ("shooting ducks in a barrel", "kill two birds with one stone", "to go in with guns blazing", "to take a stab at it", etc.) into a foreign language, and presenting it as a direct quote. Again, the person who pointed out this misleading translation was Wang Zichen, a journalist who works for Xinhua. The person who actually translated Ren Zhengfei's speech for the WSJ, Eva Dou, said that WSJ editors had not let her review the draft of the article, and that some of the "nuance & context was lost".

The Times (generally reliable, per WP:RSP) then took this translation and ran with it, in an article titled "Huawei’s founder declares 'war' on West":

Huawei's founder urged workers to crush rivals and 'blaze a trail of blood' in the Chinese telecoms giant's battle for supremacy. Ren Zhengfei ordered staff at Huawei's research and development centre in Hangzhou, eastern China, to learn from Google's unrelenting march. 'Surge forward, killing as you go, to blaze us a trail of blood,' he said a month after the arrest of his daughter in Canada in 2018, according to a transcript seen by The Wall Street Journal.

By the way, the transcript was not just "seen by the Wall Street Journal". It's been online from the beginning. Nobody at Huawei apparently realized that English speakers would be disturbed by a literal translation of a common Chinese idiom. Just to sum up: a Chinese CEO uses a common Chinese idiom, the WSJ translates it too literally into English, and The Times then picks it up and presents it as a blood-curdling declaration of war on the West. Neither the WSJ nor The Times has issued a correction. This is the sort of gross misrepresentation that we deprecate sources for. If we get rid of all Chinese sources, we'll be solely relying on sources like WSJ and The Times to report on China, and that's a bad idea. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• *Oppose Deprecation and as usual CONTEXT matters. I see no compelling argument and dislike casually dismissing sources entirely. This seems a major WEIGHT source, widely used outside and in WP articles, so it would be difficult to exclude anyway. With what seems solid editorial control and generally factual content, I don’t see any reason to exclude. Context should always be considered for RS, and even in suspect cases such are potentially useable as a WP:BIASED source, just like material from advocacy groups can be used. It’s not grounds for entire deprecation. Would one use Washington Post for Amazon content ? Probably just seek another source — but that doesn’t exclude WaPo from all articles. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose deprecation per Chetsford and Thucydides411. We cannot discount the biasness of the various so-called English-language WP:RS when they describe or criticize Chinese media in the first place. NoNews! 11:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose deprecation per Thucydides411 and WP:GLOBAL. NightHeron (talk) 11:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2: They have been shown to fabricate information (see previous comments and the discussion below), so we should definitely indicate that. Also, clearly state that it is affiliated with a ruling political party, which needs to be taken into account. TucanHolmes (talk) 15:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose deprecation, support Option 2. This source is widely used both onwiki and offwiki, and fills an important niche (see Thucydides411's comment above, and WP:GLOBAL). However, given its status as party-controlled media, it should probably be treated as a WP:SELFSOURCE for content that directly discusses (for example, and off the top of my head) the CCP, geopolitics, or international relations. warmly, ezlev. talk 18:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose deprecation - A blanket deprecation would not be fair. STSC (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

*Comment It absolutely astounds me that so many editors feel they can trust a "news" outlet that is directly owned and run by the Publicity Department of the Chinese Communist Party, commonly called the Propaganda Department. The idea that such an entity has the required editorial independence, fact-checking history, or reputation for accuracy required for WP:NEWSORG is absolutely laughable. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option 4 I'm finding it hard to see why we should treat this differently from China Global Television Network. One combats systemic bias by incorporating good information, not by relying upon propaganda. XOR'easter (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose deprecation unless someone can come up with actual examples of them being cited for garbage claims. Propaganda is, well, fairly ubiquitous in the year 2021. Being operated by a government with a history of execrable acts doesn't seem like a cogent prima facie reason for deprecation: how many articles cite Voice of America? Heck, how many articles cite the BBC? Obviously, it doesn't make sense to cite them for "Communism kicks ass[1]", or "the Xinjiang re-education camps are awesome[6]". However, we also don't cite "Capitalism kicks ass[1]" to the United States government. Propaganda does not mean "every statement made by the organization is the opposite of true"; (RSP entry), for example, is listed in RSP as being "generally reliable for factual reporting". We can use our brains to determine if individual pieces of reporting are trash. jp×g 20:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Attempting to compare an owned-and-operated arm of the Chinese government's Propaganda Department to the BBC is so ridiculous, WP:FALSEBALANCE isn't even strong enough to describe it. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Comparing and equating are different things. Jimmy Page and Jimmy Hoffa are different in many respects (one is a British guitarist and one was an American labor activist); a proposal to move the latter's article to "James Hoffa", however, would likely (and validly) result in the comparison being drawn. Pointing out that Jimmy Hoffa didn't know how to play the guitar, in this case, would be beside the point.

By the same token, the mere fact of a press outlet being operated by a government does not prima facie make a case for deprecation, even when the government is quite brutal: Commentarii de Bello Gallico, a long piece of brazen political propaganda written by the Emperor of Rome, detailing a litany of what would now be considered war crimes (he slaughtered thousands of innocent civilians after capturing Avaricum), is to this day the main account from which we know the deeds of Vercingetorix. jp×g 02:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Just FYI Commentarii de Bello Gallico is generally believed to have been written and published before Julius Caesar became Dictator. Also Julius Caesar was never Emperor of Rome, the first Emperor was Augustus. Accuracy matters, which is why given China Daily’s history of publishing disinformation we should deprecate them. We don’t consider media outlets which purposefully publish false information to be reliable regardless of whether or not they’re operated by a government. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, technically technically speaking both Julius Caesar and his adoptive son were both imperator in succession, Augustus was the first augustus (hence the name), neither was a monarch, the word "emperor" is an anachronism, and the Roman state remained a republic for a further fifteen centuries. GPinkerton (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

We aren’t talking about imperator (a concept which spans both time periods), we’re talking about the Roman emperor who was the ruler of the Roman Empire which wasn’t founded until 27 BC after the death of Julius Caesar. You are mistaken, the Roman Republic ended in 27 BC although the Empire would maintain the political trappings of the republic. If you would like to radically alter how wikipedia approaches Roman history be my guest, might I suggest starting with the opening sentence of Augustus? "Caesar Augustus (23 September 63 BC – 19 August AD 14) was the first Roman emperor, reigning from 27 BC until his death in AD 14.” seems to be clear enough. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, Wikipedia is not the place for such nuance, anchored as it is in the morass of popular historiographical tradition. Nothing changed in the Roman state's constitution in 27 BC; the heads of state remained the consuls, and Octavian was awarded the title of augustus. The Roman republic was referred to as such, including by the emperors themselves, well into the 15th century. "Emperor", as I have said, is just an anachronistic convention, as is "reign", at least for emperors like Augustus. The emperor Julian counted his distant relative Julius Caesar as an emperor, although he also listed Alexander the Great ... Nevertheless, Wikipedia bows to convention. GPinkerton (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you seriously using a discussion about the reliability of China Daily as a venue to push pet theories about the continuity of political structures within the Roman state which aren’t supported by modern historians? Please review WP:FORUM. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, I can tell already I know more about what modern historians support on this subject than you do. GPinkerton (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option 3 or 4 While I'm not very familiar with China Daily specifically, I am familiar with the general issues with any mainland PRC-based news media. In short, the PRC does not have press freedom or press independence, so comparisons to Western state-owned outlets like the BBC are specious. There are situations where the political/propaganda needs of the Chinese government will cause false or misleading stories to be run. For instance this [48] China Daily story falsely claims that "people's freedom of religious belief in Xinjiang is fully protected" (which is hard to believe with the reporting on Xinjiang re-education camps) and makes claims denying mosque destruction that are directly contradicted by this [49] more convincingly sourced New York Times report. Other examples should not be hard to find by searching for material on other sensitive issues, such as Xinjiang, Tibet Taiwan, or Hong Kong. At a minimum China Daily's WP:RSP entry should have the same kind of warnings attached to it as Xinhua:

“ Xinhua News Agency is the official state-run press agency of the People's Republic of China. There is consensus that Xinhua is generally reliable for factual reporting except in areas where the government of China may have a reason to use it for propaganda or disinformation. Xinhua is also generally reliable for the views and positions of the Chinese government and its officials. For subjects where the Chinese government may be a stakeholder, the consensus is almost unanimous that Xinhua cannot be trusted to cover them accurately and dispassionately; some editors favour outright deprecation because of its lack of editorial independence. There is no consensus for applying any one single label to the whole of the agency. Caution should be exercised in using this source, extremely so in case of extraordinary claims on controversial subjects or biographies of living people. When in doubt, try to find better sources instead; use inline attribution if you must use Xinhua. ”

- GretLomborg (talk) 07:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option 3 or 4 for any content related to Chinese politics or any issue where the party control creates a conflict of interest, enough examples of lying have been presented to prove that. It is not possible to achieve NPOV by "balancing" state disinformation with independent journalism or scholarship. (t · c) buidhe 21:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4. China Daily is to the Publicity Department of the Chinese Communist Party what Ibis is to Accor, or what Hampton Inn brand is to the Hilton Hotels & Resorts, or what Candlewood Suites are to InterContinental Hotels Group. It's their budget brand for the international market. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 04:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4. As many editors have stated before, the paper is censored when it deals with Chinese politics, and there have been plenty of examples of claim fabrication listed above to support that. This should be treated the same as Xinhua News Agency, as it cannot be trusted to cover subjects where the Chinese government may be a stakeholder both accurately and dispassionately. Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4. It is indeed unreliable for identifying anything as a fact. This does not mean it is always wrong. My very best wishes (talk) 02:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 (mundane articles) / Option 3 (controversial, nationalistic, etc. articles) The paper is owned by the Chinese government that is the most important thing to remember when using this source. The Chinese government has no problem making up facts to fit its desired narrative. Therefore, it is unreliable for anything controversial such as internal or external dissent, nationalism, etc. However the newspaper does have mundane content (e.g. culture, sports, technology, travel, etc articles), which is useful for covering this country of 1.4 billion people, for which there are only a limited number of English-language sources. --Guest2625 (talk) 07:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I feel like a broken record at this point but China Daily is owned by a political party within China not the Chinese state. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose deprecation per Chetsford. Couldn't word it better myself. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 02:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 - Deprecate. Admittedly, I've only stumbled upon a few articles but that was enough to know the political bias and/or nationalist bias of the paper. User:Normchou detailed "why" the best. I don't think these kind of very political sources should have any place in the Wikipedia.Magnus Dominus (talk) 14:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)— Magnus Dominus (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Lordpermaximum (talk • contribs).
• Option 2 The trend towards deprecating Chinese media sources makes it hard to source mundane topics that are not picked up by international news. I think it is generally understood by editors that they have some biases towards political topics, and we should assume that editors will be cautious when using these sources for such topics. We have processes to handle editors who are abusing sources to push a certain view. If consensus does move towards deprecation, I suggest that the deprecations be scoped to only non-mundane political issues (an article talking about the new mayor of Shenzhen would be OK, but an article talking about Hong Kong protests would be not) Jumpytoo Talk 06:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4- Its owned by the Chinese Communist Party, one of the world leaders in propaganda and misinformation.--Rusf10 (talk) 06:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 based on the evidence presented. Being owned by a political party of a country that is not majority white is not a reason to deprecate, nor is using the unreliable MBFC. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

  Why do people always have to bring race into a discussion that has nothing to do with race? It's a shameful tactic. My opposition to this souce is not that its owned by Chinese people, but it is owned by the Chinese Communist Party. I thought pointing out this simple fact would be enough, but I guess some people like you don't know anything about the CCP. Read this BBC story about how the CCP uses China Daily to produce propganda videos for them. Here's the video, according to them the BBC is "fake news". Here's another article from the New York Times. Educate yourself.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I do know about the CCP. Evidence of them exerting their influence on China Daily to promote "fake news" is need to propose deprecation, not merely establishing connection via ownership. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I think you’re mistaken, its China Daily which says the BBC is Fake News not the other way around per the linked report "BBC in Xinjiang: Facts Don't Matter | China Daily visual investigation” Thats pretty clearly pushing disinformation, its irrelevant whether or not the CCP told them to do so. If they had completely independent ownership they would still be deprecatable, the lack of editorial independence is the cherry on top not the sunday. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Let me provide a transcript of the first 30 seconds of that hard hitting piece of investigative journalism: Reporter 1 “Fake News. The BBC is twisting the facts.” Reporter 2 “What? Did you say BBC is making things up?” Reporter 1 “Yeah, check out this video report on Xinjiang. They obviously didn’t do a complete investigation. I guess the media forums are correct: BBC stands for biased broadcasting corporation. They only report on China where they can make up some controversy especially when it comes to Xinjiang” Still standing by that Option 1?Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 - Agreed with the other editors, being government-owned is not grounds for deprecation. China Daily does factual reporting, and it's entirely relevant for it to report on Chinese government positions. As a rule, sources can be biased, but that does not make them unreliable. LittleCuteSuit (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 for every kind of reporting except "politics and controversial events", Option 3 for "politics and controversial events" In some events, the source is known with its fact-checking, however, remembering that it's currently under the control of CCP is important.Ahmetlii (talk) 12:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

  I'd ask you to reconsider. The fact it is under control of the CCP cancels out any claim of fact-checking because the facts are whatever the CCP says they are.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@Rusf10: As far as I see, not always. Yes, there's a censoring~and misrepresentation of information by CCP on some news, however, it's impossible to say "It always generates fabrication for all types of news" for all ordinary news (as opposed to Daily Mail).Ahmetlii (talk) 12:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2 (for non political news about China), Option 3 (for news about other nations, political news about China) - China daily is essentially state media. For political articles, we can assume there would be a bias towards the Chinese Communist Part's POV which owns it. I would oppose using it for citing any political/non-China related fact in Wikipedia voice. Any citation must explicitly note that it is the view of the Chinese communist party. However, China Daily is generally useful for citing non-controversial facts about China such as geography, transport and administration, so I won't go so far as to deprecate it.--DreamLinker (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (China Daily)

I just want to highlight some content from China Daily:

Anti-government fanatics are planning massive terror attacks, including blowing up gas pipes, in Hong Kong on September 11.[50][51]

[52]

A protester fires a US-made M320 grenade launcher at an illegal assembly in Tsim Sha Tsui amid escalating violence in Hong Kong on Sunday night. [53][54]

In both cases, we have outrageous lies pushed by China Daily. There are more at China Daily. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

These are both Facebook posts, not articles published in the China Daily. I don't think we consider any newspaper's social media accounts to be reliable sources. At least, I've never seen someone try to cite the NY Times' Twitter account on Wikipedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

And just today, we have this:

Eradication of extremism has given Xinjiang women more autonomy, says report.[55]

Missing in China Daily's discussion of the "autonomy" of Uighur women is any mention of the Xinjiang re-education camps. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)7

The last of these articles gained notoriety in the past day after an excerpt from the article was shared on Twitter by the Chinese Embassy in the United States. The excerpt is reproduced below:

Chinese Embassy in US

@ChineseEmbinUS

Study shows that in the process of eradicating extremism, the minds of Uygur women in Xinjiang were emancipated and gender equality and reproductive health were promoted, making them no longer baby-making machines. They are more confident and independent.

Eradication of extremism has given Xinjiang women more autonomy, says report

January 7, 2021

References

This tweet (and accompanying China Daily article) appears to be a defense of certain elements of the Uyghur genocide, and has received coverage in Ars Technica (RSP entry) and an opinion piece in the Washington Examiner (RSP entry). — Newslinger talk 06:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC) Added archive link. — Newslinger talk 11:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

As morally unacceptable as that is, "moral unacceptability" is not part of WP:RS, so I think we should judge based on factual accuracy. (t · c) buidhe 13:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, let's look at factual accuracy. From the China Daily article:

The research center's report said safe, effective and appropriate contraceptive measures are now available to couples of childbearing age in Xinjiang, and their personal decisions on whether to use those measures — which include tubal ligation and the insertion of intrauterine devices — are fully respected.

Contrast this with reports from actual WP:RS of forced sterilization of Uyghur women [56][57]. Is forcing sterilization on someone consistent with respecting their decision on whether or not to use contraception? And the nail in the coffin -- one might argue that China Daily was simply reporting what the "research center" said and was therefore accurate. But in that case, shouldn't they have characterized both the "report" and the "research center" differently? Because neither "research" nor "report" are accurate characterizations of the document in question, are they? Adoring nanny (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Just focussing on factual accuracy almost all of it is false. This is not a study that an independent source or one with basic fact checking abilities would have used. Its almost laughable, lets for instance contrast this statement with the well known second class political status of women in modern China "In the process of eradicating extremism, the minds of Uygur women were emancipated and gender equality and reproductive health were promoted, making them no long baby-making machines, it said. Women have since been striving to become healthy, confident and independent.” The CCP doesn't promote female emancipation and gender equality even for Han women... Are we really expected to believe they do it for the women of a minority which by all reports they are repressing? I’ve certainly never seen a WP:RS give these sort of bullshit propaganda reports the time of day. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I think this conversation should stick to source analysis, but just as a matter of historical interest, one of the major societal reforms that the Communist Party tried to carry out after coming to power in 1949 was to change the status of women in society (e.g., legalizing divorce, trying to stop forced/arranged marriages). The New Marriage Law was one of the first laws the PRC passed, and it was accompanied by massive propaganda campaigns to get people to accept it. The status of women, more generally, was one of the major issues of contention between the Communists and Nationalists (the latter taking a much more traditional view of women's roles in society). That is to say, while you say it's ridiculous to think that the CPC would ever promote female emancipation, it wouldn't actually be out of line with their history or ideology. This isn't a comment on the specific report that China Daily reported on - I haven't looked into it carefully. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be missing that post-Mao the status of women within the Party and in society in general plummeted, today there are no significant female party leaders and both within and outside the party women have second class status. If you want a better understanding of the modern history may I suggest Judd’s The Chinese Women's Movement? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, there you have it: government-run press outlets aren't particularly reliable on the subject of whether the government in question is perpretrating something horrific. Everyone knows that. We shouldn't be using those statements to reference statements about that issue. This would be true for any source in any country. For example, the 2021 election in Chad is almost certainly going to be rigged; the article manages to cite statements from the current president about what he said, while also citing statements from RS about whether it's true. What's this got to do with wholesale deprecation? jp×g 20:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Update: According to The Guardian (RSP entry), Twitter took down this tweet, having concluded that it breaks its rules. The Guardian highlights the discrepancies between the claims in the China Daily article and the results of the investigation by the Associated Press (RSP entry). Additionally, The Guardian confirms that the Xinjiang Development Research Center study is "unpublished", which makes China Daily the original published source of the claims. — Newslinger talk 11:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

China Daily attributes the claims to the report. Unless you're claiming that China Daily fabricated the existence of this report, what is the RS problem here? Are we going to deprecate newspapers that describe the contents of Chinese government reports that editors find objectionable? -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that they described it as a "research report", and not as "propaganda" or the like. When one invents lies and publishes them, that's not research. For an example of an appropriate way to cover nonsensical claims, see The Atlantic here.[58]. At no point do they ever refer to any of the nonsensical claims they cover as "research".Adoring nanny (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

China Daily is reporting the claims of a report written by a governmental group. China Daily repeatedly attributes those claims to the report, just as it should do. You're saying that China Daily is not reliable because it does not inject the types of editorial comments you would like it to make. Of course China Daily is going to write about reports created by the Chinese government, but as long as it properly attributes the claims, it's usable. On the other hand, a lot of the claims being made about Xinjiang come from the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, which was created by the US government, and which could just as easily be viewed as a propaganda organization. That doesn't mean that the claims are wrong, but this connection is rarely explained in news articles (including by the AP) about Xinjiang that rely on claims that come from this organization. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the point you’re missing is that a WP:RS would never have taken that report at face value as China Daily does, the claims made in it are absurd (as are most claims China makes about human rights issues within China, remember that according to themselves the Chinese government respects human rights more than literally any other government on earth). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you arguing here that China Daily's article is inaccurate? All I can see is that you're arguing that they do not make an editorial comment that you would like them to make. If one were to note (with attribution, of course) the views of the Chinese government on this issue, then this China Daily article would be a good source, because it explains what the Chinese government report states. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the word "research" is inaccurate. The phrase "study shows" is also false. And phrases like these frame the reader's understanding of the entire piece. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The China Daily article does not use the phrase, "study shows". The article also describes the "research report" written by Adrian Zenz of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation (established by the US government). The China Daily article doesn't say that Zenz' claims are wrong, and it doesn't say that the Chinese government's claims are wrong. You're essentially demanding that the article take an editorial stand, but if we want a source that simply describes the claims made by the Chinese government report, I don't see why that's necessary. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The phrase "Study shows" is from the tweet describing the article, not from the article itself. But the underlying problem here is that the article frames the report as "research", which it is not. If we were to allow it as WP:RS, a user might reasonably paraphrase it to say "research shows that Uighur women's decisions about contraception are respected", which is obviously nonsense. Additionally, as User:Newslinger pointed out, the document they describe as the "research center's report" itself is unpublished. So China Daily is effectively the original publisher of this "information". Under the standard you are proposing, anybody could type up a document, call themselves a "research center", and then any source could decribe the document as a "research center's report", regardless of its contents. For example, "research institute says that the Theory of Evolution has been refuted."[59]. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The tweet comes from the Chinese Embassy in the US, not from China Daily, and we're not discussing whether tweets are reliable sources, anyways (we typically wouldn't cite tweets from any news outlet). There is an actual report by a Chinese government agency. China Daily has seen the report and is reporting on its contents. Other news outlets have also reported on the contents of the report, and even interviewed the author. a user might reasonably paraphrase it to say "research shows [...]". That would be user error. A better paraphrase would be, "A report written by a Chinese government agency stated, ...". Note the attribution, which makes it clear to readers that we are reporting the views of a third party. Inclusion would be subject to the usual considerations of weight, NPOV, etc. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Firestar464: Could you please revise the RfC statement (the text between the {{rfc}} tag and the first timestamp) to meet WP:RFCBRIEF, which requires the RfC statement to be "neutral and brief"? Specifically, "Media Bias Fact Check classifies it ... 'state propaganda.'" cannot be in the RfC statement since it advocates for a position, but you can move it into either the survey or discussion section. The link to MBFC's rating of China Daily should also be moved or removed from the RfC statement. — Newslinger talk 21:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Firestar464 (talk) 11:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment regarding the above: Xinjiang and Tibet (along with HK, Taiwan, the South China Sea) are two controversial areas that we should probably refrain from using Chinese state media in, but for most non-controversial mainland news, it should be WP:RS. Félix An (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The problem with that is that we can't know in advance what they are going to start lying about. In general, a rule like this would require readers to keep up with a lengthy and continually changing list of areas of concern. For example, prior to December, 2019, there was no reason to suspect their information about coronaviruses. See also Censorship in China. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

This seems that out of thousands of articles in hundreds of topic areas there are some CCP-sensitive pieces of concern or POV differences. But this is not showing an issue re RS attributes with all content, most content, or even a common occurrence. Got any problem with their topics today of Covid, or Plastics, or Smartphones ? Or is it just China political content ? If there was bad info on in 2019, is that not the same info all papers had at the time and a matter outside them? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The Chinese government and their media entities spreading covid related disinformation has actually been an acute problem, are you unaware of this? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Stop it with the unfounded Association fallacy accusation. We are specifically talking about the China Daily here, show evidence directly about the China Daily. NoNews! 02:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

We aren't talking about separated entities here, such as the Washington Post being owned by the same person that owns Amazon. We're talking about multiple arms of the same cephalopod; China Daily is directly owned and run by the Publicity Department of the Chinese Communist Party, commonly called the Propaganda Department. IHateAccounts (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, and it was a wrong use of the term association fallacy. This is not about "ownership" in its usual sense of being a shareholder (which is essentially the residual claimant), but about the direct command and control from the Chinese Communist Party and the lack of editorial independence by design for all Chinese state media. Normchou ^💬 02:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

On a separate note, there are a lot of editors writing "oppose deprecation," though not everyone is actually saying what option they are in favor of. Options 1, 2, and 3 each do not involve deprecation, so I am not sure where consensus currently is pointing. It looks like the majority of editors have concerns regarding the paper's ability to cover China, so is this something we wind up breaking into multiple categories (such as we do for FOX News and Huffington Post)? Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I suppose Option 2 is a good summary – many editors have raised concerns about political topics, but many have pointed out that China Daily is generally reliable for ordinary news. If we wanted to go the "Fox News" route, maybe Option 1 for most news about China, Option 3 for internationally controversial political issues. As User:Jumpytoo pointed out above, China Daily is generally reliable for mundane (uncontroversial) political news. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Most of out currently deprecated sources, for instance RT, would be generally reliable for mundane (uncontroversial) political news. That isn't the standard we use, the whole MO of a modern state media source with a penchant for disinformation is to have the disinformation make up only a small fraction of your reporting. Thats why we focus on the small amount of reporting (normally 1-5%) which is problematic and not the 95-99% that isn't. The other big flaw in that argument is that without inside access to the CCP we don’t know what they consider to be controversial or political which renders it at best an entirely unachievable standard. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

RfC - Screen Rant

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.

---

Is Screen Rant a reliable source, a marginally reliable source, an unreliable source, or should it be deprecated? Lazman321 (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Pick an option below and explain your reasons why:

• Option 1 - Screen Rant is a reliable source.
• Option 2 - Screen Rant is a marginally reliable source, or should only be used under circumstances.
• Option 3 - Screen Rant is an unreliable source.
• Option 4 - Screen Rant needs to be deprecated.

Responses (Screen Rant)

• Option 1 Screen Rant is owned by the same company which owns Comic Book Resources (otherwise known as CBR). I'd also like to echo the discussions of previous editors when they weighed in on this subject a few years ago, with JOEBRO64 calling it reliable as "a sister site of Comic Book Resources (considered one of the most trustworthy comic news sites in the industry) and they share staff. The staff is paid and experienced, and it's got good editorial oversight. It's also been cited by The New York Times, HuffPost, Cnet, CBS, Fox, ABC, NPR, The Hollywood Reporter, and other RSs, and it's used a lot on comic/film-related GAs. I've never had a problem with using it before" and Flyer22 Reborn calling it "a reliable source for film material and some other material." While they do publish trivia, as some have pointed out, Poitrus pointed out, late last year that Screen Rant seems to be "usually reliable." I would be shocked if there is anyone who believes that Screen Rant is not reliable, marginally reliable, or should be depreciated. They call themselves the "most-visited independently owned movie/TV news site in the US." Also see:

• Christian Science Monitor: "Screen Rant had a humble start back in 2003 as a place to rant about some of the dumber stuff related to the movie industry. Since then, the site has grown to cover more and more TV and movie news (and not just the dumb stuff) along with sometimes controversial movie reviews. The goal at Screen Rant is to cover stories and review movies from a middle ground/average person perspective."- https://www.csmonitor.com/About/People/Culture-Partner-Bloggers/Screen-Rant
• Variety: "This year, three widely read blogs — Collider, Screen Rant and Latino Review — sold to deep-pocketed buyers"- https://variety.com/2015/biz/news/film-blogs-collider-screen-rant-latino-review-1201525341/

Beyond this, they have policies for fact-checking, corrections, and ethics, among others. Perhaps some of the stuff they publish is trash, but that is true of any website like theirs. Removing Screen Rant would put a LOT of Wikipedia pages in peril, impugning their ability to have reliable sources, making Wikipedia for the worse for all of us. Historyday01 (talk) 05:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 for coverage of pop culture and entertainment. I agree fully with Historyday01's argument. In addition to this editor’s points, Screen Rant requires an application to write for them; the application requires applicants to show that they have “expert knowledge.” In other words, the website is not a content farm. Additionally, their editors have some very impressive credentials. I will note that Screen Rant routinely gives in-depth coverage to niche and trivial topics. Editors should follow requirements such as Due Weight, What Wikipedia Is Not, and GNG's multiple source requirement when relying on Screen Rant, but this is true of all sources. Basically, I don't think we should dismiss a reliable source because its focus is considered niche or low-brow.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 07:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC) (edited 1/11/2021 at 12:33 AM).

There's been a influx of 2 votes arguing that Screen Rant is only marginally reliable, and I'm legitimately confused as to why given its extensive editorial policies and positive reception by other, unquestionably reliable, sources. I've seen few arguments beyond mere assertions of unreliability and do not understand how this conclusion has been reached. Clearly, Screen Rant is a niche source to which Due Weight applies. However, this is a content issue of what information ought to be used, not a reliability issue of if the information can be used at all. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option1 seem to have good editorial standards and are cited by outlets such as The New York Times, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 is probably the best fit. It's highly questionable for any BLP info, or determination of encyclopedic value and due weight. Trivia and entertainment of this type is of questionable value in general for encyclopedia articles. --Hipal (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I see what Hipal is saying, but I would have to agree with others like Atlantic306 and Spirit of Eagle in their assessment of Screen Rant. Historyday01 (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable starting when? It's been around since 2003 "as a place for fans to speak openly about the movies they love", was acquired by Valnet in 2015 , and its editorial polices are only as of late 2019.[60][61] The low quality of its articles were discussed by WPVG in 2017 and early 2019. They apparently still offer a contributor program. I haven't looked into its quality since before those policies were added, but at the very least, it would not be appropriate to extend a blanket reliability verdict back to its founding. Separately, I'm not sure why sharing a parent company with CBR is seen as an extension of CBR's own editorial policy (especially when they only acquired CBR in 2016, a year after acquiring Screen Rant). Valnet owns a lot of properties and their stated focus is on entertainment and clicks, not quality of journalism. Unless they share an editorial staff or procedure, there's nothing automatic/universal about reputation for accuracy that extends from the parent org. czar 00:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Valnet’s website states that their goal is to “keep our readers informed and entertained…[w]ith reliable and trustworthy news stories.” While the language about entertained should raise some eyebrows, they state they desire to be reliable and trustworthy (a purported desire backed up by Screen Rant’s strong editorial policies). As for past debates, there were multiple editors vouching for Screen Rant’s reliability. I do not think either discussion had a clear-cut consensus. Regarding reliability over time, I largely agree with you. This is a website that went from a guy blogging his opinion to a reasonably respected media source. They’ve had editors for many years before the Valnet purchase [62] and reference editorial practices in a 2018 archive [63]. Personally, I think post-October 2019 articles should be counted as reliable while earlier post-Valnet purchase articles should be counted as probably reliable but use caution. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I think Spirit of Eagle has a valid point here and would disagree with Czar but would add that like what Armadillopteryx says, I've never encountered any errors or sloppy reporting from them when citing them in the past and often use them in articles, along with other related ones like CBR. I would say that CBR and Screen Rant are both, equally, valid sources to use. Historyday01 (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1. Exercises editorial oversight and has a reputation for fact-checking. I run into this source reasonably often and have not encountered any errors or sloppy reporting. Armadillopteryx 01:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1; well-established and decent WP:USEBYOTHERS per the above. While higher-quality sources exist and should be used when available, I'm not seeing any reason to be skeptical of it - the fact that it primarily covers a niche area is not itself a reason to doubt its accuracy, and in some cases may mean it is the best source available. This does mean that it should sometimes be approached with caution when considering whether stuff only covered in it WP:DUE. --Aquillion (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 per Czar, i.e. additional considerations apply. feminist (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 Per Hipal. Use caution when using this as a source when sourcing really matters. Otherwise, sure. If someone has a problem with this source in a specific instance, dont dig your heels in. Bonewah (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2—I don't know if I'd call it "marginally reliable", but I think it's one of those sources where, if the content exists somewhere else or the claim is exceptional, it really should be replaced with a stronger one. WPVG has a category of "situational sources" which I think is the category I'd throw them into. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 per Czar. It should not be used contentious/contraversial claims or any claims relating to WP:BLPs but perhaps can be used for less contentious statements of fact (though if more reliable sources like IGN cover the less contentious claim it should be used instead). Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 (yellow at RSP) per Czar and Hipal. They put it very well and I have nothing to add. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1. Source has good WP:USEBYOTHERS coverage and I have no concerns with its current editorial standards. To address concerns regarding the historical reliability of the source at hand, I suggest utilising the clause found in the RSP entry of the Apple Daily (RSP entry) (specifically "There is concern that historically, it was not necessarily as reliable as it is today."), but otherwise the source as it currently is fits into the "generally reliable" section, with the relevant caveat of WP:DUE per its focus on niche topics. JaventheAldericky (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 per Historyday01. This is a solid source on entertainment. Obviously, we should observe the same healthy skepticism towards it that we would for any sort of source, but there's no reason to think its reporting is worse than any other average reliable source used on Wikipedia. Krow750 (talk) 02:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 - Unreliable. I'm here because I raised a reliability question for MakeUseOf, which is another Valnet-connected website,[64] and Screen Rant caught my eye on this page. What is "HotCars Sites" in ScreenRant Terms? I am unimpressed by "Infotainment" label in the Infobox for Screen Rant, the journalistic (porn) background of Valnet operators Stephane Manos and Ouissam Youssef.[65], the "sources may not be reliable" tag on Screen Rant article, the fact that 2 of 5 articles I semi-randomly clicked[66][67] were sourced to other sites, with "Source: Other site link". TL;DR: Add infested clickbait, run by people who got their journalistic start as porn site operators. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Responding to @Yae4:'s queries:

• "What is "HotCars Sites" in ScreenRant Terms? That refers to HotCars.com, which is also owned by Valnet (link is here) and which also has a similar webpage design.
• "I am unimpressed by "Infotainment" label in the Infobox" Uhm, that would be the work of a Wikipedia editor who decided that Screen Rant should be labelled as infotainment there. Screen Rant does not describe itself as producing infotainment.
• "the journalistic (porn) background of Valnet operators Stephane Manos and Ouissam Youssef" Unfortunately, I fail to see the logic/reasoning in how the background of Valnet affects the reliability of Screen Rant. I note that (as per Historyday01) many reliable sources (The New York Times, HuffPost, CNET et al.) cite Screen Rant in their own articles.
• "the "sources may not be reliable" tag on Screen Rant article" That notice is for Screen Rant's Wikipedia article page, not Screen Rant's website itself.
• "the fact that 2 of 5 articles I semi-randomly clicked were sourced to other sites" That is a common practice among news organisations: to reproduce and report an article made by another news organisation. It does not mean that Screen Rant is unreliable for reproducing articles made by other sources.

Hope this helps. JaventheAldericky (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@JaventheAlderick: Hotcars: They operate so many similar sites they just copy the terms, and the patterns of ad-infested clickbait. Infotainment fits succinctly, IMO as well as or better than “keep our readers informed and entertained…[w]ith 'reliable and trustworthy news' stories." Re Porn: "Stuff" flows downhill from owners to management to writers. HuffPo isn't a stellar example.[68] Unreliable tag: IMO It's an indicator of an article that is difficult to improve, or someone would have already done it easily, which reflects poorly on the subject. Copying articles: Does the NY Times copy articles from Screen Rant? -- Yae4 (talk) 02:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Yae4::

• Re Porn: "Stuff" flows downhill from owners to management to writers Could you elaborate on what do you mean by "Stuff"? It doesn't suggest anything with regards to the reliability of Screen Rant.
• HuffPo isn't a stellar example Per HuffPost's RSP entry (RSP entry), HuffPost is reliable for non-political topics, and entertainment is (mostly) non-political.
• Copying articles: Does the NY Times copy articles from Screen Rant? No, what I meant was that other sources (such as NY Times) cite Screen Rant in their own reporting. It is common practice for newspapers to cite the sources that they are using, but do not own (for example, NY Times cites Screen Rant for information reported by Screen Rant). The NY Times cites information from external sources (i.e Screen Rant) if they think that the external source they are using meets their editorial standards to warrant inclusion into their articles, otherwise they wouldn't include it into their articles in the first place. JaventheAldericky (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option 3 - Unreliable. Screen Rant has been caught posting false information before. It is yet another fan outlet with an overall reliance on excessive clickbait topics and articles with extremely poor quality in writing from their staff. WhoKnew99 (talk) 05:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

WhoKnew99, do you have any links to either Screen Rant articles you consider to contain false information or to secondary sources lambasting Screen Rant for posting false information? This is a pretty serious claim you are making. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Link to Screen Rant stealing content WhoKnew99 (talk) 07:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Screen Rant falsely presenting Kevin Smith quote WhoKnew99 (talk) 07:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Spirit of Eagle: Hope these links help. WhoKnew99 (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not particularly concerned with the Kevin Smith quote issue since the article title seemed like a fairly reasonable summary of the Smith interview (even if Smith later disagreed with that summary). However, the Wicked Good Gaming article (archive link) is pretty concerning since it shows proof of a rather serious breach of journalistic ethics. Even ignoring the ethics issue, if this is common then it calls into question both the provenance of Screen Rant text and quite possible whether it is as fact checked as the website alleges. I'd like to personally look into this a bit more (see if this is a common trend, whether this was just the result of many media sources leaping on the same scrap of news, seeing if they redressed the issue, etc). But to be clear, this is very serious. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: In this Vulture article, Screen Rant are thanked at the bottom of the article alongside various other reliable publications,

indicating we should consider it reliable as they have done. As such my vote would be Option 1. Sean Stephens (talk) 03:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2 or Option 3 I think Screen Rant have been highly unreliable so far, but I stubmled upon a few articles before where they did proper research and source checking for their information. I'm undecided between option 2 and 3 as of now but I guess I'm leaning towards option 2.Magnus Dominus (talk) 14:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (Screen Rant)

The poster is supposed to give their own opinion on the matter, preferably with some evidence, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Atlantic306: Not required as per WP:RFC. Lazman321 (talk) 14:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Lazman321, I haven't found this requirement as of yet, but if it is there, it still says "all editors (including IP users) are welcome to respond to any RfC." In any case, hearing your opinion on the matter would make sense, as this RFC seems strange considering past discussions which have mentioned Screen Rant. Historyday01 (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I simply said it was not required. The reason why I set this RfC up is that the previous discussions were inconclusive. In the last discussion, one editor thought Screen Rant was reliable, two thought it was reliable in certain circumstances, though the two disagreed on the circumstances, and one editor thought it was slightly questionable due to its clickbait headlines. My opinion on Screen Rant currently is that it is generally reliable, but to watch out for click bait articles. Lazman321 (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok. Well, I think we have a general agreement, from those who have contributed up to this point, that Screen Rant is "generally reliable." --Historyday01 (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Why is this under discussion? --Hipal (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Hipal, I have the same question. I don't even know why Lazman321 proposed this in the first place. It seems unnecessary as previous discussions have already established it is a reliable source. Hopefully this discussion will end soon. Historyday01 (talk) 14:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The reliability of Screen Rant has come up in several recent AfDs including SCP Secret Laboratory's nomination and the ongoing AfD on Dream (YouTuber). A lot of editors are unaware of past discussions, so I think having an additional discussion and getting Screen Rant listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources will be to the benefit of Wikipedia. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps. It does seem at this point that the consensus will be that Screen Rant is seen (and asserted) as a reliable source, from the comments I've seen up to this point. Historyday01 (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Are New York Magazine and Infection Control Today reliable sources for the idea that COVID-19 leaked from a Chinese lab?

Over the past couple of weeks there has been significant agitation by SPA's and some long time users over at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic talk pages that the idea the virus escaped from a Chinese lab is credible and should be treated as such, despite there being absolutely no evidence for this postulation. People have differed over whether the "lab leak theory" comes under WP:MEDRS or not. One of the major sources of the recent agitation is an article entitled "The Lab-Leak Hypothesis" in New York Magazine by Nicholson Baker from January 4th. I and several others on the talk page don't think it is a reliable source, as Nicholson Baker is a writer who his best known for his experimental novels and has no expertise in virology or medicine, and his inclusion would be undue. Arcturus has proclaimed on Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology that Infection Control Today is reliable source that the claims that SARS COV 2 leaked from a Chinese lab are credible, citing an article entitled Idea That COVID-19 Began as a Lab Leak Spreads, which reports favourably on the NYM story. Because Infection Control Today has been cited 33 times according to www.infectioncontroltoday.com   Arcturus stated:

If you search Wikipedia for "Infection Control Today" (using the quotes) you'll see that it is used in many articles as a source. So how is not a RS? It's certainly not included in the list of deprecated sources. Given the articles in which it's used, maybe it's also MEDRS.

I honestly don't know what to say other than this shows Arcturus has serious WP:CIR issues when it comes to our reliable sources policy. Aside from that "Infection Control Today" looks like a marginal source. It's owned by MJH Life Sciences, an obscure company which I can find little about, and all their other websites like Cancer Network look exactly the same, which doesn't inspire confidence. I can't find out anything about the author of the article and most others on the site "Frank Diamond" other than that he is the managing editor, and there is no evidence of editorial control. Their twitter account only has around 5,000 followers, suggesting that they are not a prominent source among medical professionals. Definitely not a WP:MEDRS, and probably not due for claims about the lab leak theory. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Neither is a reliable source for this topic. Claims about the fundamental plausibility of the "lab leak hypothesis" (rather generous phrasing) require WP:MEDRS-level sourcing because, well, they're biomedical claims. More peripheral statements, along the lines of "the conspiracy theory about a lab leak spread on social-media platform X" might in principle be sourced to the Washington Post and its ilk, but that's not what's in contention here. XOR'easter (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  So far, every page I've looked at that's cited "Infection Control Today" did so to point at a press release or the equivalent. I'd hazard a guess that the encyclopedia would benefit if each of those ~30 citations were overhauled. (It's also been cited in conjunction with bioRxiv, which is a preprint server and very definitely does not meet WP:MEDRS.) XOR'easter (talk) 02:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  In one form or another, we keep seeing the argument that the risks of scientific research and the topic of laboratory safety are not a part of science. This argument leaves me completely baffled. But the entire case for treating a non-expert's writing in a general-interest magazine as reliable rests upon it. XOR'easter (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

  In a way it's too bad that Twitter threads aren't the kind of sources we look for, even when from a bioethicist and a virologist, as they are ... colorful. But they do illustrate that the failure of the New York story involves adaptive mutation and how BSL-3/4 work is regulated and codon usage analysis done in silico, to name only a few points. When reliability turns on matters like these, the topic requires specialist knowledge, and the way we as a community that includes a lot of generalists handles that is by requiring the highest standard of sourcing possible. XOR'easter (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Neither for the reasons articulated by XOR. (t · c) buidhe 02:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• ICT is RS, almost certainly Why would it NOT be a RS? The suggestion that the lab leak theory should be supported by MEDRS is bunkum. One might equally argue that a forensic science source is required. I agree, it probably doesn't meet MEDRS, but as I say, it doesn't need to. If it doesn't meet RS, then I'm wondering if there's a hell of a lot of other sources used in medical articles that also don't. Here are some links, some or all, of which may help with an assessment: [69][70][71][72][73] Arcturus (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

According to my reading of WP:MEDRS, questions about the origins of COVID-19 do require medrs-sourcing, because specialized knowledge of epidemiology and medical science is required to determine the answers to those questions. NightHeron (talk) 14:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Just for some background, the debate on this page is only taking place because at the moment we have the subject of the possible Wuhan lab leak branded as "conspiracy" at the Wuhan Institute of Virology article. However, none of the references in the Conspiracy theories section of that article are WP:MEDRS compliant. Arcturus (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

So I started looking at those links - the first one was one of ICT's own press releases that had been reprinted by another website, and the second was in a marketing magazine, estimating the cost of advertising in ICT (although "this might be completely incorrect"). I stopped looking at this point; demonstrating the efficacy of sources requires more than simply copy-pasting every result from Google. So, anyway, Neither is also my comment, both for that and the reason articulated by XOR. Black Kite (talk) 14:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Provided only for background info. Nothing more, nothing less. I'm not trying to justify anything by linking to them. Just trying to be helpful, that's all. Arcturus (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

You raise the point, If it doesn't meet RS, then I'm wondering if there's a hell of a lot of other sources used in medical articles that also don't. Shockingly, not all Wikipedia pages are up to standard. Sometimes, bad sources slip through. An editor might see a "citation needed", Google it and paste in whatever site comes up. An editor might not be familiar enough with churnalism to tell recycled press releases apart from actual reporting. Conflict-of-interest edits can evade detection. That this happened thirty-odd times with the "Infection Control Today" website is regrettable, but unsurprising. XOR'easter (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• The NY Magazine article is written by novelist who is maybe best known for his erotic novels. It's unclear what expertise, if any, he has in virology. This is important, because the basic thesis of his article rests on detailed claims about virology (e.g., about the genetics of SARS-CoV-2 and related coronaviruses). But because the author has no expertise in the subject, he is not in a position to judge the plausibility of the ideas he's writing on. One of the virologists whom NY Magazine asked to verify some claims in the article, Vincent Racaniello, said (on his podcast, TWiV, episode 703) that he told NY Magazine that the article was "science fiction" and "nonsense", but that NY Magazine wasn't interested in his overall assessment of the article. They only wanted to know whether specific claims (e.g., did this person do this experiment in this year?) were correct. This article is a perfect example of why WP:MEDRS exists: the popular press often does a very poor job of reporting on biomedical topics. WP:MEDRS sources are written by people who have extensive scientific training, and are reviewed by relevant experts. Why on Earth did NY Magazine choose someone with no scientific background to write their cover story on the origins of SARS-CoV-2? The answer escapes me, but we shouldn't be turning to the popular press for what is, at its core, a scientific claim, when there are WP:MEDRS sources available. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Thucydides411, I will attempt to answer your question on why the New York Magazine published a piece from an outsider. As you may know, there are always concerted interests in scientific circles, where funding is concerned, which can affect the POV of one scientist or group of scientists in regards to a certain issue. One such issue is biotechnology risk, which a group of scientists lead by Marc Lipsitch have written a consensus statement on, opposing the creation of novel potential pandemic pathogens for medical research. In response to this group, Vincent Racaniello created an opposing group called "Scientists for Science", which advocates for a more liberal approach, which you can read about in this Science Article. I hope this gives you insight into the matter. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 23:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't follow at all. None of that explains why New York Magazine would choose to publish a story by someone not qualified to write one competently, nor does it make their decision justifiable or the result acceptable. XOR'easter (talk) 01:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The vast majority of journalists who write for publication aren't experts in the fields they write about. That doesn't disqualify them from writing, nor does it disqualify their their writings from being regarded as WP:RS.Park3r (talk) 07:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

But it does disqualify them from being regarded as WP:MEDRS. If the "lab leak hypothesis" is to be treated as a scientific hypothesis, then it needs scientific documentation. XOR'easter (talk) 07:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS doesn't apply here. I couldn't find any treatment advice in the New York article. Park3r (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS applies to all biomedical information, not just treatment advice. XOR'easter (talk) 08:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Park3r: Actually it kind of does for certain realms of knowledge. The business of journalism is to make interesting reading, and while you can find volumes of journalism considering, say, whether questions remain about who shot JFK, Wikipedia prefers to look to accepted academic scholarship for assertions on this topic. If a notion is at odds with accepted academic scholarship, Wikipedia must either omit it entirely or else contextualize it within that accepted context. This is core policy, and not negotiable. Alexbrn (talk) 07:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

^ This. The first duty of a news source is to be profitable, because if you go out of business, you can't report anything. They published this piece because people would read it, and not because it actually matters that a novelist personally felt like there was "something oddly artificial about the disease" last March and has now turned his unfounded gut feeling and his worries about the risks involved in doing virus research into a nice little story about how, although there's no actual evidence for it, the SARS-CoV-2 virus might have been present in one of those labs and might have been handled by one of the workers and might have infected that worker. (Also: has our novelist ever heard of measles before? SARS-CoV-2 is much less infective and much less deadly than other viruses.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• The origin is not biomedical information, so standard WP:RS applies, and New York Magazine is reliable per WP:RSP. The section Wikipedia:Biomedical information#What is not biomedical information? clearly states that history is not biomedical information. The origin of a disease is obviously history. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Tracking the vector/patient zero of a virus is very much biomedical information ("how a disease progresses"), so we should definitely be sticking to MEDRS here. --Masem (t) 14:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
    • I concur with Masem. First, the page Wikipedia:Biomedical information is a supplement that has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Second, even if we do follow its advice, what it talks about as "history" is bloodletting to balance the humors. It even says, Statements that could still have medical relevance, such as about the effectiveness of historical treatments, are still biomedical — and an ongoing pandemic is obviously still relevant. XOR'easter (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
• Neither. Especially for a topic area where we have academic, peer-reviewed, secondary material which is directly on-topic. Why would we reach down to these lesser/unreliable sources? Doing so would risk over-exposing an undue POV, for which a WP:REDFLAG flies. Alexbrn (talk) 15:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
• New York Magazine is a WP:RS in this case. It does not purport to provide, nor can it be construed to, be treatment advice. The history of a disease is a topic of general interest. Whether SARS-Cov-2 accidentally originated in a lab, or jumped species in a market, is not going to reduce social distancing behaviour, masking, or the treatment of the disease, so WP:MEDRS shouldn't apply. The New York article is a secondary or tertiary source, that extensively quotes and links to other sources. In almost any other context, it would be regarded as an excellent source, and I would caution that the strident assertions that this is a "conspiracy theory" and suppression of reliable sources is likely to ripen into a Streisand Effect. Indeed, I had little more a passing interest in this topic, but the unusual way that this is being handled has now precipitated a great deal of personal interest in me.Park3r (talk) 07:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with Adoring nanny: The origin is not biomedical information, so standard WP:RS applies, and New York Magazine is reliable per WP:RSP. There are three types of evidence that would support the plausibility of the lab leak theory: 1) Genomics, which require MEDRS from virology experts; 2) Forensics, which require MEDRS from the chinese epidemiologists and veterinarians that traced the cases of early patients; 3) Intelligence, which do not require MEDRS. For the sake of exposition, lets assume that Canada's Intelligence Agency discovers secret video footage of a Russian lab confessing they created the virus and showing how they did it. Then Reuters publishes an article called "Evidence of SARS-CoV-2 being created in a lab has been found". In that hypothetical case, would any editor of Wikipedia allow Reuters to be a good enough RS to report on the lab leak, or would they double down on asking that a MEDRS supports it first, on the basis that it is fringy? Forich (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Forich, I think your hypothetical source would be reliable for a statement that "A Canadian intelligence agency says that a Russian lab confessed to creating the virus" but not for a claim that the virus was actually created that way. This is one of the problems with the way this discussion (and, indeed, with the whole concept of RSP): Our actual rule is WP:RSCONTEXT. It is possible that the ICT source could be reliable for its main point, which is "people are interested in this" (NB: not "it's true"). But I don't think it is reliable for statements of facts. Indeed, when I click through to RSP, I find that RSP actually says "There is no consensus on whether [New York Magazine] is generally reliable for contentious statements", which IMO is importantly different from how you portrayed it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• It's very simple - use in-text attribution cited to RS. Our job is not to identify where the virus started. Mainstream consensus is that the virus originated in Wuhan per NPR: "China has repeatedly pushed back against consensus that the novel coronavirus first appeared in humans in Wuhan," NPR's Emily Feng reports from Beijing. "Officials have suggested without evidence that the virus began elsewhere, including the U.S., and was brought to China." Nature states that WHO has released a plan and investigations will begin in Wuhan. The Guardian states: Wuhan had excellent surveillance, as well as a world-class biosecure laboratory that would later fall under suspicion. The cluster was detected in Wuhan, but it is still possible it came from somewhere else. We publish what prevailing RS are telling us - basically that Wuhan is suspected, and it's under investigation that will probably take years to conclude, if a reliable conclusion is even possible. Atsme 💬 📧 17:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
• In-text attribution. The critical issue to me is whether we are saying "this is what actually went down" (which is a confident statement in the encyclopedia's voice, WP:MEDRS obviously required) or "a bunch of people said this was what went down" (per WP:MEDRS itself, Social stigma against a condition or treatment, information about disease awareness campaigns or advocacy groups, public perception, public funding for research or treatment, etc. is not biomedical information). The fact that there are a bunch of people who think CORVID-19 came cawing and pecking out of a lab in Wuhan is notable and well-supported by reliable sources. Whether or not this means it actually did is, well, a separate issue. I haven't kept up on the literature well enough to say whether that's what happened. While there is certainly a lot of hubbub about Wikipedia's coronavirus coverage, it is not our responsibility to never write articles which we suspect could cause someone to hold false beliefs. For example, we have an article about the harmful chemicals emitted by aircraft, despite some people believing in chemtrails. If we tell people that Dogwater Independent Picayune-Star said such-and-such, and the Proceedings of the International Medical Prestigiousness Symposium said another, well, we've done all we can. jp×g 20:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

JPxG hits the nail on the head. Please see below on updated RS on the topic, as it has been covered quite extensively, with a numebr of very prominent scientists saying that the possibility must be considered. Please see my note at the bottom of this section on the talk page of Wuhan Institute of Virology, where I make it clear what content changes I would like to see to describe "what actually went down". All I ask is to remove the POV unsupported by MEDRS from editors who ironically are insisting on a blanket application of the policy on all claims, biomedical and otherwise. Please also see discussions from Forich, clearly delineating information from reliable sources like the BBC, which are not biomedical in nature. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 00:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• We have editors pushing carefully selected quotes from selected sources in order to advance this fringe theory on the origins of COVID, ignoring both the consensus of MEDRS sources and of general reliable sources that discuss the subject. This kind of cherry picking is unacceptable, and that should be the point here. Selective picking of sources, which aren’t even the best available sources, is problematic. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, the cherry picking of sources to make the "lab leak" postulation seem better supported than it is on the talk pages is pretty ridiculous. The best way of dealing with the cherry picking is by targeting the cherry picked sources, and demonstrating that that they are undue and don't represent mainstream views of virologists. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no "mainstream" view of virologists on the origins of the virus that represents scientific consensus. The origins of the virus are completely unknown, and even the WHO "terms of reference" for its investigation notes this, and this statement is made in many other MEDRS compliant sources. Different hypotheses have been made, but unless there is an open investigation, it is unlikely there will ever be a scientific consensus on the matter, with MEDR sources to cite accordingly. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Even if a scientific community has yet to settle upon a single hypothesis as its consensus position, it is still possible that the relative ranking of hypotheses by plausibility is itself agreed upon. In other words, the mainstream position can be that A is vastly more plausible than B, while the only thing that can be said for C is that it wouldn't technically violate the laws of physics. XOR'easter (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your statement that there should be a relative ranking of hypotheses based on plausibility, however, I think you are missing something here. As it is now, the only hypothesis that is considered by certain Wikipedia editors as "plausible" is the zoonitic jump hypothesis, while the lab leak hypothesis is labeled as "misinformation" in Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic and "conspiracy theory" in Wuhan Institute of Virology. There is no mention of a lab leak as a plausible possibility at all, anywhere in Wikipedia, even though nothing has been proven about any possible origin scenario. This is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Is it not? ScrupulousScribe (talk) 02:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

No, it's not. XOR'easter (talk) 07:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, I'd sure hope that are editors carefully selecting their quotes and sources when writing articles. You have to find WP:RS that are about the thing you're trying to write, and then quote the relevant portions. I don't think that this is intrinsically sinister. jp×g 03:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader, you said that we "push carefully selected quotes from selected sources" in order to advance this fringe theory on the origins of COVID, but thats a total misrepresentation of the discussion:

1. We opened the talk with a general request to discuss the lab leak theory and the best way to include edits mentioning it
2. Opposing editors claimed it was fringe
3. We explained in depth why we believed it was not fringe
4. Opposing editors argued that it was "Wall of text", too long for "lazy" editors to read
5. We narrowed it down to specific claims
6. Opposing editors argued the sources used were unreliable
7. We reached consensus on 6 MEDRS and 4 RS to be used on the matter
8. Opposing editors appealed that MEDRS ruled over the whole article per some exceptional rule on covid related topics
9. We appealed to have biomedical claims backed by MEDRS and non-biomedical claims backed by non-MEDRS RS
10. Opposing editors run out of excuses to avoid debating, so we dissected the claims and asked to debate their due weight, reliability, notability

I personally would not oppose if the consensus we reach is to avoid any mention of the lab leak theory, I have no "dog in the fight". However, it is important that the discussion exhausts and transpires every nuance so that we can display a resulting consensus in the talk page that exactly explains what is allowed and what is not allowed to be edited regarding the issue. Forich (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The fact that this discussion has been bouncing between talk pages, AN/I, RSP and God knows what else is a little confusing to me; none of the issues involved really seem like general WP:RS stuff, and none of the conduct really seems like it deserves to be at WP:ANI. jp×g 03:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Unless certain editors agree to stop conflating the theory of a possible accidental lab leak as an origin scenario with conspiracy theories, then this is heading next to WP:DR. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 07:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

No one is conflating anything. We are simply maintaining that if a "possible accidental lab leak" is to be treated as a scientific theory, then it needs documentation in scientific sources. One can't have it both ways. XOR'easter (talk) 07:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Some people are conflating between different lab origin scenarios, as I describe below. Treating the "possible accidental lab leak" as a possibility should not require scientific sources as per WP:MEDRS, as it is impossible for scientists to prove or disprove unless you have a way to magically teleport into the WIV, evade all the guards, and grab some forensic evidence. It is also impossible to prove or disprove a zoonitic jump having occurred and no self-respecting science would write a paper claiming to have it (which is why there is no MEDRS sources to back it up), and while evidence for either scenario is lacking, all hypotheses should be considered as possibilities. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 08:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

If you want to treat the belief that SARS-CoV-2 was present in any specific place before people started getting sick as a scientific possibility, then you need scientific sources. If you want to treat it as something that some politician speculated about, then you need a political source (e.g., any reputable newspaper). As @XOR'easter says, we can't have it both ways. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Not MEDRS/biomedical information. The only reason special standards exist for medical information is to make it less likely that readers will harm themselves by their misinterpreting bad medical information. Misinformation about the origin of the virus will not affect the likelihood of readers catching the virus, or dying from it, so it isn't a MEDRS domain. Normal standards apply. This is not an endorsement of these sources for scientific content, only a point about MEDRS scope creep. Geogene (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

  I'd say that misinformation about a pandemic is a public-health hazard in general. Buying into a conspiracy theory can mean taking a crackpot "treatment", exposing others by refusing to take precautions against transmission, etc. MEDRS isn't creeping; it just became relevant to a whole lot of daily life. XOR'easter (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Crackpot treatments are already covered by MEDRS, whether or not conspiracy theories are involved. Geogene (talk) 02:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure. But what I'm saying is that when you say that misinformation about a pandemic's origin has no medical consequences, well, I'm not that optimistic. XOR'easter (talk) 02:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Geopolitical consequences, maybe. Not medical consequences. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 02:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Members of the United States House of Representatives have caught the virus, quite possibly because they were forced to shelter in place with colleagues who refused to wear masks for ideological reasons during an insurrection fomented by conspiracy theories. The medical is geopolitical, and vice versa. XOR'easter (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I cannot conceive of any way in which the origin of the coronavirus makes an impact on my daily life. "While the coronavirus is just as deadly and transmissable as before, I read an article saying that it might have escaped from a lab, therefore I will stop washing my hands and go to a huge indoor party"? If little green men had brought the coronavirus here from Neptune, how would this have any impact on whether to have dinner in a crowded restaurant? That just doesn't make any sense to me. jp×g 03:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

What about, "I read an article saying that the coronavirus escaped from a lab. Obviously, scientists don't know what they're doing, so I shouldn't bother listening to their recommendations or getting the vaccine." XOR'easter (talk) 07:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I think this is getting pretty far afield of Wikipedia's rôle. Is this a fully general principle that you think should applied across the project? jp×g 08:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

IMO Wikipedia's role is to accurately represent the facts as understood by high-quality sources, both in the literal meaning of the individual sentences and in the overall impression we give our readers. IMO it is not accurate, according to those high-quality sources, that SARS-CoV-2 was present in any lab before the pandemic started. The fact that a cultural magazine got a novelist to write about how worried he is about lab research (even though he admits that there is no evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was ever in that lab) does not change my view of what the high-quality sources say about this subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Geogene is incorrect about why MEDRS exists. MEDRS exists so that our articles are less likely to contain errors and misinformation. It doesn't matter whether the error is a good one ("People need to drink eight glasses of water a day") or a bad one. We want their contents to be accurate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• New York Magazine is a good RS as long as it was not used for sourcing medical claims. WP:MEDRS is irrelevant here because the accidental leakage from the lab is not a medical claim. Actually, it has nothing to do with science. This is a Laboratory safety matter. A claim that the virus was artificially engineered is different. It would probably require MEDRS sources for claims related to scientific research, but not-MEDRS sources would be fine to document opinions by experts and political aspects of the controversy. My very best wishes (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

  How is laboratory safety not a part of science? I mean, safety lessons were part of every lab course I've ever taken — first day, usually. How is any procedure determined to be safe — a seal found adequate, a sterilizing agent effective, or whatever — other than by a scientific investigation? XOR'easter (talk) 07:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, one can do research related to laboratory safety. But in that specific case this is just a matter of an investigation (more in a law enforcement meaning) to answer single question: Did they work in this lab with COVID-19 (or not) at the time prior to the outbreak? If such investigation would be conducted (it was not to my knowledge), one would not need any MEDRS sources because this is not a medical and not a scientific question. My very best wishes (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

"Did they work in this lab with COVID-19 (or not)" - such scientifically illiterate questions as this are an excellent illustration of why we use the WP:BESTSOURCES, rather than the amateur musings of Wikipedia editors. Alexbrn (talk) 20:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, I am simply trying to explain in plain terms what this is all about. I am sure my comment was understandable. Yes, I could cite this: "Any credible investigation into the origin of COVID-19 demands complete, transparent access to the research labs in Wuhan, including their facilities, samples, personnel, and records." Fact checking: TRUE. My very best wishes (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The reliability of the US State Department is in question, for obvious reasons. And, for the sake of argument, let's suppose that an investigation, in the law enforcement meaning of the word, finds a vial in a lab, or a suspicious genome sequence on a hard drive. How would they tell that the vial contained a sample of a particular virus, or what the genome was sequenced from? By doing science to it. Even in the forensic setting or against an espionage background, the pivotal questions require scientific knowledge to answer. XOR'easter (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no question this is actual statement by US State Department. The only question is about using it on specidfic page. As about investigation, I think we know the answer: Chinese government simply will not allow any meaningful independent investigation. So perhaps we will never know the answer. As about law enforcment people, yes, they are using a lot of standard tests. That does not make them scientists. Only those who are developing new methods in forensic science can be described as such. My very best wishes (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply; it's been a busy few days. Perhaps we are communicating at cross purposes here. The question is not whether an investigator has the right to list "scientist" on their business card, but whether their work has an unavoidable scientific component. If it does, then it must be held up to scientific standards, and so must anything we write about it. XOR'easter (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

My point is simple. The "lab leakeage" is not a medical and mostly not even a scientific question. This is just a question if the virus was actually stored and studied in specific lab and what had actually happen. For example, should one use only MEDRS sources for page Sverdlovsk anthrax leak? Of course not. In this regard, the source under discussion is good and it was vetted in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. This is all. My very best wishes (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

It's a scientific question that lay sources reduce into nonsense. So when you say "the virus", what do you mean? Alexbrn (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

This is valid source per WP:RS and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Yes, it can be used. However, it should not be used for sourcing any specific claims that explicitly belong to Wikipedia:Biomedical information. This is not a biomedical information (as defined in the guideline) because the historical question if the virus was leaked from the lab does not affect anyone's sickness or health. This is a question related to biology of the virus and politics. This is all I am saying. We are not going to debate what is science. My very best wishes (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

What do mean by "the virus"? Wikipedia needs to make basic sense and contain at least competently-written text. Do you mean SARS-CoV-2? because if so this "constructed in a lab" idea is a conspiracy theory, as per our very good WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 12:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Neither, and MEDRS should be used for any origin speculation that invokes a scientific mechanism. I've described my position in more detail below. JoelleJay (talk) 02:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

But this is not a medical claim, and possibly not even a scientific claim. This is mostly a political controversy. And of course the WHO team will not find anything about it in China, especially if the COVID indeed was studied in the lab and leaked from there. My very best wishes (talk) 04:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• New York Magazine is reliable per current consensus, therefore it can be used as a source. If you disagree with that consensus then start an RFC on New York Magazine to propose deprecation or restrictions on its use. But to exclude a particular article or group of articles on a particular subject just because you don't like what it says is ridicoulus. Its reliable or its not. Its unreasonable to believe that a source would have lower editorial standards for medical topics than anything else it publishes. No opinion on ICT which I don't know enough about, other than it appears to just be summarizing other sources, making in unnecessary in this case.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

From previous conversations at AfD, I am rather certain you are aware that no source is either completely reliable on all subjects or completely unreliable. The context in which a source is used is vital to determining its reliability: The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article ... an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable...'. There has been no suggestion that the New Yorker requires a new RfC on its overall reliability but only whether it is a reliable source for this particular information. Stating otherwise is just obstructive smokescreening. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:44, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• Not reliable for this topic - Infection Control Today covers topics for which we have many more abundantly reliable sources, and appears to be little more than a blog with heavy advertisement. The New York Magazine article is written by a novelist, the central thesis of his work is contradicted by all known science regarding SARS-CoV-2, and one of the most pre-eminent virologists in the world, asked to fact-check the article, called it pure "science fiction." If only RSN were always this easy. -Darouet (talk) 16:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Other sources

Le Infezioni in Medicina

1. Barh D, Silva Andrade B, Tiwari S, Giovanetti M, Góes-Neto A, Alcantara LC, Azevedo V, Ghosh P (September 2020). "Natural selection versus creation: a review on the origin of SARS-COV-2" (PDF). Infez Med. 28 (3): 302–311. PMID 32920565.

This paper evaluates literature only up to April 2020, and finds no support for a lab-origin of SARS-CoV-2 or ideas that it a "bioweapon", stating in the conclusion that "The information and knowledge currently available in the public domain as peer-reviewed publications support a probable bat or pangolin origin of SARS-CoV-2." The paper is otherwise uninteresting as it mostly evaluates what hasn't been said rather than what has. I am not familiar with Le Infezioni in Medicina (infezmed). It describes itself as a "is a peer-reviewed quarterly journal which publishes, free of charge, editorials, reviews, original articles, case reports and letters to the Editor on experimental and clinical investigations concerning any aspect of infectious diseases.". It has an impact factor of 0.748 in 2019, which seems fairly low. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, this is a scientific review article, and therefore a MEDRS source. The impact factor of the journal is hardly relevant. Many unreliable sources are frequently cited. My very best wishes (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• It is a low impact factor (not sure what's normal in the field of infectious diseases), but is MEDLINE-indexed, which is good; would probably be okay for nonWP:REDFLAG assertions. Alexbrn (talk) 17:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, it is a decent RS, seems to be a bit of a go to journal for Italian researchers who want to publish their research locally, peer review seems rigorousBoynamedsue (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  Scopus ranks this journal around the 30th percentile for its field, so it's probably okay but below median.

  I'm not a fan of using impact factors as some sort of magic number, and especially not as a one-size-fits-all-fields number, but a low impact factor can indicate a Predatory journal, so it bears investigation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

independentsciencenews.org

This website has consistently come up in discussions surrounding the "lab leak claims". From its about page it clearly has some kind of fringe (anti-GMO, anti-pesticide) viewpoint, mostly focusing on agriculture, with the additional promotion of "lab leak" claims since the beginning of the pandemic. independentsciencenews.org is published by the Bioscience Resource Project (which has a Wikipedia article may need to go to AfD at some point), which declares itself to be a "non-profit 501(c)3 organization". To me, this mostly looks like an essentially self-published source by the sites main author Dr. Jonathan Latham, who has no expertise in virology as far as I can tell and not a reliable souce for virological claims, and undue regardless. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Definitely fringey, with no indications of editorial oversight; could well be one man's pet project. Latham has published journal articles, but nothing substantial in virology AFAICT (only a little on plant viruses, back in the early 1990s), and his only institutional affiliation is the Bioscience Resource Project. XOR'easter (talk) 00:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, plant viruses are a whole different kettle of fish from human viruses. A lot of the citations to "Jonathan Latham" on scholar appear to be to a chemist by the same name who works at the University of Manchester. The paper that Latham published with other members of the "Bioscience Resource Project", entitled "Transformation-induced Mutations in Transgenic Plants: Analysis and Biosafety Implications" from 2006 which has been cited over 160 times, mostly in pesticide related articles. It's clear that he was (at least formerly) a published and somewhat respected scientist. I have managed to find a piece in Wired from 2011 that discusses a manifesto from the Bioscience Resource Project, it is described as "play[ing] a tune that will be familiar to anyone who has encountered the rhetoric of GeneWatch UK: basically, modern genomics is pure hype perpetuated by scientists seeking grant money and corporations seeking to absolve themselves of responsibility for environmental disasters." and states that the central claim of the piece is that "Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have failed to find variants explaining much of the risk of common diseases like type 2 diabetes" but that the "authors rely on a combination of distortions and statistical misunderstandings to make their case." Its an interesting look into the groups ideology, which cements the idea in my mind that they are indeed pretty fringe. I don't know why I did this much digging considering they were clearly not reliable source for human virology anyway. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

a profile on the website Genetic Literacy Project describes them as openly promoting anti-gmo conspiracy theories. The Genetic Literacy Project have been accused, not entirely baselessly of being monsanto shills, so I don't take them entirely at their word. This is getting way off topic, however. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree: This is not a reliable source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Washington Post Editoral

A November editoral in the Washington Post, entitled The coronavirus’s origins are still a mystery. We need a full investigation. has often been used to support the lab leak suppostion. In the introduction, the article even states: "Most likely, the virus was a zoonotic spillover, a leap from animals to humans, which have become more common as people push into new areas where they have closer contact with wildlife", though the article goes on to state: "Beyond the blame game, there are troubling questions in China that must be examined, including whether the coronavirus was inadvertently spread in an accident or spill from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which had previously carried out research on bat coronaviruses." It then goes on to reference the 2012-2013 "Mojiang Mine incident" where several workers became sick and died of a SARS like illness in after contact with bats. though no viral samples were ever taken. This is covered in the Mòjiāng virus article about a virus that was collected from the locality several years after the incident and has no definitive connection to the illness cases. It concludes the paragraph that "Conspiracy theorists have proposed more outlandish scenarios of a deliberately created pathogen, but they do not hold much water." Overall the Washington Post editorial is not massively fringe, but I question its dueness here. Per WP:MEDPOP, the popular press are not reliable sources to evaluate scientific claims, such as whether or not it is plausible that the virus leaked from a laboratory. As an editorial, it comes under WP:RSOPINION, which generally should not be used for statements of fact. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Yep. WP:MEDPOP, WP:RSOPINION. XOR'easter (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• None is MEDRS. And this whole discussion (here and at the host article) misses the point that even if some non-MEDRS source is notionally reliable (a news source, say) it can't be used to debunk or problematize a stronger source. We can't undercut peer-reviewed, academic, expert sources because Bob Journalist wrote a thinkpiece somewhere, even if is is "reliable" for his view. This is an essence of WP:NPOV. Alexbrn (talk) 15:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

  True dat. XOR'easter (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

No disagreement here, the point of bringing this to the RSN is to give oxygen to the conversation. These sources have been repeatedly brought up, so instead of endlessly going around in circles about them at the talk page with people who are little interested in editing about anything else, we can get a definitive concensus here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree: This is not reliable for any medical or scientific claim at all. It is, however, a reliable source for a statement about what the Washington Post's editorial board believes. It could, therefore, be used to support a sentence such as "The Washington Post said that there should be more research into how and where the virus started infecting the humans". (I'm not sure that sentence would be WP:DUE – we have a whole article on Further research is needed – but it would be reliable for such a statement.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, WaPo is an excellent source on political aspects of any controversy, although not on scientific claims. That one is very much political. Main idea of the publication: "We need a full investigation". Yes, this is something obvious and consensus of many RS. Why do you think WHO team went to China [74]? My very best wishes (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

  Editorials are not normally considered reliable sources for statements of facts, political or otherwise. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes - if WaPo is considered a RS, then they are a RS, unless we downgrade it to something less - uhm, like questionable? If we don't happen to like what they publish at any given point in time, that doesn't make them unreliable overall. The bottomline is and always been for us to use INTEXT ATTRIBUTION, and not say it in WikiVoice. It's actually pretty simple. Atsme 💬 📧 22:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Adding info - Sorry to pile in here but they just released a new editorial[75] yesterday with a lot more teeth to it. Just so everyone is up to date. Feynstein (talk) 18:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

David Relman opinion piece in PNAS

In November, an opinion piece entitled To stop the next pandemic, we need to unravel the origins of COVID-19 was published in PNAS by David Relman, a Professor in Medicine, and in Microbiology & Immunology at the Stanford University School of Medicine. In the piece, it is stated that

There are several potential origin scenarios. First, SARS-CoV-2 may have evolved in bats, which are known reservoirs of immense coronavirus diversity (2), and then spread directly, or indirectly via an intermediate host, to humans through natural mechanisms. The degree of anticipated but undiscovered natural diversity clearly lends support to this scenario, as well as support to other scenarios. Second, SARS-CoV-2 or a recent ancestor virus may have been collected by humans from a bat or other animal and then brought to a laboratory where it was stored knowingly or unknowingly, propagated and perhaps manipulated genetically to understand its biological properties, and then released accidentally.

going on to state that:

Some have argued that a deliberate engineering scenario is unlikely because one would not have had the insight a priori to design the current pandemic virus (3). This argument fails to acknowledge the possibility that two or more as yet undisclosed ancestors (i.e., more proximal ancestors than RaTG13 and RmYN02) had already been discovered and were being studied in a laboratory—for example, one with the SARS-CoV-2 backbone and spike protein receptor-binding domain, and the other with the SARS-CoV-2 polybasic furin cleavage site. It would have been a logical next step to wonder about the properties of a recombinant virus and then create it in the laboratory. Alternatively, the complete SARS-CoV-2 sequence could have been recovered from a bat sample and viable virus resurrected from a synthetic genome to study it, before that virus accidentally escaped from the laboratory.

concluding that "Even though strong opinions abound, none of these scenarios can be confidently ruled in or ruled out with currently available facts." Given that this is an opinion piece it comes under WP:RSOPINION, and shouldn't be used for statements of fact, only attributed opinion. It also doesn't mention the WIV by name. While David Relman seems to be a respected microbiologist (seemingly mostly focusing on gut flora,bacteria and archea, with some viral work as well). its difficult to get a sense of whether this represents the concensus of virologists, and whether or not Relman is a prominent enough microbiologist or not that this would be WP:DUE. (It appears he was stating the same thing back in April according to this BoingBoing article) In my view, we should avoid using opinion pieces entirely when discussing the origins of the virus. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I concur with avoiding opinion pieces entirely. Opinions are cheap. XOR'easter (talk) 03:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes. Sure, this is a well sourced view, just like almost everything. But I think this is laughable when non-experts censor views by David Relman (a Professor of Microbiology & Immunology at the Stanford University School of Medicine) that were published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. This only shows the degree of POV-pushing around here. My very best wishes (talk) 04:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Not including opinion pieces in Wikipedia articles, even ones published in prestigious publications like PNAS, is not censorship. My point about Relman is that I don't know whether his view represents the concensus of virologists, and putting his opinion in the article could potentially lend undue weight. How have other academics reacted to the claim that "This argument fails to acknowledge the possibility that two or more as yet undisclosed ancestors (i.e., more proximal ancestors than RaTG13 and RmYN02) had already been discovered and were being studied in a laboratory—for example, one with the SARS-CoV-2 backbone and spike protein receptor-binding domain, and the other with the SARS-CoV-2 polybasic furin cleavage site. It would have been a logical next step to wonder about the properties of a recombinant virus and then create it in the laboratory." It clearly shows the "lab leak" postulation is not completely fringe among mainstream academics, but also does not demonstrate that it is probable either. Given that he doesn't even mention the WIV directly, is it even relevant to the Wuhan Institute of Virology article? Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, it should not be used on page about the Wuhan Institute of Virology. It should be used on page Draft:COVID-19 lab leak theory (the header of this discussion tells about "the idea that COVID-19 leaked from a Chinese lab") or maybe on page Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. What other think about "to acknowledge the possibility that..."? Well, these viruses in fact were studied in labs, and the possibility of making a recombinant virus not only exists, but a trivial molecular biology procedure. My very best wishes (talk) 04:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I concur that Not including opinion pieces in Wikipedia articles, even ones published in prestigious publications like PNAS, is not censorship. This isn't POV-pushing, either; I would have the same objection to opinion pieces arguing in the opposite direction. XOR'easter (talk) 07:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

US Government claims

On January 15th, the US Department of State released a document entitled Fact Sheet: Activity at the Wuhan Institute of Virology that has been extensively discussed on the WIV talk page, in the document, it is explosively claimed that:

The U.S. government has reason to believe that several researchers inside the WIV became sick in autumn 2019, before the first identified case of the outbreak, with symptoms consistent with both COVID-19 and common seasonal illnesses. This raises questions about the credibility of WIV senior researcher Shi Zhengli’s public claim that there was “zero infection” among the WIV’s staff and students of SARS-CoV-2 or SARS-related viruses.

among other claims. My issue with this is as a US govt document they are a WP:PRIMARY source for the claims, and that the origin of the virus has been polticised, in large part to the actions of the Trump administration, which has also developed a reputation for publishing falsehoods and conspiracy theories, and they cannot be considered a reliable source for the claims prima facie unless they are otherwise corroborated. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I won't disagree with you that this issue has been politicized by Trump, but as JPxG very eruditely points out above, Wikipedia has an article about the harmful chemicals emitted by aircraft, despite some people believing in chemtrails. I don't think we should throw the baby out with the bathwater, and discount the views of respected scientists like David Relman quoted in reliable sources like the Wall Street Journal (see here and here), just because there are a few idiot politicians misconstruing the science to score political points among Sinophobic constituents. We have to be able to transcend all that as Wikipedians, and conflating different lab origin scenarios, as I have written about below, is highly disingenuous. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes. This is an official website of US State Department. Hence this is valid primary (or possibly even secondary) source. It can be cited directly with an attribution to US State Department. Is it "due" on page about Wuhan lab? Yes, sure, because it is directly about this lab and because the official view by US government is important in such context. I am not saying this view is "the truth". My very best wishes (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

This post has been archived. I assume this is no longer an official view by US government. But whatever new US government tells about it can be used, with direct attribution. My very best wishes (talk) 01:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Not reliable for claims of fact (e.g., for claims that people were sick. Also: I, too, "became sick in autumn 2019, before the first identified case of the outbreak, with symptoms consistent with both COVID-19 and common seasonal illnesses". Does that "raise questions about the credibility of" these same White House politicians in saying that COVID-19 wasn't present in the US back then?). If you wanted to use that source to write that Trump's White House claimed that some WIV staff might have had COVID-19, then I think you'd need another source, both to show that mentioning this document was WP:DUE and to provide an analysis. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Not reliable for claims of fact, per WhatamIdoing and general concerns about prior history. (I myself did not become "sick in autumn 2019", etc., but a good friend did.) Secondary sources would be needed to establish due weight. XOR'easter (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

False Premise of this post

When talking of the COVID-19 and the possibility of lab leak as an origin scenario, one should not conflate between the different classifications of emerging infectious disease, as clearly delineated here in Wikipedia's entry on Emerging infectious diseases.

For the uninitiated, the Wikipedia entry clearly differentiates the scenario of a deliberate release of a bioweapon from an accidental release of a virus undergoing medical research, and for those who have actually read the New York Magazine piece, this distinction is clearly made, and is clearly distinguishable from conspiracy theories made by the likes of Li-Meng Yan and Luc Montagnier, which have been discredited and retracted, respectively. Other than the New York Magazine, a number of other reputable publications have covered the topic of an accidental lab leak, including the Boston Magazine, Wired Magazine, CNET the BBC, Reuters Bloomberg, The Telegraph, The Times, Presadiretta and Culture France, Le Monde, and multiple Washington Post articles, such as this. None of these articles present the possibility of a lab leak as fact, but in the dearth of evidence for any other scenario, they quote some reputable scientists (like David Relman) as saying that it should be considered as a possibility, and should not be discounted. Further than that, Professor Dominic Dwyer, who is one University of North Carolina at Chapel Hillof the members of the WHO's investigation team told The Australian that he is willing to keep an "open mind" to the possibility of a lab leak, even if he doesn't think it's likely.

The question of whether WP:MEDRS applies here, should only pertain to Wikipedia:Biomedical information, and while certain aspects of determining the origins of the virus can certainly be considered biomedical information, there is currently a media and academic black out being imposed by the Chinese government, which was the subject of another reliable source on the possible lab origins of the virus, the Associated Press. The real question we should be asking, is whether there are sufficient reliable sources to establish that there is a controversy around the origins of the virus, to mandate the removal of the "misinformation" and "conspiracy theory" terms associated with the lab leak theory in the articles Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic and Wuhan Institute of Virology, and any other articles where it may crop up. There is now also confirmation from the United States Department of State that a lab leak is a possibility they want the WHO to investigate, which also gives mention to the unknown provenance of Ratg13, a key piece of missing information that gave rise to the lab leak hypothesis, which was covered in the New York Magazine piece. The USDOS statement has been further covered in reliable sources, like this Telegraph article.

Guys, what we have is a legitimate controversy about a possible biosecurity event that certain scientists have been warning about for years. Instead of trying to topic ban me and delete my stuff, it would be better to engage in a good-faith discussion, without conflating the issues.

ScrupulousScribe (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

ScrupulousScribe, other scientists working in this field have also been warning for years that naturally occurring SARS viruses in South China pose a big threat. I wouldn't set much store by what the US government says on this matter (for a few days), since there's a conflict of interest and a declared policy to blame China/the Chinese for some or all aspects of its own recent failings. GPinkerton (talk) 23:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

GPinkerton, Fair enough. What your reference demonstrates is that there are differing views between scientists on the possible origins of the virus. Many scientists have found it odd that a specific virus from a bat species found in Yunan, 1,400km away south of Wuhan, broke out where it did, and how it did. This doesn't prove anything, but nor has any other origin scenario been proven, and in the dearth of evidence for any given scenario, and the uncooperative nature of the Chinese government, many scientists agree that a lab leak scenario should be given consideration. It certainly can't be considered as misinformation or conspiracy theory on Wikipedia. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 23:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Heaven forfend that in the 21st century a commodity be transported a few hundred miles before causing an epidemic in a market! Note that the reference I provided has nothing to do with SARS-CoV-2; it's older than the virus, so it most certainly does not provide evidence of differing opinion on SARS-CoV-2's origins. GPinkerton (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

It's certainly possible for a commodity to be transported. Though there is the small matter of nearby laboratory, which was well known to be performing gain of function research on SARS-like coronaviruses to infect humans, whose sponsor said as much in a Tweet and YouTube interview (timestamped), which was also forced to make an Addendum to a Nature article they had published about a certain SARS-like coronavirus called RaTG13 earlier in the year, which revealed that they had collected it with a number of other unpublished viruses that they were working on in undisclosed ways. There is a legitimate scientific inquiry into this lab and its affairs, especially as it was partly funded by the US gov (via EcoHealth), and should thus be required to divulge certain information, which they are not (and instead they deleted their entire public database of viruses from the web, claiming the server is down). Fain of function research isn't nefarious and "passaging" a virus in a host that it wouldn't usually infect is done in order to generate attenuated strains for use in vaccines, which has been done successfully for diseases llike Polio. But, such research poses huge risks, and the are numerous cases of virus leaking from labs. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

This is all on the level of the "lab leak" conspiracy theory (promoted by Russia) that supposed the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal somehow not the Russians' doing just because Porton Down is nearby. Trump's funding decisions are neither here nor there. GPinkerton (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no comparison that can be made with the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal. In that case, an investigation was made, with forensic evidence uncovered from various sites, and in this case, no open investigation has been made and no forensic evidence has been found (the WHO Investigation has working on a "Terms of Reference" that precludes the possibility of a WIV lab leak). We have absolutely no idea what went on. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 00:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

ScrupulousScribe, we know that a SARS coronavirus common in bats in southern China was transmitted to humans in southern China and caused a pandemic in the early 21st century. Then it happened again in 2019. GPinkerton (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

GPinkerton, there is one huge difference between the outbreak of SARS-COV-1 in Guangdong in 2002, and the outbreak of SARS-COV-2 in Wuhan in 2019, and that is that the former was not pre-adapted for human transmission from the start, while the latter was. You can read about that from the scientists who published a paper about it, here. One of the authors was quoted in the abovementioned Boston Magazine and New York Magazine articles that you or may not have read. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 12:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

ScrupulousScribe, and you link a non-peer-reviewed study from last year to claim this? GPinkerton (talk) 12:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

GPinkerton, were you thinking of countering the claim? I sent you the paper for you to read and understand one of the most significant differences between SARS-COV-1 and SARS-COV-2. The findings of this paper, which has been noted by numerous other scientists, are confirmed by World Health Organisation in a document they released just last week on their investigation. You can download it here, and you need not go past page 3 to find it, which should tell you something about its significance. You are welcome. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 13:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

ScrupulousScribe, Please explain how you have arrived at the conclusion you postulate above. There is absolutely nothing on page 3 of that report that supports any of your claims, and refutes several of them that you have made elsewhere, notably the you are working off very old information claim. And yet, this WHO report dwells on the Wuhan market as the source of what it repeatedly calls a zoonotic bat virus. By contrast, no laboratories are mentioned; the word only appears as part of phrases like "laboratory testing". Neither does "pre-adapted" appear anywhere, nor the name of the Wuhan Institute. It is not necessary to repudiate outdated speculation, nor to refute it. I have yet to read of a conclusive study that proves definitely that painting animals on cave walls does not augment the herds in the next hunting season. Yet we are not expected to give that kind of belief system credence in the encyclopaedia. GPinkerton (talk) 13:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

GPinkerton, let's take this one point at a time.

First, to demonstrate that the WHO takes the position of the abovementioned paper on the subject of pre-adaption: Current findings show that the virus has been remarkable stable since it was first reported in Wuhan, with sequences well conserved in different countries, suggesting that the virus was well adapted to human transmission from the moment it was first detected. This is also corroborated by the epidemiology and transmission patterns seen since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. (page three)

Secondly, the fact that the WHO dwells on the Wuhan market, like you did, is due to the fact that the entire exercise is a sham, and the United States Department of State has released a statement about it, here. There are many others who have called on the WHO to demand China's full cooperation for their investigation.

Thirdly, if you are genuinely interested in the lab leak hypothesis, you can read a draft that I wrote on the topic. (it needs more work... maybe you can help?). You should also read the sources I provided.

ScrupulousScribe (talk) 14:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

ScrupulousScribe, so you are first promoting the WHO as supporting your claims, and now you say it's all a sham because some red-faced Americans have also made the claim as an attempt to cover their own inadequacy. I see. GPinkerton (talk) 14:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Apologies if this is no longer the right section. Depends on how it is presented. If we are presenting it as a legitimate possibility, we need sources that meet WP:MEDRS. If we are clearly presenting it as a conspiracy theory, we don't. Any more than we need MEDRS sources on the Reptilian conspiracy theory or Resurrection of Jesus, or any other things that would involve medical issues if we presented them as medical theories. --GRuban (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

And why are WP:MEDRS sources not required to present the lab leak as a conspiracy theory? There is currently no proof of any theory. Only hypetheses. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Not sure by what you mean "no proof of any theory". There isn't any proof that it's true? Well, yeah. That's because it's almost certainly not true. We do write about things that aren't true, from Piltdown man to the Flat earth theory. There's no proof that there is such a conspiracy theory? Oh, come on. Forbes, USA Today, NBC News... https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackbrewster/2020/05/10/a-timeline-of-the-covid-19-wuhan-lab-origin-theory/?sh=2c00c3b5abad https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/did-coronavirus-really-escape-chinese-lab-here-s-what-we-n1199531 https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/03/21/fact-check-did-coronavirus-originate-chinese-laboratory/2881150001/. --GRuban (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I may have misunderstood you, and that you may have also misunderstood me. Currently, there is a dearth of evidence to prove any origin scenario as to how the virus emerged, of which there are multiple. The argument that has been going on for the past few weeks is whether the lab leak scenario should be considered as "misinformation" and "conspiracy theory", when there are a number of prominent scientists who consider it to be a possibility, as reported by a number of reliable sources (like the ones mentiond above), and now even the US State Department has made a statement on the matter, confirming it to be a possibility they are considering, which they would like the WHO to investigate. Several editors above, including Adoring nanny, Forich, and JPxG, and Geogene agree that MEDRS does not apply here, as the claim that the virus may have originated in the lab is not biomedical in nature, and WP:MEDRS usually only applies to Wikipedia:biomedical information. I believe that we can revert to WP:RS, which indicates there is a controversy around the issue of the virus's origins, and that the "misinformation" and "conspiracy theory" tags should be removed. I hope this clarifies the differing POVs being argued. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 01:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

ScrupulousScribe, the claim that the virus may have originated in the lab is not biomedical in nature is a stunning claim. Other than the word "claim" itself, every noun in it is a biomedical one, and hypotheses concerning origins of pathogenic viruses are biomedical by definition. GPinkerton (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I've seen the "it's not biomedical" claim repeated many times, and I've tried my best to understand it, but I just can't follow. I'd almost call it analytically untrue, in the philosophers' sense — incapable of being true due to the meanings of the words it's built from. Moreover, without MEDRS-compliant sources laying out exactly what the different lab-leak "hypotheses" might be, sorting them into grades of plausibility, Wikipedia doing so would be synthesis. The whole starting point of that effort is incompatible with policy. XOR'easter (talk) 02:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

It really depends how it's worded. If I am claiming that SARS-COV-2 definitely originated in a lab that then accidentally leaked it, then for sure I would need a MEDRS source to back it up. If however, I want to content on Wikipedia to reflect the reality, which is that the origins of the virus are currently unknown, and that no hypothesis has been proven, then MEDRS should not apply. The reason for this is very simple. There are no MEDR sources proving anything. There are a number of scientific papers from very prestigious scientists making the case that the virus is most likely not of lab origin, yet even they say the notion cannot be disproven and that it remains a possibility. The most cited paper is Anderson et al, (this paper is quoted in every and any article railing against the lab leak theory) and another one is Baric et al (Ralph Baric is one of the world's formost experts on coronaviruses and synthetic engineering and a mentor/partner of Shi Zhengli). ScrupulousScribe (talk) 02:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

If you want to say that the origins are unknown and that no hypothesis has been definitively proven, then you still need MEDRS sources, because that's a biomedical claim, just like the claim that the origins are known would be. It's the subject matter of the claim that makes MEDRS essential, not whether the claim is negative or positive. XOR'easter (talk) 02:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that deciding that something's been proven, based on interpretation of primary sources which largely do not themselves say that the thing's been definitively proven, is WP:OR; if this is really as obvious as claimed, it'll be denied by all authoritative sources fairly soon, and newspapers will stop writing articles about whether or not it happened. I mean, all the newspapers could be full of crap, but Wikipedia is not really set up to address that issue. jp×g 03:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

(ec) "There are no MEDR sources proving anything." "yet even they say the notion cannot be disproven and that it remains a possibility." The lay public and media will just never understand that scientists speak in hedgey modals, not certainties. So when they hear an expert hesitate to declare something "impossible" they assume that thing is a valid option; and when an expert cautiously says "might" or "potentially" a lot they may attribute the behavior to a lack of authority or (worse) as dissembling. This is why it's even more important to use only MEDRS for the "origin story". JoelleJay (talk) 04:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

JoelleJayI understand your point, but in this case, there are a small (but increasing) number of scientists (like David Relman, Richard H. Ebright and Marc Lipsitch) who have specifically said that a lab leak scenario has to be investigated. One of the world's foremost experts in coronaviruses, Ralph S Baric, who is a mentor/partner of Shi Zhengli and collaberated extensively with the Wuhan Institute of Virology put out a paper back in May and explaining why he doesn't think a lab leak is likely, but still says that lacking any evidence for a "natural escape", a "lab escape" will "remain reasonable". Another paper on the topic which was put out in March, and which is perhaps the most cited, is Anderson et al, and they too do not discount the possibility of a lab escape. Both those papers, despite their citations and notability of their authors have been discounted as MEDRS by certain editors who prefer other MEDRS sources more supportive of their POV, based on their interpretation of WP:BESTSOURCES, which I and other users have taken up issue with. There is a real issue of NPOV, as how to present the possibility of a lab leak as an origin scenario for COVID-19 on Wikipedia, and not only is WP:MEDRS not being evenly applied, it is also being misapplied. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 05:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

So first, the Nature paper was rightly excluded from COVID-19 articles: it is a primary source. End of story. Second, the primary issue I see with both papers is a matter of DUEWEIGHT: neither paper is about the lab leak hypothesis—rather, it is briefly mentioned as a "possibility" (in the exact sense I mention above regarding hedging) before the authors thoroughly discount it. Trying to argue either of these papers can be used as evidence of scientists supporting its plausibility is equivalent to reading basically any mol bio paper and latching onto one of the alternative hypotheses preemptively offered in the middle of the Results subsection for a particular experiment, right before it is discredited without even needing to be tested. It's just a thing in science papers to set up pre-experimental alternative hypotheses and post-experimental alternative interpretations of data and then immediately demonstrate why they are invalid; the fact that such things evidently crossed the mind of the researchers or reviewers is utterly meaningless. JoelleJay (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Template:JoelleJay, by no means did I suggest that those papers can be used as evidence to support the plausibility of a lab leak hypothesis. The exact content changes that I have requested are that the "misinformation" and "conspiracy theory" labels be removed from the Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic and Wuhan Institute of Virology pages, as they violate WP:NPOV and the MEDR sources cited to support those labels do not differentiate between accidental and deliberate lab origin scenarios (see discussion on that here). I have also written a draft on the lab leak theory here (it needs some more work), and you will notice I didn't use any of the above-mentioned papers to support the theory. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 08:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Isn't that exactly what you're doing when you use them as examples of scientists you say are entertaining the possibility of a lab leak? My comment applied to both sourcing for WP articles and to the general arguments put forth in this thread. JoelleJay (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I've been banned from talking about a certain topic so I have to be careful what I say, but I didn't bring forward papers (such as Anderson or Baric's papers) as examples of scientists entertaining the possibility (there are other papers for that). Rather, what I said was that those scientists said it cannot be ruled out, yet we have some editors here who want to polarise the argument, and discredit those who entertain the possibility as "conspiracy theorists". The exact content changes that I and other editors sort to make was to remove the "conspiracy theory" label that was being used, and has now been removed from the relevant pages. The scenario of said possibility is intricate, and there are many different scenarios within that are possible, and you can look here to get an idea of them (though you probably already know). ScrupulousScribe (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the current US State Department is not only not a reliable source on conspiracy theories, but is, in fact, a promulgator of them (as is much of the rest of the current administration, following the lead of the President of the United States). This is, an a nutshell, the difference between a notable source and a reliable source. That the virus that is, broadly speaking, crippling the globe, is man made (conveniently enough by a political rival of the US administration), is an amazingly impressive claim, and needs really, really good sources before we write about it as a serious possibility. That there are people wildly hypothesizing about it without particularly good evidence is a much less impressive claim, and mainstream media outlets suffice. --GRuban (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I can't disagree with your view about the Trump administration, but unfortunately, you are conflating two very different theories with each other. Please see my post above about properly differentiating the lab legitimate leak theory as posited by serious scientists, from the "man made" theory presented by kooky conspiracy theorists. They are not one and the same thing, and if you read the New York Magazine article, as well as the Boston Magazine article, this will become infinitely clear. Accidents happen, and it now widely believed that H1N1 flu subtype in 1977 was the result of a lab accident. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Just wanted to also mention this lab leak event 1978 smallpox outbreak in the United Kingdom which is often mentioned in the field of laboratory safety. --Guest2625 (talk) 04:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

And, unfortunately, the British had another lab leak 30 years later 2007 United Kingdom foot-and-mouth outbreak. Accidents in lab research happen and cannot be discounted in a proper investigation. --Guest2625 (talk) 04:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Guest2625, and in both instances, the first individuals infected were those one would expect to be infected in such a scenario: the people working in, and the animals grazing near, the respective research laboratory. In the present case, the outbreak happened among people working at a market where infectious animals are known to be housed and sold. Is it really credible that the virus escaped and made its way unaided across town, without infecting anybody at the lab or on the way, solely in order to seek out a location where its native bat hosts are present and then begin infecting the market's employees? GPinkerton (talk) 10:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

GPinkerton, it seems you are working off very old information. The Chinese Government ruled out the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market as the site of a zoonitic jump, back in May (see statements from Chinese CDC director here, or listen to him yourself if you understand Chinese, here). No SARS-COV-2 virus was detected in animal samples taken from the market, and were instead found in only environmental samples, and sewage. Furthermore, many of the first cases were found in people who had never been to the market, or had no relatives or colleagues that had been to the market. It is currently a complete mystery as to how a virus from a bat species from 1,400km away suddenly emerged in Wuhan, during their hibernation state. Please read the articles I provided above so that you understand the subject of this conversation. I would start you off with the Le Monde article, here. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 11:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

ScrupulousScribe, more non-peer-reviewed, outdated speculation. GPinkerton (talk) 12:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

GPinkertonI hope you read the article with statements from the Chinese CDC director so that you are now aware of the outdated information relating to the Wuhan wet market. You don't have to read the Le Monde piece, but it will bring you up to date on other things. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 13:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Here is a quote from a science source which supports the statement of the editor above. The Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market has bee ruled out:

The earliest recognised case of infection with SARS-CoV-2 was an elderly and infirm man who developed symptoms on 1 December 2019. None of his family members became infected, and the source of his virus remains unknown. Furthermore, 14 of the 41 first cases had no contact with the seafood market. In another report, five of the first seven cases of COVID-19 had no link to the seafood market. Thus, it seems very likely that the virus was amplified in the market, but the market might not have been the site of origin nor the only source of the outbreak.[76]

What is known is that the outbreak began in Wuhan, and that the Wuhan Institute of Virology does some of the best and most extensive research on coronaviruses in the world. If the coronavirus outbreak had started in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, would you only investigate the bats in the Blue Ridge mountains? No, you would walk on over to the University of North Carolina campus and knock on the door of professor Ralph S Baric's office and ask him some questions and ask to see his lab's notebooks and virus database. The idea of a lab leak is reasonable as those two cases above make clear. Whether it happened or not is unknown at the moment. Specialists in the field as mentioned already like David Relman, Richard H. Ebright and Marc Lipsitch agree. And, it really should not take such a leap of faith to believe that a lab accident might have happened as has happened multiple times in the United Kingdom and around the world. --Guest2625 (talk) 12:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Guest2625, without any evidence, a leap of faith over a canyon of Occam's razors is precisely what is required. GPinkerton (talk) 12:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you or I think. Reliable sources have been presented which state that experts in the field see the hypothesis of a lab accident as possible. Labeling the hypothesis as misinformation or a conspiracy theory is not tenable per wikipedia's policies and guidelines. And just to clarify, for all those people who are in love with that Anderson et. al. Nature article, it is a letter to the editor -- ie it's an opinion piece. --Guest2625 (talk) 13:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Guest2625, panspermia is possible. UFOs are possible. Nevertheless, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and are worthless without, as in this case. GPinkerton (talk) 13:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I feel like somebody ought to mention that the Telegraph story linked up there describes the State Department's assertions as going over like a lead balloon: The claims were dismissed by analysts; "Zero details given," noted Kristian Andersen, an immunologist at Scripps Research, rating the statement as "an F"; Mr Pompeo's statement offered little beyond insinuation. Meanwhile, maybe someone can explain to me how "there was an accidental leak and the Chinese government is covering it up" is not a conspiracy theory. And an almost archetypal one, at that. XOR'easter (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Fine, let it be noted, but that does not mean that the theory should be considered "misinformation" or "conspiracy theories". There are scientists on both sides of the argument, and neither of them are claiming to have the absolute truth. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, there is another discussion on this very page about the Chinese government being an unreliable source, in which every participant (as far as I can tell) is in consensus about the overall issue of their claims not being believable prima facie: I'm not sure how it could be generally accepted fact for all other issues and conspiracy theory specifically when about COVID. jp×g 03:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

You are confusing science with opinions of scientists. There are scientists who believe in astrology, Creationism, homeopathy, high-dosage vitamins, and other similar stuff, none of which is science. "A scientist believes in it" or even "three scientists believe in it" is not enough to make something credible. Only people who do not understand how science works think it is. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

HB, your correct distinction regarding what is shown via the scientific method vs the opinions of scientist is not made stronger by needlessly antagonist comments such as this, ”Only people who do not understand how science works think it is.". While not directed at any particular editor it can be seen as directed at a subset of editors and thus is a CIVIL issue. It would be best to hold back such comments and let the reason of your argument stand on its own (sound) merit. Springee (talk) 14:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be suggesting that I am confusing opinions from scientists with proven hypotheses from scientists. That is not the case, and as I've pointed out, there is currently no proof of any COVID-19 origin scenario. As such, Wikipedia should present all origin scenarios with equal weight, until there is a scientific consensus on the matter. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 12:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

ScrupulousScribe, Wikipedia should present all origin scenarios with equal weight is patently absurd. There is strong evidence that SARS-CoV-2 is a zoonotic bat pathogen. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Are you seriously suggesting we give an extra-terrestrial or supernatural origin equal space to medical evidence? At this point, this is speculation on the level of panspermia. GPinkerton (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

GPinkerton, I am afraid you are the one making extraordinary claims. There is no evidence of the zoonitic jump scenario, and as likely as it is, it is not proven. This situation is due to the lack of information coming out of China. There is no equivalence to extra-terrestrials. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

ScrupulousScribe, if there is no evidence of zoonosis, why does the WHO source, which you supplied, refer to SARS-CoV-2 as a zoonotic pathogen? This is ridiculous. GPinkerton (talk) 13:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The fact that SARS-COV-2 is bat derived coronavirus (aka "zoonotic pathogen"), does not preclude the possibility that it underwent studies in a lab from which it was accidentally leaked. Please read the sources I provided, otherwise you are just taking up space on this page to ask questions you would know not to ask. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 14:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

ScrupulousScribe, I would only know not to ask if I interpreted the sources according to the novel method you appear to be using. It is not up to you whether or not others disagree with your claims. GPinkerton (talk) 14:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Occam's razor precludes such assumptions without evidence. GPinkerton (talk) 14:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

GPinkerton No. Occam's razor tells us the most likely origin for SARS-COV-2 is a lab leak. Arcturus (talk) 14:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Arcturus, no it absolutely does not. GPinkerton (talk) 14:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

GPinkerton Occam's razor: "the simplest explanation is usually the right one". So SARS-COV-2 originated in a city where there's a lab carrying out research on zoonotic origins of coronaviruses, but it didn't come from the lab? That's pretty much on a par with claiming that the effects witnessed after Chernobyl weren't caused by the local power plant. Arcturus (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Arcturus, "the simplest explanation is usually the right one". What's more likely, an escape of a zoonotic virus from highly controlled biosecurity without any infections at the source and magical transmission to a market across town, or a perfectly normal and frequently repeated natural zoonosis in an environment known to to contain the both the host animals and the first human cases of the disease? What's more likely, some blogs, Daily Mail, and magazine claims being right or the overwhelming scientific consensus being wrong? GPinkerton (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, you might consider a combination of both the scenarios you mention (take out "magical") - not that I've seen it suggested in the MSM - yet. A similar scenario might be cases of Anthrax suddenly appearing in the village of Porton, Wiltshire. What would be made of that? Arcturus (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Arcturus, so it's just original research and tu quoque. Slicey, slicey. GPinkerton (talk) 15:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

No personal attacks intended. I'm merely asking you to consider some scenarios. Arcturus (talk) 15:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I thought the purpose of the thread is to make Wikipedia's readers consider the groundless and unsubstantiated "lab leak" conspiracy theory ...

We already know the quality of claims made when there was a "lab leak" conspiracy theory based on the vicinity of Porton Down to Salisbury. I don't see how this is any different: speculation resting on a few seconds' look at a map. GPinkerton (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

> Wikipedia should present all origin scenarios with equal weight

Presenting all scenarios with equal weight violates the NPOV policy, specifically the WP:GEVAL section, which explicitly bans giving equal weight to all scenarios when high-quality reliable sources tend to favor one over another. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I just want to give my own view on the underlying controversy. Although I don not think that WP:MEDRS sourcing is required, I also think that it is clear that at this point, the sourcing in favor of the view that this is a conspiracy theory is stronger than the sourcing for the view that it is not. Unfortunately, the way things work on Wikipedia, for our purposes that is more important than the question of whether or not it is actually a conspiracy theory. I would therefore caution users opposed to the conspiracy theory idea, and User:ScrupulousScribe in particular, not to try to go beyond what the sourcing actually supports. WP:FRINGE/PS may apply here. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Which sourcing that advocates the conspiracy theory do you have in mind - sourcing that actually uses those words? Arcturus (talk) 14:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Adoring nanny, I appreciate your response. The only sources that indicate that the lab leak theory is a conspiracy theory, are those which conflate it with legitimate conspiracy theories. There is a discussion to be had on why two papers from unknown authors that conflate different lab origin theories should be considered WP:BESTSOURCES, superceding even the most notable coronavirus scientists, like Ralph Baric, who has said that a "lab escape" theory is "reasonable" given the "lack of evidence" for a "natural escape". The USDOS statement is significant, as it reflects US Government policy, and has made a few editors in this conversation reconsider the position, as per WP:DUE, and WP:RS. As the incoming Biden administration takes the helm, one of the most likely things to happen is that the US will rejoin the WHO, and as part of that, it will likely demand for the investigation to be taken seriously, which will give us more statements, and strengthen the case for WP:DUE and WP:RS. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 14:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

ScrupulousScribe, you appear to be basing your claims' validity on what the US government might do in future, contrary to normal chronological logic and WP:CRYSTAL. We need not wait that long in any case, since reliable sources already discuss this "theory" as a "conspiracy theory". See:
Nie, Jing-Bao (2020-12-01). "In the Shadow of Biological Warfare: Conspiracy Theories on the Origins of COVID-19 and Enhancing Global Governance of Biosafety as a Matter of Urgency". Journal of Bioethical Inquiry. 17 (4): 567–574. doi:10.1007/s11673-020-10025-8. ISSN 1872-4353. PMC 7445685. PMID 32840850. GPinkerton (talk) 14:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

This really is getting tedious! That source claims conspiracy about biological weapons, not about an lab leak per se. Arcturus (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Arcturus, it explicitly calls the idea of an escape from the Wuhan Institute of Virology a conspiracy theory and "groundless" "according to the available scientific evidence". Tedious yes. MEDRS supporting the lab leak conspiracy theory, none yet ... GPinkerton (talk) 15:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

So what? There are peer-reviewed papers from scientists making the opposite claim, like this one. Like I said, there are scientists on both sides, and there is no clear consensus. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Not MEDRS. You can find scientists saying all sorts of crap in peer-reviewed journals, like that homeopathy works. That's why Wikipedia has altogether stricter criteria for SCI/MED sourcing. Alexbrn (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

This paper's evidence is the same non-peer-reviewed paper from early last year and an article in the Wall Street Journal ... GPinkerton (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

As I've pointed out several times now (over at Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology), that paper was written by a botanist and an entrepreneur. Out of the thousands of papers written about SARS-CoV-2, you cherry-pick one written by people who aren't even virologists. Others have pointed out that it's classified as an "Essay". -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

This is from Reuters dated January 18, 2021. Factbox: The origins of COVID-19. Wikipedia follows what the reliable sources say. The factbox does not mention conspiracy theory or misinformation. Why wikipedia editors want to interject the term "conspiracy theory" is beyond me and many other editors. --Guest2625 (talk) 12:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Guest2625, The factbox does not mention conspiracy theory or misinformation. See: argumentum ex silentio. beyond me and many other editors. See: argumentum ad populum. The reliable source linked above says specifically that there is no evidence for "lab leak". ("Though there is no credible supporting evidence, some researchers still do not rule out the possibility that the virus was released accidentally by a specialist lab at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.") Theories without evidence are called what? GPinkerton (talk) 12:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The statement that the virus "did" leak from the lab is false; however, the statement that the virus "might" have leaked from the lab is true. That the virus might have leaked from a lab is a hypothesis that multiple scientists and the US government say is plausible. Also, these individuals are of the opinion that this hypothesis along with the hypothesis that the virus came directly from bats should both be investigated by the WHO investigatory team. Just put whether the term "conspiracy theory" should be used for the hypothesis that "the virus might have leaked from a lab" to a vote; then everyone can have their say, and this conversation will be done. --Guest2625 (talk) 13:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Break

This discussion is wasting everyone's time at this point. The question of what sort of sourcing we should rely on is clear. WP:MEDRS is the relevant policy, and Alexbrn has explained how that policy applies to this case. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your conclusion. However, an important point I got from this discussion is that layman readers like many of us who are not virologists are not prepared to understand the science behind it. I liked that Vincent Racaniello, who disaproved the NY Magazine article, took the time to breakdown the lab leak theory in this episode of his podcast. It shows scientific integrity and open-mindedness from him to pinpoint exactly what parts of the theory are bogus, which we need to understand so that a future reiteration of attempts to edit Wikipedia on it can be properly addresed. So, yes, the sort of sourcing that we should rely when editing stuff about the origin of SARS-CoV-2, is MEDRS, but there are aspects of it that could exceptionally have RS sourcing, and it shouldn't be hard to provide explicit guidelines in that sense. Forich (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for someone to identify a MEDRS source that supports the notion that a lab leak is "conspiracy". If you read the one suggested above by GPinkerton you'll see that it doesn't. Arcturus (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

No, one will see no such thing. The paper is all about conspiracy theories. GPinkerton (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

It's about biological warfare conspiracy theories, and that's all. There is no real disagreement that this is probably a conspiracy. At issue is the point that all other lab leak scenarios are currently classified as "conspiracy" by Wikipedia. So again, please point to a usable, i.e. recent, MEDRS source that labels such things as an accidental lab leak as conspiracy. Arcturus (talk) 17:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

No, it specifically describes the conspiracy theory of a leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. GPinkerton (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The paper details two [conspiracy] theories (quotations given):

First theory

A few days after the lockdown of Wuhan in late January 2020, a U.S. newspaper prone to circulating conspiracy theories linked the origins of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov-2, then called 2019-nCoV) to China’s covert biological weapons programme ...

Second theory

Immediately after the epidemic (initially called “Wuhan pneumonia”) became public knowledge in late January, an unsettling theory started to circulate in China. Posts with certain variations—but containing exactly the same information and similar wording—spread like wildfire, particularly on Chinese social media WeChat. They tied the origins of the virus to the first China-hosted international military multi-sport event which involved the participation of nearly ten thousand athletes from over one hundred countries ...

The paper does not address anything other than these two very specific theories. It is certainly not "all about conspiracy theories". In fact, the second theory is about the USA being the source. This paper cannot be used as source to support, for instance, the claim that an accidental leak from a laboratory - the Wuhan Lab - engaged in coronavirus experimentation, is a conspiracy. Incidentally, it's a paper from a bio-ethics group. Is this actually MEDRS? I'm not saying it isn't, but maybe someone could confirm that it is. Arcturus (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Arcturus, the text you have quoted omits the title of the section it was quoted from, which is as follows: Conspiracy Theory Version 1: A P4 Lab in Wuhan. Are you seriously suggesting that there is some other lab in Wuhan to which some wholly separate conspiracy theory has somehow attached? How is this different from claiming that while most aliens at Roswell were a conspiracy theory, the real aliens are somehow bona fide? GPinkerton (talk) 22:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Both theories are described within the context of biological warfare. As far as the current discussion is concerned, it doesn't mater if the paper is RS or MEDRS; it's irrelevant and of no use. Arcturus (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Arcturus, why? The conspiracy theory alleges there was a leak from a lab. If this paper isn't pertinent to that conspiracy theory, nothing will be and we can agree not to include any mention of the idea at the page suggested, as it is wholly spurious, groundless, and without evidence. I suppose now you'll relent in the "Occam's razor suggests the conspiracy theory is true without one MEDRS to back it" philosophy? GPinkerton (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Thucydides411, it is not at all clear why WP:MEDRS should apply on aspects of Covid-19 that do not constitute Wikipedia:Biomedical information, or on aspects of Covid-19 which would usually constitute biomedical information (such as the mechanism of transmission of the first human infection), but where there is no public information for scientists to assess. MEDRS should be required for things like the purported medical benefits of THC or CBD, but not for topics like decriminalization of cannabis in the US, or how many States have legalized it. There is an ongoing discussion on this topic here.

Also, the fifth pillar of Wikipedia is that there are no firm rules (WP:5P5), and policies can be discussed and changed if they are not working in special circumstances. It is not every day that a virus causes a global pandemic that started in a country that imposes a complete media and academic blackout on its origins. I personally don't think any policies need to be changed, but it has to be discussed as to how WP:MEDRS applies here, given the lack of data for scientists to assess, and the subsequent lack of scientific studies that can conclude the matter.

Discussing the matter of whether MEDRS applies here is anything but a waste of time, and can go right the way up to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee if it has to.

ScrupulousScribe (talk) 05:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The applicability of WP:MEDRS is clear here, and you're wasting everyone's time by arguing that we should lower sourcing standards for an important biomedical subject. The discussion has played out here. If you want to go to WP:ARBCOM, then you're free to do so. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Why should MEDRS apply to subjects "which would usually constitute biomedical information...but where there is no public information for scientists to assess"? How about we just not write anything about which no information is available? And if we're determined to write something based on theoretical evaluations, how about we prefer the theoretical evaluations of subject-matter experts over the wild guesses of anyone else? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Debate conclusions

First of all, I am going to ask editors, specially on the side of the lab leak theory to keep their comments brief in this section. Now, here are the strongest points made on each side:

Anti lab leak theory best points

1. The sources provided (New York Magazine and Infection Control Today) are not MEDRS. Editing medical articles require MEDRS, thus do not mention the lab leak theory based on Non-MEDRS sources
2. There has been confusion regarding medical peer-reviewed sources and MEDRS. They are not the same, and editors should familiarize with the difference before engaging in editing a medical topic
3. Even if we assume that secondary sources may be imperfect in this case (i.e. they are slow in keeping up with the latest developments, there has been signs of censorship to Chinese scientists, there are ethical accusations against an important subset of the scientists gatekeeping the MEDRS), MEDRS are still the best source for a Wikipedia entry on medical subjects. Moreover, If MEDRS are accused of intentionally ignoring touching the lab leak theory as a way of preemptive censorship, there are independent assesments on the theory by prominent experts (e.g. Vincent Racaniello) that have explicitely debunked it point by point. This should suffice to restore our faith in the mainstream standard channels.
4. Edits that delete lab-leak claims from Wikipedia should not be interpreted as an attack on the personal beliefs of pro lab-leak editors, and civil debate showing how this deletes are grounded in Wikipedia policy should be enough to avoid edit wars. The fact that anti lab leak editors put up this RS Noticeboard is telling of an open mind to understand whether they were missing something.

Pro lab leak theory best points

1. The issue of understanding how MEDRS-only policy works for Covid-related topics is not simple. Repeating that it is simple does not make it any less complicated, and instead seems condescending
2. There is nothing wrong in proposing edits in talk pages in good faith, and edits there discussing the lab leak theory should not be seen as disruptive just because of it being a fringy topic. If it is not your favorite topic, do not read it, and skip to the next section of the talk page
3. It feels unfair to have the lab leak theory completely extirpated from all pages in Wikipedia, given the traction it has received in RS. Wikipolicies should not drive us to the error of complete extirpation of a notable subject.
4. Splitting-hair argument #1: It is wrong to compare the lab leak and the flat earth theories. WHO has admited they will look into the lab leak theory, although it is a remote possibility. No scientific corpus will ever "look into the flat earth theory".
5. Splitting-hair argument #2: To have the virus be of animal origin is not the same as to have animal origin and natural evolution. The possibility of natural origin and artificial recombination in a laboratory is not a semantic game but a distinct instance, so there needs to be a separated discussion of it based on logic sense, regardless of no MEDRS breaking down the lab leak theory into man-made (constructed) vs artificially recombined (manipulated). It would be a straw-man argument to try to debunk both by only addresing the man-made hypothesis.
6. Splitting-hair argument #3: It would be preferable to have sources be discussed mainly by the merits of their evidence and strength of argumentation. Ad-hominems and bringing out certain cherry-picked stains in the CV of authors should either come as secondary rebuttals, or rebuttals aimed at the editorial decision of the publication that allowed a questionable person publish a certain topic in a RS.

Next, I'm asking i) for an independent editor to provide his own take on the conclusion, and ii) is there a chance of a middle ground between the two sides that would allow for productive editing? I hope that we are open to hear proposals in that sense. Forich (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Forich: thanks for the above effort; a good summary. This clearly needs an independent arbitrator to close it. WP:RF3O is only when there's a dispute between two editors, so a WP:RFC might be the next step. Arcturus (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the standard practice is for an uninvolved editor to write a summary in circumstances like these, or when closing a discussion and the like; otherwise, we run the risk of simply escalating the meta-argument another level ("that's not what I said!" "nobody even made that point, why is it here?!" and so forth). XOR'easter (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I think this is a not-unreasonable collection of arguments, but the last item should be marked as anti-policy. We do not really want editors to choose sources "mainly by the merits of their evidence and strength of argumentation". MEDRS warns against this: '"Assessing evidence quality" means editors should determine quality of the type of source and quality of the publication. Editors should not perform detailed academic peer review.' The alternative is to decide that editors know better than the sources. We need to pick high-quality sources and accept what they say; we should not pick sources based on whether we agree with the contents (e.g., "their evidence and arguments"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Neutral: Origin unknown

There is only one question in this discussion: that is whether the term "conspiracy theory" should be used for the hypothesis that "the virus might have come from a laboratory accident". The US government has stated it most clearly:

The U.S. government does not know exactly where, when, or how the COVID-19 virus—known as SARS-CoV-2—was transmitted initially to humans. We have not determined whether the outbreak began through contact with infected animals or was the result of an accident at a laboratory in Wuhan, China.[77]

Multiple scientists have also stated the same thing. If a conclusion is needed, a request for comment can be opened on the relevant page and a conclusion decided there by a tally of the participant's opinions. --Guest2625 (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Disagreed. "Neutral" by no means implies "middle", "central", or "no position". Experienced editors should all be familiar enough with the NPOV principle, where neutrality has a specific definition. Also, WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, so decided there by a tally of the participant's opinions is also questionable. Normchou ^💬 06:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Abusing MEDRS is destructive and harmful

I would like to point to a recent discussion in a specific context on Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19#WP:MEDRS, where I argued the specious use of MEDRS has the destructive effect of censoring significant viewpoints supported by reliable sources. This is harmful to the Wikipedia project.

Also, I cannot help but raise the issue about WP:CONDUCT even though this is a RSN discussion. As Forich has mentioned above, there is a certain sense of condescension among some of the editors who frequently cite MEDRS in their editing decisions, regardless of whether or not they are correct. Actually, as I noted earlier on the ANI, I can sense quite some tribalism and WP:BITE mentality when I examine the editing history of some of those editors. I am not sure how long this phenomenon has existed on Wikipedia, but definitely feel it is causing harm to the community if continued. Normchou ^💬 07:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

(Repurposing from my comment at ANI): So right now, all the non-biomedical "evidence" we have of a lab leak is the lab's proximity (location- and research-wise) and the shitty opaqueness of the Chinese government. These are both circumstantial and unconvincing, so the media rely on overinterpreting scientists' opinions of the virus's genetic origins to strengthen their narrative. The evidentiary details that we can actually empirically analyze are all dependent on expert interpretation of viral evolution and epidemiology. That is to say, any "evidence" we have to boost this out of misinformation territory requires a) constructing a timeline that fits with the known epidemiological timeline; and b) proposing a mechanism that would align the genetic history with what one would expect if there was passage within the lab beforehand. Both of these necessitate MEDR sourcing reflecting expert agreement. The consensus among scientists, from very early on, has been to assume a zoonotic origin with natural transmission to humans, because that is how prior epidemics have arisen and there is nothing to suggest otherwise in this instance. Of course there are lots of unknowns in the early days; we almost never have a clue as to who patient zero was for any epidemic. But given the corpus that has been published over the last year, the vast majority of scientists did not try to fill those holes with allegations of lab passage. Instead they looked at the available data, found it comports with the standard origin assumptions, and did their analyses using those assumptions. That a handful of academics, many not even in virology, have spoken up about a lab leak does not change the consensus. This is best demonstrated by the fact that when the lab leak is addressed at all in the literature, even in articles directly relating to viral origin, it is treated as a hedged "sigh" note to humor the pressures of laypeople before being discarded. It is extremely important any claims by non-MEDRS be couched in the context of widespread expert opinion of those claims; when such consensus is unavailable, the details of the claim are not DUE. This translates to not including non-MEDRS proposed origin mechanisms (even when the ref is said to quote a qualified scientist) when such mechanisms are not directly addressed by strong MEDRS. If hypothetically there were no review articles discussing the furin-like cleavage site in the context of engineered GoFs, then relaying MEDPOP interpretation of it as evidence of lab manipulation would be giving undue credence to FRINGE. JoelleJay (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Excellent conclusion, no one could have said it better. The lab leak theory has two solid starting points but a missing link in the middle makes the whole logical chain flawed.

On one side, if hypothetically the exact same virus strain of SARS-CoV-2 was reported to be in a freezer in WIV, and all the other evidence and narratives remained the same, the lab leak theory would not be fringe. This proves that to have a lab leak per se is not the contended issue.

On the other side, scientists do not know how to weigh the two hypothesis explaining the emergence of the virus, it either gained its adaptability to humans and stability by i) cryptic evolution (meaning that for many years people or wild animals somewhere had SARS-CoV-2 but poor surveillance kept it an obscure fact) or ii) it evolved in accelerated conditions that left no traces of circulation (either in a lab or some miracle of nature). From this side, the absence of evidence on the cryptic evolution has been used by lab-leak-theory guys as evidence of absence, thus claiming that accelerated evolution had to happened.

For the lab leak theory to be substantiated, the missing link needs evidence: did the WIV had in secret a 99.9% similar strain? Does WHO's investigation (antibodies, forensic sampling of wildlife, tracing of early cases) rules out the cryptic evolution hypothesis? Maybe these are clues that will never receive further investigation, since the narrative has stablished that the origin is well-understood. Forich (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, at this point, the lab leak idea is unfalsifiable. The most in favour anyone reasonable can say is that it "can't be ruled out" or "we might never know". If this is the case, unsubstantiated claims about an artificial origin fail the test of falsification and are factually meaningless. On the other hand, the assumption that viruses are subject to evolution like everything else and this one is probably no different is verifiable and falsifiable in principle, and therefore it is more meaningful to make truth-apt statements about the one than the other. GPinkerton (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Forich: You are an economist, so it surprises me that you consider Maybe these are clues that will never receive further investigation only to be associated with narratives, whereas in reality there is also a big incentive issue that has not been fully scrutinized. A scientist is, first of all, a human. They need respect, prestige, and money (funding) to continue their career. As Stuart Turville, an immuno-virologist at the Kirby Institute in Australia said, the possibility of a "lab leak" keeps us up at night and is the nightmare within nightmares [78]. Why do you think they are so afraid of this scenario, provided that they are supposed to be only "discoverers of the truth"? The user above, JoelleJay, has mentioned that the vast majority of scientists did not try to fill those holes with allegations of lab passage. Is this phenomenon a pure consequence of the scientific methodology and/or established norms within the scientific community regardless of any conflict of interest? Now, suppose there exists a significant non-scientific, human factor that incentivizes (in a conscious or unconscious way) these scientists (as humans) to focus more on "zoonotic origin with natural transmission to humans" and less on the "lab leak", then we have a general bias that is difficult to be self-corrected by the scientists only. Such a bias can already exist before all these scientific investigations are conducted and research papers written. Normchou ^💬 17:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Normchou, This sounds like confusing a "possibility" of "nightmare" with a statement of fact worthy of note in an encyclopaedia. GPinkerton (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Read the article and understand the context of the "nightmare": This theory is the most uncomfortable and most controversial. If true, it would have severe and lasting ramifications on research, geopolitics and trust in scientific institutions. I am not for or against the "lab leak" theory, but merely pointing out the incentive issue that has been ignored in all these discussions. We should allow a NPOV (one of the WP:5Ps) presentation of the issue using other RSes that balances the "over-dueness" of the "scientific" narrative on this specific issue, which is actually subject to the human incentive issue I've mentioned above. Normchou ^💬 18:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC); edited 18:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Re:Nightmares: Dara O'Briain on fear scenarios (first 32 seconds, but the whole thing is good). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

In this recent article [79] by Roger A. Pielke Jr., a professor at the University of Colorado Boulder, he also pointed out this incentive issue and raised the concern about any real or perceived conflict of interest using the example of Peter Daszak, a member of two prominent investigative teams searching for the virus' origin. Normchou ^💬 19:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

JoelleJay (talk · contribs) puts it well, and that should be the end of this stupid debate. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

JoelleJay, it is great to have Wikipedians like you who argue the point, instead of attacking the credibility of other editors, as others here have done and continue to do. Since I've been banned from a specific topic related to this thread, I would like to make only one very specific point about something you said in the previous ANI which you brought here, specifically that "there nothing to suggest otherwise in this instance". In truth, there is something very different about the emergence of SARS-COV-2 from the emergence of SARS-COV-1 and from other emerging diseases in the general, which is it's seeming pre-adaption to humans, and which is the subject of a peer-reviewed paper here. The author's hypothesis was proven when the virus jumped from humans to minks in European fur farms, and the mink version began to rapidly mutate (paper here), and this is the subject of further study. The fact that the virus has been well adapted to humans from the very start, is also mentioned in "Current knowledge supporting origin tracing work" (page 3) of the WHO's "Terms of Reference" document for its investigation, here. This peculiar fact and associated papers/authors have been referenced in a number of reliable sources, and continue to get referenced (like in this BBC report from last night), that were put forward by myself to make certain content changes. I hope you read those papers, and unfortunately, I won't be able to reply further in this thread, as may get too close to the topic I can't talk about. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

ScrupulousScribe, the first link you supplied (yet again) and which you described as "peer-reviewed" is no such thing. You have clearly missed the large yellow label at the top of the target page which states: bioRxiv is receiving many new papers on coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. A reminder: these are preliminary reports that have not been peer-reviewed. They should not be regarded as conclusive, guide clinical practice/health-related behavior, or be reported in news media as established information. and then again missed the next notice on the top of the page (a little lower) warning that: This article is a preprint and has not been certified by peer review. The BBC source you supply does not credit the lab-leak claim, and quotes experts repudiating it, and furthermore describes the WHO terms of reference report as "mentioning many of China's talking points, including foreign origins and food-chain transmission" with a "hint at the politics behind the scenes", so hardly the most impartial source for whatever hand0waving you'd like the encyclopaedia to reproduce. GPinkerton (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

JoelleJay, the above post from GPinkerton is a great example of an argument that doesn't really make any point. The WHO document says that the virus is well adapted to human transmission from the moment it was first detected. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 01:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

These arguments you're repeating have been shown to be specious and your claims about the sources demonstrably false, a point proven numerous times already, but to no avail. Your quoting of irrelevant phrases from documents that expressly disavow the American government/Daily Mail narrative of lab leak does not help advance any cause. GPinkerton (talk) 04:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd say that bioRxiv preprints are not peer-reviewed is an incredibly important point to make. XOR'easter (talk) 04:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• MEDRS is really nothing more than a recommendation to use really high-quality sources, which isn't ever a real problem. Abusing WP:MEDRS could be bad, agreed, since sometimes trivial claims can have trivial sources. But using WP:MEDRS is great, since it helps us keep our sourcing standards high when they need to be. In my experience, editors complaining about this are editors the Project would be better off ejecting. Alexbrn (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • It can be used as a device to keep primary source material out when the claims are not addressed in any secondary source. This might be in aggregate desirable, but this is not technically the same as a recommendation to only use the best sources. Talpedia (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
    • MEDRS doesn't prohibit primary sources (a common misunderstanding), but they are generally not used for certain kinds of claim. Which is just in line with wider policy. If something primary isn't discussed in other, secondary, RS, why should Wikipedia (which is meant to be a tertiary source) be mentioning it? Alexbrn (talk) 07:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• MEDRS is a collection of guidance and recommendations that would apply to any Wikipedia topic where there is a similar abundance of recent, reliable secondary sources. If art topics had the same huge quantity of recent research and review as medical topics generally enjoy, then ARTRS would be just as sensible an extension of RS as MEDRS is. Much of the problem we observe with these complaints about MEDRS is that it makes it far more difficult for POV-pushers to swamp articles with poor quality, "fringy" sources that they are fed from off-wiki conspiracy sites and social media. The time is coming when we are going to have to show the POV-pushers the door immediately without all the timewasting we go through at present. And we are going to have to understand the difference between manipulative accusations of WP:BITE (along with insincere howls of "censorship") and preserving the integrity and accuracy of Wikipedia. In the current climate, we have to choose to support one or the other. --RexxS (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I think the accusations of censorship are probably sincere but ill-founded. Talpedia (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • A manipulative and thinly-veiled ad hominem attack against "POV pushers" without any actual evidence should not be representative of the level or quality of discussion that a typical Wikipedia admin is supposed to uphold. Normchou ^💬 23:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • MEDRS is a collection of guidance and recommendations that would apply to any Wikipedia topic where there is a similar abundance of recent, reliable secondary sources. This is only half the reason for MEDRS; the other half is that (like with BLP) the Wikipedia:Biomedical information topic area is one where errors can lead to serious, immediate, and hard-to-reverse real-world consequences, which means we have to approach it more cautiously and with higher sourcing requirements. (In fact, on many fringe topics there are not high quality sources available - part of the point of MEDRS is that in that case we ought to ignore those topics entirely rather than risk the harm of covering them from a poor source.) While we always want the best available sources, the same urgency and risk does not imply to non-biomedical claims. --Aquillion (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Claiming that mere information from Wikipedia—whether or not it is correct—can lead to serious, immediate, and hard-to-reverse real-world consequences is susceptible to a slippery slope, and seems to have completely disregarded the actual cognitive processes of information handling and decision making (including decision making under risk) in autonomous, well-functioning human beings like most of us. Normchou ^💬 23:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Nonetheless, however you feel about it, that is indeed part of the rationale behind the tighter sourcing requirements for WP:BLP and WP:MEDRS. --Aquillion (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• I agree mostly with what is said above in particularly in JoelleJay's statement. That said, there are times where non-MEDRS but otherwise normally good RSes (NYTimes) are appropriate for statements that are very high level and make no attempt at a novel medical or scientific claim but otherwise readily collaborate with MEDRS. For example, using a NYTimes source which backs the statement "The first known COVID cases originated in China." would be 100% reasonable. Using a NYTimes source to broadly document high-level methods of reducing spread of COVID like mask-wearing and frequent hand washing would be appropriate, even though we have numerous MEDRS studies that affirm the effectiveness of these, we don't need to fall back on such high level advice. Using a NYTimes source to back a more "precise" statement "COVID originated from a lab leak near Wuhan, China." would be inappropriate at this time since that would require MEDRS to be affirming, or saying that "COVID is able to affect the host body by using ACE2 enzymes." (a very specialized piece of knowledge that is not high-level and thus should be sourced to a specialized, MEDRS source.) There is some common sense when talking use of non-MEDRS in talking high-level medical related information and I've seen some cases where adherents to MEDRS may jump too much to disallow non-MEDRS in these cases. But I will fully agree that anything related to this claimed lab leak theory needs a clear MEDRS source, since that's a virus/disease origin aspect that requires specialized knowldge. --Masem (t) 21:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Rules can be rules-lawyered, principles invariably contradict one another, finding how to trade off principles and which best apply is hard. Lots of this is just the way of the world. I don't think there is antyhing here beyond the standard issues with conflict. I suspect the "abuse" here refers to whether a claim is medical, journalistic or sociology and appling MEDRS standards to arguably journalistic claims. Talpedia (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Complaints about "abusing" the project's standards of sourcing generally seem to put the cart before the horse. We don't decide that a topic is important and then lower our standards until writings on that topic clear the bar. We write about topics when adequately-reliable sources cover it to such an extent that it is noteworthy. Sometimes, I regret that; there has been more than one occasion when I would have liked to write about a thing, but it was too niche or too transient. XOR'easter (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• I agree that MEDRS is frequently abused and in fact is irrelevant to this topic. The stated reason for MEDRS is that Wikipedia articles "are widely used among those seeking health information." In the case of COVID-19, this helps us for example to ensure that readers are not given false information about hydroxychloroquine, which some people have falsely claimed can cure the illness. But whether COVID-19 originated in a lab or from animals is irrelevant to what treatment someone should seek. Wikipedia policies, including RS, WEIGHT and NOR, are adequate to prevent the articles from being false or misleading or misrepresenting the weight of expert opinion. TFD (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  The Four Deuces, and the fact that these same virologists who're being accused of leaking this on the world and denying it have been, unheeded, telling everyone to minimize human contact with bats in Asia is what, irrelevant to peoples' health? If we give false credence to speculation that this pandemic was anything but the long-expected result of insanitary overlap between SARS-CoV-carrying bats and humans, how is that any different to giving false credence to speculation that antimalarials might be beneficial in some way in its treatment? If, entirely unsupported by any securely known facts, we allow Wikipedia's authorial voice to allow readers to take away the notion that Covid-19 is somehow not, prima facie, a predicable and predicted, ordinary natural occurrence, then NPOV will have failed by default. Pandemic zoonosis is routine, and logic demands extraordinary evidence to overturn the obvious consensus that no artificial "missing link" is necessary, just as in the other bat coronavirus pandemics in the 21st century. GPinkerton (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

That makes no sense. People are not going to increase their contact with bats just because they don't think they were the source of COVID-19. In fact, scientists do not think that COVID-19 came directly from bats but from an unknown intermediary animal, such as an anteater. TFD (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, yes, they will. Throughout the region, bats are encouraged to roost above or near the home in order to collect guano for fertilizer, a fact which has caused coronavirus pandemics more than once this century already. Anteaters are not thought to be involved by anyone. GPinkerton (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

If anteaters are not thought to be involved by anyone, then you might want to correct the article COVID-19 pandemic, which says the source is "Possibly via bats, pangolins, or both." (Pangolins are often referred to as anteaters.) Bats can transmit rabies, which is far more serious to the individual than COVID-19, and guano is known to cause illnesses, all of which are far more likely than someone contracting COVID-19 from a bat. Seriously, no one would say, "Well I know I can get rabies or other sicknesses from bats, but I don't care about that. What I do care about is the possibility that one person once contracted COVID-19 from a bat."

Pretty much all human activity has some health consequences and if we carry MEDRS to extremes then we will seriously limit sources. Universal health care, war, gun control, imprisonment, cooking, climate change, poverty, fracking - all of these have impacts on human health, but we don't have to source all the related articles to medical journals.

Fringe theories about science rarely receive extensive coverage in medical journals - that's why we call them fringe theories. They may however receive extensive coverage in social sciences. For example white supremacist race theories are not extensively documented in medical journals because they are not real science. But social scientists may study them extensively as social phenomena. The investigator from the SPLC does not need to be a medical doctor nor do they need their reports to be reviewed by medical experts. All they need to know is what any educated person knows, that racist claims have no support in science. They don't have to know how the human genome was sequenced for example.

If we want to write about the conspiracy theory that COVID-19 originated in a lab, we should be able to use articles by responsible journalists and academics who write about it. While they will not typically have medical degrees, they will have sufficient understanding to write about it responsibly.

TFD (talk) 02:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, I have never heard of pangolins referred to as anteaters, which is taxonomically less accurate than referring to a dog as a kind of giraffe. Similarly, I have never heard of gun control as a health matter of any kind (must be unique to America). While war, poverty, and other aspects of the human experience may influence health in general ways, it is entirely disingenuous to claim that a virological question of immense import and with specific medical ramifications is an appropriate venue for the inclusion of non-medical opinion (i.e. not-fact) and the relaxation of Wikipedia policies surrounding reliable sources for medical matters, as has been done elsewhere in this thread, simply because we trust and expect random journalists and academics to be suitably qualified and unbiased. GPinkerton (talk) 05:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

There's an article, "Alpine race," which "is a historical race concept defined by some late 19th-century and early 20th-century anthropologists as one of the sub-races of the Caucasian race." It was thought that optimal diets for humans differed according to their sub-race. Mediterranean people for example were thought to be better eating fish, while Nordics should eat red meat. Are we supposed to source all these articles to medical journals? After all, someone may change their diet, which has health consequences, based on their supposed membership in a racial sub-group. TFD (talk) 02:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Further information: tu quoque
  GPinkerton (talk) 05:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• @GPinkerton: This doesn't seem very productive. While the discussion has been going for quite some time, I don't think that spouting Latin at each other is going to cause the situation to be resolved any quicker — I don't even understand how you could call that a tu quoque, perhaps it would be helpful if you explained what you meant? jp×g 10:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@GPinkerton:, see "Call for papers: Gun violence epidemiology and prevention," BioMed Central (BMC), "a United Kingdom-based, for-profit scientific open access publisher that produces over 250 scientific journals," owned by the German-British academic publishing company, Springer Nature (of which one assumes you have heard): "Gun violence is a major public health issue that is affecting the lives of individuals around the world and is the cause of more than 500 deaths and 2,000 injuries per day."

You are the one being disingenuous, because all human activity has medical consequences. However, medical science is not the only subject of rational study. We can for example write about gun violence using criminology sources. We can use mainstream media as a source for individual cases of gun violence or for political debates about it. We can even say that someone died from a gunshot wound without consulting the pathologist's report.

Certainly no article about the origins of COVID-19 should use non-MEDRS sources. But an article about the conspiracy theory should mention who created it, who promotes it, who believes it, what are the political and social consequences, etc. You for example are certain that if people hear about the theory it may make them want to get close to bat guano. But that claim is within the realm of social sciences, not medicine.

Here's an article from the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). "Coronavirus: Trump stands by China lab origin theory for virus." Why do you think the BBC is incompetent to report what Trump said?

TFD (talk) 10:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, that's not what this discussion is about, and further appeals to irrelevant unrelated examples does not reduce those appeals' fallaciousness. Comments about my postulated opinions on Springer and the BBC contain more strawmen than a barn-dance of scarecrows. Public health is not the same as disease, and even if it were, the "epidemiology" of gunshots is nothing like the origins of SARS-CoV-2. Gun violence is something people decide to do, and something it is possible to take different political positions on and for neither side of dispute to be wholly right or wrong. The objective facts of the evolution of SARS-CoV-2 cannot and will not be the subject of meaningful political debate, and claims about the origin of any virus are necessarily either right or wrong truth-claims which could, at least in principle, be verified or falsified (if neither, then factually meaningless). If such medical claims are to appear in the encyclopaedia's authorial voice, then they must be backed with appropriate medical sources. If such sources do not exist or where they contradict the claim in question, these claims must not appear on Wikipedia. GPinkerton (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

A further, minor, point to raise is that a call for papers indicates that the work is neither written nor published, which makes it problematic as a source in support of the idea of gun violence being somehow equivalent to virology in terms of relevance to the discipline of medicine. GPinkerton (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

You are digressing into pointless discussion and avoiding the issues. Yes, the papers that have been called for have not been published yet, but there is already a body of papers published. Yes pangolins are not true anteaters, but that is a common term for them. Yes public health is not disease, but both come under MEDRS. Yes gunshots and viruses are different but they also come under MEDRS. None of this has any effect bearing on the discussion. The issue is that since all human activity has an effect on human health, tendentious editors can and do bundle anything into MEDRS. The fact that you are bringing up the claim that if people don't think COVID-19 came directly from bats (which incidentally we don't know) that they are going to surround themselves with bats and guano despite the already documented dangers of getting worse diseases from them. Anyway, you seem savvy enough to understand that. I enjoy reading your responses since you show great creativity in stubbornly tailoring your responses to new arguments, but it seems unlikely to lead to any progress. TFD (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

It's trivial to come up with ways in which any subject whatsoever falls under WP:MEDRS. Trial of Socrates? Please refer to Conium maculatum#Toxicity. Trichord, chromatic scale, and chord progressions? Why, that's the Neuronal encoding of sound. Obviously these are biomedical subjects, on which it would be dangerous to peddle the uneducated disinformation of mere classicists and musicians. We can progress down every article in this way, using more or less consistent arguments, until Wikipedia consists solely of medical subjects — deigning to declare astrophysics a subfield of radiology and theology a subfield of psychology — but why? To what end? You have not explained why this is a good idea. You have instead talked about "a barn-dance of scarecrows"; I am not seeing any reasoning for why others should adopt your views, other than the claim that they are being disingenuous, which — well, I'm not, so please try to come up with a different tack. jp×g 22:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry but if you cannot see the difference between infectious disease and suicide by hemlock vis-à-vis MEDRS I'm afraid my pointing out that constructing more straw men to engage in whataboutery is fruitless will not improve matters. If the bald fact that the origins of pandemic diseases requires proper sourcing is not immediately apparent I don't think my saying so again is going to convince ... GPinkerton (talk) 13:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Perhaps we should review Wikipedia:Biomedical information. One takeaway from this is that we should definitely clarify whether a disease's origin falls under that definition or not (my impression is that it currently does not, although as it says at the bottom Information that is not typically biomedical may still require high-quality sourcing if the context may lead the reader to draw a conclusion about biomedical information, as can occur with content about human biochemistry or about medical research in animals - I see some arguments pointing towards that reasoning above.) But in any case it would be helpful to unambiguously place, as a base case, whether a disease's origin is on one side or the other of the is / is not divide on that page. The obvious places for it are population data and epidemiology if it is biomedical or history if it does not - it could fit into either but does not unambiguously fit with the current examples they give. --Aquillion (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Let me use a concrete example. Are we allowed to say, based on the BBC article I referred to, that Donald Trump said COVID-19 originated in a Chinese lab or do we need to add a MEDRS approved reference explaining why he is wrong? Are we allowed to say that lemons contain higher levels of vitamin C than limes, based on a peer reviewed study by a chemist who is not a medical doctor? These discussions constantly arise in articles about fringe theories and their advocates. My view is that unless we are making specific claims that could be taken as medical advice, that MEDRS does not apply. If someone concludes that because Trump believes something it must be true, or that there are health benefits in exceeding recommended intake of vitamin C, that's their problem. We don't have to annotate all these cases with expert medical opinion. TFD (talk) 13:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • We can relay what Trump said, but per WP:VALID would probably need to add context that he's spouting a conspiracy theory; the vitamin content of a fruit is not biomedicine. "Medical advice" on Wikipedia is absolutely verboten so that consideration should never arise. Alexbrn (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

RfC: The Washington Times

Not to be confused with The Washington Post, which of these best describes the reliability of The Washington Times  , which is currently listed as "no consensus" at RSP? (RSP entry)

• Option 1: Generally reliable for news
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for news
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail

JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 01:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Survey (The Washington Times)

• Option 2.5 It's been cited by reliable sources including PBS, USA Today, Reuters, NBC Boston, the Washington Post, etc. ([80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85]). At the same time, it's also been noted publishing errors or falsehoods; however, in a number of these cases - though prolific - it's also published corrections or removed the offending material (e.g. [86]). Despite the glaring examples of issues with the WT - and there are many - just looking at its website on any single day it's apparent that these are not the paper's grist and, 95% of what is currently on its site as of this datestamp can't be differentiated from wire copy and is fairly straight-laced. My sense is it should not be used as a source for content regarding the Unification Church, nor should it be the only source for extraordinary claims. And, obviously, WP:RSOPINION applies. Chetsford (talk) 04:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

All the references except NBC Boston's are uncontroversial dates and figures, and about half are on topics they're directly linked to. Naming the source just to be safe isn't necessarily an endorsement for that kind of thing. I also wouldn't say that retracting an article whose central premise is fabricated after the threat of legal action is the kind of correction that indicates editorial oversight. Many "unreliable" sources are at least 95% true (most blogs, Wikipedia, etc), the question is more whether we can be confident the editorial process reliably functions as a barrier to misinformation. From what I've seen, the Times' process pushes writers towards untruths at least as often as it does away. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 01:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2 or 3 Washington Times is a source with a conservative lean that has strong links to the Unification movement. It has had a reputation for being one of the most partisan broadsheet papers in the United States since the 1990s. It may be the case that it generally unreliable for politics and science issues (the entry for The Washington Times document these extensively), as well as issues related to the Unification movement or its founders. However, it does not appear to be generally unreliable for news outside of those areas. Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• If you disagree with what's listed at RSP it would be helpful to provide arguments/evidence. If you don't disagree, an RfC isn't necessary. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2. I agree with Chetsford's "2.5" (which is actually just a specific 2, "additional considerations apply"). I would also point out that the paper and its website are of questionable to low reliability on American politics, for the same reasons as Fox News and New York Post, i.e. a strong right-wing bias. No, not because the opinions are conservative (National Review and Wall Street Journal are much more reliable but even more conservative), but rather because in this era and with this sort of publication it translates into poor fact-checking and even some dissemination of proven falsehoods that are popular among the far-right political base. I have not assessed its science coverage in great detail, though that's always a concern with far-right media (actually far-left, too, which is responsible for a lot of pseudo-medical nonsense). Washington TImes's more rote reportage is probably just as reliable as the average smaller newspaper; it is not quite in the same league of reliability failure as Breitbart News and Newsmax, which exist simply as far-right propaganda farms. Honestly, I would be okay with option 3, but 1 is out of the question, and 4 may be a stretch. Unfortunately for WT as a source here, most of its original reportage, most of what people are apt to try to cite it for, is American politics material.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 I think it is reasonable that it not be used as a source for the Unification movement due to a clear COI, but for all other things it just seems to have a political angle that many news organisations (left and right) all have. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 for political, social, religious, or other contentious matters; option 3 for other matters. Clearly a very-low quality source. Let's review what our own article notes about them (all well-sourced):

The Washington Times has published many columns which reject the scientific consensus on climate change, on ozone depletion, and on the harmful effects of second-hand smoke. It has drawn controversy for publishing racist content including conspiracy theories about U.S. President Barack Obama, supporting neo-Confederate historical revisionism, and promoting Islamophobia.

References for those interested.
References

In addition to the issues above, the newspaper promoted Seth Rich conspiracy theories (echoing Russian disinformation) in an op-ed column, for which the newspaper issued a lengthy retraction and apology in 2018—after being forced to do so by a lawsuit (cite). Nor is the problematic content in the newspaper limited to op-eds, editorials, and columns: it also plagues the news side:

• In 2001 and 2002, the Washington Times ran a series of stories falsely accusing seven biologists of engaging in fraud to trigger endangered species protections (see here, here).
• During the 2020 campaign, the Washington Times used a quote from a university official in a misleading way (a "dishonest light") to make it appear as if Joe Biden had misstated where he attended college (here, here)
• The Washington Times has published news articles baselessly suggesting that COVID-19 virus was a "biological weapon" (here)
• Just two weeks ago, the Washington Times had to retract a bogus "news" story claiming that a facial recognition company had "identified" perpetrators of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol as "antifa" (the riot at the Capitol was, in fact, a far-right attack). The newspaper only retracted the story after the company's lawyers had demanded it do so. here, here

This is an encyclopedia; we should try to use mainstream journalistic sources and academic sources and avoid scraping the bottom of the barrel. Neutrality^talk 01:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation and the links. I haven't reviewed all of them, but the Islamophobia one relies on the opinion of the Council on American–Islamic Relations which is itself hardly a reliable source (see here). I'm not sure we can take their characterisation at face value. Alaexis_¿question? 17:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option 4, DEPRECATE. A long history of pushing conspiracy theories, science denialism of various sorts, islamophobia, xenophobia[87], and of course, obvious falsehoods[88]. Recently it was also spreading COVID-19 disinformation [89] and just in the last two weeks it was producing false claims that facial recognition found "antifa infiltrators" within the mob at the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. [90] It didn't earn the nickname "The Moonie Times" without good reason; it simply can't be trusted for honest reporting. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC) — IHateAccounts (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of SkepticAnonymous (talk • contribs). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2. Quite a lot of issues, but it appears that they tend to issue corrections and retract problematic articles (see User:Neutrality's examples above and [91], for example). Many outlets classified as reliable also make mistakes ([92]), so as long as corrections are made I think it should stay 2. Alaexis_¿question? 15:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The problem with your argument is (a) the number of mistakes and (b) the pattern. Washington Times's history is clear that they don't make the initial good faith effort to get the reporting right. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC) — IHateAccounts (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of SkepticAnonymous (talk • contribs). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I voted based on the examples provided in the thread and all of them are about specific inaccuracies which seem to be subsequently corrected. They do not support your claim that they make more or graver mistakes. If such evidence is presented I will reconsider my vote. Alaexis_¿question? 16:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the bias, this study found that "Interestingly, our measure implies that if one spent an equal amount of time reading the Washington Times and Washington Post, he or she would receive a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news," so it doesn't appear that it's uniquely biased. The study is from 2005, I haven't been able to find something newer - but then a lot of studies provided to support deprecation are even older. Alaexis_¿question? 09:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2.5 as per above. I have seen concerns that their near confusion in name with the Wa Post is also of issue which makes them a tad suspect in additional to their conservative bent. They aren't DailyMail fabricators of lies, but they're not anywhere close to a clear reliable source. --Masem (t) 15:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be nice if people actually did research before saying things that aren't true, like claiming "they aren't DailyMail fabricators of lies"? SPLC Report: The Washington Times has History of Hyped Stories, Shoddy Reporting and Failing to Correct Errors. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC) — IHateAccounts (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of SkepticAnonymous (talk • contribs). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

There is a big different between shoddy/poor reporting and deliberately false reporting as the DM has been proven to do (deliberately changing people's quotes for example). --Masem (t) 16:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2 or 3 except for politics and science which they should never be used for. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 or Option 2 Generally reliable source. Almost all of (if not all of) the most prolific sources have made errors on occasion. The name obviously comes from the city it was founded in, not an attempt to confuse people it the WaPo. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 . . . but we should be specific. I want to draw a contrast between different types of situations. I think they are completely fine in situations where they are reporting on publicly-available primary sources.[93][94]. We should avoid them in situations where the underlying facts are murky.[95]. In reporting on a murder, obviously the whodunit aspect is a matter of great dispute. In their favor, they do have a corrections page.[96] Adoring nanny (talk) 05:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 per Neutrality. Their false reporting on environmental issues ([97][98]), the coronavirus ([99][100][101]), the recent election ([102][103][104][105]; they retracted the last one, but, as noted above, only after they were threatened with a lawsuit), the 2016 election ([106][107]) and the Seth Rich conspiracy theory ([108][109]; again, only retracted after they were sued) in particular are concerning because these don't seem to be mere innocent mistakes; they're overtly false stories that serve the purpose of supporting the Times' bias. This covers more examples. See [110] for a paper about how they cover things in a misleading way to support specific biases, or [111][112] here for discussion of how its biases influence its reporting. Simply being WP:BIASED or sometimes getting things wrong aren't, individually, enough to get a source depreciated; but a biased source that repeatedly gets things wrong in the direction of its bias, and which doesn't generally issue a retraction or apology for this unless compelled to by legal threats, ought to be treated as intentionally publishing false or fabricated information ala WP:DUCK. --Aquillion (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

How is publishing an article that says Coronavirus may have originated in lab linked to China's biowarfare program in January 2020 (and adding an editor's note in March) different from publishing an article that says that masks will probably make little difference if you’re ... taking a bus in April 2020 (this is just an example from the paper I read regularly)? In hindsight both statements are likely false, but that doesn't mean automatically that it's false reporting. If it were found that they lied about a source of their claim, that would have been false reporting. Alaexis_¿question? 08:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option 4 for American politics, Option 3/4 otherwise: mostly per Aquillion and Newslinger Neutrality. I believe deliberately reporting false information merits deprecation. (t · c) buidhe 20:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 for American politics and topics that inherit the contentiousness of American politics (e.g., environmental science and climate change, COVID) per Aquillion and Newslinger Neutrality. The examples cited above all seem to pertain to that area, but I am doubtful they are frequently cited for anything else (arts and culture, say). XOR'easter (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 The details cited above are adequate for this. When we have good content mixed in with bad content as a regular occurrence, overall the source can't be considered reliable or trusted. Spudlace (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 promotion of voter fraud [113] and the Seth Rich conspiracy theory and most recently false flag antifa stories shows that this is an outlet with equivalent reliability to that of Breitbart. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 - fabrication, conspiracy theory advocacy, COVID misinformation push it over the line. This is a source we shouldn't use for anything - David Gerard (talk) 11:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 I came across a WT article used as a source for Carol Browner: "Obama climate czar has socialist ties." It falsely claimed that Browner was a member of the Socialist International (SI), that the SI called for "global governance" and that it was a radical, anti-American organization. In fact she was invited by the UK PM to speak to a meeting of social democratic leaders about climate change. Juan Guaido, who leads a member party of the SI and is recognized by the U.S. government as Acting President of Venezuela, was invited by Donald Trump to his state of the union address, was praised by Nancy Pelosi for his courage and got a standing ovation from both Democrats and Republicans. In this case WT clearly misleads readers by the selective use of facts and a few false statements thrown in. The article has never been retracted. TFD (talk) 11:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4. Much as I enjoy phrases like "Telegram’s main rival, Twitter", this is basically the Trumpischer Beobachter now. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 I wouldn't use this source, since there are a lot of better sources in the American media market. However, on some occasions, there might be a unique news article that is useful. Articles in such cases would need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. --Guest2625 (talk) 07:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• 2.5-3 The problem with deprecating sources like this even if they "deserve it" is that then their content can't be used at all. For example, here is an article of theirs that paint PragerU in a fairly positive light. That article could be a useful source for certain claims in the PragerU article. E.g. that it has some 60 employees. If WT is deprecated, it can't be used at all. ImTheIP (talk) 09:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 per Chetsford and Masem.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 16:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2, maybe 3 in some areas Being a politically partisan newspaper doesn't make it unusable per WP:BIASED. While this isn't top quality mainstream media source, it's still a pretty established newspaper that was set up in the early 1980s. Over the years, it indubitably has had a lot of non-controversial information relevant for an encyclopedia. The publication seems to issue corrections. In most disputes, content sourced just to Washington Times would probably most often be removed. Such editorial judgment is always required in all Wikipedia articles.--Pudeo (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 Leaving aside the editorial line, no evidence shows that this established newspaper has some uniquely bad record on its standard reporting. As Chetsford shows, its journalism is widely cited by others, so this is not on the level of Infowars or anything like that. It may be somewhere between Washington Post and Daily Mail, but I'm sure we can cite the basic reported facts from the majority of its articles without any problems.Hko2333 (talk) 19:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4, per a mountain of evidence from Aquillion and Neutrality. The pattern of deliberately misrepresenting quotes, and insider accounts of their editorial process make it impossible to argue that the parade of blatantly false stories is just a large series of oversights. There's a difference between getting details wrong and publishing articles whose central premise is fabricated, and a difference between correcting errors when you notice them and doing so when you're forced to by legal action (or not at all). ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 01:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4. Citing by reliable sources does not mean anything. Kavkaz Center was cited a lot. However, if it's been noted publishing errors or falsehoods (as it actually was), that makes it a questionable source. My very best wishes (talk) 02:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3, Too partisan. Being skewed in favor of one political side is enough to consider it unreliable. Therefore I agree with everyone that found it unreliable although I'm not sure it should be deprecated or not. I understand the opinions of those who want it to be deprecated but it's too harsh in my opinion.Magnus Dominus (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)— Magnus Dominus (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Lordpermaximum (talk • contribs).

• Option 1 or Option 2 Being partisan is not a reason for being unreliable we allow partisan sources --Shrike (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• option 3 for politics, option 1 for other fields Here's the thing: for any kind of political reportage, if I read something in the Wash Times, I would be wary of it unless it were also reported elsewhere, and even then I'd want to compare coverage. I could never be entirely trusting of something only they reported. In other areas, they are a perfectly decent big city newspaper; I don't know how it is now, but back in the day they were the only NE newspaper with decent religion coverage, Mangoe (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I want to add that the editorial page on any paper is only reliable as a primary source for the writer's opinions. People can criticize the op-ed page all they want, but Post or Times, it's not a reliable source and shouldn't be automatically extended to the rest of the paper. Mangoe (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2 - per WP:USEBYOTHERS mentioned use by "PBS, USA Today, Reuters, NBC Boston, the Washington Post, etc.", and extent of WP acceptance shown by www.washingtontimes.com   5,450 citations to it. And it seems a major WEIGHT media player. I would suggest that any use should as always follow WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and the question should be is it a good cite for a line in question. If it’s an opinion piece, then don’t use it as fact cite. I would note WP:RSOPINION and WP:NEWSBLOG should still apply and any issues about pieces clearly stated as opinion should be mitigated by that. I would also note the ownership may be something to consider on specific topics, as it should be for any media source. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 - all news sources should be handled in this manner, no ifs, ands, or buts. The political position of one newspaper is not superior or more trustworthy than another's, and believing that it is would be noncompliant with NPOV. That is not a productive way to view sources because it chips away at WP's claim to NPOV. Atsme 💬 📧 21:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4. It is a misrepresentation to imply that this RfC hinges on the "political position" of the Washington Times. While all sources may have a political position, that doesn't mean that all sources are equally biased. No one would reasonably question, for instance, the reliability of the Wall Street Journal's reporting, despite their conservative editorial line. The issue here is the fact that this particular news source has a demonstrable record of unreliability, as Neutrality and Aquillion have shown above, which makes it quite unlike other sources which are rightly considered reliable. Generalrelative (talk) 22:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• 4 Long history of blatant falsehoods on climate change issues, among others. Zaathras (talk) 03:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4 - Per Neutrality's expert fisking above - a publication which flat-out denies the existence of climate change in the year of our Lord two thousand and twenty simply can't be trusted to publish facts. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2 Have not seen any convincing evidence that it is unreliable. Neutrality's analysis which many of you are praising is completely invalid. When a source publishes an op-ed with opposing or even unpopular viewpoints, it has absolutely no effect on the source's reliability. Op-eds are opinions that need to be attributed anyway. Saying that a source is unreliable because it presented an opinion article that disagrees with consensus is ridiculous. Unlike some of you diversity of viewpoints is op-eds is something I welcome. A source needs to be evaluated on the quality of its actual reporting, not op-eds. Also, every major newspaper has issued retractions, so I don't see how that counts against them either.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• I see that you're completely ignoring the part of my comment that immediately follows: "Nor is the problematic content in the newspaper limited to op-eds, editorials, and columns: it also plagues the news side..." And issuing retractions is different from retracting an article after the newspaper is sued... Neutrality^talk 00:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

First of all, the Washington Times did not get sued, a lawyer sent a cease and desist letter (that's not the same thing). Second, if the forced retraction of an entire story is a disqualification, then I guess CNN must be considered unreliable too. A Costly Retraction for CNN and an Opening for Trump- The New York Times--Rusf10 (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2 The Washington Times is a right-wing rag (to show my own bias), but Wikipedia is not censored. In cases where the topic is not controversial it can be cited. In cases where the topic is controversial, editors might choose to cite it with attribution, acknowledging that it is a biased source. -Darouet (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 per Darouet, as it happens. JG66 (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 This source is strongly biased and should generally be avoided - calling them "news" is generous. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 03:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

  Elliot321, please see WP:BIASEDSOURCES "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective". -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

  Emir of Wikipedia indeed true in general, but the source's strong bias makes it seem likely to me that they would not have accurate journalism. This has to do with my personal interactions with the source, not a general rule. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 16:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 3 We already have an WP:RSP entry about it that's pretty accurate. I'd even add to those who propose it should be used for sports that if better sources are available they should still be used to avoid promoting suboptimal media. —PaleoNeonate – 07:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 mainly per users Atsme and Darouet. This is a well-established newspaper. There are partisan bias present, sure, but that applies for virtually all American news outlets.--Darwinek (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 - "additional considerations apply". Yes it is biased, as are most news outlets, but that does not mean it should not be used as a source for most things. That being said, they should not be used for issues of science, due to their history on issues such as climate change and COVID-19.--Tdl1060 (talk) 01:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (The Washington Times)

• @Buidhe and XOR'easter: Responding to the "per Newslinger" ping. Those words might be a mistake, since I haven't commented in the survey yet. — Newslinger talk 11:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Hey all, I'm looking at probably closing this in a couple of days, assuming no new arguments of significance are raised before then. Everyone seems to agree that with regards to politics and science, they are unreliable, and most people seem to prefer outright deprecation to a Fox News-style "usable within in-line attribution." I would like to solicit some more feedback regarding their non-politics, non-science articles. Some people early on suggested they are probably reliable for other topics, and a quick perusal of their website indicates they cover sports extensively. Could someone who knows more about these topics than I check whether these and any other non-politics, non-science articles seem reliable? In addition, several people have indicated that they consider the source unreliable regarding the Unification movement, but nobody has said whether they think this merits deprecation regarding that movement, use only for attributing opinions, or some other remedy? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • We've previously deprecated sources in their entirety for fabrication in politics and conspiracy theory and pseudoscience advocacy - are you proposing a "partial deprecation"? - David Gerard (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@David Gerard: Not proposing, just trying to foster discussion. Some people have suggested that Washington Times is worth not completely deprecating because of its content on non-political topics (sports being the most prominent on their website). Others have suggested deprecating the Washington Times because of its political content, which could mean either that they don't see the non-political content as meriting any distinct treatment (and thus said nothing about it) or that they simply hadn't considered that aspect when voicing their opinions. I'd like a better idea of what people are thinking. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• • That would be option 2 additional considerations apply. I am still against this "deprecation" system though at the moment. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Emir - and also with Jimbo relative to what he said to an editor about the Daily Mail being deprecated. See Jimbo's response. Atsme 💬 📧 22:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Option 2 They do publish corrections [114] [115]. They do have editorial control. As demonstrated above, they have some WP:USEBYOTHERS. But they have also been too slow to retract some false stories, although they have done so eventually (Seth Rich). Adoring nanny (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Polish government-owned media

This post is not in relation to any particular incident or discussion, but nonetheless I think it is important to discuss the topic. Poland's current rulers have been politicising (or "polonising" in their words) many media platforms in the country, following the Hungarian model. Each of these individual articles have reliable sources pointing out the issues with each of them individually. However, with the ramping up of the rhetoric and the aggressive takeovers, as shown by the takeover of Polska Press (many regional newspapers and websites included, such as Nasze Miasto, frequently quoted) by state-run Orlen, maybe it would be sensible to start thinking about a more holistic approach, such as done in the case of Russian government-owned media platforms.

The list is in-exhaustive but in particular I have in mind:

• Telewizja Polska (in particular TVP Info)
• Gazeta Polska
• Do Rzeczy
• Sieci
• Polskie Radio (especially Trójka)
• Nasz Dziennik
• TV Trwam
• Radio Maryja
• TV Republika
• Najwyższy Czas!
• wpolityce.pl + satellite portals: wNas.pl, wGospodarce.pl, wSumie.pl, stefczyk.info, gazetabankowa.pl i tygodnikpodlaski.pl and internet TV wPolsce.pl.
• niezalezna.pl

Abcmaxx (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• It depends. One should check if each specific source is known for "fact checking and accuracy". One should also check if they are actually "owned" or funded by Polish government. There is a difference. At a first glance, some of these sources could be OK, but some others are not RS. My very best wishes (talk) 02:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Reliability is not binary but often depends on the topic. For important news about Poland, we should use English language media with international reach. We would rely on Polish media for stories that don't receive such attention, such as municipal politics in small towns and villages. For articles about the president, PM and major parties, we should not include anything that Western media has ignored. That's not a judgment that Polish media is unreliable, but that it is less reliable and if something is only reported in them that it lacks weight for inclusion in articles about prominent topics. TFD (talk) 02:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• State media should be rated generally unreliable (2015–). Since 2015, Polish state media has not had a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Instead, it has a reputation for conspiracy theories and propaganda: Radio Maryja is worse, it's always been like Polish Breitbart or InfoWars. If it broadcast in English it would be deprecated already. (t · c) buidhe 10:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Thank you for bringing this up, I think this is necessary for media in a lot of countries including that of Poland, as they are undergoing similar phenomena. Russian media were exhaustively discussed on an individual basis and I would suggest the same for polish media dependent on how widely they are being used on wikipedia. I went through the listed publications and a basic search seems to show that most of their uses are minimal to none with some expections. The exceptions primarily being the following, listed a bit generously:

• Telewizja Polska – tvp.pl   used in 376 articles.
• wpolityce.pl   used in 103 articles (excluding satellites).
• Do Rzeczy – dorzeczy.pl   used in 50 articles.
• niezalezna.pl   used in 46 articles.
• Radio Maryja – radiomaryja.pl   used in 29 articles.
• Nasz Dziennik – naszdziennik.pl   used in 24 articles.

Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Correction, Polskie Radio – prsa.com.pl   is used in 2 articles but polskieradio.pl   is used in 1,170 articles. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

References

So for those not aware it is a little more complicated as the ruling party is blurring the lines between government-owned and government-funded and placing their own people in private companies which are indirectly funded from state money through a complicated network of organisations, assiciations, trusts, charities and shell companies.

In essence there are 3 types here:

• TVP and PR are state-owned, state-funded, directly. It may be worth distinguishing let's say TVP Info, a propaganda tool not unlike RT in Russia, from TVP Sport for sports news, which is generally unaffected. TVP Kultura is provably next on the hit list, having been focusing on cultural events only so far, so again, generally unaffected.
• Do Rzeczy and Sieci, as well as wpolityce.pl and the sister sites (which I think are the most controversial), are "puppet independents". The sheer amount of scandals and court cases against them is astounding, makes the Daily Mail look like a teddy bear in comparison.
• Tomasz Sakewicz, a far-right pro-government conspiracy theorist owns Gazeta Polska, niezalezna.pl and TV Republika. I would liken it to Breitbart and Steve Bannon; although "independent" on paper, he clearly has the support and funding from the ruling party, and he has a vested financial and political interest to continue the line and rhetoric he is pursuing.
• Radio Maryja, Nasz Dziennik and TV Trwam is the same thing, except they are a radio station, newspaper and TV channel respectively. It is linked to Catholic fundamentalist Tadeusz Rydzyk and has shady financing of his endeavours through charitable organisations (he is wanted in Canada for various violations). He exerts significant power and us very cosy with Law and Justice, and has been so way before they were any significant political party.

Nothing I have said here isn't widespread public knowledge or controversial that isn't reliably sourced on those articles, and I am trying to remain as neutral as possible. However the big issue is that anyone pointing those obvious flaws in lack of transparency, lack of editorial scrutiny, or even obvious falsehoods is labelled a "left-wing nutcase" and "enemy of the state" by their supporters. I guess a similar issue has come up with Daily Mail and RT in the past. Abcmaxx (talk) 14:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Generally reliable: I think you first need to demonstrate that these sites disseminate lies. That they are state-run does not, by itself, imply that they do that. ImTheIP (talk) 10:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

  That's backwards. The WP:BURDEN is clearly on those arguing that they *are* reliable. Independent sources say otherwise. (t · c) buidhe 10:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:NEWSORG applies: "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact." There is no exception for state-run or state-affiliated media. ImTheIP (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

The policy on questionable sources states that "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest." State-run media has an apparent conflict of interest, so state-run or state-affiliated publications are not automatically considered generally reliable. — Newslinger talk 05:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• Polish government owned media would be generally unreliable, they are neither independent and are actively invested in propagating disinformation. There is a plethora of evidence pointing towards such a case from reliable secondary sources.

However I would point out that many of the ones listed are not under direct state ownership but linked through members aligned to or affiliated with the PiS which makes it difficult and unsuitable to relay a singular standard for all of them. Most of them have minimal to no usage on en wiki so I do not see the point of such a large listing. I would recommend splitting the section into discussions about individual outlets, prioritising the ones which have the most usage, i.e say two seperate ones about TVP and wpolityce.pl. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 11:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@User:Tayi Arajakate Would you be against grouping them into the 4 groups I listed? I put this as one because a) the difference in content between all of them is far smaller than the structure would suggest, they're basically mirrors of the United Right and b) they are forever changing and morphing partly due to the sheer amount of defamation cases against them but also due to very poor sales, spreading the financial state aid to allies, and as a tactic of crowding out independent media. Abcmaxx (talk) 14:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Abcmaxx, I would say some of them can be grouped together, i.e Lux Veritatis Foundation owned outlets (Group 4) and Tomasz Sakiewicz owned outlets (Group 3). Same goes for the directly state owned ones but seeing as they are the most cited to, it might be more prudent to separate the two namely, Telewizja Polska and Polskie Radio.

I am doubtful about Group 2 though, they are seemingly organisationally unrelated and might need seperate discussions on the more popular urls. Small mirrors can just be ignored and if they are spammed on articles, they can be referred to at WT:BLIST. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@User:Tayi Arajakate: understood. Logistically what is the best way to go about this? Create several topics on here (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard) and put notification templates on the pages of the outlets affected? Can this be done as a subsection of this discussion? It is all interlinked but this may be quite a big overall task and will be requiring a lot of cross-referencing. The reason I say this is because behind a lot of these outlets the same people, organisations, foundations etc. are behind them. I do not want to start a legitimate discussion only for the comments to be "please redirect/rephrase/move to xyz" and get nowhere as a result. Abcmaxx (talk) 14:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• Split the discussion. Lumping everything together under the label of "Polish government-owned media" is not a good direction. Some of the sources are definitely not reliable (e.g. Rydzyk's outlets Nasz Dziennik, TV Trwam, Radio Maryja). Others, like the TVP should be subject to a separate discussion. Not all TVP news are the same too. Political news from TVP are definitely biased to the point of serving as an outlet of the ruling party. Other news, say reporting on potential transport disasters or sport are completely normal.--Darwinek (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Abcmaxx, I think the best way to go about it would be make subsections for TVP and Polskie Radio under this section and initiate separate discussions for the rest on this noticeboard. I'm suggesting so because the number of outlets provided might be too many for a single discussion, of them the highest priority seems to be these two since they are the most widely used and are also the most relevant to this discussion, being directly state owned. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Split complete

As discussed, please see the following discussions:

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Telewizja Polska
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Sieci & wpolityce.pl & associated portals
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Do Rzeczy
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Rydzyk's media empire
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Polskie Radio
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#niezalezna.pl
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Gazeta Polska & TV Republika
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Najwyższy Czas
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Polska Press

Abcmaxx (talk) 00:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Asian News International (ANI)

Asian News International (ANI) is a news agency used as a news feed by several publication in India and is directly cited to on 609 articles; aninews.in  . There is a dispute regarding its reliability on Talk:2021 Farmers' Republic day parade § ANI is not reliable source.

Which option best describes the reliability of Asian News International (ANI)?

• 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.

Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Survey (Asian News International)

• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated. ANI has been documented by multiple sources including the non-governmental organisation EU DisinfoLab among others that found ANI peddling fake news and disinformation, to help the ruling party BJP in India. --Walrus Ji (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

References

• Option 4: Has functioned as major conduit for fake news via Indian Chronicles disinformation campaign. Acousmana (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4 based on their track record and reputation. In the specific context given I don’t think theres any possible debate about them being a reliable source, if they are reliable for anything it won’t be Indian politics. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting. Considering the extraordinary number of citations from ANI by other media organization. And also the reliability issue of the sources quoted above. ANI can be considered generally reilable. DavidWood11 (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 per WP:USEBYOTHERS because it is regularly used as a source by high-quality reliable news platforms such as The Daily Guardian, BBC News, Scroll.in, Times Now, Hindustan Times and many more so their reliability should be gauged by who reuse on their data. GSS ^💬 04:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

  GSS, this is largely inaccurate. The Daily Guardian doesn't use it, BBC News does not use it as an agency feed and quotes it with in-text attribution within articles (For context, BBC quotes Chinese state media in a similar manner), Scroll.in uses it in the same manner as well. Times Now is also not a high quality reliable sources, being a publisher of conspiracy theories itself.

  It's also not used as an agency feed by Indian newspaper which are considered to be generally reliable such as The Indian Express (RSP entry) or The Hindu (RSP entry); see [116] and [117]. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Tayi Arajakate: In that case we have The Siasat Daily [118], Lokmat [119], Telangana Today [120] and The New Indian Express [121] (maybe more) they all use ANI as an agency feed. GSS ^💬 06:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

  GSS, you can probably find more, simply because there isn't a lack of news outlets in India. In this particular case these are all mostly regional newspapers, some of which are problematic in their own right. Being a large news agency, ANI is used by a number of newspapers but that doesn't translate to use by high quality sources. Many newspapers also tend to subscribe to all four news agencies with a national reach; Press Trust of India, Indo-Asian News Service and United News of India being the others, not because of any consideration for either of their reliability which WP:UBO presumes.

  For instance, The New Indian Express possibly has issues with undisclosed advertisments and paid news, while Telangana Today is owned by the K. Chandrashekar Rao and is criticised for partisan coverage and censorship in Telangana. I don't think these would have high standards for fact checking. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

References

• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated. There are extensive and documented instances of active misinformation by ANI. It should not be relied on, particularly as it has the practice of simply deleting stories subsequently, and not formally withdrawing/apologizing for false claims. - Naushervan (talk) 04:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3: Given its track record on publishing misinformation [122][123][124][125][126][127][128][129][130][131] and its habit of publishing pro-government propaganda [132][133][134], it must be considered WP:QUESTIONABLE for factual reporting. SUN EYE 1 07:24, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2: per WP:USEBYOTHERS tied to BBC et al, and extent of WP acceptance directly cited to on 609 articles; aninews.in  . And it seems a major WEIGHT media player. That altnews.in sometimes disagrees shown above seems a minor item. I would suggest that any use should, as always follow CONTEXTMATTERS and the question should be is it a good cite for a line in question. If it’s an opinion piece, then don’t use it as fact cite. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

It's disingenuous to describe ANI withdrawing stories after an IFCN accredited fact-checker like Altnews (or for that matter Boomlive) point out that those stories contain falsities or disinformation, as a "sometimes disagree" situation. I've listed some examples in the discussion section. Based on the multiple criticism of ANI for recorded and documented misinformation, reducing it to ANI vs another website is in itself misleading. - Naushervan (talk) 04:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

No, that was a reflection of WP:USEBYOTHERS "The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence." The variety and standing of multiple media venues (BBC, Reuters, et al) having accepted and used ANI demonstrates general respect; so does the many WP usages. The reputation, WEIGHT, and substance seems clear. I'm thinking it it vastly outweighs where above Altnews had criticisms of inaccuracy in some tweets. Not that altnews is without credit, though it also has detractors, but those cites just don't seem substantive enough for RS criticisms and tweets do not reflect all venues of ANI reporting. Option 2 -- it seems obviously reputable in the industry but as always consider in context of the specific piece and usage for the cite. I would always caution on opinion pieces or first-tweets and caution for ANI over BJP or pieces -- just as I would caution using Altnews.in and their criticisms or ideological differences with ANI. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Markbassett, can I ask you how did you come to the conclusion that it is used by the sources you are referring to here; "BBC, Reuter, et al"?

For instance, of the thousands of articles that can be found on the BBC News website, there are four reports which mention Asian News International, none of which are based on ANI's reporting itself and its most prominent appearance is in a reports on ANI's role in the disinformation campaign. That is neither use, let alone widespread and in addition constitutes negative coverage. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 17:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Tayi Arajakate The USEBYOTHERS criteria for RS was pointed to by GSS, and I note their link to Reuters prominent is in their article and mentioned online and the BBC mention of them as India's largest wire service. I did see BBC usage attribute parts of stories to ANI at a couple [135], e.g. here, and here although usually BBC has its own reporters and uses Getty images. You can also google other newspaper online sites make what seems similar usage at NY Times, Washington Post The Sun, The London Times, The Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail, The Australian, USA Today, and so forth as one might expect from a wire service covering India. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. I would like to point out a few things though. Reuters itself provides a disclaimer that it has no involvement in ANI's editorial operation. BBC has a fairly large coverage and audience in India, and does use local news services, it has hundreds of reports which make use of Press Trust of India, as opposed to around 3 reports with barebones use of ANI within them. The overall usage in the rest of the sources is also similar "once in a blue moon", that too seems to be mostly for quoting officials.

WP:UBO states that "widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, whereas widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it." Here we do have doubts on its reliability which are published in the very same sources and are its most prominent appearances in those sources. But if you still think that it fulfills UBO, then I wouldn't argue further and leave it at this. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 21:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1: ANI articles are often quoted/republished by other reliable sources. It is sometimes a bit biased but nevertheless it can be used for facts.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 04:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1: ANI is one of the largest news agencies in Asia, and a reputed one at that with scores of subscribers both within the country (India) and outside thereof. So much so that the very thought of certifying it as otherwise is beyond me and totally uncalled for. One or two instances, if any, of erroneous reporting prove nothing. One could find the same for even the renowned New York Times, but that wouldn't make it unreliable. Like the below section would show and as I said on the talk page of the article in question too, the very portals being used to disparage and descredit this reputed agency (the likes of wire, quint et alia) have a poor standing, and have often been deemed ideologically biased and unreliable on RSN itself in the past.[136] Regards, MBlaze Lightning 08:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

  MBlaze Lightning, there have been no significant discussions on the reliability of The Wire or The Quint on this noticeboard nor have their reporting been used to make claim about the reliability of Asian News International. The link you provided constitutes a singular opinion on The Wire and The Quint where an editor claims that they are reliable but biased. The Quint article cited to here refers to a report of EU DisinfoLab, which is the same as the one referred to in the BBC News article.

  On a side note, Webqoof, the fact checking division of The Quint is affiliated to the International Fact-Checking Network (RSP entry) for which there is consensus that it is generally reliable for determining the reliability of fact checking organisations. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 Entirely reliable source. Very few instances highlighted by newly born rivaling media outlets are irrelevant. Meanwhile, the long established worldwide media outlets treat ANI as a very reliable source. You can find petty criticism about just any media. NavjotSR (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 I repeat WalrusJi. BBC and Caravan are not newly born. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4, leaning towards the latter. Fact checking organisations have already documented frequent instances of fabricated stories, its independence is compromised due to its close association with the Indian government in a country where freedom of press is at a critical situation (it ranks #142, below Myanmar and not far from Russia) and add to it the EU DisinfoLab report's implication that it is a conduit for amplifying disinformation from fake news outlets of the Srivastava Group. There are instances where it has gone as far as to re-published op-eds from outlets that don't exist, attributed to people who deny having written them.

Frankly, having observed the various arguments till now, I couldn't see anything convincing that suggests it is reliable other than what I presume to be attempts at disregarding its coverage in reliable sources? They are apparently very reputed internationally, yet search results tied to major international news publication don't yield much. One of the predominant results is in fact, coverage of the EU DisinfoLab findings framed as revelations by said international news publications, which refer to "its content [being] reproduced on more than 500 fake media websites across 95 countries". Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

References

• Option 1 per above and WP:USEBYOTHERS. A very credible news agency in India whose articles are being used by reliable newspapers as pointed out by some users above. --- FitIndia ^{Talk Admin on Commons} 08:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 or 4 The evidence presented above such as the BBC article means that it is clearly not a reliable source on anything to do with Pakistan. Arguments presented in favour of its reliability are not convincing, and rely on appeals to authority. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3. (a) I am not swayed by the WP:USEBYOTHERS argument. The other venues that are "using" ANI don't know any better. ANI is a newsfeed that the lesser papers without their own repoters are compelled to use so that they can fill pages and keep up with their competition. These lesser papers are not high-quality sources for us anyway. And, there is no dearth of high-quality sources in India, like The Hindu, The Statesman etc. There is no harm in forcing the editors to go out and look for them instead of picking the first thing that pops up on a Google search. (b) The biggest problem with the Indian news media right now is the huge government propaganda machinery, coupled with threats, intimidation, arm-twisting, imprisonment, lawsuits etc. etc. In this context, a source that has a proven track record of peddling government point of view should be avoided at all costs. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 I haven't seen any argument against WP:USEBYOTHERS so far. It is clearly much more credible and reliable than the petty critics cited here. "BBC" is certainly criticized so much in the last 30 years that ANI does not even come close to that criticism. It will require broad agreement within WP:RS that the source isn't reliable if we are going to select any other option than resorting to cherrypicking from partisan sources. Azuredivay (talk) 06:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The argument against WP:USEBYOTHERS is that it isn’t. WP:RS simply don’t seem to use them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 or 2 - according to the BBC, a network unrelated to ANI was set up as an information operation. The BBC continues, "There is no evidence the network is linked to India's government, but it relies heavily on amplifying content produced on fake media outlets with the help of Asian News International (ANI) - India's largest wire service and a key focus of the investigation." ANI is an aggregator, and its services may be misused, but the problem is not with ANI itself, and instead with materials that were posted to it. You can't take down the largest news aggregator from a country of a billion people because articles that ended up being posted there were part of an information operation. -Darouet (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4, I am swayed by the argument of Walrus Ji, it is clear to me that this source deliberately publishes false information, and functions more as a propaganda sheet that an actual news source, and as such it should be deprecated. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (Asian News International)

ANI has been documented by multiple international sources peddling fake news . Searching for ANI in RSN search box gives tonnes of results with links of Administrator Noticeboard Incidents, and those results are useless.--Walrus Ji (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

References

• A number of the sources listed here are themselves questionable with respect to reliability. Are there reputable international news sources that discuss ANI? Acousmana (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

  I have added BBC to the list above. You can also refer to these links [137] and the thread of RS links [138] --Walrus Ji (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• EU Disinfo has a fairly detailed report on ANI's role in targeting international institutions with disinformation. Within the Indian context, Caravan has a detailed report on indications of pro-government bias by ANI. IFCN accredited fact checkers like AltNews and Boomlive have extensive instances of ANI circulating fake news in the Indian context: see. e.g, fake news about the Balakot airstrike, misinformation on Covid-19 protocols that was refuted publicly by the Noida Police, fake news about a train accident, used to target political opposition, and a Livemint report on ANI's repeated fake news regarding Indian military operations, resulting in veterans' associations publicly denouncing ANI, ANI using its own employees for staged interviews on demonetisation. - Naushervan (talk) 04:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
• The list above seems not really serious RS criticisms, and mostly repeats of just two incidents. That (1) is about a first-report tweet quoted an eyewitness and later had to correct that it was a spokesperson... is demonstrating responsible journalism. The (2) is about India Chronicles - not ANI - but says ANI was pro-Indian (no surprise) and repeated the unstated material - and (3), (5), and (7) are same story ? Then Tablighi Jamaat (4) that someone complained ANI first tweet had misquoted them so ANI removed the tweet and corrected it, again seems decent response - and (6) that twitter then roasted them over it is no surprise; and (8) notes that retraction occurrred. That out of thousands of stories so few and minor are the issues held up as wrong speaks favorably of ANI. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Based on the exhaustive discussion above and taking into account of few instances of accusations of various sources whose own reliability comes under questioning at various occasions, as few instances highlighted by newly born rivalling media outlets are irrelevant.. And also considering high number of citations of ANI by other media houses against WP:USEBYOTHERS. ANI is generally reliable to use as [WP:RS]] DavidWood11 (talk) 08:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

RFC : The American Conservative

Which of the following best describes the reliability of The American Conservative?

• 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 as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail

John Cummings (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Opinions (The American Conservative)

• Option 4: The American Conservative has published several articles which include largely fabricated or false information on trans people. Articles include; Trans conspiracy theories: The Insanity Of Transgenderism,When They Come For Your Kid, Not Just A Tattoo: Transgenderism Attacks Our Fundamental Humanity, Trans Totalitarianism & Your Children, A Pro-Trans, Anti-Parent Conspiracy, The Transgender Craze Is Creating Thousands Of Young Victims, Leaving The Trans Cult. These articles also appear to fit within the UK (where I live) legal definition of a hate crime. Jewish conspiracy theories Does George Soros Want Revolution In Europe?, Beware Of George Soros’ Trojan Horse Prosecutors. Climate change conspiracy theories: On Wildfires And Climate Change, ‘The Science’ Got In The Way Of The Science John Cummings (talk) 23:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• We've already had an RfC on this last September, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_312#RfC:_The_American_Conservative which was well attended and never closed. Please check the archives before opening RfC's. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks @Hemiauchenia:, I did check the archives and somehow missed it. What is the process for this since it was closed with no decision being made? Does that mean I can continue the discussion here? Should I transclude the previous discussion into this one? John Cummings (talk) 00:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@John Cummings: I think the best thing to do is close this RfC and place a closure request for the previous RfC at WP:RFCLOSE. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Hemiauchenia:, do you think there is enough discussion there to make a decision? I would be very happy to spend time encouraging people to take part in the discussion however its archived and cannot be edited. Is it alllowed in the rules that additional discussion take place here and the two be considered together? This one as a continuation of the other. John Cummings (talk) 00:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Note that TAC is already listed at WP:RSP (the perennial sources list)... it is deemed OK to cite for attributed statements of opinion, but not OK for unattributed statements of fact. We can discuss CHANGING that designation if you want, but you might run into NOTCENSORED resistance. Blueboar (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@John Cummings: Looking at your last example [139] - could you explain which statements in that article you regard as "Climate change conspiracy theories", and why? Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@John Cummings: Regarding Jewish conspiracy theories, how does a criticism of Soros automatically become a conspiracy theory? Alaexis_¿question? 14:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Is George Soros undermining European national sovereignty and "Activists like Soros—whose organizations share part of the blame for encouraging migrants to come to Europe and lobby Europeans to regard borders and sovereignty as things of the past—are trying to rip off our birth right to sovereignty and stigmatize people by accusing them of upholding an outmoded Christian identity." are almost word-for-word the conspiracy theories described [here] - the idea that he is somehow funding and causing immigration in an effort to undermine white western Christendom. --Aquillion (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

This is your interpretation. The TAC article doesn't mention Soros's ethnicity and criticises his support of migration. Soros himself said that "[his foundation's] plan treats the protection of refugees as the objective and national borders as the obstacle" ([140]), so what exactly is inaccurate there? Alaexis_¿question? 13:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Secret option 5 Why would you use it? It has a strong self-declared political bias and consists of opinion and news-pinion. The news-pinion will be covered with an attempt at neutrality elsewhere, so AC should not be used for that. Its opinion pieces might be ok for the opinion of the writer, but the writers are not particularly notable, so probably not useful. If Henry Kissinger writes a piece for them entitled "Why I love my Throne of Skulls" it could possibly have a place on the throne of skulls or Henry Kissinger articles. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Yup. We already limit the use of TAC to situations where we are discussing a contributor’s opinion, and there are limited situations where discussing a contributor’s opinion would be appropriate. However, IN those rare situations, it is absolutely ok to cite TAC to support a statement as to what those opinions actually are. We would be using TAC as a primary source for the opinion. Blueboar (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Good to know. I would also say that (IMO) we should not consider being published in TAC as rendering an opinion notable, and therefore worthy of inclusion. The writer should be already notable for some other reason. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• 4 or 5 per John Cummings and Boynamedsue. Gamaliel (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Bad RfC. It's an opinion magazine and opinions are allowed from any source, WP:NOTCENSORED. Whether they're due is none of the business of this noticeboard since WP:DUE is part of WP:NPOV and since every article has a talk page where editors may discuss in context. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that there are two steps here, but it does publish news articles from a conservative perspective like this one. Therefore the RfC is valid.Boynamedsue (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I am curious... Why do you classify that as a news article and not an opinion piece? It reads like an opinion piece to me. Blueboar (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• It's an opinion magazine and opinions are allowed from any source. This is completely untrue and I'm baffled that editors keep thinking it is - review WP:RSOPINION. Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. ... A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. Citing an opinion to, for example, a Reddit thread or a Twitter post by someone who is not a verified subject-matter expert would generally be unacceptable; beyond that, the wording of RSOPINION makes it clear that opinion reliability is a separate standard of reliability that has its own requirements, not a universal license to use any opinion from anywhere. Anything cited via RSOPINION must still meet the basic WP:RS requirements for fact-checking, accuracy, and editorial controls; the requirements are looser in that case, not nonexistent. WP:SELFPUB stuff is not normally usable even via RSOPINION - some degree of fact-checking, accuracy, and reputation is still required. --Aquillion (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Ted Koppel explains it well...there's a big question mark about objectivity in journalism today. Atsme 💬 📧 23:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

What I wrote is correct. It is required by the policy I cited, it is not refuted by the guideline that Aquillion points at, it is extremely common to cite blogs tweets etc. without pretence that they must be reliable for facts when they're not stating facts. Of course there is no universal licence to use any opinion from anywhere, nor did anyone say so, because any edit must meet other guidelines and policies, but desire to suppress a publication is not a guideline or policy. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:DUE states, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Because due weight depends on reliability, it is still necessary to assess the reliability of sources when evaluating due weight. This noticeboard is the appropriate venue for assessing reliability. WP:NOTCENSORED states, "Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia policies", and both WP:V and WP:DUE are policies that enforce reliability. — Newslinger talk 14:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe you missed that WP:RS is not a policy so it can't trump policy (nor can essay-class pages), and maybe you didn't click the link in what you referred to which says the appropriateness of any source depends on the context and "Other reliable sources include: ... magazines", maybe you can't understand that when we say Sam-said-X we're not saying X is fact, and maybe you've forgotten how you repeatedly insisted that Daily Mail opinions were unacceptable, until a closer of the relevant RfC shot that down. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Verifiability, due weight, and consensus are all policies. Invoking WP:NOTCENSORED is not going to justify the inclusion of material that is unverifiable, undue, or against consensus. No idea what the Daily Mail (RSP entry) has to do with this. — Newslinger talk 15:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 5 / Option 1 with the reminder that we can use WP:BIASEDSOURCES. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 per the above; publishes false or fabricated information intended to advance conspiracy theories. Not usable under RSOPINION (outside of the standard WP:SELFPUB exceptions that would allow someone to be cited anywhere, eg. treat it like a Reddit post) since its efforts to push fact-free conspiracy theories show a lack of editorial control even there and fail the standard that RSOPINION requires. Opinions from it should be cited only via a secondary source and never solely by a cite to it directly. Fact-free conspiratorial red-meat websites aren't usable as sources in any context - as others have said, how is this different than eg. Occupy Democrats? How does the fact that the American Ideas Institute created a magazine and website to pour their opinions into automatically make them more noteworthy than if they were posting them on Facebook or in the comments section of YouTube videos? As WP:RS says, Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert; there's plenty of reason above to consider them useless as a source, and I'm not seeing any reason they'd be usable beyond "they call themselves a magazine". --Aquillion (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd say Option 2, it is obviously a conservative source, the articles you linked are opinionated giving an argument. See what NewsGuardTech browser extension says. Aasim (talk) 23:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

---

This RfC was closed because the previous RfC was not, which seems like an odd reason. There are contributions in the previous RfC which might justly be copied here, or the authors pinged, but there is also new information linked above. It seems to me to be prudent to finisah this RfC so we have a definitive result. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

---

• Option 4. In general I would go with "option 3" for opinion-only sources, but in this case TAC is beyond just opinion-only. This isn't about a "crony capitalism" section that studiously avoids criticising any Republican until they speak out against Donald Trump, it's about systematic factual and intellectual dishonesty. There are dozens of stories peddling the Big Lie ([141]). Last time TAC was discussed we did not have such a convenient litmus test for politically motivated dishonesty - now we do. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 I'm amazed how deprecation is slowly but surely turning from a sensible policy of excluding a few sources peddling lies intentionally to silencing everyone who deviates from the current mainstream - whether to the left or to the right. Surely, a lot of sources are flawed, but what about relying on editors to make decisions for a given source in a given context?

Speaking of TAC, the current consensus at WP:RSP is to use it for attributed opinions. No examples of problems caused by this policy have been provided, so it's not clear why policy change is needed. Having different opinions about Soros or trans people is not a sufficient reason. Alaexis_¿question? 13:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2 Agree with Blueboar, Springee, Emir of Wikipedia etc from the previous discussion. It is a useful source. Common sense should be used to decide what use to make of it on a case by case basis. Burrobert (talk) 13:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 known for conspiracy theories, as I stated earlier. When it is pushing the baseless election fraud claims it should be clear that the outlet isn't interested in coverage consistent with facts or reality. (t · c) buidhe 14:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 given the points raised by the nominator, Aquillion and Guy. Yes, we're probably having to deprecate more than we thought we would years ago, but that's just a consequence of the modern media landscape. What matters is whether deprecation makes sense on a case-by-case basis, and it does here. XOR'easter (talk) 14:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 - conspiracy theories and fabrication. If people feel too many deprecations are happening, the cure is for people to use less sewer-quality sources in Wikipedia; until then, we have to actually say "no, you can't use sewer-quality sources" - David Gerard (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - this is not a proper RfC as it was not setup correctly. Additionally, what has changed since the last time this topic was discussed? Has something new happened that makes the previous RfC (something like 6 months back?) invalid? If not, why haven't previous participants been notified? Springee (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 Clearly usable with attribution per WP:RSOPINION. This is just the latest attempt by certain editors to ban sources that express opinions that either make them feel uncomfortable or they just don't like. It is more than okay to present an alternative viewpoint on "climate change". I'm sick of people here making the argument that you can't say that because there is a "consensus", so if you go against consensus then you spreading misinformation or a conspiracy theory. Anyone who says that doesn't understand what a consensus is, consensus is not unanimous or even near unanimous agreement. Here's an interesting "fact check" on climate change consensus [142] And labeling criticism of George Soros as "Jewish conspiracy theories" just because he happens to be Jewish is disingenuous. And I'm not even going to weigh in on the transgender issues debate, other than to say its very controversial.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

  Forbes contributors are not reliable sources. (t · c) buidhe 05:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

  As per WP:RSP unless the article was written by a subject-matter expert. The article is written by Earl J. Ritchie whose bio appears at the end of the article. He is more than qualified to speak on the subject both due to his job experience and the fact that he teaches at the third largest university in Texas.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

  Rusf10, "Earl J. Ritchie, Lecturer, Department of Construction Management".

  So, not a subject matter expert. And no, it is not OK to present as fact an alternative to the scientific consensus view on climate change. The "two sides" are not science and the politically motivated anti-science bullshit of climate change dneialism. The scientific consensus, by definition, encompasses all legitimate evidence-based perspectives, and any "balance" to that is WP:FALSEBALANCE, as I am sure you understand. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

He is also a geophysicist, but you conveniently left that out. You seem to have no concept of what a "consensus" is. I not going to debate someone as close-minded as yourself.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2 Looks like a source that is largely analysis and opinion. That means most of the time it probably won't get cited or would have to be attributed. Option 2 doesn't establish that the source would have weight one way or the other on any topic. Running contrarian opinion articles doesn't mean the source should be excluded from use. We really need to spend less time looking at the source in general and more time asking if a particular article is appropriate for supporting a particular claim/statement in a wikipedia article. We should do less of this generalization stuff.

Springee (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Options 3-4 Confirmed to have pushed baseless conspiracy theories that were already debunked by mainstream media. —PaleoNeonate – 07:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 I don't even think this one needs explaining. Even the internal wiki article The_American_Conservative gives the sole needed reason for why this should be deprecated. In an ideal world, at least 95% of the opinions should lean towards option 4 here.Magnus Dominus (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)— Magnus Dominus (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Lordpermaximum (talk • contribs).
• Option 3 (actually none of the options, this is an opinion magazine) The RFC doesn't apply here. The American Conservative is very clearly an opinion magazine publishing the views of contributors. It does not claim to be a news source. There are many such opinion magazines (Jacobin for example, or the Forbes contributors) and we never use them to cite facts. It can be useful if we want to cite the opinion of a particular author and attribute it to them, so I would oppose deprecating it. However, it should never be used as a news source.--DreamLinker (talk) 15:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (The American Conservative)

• See for example Voter Fraud Happened, But This Fight Is Over, published Jan 6. "Evidence abounds that the game was rigged, and the courts clearly failed us". That is wilfully dishonest, as anyone who has read the court filings will be aware. "The woke media—a media too corrupt to print, during the presidential campaign, stories of the Biden family’s years of corruption—was oh, so uninterested in the statistical disparities in voting that clearly indicated election fraud". See also Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory. The "statistical disparities" which "clearly indicated voter fraud" have been analysed in detail and are down to obvious errors like assuming that each incoming set of ballot declarations will be statistically identical, when we knew months in advance that in-person and absentee ballots would represent very different demographics. Put simply, supporting the Big Lie is prima facie evidence of disqualifying bias-based unreliability. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• See also The Battle for France and Denmark’s Intifada, two article by Paul Belien supporting the Eurabia conspiracy-theory. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Given that we ALREADY say that TAC is not reliable for fact, how do these examples change anything? Blueboar (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• To give an example of content from TAC that might be useful for Wikipedia: [143]. Its author (Roger Scruton) is notable and his opinion provides a valuable perspective. I don't see why it should not be used in Wikipedia. Alaexis_¿question? 10:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

In what article might you use it? Blueboar (talk) 12:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Skyline or Roof pitch probably. Alaexis_¿question? 14:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Alaexis, not really, no. He wasn't an architect, so his opinions on architecture and urban planning would only be valid if he was noted as a commentator on those (as was, for example, John Betjemen, founding author of Private Eye's "Nooks And Corners"). Guy (help! - typo?) 12:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

He's sufficiently notable as a commentator of urban planning to be written about by The National Review [144], Spectator [145] and criticised by The Guardian [146]. Alaexis_¿question? 13:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Gaming news sites

So I asked this earlier and was redirected here. For the article I'm currently writing I had several sources but was advised to get more so my question is some of the websites I have found are not on the reliable source list as reliable or unreliable such as Gematsu,Dual Shockers,and Nintendo life so can I use these

P.S. Thank you for your time and if this question gets answered I have other sources to ask about as well Vessel of Domination (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

For easy reference:

• https://www.gematsu.com/
• https://www.dualshockers.com/
• https://www.nintendolife.com/

Reliability is contextual, so it depends what you want to cite them for - they may not be usable for WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims - but at a glance they're all established gaming news sites and are reasonable to cite for basic information about games and consoles and the like, or, attributed, for reviews and reception. --Aquillion (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The video game WikiPeoject has its one souring page Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources, and while any consensus reached here would take precedent over the subject specific souring page it should still prove helpful. Nintendo Life is considered reliable for factual information though the reliability of editorial content would depend on the specific author. Gematsu is considered generally reliable and dualshockers is considered unreliable and its recommend that if any of the unreliable sources are used they should be replaced with one of the listed reliable sources.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 04:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Just stating the obvious: do not use for non-videogame/console related topics, —PaleoNeonate – 07:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Reliability of American cable news

This is more about the reliability of CNN/MSNBC/Fox News when discussing the area of politics. From what I have seen, these sources do a terrible job at reporting neutral information in the field of politics. There are only a few news programs, the rest is strongly opinionated journalism/propaganda. Anyone agree? Aasim (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Questionable - to corroborate material for inclusion in a WP article, one has to go outside the echo chamber of cable news, and the internet sources that are connected to them. If you can find neutral scholarly sources, that's a better bet for reliability. Atsme 💬 📧 23:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with what WP:RSP says about them.--Renat (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

It is vital to distinguish the news programs from the opinion programs (It is also important to distinguish opinion within news segments - when they bring on a guest, or a talking head “contributor”, treat it as opinion). Opinion can be covered in WP, but should always be attributed (in text) to the opinionator.

Extra care is needed when looking at the outlet’s news app... it is not always easy to distinguish news and opinion. Blueboar (talk) 00:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:OPINION: Hard facts are really rare. What we most commonly encounter are opinions from people (POVs). Inherently, because of this, most articles on Wikipedia are full of POVs. An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major, verifiable points of view will – by definition – be in accordance with Wikipedia's NPOV policy.—Bagumba (talk) 05:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• As Renat mentioned, these sources have been discussed extensively and community consensus is summarized at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Please refer to that for answers to your initial question about reliability in general or for political topics. If you have a question about a specific source for a specific piece of content, then this is a good venue to ask. MastCell ^Talk 18:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• This is not going to fly: "American cable news" is not a monolithic entity. It encompasses opinionated but fundamentally reality-based content (e.g. Maddow, whose hectoring style often overlays deep research, and has spun out books like Blowout, whihc is meticulously presented), blowhards like Tucker Carlson whose defense in court is literally that nobody takes him seriously, cable news from CNN, which is highly factually accurate, and conspiracist clownhorning that talked up the Big Lie for months. Mainstream news orgs are presumptively reliable, cable opinion shows are presumptively opinion and handled as such. However, we do need to address the elephant in the room: the latest version of Ad Fontes ([147]) shows Fox, OANN and NewsMax as substantially less reliable that RT/Sputnik, which are Russian state propaganda networks. OANN is less reliable that TruthOut. That's... not great. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

My only comment here is that Ad Fontes is not a reliable source as per WP:RSP, so citing it means nothing.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Guy here, we also already have WP:RSP about individual entries (and RSN archives that RSP attempts to summarize). —PaleoNeonate – 07:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Can we ban this highly questionable source?

• Source: A Social History of India by S. N. Sadasivan

• Used in: several Wikipedia articles
• Reason:
  • Author is not a reputed or mainstream south Indian historian
  • Serious factual accuracy issues
  • Book is full of conspiracy theories or misleading claims (promoting conspiracy theories)
  • General lack of inline citation in the book
  • Book is never cited by any of the other mainstream scholars.

Ouṃkāra (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Removing RfC tag due to lack of WP:RFCBEFORE. In fact, according to Google Scholar it is cited 62 times[148] (t · c) buidhe 07:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Could you give a little more detail please Ouṃkāra? Has the text been criticised by other scholars? What do you feel to be the conspiracy theories and factual inaccuracies? Boynamedsue (talk) 08:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Please note that none of the major scholars even refer this book! Note the general lack of inline citation in the book.

The book is never cited any of the reputed/mainstream south Indian historians. However, you can find many references to this book in hundreds of sub-standard entries in Google Scholar!

Since its not been cited, no criticism by any reputed or mainstream south Indian historians exist.

Please read any part of the book, and you can see. Just see the title of first chapter "The Aryan Invasion of India"!. Can any scholar even imagine putting up a title like that ??

Do you want exact quotes from the book ??

Ouṃkāra (talk) 09:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, a few concrete examples would be useful. The lack of inline citation would not necessarily render it unusable, though if it is saying really weird things it is a serious worry. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

You see can see casual langauge used by the author (who is not a professional historian)

Lets take, page 120

"the irrefutable testimony to the fact that Buddhism was popular and common religion of Kerala"

or page 113

"The thousands of groves called in vernacular kavus spread even now all over Kerala were once used as sangharams and viharas by the Buddhists"

or page 124

"an altruist, Ayyappa was cast in the mould of Bodhisatva"

or page 128

"the practise continued for centuries till the Buddhists were massacred and the temple had been seized"

These are just some them. I can give more if you need!

Ouṃkāra (talk) 09:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC) Ouṃkāra (talk) 09:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

If it is this S. N. Sadasivan I can see some issues, but I need to see some RS criticising this work.Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that there is anything there that should lead us to deprecate or declare the book not to be RS, unless you can find an RS that suggests it to be completely inaccurate. Being occasionally wrong is not a criteria to deprecate a history book, or else there would be no RS at all. Some of the stuff you quote is valid historical opinion that might be true or false, some seems plausible, some is probably wrong. There is widespread RS coverage of persecution of Buddhists in southern India during the period, and Buddhism clearly was very popular in that area in the past. Reuse of religious sites is common the world over. I think that you are better challenging individual claims you feel to be inaccurate on the talk pages of the specific articles, providing contradictory sources and demonstrating undue weight. Boynamedsue (talk) 10:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Please bring in any subject expert (and let him/her decide,please!).
• I was just showing some random quotes. There are more!
• Why there are no reliable sources criticising this work - none of reliable authors do not even read this !
• None of the claims are made by me, but by professional historians
• I can give reliable sources to refute all the claims (given the book+given above)
• Individual claims - this will lead to end-less discussions on multiple talk pages

Please involve subject expert TOPIC - India - History - South India - Kerala (other than me!).

So please deprecate or declare the book not to be a RS.

Ouṃkāra (talk) 11:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• I can do a modus tollens for all above points if you guys need them. But I think any scholar of south Indian history can see problems at first sight !!!

Ouṃkāra (talk) 11:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• • We need RS saying it is in error.Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• ::Ok, is it being used to support specific claims you disagree with? Take it to those talk pages and demonstrate the false information, or that it is undue weight on this one source. For example, if it is the only source supporting an extraordinary claim, then show what other sources say regarding the issue and see what other users think. It is also worth checking out the publisher, if it is not a reputable publishing house then perhaps it is not RS. But as it stands, it is a published work by an individual who seems to have had many books published and is quite widely cited, even though they are not an academic.Boynamedsue (talk) 11:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. — Newslinger talk 12:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Proposed Book Ban: per Boynamedsue. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 09:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Speedy close: Unless if you can link to evidence to show that the book you are mentioning is an unreliable source (probably third-party sources as we cannot view content behind paywalls unfortunately), I do not think this is a meaningful discussion. Plus, it is up to editor discretion to decide whether a source is reliable for a published topic or not, and if an editor ends up inserting claims backed by an unreliable source, the onus is on them to fix it. WP:RSPS only exists because of the number of editors that fall for otherwise unreliable sources, so we maintain that list so they don't. Aasim (talk) 06:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

mantleplumes.org

We currently have 134 citations to mantleplumes.org  , which according to this Earth Magazine article is operated by Gillian Foulger, a Professor of Geophysics at Durham University. Both Foulger and the website are promogulators of what is referred to as Plate theory (volcanism), which argues against the prevailing theory of mantle plumes as the cause of geological hotspots like the Hawaiian Islands. As the Earth Magazine article makes clear, "plate theory" isn't out and out fringe, but the existence of mantle plumes is very much considered the mainstream hypothesis. This came to the attention of WikiProject Geology (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geology#Plate_theory_(volcanism)) due to the recent creation of the Plate theory (volcanism) article, as well as mass rewriting of hotspot related articles by the author of the article SphericalSong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to support the "plate theory" pov and cast doubt on mantle plumes as the source of their origin, citing both mantleplumes.org and Foulger's 2011 book "Plates vs plumes: a geological controversy", see 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 for examples. In my opinion mantleplumes.org displays no evidence of editoral oversight, and is pretty much a self-published source, and self-published sources are totally undue in a topic area like mantle plumes where there extensive reliable peer reviewed journal articles on the topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that the Plate theory (volcanism) article is spotlighted on mantleplumes.org, with the title: "New Wikipedia page established: Plate theory (volcanism)", which suggests that there may have been a COI involved in the creation of the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• They claim that Every page on this website has been subject to technical review by at least one scientist conversant with the subject material, but that's an incredibly low bar, particularly since there's no editorial board. The review could just be one person going "looks good" and clicking "publish". I'd say avoid it and stick to the formal literature. XOR'easter (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• This seems fine to me. Apparently, Gillian Foulger was awarded the 2005 Price Medal "for investigations of outstanding merit in solid-earth geophysics, oceanography, or planetary sciences" of the Royal Astronomical Society.[4] That same year she was also made a Fellow of the Icelandic National Academy of Sciences. Like, I don't know if the Royal Astronomical Society is "lame" or "cringe" or whatever, but we live in a society, and this society seems to think she is a volcanologist. I don't think anyone else here so far has been a volcanologist. What does some rando writing goofy articles have to do with source deprecation? jp×g 03:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Foulger is a respected scientist, I never claimed she wasn't. My point is though is that the website is a self-published advocacy source for a minority view in geophysics, and when covering this topic appropriate due weight needs to be given to how the ideas are received by the wider academic community. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

It could be a reliable self-published source. But we are not obligated to include information from every reliable source. ElKevbo (talk) 03:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Plenty of respectable and even esteemed scientists write stuff that isn't peer-reviewed, like blog posts or preprints that just sit on the arXiv. These are self-published sources and so have to be used with care; for example, they'd probably be OK as a supplemental reference for standard textbook-level material, and they probably wouldn't be OK for the scientist's own research. This website looks to be on the latter end, as it's a self-published advocacy source for a minority view as Hemiauchenia said. It's no slight upon a scientist to run such a website, but that kind of website is not what we ought to look for. XOR'easter (talk) 14:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE: the account Gfoulger (who presumably is Gillian Foulger) has responded over at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Marquesas_hotspot. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Xposting DanHobley's comments on the reliability of Mantleplumes.org from WT:GEOLOGY

mantleplumes.org is not a reputable source - it's widely recognised as an advocacy website for a specific - and TBH, pretty fringe - point of view on mantle dynamics. Gillian Foulger created the hypothesis, is/was very involved in that website, and it is decidedly non-mainstream.

Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

RfC - ourcampaigns.com

This website has been mentioned multiple times on this noticeboard over the last few years (see here), but no RfC was ever generated or consensus reached regarding its reliability. The website is an open wiki, fully user generated, with no mention of from where the contributors are getting their numbers. There are currently over 3,000 instances of it being cited as a source on Wikipedia (mostly on election related articles) that should be removed as a clear failure of WP:RS.

Should the website be blacklisted/spamlisted to allow for mass-removal? - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• It's clearly unreliable, user generated tertiary source (like us!) But do we need to spamlist it? Have we done that with other wikis before? Honest question, I truly don't know the precedent here. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

That is why I brought it up and asked for comments. With it currently being used as a source on 3,000+ pages, I'm trying to think of an easy way for it to be removed from them all, while also kept from being used in the future. I'm assuming this task could easily done by bots if blacklisted/spamlisted? - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Black/spam list it. Doug Weller talk 17:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Blacklisting seems like pretty strong medicine. Is there any evidence of clear disruption or persistent spamming? See Wikipedia:Spam-blacklisting. I think this site is about comparable to IMDb: the content is mostly user-generated, but there's no sign of large-scale bad-faith fabrications. As such, "generally unreliable" should be adequate; blacklisting probably goes a step too far. I'm glad to reconsider if there's evidence that this site is being used disruptively. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• The COIBot spam report at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/ourcampaigns.com is stale, and I am attempting to refresh it to get a better view at how this domain is being used. — Newslinger talk 06:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

  I noticed the update although it seems that the bot fails to report properly, probably because most additions are too old/numerous in the history... —PaleoNeonate – 07:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, it looks like the link additions may be too old for COIBot to generate a report. We'll have to examine the existing links manually. — Newslinger talk 09:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• I actually disagree with the general consensus here. The website is not "clearly unreliable" - their policy pages seem to indicate that access is somewhat gated and I have yet to come across actually inaccurate information there. Wikis with strong editorial control do exist. However, the source should probably be discouraged and used as an external link instead. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 15:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable, no view on whether or not to blacklist. This is WP:UGC. Yes, it's 'somewhat gated', but that's just a matter of contributing for a while and demonstrating that you're not a troll/vandal, like getting auto-confirmed, extended confirmed or whatever here. We don't consider Wikipedia articles under ECP to be RS; hell, an FA written by an autopatrolled user and currently under full protection isn't an RS - it's still UGC, it's still generally unreliable. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Academia.edu

Are papers from Academia.edu reliable? I particularly want to know about [149].--2409:4073:4D8D:DE3C:9C1:F364:6881:5B1C (talk) 08:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Generally no, you can put anything you want on there. A lot of what is on there is undergraduate and post-graduate essays, and some really fringe stuff. There is also a lot of stuff there which is reliable, but also a copyright violation, so we can't use. However, there is some stuff on there which is legit, usually academics who post their own stuff. You should link to the published version of their paper in that case.

The source you link obviously exists elsewhere, as it has the layout of a printed pamphlet. But I don't know enough about the topic, publisher and author to tell you whether the original would be RS. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

The source is self-published, so if you could find a legitimate copy, this would apply.Boynamedsue (talk) 08:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

If it is used to support medical claims, does not meet WP:MEDRS. —PaleoNeonate – 07:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Glaukopis journal

Is this source reliable for the Antisemitism in Poland topic area?

• Not reliable Although it is indexed in Google Scholar (not an indication of reliability), none of the papers appears to have been cited more than 2 or 3 times[150] It is published by Fundacja „Glaukopis”[151] (rather than, as is more common, a university press or other reliable publisher).
  • According to Andrzej Żbikowski, Glaukopis is "a publication that has arisen mainly to rehabilitate unconditionally the wartime activities of the Narodowe Siły Zbrojne (NSZ)".[152] Historian Grzegorz Krzywiec, reviewing a book that involved several people associated with Glaukopis, stated: "They are engaged in a persistent dialogue with a numerous group of people who see the world in a similar way and they do not care at all about anybody else."[153] Note, WP:SCHOLARSHIP cautions against "journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs."
  • The publication was founded and edited for most of its history by Wojciech Muszyński, who is known for controversial and often extreme opinions:
    • He thinks Judeopolonia is real and blood libel might be[154]
    • Grzegorz Motyka compared his methods excusing the NSZ to those who are trying to deny that the Ukrainian Insurgent Army committed massacres of Poles in Volhynia.[155][156]
  • Muszyński's replacement, Sebastian Bojemski, is quite obscure. I cannot find much information about him, but his books have only 61 library holdings[157] compared to 6,704 for Wendy Lower, one of the editors of the mainstream The Journal of Holocaust Research (published by University of Haifa and Taylor & Francis).[158] (t · c) buidhe 11:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Whoa whoa whoa. Buidhe is using "oko-press", a highly partisan outlet (I'd say roughly comparable to something like The Jacobin, itself not reliable, to attack Muszynski. These charges may or may not be true, but you can't do this here - this is a pretty serious BLP violation. Volunteer Marek 17:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

      Neither Jacobin nor Oko.press are rated as unreliable at WP:RSP (or by consensus elsewhere) and I would strongly disagree that citing either of them is inherently a BLP violation. The article includes quotes where Muszyński publicly expressed his opinion on certain topics, you could probably dig up the original source but the article does have them all in one place. (t · c) buidhe 18:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

      • Lol. And neither is Glaukopis, so I guess it means it IS reliable? What you mean is that neither - not oko press, not Jacobin, not Glaukopis - are even MENTIONED on WP:RSP.

Oh and wait a minute. You say "you could probably dig up the original source". Ummmm... the Polityka piece you cited IS the "original source". Did you actually read the sources you're bringing here? Volunteer Marek 18:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• • • The other source cited by Buidhe above, Polityka is better (I'd characterize it as "oko press is to Polityka as The Jacobin is to The Nation (that might be a bit too generous for oko press)) but the thing is that that source (by Motyka) isn't as unequivocal as Buidhe or oko press pretends (which again shows the unreliability of oko press). Yes, it criticizes the book along several dimensions but also says it's a "valuable monograph on the nationalist underground" and treats the work seriously (for the record I agree with Motyka regarding this dispute among historians). Buidhe compounds their BLP violation above by using non-reliable sources to smear academics, by misrepresenting the more reliable sources on the matter. Volunteer Marek 17:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable -peer reviewed, includes notable cited historians,involved with notable scholarly debates. Above criticism seems to be based on highly controversial non-RS sources like oko.press addressed not against the journal itself but against long replaced individuals.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

  I cite the news article only for the stated opinions that Muszynski has chosen to make public. I believe it's a reliable source for that. (t · c) buidhe 16:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• My reading here is that this is marginal (e.g. self-published by its own foundation, rather than being an independent journal), and should probably only be used to support clearly mainstream and uncontroversial material. If it's being used to support controversial or fringe material then it would be undue I think. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Generally Universities have their own presses and publish their own journals, with articles from their own faculty (some places, like MIT or Chicago, MOSTLY their own faculty). As long as the editorial board includes outside scholars and so does the peer review, then this shouldn't be a concern. Volunteer Marek 17:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, universities, yes. but "Institut Glaukopis" is not Oxford University Press. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@JzG: Guy, I'm actually particularly interested in your opinion here since you're the only uninvolved editor to comment - in this instance at issue is whether a book review from the journal, by a professional historian, should be included. So we're not actually using it to make claims about any historical facts but rather reporting on a source's opinion. Wouldn't this be okay as long as there's attribution (perhaps both to author and journal)? Volunteer Marek 19:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable - Glaukopis is an obvious peer-reviewed scholarly publication. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • There is no such thing as "obviously" reliable. The WP:BURDEN is on any editor seeking to cite the source to show that it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy as required by basic WP:RS standard. (t · c) buidhe 18:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• I tried to find some information about that journal and the foundation, but that appeared to be not easy [159]. The Polish Wikipedia page about that journal says that the journal's editor is a person who has no Wikipedia article even in Polish Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia has no article about that journal and the foundation. The fact that it is not easy to find information about that journal is an indication that something is wrong with it.

I also would like to note that majority of users who commented here (except JzG) seem to be not uninvolved users. This noticeboard is intended for obtaining an additional input from the users who have not been involved in this dispute before. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable. The subjects for which this journal is usually used on Wiki fall under WP:APL#Article sourcing expectations, which state that Only high quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals, academically focused books by reputable publishers, and/or articles published by reputable institutions. I am not at all clear that Glaukopis can be considered a "high quality source", or that the foundation behind it is a "reputable institution". The fact that Glaukopis has been criticized for its right-leaning publications; that some of the people behind it - like Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, Jan Żaryn and the non-existent "Mark Paul" - are either associated with the far right or have been criticized for spreading antisemitic myths; that they actually publish someone by their pseudonym, which goes against scientific transparency; and that, at least from my experience, there's a lot of cross-referencing in the above's publications, suggest that this is not the case. François Robere (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Well, that's funny because previously you thought it was reliable and cited it yourself ... on this very board [160] [161]. For even more stringent info. I think an editor's !vote can be discounted when they argue that the same source is reliable as long as it agrees with them, but unreliable if it doesn't. Volunteer Marek 18:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Volunteer Marek: What's wrong with changing one's mind? If one were to assume good faith, one would have to assume that François Robere was not yet aware of the problems with this source, or that some other mitigating factor was at play. I wouldn't know, being unfamiliar with the context. Arguing that this diff –– one diff repeated twice –– should somehow invalidate François Robere's contribution here is absurd and implies a profound misunderstanding of how civil discussion works. Generalrelative (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
      • I don't think there's anything "uncivil" in pointing out that the same editor had no problems using the same source when it suited their views, but all of sudden doesn't think it's reliable anymore when it turns out it doesn't. And my bad about the double diff, control-C didn't work as it should. Here is the second diff [162] where FR has no problem referencing Glaukopis. Volunteer Marek 19:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Under WP:SELFSOURCE! It was an account of Chodakiewicz's "fall from grace" by his colleague, John Radziłowski. François Robere (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
      • If it was by someone else, how in the world can it be "self source"? Volunteer Marek 20:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
        • Chodakiewicz is listed as one of the program directors, and is also given special credit in the byline (as the "Tadeusz Kosciuszko Chair").[163] Ergo, Chodakiewicz is the publisher. François Robere (talk) 20:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Is this a joke? One couldn't think of a less reliable source. Not reliable This publication is about rehabilitating the NSZ and the national camp. It has an awful reputation, and is peer reviewed in the same sense Mankind Quarterly is peer reviewed, it is peer reviewed by highly suspect individuals. Nobody of note cites this trash. Over at their library section they push trash like Polska dla Polaków!. Their program committee says it all. Kazimierz Braun is a playwright and scholar of theatre, not a historian. Marek Jan Chodakiewicz is famous for anti-Jewish and anti-gay views. Dr. Ryszard Tyndorf of Canada may have a PhD, but is a lawyer and activist, and is known for his unsavory views. It only gets "better" when we head on to priest Dr. Jarosław Wąsowicz, who is the priest of extremist fans of Lechia Gdańsk, an ultra, whose homilies include gems like: "We want a Christian Europe, because only by appealing to fundamental values can we defend the continent against annihilation". And then we have Jan Żaryn, a historian turned politician, who is known for his extremist dialogue, for instance claims of disproportionate Jewish international influence, attacks on museums for not being Catholic enough, calls for expelling the Israeli ambassador who complained about rising antisemitism, prosecution of Holocaust survivors, and other statements.[164][165][166][167][168].--Bob not snob (talk) 18:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Wow, you really are doubling down on the BLP violations. And you're a brand new account who immediately jumped into the controversy. I believe you're in violation of the 500/30 restriction [169] imposed by the ArbCom, which was imposed due to widespread sock puppetry in this topic area, particularly from an editor who had been topic banned (then indef banned) for making precisely the BLP violations you are now repeating. And I do mean precisely because you're even attacking the same BLP in the same way as that banned user, as one of the Findings of Fact from the case demonstrates [170].

You are also grossly misrepresenting the journal in a pretty blatant way. You claim: they push trash like "Polska dla Polaków!" <-- that's a title of an article ABOUT (not "in support of") Polish nationalism. The title actually is "Polska dla Polakow - who are the Polish nationalists?" If somebody wrote a history of Spanish Francoists with the title "Una Grande Libre - who were the Falangists?" that would not mean that they are supporting the subject. Maybe this is surprising to some but historians do write histories of fringe political movements.

Also it's a general humanities journal so there's nothing surprising about the fact that the editorial board has some non-historian scholars on it. Volunteer Marek 19:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Wrong, just like the rest of your bludgeoning here. I've been here for more than a year and have more than 500 edits. Do you confuse me with User:Herzog von Teschen? He has less than 100 edits, and registered last September. That this obscure foundation lists a football ultra priest is a strong warning sign.--Bob not snob (talk) 06:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

"Nobody cites this trash" Really? Here is a book from Oxford University Press by prominent historian Jochen Böhler [171]. Apparantly good enough for Oxford University Press but not good enough for Wikipedia (although I guess it depends since it appears some editors want to use it as source themselves, they just don't want OTHER editors using it). Volunteer Marek 20:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Not reliable per buidhe, François Robere and Bob not snob. The evidence appears pretty overwhelming that this is not a source where articles are reviewed by competent experts in relevant fields of study, but rather by self-selected ideological fellow-travelers. The comparison with Mankind Quarterly is apt. Generalrelative (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • You might not like the people who review the articles, but they are certainly content experts. (No, it's nothing like "Mankind Quarterly" - you want to back that up with sources?) Volunteer Marek 19:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
    • I mean, I can just quote back to you what Bob not snob has stated perfectly clearly: it is peer reviewed in the same sense Mankind Quarterly is peer reviewed, it is peer reviewed by highly suspect individuals. The above references presented by buidhe make that apparent. Also, you may consider trying to restrain yourself from WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion. It does not help your cause. Generalrelative (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

"Glaukopis" is:

• a peer-reviewed journal [172].
• is indexed in the Polish Scholarly Bibliography (Polska Bibliografia Naukowa; component of a country-wide system POL-on, a System for Information About Higher Education in Poland, developed for Ministry of Science and Higher Education in Poland) [173]
• from 2013 to 2018 was on the list of scholar journals prepared by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education in Poland. Herzog von Teschen (talk) 01:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• Based on that and discussion above, this is a reliable, but possibly an opinionated source. The citation index is irrelevant. Kavkaz Center was cited a lot, but this is not an RS. Yes, as some participants noted, the journal has been criticized, but so was CNN, The Lancet and almost everything else. One should look at specific publication and specific author, they are more important than journal. My very best wishes (talk) 03:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
• Unfortunately, the Polish state has serious problems with freedom of speech on precisely this issue, and supports a strong unhistorical POV. Acceptance by Polish governmental institutions is probably more of a black mark than an endorsement.Boynamedsue (talk) 05:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• This is xenophobic (Acceptance by Polish governmental institutions is probably more of a black mark than an endorsement). This list included many scholar journals, eg. American Historical Review. He should also stop using AHR because user Boynamedsue thoughts? Herzog von Teschen (talk) 11:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

  I stand by the statement. The Polish state has criminalised commentary on the holocaust which implies that Poles had some responsibility in what occurred, and they promote a "state line" on history which diverges from historical fact. If we are talking about WWII, sanction of a source from the Polish government would be an element of concern rather than something which added credibility. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

  You read something in the American magazine and you use this as an argument about European peer-reviewed scholarly journals. Did the Atlantic write something about this particular journal? Herzog von Teschen (talk) 13:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

  I have not offered an opinion on whether the journal is reliable or not. I have merely stated, due to what I have read in a myriad of reliable sources, that the Polish government has criminalised certain historical facts and actively promotes a POV on WWII. Therefore, imo, the acceptance of the journal by state or parastatal organisations in Poland can not be used to support claims it is a Reliable Source.Boynamedsue (talk) 13:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• Boynamedsue, that's a good point. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Herzog von Teschen: I've checked six international academic databases (Scopus, SJR, Lens, Scinapse, CiteSeerX and Microsoft Academic Search) and couldn't find Glaukopis in any of them. In comparison, Slavic Review is listed by all of them, and even the relatively small Journal of Holocaust Research (formerly Dapim: Studies on the Holocaust) is listed by one. François Robere (talk) 14:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @François Robere: Many academic journals from the Eastern Europe are not included in academic databases from Western Europe and the United States. You could compare the database Arianta with those six databases. Herzog von Teschen (talk) 16:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
    • @Herzog von Teschen: Thanks for the link. The thing is being listed on an international DB means the resource has a higher profile, and is more accessible to scholarly review from abroad. Since there are plenty of Eastern European sources which are listed on one or more of these DBs, I see no reason to compromise on those that aren't. François Robere (talk) 16:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Definitely unreliable as per nomination. To say that internationally awarded investigative journalist outlet oko.press is "highly partisan" is nonsense and shows how any criticism or proof of misdeeds in the country is currently dealt with. Polish academia is still a free for all with very few checks and balances and always has been. Poland also has a long history of historical revisionism. Professorships had been awarded on basis of cronyism and nepotism in many cases, especially during the PRL-era. I suspect there are many more journals like this, one doesn't have to look much further than to see how IPN works to see this in action. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• I would argue it's unreliable and also biased as a source, particularly given the sourcing restrictions in the topic area. Historian Andrzej Żbikowski [174] writes that in the Polish historiography of this topic, we can see the "persistence of two basic contradictory scholarly trends in the historiography of the mass murder of Polish Jews, accurately categorized by Krupa as a critical historiography and a historiography glorifying Poles’ wartime attitudes" [175]. He writes that Glaukopis is "a publication that has arisen mainly to rehabilitate unconditionally the wartime activities of the Narodowe Siły Zbrojne (NSZ)," whose WWII newspaper argued that " the liquidation of the Jews in the Polish territories is of great importance for future development because it frees us from a million-headed parasite." This kind of far-right, ethno-nationalist source and viewpoint has no place here. Probably worthwhile noting that Żbikowski offers examples of historians advancing these historiographical approaches: the "martyrological narrative" or something like a "Jewish-Soviet sympathy" narrative, etc. -Darouet (talk) 16:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  • It's opinion of the only one historian. In this way we could excluded all journals because we could find this kind of opinion. Herzog von Teschen (talk) 16:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• While I think some people here are going way overboard and using this as an excuse to grossly violate our BLP policy by attacking historians they don't agree with (based on very partisan sources), I've become convinced (particularly by comments by User:JzG) that given the "extra" sourcing restrictions in this topic area, even though the journal has an editorial board staffed with professional historians and independent peer review, we shouldn't use it in this particular case. Volunteer Marek 16:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• • Highlighting cronyism and how controversial academics game the system in an attempt to get their extremist views into mainstream is in no way "partisan" nor "attacking" them; citing them is not a BLP violation either. The title "historian" does not mean much on its own even when merited; a strong example in the same way Harold Shipman was unquestionably a qualified legitimate doctor. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable with caution. Caution should be focused especially towards historical facts and data/numbers appearing in Glaukopis articles. I believe the journal can be used here but I'd like to see additional citations from other sources, especially at potentially controversial claims. As a side note, I am really disappointed to see some users here resorting to xenophobic comments about Poland, its education system etc. I thought the WMF's recently passed Universal Code of Conduct strives to make also this project more inclusive. Regarding the IPN, I don't see any problem with the institution as a whole. If one group of people accuses you of "promoting Polish nationalism and antisemitism", and other people accuse you of "promoting Jewish interests in Poland" (whatever that means), then you're doing something right. By the way, e.g. Czech ÚSTR is subject to various bogus criticism of "historical revisionism" too but you won't hear about that here. Bashing Czechs is not as sexy as bashing Poles.--Darwinek (talk) 01:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • This seems to me like a misrepresentation of the above discussion. Criticizing the Polish state is neither xenophobic nor anti-Polish. Speaking as an American, I would readily observe that the Trump administration attempted some atrocious historical revisionism with its so-called "1776 Commission", and if he had won re-election would likely have continued to erode the US government's reputation as a reliable source of information. The general consensus seems to be that the situation in Poland is just a bit further along this road. Also, the idea that being accused of promoting Polish nationalism and antisemitism is somehow a sign that you're doing something right so long as someone even more loony than you is also accusing you of promoting Jewish interests is a truly problematic epistemic criterion. You may wish to re-examine that. Generalrelative (talk) 01:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

    State-sponsored sources (which Glaukopis is not, it has no affiliation with the IPN), have to meet the same WP:RS criteria as any other source. To give another example, scholars do not take seriously the Rwandan government's claim of more than 1 million victims in the Rwandan genocide; neither should Wikipedia. This stance is not anti-Rwandan but rather because we aim to be reality-based. (t · c) buidhe 09:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

    • The argument to moderation is a logical fallacy. In 1940's Germany, some people wanted to kill no Jews and some people wanted to kill all the Jews. The correct number of Jews to kill was not 50%. Concern about Polish state misrepresentation of WWII is entirely based in reality, it is therefore inappropriate to use Polish state support of a source related to WWII as evidence for its reliability. The idea that this is a xenophobic position is utterly laughable. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
      • No, what’s actually laughable, is comparing Polish government’s historical policy, as flawed as it is, to... murder of Jews by Germany during WW2. If you have to use a crude analogy, find something less offensive. Because that kind of hyperbolic comparison actually IS xenophobic and has led to topic bans in the past. Volunteer Marek 02:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
      • I will second the previous responses in saying that "xenophobia" or "anti-polonism" is completely out of place. I would also add that although increasingly popular, it is a dangerous and harmful statement to make. Firstly, the criticism comes from other Poles first and foremost, and having an opposing view does not make them "foreign agents", "unpatriotic" or other such nonsense. The same can be applied to 2020 Belarusian protests, opposition to Brexit, 2021 capitol riots; they do not make you anti-Belarussian, anti-British nor anti-American just because someone levies those accusations, which by the way, can easily be made in the other direction. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
        • I fully agree that comparing the Polish government's current policy of historical denialism to the holocaust would be unacceptable, which is why I have never done that. What I have done is use a reductio ad absurdum argument to demonstrate the falsity of the idea that if a position is criticised by "both sides" it must be the correct one.--Boynamedsue (talk) 11:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @Darwinek: Note that the TA is subject to special sourcing expectations that raise the bar beyond what is required by WP:RS. If something should be used "with caution" under RS, then it's probably not good enough for the TA SE. François Robere (talk) 13:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
• Dr. Wojciech Muszyński, who is listed as the publisher of Glaukopis is infamous for statements in which he suggest left-wing Polish politicians (Left Together) should be dealt with in a manner similar to the Pinochet regime with death flights, [176] [177].--Bob not snob (talk) 12:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, that settles it for me. An extremist source of this nature is not reliable. Boynamedsue (talk) 11:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable xenophobic junk, for anything. Wojciech Muszyński, the editor turned publisher, was a far-right candidate for office and published racist anti-immigrant junk, including a picture of Barack Obama hanging by a noose. This dude is the opposite of reputable editorial oversight. [178][179][180] Mellow Boris (talk) 10:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Reneverdugo.org used at The Last Narc (TV series)

This edit [181] changes The Last Narc (TV series) so that we now describe Amazon's documentary series as "fictional" in wikivoice. The change is based on repeated links to http://www.reneverdugo.org; as far as I can tell it's a personal advocacy website that's hosting WP:PRIMARY sources created 20 years before the production of the documentary.

I don't see the point of using primary sources or reneverdugo.org to claim in Wikivoice that a documentary is fictional, when recent, secondary sources are already available to us (e.g. [182][183][184]), high-quality newspaper and academic sources on the same general topic are also available (e.g. [185][186][187][188][189][190]). -Darouet (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• So, is Reneverdugo.org a reliable source to be used at The Last Narc (TV series), and can we use it to describe the documentary as "fictional?" -Darouet (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

www.figma.com/blog/

Edit where used: [191]

Reliable for claims about fonts? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I am going to say no, per WP:BLOG. I was hoping to have an RSN entry to point to, but it is what it is. :( --Guy Macon (talk) 02:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The author is writing for a company, so it's not a personal blog. He's also an author on this topic in reliable sources, e.g. [192], so "self-published expert" seems to apply. The source seems OK to use to me. Fences&Windows 13:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Primary sourcing vs. secondary sourcing

Okay, so I'm working a bit on the Bodleian Library at Oxford U.) article and I keep running into a lot of primary sourcing (ie. novels) that apparently use the location as a prolonged backdrop for their story. Most of the time, the library is mentioned in passing or used in a specific scene, while at other times (like for Inspector Morse novels which are set in and around Oxford) seem integral.
As well, different features of the library are used (the front door as a front door to Hogwarts or whatever) for tv and film (though often not by name).
How explicit does the sourcing have to be that connects the novel or a visual representation of a door or a courtyard to the library? My thoughts are that while primary sources are okay (so long as the use of the library is not incidental and therefore trivial), secondary sources that note the novel's usage of the library would be better. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian, Yes, your perception is generally accurate, although these concerns are more about original research than reliable sources per se (we have an original research noticeboard). In general, it does have to be an explicit mention in order to avoid original research. Also, some editors may not think that it's WP:DUE unless a secondary source draws the connection. (t · c) buidhe 21:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe, ah yes, I can see how my initial framing seems to fall under ORN, but I think what brought me here was a) the usage of primary sources despite the possibility of triviality and, b) the usage of the Visit Oxford travel website as a source for movies/series that have been shot there. I was hoping for a good way to explain it to others that we can't use these (cites from these sites? lol) as a source of info, as they are essentially marketing fare, and can change at the drop of a hat. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Taiwan News

Is Taiwan News a reliable source, a marginally reliable source, an unreliable source, or should it be deprecated? Does reliability still stand especially over political articles such as cross-strait relations?

According to Taiwan News, it is owned by I-Mei Foods, and openly leans Pan-Green politically.

Website: [193]

taiwannews   is currently cited on over 1,000 articles, and if I'm seeing correctly were all added in the last year or two.

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting, including politics.
• Option 2: Marginally reliable or unclear, considerations needed.
• Option 3: Generally unreliable and too partisan for factual reporting.
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated.

Not sure if relevant: Taiwan News still largely refers to "COVID-19" as "Wuhan coronavirus", examples: 1 and 2. Not sure if these are unintentional and are being meant casually/off-hand or is being used deliberately as a political statement. 85.10.51.92 (talk) 01:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Survey (Taiwan News)

• Close this poorly formed RFC- The basis of this RFC is that the source should be considered unreliable because it dared to use the term "Wuhan Coronavirus" which is a term that the Chinese government does not like. Other reliable sources have used the term. I believe this is actually the preferred term for the virus in Taiwan. At least one source back that up. [194] No evidence was provided that actually would call this publication's reliability into question.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

  Endorse RfC. Taiwan News has been discussed twice, in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 298 § Taiwan News Online and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 320 § Taiwan News. Previous discussions pin the source to option 1 or 2, but leave uncertain whether the source is reliable for controversial claims. The RfC is formatted correctly. — Newslinger talk 05:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Newslinger: random IPs with no other contributions opening RFCs on the reliability of a major source in the absence of any actual dispute over their reliability is not something I’m open to endorsing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

That sounds like "option 1", but the choice is yours. We have little insight on the reliability of Taiwanese sources, and this RfC is a good start. I don't treat IPs differently from other editors in content-related discussions. — Newslinger talk 05:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

With a neutral RFC question and an actual dispute escalated to this noticeboard from an article talk page or similar I wouldn’t be opposed to having the discussion. This isn’t how its supposed to work, I don’t need to tell you that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Speaking of neutrality, I have to question your strong hostility behind this RfC as well as your intention to have this snowball closed. I realized that the article I-Mei Foods, which owns Taiwan News, was created by your old account, Horse Eye Jack, back in 2019. You also seem to be a major contributor in using this website as a source on Wikipedia, so I hope it is not inappropriate to ask whether you have a conflict of interest or personal association with Taiwan News that you had not disclosed? 85.10.51.92 (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I do not. Since its family story time have you ever edited under a different IP or account? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Nope. Just here to clarify what Wikipedia thinks of Taiwan News. 85.10.51.92 (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Snowball close this RFC "Wuhan coronavirus” or “Wuhan pneumonia” was the original name of the disease in the Chinese speaking world, that includes both China and Taiwan. It is among the acceptable common names for the virus, it is not among the offensive ones ("China virus,” “Kung flu” etc). I note that this IP has no other edits. I also went and looked and piece from that same writer published today [195] uses COVID-19 exclusively. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1. I am unable to find any reliability concerns that would take precedence over the news organizations guideline for Taiwan News. Taiwan: Nation-State Or Province? (2019), published by Taylor & Francis, notes:

Three English dailies also operated in Taiwan—China Post, Taipei Times and Taiwan News—though Taiwan News went to an online version only in 2010 and China Post did the same in 2017. China Post is pro-KMT; Taipei Times and Taiwan News are pro-DPP. Of the three, Taipei Times is the largest in terms of news coverage and commentary.

Copper, John Franklin (13 November 2019). Taiwan: Nation-State or Province?. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-429-80831-9. Retrieved 6 February 2021 – via Google Books.

Since Taiwan News is a generically-worded name, detailed coverage is difficult to locate. I defer to use by other reliable sources: The China Post, The Diplomat, The New York Times (RSP entry), BBC (RSP entry), The Indian Express (RSP entry), The Washington Post (RSP entry), Al Jazeera (RSP entry), and Fortune have all cited content on Taiwan News without comment. For Taiwanese politics, consider balancing Taiwan News with other sources such as The China Post to ensure that both major parties are represented. — Newslinger talk 07:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Option 2 per the questionable articles listed by Thucydides411 below. — Newslinger talk 15:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 no evidence of unreliability presented. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 15:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2: I don't know how reliable they are for Taiwanese topics, but they have pushed a number of conspiracy theories related to CoVID-19, particularly in relation to China. A few examples:

1. Update: Rise in sulfur dioxide could be sign of mass cremations in Wuhan: This story from February 2020 suggested that there was ongoing mass incineration of corpses in Wuhan due to the coronavirus outbreak. This same story was printed in British tabloids such as the Daily Mail (note that even the Daily Mail has updated its headline to note that this story has been debunked). Taiwan News appears to have gotten this story from a Twitter account called "Intelwave" (that has since been suspended), which Taiwan News quotes throughout the article. Taiwan News eventually updated this story with information that suggests it's false, but they still did make the original decision to print this conspiracy theory that they found on Twitter.
2. Tencent may have accidentally leaked real data on Wuhan virus deaths: This story, based on a purported screenshot of Tencent's coronavirus tracker that someone posted on Twitter, claims that Tencent accidentally released the "real" case and death figures from Wuhan, which were supposedly about 100 times higher than reported. Tencent said that it had never released the numbers shown in the image circulating online, and it's likely that the "screenshot" was a fake. Again, Taiwan News simply repeated wild claims that it found on social media.
3. Taiwan News has pretty relentlessly pushed the theory that SARS-CoV-2 was constructed in a lab. For example, there's this recent article titled, "WHO inspector caught on camera revealing coronavirus manipulation in Wuhan before pandemic". The WHO inspector wasn't "caught on camera revealing" anything. He appeared on a popular virology podcast almost a year ago to talk about research that has been published in internationally recognized journals for years.

What connects these various stories is that Taiwan News picks them up on social media, and that they're all various conspiratorial claims about mainland China. I don't know how Taiwan News' reporting is on other subjects, but editors should be aware of their strong biases and poor sourcing standards when it comes to coverage of mainland China and realted issues, such as SARS-CoV-2. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2 - Usable about a number of topics but biased about China (and the CCP) and less involved sources should be used for COVID-19 related information except regional stats/news reporting. —PaleoNeonate – 07:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 Primarily per point 3 in Thucydides411's comment (!?) and Horse Eye's Back highly questionable remark in the paper's defense about how "Wuhan _____" is supposedly an acceptable name for the virus in 2021 (HEB appears to be unaware, or deliberately pretending to be unaware, of how "Wuhan flu" and variants thereof are used in sinophobic rhetoric, to the point of being a meme that was paranoid in the second Borat film; the virus having first emerged in Wuhan and therefore having been called that in some early reporting is irrelevant after more than a year). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Are you actually changing your opinion to punish me for a “highly questionable remark”? Thats not very civil even if I had made such a remark. I am also well aware that offensive uses exist as you are well aware of from my comment "It is among the acceptable common names for the virus, it is not among the offensive ones ("China virus,” “Kung flu” etc).” If you are suggesting that the reporters in the Chinese speaking world primarily of Chinese ancestry are engaging in the same sort of sinophobic racism as right wing American idiots I don’t think thats likely. Also if they had used Wuhan flu you would have a point, but they didn't. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The editors of these articles who still peddle terms such as "Wuhan virus" and "Wuhan coronavirus" as late as February 2021 as well as spread conspiracy theories in relation to CoVID-19 are named Keoni Everington and Matthew Strong. There is a very high possibility that the editors (especially the English edition) are freelancers that are not even in Taiwan, and if they are, are expats/emigrants that are not of Chinese ancestry. Another writer who spoke about how "Why the WHO's COVID inquiry will get us nowhere" or how "The BBC makes trouble in Taiwan's backyard once again" was written by David Spencer. Albeit "opinions", the second source was a direct attack on another news organization (BBC), and specifically its Taiwan news correspondent Cindy Sui, whose publication implies endorsement. They actually being "right wing American idiots" (your words) may not be all that far-fetched. 85.10.51.92 (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Based on the OP alone, I was leaning option 1, then I saw HEB's comment and was going add an addendum that one or more of my fellow option 1 !voters was apparently doing so based on an incredibly flawed premise, and then I sawT411's comment, confirmed its veracity, and !voted option 2 because ... yeah, this website has pushed the "COVID-19 was manufactured/developed/released/whatevered in a lab" conspiracy theory on multiple occasions, and doesn't seem to have ever published a retraction or clarification. If @Horse Eye's Back: misunderstood my comment as being based solely on their inappropriate comment, I apologize for this misunderstanding; I am also opening to changing my !vote if some evidence can be presented that TN has posted a retraction of one or another of their bogus "lab" stories. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2 per examples provided by Thucydides411. Peddling stories that even the Daily Mail sees fit to retract after publishing should be a red flag tbh. All the examples cited have to do with the Covid-19 pandemic and the PRC, so is this a generally reliable publications that can't help itself floating conspiracy theories when it comes to China, or are there any examples on unreliable reporting on other topics? PraiseVivec (talk) 13:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1. No reliability issues here. Of course any claims regarding Covid should be double-fact-checked, and ideally cited with additional sources.--Darwinek (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2-3, based on examples of false or fabricated information related to the coronavirus, as demonstrated by Thucydides411. Option 4 would be out of line since their reporting on other topics might be accurate or valuable for quotation with attribution. -Darouet (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2 (for political articles) The term "Wuhan Pneumonia" (in Chinese) is the term used by the Taiwanese government and generally followed by the media of Taiwan, example [196],[197],[198]. It's not related to the Sinophobic terms used by some Western right wing/conspiracy theory riddled sources. I wouldn't consider Taiwan News unreliable because of this. The source might have a pro-Taiwan/pan-green bias though.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (Taiwan News)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Taiwan. — Newslinger talk 05:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Showbiz411

Is Showbiz411[199] an RS for material about living persons (other than material about the person who is writing the material in question)? Thanks. 2603:7000:2143:8500:A1A3:633:94F3:E5BF (talk) 06:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia, context-sensitive

The current WP:RSPWP states that Wikipedia should never be cited, similar to The Signpost. However I think that there are instances when WP and Signpost can be cited as a primary or about-self source. For example, in the namesake article's History section, the statement "Snow wrote in its first issue: "I hope this will be a worthwhile source of news for people interested in what is happening around the Wikipedia community"" is supported by a Signpost article Snow wrote himself. There's no way this is considered unreliable. Overall, there are more than 10 Signpost citations in that article, all of which are non-controversial. Thus, I think it'd be useful to add in WP:RSPWP that context matters; primaries such as those cited in the Singpost article are allowed. GeraldWL 08:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The entry for Wikipedia (RSP entry) currently has the generally unreliable classification, which indicates that Wikipedia can still be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions when there is consensus to do so, subject to due weight. Also, the description of the entry states, "see WP:CIRCULAR for guidance", and WP:CIRCULAR states, "An exception is allowed when Wikipedia itself is being discussed in the article, which may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic, or other content from Wikipedia (or a sister project) to support a statement about Wikipedia." The second paragraph of WP:CIRCULAR permits the citations in the article for The Signpost. How would you suggest for WP:RSPWP to be rephrased to clarify this? — Newslinger talk 09:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

(ec)WP:RSPWP links to WP:SPS, with WP:ABOUTSELF just below. These give some leeway which I think cover the "Snow wrote..." example (one can of course then bicker on WP:PROPORTION grounds). I'm not sure this needs clarification in the WP:RSPWP-text, The Signpost is a small part of "WP". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, columns like the Forbes.com contributors have words like "unless written by a subject expert matter". The red cross sign can be misinterpreted as "not allowed", and not many will bother to go to WP:CIRCULAR to review references. It'll be useful to have words saying that context matters. GeraldWL 09:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Context always matters, WP:RSP is quite clear on that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, but many may not know it. When I first discovered the RSP, I don't understand the legend, the intention, I just looked through the table and the summary. Just like how it matters to note in the WordPress column that context matters, the Wikipedia column must have the same treatment. GeraldWL 10:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:s pages are full of things that many may not know. Often they are told if they ask (and sometimes without asking). Sorry, but I'm meh on this. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The Volunteer (book)

The Volunteer (book) was written by British journalist Jack Fairweather and published by a popular (not academic) press, WH Allen. Is it a reliable source?

I know of only one scholarly review of the book, in which Michael Fleming states:

the dominant narrative about Pilecki in Poland is a myth. The legend includes the claims that Pilecki “volunteered” to be imprisoned at Auschwitz, that he was particularly concerned with reporting on the fate of Jews at the camp, and that it was the Polish Communist authorities alone who were responsible for suppressing his story. In The Volunteer, journalist Jack Fairweather presents some, but not all, of the features of the Pilecki myth to English-speaking readers.

Partly mythical is just not good enough for basic WP:RS expectations, let alone antisemitism in Poland topic area. Fleming also states:

Fairweather’s problematic title signals the main weakness of the book, as does its first sentence, which endorses the dominant narrative of the Pilecki myth: “Witold Pilecki volunteered to be imprisoned in Auschwitz.”... [Fairweather] does not address the tension between the myth of the sincere volunteer and the evidence that pressure and manipulation were at play. It should also be noted that those arrested could not choose their place of imprisonment. The most one can say is that Pilecki was pressured to allow himself to be arrested in the hope of being sent to a camp.

I also found a scholarly article about Pilecki in the peer reviewed journal Zagłada Żydów. Studia i Materiały, written a few years before the book was published. Historian Ewa Cuber-Strutyńska states:

As a consequence, in the case of the “volunteer to Auschwitz”, the commonly used expression only partially corresponds with the facts.As already noted, one cannot fully recognise Pilecki as the promoter of the idea to enter Auschwitz and start underground activities there on the basis of source materials. Furthermore, it appears from the materials that the form and circumstances in which Pilecki was assigned the task did not give him many possibilities of refusal. In no way does it diminish his heroism and achievements but only shows that the term “volunteer” in the context of those events is used inaccurately. Using the expression “volunteer to Auschwitz”, one must bear in mind that Pilecki could not be certain that he would be sent precisely to Auschwitz after the September manhunt.

Nevertheless, my edits are reverted by Volunteer Marek and GizzyCatBella and our Wikipedia article still incorrectly identifies Pilecki as a "volunteer". (t · c) buidhe 09:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Perhaps it's worth discussing whether the book The Volunteer (book) is reliable or not (though the answer to that seems obvious - it is) but I'm not sure why this particular issue is being brought to WP:RSN since the disagreement has nothing to do with the reliability of sources but rather it's question of straight up WP:UNDUE. Fleming is reliable, but presenting a couple quotes completely devoid of context and plumped willy nilly into a section that has nothing to do with them is at best bad practice stylistically and likely to confuse a reader who is not already familiar with the subject. There is an academic disagreement here over whether Pilecki "volunteered" or whether he "received an order and as a soldier obeyed it" but the the way the quote is presented insinuates that the entire story of Pilecki getting himself captured in order to get sent to Auschwitz is "a myth" (obviously it's not and no source questions that). Volunteer Marek 16:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

  If it's an academic disagreement, you should be able to cite academic sources that have a different perspective. Are there any? Fairweather is not an academic source and does not meet the minimum requirements to be cited in this topic area. (t · c) buidhe 17:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Again, the issue is not sources but WP:UNDUE and a misleading presentation of selected quotes. Volunteer Marek 20:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

And Fairweather does meet the criteria. Are you saying that he or his publishers are not “reputable”? Volunteer Marek 20:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The requirement is to be "academically focused books by reputable publishers". I've seen no evidence that the book is academically focused, or that the publisher has a reputation for publishing accurate books about Polish history. (t · c) buidhe 20:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, Fleming states that "Fairweather reduces the “cast of characters,” oversimplifying in order to advance the narrative in a manner sufficiently compelling for a mass-market book." So no, not academic. (t · c) buidhe 20:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Do not you realize how strange it sounds? There is a mainstream well known book about someone, but we can not use that book on a page about the person. My very best wishes (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The sourcing restriction would have been unnecessary if popular (indeed "mainstream"... as in "the ideas, attitudes, or activities that are regarded as normal or conventional") perceptions were reasonably in line with facts and academic consensus in this topic area. That is not the case. (t · c) buidhe 09:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

If so, nothing prevents from saying on the page that "according to popular perceptions ... [refs], but a historical research revealed that ... [refs]". This is a common situation in all subject areas. The sourcing restrictions are not necessary (this is an RS, not self-published materials). Also, in this case the difference between the popular/mainstream perceptions and the source you are using seem be only in details, i.e. in the motivation of a person to do something: he is not a "hero", he just did his duty as a hero. No one disputes what he actually did. My very best wishes (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• The publisher seems to be "reputable", and it does not have to be academic. The book received an award. Is the book itself "academically oriented"? I did not read the book, but it was described as "compelling study" in reviews [200]. So I think it does qualify as research. Yes, the author does not work for a University, but this does not automatically disqualify his research. My very best wishes (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

  News articles are not counted as reliable sources in this topic area, so any article published in news cannot be used to justify the reliability of the source. (t · c) buidhe 20:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

No, the publications in The Guardian are RS per WP:RS and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. I am not saying the book is infallible... I am only saying it was described in RS as a "study", and it apparently was a study. That should be enough to describe it as a "study" on the page about such book, and the book (not the article in The Guardian) can be arguably seen as appropriate for this subject area. My very best wishes (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Not the best source. It is much better than some of the trash pushed further up on this page, but it is a mass market book that is a heroic biography. Witold Pilecki is at the centre of modern myth making in Poland. After the communist regime was toppled down, he was promoted as an anti-communist hero, the arch typical "cursed soldier". An heroic biography by a non-academic may mix the mythical and non-mythical here. If academic sources disagree with this source on details, then the academic sources should be used.--Bob not snob (talk) 06:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• While scholarly sources (written by academics and published by academic press) are most desirable, books written by respected journalists and published by likewise reputable publishers unquestionably meet the requirements of WP:RS. The issue of whether a description of him as a "volunteer" is correct or undue does not belong on this noticeboard. - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• The Arbcom remedy set higher expectations than traditional WP:RS for Poland in WW2, including the Holocaust; pls see: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland#Article sourcing expectations. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• This is not a case to be discussed here. Fairweather is a reputable journalist, his book published by a reputable house. Whether Pilecki volunteered, not really volunteered, or was ordered & coerced to be caught is an interesting topic that should be discussed & elaborated in the article, not at RSN.--Darwinek (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• So-so. It looks like a fine book, but without peer-review it's a problem to use it, especially in this TA. If the question is about the use of the term "volunteer", then the book is superseded by the journal article. François Robere (talk) 11:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• The book does not meet the Arbcom remedy at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland#Article sourcing expectations, which states:

5) The sourcing expectations applied to the article Collaboration in German-occupied Poland are expanded and adapted to cover all articles on the topic of Polish history during World War II (1933-45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Only high quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals, academically focused books by reputable publishers, and/or articles published by reputable institutions. (...)

--K.e.coffman (talk) 21:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

To the contrary it's a "high quality source", a "academically focused book by a reputable publisher". Volunteer Marek 21:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

How is the book "academically focused"? --K.e.coffman (talk) 07:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

It's based on archival sources, thoroughly researched, has been compared to scholarly works and "extensively documented" and is a result of several years worth of research. Volunteer Marek 08:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

It lacks in-line citations and it's unclear if it was peer-reviewed. François Robere (talk) 12:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you quit it with your perennial practice of inserting yourself into conversations that do not involve you. It's extremely rude. Volunteer Marek 02:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

And "lacks in-line citations"? Seriously? What is it suppose to be a Wikipedia article (cuz yeah, those are "scholarly" /sarcasm)? There are plenty of scholarly works which don't utilize inline citations. You're grasping at straws. Volunteer Marek 02:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

In re: It's extremely rude -- this discussion is taking place on a noticeboard, is it not? Editors do not get to control who responds to whom, here or on Talk pages. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

In-line or footnote citations are a feature of all academic style guides that I'm aware of; their absence suggests this is not an "academically focused" work like you claim. François Robere (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The author is a journalist who is not a specialist of the subject and has no academic credentials in that specific area. It was published by Custom House, as self described curated line of thought-provoking nonfiction and distinguished literary fiction that publishes bestselling authors as well as talented new voices who seek to shape the conversation about where we’ve been and where we’re going, and tell transformative, emotionally-authentic stories [201]. According to the author he adopted a technique he called "literary forensics," or re-creating "the scene of the crime" [202] (???). Clearly, it's not an academically focused source.--JBchrch (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but are you actually citing a "alternative weekly newspaper" from Vermont, to argue that this source is unreliable? How hard did you have to scour the internet to find that "source"? And the Harper Collins quote? It says "thought provoking nonfiction" right there, so what's the problem?

And yes, Fairweather is a journalist. A distinguished investigative journalists who:

Fairweather was a war correspondent embedded with British troops during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. He was bureau chief for The Daily Telegraph in Baghdad, where he met his wife, New York Times journalist Christina Asquith.[2] Fairweather survived an attempted kidnapping and an attempted suicide bombing.[2] He later covered the war in Afghanistan for The Washington Post.[2] His war coverage has won a British Press Award and an Overseas Press Club award citation.[3][4] His book The Volunteer, a biography about Witold Pilecki, a Polish resistance fighter who infiltrated Auschwitz, won the 2019 Costa Book Award.

The book has also received numerous favorable reviews from both academics and other "academically focused" outlets. Volunteer Marek 02:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@VM: none of the proffered reasons suggests that the book is "academically focused". --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

" based on archival sources, thoroughly researched, has been compared to scholarly works and "extensively documented" and is a result of several years worth of research" <-- Not academically focused? I don't know what your arbitrary standard for "academically focused" is, but that sounds to me like it's what it should be. Volunteer Marek 02:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

"Academically focused": written by a scholar of a particular discipline, published by an academic press, and / or peer reviewed. In addition, lack of inline citations is a strong indicator that the book is not scholarly, as it's impossible to verify information against sources the author used. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Defer to academic sources where they disagree with this book. I'm not going to say that it's flat-out unreliable, but I don't believe it meets a reasonable definition of 'academically focussed', which I would interpret as meaning 'intended for an academic audience'. My partner is an academic historian - she has written monographs about her academic research, for which the intended audience is other researchers and academics; she also has written text books, for which the intended audience is A-level students and history undergraduates. All of these are peer-reviewed, intended for an academic audience, and thus could be defined as 'academically focussed' sources. She has also been approached by publishers about writing books "for trade", which is jargon for a larger, more general readership - interested amateurs. Although she is an academic, these would not be academically focussed, no matter how well-researched they were, because they are written in a different way for a different audience. The Volunteer is clearly such a "for trade" book; that doesn't make it generally unreliable of course, but where it disagrees with academic sources we should defer to those. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

References

swordofthespirit.net for basic information about Sword of the Spirit

There's a dispute on Sword of the Spirit about whether https://swordofthespirit.net/about-us/ is a reliable source for the number of members and branches of Sword of the Spirit. Specifically, I added the information here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sword_of_the_Spirit&diff=1005235880&oldid=1005173503

and it was reverted here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sword_of_the_Spirit&diff=1005278572&oldid=1005235880

The website is the official website for Sword of the Spirit, so I think under WP:ABOUTSELF it is a reliable source for this simple claim. Another editor believes it is unreliable because those membership numbers are an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. We would appreciate help with figuring out whether the source is reliable for this specific claim.

(short) discussion on talk page here:

Talk:Sword of the Spirit#Membership Numbers

Sudonymous (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

It is covered under criteria 2 of WP:ABOUTSELF, as it is a claim about the organisation itself. What the other user is saying about it being a claim about 14000 is off the mark here. If the numbers are considered exceptional it might be worth attributing the claim to Sword of the Spirit, to show it has not been verified by a third-party. My personal view is that it fine to include, but this is not a clear-cut case and you will only get subjective answers here.

Also please indent discussions in future for easier reading, that talkpage discussion may be short but is organised messily. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Attributing the claim to the site is reasonable "states its membership as" - David Gerard (talk) 23:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: @David Gerard: Yes so specifically the reason 14, 000 seems exceptional is that if we look elsewhere on the organisations webfront we can see their twitter has only 133 followers, though facebook has over 1500 likes. In either case '14, 000' seems wildly inconsistent. Caveat on the source of this figure sounds like sage advice to me. Thanks for weighing in :) Linn C Doyle (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Linn C Doyle, you are using the wrong numbers to determine that the claim is exceptional. The Democratic Party of the US has 47M members, but only 2M followers on Twitter and only 1M likes on Facebook. This difference is bigger than the SotS one both in absolute figures and order of magnitude, but both are reasonable as neither is primarily a social media facing organisation. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

True, but do we rely on the Democratic Party of the US for that claim, or do we use third party sources?Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: Well arguably there are different controls in the context of the countries governing party Vs an independent ministry association belonging to a fringe christian movement. In either case there is no argument for the twitter followers being used as a reliable source to contest the figure. It is more to say if we look elsewhere on the webfront there is no other self-published or otherwise material that we can look at and say 'well this clearly agrees and therefore 14,000 is probably factual'. Even the declared COI editor on the talk page seems to be quoting a smaller number. Would you at all be able to clarify whether you believe this information is most appropriate for the infobox or the lead with caveat? There seems to be one comment here for 'lead with caveat' so that is ready to be accepted into the article unless there is any disagreement.Linn C Doyle (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Linn C Doyle, I think it is fine with the caveat attributing it to the website. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

RFC: The Federalist

Which of the following best describes the reliability of The Federalist?

• 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 as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail

NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Survey (The Federalist)

• Option 4 - I wish to propose that The Federalist be formally deprecated as a source due to its ongoing and unretracted promotion of false and seditious conspiracy theories about the 2020 United States presidential election. In this article, published on November 4, 2020, the site's "political editor," John Daniel Davidson, wrote that As of this writing, it appears that Democratic Party machines in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania are trying to steal the election. He goes on to uncritically republish and promote a wide array of false conspiracy theories about the election, claiming that "vote dumps" in Wisconsin were part of a Democratic plot and that In Pennsylvania, the Democratic scheme to steal the election is a bit different. Note that these are statements of fact - the site's political editor declared, as fact, that there was a Democratic scheme to steal the election. The article closes with the unequivocal declaration that the only possible conclusion one can come to right now is that Democrats are trying to steal the election in the Midwest. As of today, the article remains on the site unretracted, uncorrected, and without a shred of notice that literally every single thing in the story is a half-truth, demonstrable falsehood, distortion, or outright lie, and that Joe Biden won a free and fair election. The Federalist cannot possibly stand in this light as a reliable source for any purpose, and even the opinions of its writers should be closely scrutinized for due weight - the weight which should be accorded to a site which continues to claim that the 2020 election was stolen is quite arguably nil. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3: The Federalist is a bad source. There are fairly few cases, to say the least, where it should be used. However, the extreme step of deprecation should be reserved for the most extreme cases of abuse -- where a source is so blatantly awful that it doesn't even serve as reliable for self-descriptions or the most apolitical, anodyne statements of fact. The Daily Mail is deprecated because it actively lies about its own statements and its own writers; it would not hesitate to publish "SKY NOT BLUE" as the front-page headline if it saw the opportunity. Competence is required, and the sort of person who would need outright deprecation to avoid using the Federalist is quite likely a CIR failure in other respects. That said, it's certainly not anything above #3 -- its statements for things other than "self-descriptions or the most apolitical, anodyne statements of fact" are...wanting. Mark it as the bottom-tier rag it is, but I don't see the need for outright handholding. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 11:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 The Election conspiracy theories are deliberate misinformation. This is worse than the bad fact checking you would expect fron a source in group 3. The Federalist shoul therefore be deprecated. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 The evidence just seems overwhelming. I can't see any good reason to use a source that repeatedly promotes conspiracy theories. Loki (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 - Usable for attributed statements of opinion, but not for unattributed statements of fact. The situations in which it would be appropriate to use it for opinion will be few and far between, but in those situations we should allow it. Blueboar (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 A willingness to publish blatant falsehoods about one of the biggest geopolitical stories in the world means they have absolutely no right to be trusted. Of course, in the spring they were merrily publishing dangerous nonsense about COVID-19, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised. They'll publish anonymous opinions for clicks, and they will edit opinion columns to be more provocative, like changing "COVID-19" to "the Wuhan virus" [203]. That's not the kind of place we should go to even for published opinions. A year or two ago I might have been in the option 2 or 3 camp — the funding of the website was proverbially opaque (the question "Who funds The Federalist?" achieved meme status), the co-founder is a paid shill and plagiarist, etc. But now it's time to take a hard line. XOR'easter (talk) 15:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• That doesn't seem like a trustworthy source but I see that the Federalist is cited exactly 12 times in Wikipedia, including as the source for a claim that someone is writing for it. Are we trying to solve the problem that doesn't exist? Alaexis_¿question? 16:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

  The Federalist's website has been linked from 195 article talk pages. Discussions such as Talk:GameStop short squeeze § Yellen, in which an editor insists that The Federalist is reliable for a controversial claim about a living person because consensus (such as the consensus that would result from this RfC) has not yet been documented, sap editor time and effort even if the source is ultimately excluded from the article. — Newslinger talk 20:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

  There were several more, but I already removed the worst and most obvious uses prior to opening this RfC - I realized there was nothing stopping anyone from coming along and reverting me on the grounds that there's "no consensus" it's unreliable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't realise that simple search doesn't search in the source text. Alaexis_¿question? 20:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 4 Obvious pusher of conspiracy theories is obvious. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2- This is just a continuation of a crusade to block conservative opinions on wikipedia, nothing more. As of this writing, it appears (emphasis mine) hardly sounds like a statement of fact. As other have pointed out, the source is rarely used anyway, but I don't see any reason it can't be used with attribution.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • This fails to engage with the substance of the claims - that it has a history of fabrication and conspiracy theories. I asked below about these claims, and you're pretending they don't exist. This does not instill confidence (and doesn't address the deprecation). I most note that this is not a vote - if you can't provide a reason of substance why it's actually a good source, rather than claiming a conspiracy to suppress a poltical view, then your opinion doesn't address the question, and would properly be ignored in a policy-based assessment of consensus - David Gerard (talk) 00:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
    • I stand by my previous statement "it appears" is not a statement of fact. The article in question also was written on November 4 when explanations for some of these oddities mentioned in the article still were not provided (ie. Antrim County) and when official explanations were provided the author noted them. The facts presented about Pennsylvania in this article about changing of election laws still remain true, although it has since been shown late mail-in ballots were not numerous enough to change the result of the election (something which was clearly unknown on Nov 4).--Rusf10 (talk) 05:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
      • The fact is that there are consequences for selling your soul to QAnon trollery in a bad-faith effort to gin up clicks with outright lies about the election. There are any number of conservative outlets which affirmatively chose a different path, and chose not to stoke the flames of sedition. The Federalist chose to feed credulous dupes a manufactured series of easily-discredited falsehoods specifically designed to cast doubt upon the results of a free and fair election. This could have had no other intended effect but to foment outrage and hatred, and it led to one of the most embarrassing and dangerous spectacles in modern American history. The Federalist chose poorly, and choices have consequences. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
        • @NorthBySouthBaranof:That's just not true. The Federalist did not promote QANON, I am 100% sure of this. In fact, it called it a "conspiracy theory" here, here here, here and roughly 10 other articles.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • David Gerard is entirely correct here. It is inappropriate to use this page as a forum for speculating on the imagined motivations of other editors. Generalrelative (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
    • To be clear, I am not questioning the motive of any particular editor (an I apologize if it was taken that way), but it seems to be a trend here. Just look at how many recent RFCs involve right-leaning sources.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
      • Again, it's not Wikipedia's problem that a number of "right-leaning sources" chose to openly and notoriously discredit themselves as reliable sources by publishing patently-obvious lies about the 2020 United States presidential election. Policy demands that we base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. If a source chooses to destroy its own reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, that choice has consequences. If you think there are any "left-leaning sources" which have published similar lies about the 2020 election, please point them out because they should be deprecated too. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
      • You say: To be clear, I am not questioning the motive of any particular editor - but this RFC was brought by an individual editor, and your own words above claim their action was a continuation of a crusade to block conservative opinions on wikipedia, nothing more. This is clearly and directly a claim about the motive of a particular editor, and it's nonsensical to claim you somehow didn't say what you literally said, right there, just above. And you still have not addressed the substance of the claims - David Gerard (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 per OP and XOR'easter. This seems like an uncontroversial call. Generalrelative (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 I took a deep look at their early coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic about six months ago and was appalled at the disinformation bilge that I found there. Their coverage of Trump's 2020 defeat was, if anything, worse. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 Has anyone shown the fact that this source isn't deprecated to be a problem? Where are the examples of editors coming to this board to argue for/against the use of a particular Federalist article? Unless we can show that not deprecating this source is harming Wikipedia we should not deprecate. Springee (talk) 12:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2 for historical articles, 3, or 4 for their recent pieces. Historically, the Federalist was fairly sane, and provided right-wing commentary that wasn't completely off the wall. However, their recent coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic was completely contrary to what scientific consensus was, and that alone should be worth relegating them to wp:SELFSOURCE to back up claims that conservatives have claimed X. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 14:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Please be more specific - at what point was it good, and what is the evidence that it was good at this time? - David Gerard (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Hi David Gerard, and thank you for replying. I was thinking mostly of descriptors like the following: [204], in 2014, Bloomberg spoke rather approvingly of the outlet as a right-wing source, or at least respectably. Then there's politico comparing it to a tory huffpo [205] - for what it's worth, the huffington post is considered reliable for non-political topics at wp:RSP. Naturally, this was well before they fell off the deep end with the Trump administration, IMHO. Warmest regards, BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 01:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4; according to NewsGuard, the site has no credibility whatsoever and scores a 12.5/100 for its false, misleading misinformation. Would probably even suggest blacklisting the URL while you are at it. Aasim (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 for conspiracy theories, COVID misinformation and blithe willingness to lie for clicks. That even its supporters appear unable to refute these issues with the publication, and instead resort to claiming a conspiracy theory about Wikipedia editors who dare to bring the serious content issues to RSN, suggests there are in fact not satisfactory answers to these issues - David Gerard (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 Routine conspiracy theories, false reporting, and other misrepresentation. SPECIFICO talk 02:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 No corrections policy that I can find, and also no record of correcting stories that turn out to be wrong. But a grand total of 12 uses in Wikipedia is not worth deprecating. And I haven't seen anything from them as outrageous as something like this [206]. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (The Federalist)

• Previous discussion from 2019 indicates similar problems with deliberate promotion of conspiracy theories by the Federalist. Here's some 2018 promotion of conspiracy theories:[207]. The site has promoted COVID-19 conspiracy theories[208]; a former contributor called the Federalist a "conspiracy-mongering partisan rag that has now become a menace to public health"[209]. If advocates have any excuses to offer for this history of fabrication and deliberate misinformation, that would be useful to hear - otherwise this looks very deprecable - David Gerard (talk) 12:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the Covid conspiracy theory, how is it different from all the newspapers that said that masks are mostly needed for people working with patients [210]? This was an article from April 2020 when we knew little about covid and even expert opinion fluctuated a lot. Do you have other examples (I haven't voted yet)? Alaexis_¿question? 21:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• There is this usage of the editor by the BBC, alongside usage of university professors. [211] -- --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't see how the "political editor" being on a podcast translates to the website being reliable. People get chosen for panels, interviewed on TV, etc., for all sorts of reasons, sometimes just because they're visible. XOR'easter (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Requesting comments for sources being used to establish whether a category is defining

• Please participate in this RfC if so inclined: Category_talk:Hong_Kong_people_of_Lower_Yangtze_descent.--Prisencolin (talk) 04:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Gazeta Wyborcza and OKO.press

Are Gazeta Wyborcza (this) and OKO.press (this) reliable sources for the statements of Wojciech Muszyński in regards to modern left-wing politicians in Poland? User:Volunteer Marek is stating they are not sufficiently reliable.

In my opinion, the left of centre Gazeta Wyborcza is comparable to the The Washington Post, and has maintained its independence from the Polish government. While Oko.press is younger, its investigative journalism has been met with critical acclaim and they have won the 2020 Freedom of Expression Awards from Index on Censorship. Both of these cover national news, and rank among the most reliable journalism sources in Poland.--Bob not snob (talk) 12:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Lol. Gazeta Wyborcza is NOT comparable to the Washington Post. You want to back that up? At one point they were reliable but over time, faced with increased competition they've become more and more sensationalistic. Most of their articles these days are football scores and "true crime stories" with a good bit of very polarized political commentary. This is NOT good enough for BLP (in this case it's a report about some facebook comments a historian might have made). Likewise oko.press is a very partisan source which regularly attacks political opponents. Seriously neither of these outlets even tries to hide it's bias. Volunteer Marek 13:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

According to the editorial board of The Washington Post (which "represent the views of The Washington Post as an institution") from 23.10.2020: Gazeta Wyborcza is "Poland’s most popular and respected newspaper".--Bob not snob (talk) 14:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Definitely reliable: firstly Gazeta Wyborcza is not left-wing, certainly not when compared to e.g. The Guardian. It's the biggest Polish newspaper and has been since 1990. Oko.press is an internationally awarded investigative portal. The reason they (along with onet.pl) are attacked by the far-right is because they refuse to be bought by and influenced by the ruling United Right and continue to highlight their cronyism and corruption. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

GW is most certainly left wing. "Biggest" doesn't mean much. Doesn't Daily Mail have the largest circulation in UK? I think your comment actually highlights the issue nicely. They're both hyper partisan outlets. Volunteer Marek 13:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, The Sun usually outsells the Mail ... GPinkerton (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

GW is a liberal newspaper. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok? Volunteer Marek 01:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Please note that this is a BLP issue and the editor in question is trying to include these sources to attack a living person simply because somewhere else they were being used as a source. Even if the person in question cannot be considered a reliable source, this kind of gratuitous attacks and attempts to turn BLP pages into attack pages on Wikipedia have resulted in ArbCom topic bans in the past. Volunteer Marek 13:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

  Coverage of Muszyński's own statements in national media is not an attack.--Bob not snob (talk) 14:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• NOT reliable for questionable WP:NPOV material regarding BLP's. We should be very firm about using high-quality sources when entering any information regarding BLP's. Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively regarding the subject's privacy, not cherry-picked statements to press small news. - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Gazeta Wyborcza is an RS. It was in Gazeta Wyborcza that the Holocaust historian Jan Grabowski complained about the Polish editors on Wikipedia, including Volunteer Marek, who he said were distorting Holocaust history.[212] Another story from that newspaper describes efforts in Poland to discredit Holocaust historians. [213] SarahSV ^(talk) 18:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

And Breitbart has called me a left wing extremist and The Gateway Pundit said I was part of some vast "far-left" conspiracy etc. etc. etc. The fact that other people write goofy stuff about me in sensationalist media does not mean I have a "COI". Here is the WP:COI guideline [214]. Nowhere in there is there anything that applies. If anything the fact that Gazeta Wyborcza publishes the same kind of wrong headed articles about Wikipedians as Breitbart and Gatewaypundit just shows what type of sources they are. Volunteer Marek 22:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Grabowski didn't write goofy stuff and GW isn't sensationalist media. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• • Note that Gazeta Wyborcza is part of The Guardian's "Europa team": "In 2011, the Guardian teamed up with five other papers from the largest EU countries to investigate the European predicament. Since then, the Europa team – the Guardian, Le Monde, La Vanguardia, La Stampa, Gazeta Wyborcza and Süddeutsche Zeitung – have worked together to dig deeper into some of the major issues of the day." [215] SarahSV ^(talk) 18:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • More info about Gazeta Wyborcza. [216] SarahSV ^(talk) 19:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
    • @Volunteer Marek: You seem to have a COI here. I suggest you withdraw from the discussion. François Robere (talk) 20:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about. Volunteer Marek 22:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
        • What Sarah mentioned...? François Robere (talk) 12:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Both are reliable as shown above, both sources have a strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. And for this particular info, if Muczynski doesn't want this stuff in his Wikipedia bio he shouldn't have posted it publicly on social media. (t · c) buidhe 19:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• They're both reliable per evidence discussed above, and lack of comparative evidence to the contrary. Also, I echo Bob's statement that quoting a BLP's words that received national coverage does not, and cannot constitute an attack of a BLP. François Robere (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• This is a WP:BLP. These are two partisan sources reporting on something this guy supposedly privately said on facebook which has NOT received "national coverage" otherwise. EVEN IF these were reliable sources (and that is questionable), this info would be simply WP:UNDUE. This is nothing but an attempt to turn a Wikipedia article into an attack page. Volunteer Marek 22:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • No-one in their right-mind would call the biggest newspaper in Poland "partisan", nor an award-wiining investigative journalist. The only reason other news outlets in Poland fail to cite such mishaps is because a lot of them are either directly or indirectly state-owned or funded and do not tolerate any criticism of those politically aligned to them. Once again, GW is NOT left-wing by any stretch of imagination, and co-operation with other newspapers does not change that, aside from the fact neither is Le Monde for example. If anything, they are more in line with the Civic Platform, a centre-right party. The founder Adam Michnik was an anti-communist and frequently expressed his support for anti-communist candidates post '89. There is nothing in GW that would make them left-wing. Perhaps anti-PiS, after resisting them and surviving the national onslaught against them sure, but that itself does not make them automatically left-wing, and neither does highlighting someone's faux-pas'. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

"No-one in their right-mind would call the biggest newspaper in Poland "partisan"" - lol, since when does "biggest newspaper" = non-partisan? I'm sorry but I don't get the logic here. The Daily Mail has a circulation of ... ... ... 1,134,184. The Times? 417,298. The Guardian? 111,155. Fox News, up until recently, was the most widely watched tv news in America. So... if we go by "biggest newspaper" for reliability or partisanship that would make the Daily Mail the MOST reliable and apparently the LEAST partisan, while the Guardian would be the opposite. See how ridiculous this is?

(In fact the opposite argument is way more plausible. It's hard to become "the biggest" without appealing to lowest common denominator and running sensationalist click bait while pretending it's news. That explains Daily Mail. And perhaps Gazeta Wyborcza too (honestly, they're still running on fumes left over from back when they were indeed respectable, which was like the 1990s)).

Oh, and asserting that GW is "not left wing" is like claiming that Fox News isn't "right wing". Look. I *am* left wing. I sympathize or agree with lots of their opinions. But I'm not gonna sit here and pretend that they're not left wing. Or not sensationalist. Volunteer Marek 01:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Gazeta Wyborcza is quite reliable though not as much as say 10-15 years ago. To counter the steady drop in sales some years ago, GazWyb publisher Agora steered the newspaper in a more tabloidish direction. Wyborcza is still good but their articles on political or historical topics should be always verified by another source. A note to end my statement - there are no fully non-partisan nationwide newspapers in Poland. That's a sad reality of contemporary Poland.--Darwinek (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Agree with the characterization if not the "quite reliable" part (maybe... "sometimes reliable"?). And if this wasn't a WP:BLP issue I'd probably be ok with using it. But they're also notorious for doing hit pieces on politicians they don't like (and to be fair, have been subject to the same from the other side too). Volunteer Marek 01:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I would agree with User:Darwinek's assessment. So yes, GW does do hit pieces on politicians they do not like, but as far I am aware they have done so things that actually have happened, and they have a pretty good record in the courts on that. Compare that with let's say TVN, who have been badly caught out before and I would say they are far less reliable. GW still have a relatively big-tent range of contributors, certainly more so than other outlets, although slowly falling into us v them trap. Abcmaxx (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Reputable, these are among the best media in Poland. Independent of the government. Similar to The Guardian or The New York Times. Mellow Boris (talk) 10:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

MDPI journals

David Gerard (actually Tgeorgescu) has created an entry on the Perennial Sources list for MDPI, an open access publishing company, as "generally unreliable" (see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#MDPI, stating that "There is consensus that journals published by MDPI are generally unreliable, since MDPI has a very shallow peer-review process". I disagree with this assessment and think that journals published by MDPI should be evaluated on a case by case basis. MDPI was placed on the infamous Beall's list of predatory access publishers in 2014, but was subsequently removed from the list in 2015 following an appeal. This post on Scholarly Kitchen from August 2020 gives a positive assessment of MDPI's operations, describing it as "simply a company that has focused on growth and speed while optimizing business practices around the author-pays APC (article processing charge) business model" rather than a predatory publisher. MDPI is now the world's 5th largest publishing company and largest open access publisher, and it has improved significantly in citation rankings and reputation since the mid 2010's when most of the cited discussions on the reliability of MDPI took place. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I didn't create it, I just tidied up an entry someone else had added. I think it's superfluous on RSP, it's already on WP:CITEWATCH, where it most certainly belongs - the "appeal" was legal threats - David Gerard (talk) 13:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Source on legal threats? Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

There's suggestions of it here. JoelleJay (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Tgeorgescu: The actual creator of the entry. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I've marked the entry for MDPI (RSP entry) as disputed, pending the result of this discussion, as it is a new entry. — Newslinger talk 13:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry. — Newslinger talk 13:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Generally unreliable is too harsh. It should be yellow with "additional considerations" and the like. Same for Frontiers Media journals. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Outside of Wikipedia, in my life as a physicist, I tend to treat articles in MDPI journals as a notch more vetted than preprints on the arXiv. I've seen some jank in their journals, but I've also found very reputable people publishing there; John C. Baez comes to mind [217]. I suspect that they may be "journals of last resort", places where people send work that is legitimate but without the oomph needed to get into journals that are more established. (Maybe a paper ends up there because it was bounced from Physical Review A, or maybe the authors figured they didn't have much of a shot at PRA in the first place.) For example, Gill (2020) is a paper that pushes back on nonsense, upholding a mainstream view rather than promoting a fringe one. But the nonsense being debunked is not very high-profile, so plenty of journals wouldn't find a debunking interesting enough to publish. So, yes, "generally unreliable" is too harsh; generally unremarkable may be closer to the truth. But I wouldn't put them in the green either. XOR'easter (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I reckon that this is strongly field dependent. In Palaeontology, where the difference between the highest and lowest ranking journals is relatively low, MDPI journals don't stick out as any worse than say, PeerJ or Scientific Reports. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, they probably have to be judged field-by-field, if not journal-by-journal. XOR'easter (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• It definitely should be on a case by case basis. There are definitely journals MDPI publishes that are on the predatory end and should not be trusted. At the same time, there are a number of journals they publish that appear to have proper peer review and other systems in place for promoting proper research. Trying to deprecate everything MDPI is involved in would be...a lot of the scientific publishing world. And would negatively impact thousands of articles. Silverseren^C 20:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I added the entry. Of course consensus may change, however past RSN discussion did not give me much confidence about MDPI. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Telewizja Polska

This discussion is following on from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Polish government-owned media

Poland's current rulers have been politicising (or "polonising" in their words) many media platforms in the country, following the Hungarian model.

Telewizja Polska (called TVP for short), is the flagship state broadcaster. But since 2015 it can now be likened to RT or KCT, in particular TVP Info, but also the long established news programs Panorama, Teleexpress and Wiadomości have basically become nothing more than outright propaganda outlets.

Now this did not happen overnight, and it would be fair to point out a few things first:

• No directly state-run outlet is ever fully independent of its government
• This has steadily increased since 2015, to its current somewhat obvious levels, it did not happen overnight.
• TVP has never really been free from politicisation; during Civic Platform's rule the network was also accused of being biased; however the levels of politicisation and the levels of bias are not comparable to what we have now in the slightest.

I would point out that Sport for now seems to be unaffected, therefore I would exclude TVP Sport from the list. Same may go for things like Polish soap opera channel TVP Seriale, and children's cartoon channel TVP ABC. However, TVP Historia and TVP Edukacja is still very much selective in its content in line with the others, people have started to be fired from TVP Kultura for not being pro-government as well. TVP1, TVP2 and TVP3 seem to be just as affected as the infamous TVP Info. TVP Info also has a large online presence.

I am not going to list all the sources, because actually a lot of the pages have criticisms sections and plenty of sources within them, so I do not see much point in copying and pasting those. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Extremely biased, unreliable for politics and social issues. The United Right's control over this organ after legislative changes has been compared, unfavourably, with communist era TV. At least back in the communist days everyone knew the news was lies. The sports coverage, weather, or anything else that doesn't touch politics or socials issues is still OK. This November 2020 item is relevant.--Bob not snob (talk) 12:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Lacks reputation for fact checking and accuracy (certainly for politics and social issues) per the many, many sources cited at the article. (t · c) buidhe 15:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable xenophobic junk. Is a mouthpiece for the xenophobic Polish government and editorial decisions are made following the direction of the Polish government. Mellow Boris (talk) 10:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Sieci & wpolityce.pl & associated portals

This discussion is following on from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Polish government-owned media.

Although a supposedly private initiative, Sieci is a staunchly pro-government mouthpiece propped up by public money through a complex network of government-friendly institutes. The magazine seemingly looks for shock-value and to smear political opponents only. Its sales figures are notoriously low but seemingly never to be out of money. It only takes one look at the sheer amount of court cases against them, their frequency and what they are for, and it makes The Daily Mail look innocent and left-wing by comparison.

The magazine has a website promoting the magazine, but it runs the portal "wpolityce.pl" to compete with the likes of interia.pl and onet.pl for online content, but it is the online version of the magazine. They also run the internet TV "wPolsce.pl".

It has the following topic-specific domains too, but they often redirect to the main site:

• wNas.pl
• wGospodarce.pl (economic news)
• wSumie.pl (money news)
• stefczyk.info
• gazetabankowa.pl (banking news)
• tygodnikpodlaski.pl (Podlasie regional)

The portal wpolityce.pl specifically has been described as junk news by various outlets.

The franchise is firstly not independent because of its funding structure. Grzegorz Bierecki (pl), a controversial Law and Justice member, and one of the richest politicians around, created and ran the infamous "Stefczyk's SKOK Bank". When the media started to uncover the inaccuracies and scandals within the bank he started a mass litigation campaign against the media; he emphatically lost all of them in the courts. So he set up an eponymous institute and a limited company (Apella S.A.) which own 23% and 69% respectively of this Sieci/wpolityce.pl franchise. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

You need to substantiate your assertions. Like there's a lot of WP:REDFLAG claims in what you write above, which call for some REAL substantiation. Also being "pro-government", even if it's a government neither you nor I happen to like, is not sufficient to declare a source unreliable).

And again, even if there's some funding or something between someone in the L&J party and the outlet ... so what? You know that, for example, Democratic politicians in US may fund some left-ish media in US and... that matters not one bit for reliability? Or vice versa.

Look, Abcmaxx, I'm sorry, but while your list does indeed include a few clearly unreliable sources (Radio Maryja, Nasz Dziennik, Najwyzszy Czas!), it kind of just looks like you made a list of "the media that I, Abcmaxx, don't like personally" and then decided to ask us all here at Wikipedia to declare them all "unreliable". Sorry that's not how it works. Volunteer Marek 01:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Well it's all in here Sieci#Controversies Abcmaxx (talk) 01:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Also I would never say what you you should deem reliable or not, that's the point of starting the discussion. I saw a pattern emerge amongst the media, made a request, was asked to split it so I did. I am not doing this as some large political point or to ban a whole host of media outlets. But those were clear ones which do not stand up to any editorial scrutiny. In the US they may fund media one way or another, but they do not run it from public funds, using shell companies, and then try and claim they are independent when they are clearly not. FYI there are right-wing outlets that are reliable, Rzeczpospolita and Uważam Rze for example, which do stand up to editorial scrutiny and independence. Abcmaxx (talk) 01:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable. The issues are all listed in the Controversies section in the Sieci article, for instance spreading COVID conspiracy theories.--Bob not snob (talk) 12:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable lacks reputation for fact checking and accuracy, see many false assertions made by the outlet and listed in the "controversies" section. (t · c) buidhe 15:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable xenophobic junk. Has a reputation for being dishonest junk. Mellow Boris (talk) 10:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Do Rzeczy

This discussion is following on from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Polish government-owned media.

Although a supposedly private initiative, Do Rzeczy is a staunchly pro-government mouthpiece propped up by public money through a complex network of government-friendly institutes. The magazine seemingly looks for shock-value and to smear political opponents only. Its sales figures are notoriously low but seemingly never to be out of money, and has a fake rivalry with Sieci witht he intention of crowding out non-government friendly media. It was initially founded by disgruntled Rzeczpospolita (later split to Uważam Rze who split again) journalists who deemed the paper not right-wing enough (even though Rzeczpospolita has been traditionally centre-right and Law and Justice-friendly). Abcmaxx (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

You need to substantiate your assertions. Like there's a lot of WP:REDFLAG claims in what you write above, which call for some REAL substantiation. Also being "pro-government", even if it's a government neither you nor I happen to like, is not sufficient to declare a source unreliable). Volunteer Marek 01:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Well I was hoping not to copy-paste from the articles themselves, but how can it have any editoral scrutiny when Paweł Lisicki has near total-control? Abcmaxx (talk) 01:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Part of the problem with that is that some of the sources used to cite various things in these articles are themselves reliable. Like, is this reliable? You're basically citing all the "negative" info about one media outlet to one of its competitors. Here's an older version of the article before you got hold of it. I don't really follow Polish politics all that closely but this looks like someone trying to drag those disputes from the internet onto Wikipedia. Volunteer Marek 03:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable. It is now a government mouthpiece, and had a hard line eurosceptic stance years prior. For example, Anne Applebaum has describes it: "after Law and Justice won that year, I was featured on the covers of two pro-regime magazines, wSieci and Do Rzeczy—former friends of ours work at both—as the clandestine Jewish coordinator of the international press and the secret director of its negative coverage of Poland. Similar stories have appeared on Telewizja Polska’s evening news."--Bob not snob (talk) 12:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable xenophobic junk. Known for extreme right junk. Mellow Boris (talk) 10:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Rydzyk's media empire

This discussion is following on from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Polish government-owned media.

Tadeusz Rydzyk is a controversial Catholic fundamentalist and business mogul.

There's a lot to be criticised: from calling anyone who criticises him or the church a "worshipper of satan", far-right stances on LGBT rights, frequent and public controversies regarding blatant anti-Semitism, his controversial support for paedophile priests, peddling COVID-19 conspiracies, accusations of inciting hatred, peddling false claims about any politician who is any further left than right-wing populist; and that's not even touching upon the conflicts with the intellectual wing of the Catholic Church, stance on abortion and women's rights, and his very public dislike of the current Pope.

What is more concerning is the fact that he has shady financing of his endeavours through charitable organisations. He is wanted in Canada for various violations. He exerts significant power and us very cosy with the ruling Law and Justice, and has been so way before they were any significant political power, who are now repaying his support with giving him generous government grants.

His umbrella organisation concerning the media is the Lux Veritatis Foundation and has 3 main outlets:

• Nasz Dziennik (newspaper)
• TV Trwam (TV)
• Radio Maryja (radio)

Now the issue can also be that there are at least dozens other registered charities, foundations, organisations and limited companies as well as a bogus university as well, all in order get as many governement grants and tax breaks as possible.

In terms of reliability, they are nothing more than a vehicle for his private interests and to maintain his political prowess.

However, it is worth pointing out that Radio Maryja has a fervent and loyal fanbase, is broadcast all over the world, and has around 1%-1.5% of the radio market share in Poland, which is quite a lot given its profile. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

This one's a no-brainer. NOT reliable. Although, again, NOT "Polish government affiliated" or "owned" (in fact, IIRC, Rydzyk and head of the current Polish ruling party hate each other or at least did in the past. Rydzyk accused Lech Kaczynski's wife of witchcraft or something). Volunteer Marek 01:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable. Anything related to Lux Veritatis is extremist religious mumbo jumbo. For example: "The station and Rydzyk have been known over the decades for spreading anti-Semitic and homophobic views.", CBC or "His Radio Maryja station, which reaches millions and is often the sole source of information for many older voters in rural Poland, offers a daily diet of horror stories about a world without faith, where gay people control the political agenda, universities are corrupted by “neo-Marxists,” and the Roman Catholic Church is under mortal threat", New York Times.--Bob not snob (talk) 12:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable xenophobic junk. This Rydzyk priest and his organization just hate anyone not Catholic. Mellow Boris (talk) 10:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Polskie Radio

This discussion is following on from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Polish government-owned media

Polskie Radio (PR for short) is the flagship state-run radio network in Poland.

It runs the following:

• Polskie Radio Program I (Jedynka – One) – information and adult contemporary music
• Polskie Radio Program II (Dwójka – Two) – classical music and cultural
• Polskie Radio Program III (Trójka – Three) – rock, alternative, jazz, and eclectic
• Polskie Radio Program IV (Czwórka – Four) – youth oriented
• Polskie Radio 24 (PR24) – news (without music)
• Polskie Radio Chopin – Polish classical music
• Polskie Radio Dzieciom – children programming (daytime), parents magazines (evenings) and Jazz music (nights)
• Polskie Radio Kierowców – music and information for drivers'
• Polskie Radio Rytm – pop music – internet only
• Radio Poland – external broadcasts in Belarusian, English, German, Polish, Russian, and Ukrainian

Now after the governement intereference and censorship scandal of Trójka, where the journalists and presenters who worked there for several decades were forced out of their jobs, creating competing Radio 357 and Radio Nowy Świat stations in protest, and Polskie Radio 24 working hand in hand with the controversial TVP Info, I would question the reliability of the network.

Now this did not happen overnight, and it would be fair to point out a few things first:

• No directly state-run outlet is ever fully independent of its government
• This has steadily increased since 2015, to its current somewhat obvious levels, it did not happen overnight.
• PR has never really been free from politicisation; during Civic Platform's rule the network was also accused of being biased; however the levels of politicisation and the levels of bias are not comparable to what we have now in the slightest.

Now it could well be that classical music, sport, drivers info are all unaffected and there is no reason not to see the network as reliable on those matters; the main concern is political news. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Extremely biased, unreliable for politics and social issues. The United Right's control over this organ following the legislation and 2016 purge is problematic. They are even questionable for music, as they manipulated the music charts poll after a protest song topped them.--Bob not snob (talk) 12:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable xenophobic junk. Just a mouthpiece for the xenophobic Polish government. Mellow Boris (talk) 10:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

niezalezna.pl

This discussion is following on from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Polish government-owned media

niezalezna.pl is a right-wing populist news portal, claiming to be independent and "pro-Polish".

The funding structure actually shows this portal to not independent as it claims to be. The Lech Kaczyński Institute owns 100% of Srebrna Ltd. Srebrna Ltd. in turn owns 30.4% of niezalezna.pl. The other 48.6% is owned by Tomasz Sakiewicz, a far-right pro-government conspiracy theorist (who also owns Gazeta Polska and TV Republika) who has the support and funding from the ruling party, and he has a vested financial and political interest to continue the line and rhetoric he is pursuing. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Umm, what is "Lech Kaczynski Institute"? I mean, I know who Lech Kaczynski was but I don't see any info about any institute. Is this what you're talking about? I also see some mentions of such a thing on internet blogs but who knows what that means. Likewise I can't find any info for "Srebrna Ltd." I do find some stuff but it's about... silver jewelers ("srebrna" means "silver" in Polish). I'm not sure how you wish people here to evaluate your claims when you fail to provide any sources for your assertions.

Oh, and also, like mentioned below, please observe WP:BLP.

Anyway, EVEN IF this source has some connection to the current Polish government, so what? That does not render it unreliable anymore than BBC getting funding from UK gov makes it unreliable. If it is unreliable it's for OTHER REASONS, which you have failed to articulate (just "right-wing" also doesn't cut it). Volunteer Marek 01:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Instytut im. Lecha Kaczyńskiego is a institute in honour of Smoleńsk disaster: article. Well, given Poland's reputation for monopolising the media and cherry-picking news and journalists, it does have a big difference. Firstly, it claims to be independent, and is not officially state-run, even though its structure clearly states otherwise. Also, how can fact-checking and editorial scrutiny can be applied when it is in the hands of one or two people well-known to have tendencies bordering on authoritarian. It's basically siphoning public funds. Abcmaxx (talk) 01:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to assume good faith and assume that when you said "given Poland's reputation for monopolising the media and cherry-picking news and journalists" what you meant to say was "given *Polish government's reputation*. Otherwise your statement is ... kind of problematic. As far as this institute goes - does it even exist anymore? There's no info on it and you still haven't provided sources that these actually are connected. And again who owns is actually irrelevant. The "two people well-known to have tendencies bordering on authoritarian" is confusing and appears to be highly POV - who exactly are you referring to and what are you backing this up with? Volunteer Marek 00:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable. Closely connected to Gazeta Polska. "The image of the sticker was censored by Instagram as hate speech, according to Tomasz Sakiewicz, the editor in chief of Gazeta Polska. In the monthly Niezalezna, another paper connected to Gazeta Polska, Sakiewicz was quoted saying that “censorship was typical of Nazism, imposing ideology, too,” then connected the LGBTQ rights movement to Ernst Röhm, a gay Nazi militia leader, who — along with other gay Nazis — was murdered in the 1934 purge known as the Night of the Long Knives.", NBC is one of many troublesome aspects.--Bob not snob (talk) 12:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The paper quoted Sakiewicz. Ok. That does not make it unreliable. Have you ever watched Fox News and the people they quote there? Volunteer Marek 00:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable homophobic junk. Known for its homophobia. Mellow Boris (talk) 10:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Gazeta Polska & TV Republika

This discussion is following on from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Polish government-owned media

Gazeta Polska, a newspaper, and TV Republika, are ran by Tomasz Sakiewicz, a far-right pro-government conspiracy theorist (who also owns Gazeta Polska and TV Republika) who has the support and funding from the ruling party, and he has a vested financial and political interest to continue the line and rhetoric he is pursuing. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I haven't paid attention to these in awhile so I'll have you check, but one thing: you might want to observe WP:BLP (!!!!!!) and NOT refer to someone as "far-right pro-government conspiracy theorist". I mean, he very well could be, I don't know, but that kind of statement WITHOUT a source to back it up is a quick way to get yourself blocked. I suggest you tone it down or strike it. Volunteer Marek 01:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Evidence points that I am correct. 1 2 3 4 Abcmaxx (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Wait. First source says that Sakiewicz, supposedly "far-right", insulted Janusz Korwin-Mikke, *definitely* far-right, by saying that the latter supported Nazism. How is that suppose to show that Sakiewicz is "far-right" exactly?

Second and third source (same thing) is just Sakiewicz talking smack about the former Polish President. Again, this doesn't show Sakiewicz is "far-right", just that he's in a different political party.

The fourth source has Sakiewicz saying some wacky shit, but honestly, this is the kind of wacky shit that is considered more or less mainstream, and even "moderate" in the present day American Republican Party (GOP) (For non-Polish readers, Sakiewicz claims that there was fraud in the 2020 US election, which is like what 80% of the Republican party believes, but he also says that Trump will have to accept the result if courts rule against him, which is the kind of thing that people are now getting kicked out of the GOP for saying). Volunteer Marek 03:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Seriously, tone down the WP:BLPVIOs. I mean that in a helpful way. Volunteer Marek 03:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable. "The image of the sticker was censored by Instagram as hate speech, according to Tomasz Sakiewicz, the editor in chief of Gazeta Polska. In the monthly Niezalezna, another paper connected to Gazeta Polska, Sakiewicz was quoted saying that “censorship was typical of Nazism, imposing ideology, too,” then connected the LGBTQ rights movement to Ernst Röhm, a gay Nazi militia leader, who — along with other gay Nazis — was murdered in the 1934 purge known as the Night of the Long Knives.", NBC is one of many troublesome aspects.--Bob not snob (talk) 12:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Have you ever watched Fox News? Stuff like that is par for the course there. Have we ever made a decision regarding Fox News? I've lost track. Volunteer Marek 00:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable homophobic junk. This organization is known for its homophobia. Mellow Boris (talk) 10:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Najwyższy Czas!

This discussion is following on from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Polish government-owned media

The magazine Najwyższy Czas! is a fringe right-wing Polish media outlet, linked to far-right and right-wing populist movements, attracting exclusively those, quite probably solely to further their cause. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Najwyższy Czas! is NOT "Polish government owned media". Which is why your original proposal was ... misguided. That said they are indeed not reliable. Volunteer Marek 01:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• • Yes, it was a mistake on my part, after looking at the ownership, nothing to do with the government. But that should not detract from the matter at hand. Abcmaxx (talk) 01:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable. It is a "far-right-leaning Polish tabloid". The company running this has also setup fake websites, copying text from real news (like France24) but changing some details to modify the meaning completely: "In reality, articles were rewritten with different titles, unproven or false details to modify completely the meaning of some stories, and therefore to spread disinformation".--Bob not snob (talk) 12:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable xenophobic junk. Just dishonest fake news. Mellow Boris (talk) 10:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Polska Press

This discussion is following on from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Polish government-owned media

Poland's current rulers have been politicising (or "polonising" in their words) many media platforms in the country, following the Hungarian model. The ramping up of the rhetoric has been emphasised in late 2020, with the takeover of Polska Press (a collection of many inter-linked regional newspapers and websites) by state-run Orlen.

The following news agencies are affected:

• Polska Press Information Agency (Agencja Informacyjna Polska Press)

The following daily regional newspapers are affected:

• Dziennik Bałtycki
• Dziennik Łódzki
• Dziennik Zachodni
• Gazeta Krakowska
• Głos Wielkopolski
• Głos Dziennik Pomorza
  • Głos Szczeciński
  • Głos Koszaliński
  • Głos Pomorza
• Gazeta Wrocławska
• Polska Metropolia Warszawska
• Express Bydgoski
• Nowości Dziennik Toruński
• Express Ilustrowany
• Kurier Lubelski
• Gazeta Pomorska
• Gazeta Lubuska
• Dziennik Polski
• Kurier Poranny (founded 1990; not to be confused with other of the same name)
• Gazeta Współczesna
• Nowa Trybuna Opolska
• Echo Dnia,
• Nowiny (Rzeszów)

The following TV magazines are affected:

• Tele Magazyn
• Super Tele
• TV Pilot
• Tele Program

The following advertising newspapers are affected:

• Moto Express
• Autogiełda Wielkopolska
• Jarmark
  • Motojarmark

The following free newspapers are affected:

• Nasze Miasto

The following internet portals are affected:

• Motofakty.pl (motoring)
• naszemiasto.pl
• strefabiznesu.pl (business)
• stronakobiet.pl (women's)
• strefaagro.pl (agriculture)
• telemagazyn.pl (TV)
• gol24.pl (sports)
• sportowy24.pl (sports)

I would point out that this would only refer to those from 2021 onwards. The sports, TV, small ads and motoring are likely to be much unaffected, the issue is that it becomes incresingly similar to TVP Info in the way they report political news. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

No to this. Sorry but even your wording/rhetoric ("Poland's rulers" - you mean its democratically elected government? Or was there an insurrection on the capitol or something?) suggests that you're here to RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Being state owned doesn't render you non-reliable. Otherwise we'd have to toss the BBC (or does this "state owned" criteria only apply to the Polish government).

Some of these may very well be unreliable. But we need to go here on case by case basis and things like what exactly these sources are being used for matters. That's kind of a key consideration of WP:RS - reliable for what?

Incidentally, this reminds me a bit of the discussions we've had about Russian state owned RT (TV network). I *very strongly* argued that it was not reliable and should pretty much never be used. BUT. That argument was based on the nature of the source itself, not ownership (indeed, some commentators tried to defend RT by pointing out that other state owned media was considered reliable). Same thing here. You want to declare these unreliable? You got to do the work. Show why. Not just "cuz state owned and I don't like the current government". Volunteer Marek 01:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, The BBC is not state-owned and neither is it government-controlled. Polish media are quite different. GPinkerton (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Neither is "Polska Press" which is actually owned by Verlagsgruppe Passau GmbH, a German media company. Or at least it was until recently when apparently it was bought out by PKN Orlen which is ALSO a private company. That's the whole issue here - these are NOT media owned or controlled by the Polish government. Some of them may (I honestly have no idea since some of them are pretty obscure) have a "pro-government" editorial line or something but describing these as "state media" or anything close is simply incorrect. Volunteer Marek 18:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Extremely biased, unreliable for politics and social issues. This company has been "re-Polishized" by the government: "Adam Bodnar, the national ombudsman for citizens' rights, told Wirtualna Polska that this was "a historic moment and, unfortunately, it shows that the authorities decided to take steps similar to those we could previously observe in Hungary under Viktor Orban." He said the transaction demonstrated what direction the ruling party was going in. "After full control of state media," he said, "now it's time for the private media."[218] --Bob not snob (talk) 12:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. You have a PRIVATE oil company. The Polish government happens to own some shares in this oil company. Simultaneously this oil company happens to own some media companies. And this is suppose to mean that the Polish government "owns" these media outlets? It doesn't.

Anyway, actually all of this is beside the point. If you think these sources are unreliable then you must make a case on the basis of policy - WP:RS. The phrases "government owned" or "state owned" (and these aren't even that!) don't actually appear anywhere in WP:RS policy. It doesn't matter. You have to show that these outlets fail the criteria that actually ARE laid out in RS. This is simply a misguided proposal for several reasons. Volunteer Marek 18:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable xenophobic junk. Following the takeover, by proxy, of this organization by the xenophobic Polish government. Mellow Boris (talk) 10:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

1981 Judy Chicago interview as source for broad material about gender inequality in the United States

Questions: (1) Is an hour-long 1981 interview of artist Judy Chicago [219] a verifiable and reliable source for the statement, Sexism and gender discrimination have long been factors in the visual arts and the art world, inflected by cultural taboos and the sexual division of labor. This affects both occupation and opportunities available to women and public portrayals of women's roles, and is further intensified and complicated by the intertwingling of the political culture of the United States, where universal women's suffrage was not achieved until the twentieth century.? (2) Is a long quote of Judy Chicago (which follows) WP:DUE for Gender inequality in the United States#Occupational segregation by gender?

My answers: 1. No. An interview from 40 years ago with a single artist where she gives her point of view is not remotely a reliable source for such broad claims about opportunities for women in the present and tying in US political culture in general, even bringing up women's suffrage. The topic should instead be sourced to the expert academic literature on this topic in fields such as sociology. Editors also should not be expected to listen to an hour-long interview to verify anything. 2. No. A single artist's lengthy quote is not due and interpretations of art don't have to do with occupational segregation; the academic literature should be consulted instead.

Further context: The editor Struthious Bandersnatch insists [220][221] on including this material. My response to their last edit summary is that they are personalizing the dispute by making it about my supposed beliefs (my actual beliefs are inclined to agree with the text being added; my concerns are RS and DUE related [222]), that they are reversing the WP:BURDEN of sourcing, and that their accusation of WP:TE on my part does not apply because the material is not reliably sourced. I also believe that this editor has been around long enough [223] to know better than this sort of behavior and should be informed of what is proper. Because of how this editor is singling me out, and based on past experience with them, I strongly desire broad input on this matter. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

How about you address which parts of Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability the source—which, as your first external link shows, was preserved by the NEA in its archives—would not meet? And speaking of what's proper—you've been reverted once, and instead of simply looking for more sources to support already-cited content you're supposedly inclined to agree with, you place a GamerGate DS alert on my talk page (the instructions for which say, by the way, Alerts are a neutral courtesy; never use them to intimidate, coerce, or shame another editor.) and you want to start a noticeboard discussion over a single interview from a single source, skipping even any talk page discussion?

Note that (as a fourth alternative in addition to what I proposed in my reverting edit summary, that you present contradicting evidence if you believe it exists) you could also have simply altered the text of the paragraph before the quote if you find any portion of it objectionable; it does appear you want to delete pertinent, reliably sourced content wholesale to which you've voiced no styling objections, as I said. (Unless the implication that politics and art aren't related is a styling objection?) --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 05:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Again, the WP:BURDEN of proof is yours, but WP:SOURCE (part of WP:V) states: Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. An artist's recorded personal views are not fact-checked nor do they have a reputation for accuracy. If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources in topics such as history, medicine, and science. This topic is covered by social science and absolutely has voluminous academic literature available to it. No idea what you mean by "styling objections". Note too that your edit warring your material in is contrary to WP:ONUS. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• This is a lot to base on one interview with one artist 40 years ago. There are lots of scholarly sources that cover this. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with SlimVirgin. In the spirit of full disclosure, I saw Judy Chicago's monumental work The Dinner Party in San Francisco when it was first released 40 years ago, and I like it very much even though I understand the negative criticism of it. I have seen at least two other art shows featuring her work since then. I truly admire her and her work, but she is an individual artist rather than a respected art historian, and her individual opinions are fine with inline attribution in an article about her or her work and views. But her views should not be presented in Wikipedia's voice in an article about such a broad topic. Yes, scholarly sources are definitely preferred in this type of article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• So, just to be clear, the verdict being expressed above in response to the question is that an interview from the Drama and Literature Department of WBAI by Ann Stubbs, preserved in the archives of the National Endowment for the Arts, is not reliable or verifiable; and it's implied that per WP:UNDUE it represents the view of a tiny minority like the flat Earth concept does. As used here, none of these have the meanings of these terms as expressed in the corresponding Wikipedia policy pages, despite the promiscuous links; they are being given arbitrary meanings to fit another purpose—what that is I don't know—but it does not appear to correspond to Wikipedia processes and procedures. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 15:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't believe that this is a correct assessment. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the issue here is that this is not the kind of source we use to make the kind of claim you're making. The issue is not the substance of the claim (which could be backed up by more scholarly and recent refs), nor whether this source might be reliable in another context. Generalrelative (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Is question 2 this really a WP:RS dispute? Looks to me like it's a WP:NPOV, which should be discussed on WP:NPOVN.--JBchrch (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Seeing as this is a straightforward "Is source X reliable for claim Y in article Z?" question, it seems germane to me. Generalrelative (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Generalrelative, clarified my comment.--JBchrch (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• This appears to be a reliable source for something like the specific claim that Judy Chicago said/felt X 40 years ago. I do not see how Chicago's statement could be generalized to support a universal claim which seems to be the case here. To make this a generalized claim I think you would need more than one 3rd party source to make the claim. Chicago presumably is an involved source offering her opinion. Springee (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• The source is reliable for the purpose of attributing the or paraphrasing the quote to the person in question, but not for making general statements about the topic. There are plenty of better sources for that. It's not a question of reliability. The source is reliable, in so far as we trust that Judy Chicago really did make those statements. The issue is issues of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, insofar as it places an undue emphasis on a specific viewpoint that may or may not represent the preponderance of scholarship on the matter. Several more general scholarly sources would be more useful here. --Jayron32 18:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• It is extremely dated, there are newer sources on this. Mellow Boris (talk) 10:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Editing List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll

I am trying to edit the article to show 150 million as maximum estimate for Mass killings under communist regimes by providing The following peer reviewed scholarly sources https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C28&q=The+Russian+GULAG+Understanding+the+Dangers+of+Marxism+Combined+With+Totalitarianism&btnG= (https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1350&context=honors) https://www.jstor.org/stable/24563310?seq=1 even a third and fourth backup source https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/disaster-red-hundredth-anniversary-russian-socialist-revolution/ https://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/amphtml/1985/0606/ecomm.html Even if necessary this fifth source from harvard says 162 million communism deaths between mao and stalin. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2003/4/29/predatory-politics-what-was-the-greatest/

In the policies below it is stated non neutral sources are allowed its simply the editing such as sentence phrasing in the article that must be neutral. The article has both points of view because it has a minimim estimate AND a maximum estimate. My edit is simply a number. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutrality_of_sources https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_means_neutral_editing,_not_neutral_content In fact look what it says here under achieving neutrality https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view it says "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased." And here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources it says "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Again the article shows both point of views as minimum and maximum estimates.

The other users have been violating the above policies by deleting my edits simply because they view my sources as biased.

It was discussed here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll And here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll_discussion

The volunteer in the dispute resolution noticeboard refused to make a decision to enforce the policies on sources.Danielbr11 (talk) 13:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I looked at the first claimed "peer reviewed scholarly source", The Russian GULAG: Understanding the Dangers of Marxism Combined With Totalitarianism. It's a student thesis for a degree at Liberty University, which the lead of that article describes as "a private evangelical Christian university". I couldn't be bothered even looking at the rest after seeing that clearly wasn't a "peer reviewed scholarly source". FDW777 (talk) 13:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

FDW777 can you tell me how it being a christian university allows it to be unreliable when policy states: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view it says "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased." And here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources it says "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject" and can you read the other sources.Danielbr11 (talk) 13:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

It's written as clear as you like at WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate are reliable under certain circumstances, except that isn't for a doctorate. It doesn't even appear to be for a masters degree, which might have got over the bar of Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. So it's straight up unreliable, and it's not peer reviewed. FDW777 (talk) 13:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Well the source that the liberty thesis uses for the 150 killings is Martin, Prevailing Worldviews, 182. Please tell me why i cant just use that source? Or why even when this page says 161,990,000 estimate https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes#:~:text=In%202017%2C%20Professor%20Stephen%20Kotkin,cruel%20projects%20of%20social%20engineering.%22 am i allowed to use that source for that figure Danielbr11 (talk) 14:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Stop forumshopping, you're already on ANI and I suspect you will be (in my view justly) blocked shortly. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Danielbr11, Looks like that book is on a vanity publisher, definitely not peer reviewed either. MrOllie (talk) 14:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Excuse me hemiauchenia i was told in dispute resolution that i should come here to discuss the reliability of my sources (not just one source).Danielbr11 (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie if you found that then i accept it. Now can you say why my other three sources would be unrealiable? https://www.jstor.org/stable/24563310?seq=1 https://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/amphtml/1985/0606/ecomm.html https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2003/4/29/predatory-politics-what-was-the-greatest/ remember that the policy states you cant delete a source for being biased.Danielbr11 (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I would ask that the volunteers here please be patient and answer Danielbr11's questions. As the person they opened the ANI about- they have been directed to this noticeboard over and over since they do not trust those of us who have engaged with them on this policy. Even the admins on the ANI have recommended they come here. Thank you.

And Daniel- it says you can't delete it JUST for being biased. You can deleted it for being unreliable. And bias is one of MANY things that can determine reliablility. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The majority of scholars don't group together all communist regimes into a single "anthropogenic disaster" since they had considerable differences. Instead, events in the Soviet Union, China etc. are listed separately. (t · c) buidhe 15:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Buide the majority of scholars say the death toll of European Colonization is way lower than the one on the list of 140000000 because they are mostly due to famine and there were also many countries involved. Can you please state why my last three sources above are unreliable. Once again there is a wiki article here that lists 161,990,000 estimate https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes#:~:text=In%202017%2C%20Professor%20Stephen%20Kotkin,cruel%20projects%20of%20social%20engineering.%22Danielbr11 (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

So you would also exclude deaths from Famine in Communist regimes? Boynamedsue (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Harvard Crimson: Opinion piece, not peer-reviewed, probably valid for authors opinion, doesn't state a total number of deaths. WP:WEIGHT would keep it out, the writer's opinion is not very important. Future of Freedom: Obviously an ideologically biased opinion piece (when you hear the word "Freedom" listen out for the splashes), but that doesn't discount it. However, it is not peer-reviewed and it is a source that does not claim to make any serious analysis of the numbers of dead, merely citing "Historians" that give a figure of 150 million. So to include it we would have to say "Professor of Ethics and Free Enterprise Leadership Richard M.Ebeling says that historians say that 150 million people were killed by Communist Regimes." That's basically just tittle-tattle, not valid to support the claim. Christian Science Monitor: Opinion piece, no workings shown, no scholars cited, from 1985. Same problem as above. Liberty university Not RS, student work. Independent Review Opinion piece, no workings shown, cites Conquest for the 150 million deaths, Conquest actually cites considerably fewer in his own work, summarised here., and his top estimate of 100 million is almost certainly an overestimate. Same problem as the others, except here we would have to say "Billy-Jo Unremarkable says historians claim 150 million deaths, citing Conquest whose own work says 85-100 million", which becomes OR to clarify the misinformation we have introduced by choosing to quote an Opinion piece. Not RS. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• I wouldn't consider any of these sources reliable for these claims, or their opinions DUE. The Harvard Crimson is the student newspaper at Harvard and this is from their opinion/editorial section. The Christian Science Monitor (that's a better version of the source, by the way) is generally reliable for news per WP:RSP, but this is an opinion/editorial piece from guest author John Lenczowski. The Fruits and Fallacies of Fred Skinner on Freedom is from The Independent Review, a low-impact-factor journal published by Independent Institute, a think tank. That suggests they lack a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that we require. Woodroar (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok thank you for your input on those sources. Can you tell me why this source would be unreliable which says at the bottom communist regimes 259,432,000 as maximum estimate of deaths. https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.TAB16A.1.GIF and why is this page allowed to show 161,990,000 killed with its source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes#Estimates Danielbr11 (talk) 15:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Could you provide more information about that table of data? as it is it is merely a list of numbers with no provenance. In the other article, the phrase "In the dissident blog..." suggests to me that this number does not come from a RS, and therefore should be deleted. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The table is from here https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM where it says "For all final estimates, see the summary table in Statistics of Democide" btw this source is used throughout the List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll page Danielbr11 (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The website is not RS in itself, by the looks, but it comes from the work of Rummel which seems to me to come under WP:FRINGE, according to his wikipedia page he claims numbers of up to 400 million. When rampant anti-Communists wind up claiming German casualties in WWII as "victims of communism", and barely scrape 100 million, I don't think Rummel merits a place in the article. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

As i said he is sources throughout the List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll page and i dont think you can call him fringe if you allow 1 source to say 140000000 deaths from european colonization when most scholarly sources and historians say way less deaths because many were from disease.Danielbr11 (talk) 16:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. His actual death toll proposal is 400,000,000. That is way out there. The difference in numbers for European colonisation is justifiable as disease is not a neutral force. It occurs in a social context, and is specifically deadly in situations of social collapse occasioned by cultural domination. People who are enslaved and abused and under-fed die more easily, and frequently simply stop trying to live. It is arguable whether it is correct to include all of these deaths in the death toll, but is a serious argument made by a serious person. 400 million dead in 70 years is simply not credible, and is not treated as such by other researchers. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

(Moved from section below. Danielbr11, you already have a huge section on the reliable sources noticeboard AND two reports at the admin noticeboard AND a case at arbcom. Please let me discuss the general reliability of Rummel on RSN in a seperate section without making everything be about your edits. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Guy Macon as i said rummel is used as source throughout the List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll article and i can easily properly attribute it with appropriate disagreement by prominent critics as their is a box for notes where editors write that. As i have also said before, the article is neutral with both point of views because it has a space for minimum and maximum estimates. I am using the maximum estimate while anyone can put a mimimum estimate with its own source! I am not using any 400 million figure which is the total democide estimate for ALL GOVERNMENTS (not communism)- i am only the 259,432,000 figure for communist regimes at the bottom here https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.TAB16A.1.GIFDanielbr11 (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm on the fence about Rummel being fringe or somewhere-in-the-middle, personally. But even if he's in the middle, I agree that attribution is necessary. I'd also suggest that it's UNDUE to cite him throughout the list, as if he's some unquestionably renowned expert. My preference is that Rummel should only be used in prose—with attribution, of course—when we can provide context/criticism from other reliable sources. And if a significant number of sources show up demonstrating that he's fringe, we should remove him entirely. Woodroar (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC) Copying my comments from below so they appear in context. Woodroar (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Woodroar rummel is used as source throughout the List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll article but i can easily properly attribute it with appropriate disagreement by prominent critics as there is a box for notes where editors write that. As i have also said before, the article is neutral with both point of views because it has a space for minimum and maximum estimates. I am using the maximum estimate while anyone can put a mimimum estimate with its own source.Danielbr11 (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I think there's a misunderstanding about neutrality here. WP:NPOV doesn't mean that we give both (or even all) sides. It means that we, as editors need to neutrally summarize what sources say and also weight them proportionally. In other words, we can't read into or analyze sources, or make them say something they don't, or make minority viewpoints appear like majority viewpoints (or vice versa). Sometimes that means minority viewpoints need to be contrasted with majority viewpoints, and sometimes it means that minority viewpoints get excluded entirely. Woodroar (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

In the List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll article, european colonization and genocide of indigenous americans gets about 140000000 from 1 source while MOST scholars say its way lower even on the european colonization and genocide of indgenous articles themselves because disease takes many of the deaths as well. So 140000000 is a minority view but you include it on the list.. why? because there is a MINIMUM estimate space for the opposing view. Rummel is used a source on all the wiki articles that talk about mass killings under communism, mao, stalin, etc.Danielbr11 (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

But that minimum number still needs to be reliably sourced, otherwise we could find some crackpot who claims 1 death and add that. The existence of a field doesn't mean that we need to fill it. As for Rummel being cited in other articles, that doesn't mean much. Sure, it could be a sign that the community has vetted a source, like many of the sources at WP:RSP. But it can also mean that someone's added it to articles and...well, nobody's bothered to revert or bring it up for a wider discussion. We're (mostly) all volunteers here and we can't be everywhere. So we're having the discussion now. It might end with everyone agreeing to use Rummel, but it might end with everyone agreeing to remove the source entirely, or somewhere in the middle. Woodroar (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Rummel is reliable and one cannot delete a source simply for bias. While they debate Rummel below, i found another source with a neutral reliable publisher: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Chile_the_Crime_of_Resistance/K3d-AAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=150%20millionDanielbr11 (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The problem with your analysis is that in the List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll article, european colonization and genocide of indigenous americans, which was done by many different countries and most deaths were due to disease, gets about 140000000 deaths from 1 source. MOST scholars say its way lower even on the european colonization and genocide of indgenous articles themselves because disease takes many of the deaths. So 140000000 is a minority view but you include it on the list.. why? because there is a MINIMUM estimate space for the opposing view. Rummel is used a source on all the wiki articles that talk about mass killings under communism, mao, stalin, etc. Furthurmore rummel is not far off because some reputable sources have estimated stalins deaths at 60 million and maos at 70 millionDanielbr11 (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Can somebody tell me if this neutral reliable publisher source Is reliable https://www.google.com/books/edition/Chile_the_Crime_of_Resistance/K3d-AAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=150%20millionDanielbr11 (talk) 04:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

It's probably not unreliable, in the sense that it can be used for uncontroversial facts and opinions of the author. It is outdated and probably has been superseded by more up to date sources on Chile. If it is another source which uses a throwaway line about a large number of dead victims of Communism, I would probably just forget about it, tbh. If it quotes a source for this large number, have a look at this source and see if it is valid.Boynamedsue (talk) 10:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

This source is reliable and meets the criteria, so i am free to use it in my edit to the list without others deleting it?Danielbr11 (talk) 14:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Danielbr11, That's not what was just said. But even if it were, you would still need to discuss on the talk page and reach a consensus for inclusion. The mere fact that a source is reliable is not the only factor involved in such a decision. - MrOllie (talk) 14:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

So you say "Rudolph Rummel is reliable with attribution in the following areas: "Democide (intentional murder by a government)" but that hes "not a historian. Rummel made little or no attempt to keep his numbers updated as new information became available and stated that his numbers would support his theories even if they were ten times smaller or ten times larger." so "Thus Rummel should not be used as a source for specific numeric death estimates outside of discussions of his theories."? If you dont allow me to source him as the maxmimum estimate NEXT to the minimum estimate for opposing views with other sources than i will take this to arbitration at this point since you guys discussed this and completed this dispute resolution.Danielbr11 (talk) 15:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Do what you think you have to do, but be aware that the community is getting tired of your disruptive edits and your continual attempts to make other pages and other sections of this page be about your edits when you already have a huge section where you are WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration does not take content disputes. If you do not accept that the answer to what you are asking is no, what's going to end up happening is a block. This is not a threat- its not even a warning- its a prediction. You're not going to force your way on this one.... Its not happening, move on and find another article to edit. You already had one admin saying their first impulse was to block you for a week- the reason you're not blocked is because other editors stood up and wanted to give you a chance to follow proceedure and see reason, if now, after doing that, you are just going to escalate things to ridiculousness again- no one is going to stand up and ask you to be given another chance. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I am being civil about it without personal attacks which is what the admins were worried about. The arbitration only got declined because it had not been discussed enough yet. But now it has.Danielbr11 (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Rudolph Rummel

Danielbr11 is in the middle of an ANI case, so I would like to have a general discussion about the reliability of one of the sources mentioned above without any material related to Danielbr11's edits. Please move any comment specific to that case to the section above.

I do not consider the works of Rudolph Rummel to be either fringe or mainstream. They appear to be in that area between calls "controversial". There is some dispute over his numbers from other academics, and thus I think anything sourced to Rummel should be properly attributed, and when appropriate disagreement by prominent critics should be included. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest that his figures are not suitable to be included in list type articles, as they are WP:FRINGE and there is not possibility of giving context in that case. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think they are fringe. You may be right about not using them in lists where there is no room for context or criticism. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm on the fence about Rummel being fringe or somewhere-in-the-middle, personally. But even if he's in the middle, I agree that attribution is necessary. I'd also suggest that it's UNDUE to cite him throughout the list, as if he's some unquestionably renowned expert. My preference is that Rummel should only be used in prose—with attribution, of course—when we can provide context/criticism from other reliable sources. And if a significant number of sources show up demonstrating that he's fringe, we should remove him entirely. Woodroar (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

You make a good point. I agree; Rummel should only be used in prose with attribution with context/criticism from other reliable sources. I have had to move several comments by a user who shall not be named to the section above because they want to discuss edits to specific lists. Would you be so kind as to make your excellent point about lists in the above section as well? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I think we need to ascertain whether his figures are in line with other people on non-Communist matters. It may be ok for other topics if he is just a bit funny about Communism. Boynamedsue (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I have looked at them in depth, and read most of his critics. The fact is that there are a wide variety of numbers on this, all from respected scholars. Some are no doubt influenced by a desire to maximize the numbers for democide in some countries. Some are no doubt influences by a desire to minimize the numbers for democide in some countries. This isn't a case of mainstream vs. fringe. There is no mainstream agreement for most of these numbers. So we should do what we always do when scholars disagree; present all notable views with attribution. The more I think about your comments on lists, the more I agree. we shouldn't just add numbers without a discussion about who disagrees and why. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Let me explain a little bit about Rummel. Rudolph Rummel is by no means a fringe author. He is a very reputable scholar, and his "democratic peace" concept is very famous. However, we must clearly understand what exactly his contribution to science consists in. His main contribution is introduction of factor analysis into social sciences. In particular, he collected all available data on mass killings and calculated correlations between various traits of each regime and the scale of killings. He obtained significant negative correlation between democracy and mass violence and strong positive correlation between a degree of totalitarianism and mass killing. That is why he is considered reputable.

However, can he be a good source for figures? No. First. His approach was analyzed by Dulic, who persuasively demonstrated that Rummel's approach (to take all published data on the number of victims and to calculate the boundaries of most probable estimates) inevitably leads to inflated figures. Dulic discusses Rummel's data on Yugoslavia only, but his conclusions are equally applicable to Rummel's approach in general. Interestingly, no other statistician joined the dispute (neither at Dulic's side nor Rummel's side), which is an indication of low interest of true professionals to Rummel's statistics. Second. Rummel used all published data non-critically, and he never re-considered his estimates to a lower side in light of new evidences. Thus, I checked his "Death by government", and his estimates of USSR deaths are based on outdated Cold-war era crude estimates. Despite the fact that a huge amount of archival data became available on the USSR after its dissolution, and now the USSR mortality figures are much better known, Rummel continued to publish dramatically inflated figures, which are more than an order of magnitude higher than actual numbers (and which contradict to most moderns demographic (Erlikman) and archival (Zemskov) data). Accordingly, it is not a surprise that most modern country experts essentially ignore Rummel's "estimates". The exception is Cambodia, for which the data dispersion has always been pretty low, and, accordingly, Rummel's estimates are reasonably precise.

Third, as Barbara Harff noted, Rummel's goal was not to provide the exact statistics, for even the amended data set would lead to essentially the same conclusion about "democratic peace". Therefore, Harff doesn't believes high precision of the data is neither required nor expected from Rummel. Therefore, although Rummel is a good expert in his field, the figures he provides cannot be trusted, especially for the countries or the events where a large number of contradicting figures were published, for Rummel just takes them all and obtains the average without analyzing reliability of each figure.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Are Rummel's numbers really so far from other estimates?

From our article on Democide#Killings by Communist states

• Rummel gives an estimate for communist democide including famine of 110 million, later revised to 148 million, with an estimated error range of "a probable order of magnitude", which means that it could be a lot lower or a lot higher.
• Stéphane Courtois gave a "rough approximation, based on unofficial estimates" approaching 100 million killed.
• Martin Malia came up with "between 85 million and 100 million."
• Benjamin Valentino estimated 21 million to 70 million gave in the Soviet Union, People's Republic of China and Cambodia alone and stated that the "highest end of the plausible range of deaths attributed to communist regimes" was "up to 110 million."
• Steven Rosefielde's number is "approximately 60 million people and perhaps tens of millions more."
• Matthew White published estimates 70 million, including "people who died under communist regimes from execution, labor camps, famine, ethnic cleansing, and desperate flight in leaky boats", with 26 million people additionally dying in "Communist-inspired wars."
• Stephen Kotkin estimated 65 million people killed intentionally with "even more" from starvation as a result of social engineering"

Several commentators on Rummel's estimates have noted that estimates for the holocaust (which we have far better numbers for) might be 20% or maybe even 40% off either way, while at the same time completely rejecting the claims of holocaust deniers that the estimates are a hundred times or more too large. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

There is one fundamental problem with that. The estimates are made by the authors who (i) consider "Communist mass killing" as a single separate category, and (ii) use the figure of "killed" to convey some specific idea (usually, that Communism was worse than Nazism). However, this view is not supported by majority of other authors, and the criticism is not like "You say Communism killed 100 million, but, according to my data, they killed just 20 million". In reality the criticism is focused on the very approach: the very idea to provide some cumulative figure is considered as flawed and politically motivated. Thus some critics of Courtois note that he implicitly assumes that some "generic Communism" existed, whereas that is not correct, and each mass mortality event in Communist states had its own roots, and they were mostly unconnected to each other, so it would be deeply incorrect to combine them into the singe category. Other authors argue that the very term "victims of Communism" is vague, and inclusion/exclusion of some deaths into that category depends mostly on political views of each concrete author. And most importantly, an overwhelming majority of country experts just ignore the above authors. Thus, majority of scholars studying Chinese famine (which was responsible for nearly a half of "Communist death toll") do not use the term "killing" at all. Instead, they write that the famine was a result on a combination of natural factors and strategic blunders of Communist leadership, and it was just the last major famine in a series of famines that were occurring in China regularly, and they apply the same language to Chinese famine as to the Bengal or Irish famine (which are not considered mass killing at all).

In other words, the estimates provided by you are made by the authors who consider "Communist death toll" a separate category, and who use it to draw some specific conclusions from that. Taking into account that all those authors but Courtois faced almost no criticism, we may conclude they either express mainstream view or a small minority view. If the first hypothesis is correct, they must be being widely cited by the authors writing about each separate "mass killing" event (such as Chinese famine, Volga famine, the Great Purge, ets). If the second hypothesis is correct, they are expected to be ignored by country experts. My analysis demonstrates that they are fully ignored by such authors as O'Grada (Chinese famine), Wheatcroft, Ellman (USSR), Kiernan (Cambodia), etc. Moreover, most cases when the Black Book is cited by country experts, that happens because Werth's or Margolin's chapters of USSR or PRC are sited. However, both these authors severely criticized Courtois for his introduction, and they even publicly threatened to withdraw their name from the book. Which is by no means an indication of mainsreamness of the Courolis' views.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Excellent analysis. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

...and that is why the piece of text that you copy-pasted from the Mass killings under Communist regimes article is not more that ideologically charged minority POV that does not reflect the view of the scholarly community, and, therefore, it should be put into a proper context to bring it into accordance with our NPOV policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, as a minor point, Valentino explicitly cites Rummel for the 110 million "upperbound" figure (while Valentino's own figures are considerably lower than Rummel's). It would be misleading to construe that as Valentino "corroborating" Rummel. In addition, Wikipedia probably should not be citing the self-published blogger/author Matthew White, who has no qualifications, academic or otherwise, relevant to any of the countries that he is ostensibly researching.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Valentino's main contribution is a concept of "strategic mass killings", which is aimed to explain (and predict) the onset of mass killings. He is not, and he never claimed to be, an expert in figures. Like Rummel's "democide", Valentino's theorizing is not affected by moderate errors in figures. A bigger question is that some deaths that are considered as "excess deaths" by most scholars are claimed to result from "mass killings" by him.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Incidentally, few days ago relative of mine mentioned somewhat weird number victims for Czechoslovakia (65000), which is order of magnitude higher than any number I saw in recent scholarship. Basic source for such number is the very author we discuss here. Sources he uses for Czechoslovakia estimate (I list them on the article talk page) are all older than 1989 (before primary documents were accessible to scholars) - so wild guess at best. Note research in this field of study was really fruitful after 1989, which is not reflected even in later revision of his book (1997). In short: other issues aside, work of this author is so out-dated, I can´t recommend its use in any way other than an attributed opinion (where due). Pavlor (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The problem is more serious: if some author provides outdated figures, usually, more recent data are available. However, no fresh data on a "global Communist democide death toll" are available, which implies the very concept is beyond the scope of scholarly community.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

This is difficult then, logically speaking we would want to explain this in the article, but if it is so far outside mainstream scholarship that nobody even bothers to write about it, we can't do so! Boynamedsue (talk) 10:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Tentative conclusion:

I propose that we summarize the above discussion as follows:

Rudolph Rummel is reliable with attribution in the following areas:

• Democide (intentional murder by a government)
• Democratic peace theory (few or no wars between democracies)
• Mortacide (murder by a government through negligence, incompetence or indifference)
• Democratic famine theory (few or no famines in democracies, deliberate or not)

All of these theories are controversial, but not fringe.

• Rummel is also a reliable source with attribution in the far less controversial statistics areas covered in his books Applied Factor Analysis and Understanding Correlation.

Rudolph Rummel was a political scientist with an interest in history, not a historian. Rummel made little or no attempt to keep his numbers updated as new information became available and stated that his numbers would support his theories even if they were ten times smaller or ten times larger. Thus Rummel should not be used as a source for specific numeric death estimates outside of discussions of his theories.

Agree? Disagree? Any suggested changes? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Generally yes, but something is a little bit ambiguous. What do you mean under "Democide" and "Mortacide"? The actual phenomenae or theories? I am asking because such phenomenon as the Holocaust really existed, whereas "democide" seems to cover both actual killings and the deaths that either never occurred (like the deaths of tens of million GULAG victims), or were not considered as "killing" by other authors?

I also am unaware of any "democratic famine theory".

The second question. If we come to some common conclusion, how will that affect the articles that use Rummel as a source? Maybe, we need to invite the users who are working on those articles to join this discussion?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Re: "The actual phenomenae or theories?", theories. Feel free to suggest clearer wording.

Re: "I also am unaware of any democratic famine theory" please pick a label that you think describes the theory described in Rudolph Rummel#Famine, economic growth, and happiness. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Voice of America (VOA)

Hello, Voice of America is not a reliable source?, according to user:CommanderWaterford. Thanks 15:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taung Tan (talk • contribs) 15:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Taung Tan, first of all I would ask you to discuss Article Content Disputes at the Article Talk Page as you did several times before.It is by far not the first time I see you questioning my edits, you need to understand that Article you have created are not your OWN articles and that they of course will be checked and edited - by me and by several others. Wikipedia is not a platform for free speech, it wants itself to be an encyclopaedia with a CLEAR neutral point of view, for very good reasons. None of your recently created articles were free of at least dubious sources and every first version was with a clear political intention. Secondly VOA is related to Myanmar Protests or the current Myanmar Government not really a reliable, neutral source since VOA is financed by the United States and I am sure that no one really can deny that the U.S. government has own particular interests in this issue. The other source you gave was - once again - from a clear political intentions driven medium. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Suggesting that VOA a dubious source and is just as bad as other state propaganda organisations like RT or CGTN is disingenuous. VOA maintains a firewall between government and itself and is widely respected for its accuracy. Despite recent turmoil, I don't think that saying that it is "unreliable" is a fair assessment. What specific claims are being contested? Are they in any way exceptional or not made by other sources? Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Hemiauchenia; the US Gov't's relationship with VOA is nothing like RT's with the Kremlin. GPinkerton (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@CommanderWaterford: I believe you are mistaken. Government funding does not in and of itself have an impact on a sources's neutrality or reliability as wikipedia understands it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, Honestly I cannot believe this - point me to the policy/essay proving this please. If you have a look at the article about VOA you will see a separate section with controversies regarding their independency. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

You can’t believe that a source can both accept government money and be independent? Thats hard to fathom given that almost all of our perennial reliable sources receive government funding in some way whether it be grants, subsidies, or tax preferences. A lack of editorial independence would be a problem, but thats not the argument you have made. I would suggest reviewing WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

(Eg, the BBC has long proven that you can have a state-backed media enterprise that retains high independence from influence of the state. The state sees a well-funded information service like the BBC as necessary to support an educated society but keeps its hands out of influencing how it handles topics to avoid the COI). --Masem (t) 17:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

In this instance the state doesn't give any funding to the BBC; it's all offloaded onto TV-owners as the licence fee. GPinkerton (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, license fees which the state legislated and legally obligates TV-owners to pay backed by the full invested violence of state institutions... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Car-owners also need driver's licences for which they are legally obligated to pay backed by the full invested violence of state institutions. The government of the day is forever threatening to reduce or abolish the fee whenever it feels itself unpopular. There used to be dog licences too. As I understand it, VOA's backing comes out of general taxation, so it is rather more the party organ than the BBC could ever be. For both institutions, the international news (i.e. the World Service, etc.) is directed at a non-domestic audience and is unlikely to be influenced by state policies of any government and most unlikely to take a contrarian angle. GPinkerton (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

You’re splitting hairs which don’t exist to make absurdly contrarian points like "In this instance the state doesn't give any funding to the BBC” when the statement you’re disagreeing with from Masem uses "state-backed” rather than “state funded” so your pedantry is not only unwarranted but based on a misreading of another editor’s argument. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• It is better to specify which Wiki article is being discussed. Where do you want to use this source?-Renat (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Dear all, user:CommanderWaterford, is a vindictive user, have added negative tags on every articles that I created. Do justice to me? Please help me... See pls Talk:Khin Thiri Thet Mon, User talk:Hintha#Notabality of Khin Thiri Thet Mon, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khin Thiri Thet Mon, and [224] even that The Irrawaddy and Myanmar Now are the most RS of my country. He is always looking for problems on my articles. Why people are using "their experience on Wikipedia" as a weapon ????? What is the community value of these over actions? Taung Tan (talk) 18:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe this will help you - WP:HELPAFD.--Renat (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

RenatUK I don’t mean AfD. It appears to be negative tag-bombing to me, for the article to be tagged with {{UnreliableSources}}) when there is no information questioned at all. [225], [226] and [227]. Taung Tan (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I think there probably has been a misunderstanding here. It would be wrong to just say "this is a propaganda machine" and "this is not". The burden of proof for policy violations lies on the accuser, not the accused. I think everyone kind of just needs to calm down here, even me ahaha. We cannot have civilized discussion when there are constant assuming bad faith and negative attacks and whatnot. Aasim (talk) 06:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

So VOA is clearly reliable ? Well, Hi... CommanderWaterford do you note ? Taung Tan (talk) 07:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

VOA is reliable its similar to BBC though Government funded there are editorial independence contrary to government funded press in various dictatorships --Shrike (talk) 09:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Both VOA and BBC are more reliable in the present than they were in their well-documented early histories. I've yet to see anyone reaching into the archives and for current news articles they are on par. Spudlace (talk) 10:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

VOA is not like the BBC. Among US media, NPR and PBS are most similar to the BBC, as public broadcasters that are considered relatively independent from their governments. However, media such as Voice of America, and the various "Radio Free X" outlets are in a different category. Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, etc. were established explicitly as propaganda outlets, and were openly run as such for decades. Voice of America's official goal was to present a positive image of the United States to the world, while Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty (which were covertly controlled by the CIA until the early 1970s) were much more bluntly tasked with broadcasting negative stories about the Soviet Bloc over shortwave radio (so that people in the Soviet Bloc would be able to listen in). The history is detailed here. Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty and Radio Free Asia have gone through various reorganizations over time, but they still are much more tied to the US government than NPR or PBS. Voice of America's editorial section explicitly states that it reflects the views of the US government. There is a supposed "firewall" between the news section and the US government. However, as a former long-time (35 years) Voice of America correspondent / foreign bureau chief Dan Robinson has explained in the Columbia Journalism Review,

The impression often given in media reports is that programming by VOA and other government-funded media is not influenced, directed, or shaped by foreign policy objectives of any administration. This is just absurd. Among other things, the revered firewall certainly didn't stop officials from standing up the Extremism Watch Desk.

During the Trump administration, there was a scandal over the extent to which Trump tried to overtly influence VOA, but as Dan Robinson explains, government influence in VOA reporting precedes the Trump administration (though he was somewhat blunter about it). The influence of the US government on Voice of America is fairly apparent in the types of topics it focuses on. For example, VOA prominently advertises its section, "VOA News on Iran" (the only other regional news section it advertises on its banner is "US News"). Whether or not VOA should be used as a source depends on the subject. In general, I would say that editors should be aware of its biases and connection to the US government. At times, in-line attribution may be appropriate. For contentious claims about subjects the US government has a strong interest in (particularly with regards to countries like Iran and Cuba), VOA should probably only be used with in-line attribution. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Is this source ok to support a major claim in the lead of an article?

This statement is currently in the lead of People's Mujahedin of Iran:

• "By 1983, Masud Rajavi had sided with Saddam Hussein in the Iran–Iraq War in exchange for financial support, a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in it s homeland"

We had a RfC debating if this should be removed from the lead of the article or not. Eggishorn closed it in "no consensus" and suggested to ask at RSN instead.

The source used to support this statement says "By 1983, Massud Rajavi had come to side with Saddam Hussein in the war in exchange for financial support."

Is this statement ok for the lead? or would it be better to have this moved to the body of the article instead? - MA Javadi (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Is the latter half of the sentence, "... a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in it s homeland", supported by the reference on the pages specified (or elsewhere)? I realize I am not directly answering your question, but this point might be relevant. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 17:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

It depends, is it just Ostrovar's opinion or is it shared by other researchers? (t · c) buidhe 00:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• The second half of the sentence (a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland) strikes me as WP:EXCEPTIONAL, especially the very last part; summarizing the opinion of something as "treason" is very strong wording, as is the claim that this one action destroyed their support in their homeland. If it really is so important for those specific reasons, it should be easy to find additional sources to settle the issue. --Aquillion (talk) 08:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

References

An article on Tomislav Vlašić and the reliability of the sources used

Greetings all.

I need an assessment of how reliable the sources used in the article about Tomislav Vlašić are regarding the subject discussed. @Red Rose 13:, you are invited to discuss the issue as you requested at Talk:Tomislav Vlašić. These are the sources:

Books

• Bulat, Nikola (2006). Istina će nas osloboditi [The Truth will set us free] (in Croatian). Mostar: Biskupski ordinarijat Mostar.
• Kutleša, Dražen (2001). Ogledalo pravde [Mirror of Justice] (in Croatian). Mostar: Biskupski ordinarijat Mostar.
• Laurentin, René (1987). Racconto e messaggio delle apparizioni di Medjugorje [The account and message of the apparitions of Medjugorje] (in Italian). Brescia: Queriniana.

Journals

• Perić, Ratko (2009). "Vlašićeva upletenost u "međugorski fenomen"" [Vlašić's involvement in the "phenomenon of Medjugorje"]. Službeni vjesnik biskupija Mostarsko-duvanjske i Trebinjsko-mrkanske (in Croatian) (2). Mostar: Biskupski ordinarijat Mostar: 181–189.

News articles

• Agnew, Paddy (31 July 2009). "Pope laicises priest accused of creating Medjugorje claims". The Irish Times. Dublin. Retrieved 9 February 2021.
• Arslani, Merita (30 October 2020). "Franjevac iz Međugorja kojeg je 'Bog izabrao među 49 bića da uredi Svemir' izbačen iz Crkve" [The Franciscan from Medjugorje "chosen by God among the 49 people to sort the Universe" expelled from the Church]. 24 sata. Zagreb. Retrieved 9 February 2021.
• Bešker, Inoslav (24 October 2020). "Fratar koji je bio duhovni vođa međugorskih vidjelica izopćen iz Katoličke crkve" [The friar who was a spiritual leader of the Medjugorje seers expelled from the Catholic Church]. Jutarnji list. Zagreb. Retrieved 9 February 2021.
• Stannus, Jane (3 November 2020). "Medjugorje: A Cult Exposed". Crisis magazine. Nashua, New Hampshire. Retrieved 9 February 2021.
• Tomašević, Silvije (23 October 2020). "Lažnog franjevca iz Međugorja opet izopćili iz Crkve: 'Ne slušajte tog čovjeka, opasan je'" [The fake Franciscan from Medjugorje expelled from the Church again: "Do not listen to that man, he's dangerous"]. Večernji list. Zagreb. Retrieved 9 February 2021.

Thank you. --Governor Sheng (talk) 04:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)