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, 459
460

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

Xinhua

Discussed perenially here, there is currently contention on using a Xinhua piece on the article for Id Kah Mosque to describe a claim about a plaque in the mosque. The article itself reports on a twitter video from the US Chinese Embassy on the statements of the imam of the mosque and specifically on the point of contention of the removal of a plaque in the mosque. While some are stating that Xinhua cannot be used due to potential bias (this is a situation where the Chinese government is a stakeholder), considering that it's being used to report on the opinions of the Chinese embassy and a blatantly real video of the mosque and imam, I don't see how the usage of the source ought to be contentious, especially with in-line attribution. As it currently stands, the plaque section is heavily biased towards a western narrative by only including testimony given by radio free asia that directly contradicts the chinese embassy video and the Xinhua reporting. I feel as if both statements should be included with in-line attribution or none of them ought to be, but I'd like to know what others have to say about the reliability of Xinhua in this situation (directly reporting on a video posted by the Chinese Embassy). Deku link (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable and Undue. Per WP:RSP, For subjects where the Chinese government may be a stakeholder, the consensus is almost unanimous that Xinhua can not be trusted to cover them accurately and dispassionately; some editors favour outright deprecation because of its lack of editorial independence. Simply put, this is one of those situations; the Chinese government is clearly a stakeholder in this dispute in its relation to the suppression of Muslims in Xinjiang. There is a source listed as WP:GREL at WP:RSP that report differently from Xinhua, namely Radio Free Asia (RSP entry). None of the sources contest that the plaque was moved (and it's more than just RFA that frame this in the context of the suppression of Uyghurs). The question on if a video produced by and for the Chinese government's use in public relations is unreliable for facts doesn't seem to be a question, but this is exactly the sort of video that Xinhua is reporting on. CGTN's (RSP entry) forced confessions are also "blatantly real" videos (inasmuch as they are verifiably videos that were taken), but that doesn't make them reliable for facts or due for inclusion in articles. We have a real and present motivation here for Xinhua to be used as a form of propaganda and, owing to the RSP entry, I don't see any reason for this to be considered reliable in this context. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

We also have a real and present motivation here for Radio Free Asia to be used as a form of propaganda. There is no reason in my mind that Xinhua cannot be used to report on the opinions of the Chinese Embassy considering that this is a self-reflective usage of the source, and the video clearly shows the plaque is still intact, so given that no western source has reported on the video in any capacity, I don't see how Xinhua's reporting in this specific situation is unreliable. Deku link (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

This isn’t reporting on the opinions of the Chinese Embassy, its reporting on a statement from a BLP who is not a part of the Chinese government. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Is it not a statement of fact that the Chinese Embassy has claimed that the plaque was relocated during renovation with a video of testimony from the Imam of the Mosque? That should be absolutely self-evident, and the overemphasis placed on sources such as Radio Free Asia over the clear existence of this video shows a heavy bias towards Western sources. Continual biblethumping over the general reliability does not change the individual reliability of this article's reporting on what has been put forth by the embassy. Deku link (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

The game of telephone you’re talking about ends with a living person. All of the statements that have been added to the page so far fall under BLP, if you think that you can craft a statement which does not fall under those restrictions you are more than welcome to try. I’ve always been saying that this specific article's reporting is unreliable in this specific context, if you’re just realizing that now I don’t know how to help you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

If you read the Radio Free Asia statement at WP:RSP, you will find that it says that there is little reason to think RFA demonstrates some systematic inaccuracy, unreliability, or level of government co-option that precludes its use. I do not see a reason why it is different in this case. Community consensus exists on this; Xinhua is fundamentally controlled by the Chinese government, while Radio Free Asia does not experience government co-option that interferes with its reliability. Arguing that they should be treated as equals in terms of credibility does not align with community consensus established through recent RfCs. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Putting aside my personal opinions that the RS discussion on RFA came to a woefully inaccurate conclusion (ignoring, among other things, RFA's tendency to grossly inflate covid statistics and fake testimonies for geopolitical reasons), this is a case by case analysis of the sourcing. RFA's claim is clearly inaccurate and inflammatory in nature, and yet we include it with in-line attribution based on a GENERAL discussion of reliability. Meanwhile, Xinhua's reporting on the Chinese Embassy and the Imam is evidently accurate (the plaque itself is shown on video), yet is rejected based on a GENERAL discussion of reliability. Deku link (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

The RfC on Radio Free Asia acknowledged that for geopolitically sensitive subjects, in-text attribution of RFA's claims is appropriate. There is an acknowledgment that in some sensitive subject areas, RFA is a biased source with a somewhat checkered record. As I pointed out in the RfC, RFA has pushed disinformation over the last year about the CoVID-19 death toll in Wuhan, suggesting completely wild figures that are orders of magnitude higher than scientific estimates. RFA recently suggested that 150,000 people may have died in Hubei province. That's over 30 times the scientific estimates, which are typically around 4500. An excess mortality study finds about 4600 excess pneumonia deaths in Hubei province during the outbreak. A study in Nature estimates a CoVID-19 death rate of 36 per 100,000 inhabitants in Wuhan, which translates to approximately 4000 deaths in total in the city. These studies (and a host of others on seroprevalence: [1] [2] [3]) all paint a consistent picture of the overall level of mortality in Wuhan and Hubei province, in the range of 4500 deaths. The figures that RFA has been pushing, as high as 150,000, are just wild conspiracy theorizing. This is the sort of reporting that led to the RfC result that in-text attribution is appropriate for RFA in geopolitically sensitive subject areas. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a WP:RS which also calls it "wild conspiracy theorizing" or is that your personal opinion? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

You don’t need an RS that directly calls a source unreliable to come to that conclusion in consensus. Cross referencing data from reliable sources clearly shows RFA inflating COVID deaths. Deku link (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. It's kind of ridiculous to ask for a source that confirms that 150,000 is way higher than 4,500. RFA's "reporting" on the number of CoVID-19 deaths in China is so out of whack with the scientific consensus that there's no way to describe it other than as "disinformation". -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

As I noted on Talk:Uyghur genocide, Bloomberg/Time, The Washington Post (1 2), The Financial Times, and France 24 have also reported on the urns story as casting doubt upon the true death tolls. In fact, WaPo gave a pretty damn similar estimate to that of RFA. Unless you believe that the The Washington Post is engaging in disinformation here, I don't think that there's much of a leg to stand on in terms of arguing against RFA's general reliability. And, as you might note, the RfC found consensus in favor RFA's general reliability; it did not note any sort of difference in quality of reporting or systemic inaccuracy that would support the conclusions that you are attempting to draw. In fact, it said quite the opposite, noting that there is little reason to think RFA demonstrates some systematic inaccuracy, unreliability, or level of government co-option that precludes its use. If you're looking to the RfC's closure for a reason to call RFA unreliable, the reasoning ain't there. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Last spring, a number of Western media sources did indeed repeat Radio Free Asia's original, wild speculation about 40,000+ CoVID-19 deaths in Wuhan. That was not a shining moment in journalism history. Just recently, Radio Free Asia has pushed an even crazier estimate - 150,000 deaths. To my knowledge, none of those outlets have repeated this new claim that RFA is pushing. And this time around, there are multiple high-quality scientific studies of CoVID-19 mortality and serorprevalence available, which make it clear that 150,000 deaths is orders of magnitude too high. RFA is engaged in outright CoVID-19 disinformation here, and I don't know why you'd defend it. Finally, you left out a very important part of the RfC on Radio Free Asia - that in geopolitically sensitive areas, in-text attribution may be appropriate. That's an admission that there are problems in these areas, and RFA's CoVID-19 disinformation is a good illustration of that. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Can you point to WP:RS or a community consensus which say that RFA publishes disinformation? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Can you stop badgering genuine concerns on reliability based on simple comparison of reported statistics with your insistent misunderstanding of when RS applies? Deku link (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Asking for a source or community consensus which supports an extraordinary claim is not badgering, however repeatedly responding to questions which where not posed to you in an aggressive manner could be interpreted as such. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

The only extraordinary claim here is RFA's suggestion that 150,000 people died of CoVID-19 in Hubei province. What I've laid out is the fact that multiple scientific studies have found death tolls around 4,500. It's a fact that RFA is pushing a vastly inflated number. If a Chinese government media outlet were to push a death CoVID-19 death toll for the US that was inflated by a factor of 30 relative to scientific studies, I have no doubt that you would consider that disinformation. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Please AGF. As in this case I would require a WP:RS to have made a clear statement about that source publishing disinformation (remember that unlike misinformation disinformation requires intent). I take it you don’t have either a community consensus or reliable source to point to which makes such a statement? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Do you really need a reliable source to tell you that an outlet created under congressional mandate funded by the USFG whose expressed intent is clearly propaganda oriented in nature grossly inflated Covid deaths not just as a harmless mistake? Dogmatically interpreting wiki policy doesn’t change any of this. Deku link (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

RFA's crazy claims about the CoVID-19 death toll in Wuhan/Hubei province are either:

1. Deliberate disinformation
2. Gross negligence and failure to do any basic fact-checking
3. Willful disregard for the truth

Take your pick. None of the options bode well for RFA's reliability though. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Its not up to me or you to “pick," we only use whats been published by WP:RS. What do reliable sources say about this issue? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

We do NOT need an RS to blatantly say a source is unreliable for the sake of reliability discussions. This is an insanely dogmatic interpretation of WP:RS and is becoming absolutely ridiculous. We have sttistics from RS that directly contradict those of RFA and Thucydides411 has demonstrated this to you several times, yet you continue to deny it. Deku link (talk) 15:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

We already have a consensus on reliability for RFA, the consensus is that they’re reliable. The extraordinary claim against consensus that they publish disinformation does actually require a source. If it "directly contradict” then a WP:RS will have noted that, if not then its not an issue for us. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an "extraordinary claim against consensus" and even in the reliability discussion their inflation of COVID deaths was discussed. This is not in contention, and the fact they were considered reliable despite this being acknowledged is (in my opinion) in great error. Deku link (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Multiple scientific studies in reputable journals (including Nature), which I've cited above, all paint a consistent picture - that approximately 4,500 people died of CoVID-19 in Hubei province. In contrast, Radio Free Asia is pushing the claim that 150,000 people died of CoVID-19 in Hubei province. I don't think I need a reliable source to tell me that 150,000 is more than 30 times higher than 4,500. It's obvious that RFA is engaged in disinformation here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mikehawk10: Your insinuation that the imam Memet Jume's interviews may be some sort of "forced confession" is belied by some basic background information on the subject. For those that are unaware of the background, Memet Jume's father, Juma Tahir, the previous imam of the Id Kah mosque, was viewed as being generally pro-government and was vocally opposed to what he saw as separatism and religious extremism. He was assassinated in 2014, very likely because he was viewed as pro-government and anti-separatist. His son, Memet Jume, is the current imam of the Id Kah mosque, and is the person whose interviews we are discussing here. There is nothing at all to suggest that Memet Jume is being forced to "confess" anything here, and his statements in the interviews are, in fact, generally in line with the views he and his father have expressed for decades.

Fundamentally, I don't think we should present this story in a one-sided manner. Radio Free Asia claimed that a plaque with religious text had been removed from the mosque. The imam of the mosque gave at least two video interviews in which he showed, on video, that the plaque had been moved to a different part of the mosque. We should not present RFA's claims (which now appear to have been perhaps exaggerated) in isolation, but leave out opposing claims by a high-profile individual involved in the story. It is fine to give in-text attribution to every statement: we can write, "In an interview with Xinhua, a Chinese state media organization, the imam of the Id Kah mosque stated that ...". Readers can make of that what they will, but we shouldn't hide it from them. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable and Undue as per Mikehawk and Horse's Eye above. Worth notinng that the imam is also a state official (imams are state-appointed and this imam is broadly a mouthpiece of the government), which might mean that state media is a reliable source, but only if we express clearly that he is a state spokesperson rather than voice of the local Muslim community. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

What is unreliable here? The imam clearly gave the interview (it's on video). The claims he's making are not in any way extraordinary. In fact, the claim by Radio Free Asia that he replies to appears to be wrong or exaggerated (as the video shows, the plaque is still on display at the mosque).

this imam is broadly a mouthpiece of the government. I'd be careful with statements like that about a living person. I'd also point out that just because the imam is generally viewed as pro-government and anti-separatist, that's no reason to censor his statements. If we're going to start systematically censoring opinions of people in China who are viewed as generally supportive of the government, we're going to have quite a task on our hands. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Re: he is a state spokesperson rather than voice of the local Muslim community. This is a rather simplistic view of the Muslim community in Xinjiang. Leaving aside the fact that there are also non-Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang, the Uyghur Muslim community itself is divided. As a Reuters article about the assassination of Juma Tahir (the father of the imam interviewed by Xinhua) points out, there is significant conflict between supporters and opponents of the East Turkestan separatist movement, and among followers of what are seen as more extremist and more moderate religious movements. The imam interviewed by Xinhua, and his late father Juma Tahir, have opposed the separatist movement and what they see as extremist religious movements. To simplify this all down and say that the imam doesn't speak for anyone in the Muslim community, and then to say that we should therefore exclude his views from an article about the mosque he runs, just strikes me as incredibly simplistic. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I simply mean that as an appointee of the government and government official he is by definition a spokesperson of the government. This means that on the face of it, as Xinhua is also generally reliable for the views and positions of the Chinese government and its officials, Xinhua can be used - but our readers will not necessarily understand that the imam is an official of the government without us making that clear, so it's not clear-cut. If we don't consider him a government official, then he counts as BLP: Caution should be exercised in using this source, extremely so in case of... biographies of living people. But I think both these considerations are overshadowed by the fact that the Chinese government is a stakeholder in a dispute: 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. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I find it ironic that you raise BLP concerns in one breath, but in another breath refer to the imam as a mouthpiece of the government, an extremely insulting characterization. Whether you think he's being taken advantage of by state media, or whether you think he's some sort of government mouthpiece, the imam is a central figure in this story, and we shouldn't censor what he says about it.

When it comes to geopolitically-charged issues like China, Radio Free Asia has a checkered record and should only be used with caution and in-text attribution (see RFA's CoVID-19 disinformation, which I documented above). Yet we include their claim about the Id Kah mosque. We can't then simply omit a central figure's response to those claims. If we follow this sort of systematic policy of including US government media claims about geopolitically-charged issues in China, but censoring Chinese responses to those claims, we will end up with extremely biased articles. I think our readers are smart enough to see a statement such as, "In an interview with Xinhua, a Chinese state broadcaster, the imam of the Id Kah mosque stated that ..." and form their own intelligent opinions. But systematically concealing one set of views from them is not the way Wikipedia should go. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

This appears to be inherently self contradictory. The imam is a state official and Xinhua is state media and therefore it is reliable for reporting the opinions of the state and its officials, yet it is undue for the purpose of reporting the state’s opinion in this article? Deku link (talk) 14:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, let me try again if this is difficult to understand. EITHER the imam is a government mouthpiece (for which Xinhua could potentially be a reliable source, but we'd need to be clear in the article that the imam is a government official) OR it's a BLP issue (so we should steer clear of Xinhua) - either way it's a bad source. If you are arguing he's central to the story and his words as reliably quoted by Xinhua are due, then the article needs to give a clear explanation of his government links. If you're arguing he's not a government mouthpiece, then we have to avoid the source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time believing you have BLP concerns here when you repeatedly refer to the living person in question by the insulting epithet, government mouthpiece. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• While Xinhua should not be used for any Xinjiang-related facts, I think it's reliable for the position of Chinese government itself. Alaexis_¿question? 09:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable per Mikehawk and others. PRC has a general media freedom issue and Xinhua can be considered a noticeable example of that. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 11:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

This is not about the reliability of Xinhua as a perennial source, this is about the reliability of Xinhua in the case of reporting on the PRC’s own opinions as given through an embassy. Deku link (talk) 14:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• The Id Kah Mosque is a real mosque in Xinjiang and China, not just a plaything for propagandists using Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Yes, you need to cite Xinhua and the Chinese imam of the Id Kah mosque at the article Id Kah Mosque.

Right now [4] we cite a US government-funded newsource [5] and "the U.S. Department of State’s platform for communicating American foreign policy worldwide" [6] to reproduce the allegation that the Mosque has been transformed into just a tourist attraction.

However, the imam of the actual mosque itself, Memet Jume, disputes this in multiple Chinese media sources [7][8][9]. Jume's father had earlier been the imam of the mosque, prior to his assassination [10].

The fact that Mikehawk10 and Horse Eye's Back are actively trying to push this information from a US-government funded news source into China-related Wikipedia topics, while simultaneously removing all Chinese news sources and Chinese responses from these articles, shows that they don't have the objectivity to edit these articles and are engaged in WP:TENDENTIOUS editing: "a manner of editing that is partisan, biased, or skewed taken as a whole." -Darouet (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Please don’t make this personal, this may come as a shock to you but CGTN and China Daily are both deprecated. If WP:RS cover the Imam’s statement of course we can include it, but if no WP:RS cover the statement then there is simply no way to use it on wikipedia. I would also note that per WP:BLP you cant use those sources to make claims about living people, even on a noticeboard. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: China Daily is not deprecated; you may be thinking of The Global Times.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

You’re right, I misremembered the consensus (admittedly its an odd one which is extremely close to deprecation) "In this RfC, the community assesses the China Daily. The discussion below contains a lot of detail and nuance that doesn't lend itself to a pithy summary and, when future editors are making a tricky decision about the use of this source, they are encouraged to read the debate in full. There is much disagreement, and I am confident that if there were better sources for China, then the China Daily would be deprecated entirely; but a narrow majority of the community, just about amounting to a rough consensus, feels that there are so few good sources for China that it's needful for us to lower our bar. The community concludes that the China Daily may be used, cautiously and on the basis of good editorial judgment, as a source for the position of the Chinese authorities and the Chinese Communist Party; as a source for the position of the China Daily itself; as a source for facts about non-political events in mainland China, while noting that (a) the China Daily's interpretation of those facts is likely to contain political spin, and (b) the fact that the China Daily doesn't report something doesn't mean it didn't happen; and, with great caution, as a supplementary source for facts about political events of mainland China (supplementary meaning that the China Daily shouldn't normally be the sole source for these things). Editors agree that when using this source, context matters a great deal and the facts should be separated from the China Daily's view about those facts. It would be best practice to use plenty of in-text attribution as well as inline references when sourcing content to the China Daily.” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

It’s hard not to “make things personal” when both users mentioned have actively participated in several China related articles for the sole purpose of eradicating any mention of a Chinese perspective (this entire reliability conflict started when @Mikehawk10 decided to remove the cited Xinhua content from the article simply because it was mentioned on another talk page as being in conflict with an article he created, and proceeded to also add extraordinary claims to it mentioned in few sources, not to mention when RFA was also mentioned on the talk page of the same article he immediately went and altered the lede of its article contrary to the ongoing talk page consensus). Furthermore, you continue to make fallacious use of wiki policy (such as calling into question the competence of and borderline hounding other users over the American usage of “lede” and repeatedly insisting that you somehow need an RS for every claim made in talk page discussions) and generally berate other users with a thick degree of sarcasm. When someone enters the conversation and rightly observes that there may be a significant bias given your preference towards western sources and quick removal of Chinese sources (even those not deprecated), they're not the ones "making it personal." Many people involved in conversations with you across multiple talk pages have stressed how hard you make it to assume good faith. Deku link (talk) 18:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

The notion that I go around and edit for the sole purpose of eradicating any mention of a Chinese perspective throughout my editing on China-related articles is simply false; my goal in editing these articles is to improve them by adding appropriate sources and by removing content that is dubiously sourced and/or WP:UNDUE. I am more than happy to incorporate the Chinese perspective into my editing, when the perspective can be reliably sourced and would constitute due weight. In the case for this particular article, the question is regarding whether to include information from a Tweet that has been covered by Xinhua. WP:RSPTWITTER states that Tweets that are not covered by reliable sources are likely to constitute undue weight. Xinhua is not a reliable source with regards to topics in which the Chinese government is a stakeholder, and thus the tweet isn't covered by a reliable source simply because Xinhua has covered it, so I think I am reasonable in arguing that the tweet constitutes undue weight.

If you believe that there are behavioral issues here, feel free to take it to the appropriate noticeboard (WP:AN or WP:ANI), but please do not cast aspersions on this page or attack my motives by claiming that there is a malicious "sole purpose" behind my edits (and don't attack another editor by attacking their motives here either; that isn't what this board is for). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Darouet: Please do not cast aspersions here. Do you believe that my addition of information from WP:GREL sources on relevant topics is "skewed" in light of previous reliability discussions on this board? If you believe that there are behavioral issues, the place to discuss them would be the appropriate noticeboard (either WP:AN or WP:ANI)—not here on the reliable sources noticeboard. If not, I would ask you to take back the part of your statement that is a direct attack against my character as an editor. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable/propaganda for any claims related to Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, such as the claim under discussion. This is according to consensus in previous discussion linked at the top [11]. Is it reliable in general? Of course not, although it probably might be used for noncontroversial non-political info. My very best wishes (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Could you please explain how it is unreliable for reporting on a video that as clear as day was posted by the Chinese embassy and clearly shows the imam giving testimony? Deku link (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable in context. This is clearly the sort of thing there is a consensus against using Xinhua for. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean by "unreliable"? There's a video of the interview. There's not even a shadow of a doubt that the imam said what Xinhua reports him to have said. So what specific factual claim are you saying is unreliable? -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Was the video of the interview published by a reliable source? If not its literally useless for our purposes. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

You have a very dogmatic and restricting view of wikipolicy if you believe that this is true. Deku link (talk) 15:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

If you can point me to something that says we can use videos from unreliable sources I’m more than willing to expand my "dogmatic and restricting view of wikipolicy.” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Taking a perennial source consensus (which is a general guideline) as the end all be all gospel for including information is already dogmatic. Deku link (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Horse Eye's Back, you are WP:BLUDGEONING. Besides being against Wikipedia policy seeing you repeat the same points over and over is tedious and boring. I am asking you nicely to drop the WP:STICK. If you continue this behavior I will seek a topic ban. Note that I am not saying that you are wrong or that you are right. I am saying that you made your point. Give someone else a chance.

User:Deku link, you are getting close to bludgeoning. You don't have to respond to everything Horse Eye's Back posts. Give someone else a chance. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for my behavior. I've gotten quite heated on this topic and similar ones and might need to take a break. Deku link (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think I am but I will respect your opinion. I will however note that per policy we are instructed to "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources.” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of the twitter video with attribution as a primary source as per WP:PRIMARYCARE. A mosque would be most analogous to the business example on the page, which states primary sources are acceptable for "simple, objective descriptions." Whether a plaque is in place or not is both simple and objective (and controversial, but that is unmentioned). WP:ABOUTSELF similarly says "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves." We should be careful when using primary sources, especially a clearly biased one like this, but in this situation they are allowed with attribution. In such a controversial example, the best thing to do would be to report what the primary source has to say on the subject. Zoozaz1 talk 16:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
• Include. Xinhua is a reliable source for this type of information; it is one of the main news agencies in the country, and other reliable sources regularly rely on its reporting. In-text attribution is probably a good choice in this context, given the controversy. To include the Radio Free Asia claim but omit Xinhua's reporting on the issue would make a mockery of WP:NPOV. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 06:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable Xinhua is under the control of the People's Republic of China, which routinely disappears people who hold the wrong opinion. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
• Include. Xinhua obviously carries water for the Chinese government, but RFA—constrained by extremely restrictive conditions on reporting in the region imposed by the Chinese government—made a straightforward, factual claim about a feature of a landmark, and Xinhua provided video evidence against that claim. Unlike interviews with factory workers and whatnot, it is much entirely plausible that someone chosen as the head of a major mosque (who undoubtedly underwent serious political vetting) is making that counterclaim absent coercion. We can never know for certain, but to leave out such a glaringly obvious counterexample to RFA's reporting cannot but appear non-neutral. If we reject Xinhua's inclusion here, there seems to be absolutely no reason that we could ever include anything stated by Chinese sources, even in cases where western reporting is factually incorrect, and there are no doubt examples where that is the case, even if the thrust of western reporting is overall more accurate than PRC propaganda. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 01:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
• Include in this case. Sate-controlled media is reliable for both the opinions of the controlling state and uncontroversial matters of fact. This seems to be a case where the opinion of western sources and the opinion of Chinese sources differ about a matter of fact (the location of a plaque), presenting only one of those opinions would lead to a biased article. There is also no credible reason to believe that the opinion of a generally pro-Government religious leader that paints the government in a favourable light has been misreported by a pro-government outlet, but even if they have that this is the pro-government opinion is directly relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 11:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment, I would like to note that since the opening of this discussion the moving of the plaque inside has been reliably sourced (to The Art Newspaper). RFA says the sign was removed from its place at the front of the building but does not specify what happened to it, Xinhua says the sign was removed from its place at the front of the building and moved inside for conservation/preservation, The Art Newspaper says it was moved inside. At least on the plaque I’m not actually seeing significant daylight between RFA, Xinhua, and The Art Newspaper. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The significant daylight would be that RFA is claiming the plaque was removed for the purposes of nefarious repression, while The Art Newspaper claims it was just moved inside (but not why), and Xinhua claims it was moved inside due to preservation and erosion from weathering (which, for the record, is supported by photographs of the mosque pre-move and the video footage of the plaque outside the prayer hall now restored after the restoration). Paragon Deku (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable, but for reasons more nuanced than those presented by Horse Eye's Back and Mikehawk10. Many of the users opposing inclusion have made arguments based on the general reliability of Xinhua as evaluated by past community consensus. While past community consensus is important, there is always room for flexibility, local consensuses, and editorial discretion to override the community consensus for a particular usage of a source. Those in favour of inclusion have made arguments based on the additional verifiability provided by the inclusion of video evidence of the plaque and the imam's testimony, arguments that were not sufficiently refuted by appeals to consensus on general reliability. To really justify excluding Xinhua, we need to also look at ways in which its general lack of reliability might compromise this specific usage of the source. It is true that there is a video interview with the imam, but it could be that the imam was coerced (which is possible, even for pro-government religious leaders, given the recent sentencing of Uyghur education officials over trumped up charges relating to textbooks), or that the imam shown in the video was in fact an actor. Similarly, it is true that we have video evidence of the plaque being in the mosque, but it could have been temporarily moved back there for the video. Since it is above Wikipedia's pay grade to evaluate the reliability of a primary source video, to say that the video is reliable would therefore be WP:OR. This is how Xinhua's lack of general reliability affects its specific reliability in relation to this article.--DaysonZhang (talk) 20:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

This is starting to veer into conspiracy-theory territory. The imam in the video is not an actor. Memet Jume is reasonably famous, has given interviews to various media, and the person in the Xinhua video is indeed him. We can state that he gave the interview in Xinhua, a state news outlet. That would be fully appropriate, so that readers can judge for themselves how to view the imam's statement. However, there is no doubt that this is an interview with the real Memet Jume. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable. I have seen way in my life too many staged videos in Communist government-run media. That said, the plaque incident seems way too trivial for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Do we normally document when plaques are removed from buildings across the world? — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

  In most cases no, but when the movement of a plaque generates significant comment in multiple sources from multiple countries it's clear that this is not most cases. Other examples of our covering the moving and/or removal of plaques include Silent Sam, Jonas Noreika#Legacy and controversy and Statue of Jefferson Davis (Frankfort, Kentucky). Thryduulf (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable and should be deprecated together with China Daily. Reasons have been given in this previous discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 323#Xinhua News Agency. Normchou ^💬 21:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • As has been noted multiple times above, this is not a discussion about the general reliability of the source, it is a question about the reliability for a very specific instance. China Daily is completely irrelevant here, as are calls for deprecation. Thryduulf (talk) 08:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    • The mere fact that Xinhua is mentioned above is a sufficient condition for the "unreliable" categorization, as well as for a renewed call for deprecation, regardless of any very specific instance. What else would Wikipedians expect from a propaganda outlet? Independent news reporting? Normchou ^💬 21:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
      • What else would Wikipedians expect from a propaganda outlet? accurate reporting of the views of the organisation that it publishes propaganda for, accurate reporting of facts that support and/or are neutral regarding the viewpoint espoused by the propaganda, and similar. The publication has not been judged "unreliable" or even "generally unreliable" it has been judged to publish accurate reporting in some areas, biased reporting in other areas and unreliable reporting in yet others - There is no consensus for applying any one single label to the whole of the agency.. All this means that there are occasions, like this one, where we need to examine how reliable it is for a specific claim, trying to re-litigate the reliability of the whole publication (which there is no evidence has changed since the recent discussion) is at best pointless and at worst a bad faith attempt to obstruct consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 09:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
        • In addition to not WP:AGF (cf. "a bad faith attempt to obstruct consensus"), the above user seems to indicate that they are totally fine with a propaganda outlet and its overarching goal as long as they deem something from it to be "accurate" (cf. "accurate reporting of the views of the organisation that it publishes propaganda for"), a view on its own that appears to be diametrically opposed to WP:SOAP. Normchou ^💬 04:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

          Perhaps you should stop thinking this is some sort of conflict between you and them and maybe objectively think about what Thryduulf said? You say he does not assume good faith, yet in the same sentence you accuse him of peddling for a "propaganda outlet and its overarching goal", all the while ignoring the good point he made. As I see it, you have not presented any issues you have with the article presented, your only problem is that it comes from a propaganda outlet. If Xinhua made an article calling the world round would you start believing otherwise? CPCEnjoyer (talk) 12:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

          @Normchou: Firstly you will note that my comment about faith was one end of a range of possibilities, but if you feel attacked by that then perhaps you should examine what your motives are? As for the source, if what they are reporting is accurate why would we not include it? By definition any propaganda outlet must be a reliable source for the views those who are espousing the propaganda want promoted (because to be otherwise requires either editorial independence from those setting the propaganda message or such gross incompetence that even a student newspaper editor would be sacked). Thryduulf (talk) 13:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

      • Despite my insistence several times that this is about a SPECIFIC usage of the source, a large swathe of editors seem to have seen the word Xinhua, dropped an "unreliable" without a second thought, and left the discussion based only on perennial discussions that have taken place before. Overall this and the globe discussion below have greatly diminished my faith in the process as it stands. Paragon Deku (talk) 01:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
• I support inclusion, I feel that people who respond to queries like this should take more time to evaluate the actual proposition and not immediately jump to conclusions. I have noticed some people also claim that the person was coerced and that it is a staged video without any proof and somehow believe that they have made a constructive argument. You could make this baseless accusation against anything that contradicts your views. I do not see a reason to not include this article, especially if the reported situation is verifiable by anyone. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
• I support for inclusion, per previous discussion. I am poor in English, so I will quote opinions of someone else to prove my opinion. In my opinion, for official facts and most news in China and abroad, Xinhua is generally reliable. Xinhua News Agency, covering a wider range of news, is cited and quoted in a wide variety of other reliable sources. Xinhua's job is to tell facts, not to propoganda. Even among news organizations sponsored by the government, there has been strong competition for years due to China's market economy. If you make mistakes in your reports, you will be ridiculed by readers.

“ I need to point out that, in cases such as "China's industrial output further expands in November" like what Normchou has named above, Xinhua is the primary source just like China's statistics bureau, Xinhua's role is irreplaceable when making such announcements on official statistics and press releases because this is one of the main roles Xinhua was designated for when it was founded. …… When serving as Beijing's "telegraph operator" for announcements, Xinhua is the ultimate primary source.
In addition to El. D, besides AFP, Xinhua also has collaborations and image exchange agreements with AP, Reuters, Japan's Kyodo News Agency, and several more, and Xinhua has been supplying images to the AP since the 70s. On an unrelated note, CCTV/CGTN also has image/video footage exchange agreements with CNN, and you can definitely see CCTV's footage being used on CNN, while CNN is cited as sources on CCTV. Also, I do consider that the Guardian's article on Xinhua is nonsense. That Xinhua's press release which shamelessly praised Xi Jinping is essentially what you would have been expecting from Xinhua. Firstly, on high Chinese officials, Xinhua does release official profiles for them (which may shade negative news or imperfections of them). Secondly, when it comes to Xi Jinping, do except Xinhua praising him like North Korean media praising Kim Jong-un. Thirdly, Xinhua's English service may not run stories of Xi's personality cult as often as its Chinese version, and that's probably what makes the Guardian's journalist surprised, but hell they run tons more of such propaganda stories every day in Chinese and that also includes CCTV on its prime time news program Xinwen Lianbo. Xinhua has been running such stories all the time, and getting surprised by them most likely indicates that the Guardian's journalist needs to consume more Chinese state media to get an idea of how they behave.

Continuing from my remarks above, on domestic stories of China, Xinhua has always been the one praising the government - both Beijing and the locals - although it doesn't mean Xinhua's stories are all fake. Xinhua also rarely does investigative journalism (note by 悔晚斋: acturally most investigative journalism by Xinhua is made through its own newspaper agency, the Xinhua Daily Telegraph.), but its Chinese-languaged, civilian-targeting stories and those which are published on magazines operated by Xinhua can be critical to governments. On February 27, when China's economy started to recover from Covid and there has been few outbreaks outside China, Xinhua praised Shenzhen's economic recovery, but on the same day, another more liberal media National Business Daily (note by 悔晚斋: owned by Chengdu Municipality, which with sole responsibility for its own profits or losses.) saying Shenzhen was slower compared to other cities in recovering. Xinhua and other liberal media drawing opposite conclusions on the same matter is not new - it is something expected, and even encouraged by China's media censors.

Xinhua is the one who praises Beijing in the most traditional and North Korean-like way while passing Beijing's message to the world, and they also do some international coverages; China Daily is the one who focuses mostly on China's domestic affairs and rarely controversial; Global Times (English version) is the tabloid who yelling around; CGTN can be considered as the Chinese equivalent of RT, but CGTN spark far fewer contriversies and falshoods than RT and has fairly good coverages on Africa, while allowing mild criticism on Beijing. This is why it isn't fair to compare Xinhua to Russia's Sputnik, which its main purpose is to spread propaganda, but Xinhua isn't - however, the Global Times is. I'll probably talk about Xinhua's international coverages later. It is naive to assume all of these official media are tightly controlled by the CCP, and everything the media said is subject to their censorship. They need different media to serve different roles. Although, admittedly, I don't have much experience here on English Wikipedia, but just know what you are dealing with, use common sense and existing guidelines such as "Perennial sources," don't fall for obvious craps on China's human rights or Covid conspiracies, and I think Xinhua is perfectly fine.

” — Techyan（Talk）

• --悔晚斋 (talk) 02:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Include on an WP:ABOUTSELF basis, even if Xinhua was deprecated (which it is not), they are still allowed to be used when citing the Chinese government's response to something, which this is a clear case of. We should leave it up to the reader to decide if they want to believe RFA or the Chinese government. Not allowing someone to defend themselves when they are being accused of something is WP:UNDUE. Jumpytoo Talk 20:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
• Include - there has been extensive discussion about the innate (and understandably) anti-China bias that english-language sources have, and previous RfCs have established that we need to be particularily careful not to allow that bias to distort our own writing on article space, in particular, the need to include the attributed views of the Chinese state. Including the Xinhua rebuttal, with a clear attribution that it is from Xinhua would accomplish that goal. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 19:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• Generally reliable, but that doesn't matter here This dispute appears to have originated with blatantly WP:TENDENTIOUS editing by anti-Chinese (or perhaps anti-Beijing or anti-CPC) users questioning an easily verifiable fact because said fact didn't agree with their POV. They used the Chinese government's stake in one of the cited sources as a pretext to make a stink about it. This is barely even a content dispute, and certainly is not one that should be allowed to forever influence how we cite this or that particular source. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Do you really believe that Normchou, Kashmiri, DaysonZhang, Horse Eye's Back, Adoring nanny, My very best wishes, Solavirum, Bobfrombrockley, and I are anti-Chinese users and that we are supposedly all editing towards a goal of violating WP:NPOV? If not, I'd ask you to please strike the relevant parts of your statement. As I've said before, it isn't appropriate to cast aspersions against other editors on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you believe that there are behavioral issues here, it would be best to take it to WP:AN or WP:ANI. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:34, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

The real question is this: do you really believe it's appropriate to misquote me (replacing anti-Chinese (or perhaps anti-Beijing or anti-CPC) users with anti-Chinese users) and ping more than a half-dozen users I did not name? I'm generally an RSN minimalist (as, I believe, are virtually all long-term users of this noticeboard): I look at the specific nature of the dispute that prompted the thread, and if I see nothing there (as was the case here -- Xinhua was apparently being used as a source for a claim that is still in a "non-disputed" section of the article attributed to The Art Newspaper) I point this out, and only if I see a systemic problem with a particular, highly problematic, source, will I point this out and request that said source be "deprecated" or the like: here, Xinhua was cited for an uncontroversial, objectively true statement, and some users appear to be making a huff over it because they apparently do not like the fact that this statement is true and is supported by multiple independent media outlets. Anyway, I would appreciate it if you would read my comment as I wrote it rather than deliberately misquoting it, pinging in a bunch of unrelated editors to read your misquoting of it, and bringing up a bunch of unrelated drama boards: this feels very much like you are seeking any excuse to deliver a "gatcha" to me rather than actually improve the encyclopedia. Also, when multiple editors are accusing you of bludgeoning the discussion,[12] maybe try not doing what you have done here, essentially pinging back in several people who haven't commented here in weeks in the hope of pummelling users who disagree with you into submission. And if you must repeatedly respond to multiple people, please focus on content. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Won't you agree that it's a bit lame to blame Wikipedia editors for how Chinese state agencies function, and that their "facts" are often not what we call facts here? — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that matters in this context. I wouldn't "trust" Xinhua in my real life, but I also wouldn't trust Kotaku: Wikipedia has lower standards than I do. In this context, it seems like the fact(s?) cited by Xinhua was also easily verified in other sources, perhaps even before this noticeboard discussion was opened (Do I need to the legwork to verify that? I didn't actually make such a claim until after multiple users had started to needlessly dog me on the matter.). I suspect many people commenting in this discussion do not speak Chinese (I don't; I can read a certain amount because of my studies of modern Japanese and classical Chinese) or even know a whole lot about Islam: from my perspective, it makes sense that the crescent moon and star would be controversial within Islam and that a mosque in China and Central Asia dating to the 15th (or 10th?) century might not want to put up a standard that originated with the Christian Byzantine Empire and was later appropriated by some Muslims within the former Byzantine territories (including, notably, the Ottoman Empire) for reasons completely unrelated to government pressure or force, but this content is attributed to the aforementioned Art Newspaper and not to Xinhua. But why are we talking about this? Why am I defending my own general sourcing standards and view that Wikipedia should maintain not just a minimal standard of "verifiability" based on semi-reliable sources but also a high degree factual accuracy and balance? I just wanted to answer the question posed, and I am now being harangued by multiple editors, seemingly for no reason other than that four months ago I pointed out that our article on The Holocaust doesn't contain images of "random Hungarian Jews". that have nothing to do with the Holocaust. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the fact that Kashmiri hadn't commented on this discussion beyond leaving a !vote two weeks ago, and that he/she obviously was not one of the people I was referring to in my original comment (never having edited Talk:Id Kah Mosque) is proof enough of the disruptiveness of the above mass-pinging. How many of the other seven editors never edited the mosque talk page before this discussion and therefore clearly had nothing to do with my original comment? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Not reliable Xinhua is a controversial source and it's not used on Wikipedia for controversial topics involving the Chinese government. Radio Free Asia is a separate discussion but its use in the article is similarly not ideal. Spudlace (talk) 02:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  In at least most controversial topics involving the Chinese government NPOV requires us to at least note what the Chinese government's position on the matter is. Xinhua is a reliable source for the attributed opinions of the Chinese government. Thryduulf (talk) 12:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• Include as an attributed statement of the Chinese government's position - This is what Xinhua is there for. Looking above I see a lot of people responding as though this were a general reliability RFC, because at this point that has become what this page is about to a lot of people here. This isn't a general reliability RFC, you've got to look at the context, and the context here is that Xinhua is not being used to support a statement of fact in the voice of Wiki. FOARP (talk) 07:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Not-An-RfC on RfCs

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

Before raising an RfC please consider the following:

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

Opinions (Not-An-RfC on RfCs)

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

Discussion (Not-An-RfC on RfCs)

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

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

Criterion 2. is fine as is.

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

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

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

Recommendations for those answering RfCs:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• As this came to mind while replying elsewhere, I wonder if we can point to the Ad Fontes media bais chart [13] and note that we are pretty much never going to question the block of sources that sit at its apex (those it ranks "Fact Reporting" or better and fall within "Middle" on bias - eg the ones that Ad Fontes has outlined as Reliable) those stress that that bias chart does change over time and sources can move in or out of that range. There can be singular article/events with one of these sources (as to be discussed at RS/N but that doesn't impact the reliability of the source overall. --Masem (t) 18:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
• The only issue I might see for "obvious" unreliable cases is that it would make it a bit more difficult listing them at RSP, unless we'd be willing to alter the existing procedures there. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

UAE news outlets: Gulf News and thenationalnews.com

• Gulf News
• thenationalnews.com

I've noticed that most UAE-related articles source content to these news outlets. I strongly suspect that these outlets are not independent of the authoritarian regime in the UAE. For example, this is how Gulf News describes Sulaiman Al-Fahim, a convicted grifter who pretends to have a PhD[14] and has close ties with the authoritarian regime in Dubai:

• At 31, Dr Sulaiman Abul Kareem Mohammad Al Fahim's achievements rival those of seasoned professionals twice his age. Today, his seemingly boundless energy is directed at building new ventures. What drives this former child prodigy, chess champion, entrepreneur, philanthropist and academic to generate ideas, pursue opportunities and turn them into successful enterprises?

Basic fact-checking would have shown that he does not have a PhD (as the NY Times confirmed with a phone call[15]) and the article completely omits any relationship with the authoritarian regime (which should matter for success in business). I'm raising flags about these outlets in cases anyone checks them in the future here. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

UAE has censorship, and the media are not considered free in the country.

As for Gulf News Apparently the managing director of Gulf News's parent company is the minister of finance of UAE and is chairman of UAE state telecom company, so I would absolutely not expect impartiality from that resource.

It even seems the source has not checked the webpage of the grifter, which says he doesn't have a PhD, only an MBA.

The National seems to be even worse, as it was created in 2008 by the UAE government and is now owned by a company controlled by deputy prime minister of UAE, who is a royal family member.

I therefore confirm your suspicions. The problem is - what is the alternative? I can't think of a good enough resource to cover UAE. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki: There is Pakistani media, which I flagged above with regards to geo.tv. That covers the UAE quite frequently, although questions have been raised about the reliability of Pakistani media also. I'd appreciate more opinions. IronManCap (talk) 19:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I guess one of the easiest steps would be to remove content sourced to these outlets that is used for self-serving puffery. For example, content that emphasizes that various UAE government figures promote human rights, how they are responsible for economic prosperity, all the awards they have won, and all the bodies that they've headed. I've been trying to remove some absurd sentence in the lead of Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum which says "He created the Maktoum Award for World Peace in 2011", as if it were some notable prize. It's sourced to "www.emirates247.com". No luck with that because editors insist that it's sourced to a RS and thus belongs on the page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed to what you say. emirates247 is owned by Dubai Media Inc., which is wholly owned by the Government of Dubai. It is very strange they insist on it being reliable when it patently isn't, particularly when talking of the UAE royal family. Basically every government-owned (either federal govt or emirate-owned) media resource in UAE seems to be more or less the same quality as the Chinese/Russian government-owned media (i.e. OK when citing government positions, or some, dunno, sports and other uncontroversial subjects; unusable otherwise), but I can't make a distinction between various media outlets and between Arabic-language and English-language coverage, as I don't know Arabic (meaning which resources may be admissible for most circumstances and which are to be deprecated).

I can't contribute much to the topic (it's not my area of interest), but from what I see you wrote on the talk page, yes, I wholeheartedly support it. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Gulf News and The National aren't RS? Where did this come from? They're national daily newspapers in a UN member state. What about Khaleej Times, Gulf Today, Ittihad, Bayan and Emarat Al Youm? Why exclude them? It would take some experience, I would have thought, in the Emirates' media sector to produce reliable commentary and assessment of the various media outlets here. There's a lot of POV going on here from Snooganssnoogans and its showing in the edits being made - "an authoritarian regime in the UAE where human rights violations are severe and systematic, and Emiratis and residents are forcibly disappeared, arbitrarily detained and tortured for criticizing the regime" is typical fare - added to a BLP, might I add. So if we assume that the Evil Emirates makes North Korea look like a liberal regime (and that is the sort of level of assumption that appears to underpin the selective use of sources and attribution of weight to them), then we can assume that its media is cowed, controlled entirely by the government and therefore not admissible for WP sourcing. Except that's pretty mad, isn't it? The world's 30th largest economy should be excluded from Wikipedia because one editor is getting a severe case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT is hardly an argument that would seem to me to be terribly bright. By arguing here, with no participation from editors FROM the Emirates, that its media aren't RS, you are effectively giving POV-pushing editors carte blanche to demonise and otherwise denigrate and downgrade the UAE on Wikipedia - and that is most certainly the aim of attempting to get UAE media declared non-RS. Or am I wrong? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Where did this come from? See above explanation (UAE is not a democracy, has censorship, and both of the outlets are directly or indirectly controlled by UAE or emirate government, which significantly influences the independence, hence reliability, of reporting).

They're national daily newspapers in a UN member state. First, there is basically no country in the world which is not part of UN (well, Western Sahara isn't, but it's mostly occupied by Morocco). North Korea and Cuba are also UN member states, which doesn't mean their newspapers are fine; Chinese media mostly aren't reliable, either. You set too low a bar.

What about Khaleej Times, Gulf Today, Ittihad, Bayan and Emarat Al Youm? Why exclude them? Well, these outlets have not been under discussion here. To be brief in my answer: Khaleej Times - no opinion; Gulf Today - should be evaluated together with Khaleej Times, but otherwise no opinion (the owners are the same); Ittihad - same opinion as The National (i.e. since, according to the Arabic Wikipedia (Google-translated) it is owned by the Abu Dhabi Media company, a government-controlled company, it is almost certainly not reliable for political coverage, but might be better for other uses); Emarat Al Youm - published by Dubai Media Inc., a Dubai emirate government company, therefore same opinion as Emirates 24/7.

There's a lot of POV going on here from Snooganssnoogans and its showing in the edits being made Nope. The opinion you quote is the opinion of Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Reporters without Borders etc. See this article for details. Since there is ample evidence to the claim, it's not illegal POV-pushing.

So if we assume that the Evil Emirates makes North Korea look like a liberal regime No one is claiming UAE is worse than North Korea - in fact, it's not as abysmal, but it's not good, either. And yes, a lot of media outlets are government-controlled by ownership, while private media are subject to restrictive laws on news reporting, which are not conducive to reliable reporting.

The world's 30th largest economy should be excluded from Wikipedia because one editor is getting a severe case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT is hardly an argument that would seem to me to be terribly bright. Well, we on Wikipedia even deprecate a lot of outlets from the world's second-largest economy. Just how big the country's economy is is irrelevant.

By arguing here, [...] media declared non-RS. Or am I wrong? We on Wikipedia don't care to create a positive image for UAE, but an objective one. Unfortunately, it is often not possible to do so using domestic media. You are free to share your opinions, but do expect them to be confronted with analyses from other editors, which will often include objective criteria, such as ownership, country of operation, tone of coverage of politically delicate matters etc. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

We do, indeed, aim to create an objective picture. That includes using media sources on the ground. Yes, they are uncritical of the leadership. But I don't think your picture of a censored media governed by restrictive laws is fair these days, either. Balance is clearly always good, but we also need to make sure we don't swing the other way in our eagerness to balance things, giving WP:UNDUE weight to certain aspects of life in the Emirates. Blanket deprecating the national media is really not the way to go, IMHO. An afterthought - the media here is not used as a tool for international influence or political point-scoring like, for instance, RT or CCTV. It's domestic media covering domestic affairs for a domestic audience. And in many, many cases for WP, it's the only source editors here can use - and reliable in the vast majority of cases. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Which is exactly my concern. As I said, until we have evaluated them all on WP:RSP, I'd propose not to use them at least when describing a) whatever pertains to the royal family and their government, as their reporting will not be objective; b) whatever is written about countries on the Arabian peninsula, because, as we know, they are not particularly friendly of each other (one of the reasons I would not cite Al Jazeera in this case, even the English one); c) I'd be still cautious with the Israel coverage even when the relations have normalised; reporting on other Arab countries and Iran should also be given particular attention while citing; if possible, we should use other resources, otherwise, evaluate the plausibility and cite with attribution if the info is plausible enough. Additional considerations or exemptions may apply for other media resources, particularly if not controlled by UAE government, except for point a) from the list, because AFAIK Arab media do not have a tradition to criticise the rulers of the country in which they are in.

Also, all of the reporting has to be evaluated for neutrality and being due. What sounds like blatant promotion of the monarch, or, in the case cited, an interview/essay that was almost certainly paid for should not be included, which is of course not only the problem of UAE (it also happens in Ukraine pretty often).

I propose to use them for non-controversial news relating to domestic affairs (e.g. opening of a highway) and while reporting the stance of the government of UAE (federal or emirate), with attribution in the latter case. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

None of the UAE newspapers offer paid-for editorial outside 'special advertising supplements', which are clearly flagged as such. FWIW. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that. This article reads like as if someone has paid a bunch of dirhams to have a short biography published and then make an ad for The Hydra Executives Show. It apparently is written by Sara Sayed (at least she was the responsible editor), but just after a few paragraphs the narrator suddenly starts to speak in first person and obviously about Al Fahim, not her. He boasts about having been "fifth in the world when he was 9", which is WP:EXTRAORDINARY (and we don't know which tournament allowed people from around the world at such a young age - it's simply non-verifiable). He does mention having received a PhD, but oddly enough his personal webpage is silent on that (why?). Nothing about fraud. And a lot about his show. For instance, it is indicated twice that the winners gonna get a million bucks, with the second mention appearing to be taken from a draft version (really, it looks awful). Ms Sayed should have known better, even if she's freelance.

In short, that's what we in music call payola (in this case, for The Hydra Executives Show). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The comments by Alexandermcnabb seem confused as to what reliability entails. Reliability is not determined on the basis of where a source is located. Breitbart News isn't a RS for US politics just because it's located in the US. In fact, there are many non-US news outlets that are far more reliable for US politics than Breitbart. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

No confusion here. Brietbart has an extreme agenda - you yourself used the phrase, "Arab media do not have a tradition to criticise the rulers of the country in which they are in" and that's very true. Beyond that, UAE media are generally (GENERALLY) not politicised or regional in their focus. And they don't have extreme or fringe motivations, they're not puppet media of the regime, they're generally let well alone to do their job: reporting news. Gulf News can get a bit purple sometimes. But that's hardly the stuff of broad deprecation. My point regarding location is that these newspapers are the only sources generally available to WP editors based in the Emirates. And they are generally sound, if perhaps also generally uncritical. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I think their coverage is almost always highly politicized... What it is not is polarized because that requires the toleration of at least one opposing political group. If you want an example of why we can’t use Gulf News see their coverage related to Latifa Al Maktoum... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, these are obviously reliable. I suggest everyone here tread carefully, so others don't assume that this is thinly veiled racism and/or Islamophobia. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable for uncontroversial statements of fact but I would not use them in any area where there is a conflict of interest based on their ownership, for all intents and purposes neither of these organizations has real editorial independence. Unreliable areas would include human rights, civil rights, Emirati royal families, international relations, national security, and all BLP. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
• Um, no one said a thing about racism or Islamophobia until you tried to play that card, Mister Emir of Wikipedia. The media in question are not being singled out because of the ethnicity of who controls them, they are being called out for their failure of reliable sourcing policy. ValarianB (talk) 12:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  I am not playing any card. Editors are deeming sources as unreliable based on a single article from The New York Times. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

A good example of the kinds of problems that have been highlighted in this discussion is the Mohammed bin Rashid Global Initiatives article, which was created and primarily written by Alexandermcnabb. The sourcing in the article is near-exclusively to non-independent sources and is incredibly laudatory towards a philanthropy organization run by Dubai's authoritarian leader. Readers can learn things such as the organization "benefitting 69 million" people and that there are "90,000 volunteers" in the organization. The source for the latter is literally the dictator of Dubai himself (the source for the former claim is a dead link). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the article reads like advertising. Given that even Alexandermcnabb admits the Arab world media are normally uncritical towards their rulers and monarchs, we cannot consider coverage from the Gulf News or the National and like news outlets to be impartial in their coverage. It badly needs rewriting, but let a person with good knowledge of Arabic and media do it. (Note. A template was inserted) Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Alexandermcnabb: were you planning to mention that both of those outlets have published full length features on you? Because thats the sort of COI that needs disclosing... [16][17]. Especially given how, ahem, strident your arguments have been. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Ooh, lookie! I'm notable!!! A newspaper interviews me and I have a lifelong COI barring me - someone who has spent the last 35 years in the Middle East media industry - from discussing Emirati media as a result? That's reaching pretty hard, there. You'll also find Dubai TV, Dubai Radio, the BBC and ITV have interviewed me. So I can't discuss them objectively either? As for the MBRGI article, sourced "near-exclusively to non-independent sources", you're calling Gulf Business, Gulf News, What's On, The National, Forbes Middle East, Saudi Gazette and Khaleej Times, all cited as backing non-controversial statistics, all non-independent? That leaves UAE based editors unable to source any article about pretty much anything - and it's a nonsense. BTW, if the organisation had benefitted 69 million people, please educate me and tell me what's wrong with saying 'the organisation benefitted 69 million people'??? Or are we in the old territory of that well-worn trope: 'nothing the Arab world can do could possibly be good'? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

No one was saying you’re barred from anything, but you should have mentioned it in your first post here. Something along the lines of “BTW both have written fawning feature length pieces about me but my opinion is not influenced by that.” would have been appropriate. Why did you feel that it was appropriate to invoke your long experience in the area and not mention your explicit connection to these two papers? If you’re going to trade of the credibility gained by using your real identity and repeatedly referring that experience in conversation then yeah, you should disclose pretty obvious potential COIs in those same conversations. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I took a stab at removing the most brazen kind of puffery from the article [Mohammed bin Rashid Global Initiatives] but it was immediately restored by Alexandermcnabb[18]. I thought there was an agreement that at the very least we shouldn't source brazen puffery sourced non-independent news outlets. For example, claims that the dictator's philanthropy "benefitted 69 million" people and had "90,000 volunteers" are extraordinary, and require high-quality sourcing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

This is all getting very personal, is it not? Fawning feature length pieces? That's terribly subjective - but then so much of the strongly expressed opinion flying around here is. I'm not trading on the credibility of using my real identity, I just use my real identity. I'm not ashamed of me. As for repeatedly referring to my experience, I don't believe I have. It was other editors who decided to Google me and bring these interviews to the table. I'm not sure how far down that ad hominem road you go before you're WP:HOUNDING an editor who disagrees with you, but it would be patently ridiculous (as well as obnoxious) for me to preface every conversation I have about the region with lists of media I have worked with, been interviewed by or have had reviews - fawning or otherwise - of my books or other work published by. I've worked in the region's media industry since 1986 - you can assume I have had some sort of personal connection with each and every medium in the region and beyond. So where is that a COI? It's like complaining that a horse trainer can't comment on horses because they've worked at stables. The 'brazen puffery' in the MBRGI article, incidentally, is plain fact sourced from the annual report of a philanthropic organisation. Beneficiaries and volunteers sourced to a charity's own annual report would strike me as perfectly everyday. Unless you're on a crusade and lack sufficient balance to be a safe pair of hands when editing an encyclopaedia, for instance. Repeatedly referring to Maktoum as a 'dictator' would seem to be, to me, an indicator that such balance is lacking. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

If you keep this up you’re looking at a topic ban or worse. Of course you’re trading on the credibility of using your real identity... You do it every time you mention your work experience, years in the region, etc which you do pretty much every day. What else do you call “define systematic and severe. I've worked in the region for 35 years and lived here in the Emirates for over 28 years, working mostly in media here. I've never seen these 'systematic and severe' violations. I've never even seen one. I must be wholly blind or perhaps there's another narrative not quite as fund-raisingly eye-catching as that presented - based on a tiny number of alleged cases - by Amnesty, HRW and Freedom House. Huge improvements have been made here - particularly under Mohammed - but you're so keen to wield the bludgeon, you're not even looking at that more nuanced picture. And that's, honestly, a shame.”[19]. That really looks like you’re trying to use your personal credibility backed by your real identity to cast doubt on the reporting of a whole host of WP:RS, you realize that right? BTW I didn’t google you, I found those articles because you feature them prominently on your blog which you feature prominently on your wikipedia account. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• In the specific example context of Sulaiman Al-Fahim, it shouldn't be considered a reliable source. On the other hand, I'm reluctant to further deprecation of national media outlets, which are valuable sources for many topics. MarioGom (talk) 23:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  Context does matter. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Salomon Morel

I have been locked out of editing for Salomon Morel, who was a Jewish man whose family was murdered in the Holocaust. The information on his wikipedia page is provided by Polish nationalists, and one of the sources cited is the many citations in that article is from the "Institute of National Remembrance", which is an anti-Semitic organization known to spread anti-Jewish lies and propaganda since inception.

• Unreliable', I agree with User:Genealogykid82. The Institute of National Remembrance employs facist historians who claim that the Nazi salute was a Roman practice and that its use today is acceptable [20]. Nazi salute#Origins and adoption and Roman salute describe this as fake. No positive reputation to speak of, it is a dodgy source.VikingDrummer (talk) 01:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
• We’ve discussed this before but the Institute of National Remembrance has become sketchy AF (like the Nazi kind of sketchy), I would avoid them like the plague. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with Horse Eye's Back comments, use of the Institute of National Remembrance is a Wikipedia:No Nazis situation. Poor record and reputation, to be avoided.Nyx86 (talk) 16:23, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

change.org ?

I don't know how the blacklist works exactly, but I wanted to add the change.org link as a primary source to support the secondary source on Railway Hotel, Edgware which I was updating, but it wouldn't let me. Are you really not allowed to use change.org for primary citing? Govvy (talk) 08:49, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Unreliable and undue in almost all circumstances. This would fall under user generated contents much like Vimeo, blogspot, and YouTube. A rare exception would be when it is covered in a reliable media source and it is discussed in the news article and you use it as a supplemental source, but you can not make inference or make your own analysis from what is said in it per our policy against original research. Graywalls (talk) 09:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I only really wanted to use it as a supplement source to support (Handley, Rhys (16 August 2016). "Edgware's long-abandoned Railway Hotel could be saved by petition to Historic England to bring it back into public use". Times Series. Retrieved 10 May 2021.) Which I had added in as inline. Govvy (talk) 09:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable, anyone can post a petition on change.org, no? Some dude posting on the internet is not reliable.VikingDrummer (talk) 01:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Erm, you clearly have no idea what I am talking about, obviously, no one understands how to use a primary source with a secondary source. That's the floor here. Govvy (talk) 10:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Change.org is sufficient to verify that such a petition exists, however it cannot be used to support anything to do with the likelihood of success - because anybody can start a change.org petition about (almost) anything. As there is no requirement for the person or organisation being petitioned to even acknowledge the existence of the petition, I would be extremely surprised if a petition that had no coverage in secondary sources merited any mention in an article (per WP:DUE). If you have a secondary source that mentions the petition then you don't need to use the primary source to verify its existence. Thryduulf (talk) 14:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable. It's basically a self-published source as anyone can start a petition about anything, more or less. I wouldn't even consider it a good source for verifying the petition exists; to give a reducto ad absurdum example : "In 2016, a petition was filed to legally change Donald Trump's name to Donald Stupid".<ref>[https://www.change.org/p/he-has-to-do-it-if-we-get-enough-signatures-change-donald-trumps-name-to-donald-stupid]</ref> Where a change.org petition has become worthy of note, other sources have reported it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  For the simple fact of verifying the petition's existence it's as good a source as any other. Considerations about whether we should or should not mention the petition's existence are a matter of WP:N and WP:DUE not reliability. Thryduulf (talk) 16:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  I agree with everything you say here, and it's one of my biggest bugbear about people calling a source "unreliable" when they mean "unsuitable" (admittedly I've just done it here too) ... nevertheless I still would not consider change.org to be an appropriate enough source to justify writing about it in an article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• We don't cite petitions as evidence of their own existence, for obvious reasons. We also don't link to open petitions, for equally obvious reasons. If the petition is significant we can cite reliable third party source coverage of it, if you're looking to support a fact within the text of the petition then it's WP:UGC. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

So, secondary sources supporting primary sources and vice-vesa, change.org can be used as a primary source however, but you say sparingly. So why blacklist a whole website on an unreliable technicality. That really stops it's use, you can't even link to the primary source. Feels somewhat at odds to me. Govvy (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not a technicality, change.org is literally user generated content. Anyone can set one up, about anything. But this doesn't give it any more notability, reliability etc about the topic it is discussing any more than a reddit forum does. Koncorde (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I can see how this would be a problem if it were unblacklisted - especially in the COVID-19 topic area and political areas. The use cases for legitimate citations or links to change.org are so few and far between, and the potential disruption by allowing any editor to add links, favor blacklisting. If I'm not mistaken, a legitimate use case can be whitelisted following some process, especially if requested by an established user with good reasoning. Yes, it's an onerous process, but it's necessary because the amount of work that would be needed to prevent bad links if not blacklisted is thousands of times more than the amount of work for each one good link to get whitelisted. My 2c. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• As others pointed out, Change.org is user-generated content and, as such, it is not considered a reliable source. MarioGom (talk) 23:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Help identifying these sources as reliable or unreliable

daily-beat.com

Is https://daily-beat.com a reliable or unreliable source for music articles like Wave music? talk@TRANSviada 03:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Site contains no "about us" page, no information about editorial control or fact checking, AFAICT all by-lines indicate articles are written by about 3 people, all of whom use pseudonyms. Probably not. --Jayron32 11:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

daily.bandcamp.com

Is https://daily.bandcamp.com a reliable or unreliable source for music articles like Wave music? talk@TRANSviada

Probably reliable enough. The article on Bandcamp indicates that the site has a well-regarded editor, and has articles from well-regarded music journalists. --Jayron32 11:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd be careful with this one. It's true that everyone involved has a strong background in music journalism, but they're still a music screaming service and, as far as I can tell, they exclusively cover artists on their site. I'd trust them for basic music history, elements of genres, things like that. But I wouldn't use them for, say, examples of bands within a genre because they'll all be bands on Bandcamp and that's inherently self-serving. I also wouldn't use them to establish notability. Woodroar (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd also say it depends on what content is used. Many articles already refer to Bandcamp-Daily when it comes to cultural background description or historical overview of the genre (like Vaporwave). Solidest (talk) 13:45, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Going with no. WP:UGC, WP:PRIMARY, WP:SPS. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • It's not UGC, but it is promotional content, so primary or SPS - David Gerard (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

beatportal.com

Is https://beatportal.com a reliable or unreliable source for music articles like Wave music? talk@TRANSviada

Probably not. I can find no information on the editors of the site, or on the authors of articles on it. Looks like a well-designed personal website, but I can't even figure out who runs it. --Jayron32 11:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jayron32: It is run by Beatport. I had referenced Exploring Wave, Beatport's Newest Genre (Q106528059) on Wave music which was written by Jordan Mafi, a curation manager at Beatport and a freelance writer. In Talk:Wave music#Usage of Exploring Wave, Beatport's Newest Genre (Q106528059) there was a discussion about the independence and thus the reliableness of beatportal.com for using it in that article.

talk@TRANSviada 20:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm seeing a discussion where another editor provided multiple policy-based reasons why Beatportal isn't a reliable source and you ignored all of them. Beatport and Beatportal have an inherent conflict of interest in this area, much like Bandcamp Daily. Woodroar (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@Woodroar: nah I didn't ignore them; I actually thanked the user for detailing all that. I just want multiple opinions on this and that user wrote "take it to the boards" in an edit. Simple as that. Wikipedia is a community and it's based on consensus. About Bandcamp Daily, it is used in good and featured articles such as Vaporwave and Heavy metal music.

talk@TRANSviada 10:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

datatransmission.co

Is https://datatransmission.co a reliable or unreliable source for music articles like Wave music? talk@TRANSviada 03:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Borderline. Could go either way. Site has a small staff, but they are named and a google search for the EIC Grahame Farmer shows just enough presence in reliable sources that other reliable sources consider him to be a reliable music journalist in dance and electronic music; website appears to have the advantage of age. --Jayron32 11:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

electronicbeats.net

Is https://electronicbeats.net a reliable or unreliable source for music articles like Wave music? talk@TRANSviada 03:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Not really a journalism site. It appears to be an entertainment wing of Deutsche Telekom, aka T-Mobile, and the website seems to mostly be about promoting music festivals and other events that they sponsor, as well as for artists that might appear at those events. Perhaps marginally useful as a primary source for simple statements of who performed where at what music festivals, but I wouldn't use them for anything else. --Jayron32 12:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

futuremagmusic.org

Is https://futuremagmusic.org a reliable or unreliable source for music articles like Wave music? talk@TRANSviada 03:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

About us page says they are an "Artist Services agency", and not independent journalists. Red flag. Probably more explicitly promotional than I would be comfortable with. Not an independent source; possibly useful as a primary source for uncontroversial statements about artists they promote such as release dates and tour dates, but they can't be used to establish notability and have limited use otherwise. --Jayron32 12:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

hypebeast.com

Is https://hypebeast.com reliable or unreliable source for music articles like Wave music? talk@TRANSviada 03:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Possibly reliablish. Gets some citations in other sources; founder and EIC Kevin Ma shows some recognition as well. Several of the authors of articles show that they are well-respected journalists, i.e. a former editor at Complex: [21]. --Jayron32 12:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable: per Jayron32. versacespaceleave a message! 12:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable for fashion, pop-culture, and contemporary music related topics. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable. I think source is reliable for music-related topics. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Not sure - focus looks promotional rather than even a specialist NEWSORG, About page is all about advertising and reach and not editorial, couldn't find where the editorial staff were listed. Unclear how this isn't functionally a promotional site - David Gerard (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

insightmusic.co.uk

Is https://insightmusic.co.uk a reliable or unreliable source for music articles like Wave music? talk@TRANSviada 03:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

It's a promotion/management company. Not journalist. Not reliable except as a primary source for banal information about artists they may promote. Cannot be used to establish notability or relevance. --Jayron32 12:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

ninetofiverecords.com

Is https://ninetofiverecords.com a reliable or unreliable source for music articles like Wave music? talk@TRANSviada 03:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Appears to be a promotion & management company. Not journalism. Possibly useful for basic information about artists they promote, but not to be used for anything establishing notability or relevance. --Jayron32 12:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

plasticmag.co.uk

Is https://plasticmag.co.uk a reliable or unreliable source for music articles like Wave music? talk@TRANSviada 03:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Lots of red flags for this one. Nearly everything seems to have the same byline, Rob Pringle. Appears to be a one-man show. Can't find any information about him otherwise. --Jayron32 12:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

secretshoresmusic.com

Is Is https://secretshoresmusic.com a reliable or unreliable source for music articles like Wave music? talk@TRANSviada 03:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Every byline of every article seems to be "Secret Shores". Probably a one-person project. --Jayron32 12:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

thedelimagazine.com

Is http://thedelimagazine.com a reliable or unreliable source for music articles like Wave music? talk@TRANSviada 03:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Marginal. It's been around a while, and has a Wikipedia article, The Deli, but nothing about this screams "reliable source". Website is amateurish (which does not mean unreliable, but is not a good look). Shows some citations from other sources, so they're at least a known quantity. --Jayron32 12:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

theelectrichawk.com

Is https://theelectrichawk.com a reliable or unreliable source for music articles like Wave music? talk@TRANSviada 03:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

It's a record label, not journalism. Possible primary source for basic information about artists they promote (release dates, basic bios, etc.) but cannot be used to establish notability or relevance. --Jayron32 12:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

theplayground.co.uk

Is https://theplayground.co.uk a reliable or unreliable source for music articles like Wave music? talk@TRANSviada 03:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Promotion and management agency, possibly could be used for basic, uncontroversial information but not for establishing notability and relevance. --Jayron32 12:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

vinylised.com

Is https://vinylised.com a reliable or unreliable source for music articles like Wave music? talk@TRANSviada 03:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

It's a crowdfunding site; basically kickstarter for garage bands. No. Not a reliable source. --Jayron32 12:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

youth-time.eu

Is https://youth-time.eu a reliable or unreliable source for music articles like Wave music? talk@TRANSviada 03:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Seems like a legitimate independent journalism site. It's not The Times or anything like that, but seems to have an independent editorial staff and things like that, gets some recognition from other sources. Not the best stuff out there, but not horrible. --Jayron32 12:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• Looks promotional, not a NEWSORG even on a specialist level - David Gerard (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

RfC: WikiLeaks

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

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

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

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

Voting for question 1 (WikiLeaks)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Option 2, WikiLeaks is a collection of primary sources, and it should be treated as such. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 There should be an evaluation of each Wikileaks document and be treated as a primary source. Sea Ane (talk) 12:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Voting (question 2) (Wikileaks)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion (WikiLeaks RfC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More than just authenticity of the documents comes into play when deciding whether evidence is admissible in court. There are additional considerations that have nothing to do with authenticity that may prevent documents published by WikiLeaks from being admitted as evidence. In the Chagos Islanders case in the UK, for example, the UK Supreme Court had to consider the argument that admitting the cables into evidence would breach the Vienna Convention of 1961, which establishes the inviolability of diplomatic correspondence. The UK Supreme Court eventually ruled the cables to be admissible ([22]), but this at least shows that considerations beyond authenticity can prevent documents from being admitted as evidence. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

That's a selective application of an impossible standard of accuracy, in spite of no evidence of actual tampering. Also, they do have a verification process, as noted by Burrobert earlier [23]. Alaexis_¿question? 12:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Origins of SARS-CoV-2

Please help to reconcile the contradictory claims documented at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Origins of SARS-CoV-2. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Guy Macon, I propose that anyone who responds "lab", "Wuhan" or "China virus" is banned immediately. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

The lab theory has come up again on alternative media. As long as the media refers to it as a "debunked conspiracy theory," then that's how we should report it. It's not our role as Wikipedia editors to question reliable sources although of course we are free to do so elsewhere. I would favor a ban for editors who ignore policy and guidelines in editing. TFD (talk) 04:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, to be fair, in the medical topic area on WP, we don't care what the "media refers to it as". We care what WP:MEDRS say. They don't go quite that far, but it's still considered a non-mainstream view - barely below WP:FRINGE. We've been dealing with this disruption for months - which results because we can't watch every single article that this POV can be pushed on. If people want to help us, and have a good understanding of MEDRS, it'd be appreciated. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

"alternative media" is a really nice way of saying "bullshit pseudo-science pushers". YODADICAE👽 05:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't appeal to MEDRS which may or may not apply here. MEDRS was implemented because readers might use Wikipedia articles for medical advice. Where the virus originated is not a matter of medical advice. Readers are not going to change their approach to COVID precautions, immunization or treatment based on whether the first virus came from a lab or an animal. Using scientific papers itself creates MEDRS problems because they may not keep up with an ongoing story and may have incomplete information about the alternative theory. After all, if a theory is not credible, don't expect scientists to spend a lot of time debunking it.

The section Herman Cain#Health and death has no MEDRS sources. After discussing his experience with cancer, it says he attended a rally during a pandemic without wearing a mask, tested positive for COVID and died from the disease. We didn't wait for a peer reviewed article about his illness or the pandemic to appear in a journal before mentioning this. And I accept that the degree of certainty in these sources is not as high, but it is as high as what we expect for BLPs. You might think that using news sources would allow conspiracism to creep in. But reliability and weight if used correctly would prevent that.

TFD (talk) 13:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

No. Thank goodness the crowd suggesting a ban (for wrongthink) for anyone who mentions the lab-leak or calls it anything other than a "debunked conspiracy theory" doesn't include any current admins. The Washington Post says here that "The theory, which was once highly speculative and which was downplayed by top medical experts such as Fauci, is suddenly being treated more seriously, though there is no conclusive evidence either way.". There certainly are some conspiracy theories which are about a lab leak, but that doesn't mean that all theories about a lab leak are conspiracy theories. That is logic 101. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 04:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

That particular Washington Post article cites a Washington Post editoral. The papers editoral board has long been a promoter of "lab leak" investigations, including citing the "DRASTIC" twitter lab leak conspiracy theorists, so I wouldn't give it that much weight, given that none of the Washington Post editoral board are scientific experts. It also contradicts what is written in this nytimes article from March. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

力, well, this is Wikipedia. There are two perspectives on the "lab leak": science and the nutjobosphere.

Science says that an accidental leak from a lab cannot be definitively ruled out. That's science-speak for "yeah, it probably wasn't that, but we should probably check, just to be sure, because there might be a lesson for other labs handling biohazards"

The nutjobosphere says that because a few scientists agree with the last part of the above, thus it was obviously a Chiese bioweapon, just look at all these scientists agreeing.

Wikipedians have a good deal of experience in separating the two.

Oh, and for additional shits and giggles? See this piece on how News Corp properties morphed an officially-published Chinese book expressing concern at Taiwan or the US using SARS as a bioweapon against China, into a secret leaked report obtained by the State Department showing that the Chinese planned for over five years to use SARS as a bioweapon against others. Which is why we don't take the "lab leak likely" bullshit as a good-faith contributiojn to understanding the reality of the pandemic-which-is-only-a-deadly-pandemic-when-it's-convenient-to-attack-China. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@JzG: Just a note there are a lot more perspectives than that... There are at least three different bioweapons conspiracy theories, at least four legitimate lab leak perspectives, and at least one lab leak conspiracy theory that does not involve a bioweapon. If there were just two perspectives we wouldn’t be having a tough time with this. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, oh I'm aware, I was just addressing the specifics of this issue and this publisher. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BvR 1864/14 Section 6

German original

Google translate

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

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

BvR 1864/14 Section 9

German original

Google translate

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

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

BvR 1864/14 Section 12

German original

Google translate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

News Corp

This is quite the takedown of how News Corp morphs facts into bullshit: [24].

A six-year-old book arguing that Taiwan or some other foreign actor could modify SARS to target China, becomes a "Chinese military document" then a "leaked" Chinese military document obtained by the US State Department, revealing a Chinese plan to weaponise SARS coronaviruses.

The video is by Peter Hadfield, a respectable science journalist who actually worked for News Corp at one point. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes a YouTube video from a nobody geologist post a brutal take down of such and such. Only thing missing is a fedora and skeptical somewhere on there to complete the set. Pass, lets wait for real sources. PackMecEng (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

He worked as a science journalist, but has a degree in geology. It's a good example of why the "bioweapon" claims are considered conspiracy theories, and have not been taken seriously in Wikipedia discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I't s a WP:SPS, on Youtube none the less. Honestly, if it is not something we could use as a source in an article I see no reason to use it to inform us about a source or editing policy in general. This is a waste of time. PackMecEng (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree the thread title is not the most descriptive, but it reflects poorly on News.com.au's editorial control that they claimed that a publicly available book was a leaked government document. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Well it doesnt reflect poorly. Because that would imply they have a reputation other than as lying gutter-trash to start with. It reflects their methodology. Of course that's not really of interest to anyone who buys into their methodology. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the above rebuttal is from YouTube, but the story pushed by The Australian genuinely is complete nonsense. It's been debunked by the SCMP and the Guardian. Interestingly, while looking to see what other media outlets had repeated the story from The Australian, I accidentally came across this article published by the Jamestown Foundation in 2003, which pushes the conspiracy theory that SARS (the original one, not SARS-CoV-2) comes from a Chinese bioweapons lab. Just for context, this is the very same Jamestown Foundation that more recently has been making claims that China is carrying out a genocide in Xinjiang. A report published by the Jamestown Foundation, written by Adrian Zenz, made a big splash in the media last year, and underlies a lot of the reporting on Xinjiang. Make of this what you will. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, which makes clear that claim has received non-credulous coverage in reliable sources. As for Xinjiang, there's no doubt that the Jamestown Foundation and Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation are dubious and are looking to use the Xinjiang allegations as a cudgel to attack China, and should not be cited directly. However, the claims of the abuse of Uyghurs in Xinjiang are taken much much more seriously by reliable sources such as The Guardian and BBC, which means that they can't just be dismissed as conspiracy theories, and should be treated appropriately. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:41, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The Xinjiang claims should be treated appropriately, but editors should be aware that some highly dubious sources serve as the basis of many of the more extreme claims about Xinjiang discussed of late in the Anglophone media. I've said before that I believe there are WP:SYSTEMICBIAS issues at play here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Can you give example of what you mean by "more extreme claims about Xinjiang"? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I would like to ask you not to wander too much off topic. We will discuss Xinjiang/Jamestown/Uyghurs/whatever when someone will ask us to do so. Really, there's no reason to start (n+1)st dispute from what starts like a benign topic if not specifically prompted by OP :). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The claim that 80% of "net IUD placements" in China in recent years were made in Xinjiang, for example. The claim originates from the Jamestown Foundation report written by Zenz, and it has made its way into articles in more mainstream outlets. It falls into the category of: technically correct if you go to original report and read how Zenz is defining his terms, but highly misleading and not at all what it appears to mean at first glance - so much so that quoting the statistic without explaining the details could be considered dishonest. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

SARS article from Jamestown is an article that is clearly outside their scope of expertise (that requires good geneticists to establish that, whom Jamestown does not have), and the fact The Australian cited the report (and Jamestown produced it) is only to their detriment (generally a lot of News Corp.'s outlets often haven't been in particularly good terms with the scientific consensus, though The Times (UK), as ProcrastinatingReader rightly notes, is a notable, and very good, exception). On the other hand, other, political coverage and analysis is their area of expertise. Sure, you may believe something is of dubious quality, but that should not be done based on coverage of something in which they do not specialise. If anything, what it only shows is that they are shit outside their area of expertise, which is not news for most of such outlets. But that's really OT, and we shouldn't be going too far into it. We may discuss it later, when the appropriate topic comes again, as it inevitably will. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

PackMecEng, you missed the point. An experienced journalist tracked a single striking (and, right now, relevant-for-Wikipedia) claim back to its origin, and found three steps that transformed an old book about foreign actors using SARS as a bioweapon against China, to a "leaked report" purportedly obtained by the US State Department vis Secret Squirrel, revealing a years-old plot by China to create a bioweapon based on SARS.

And each of the significant steps along the way happens in a News Corp property which has free access to the original source, who is a News Corp employee, so could easily validate that the claim they are making is bogus.

That is worth knowing, IMO. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Are you talking about News Corp or a specific holding of theirs? Because News Corp also owns The Times & The Sunday Times, arguably one of the best UK news publications. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The Times & Sunday Times are both above our RS bar, but you have to go back a long way to find a time when the Sunday Times had a truly high reputation, and the years since the News Corp acquisition have not been kind on the once-stellar reputation of The Times. But, yes, like the WSJ, these papers have meaningful editorial controls and aren't like most News Corp papers. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, well done, that was the right question :-)

The snswer is that it's washed through different News Corp properties with differing levels of credibility, sometimes using the higher-tier source as a halo to confer an illusion of credibility.

Chinese Book --> book by News Corp journo --> same News Corp journo pimps the theory on Sky News --> misrepresented in The Australian --> further misrepresented in news.com.au --> Tucker Carlson (via Steve Bannon, because of course).

The Grauniad ties it all together pretty well: [25]. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• That article doesn't make either News Corp or The Australian look good, but what it says is far worse for Sharri Markson, The Australian's media editor (!), as well as a columnist for the UK Telegraph. We should have something about her Bannon connection and we should look for further RSes backing the claims in the Guardian article. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC) (Correction: she writes for dailytelegraph.com.au, not the UK daily — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC))

And what are you proposing being done here? I mean, News Corp also owns publisher HarperCollins which publishes some great stuff. We can't really mark News Corp and all its properties as GUR. Although, indeed like other properties in Murdoch's empire, I agree that a lot of its holdings are crap. Sky News I think is generally reliable, although there are often better sources, but they often publish things other sources don't. I am not familiar with Australian sources. As for sources spreading conspiracy theories on Wuhan, I think a lot of our RS' also behaved irresponsibly at some point in the pandemic on that front (and others). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Everything You Always Wanted to Know about Sexes

I found this article I was wondering if y’all think it’s a reliable source. It was posted to PLOS Biology which is a peer reviewed source, but the article is written by a single science writer and I’m not entirely sure if the source still holds up.CycoMa (talk) 03:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

It belongs to popular science, but I think using it for sourcing is OK. That is unless there is a serious scientific review saying something different or there are significant objections by someone supported by stronger sources. My very best wishes (talk) 05:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

It is written as if it were a chapter for an undergraduate textbook - a rather good sign, because syntheses tend to be more reliable than primary research articles (see WP:WMEDRS). It's been on a peer-reviewed journal for over 15 years and no one has protested much about the content (which seems to be written more for a textbook rather than a typical scientific article, which is still pretty good), so the only possible problem could be that the info is outdated; reliability at that stage is only a problem to the extent that the info is outdated. To know if that's the case, direct most of your enquiries concerning the reliability of biology articles/information to WP:BIOLOGY folks, in particular to the talk pages of the articles you want to introduce your reference to. They will know much more about intricacies of biology and the current state of knowledge than we do, as this is a general-purpose reliability noticeboard. (I, for example, am an undergrad chemist, not exactly a biologist). From what I can recall from my recent biology course, the information seems not to be outdated, but do ask the folks more connected with biology. I hope you've managed to find the newest edition genetics textbook by Pierce. Cheers. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 05:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Reliability of Somoy News

There's a cable television channel in Bangladesh named Somoy TV. They have their news websites in two languages, En and Bn. I've noticed two of these websites being used as a source in numerous articles. I do understand the basics of Bn language, and I found some pretty laughable and poorly fact-checked news on their websites. Also, some of their articles are pure asinine and undisclosed promotion/advert, let alone the click baits. I'm requesting other users to take a look at these two websites and come to a consensus about their reliability. --Tame (talk) 10:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Tamingimpala, it would be helpful if you could give examples. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Tayi Arajakate, I could give you a list of thousands of such examples, that are biased, poorly fact-checked, thin content written by school students (as described in author box) with the minimum words, click bait titles and thumbnails, baseless information, poor & extremely ambiguous sourcing... the total infrastructure of this media is total asinine!

Tho it would take some time for me to provide a comprehensive list. Here are some examples I could find from recent dates at this very moment (even if you have a minimum sense of the Bn language or you could use G translate, you would find that these articles do not make sense and definitely are not worthy of being used as source in Wikipedia. I mean the titles are enough to give you an idea about the whole site.)

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

-- Tame (talk) 11:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• Not RS: The English version of the site, suspiciously, uses poor English, eg. "Anushka died for using foreign body during perverted sex: CID"[26], "Death toll from spurious liquor consumption jumps to 14 in Bogura"[27], "Decision to scrap FF gallantry awards of Zia, four others"[28] (t · c) buidhe 19:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Tayi Arajakate, That's what I was talking about. Thanks, @Buidhe for pointing out. The whole media is cringe. You would find 'literally' thousands of such instances. Like if you check out the [2] that I previously provided, the title reads in English "Half discount if you take your girlfriend with you [sic] while having your wife." -- Tame (talk) 09:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

CNN - Video piece from Brian Stelter

I've had this source removed, with the comment that it isn't a reliable source. Could I have some opinions please? - Thanks very much. Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

So you started this discussion before you raised the issue on the talk-page? Why don't you wait more than −2 minutes for a response from Crossroads? P.S. For everyone else, here's the relevant diff, at Consequence culture. --JBL (talk) 14:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Normally I would have, but because Crossroads was the one that removed it because he believed it wasn't RS, so I already know where he stands and I wanted a second opinion? Isn't this page for determining if something is RS or not? Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Even if it wasn't an opinion piece, you'll never get it accepted for anything related to "consequence culture". In terms of the belief systems of the right, "cancel culture is the greatest existential threat to America" ranks below only "Trump won in 2020" and "abortion is murder". As long as we allow right-wing editors (which we do and should), consensus for a CNN opinion in support of consequences vs. cancellation is never going to happen. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

It's punditry, akin to an opinion piece, not factual reporting. The whole article of "consequence culture" is a non-notable WP:POVFORK of Cancel culture; see Talk:Cancel culture#Proposed merge of Consequence culture into Cancel culture. I should have nominated it for deletion. Guy/JzG, you comment smacks of WP:ASPERSIONS. I'm not right-wing, although they do exaggerate the concept, and keeping out all opinion pieces is the best way to go on controversial topics. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

But does the fact its his opinion, and its from a noted authority/person, exclude it as an RS? Where in WP:RS does it say its not allowed? Doesn't the fact its from CNN mean it is RS? (not a rehotrical question, I'm just not sure). Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Being aired on CNN does not automatically mean it is reliable, particularly if it is aired on a show that focuses on commentary, as opposed to straight news reporting. Brian Stelter's show on CNN (and other opinion shows on cable news networks) should be viewed similarly to an opinion column in a newspaper, meaning that they're not reliable sources for statements of fact, but can be used to give the opinion of the person who is talking. Still, I'd strongly prefer a written source, as opposed to an on-air segment, because interpreting an on-air segment comes close to WP:OR. Even a written source summarizing what Stelter said would be preferable to the video itself. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Guy JBL- politics aside (which I'm not to interested in) and protocl aside, do you regard this CNN reference as RS? So far I only have stated opinion from the original editor who removed it. Cheers, would appreciate the input. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian, Nope. Primary, opinion. See WP:ARSEHOLES. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the input GuyI really just wanted a second opinion, and that will do cheers. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Thucydides411 explains it well. Next time, you might try WP:3O as a good venue to get another opinion on something. --JBL (talk) 11:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks JBL For a general opinion, yes WP:3O, but in this case, I needed a decision on whether a reference was RS or not. This is the RS noticeboard, so IMHO its appropriate to post it here, as per WP:RSN. Cheers Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Stelter, a pundit who promotes fringe views or figures, is not a reliable source. Stelter's show is not known for fact-checking, accuracy, and corrections.

A perfect example would be this video segment. A guest made totally false statement "[Trump] may be responsible for many more million deaths than [Hitler, Stalin, and Mao]". Politifact gave that a "Pants on Fire!" rating. Stelter did not challenge the guest's statement on air, later claiming "technical difficulties ... had distracted him". The video is still up without a correction. Another guest on the video was ousted from Yale for making public comments about mental fitness, in violation of Goldwater rule.

And who could forget Stelter's promotion of Michael Avenatti. To quote Erik Wemple Blog:

"A highlight of [the Washington Free Beacon] video comes when CNN media boss Brian Stelter tells Avenatti in a September 2018 interview, 'And looking ahead to 2020, one reason I'm taking you seriously as a contender is because of your presence on cable news." That moment is a favorite among CNN critics."
— Erik Wemple Blog in The Washington Post

Politrukki (talk) 13:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Memorable Manitobans

Is Memorable Manitobans, a site maintained by the Manitoba Historical Society, a reliable source for biographical data? My inclination is to say yes, because it's published by a recognized institution and cites its sources. But it looks a little self-published-y, so I wasn't completely sure. (For background: I was updating Hugh Robson (politician) and wondered if [29] was usable as a source). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Basically if you say it's published by a recognised institution (and not by authors themselves), it's not self-published. Also, in case you were wondering, at the bottom of the article, you have a detailed description on that person's credentials, articles in the Manitoba Historical Society etc. Definitely a good source. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Blerf.org

Hello, I want to know if blerf.org can be regarded as a reliable source or not. Thank you. The Sokks💕 ^_(talk) 17:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Is VIAF a primary or self-published source?

I've used Virtual International Authority File for the year of birth on BLPs and want to make sure it's OK to use, for example the year of birth for Ayşe Gül Altınay. I don't really see how it can be considered a primary source, since they get the year of birth from participating institutions, who in turn must get it from some other source, but I just wanted to check. For notable academics, it can be difficult or impossible to find a year of birth outside of similar authority files and bibliographical info (Library of Congress often has the year of birth as well, including for Altınay[30]). (t · c) buidhe 17:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't say primary or self-published, but I'm not sure if it's reliable. I've seen Library of Congress authorities that cite Wikipedia, Wikidata, or Ancestry.com. (Could dig up some examples if needed.) To the extent that VIAF scrapes the underlying data (and I assume it does) it would be only as reliable as the authorities it scrapes. I don't know what, say, BNF's or ISNI's editorial standards are, but if they're as (non-)existent as LoC's, I'd think twice about those as well. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Its neither. However like most other authority control identifiers its not a reliable source. Unless you can actually see where the information came from. And if you can see that, cite that instead. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, I will not use this source in future. (t · c) buidhe 02:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

World Socialist Web Site denying Uyghur Genocide

The World Socialist Web Site has apparently published several articles denying the Uyghur Genocide.[31][32][33][34][35][36] Perhaps we should reevaluate this source’s credibility? X-Editor (talk) 00:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable for the attributed opinions of its authors, but should not be used to present material in WP's own voice and WP:DUE must be considered. The outlet has a gatekeeping process, a consistent presence over time, and an IRL legal personality by which it can be held liable for what it publishes. On the other hand, it is not - itself - sourced by unambiguously reliable sources. For those reasons I don't believe we can question the authenticity of writing attributed to individuals but we can decline to present that material in WP's voice and should take care to balance attributed opinion statements within the overall ecology of commentary on a particular subject. Chetsford (talk) 00:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Chetsford: Seems like the best option for handling this particular source. X-Editor (talk) 01:38, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• Opinion pieces are not reliable for facts. And unless covered in secondary, reliable sources they're pretty much always UNDUE. This site's editorial stance favors alternate views, which means its opinions are even less likely to be WP:DUE. There are hardly any cases where it's a good idea to cite this source on Wikipedia. As Guy has said, "opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one" (t · c) buidhe 02:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• I don't see why we would be citing a publication of the Trotskyist International Committee of the Fourth International for facts anyway. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• I certainly would not cite any socialist/communist website for impartial coverage on China (or any Communist state) for the simple reason that they will gravitate to the CCP's narrative because it has "Communist" in name, and even less so when it comes to opinions. Citing any such Communist/socialist organisation for Xinjiang is a left-wing equivalent of relying on One America News Network for coverage of Jan 6 events at the US Capitol - you of course can, but it's no good. For covering how Communists from around the world respond to the events in China and Xinjiang in particular, we should be using third-party RS, possibly with linking to the WSWS website as an aside but definitely not alone; just like we do with Trump supporters when describing their reactions to the events. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 04:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• "for the simple reason that they will gravitate to the CCP's narrative because it has "Communist" in name" I think that's an overly reductionist representation of the pantheon of contemporary Marxist thought, which is diverse and non-monolithic, however, I do agree with this in general terms: "For covering how Communists from around the world respond to the events in China and Xinjiang in particular, we should be using third-party RS". Chetsford (talk) 05:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Re Szmenderowiecki this is too blanket a position: Trotskyists take very different positions from Maoists; democratic socialists even more radically different positions. And even "socialist/communist websites" are biased, that doens't mean they're not reliable. if The question is whether this particular source is reliable or not on this particular issue. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I know Maoism is not Trotskyism is not democratic socialism, but I said my general impression from my experience offline, however limited and anecdotal, because I find there's too high a risk citing another CCP's apologist website when citing communists. Actually, Demsoc has The New Republic and The Nation as some rather good publications. But there is a threshold of partisanship above which a resource simply cannot be reliable because of extreme bias, and that concerns both the far left and the far right.

If you want my opinion on WSWS specifically, as I said, it's shit. They seem to be misrepresenting COVID studies as what concerns children and I'm not aware about that 14% of people who had asymptomatic infections (given that data from Israel indicate a 94% reduction of chance of getting any COVID, so it can't be that 14% had COVID after vaccination). The coverage on Israel-Palestinian conflict is lopsided to the extent it reads as if Hamas is the most humane organisation in the world - that should not be anything resembling RS. It's also hard to distinguish news from opinions here because the language they use is so loaded, and I shouldn't be trying to apply OR to understand if that piece is still news or already WP:OPINION. As for Uyghur coverage, while they made a disclaimer that they do not support CCP for basically betraying communist ideals, I can't be so sure about it if I read that apparently RS massively misrepresent evidence on Xinjiang, which is both WP:EXTRAORDINARY and echoing CCP, while the sentence The New York Times has furnished a case study of the way in which it functions as the conduit for the utterly hypocritical “human rights” campaigns fashioned by the CIA and the State Department to prosecute the predatory interests of US imperialism is potentially libellous -- another reason to avoid WSWS. Also, when they say: His campaign team issued a statement in August 2020, concluding that the unsubstantiated claims of mass internment of Uyghurs constituted “genocide” (here), you can't help but conclude they are (being) denialist. From a risk-benefit analysis, I see practically no benefits but so many associated risks that it just makes no sense to cite it whatsoever. The only possibility remains for their philosophical essays that reflect the development of Trotskyist/Marxist thought, but I would still first look for other resources. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

You give a laundry-list of complaints, which I think are mostly about opinions that you disagree with:

• They seem to be misrepresenting COVID studies as what concerns children: They're saying that children play a significant role in transmission SARS-CoV-2, and they cite a survey of epidemiologists. I'm not an expert in this subject area, but I know that this is the same point that Christian Drosten, a leading virologist in Germany who has done studies of SARS-CoV-2 in children, has been emphasizing for a long time. This point is largely moot, though, because WP:MEDRS imposes a much higher standard for any scientific claims about SARS-CoV-2 - a standard that virtually no popular media, newspapers of record included, meets.
• The coverage on Israel-Palestinian conflict] is lopsided to the extent it reads as if Hamas is the most humane organisation in the world: It's definitely highly critical of Israel's bombardment of Gaza (as most left-wing media is), but I see nothing in that article that in any way supports Hamas. Are you referring to the line that mentions that Hamas has called for a cease-fire?
• echoing CCP: This reminds me strongly of how supporters of the Iraq War accused opponents of the war of supporting Saddam Hussein. It's really sad to see this sort of rhetorical device being used here on Wikipedia. The article you're quoting repeatedly refers to the CCP regime and accuses China of using police state measures, but since it argues against Mike Pompeo's description of what's occurring in Xinjiang a "genocide", it somehow echoes the CCP? It looks like you're just trying to rule out any source that doesn't fall into line.
• the sentence "The New York Times has furnished a case study of the way in which it functions as the conduit for the utterly hypocritical “human rights” campaigns fashioned by the CIA and the State Department to prosecute the predatory interests of US imperialism" is potentially libellous: I am not a lawyer, but I'm pretty certain that this would never be considered libel in a US court. It's a political criticism of another outlet. The specific criticism of the Times here is that they presented testimony from someone they simply described as a Uyghur American, without noting that the person giving the testimony has worked extensively with the US government, previously worked for Radio Free Asia, and now runs an NGO with close links to the US government (its parent organizations are funded by the US government). I don't know, but it seems to me like criticizing the NY Times for not mentioning those links is reasonable.

If anything, this reminds me of the scathing critique of the NY Times' Iraqi WMD coverage written in 2004 by none other than the NY Times' own public editor (a position which no longer exists, by the way). The critique is worth reading in its entirety, but I'll just point out a few highlights. First, on the overall tone of the NY Times' coverage of Iraqi WMD:

To anyone who read the paper between September 2002 and June 2003, the impression that Saddam Hussein possessed, or was acquiring, a frightening arsenal of W.M.D. seemed unmistakable.

Then, on how the Times wrote headline articles that made questionable claims, but either buried or didn't publish corrections:

But in The Times's W.M.D. coverage, readers encountered some rather breathless stories built on unsubstantiated 'revelations' that, in many instances, were the anonymity-cloaked assertions of people with vested interests. Times reporters broke many stories before and after the war -- but when the stories themselves later broke apart, in many instances Times readers never found out. Some remain scoops to this day. This is not a compliment.

The public editor accuses the Times of basically claiming that there was a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda:

'Intelligence Break Led U.S. to Tie Envoy Killing to Iraq Qaeda Cell,' by Patrick E. Tyler (Feb. 6, 2003) all but declared a direct link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein -- a link still to be conclusively established, more than 15 months later. Other stories pushed Pentagon assertions so aggressively you could almost sense epaulets sprouting on the shoulders of editors.

The public editor accuses the Times of giving license to anonymous sources to lie:

But a newspaper has an obligation to convince readers why it believes the sources it does not identify are telling the truth. That automatic editor defense, 'We're not confirming what he says, we're just reporting it,' may apply to the statements of people speaking on the record. For anonymous sources, it's worse than no defense. It's a license granted to liars.

The public editor finally accuses the Times of having been used as a tool in the cunning campaign to push the war:

No one can deny that this was a drama in which The Times played a role. On Friday, May 21, a front-page article by David E. Sanger (A Seat of Honor Lost to Open Political Warfare) elegantly characterized Chalabi as 'a man who, in lunches with politicians, secret sessions with intelligence chiefs and frequent conversations with reporters from Foggy Bottom to London's Mayfair, worked furiously to plot Mr. Hussein's fall.' The words 'from The Times, among other publications' would have fit nicely after 'reporters' in that sentence. The aggressive journalism that I long for, and that the paper owes both its readers and its own self-respect, would reveal not just the tactics of those who promoted the W.M.D. stories, but how The Times itself was used to further their cunning campaign.

My point is just that the NY Times' own public editor described the Times' coverage in the run-up to the Iraq War using far harsher language than anything I'm seeing in the articles you've linked above. WSWS is definitely expressing strong opinions, but that's not at all the same thing as fabricating information, and the outlet seems pretty open about its point of view. Reason writes from a stridently Libertarian point of view. Jacobin writes from an openly socialist point of view. These sorts of opinionated sources have their place. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

It's hard to know where to start from, but it seems I will have to, so I'll move by the order of your quotes:

COVID studies: the article states in the headline that apparently NYT published a scathing survey that debunks establishment's views. The survey they refer to, however, only mentions that epidemiologists would hesitate to gather inside until children are vaccinated. This does not mean that these folks confirmed the "central role that children play in spreading COVID-19", they only said they are susceptible - not news. It is common knowledge by now that children are less contagious and the risk of getting to hospital is lower; but nobody from govt institutions said the risk of contracting COVID for children is 0, as they pretty boldly but erroneously claim in the headline. The fact they don't hyperlink to the relevant statements, or other research, at all, doesn't help them.

Israeli-Palestinian conflict: if you want to be reliable, you'd want not to mix news with opinions. Hamas calling for a ceasefire is a wonderful thing, in fact; it's also OK to be highly critical of one side if they support the argument appropriately and mark it as OPINION/EDITORIAL or something. They make no such indication, however, and it seems a lot of editors have interpreted the site as reporting news where most RS would almost certainly have put an "OPINION" label. To be fair, they did write that "WSWS strongly condemns the Israeli conduct in the war" which could be clearly read as opinion, but only once. Condemnation alone is perfectly fine, but very slanted reporting, as is the case here (with basically no thorough analysis of the conflict), bound with their non-distinction between news and opinion, is what would urge me to declare the resource unreliable.

As for "echoing CCP" - they are echoing CCP in that they state that Uyghurs are not to be trusted at all (pretty repeatedly in coverage) - which itself requires extraordinary proof. Also, they repeatedly say that while they are preoccupied with Xinjiang, they seem to suggest it's more because of what they perceive is an exploitation of the working class rather than because of loss of the already limited civil liberties The repression of the Uyghurs is completely bound up with the far broader oppression of the working class by the Chinese capitalist elites and the Chinese Communist Party regime that defends their interests.. To add insult to injury, they seem to make a presumption of guilt when discussing US government, claiming justification in, for instance, Iraq as a precedent, and dismissing any US claims as advocacy for US imperialism. I find it unacceptable for a prospective RS to do so.

As for libel: US does afford broad free-speech protections for news media, but Wikipedia is not an American-only source. In Europe, it could be easily prosecuted. Even in the US, the cause could be probable; the only obstacle might be for PR of the newspaper, but I also see it as pretty prosecutable if NYT insisted to do so. I also cannot agree with the analysis you claim shows NYT used far more aggressive language. First of all, the public editor writes on NYT about NYT coverage; it would be cowardly of NYT to sue the author for libel after publication (which it didn't), even more so for a post of a watchdog (sadly gone). The story also makes it quite clear it is the opinion of the public editor. On the other hand, the story as published by WSWS does not show itself as opinion, asserts something for a fact that NYT is grossly violating journalistic principles by being unduly influenced by CIA and State Dept. and that essentially it is a govt mouthpiece. The proof they provide is insufficient to prove the allegation - what it might be sufficient for is COI of two activists.

Advocacy - maybe. Reliable reporting - sorry, not this time.

EDIT: Darouet is right that WSWS covers labour relations quite extensively, so that might be something for which they could be cited; of course we will have to sieve through the bias WSWS has, but the coverage is indeed valuable, and, even if opinionated, is unique so pretty important. Other than that, no, thank you. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• They're a stridently biased source who exists to advance a particular position, and therefore should not be cited except as opinion at most. Even as an opinion site they're likely to be undue in most contexts; the example you gave underlines that their opinions are fringe-y, but we knew that already. And I would be skeptical about citing them directly for any shocking / exceptional "socialists / Trotksyists think X" stuff anyway without a secondary source, which doesn't really leave much use for them. Looking back at past discussions, it seems like they've generally been assessed this way in the past, but somehow we're still citing them over a thousand times. --Aquillion (talk) 06:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• What Buidhe and Aquillion said. I'd be surprised if there are any cases where the opinions expressed are going to be WP:DUE. --RaiderAspect (talk) 06:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable for the attributed opinions of its authors when due. Agree with Buidhe and Aquillion summary. Although it's been online for longer than lots of Trotskyist websites and so has accrued more links and search engine juice, it is highly unreliable and prone to conspiracy theories, making it resemble something like GlobalResearch more than a typical Trotskyist website. Reliable only for opinons, and only when they're due, which would be not often and certainly not on this topic. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The claim that there is a genocide against the Uyghurs is extremely controversial, and heavily disputed by a great many commentators and experts, including the US State Department's own legal advisors, meaning that the official position of the US government on this issue actually contradicts the position of its own experts. One of the reasons that the accusation is so controversial is that there's no evidence of any mass killing (which is commonly considered the central element of genocide) or of any genocidal intent (another central element of the crime of genocide). I'd be very wary of ruling out sources simply for the crime of disagreeing with Mike Pompeo about China. Otherwise, we might also start having to rule out sources like The Economist, which has flatly denied the claim of a Uyghur genocide and accused the US government of diminishing the unique stigma of the term by applying it where it clearly does not apply. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Equally, we should be wary of using sources just because they disagree with Mike Pompeo. We should be using reliable sources, such as the Economist, if we want to discuss these controversies.BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC) BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The original comment in this section asks us to reevaluate this source’s credibility because it supposedly denyi[es] the Uyghur Genocide. That's what I referred to as the crime of disagreeing with Mike Pompeo. The accusation that the US government has leveled - that China is carrying out a genocide in Xinjiang - is extremely contentious, and as I show above, has been dismissed outright by The Economist as a trivialization of the meaning of the word "genocide". Nobody is saying that we should use every source that disagrees with Mike Pompeo, but we're being asked to reevaluate sources specifically because they disagree with one of his more controversial claims - a claim that even the US State Department's own legal advisors disagree with. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

WSWS also denies that there is any internment of Uyghurs in at least one of those articles. X-Editor (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Where? What is the exact quote? -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

...unsubstantiated claims of mass internment of Uyghurs.... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Saying that there are unsubstantiated claims of mass internment is very different from den[ying] that there is any internment. The very same article states, Undoubtedly, the CCP regime in Beijing uses police state measures to suppress opposition in Xinjiang, so it clearly is not denying the use of any police-state measures in Xinjiang (such as internment). However, the claims of 1 million or even 3 million people interned are, at present, very poorly sourced. A recent article from the South China Morning Post discusses some of the disagreements over these claims, and cites one expert (Grose) who believes that there is evidence, but who nevertheless thinks that the media improperly reports highly uncertain estimates as facts. Another expert (Sautman) emphasizes that the data underlying the various charges being made in the media about Xinjiang is poor, and says that he believes many of the charges are probably incorrect. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:38, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Thats bad and entirely separate from the genocide labelling discussion. Especially for when it was published, the claims of mass internment of Uyghurs has been entirely substantiated including by the Chinese government... They no longer deny the existence of the camps. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The Chinese government disputes both the characterization of the camps as internment camps and the numbers claimed by some Western sources. As the SCMP article I linked above makes clear, the evidence underlying the estimates commonly cited in the media is very poor at present, and viewed as highly uncertain by experts. "Unsubstantiated" is a reasonable way to describe those claims, in other words. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Internment =/= internment camps and we aren’t talking about specific numbers. Thats not what that SCMP article makes clear, you really need to work on your reading comprehension. If I wasn’t AGF I would say you’re cherrypicking. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I substantially agree with everything Horse Eye's Back has said here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Thucy’s twisting of Grose’s opinion almost beggars belief... "Regardless of the media approach, Grose said he disagreed with the paper’s suggestion there was no hard evidence of mass internment... He said he had put 325 documents from official Chinese sources related to incarcerations in Xinjiang on the project’s website. Grose said the paper suggested it was more plausible that local ethnic people were graduating from vocational schools rather than political re-education camps, an argument he said was disingenuous. “I have posted and made publicly available Chinese sources that call students of these vocational schools ‘detainees’, you don’t call students ‘detainees’,” he said.” Gross is clearly saying that the claims are substantiated and heavily criticizing the anonymous paper which argues Thucy’s position on the subject “It was built up as this path-breaking piece of research, and when I read it, I was shocked at how poorly it was written, and just the lack of academic rigour that was put in the piece,” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Your twisting of my words beggars belief. I very clearly stated that Grose believes there is evidence for mass internment, but I noted that he also criticized the media for reporting uncertain estimates as fact. You left out that quote from Grose (Oftentimes, the 1 million figure is used uncritically, and especially it’s reproduced and recycled in media where it’s almost become this undisputed fact), which makes me question your honesty here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

You said "but who nevertheless thinks that the media improperly reports highly uncertain estimates as facts.” but I see only one estimate being talked about and he does not directly say the media’s behavior is improper and theres a qualifying “almost" which is completely absent in your summary. Perhaps you erred in your original summation of that point? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

You've come a long way from saying that I twisted Grose's opinion to quibbling about the word "almost". Feel free to read my above statement as the media improperly reports highly uncertain estimates as almost facts. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:38, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be missing that “improperly” and "highly uncertain” are not part of his opinion, you also have a plural statement with only a single underlying case... You mean reported, estimate, and fact. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm quite used to it at this point. I mean, the claims from the Chinese government are laughable on their face; this is not what a trade school looks like, but it looks suspiciously like an internment camp with a strong propaganda focus. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Which evaluation of the website's credibility do you think we should re? Where is it referenced in the encyclopaedia, and to support what statement? This is not a forum for general discussion of websites. Cambial foliage❧ 13:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• I would not use this source for any claim of fact. It seems mostly okay for opinion stuff, but I'd still be cautious. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• If the authors are notable then yes we can (and most likely should) use it as an attributed source for their opinions. I would not generally use them for statements of fact, WSWS is more David North’s group blog than an actual news source. They don’t have a positive reputation and they are very open about their activist nature. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that the reason I refer to it as a genocide is because that is the terminology used to refer to it on Wikipedia. If you think the terminology is wrong, feel free to discuss on the talk page of the Uyghur Genocide article. Also, WSWS calling the claims of mass internment camps unsubstantiated is very clearly them denying the well documented massive scale of human rights abuses against Uyghurs. X-Editor (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think they're an appropriate source to cite on that specific topic unless we for some reason have to discuss what Troskyists think about it (and I'd be cautious even then; as I said above, they're not a source with very much use for a variety of reasons.) But I disagree with the idea that simply arguing over whether it's a genocide would disqualify a source; I think such opposition is a minority voice now, but looking over the sources I'm not really sure I'd call it WP:FRINGE: [37][38][39]. Even sources that plainly favor calling it a genocide often acknowledge that there is debate, eg. [40]. Personally I wouldn't really change the overall tone of the Uyghur genocide article, but I would probably add a section for debate over the use of the term "genocide", which plainly does exist. See eg. Holodomor genocide question for comparison (although I am not really impressed by that article's structure, which feels like it gets more into laundry-list nose-counting as opposed to covering the debate in-depth), and the more cautious wording on Holodomor, which states who has called it a genocide rather than simply declaring it one in the article voice. Although really that is a question for WP:NPOVN and WP:FRINGEN rather than here. --Aquillion (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Aquillion: we already have a section for that, see Uyghur genocide#Classification. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@X-Editor: The Uyghur genocide article is not intended to state, as a fact, that there is a genocide against the Uyghurs. When the name of the article was changed to "Uyghur genocide", the argument was made that this is merely a phrase that's been used commonly in the media, and not a statement of fact. However, I have argued that the name of the article and the first sentence of the lede both come across as a definite statement by Wikipedia that there is a genocide. @Horse Eye's Back: This illustrates the point that I have made previously when discussing with you, that the title and first sentence of Uyghur genocide will be interpreted by readers as a Wikivoice statement. As you can see above, it's even being interpreted by some Wikipedia editors as a Wikivoice statement. -19:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC) (signing properly: -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2021 (UTC))

If there was a better or more widespread term we would use it, but as has been demonstrated time and time again while a contingent of editors dislikes Uyghur genocide they have been unable to propose a more suitable name. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Do you at least acknowledge that at present, readers are interpreting the article as a Wikivoice statement that there is a genocide against the Uyghurs? If you accept that this is the case (as it is with X-Editor), then you should be in favor of changes to the article to make it clear that we are not making a Wikivoice statement. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I use the term genocide because that is what Wikipedia uses currently. If you want to change the name of the article, propose a change on the article’s talk page. X-Editor (talk) 13:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• I hesitate to judge a website based upon its opinion pieces, since we generally consider them separate. However, the site's publication of conspiratorial claims (and perhaps even false or fabricated information) goes beyond the publication of pieces clearly labeled as opinion, as evidenced by the content of the links provided by OP. I see no reason to treat it as any more reliable than The Federalist in this regard, and the publication of false information (and lack of apparent corrections) might well be a reason to classify it as deprecated, just like The Grayzone. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm seeing that the source is used in approximately 1200 separate wikipedia pages. It seems to be repeatedly cited as a source for facts across these uses, in many cases without attribution. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

It would have to be considered generally unreliable, the WSWS is essentially the newsletter of the Socialist Equality Party (United States), a pinprick Trotskyist party with a history of quite esoteric action, such as declaring that racism doesn't actually exist and is just a tool to divide the working class and other such kookiness. Generally, I would say it should only be used with direct in-text attribution. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

"Generally unreliable" is a designation for sources that regularly publish fabricated information, not for sources whose views you don't like. newsletter: A few dozen articles a day in several languages is a bit more than a "newsletter". declaring that racism doesn't actually exist: Quote? Marxists view class as more important to the structure of society than race, but that's not the same as saying that racism doesn't exist. We're discussing opinions at this point, though, not reliability. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

If An Phoblacht is considered unreliable for being the mouthpiece of Sinn Fein, the same logic applies here. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• This appears to be less a matter of "denying the Uyghur Genocide" than a difference of opinion over the definition of "genocide": the literal (and original) meaning of the word is that given in the OED: The deliberate killing [emphasis added] of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.[41] Modern historians, etc. seem to take a broader view of the term and use it to refer a larger range of actions (or even any action) with the goal or effect of destroying or removing (i.e., to another place) an identifiable group of people, which is currently the definition given by Merriam-Webster: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group[42] (Webster also wrongly says that the word originated in 1944 with this very meaning, which is clearly wrong). The use of the word in this latter, broader definition is made clear by the US government's statements on the matter themselves.[43] (Heck, even Mike Pompeo, while emphasizing the various atrocious actions of which he is accusing Beijing, doesn't seem to actually mention mass-murder: the arbitrary imprisonmentor [sic] other severe deprivation of physical liberty of more than one million civilians, forced sterilization, torture of a large number of those arbitrarily detained, forced labor, and the imposition of draconian restrictions on freedom of religion or belief, freedom of expression, and freedom of movement.) This article (one of those linked by the OP) makes the distinction clear, as it states there is no doubt that China’s government, which represents the interests of a corrupt capitalist oligarchy, is carrying out widespread repression against the Uyghurs of Xinjiang province. Yes, the article clearly has a bias, but said bias is made clear by the title of the publication. Whether Wikipedia uses a "narrow" or "broad" definition of the word in question in any particular context is matter for said context's article talk page (certainly, I think we can all agree that our article on The Holocaust should never include a footnote attached to the word "genocide" that clarifies that modern scholars also use the word to refer to practices like widespread forced conversions and prohibition on certain actions with the goal of making people to "voluntarily" adopt a different religious of political belief system), not RSN. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so I read some of this thread beyond the title and the OP "question". I'm not sure if I'm at fault for not reading the whole thread before responding to what seemed to be the ostensible core issue or if others are at fault for dragging the conversation off in all sorts of directions. I agree and disagree with a variety of statements by a variety of editors within this discussion, but not enough to try to wade through it all and find some "point" to the conversation or even to defend my own response to the OP question in light of said conversation. So I've stricken it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment the World Socialist Web Site is a socialist news and opinion service that is run by an international editorial board [44] and is explicitly partisan. They have a lot of reporting on labor issues in the US and internationally that is valuable, since I've found they'll cover strikes or labor conflicts that have little coverage elsewhere. That reporting and their commentary looks like it's cited countless time in academic books and journal articles (according to google books and google scholar), meaning that citation here at Wikipedia is also reasonable. They were very involved with leading American historians in a critique of the 1619 project (e.g. [45][46][47]).

Given all this, what is the specific question being asked? I looked briefly at the articles linked by the OP: where is this material being proposed for use, and how? In general, I agree that when this source is used, it should be often be with attribution - particularly if the content in question is opinion, or contentious. It's hard to evaluate how to respond in this particular case since I have no examples. -Darouet (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The Silk Road

I've removed "RfC" from the section heading, since this discussion is not formatted as a formal request for comment (see WP:RFC).Szmenderowiecki (talk) 05:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm looking for opinions about the reliability of the so-called "Silk Road Foundation", also known as "Silk Road". It's an online publisher. The website can be found here:

https://www.silkroadfoundation.org

This publication sometimes refers to itself as "Silk Road Journal", but should NOT be confused with Silk Road Journal Online, which is definitely a reliable publication, and which has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.

The Silk Road "Journal" that is the subject of this discussion is based primarily around Central Asian archaeology and history. It typically publishes theoretical articles written by individual researchers, who are disproportionately from Russia and China. The sole editor of the publication, Daniel Waugh, has candidly stated that it has no formal peer review:

http://www.silkroadfoundation.org/newsletter/vol15/srjournal_v15.pdf

From the outset, there has been no formal process of peer review, such as one expects in the standard academic journals. We still solicit articles (a task which largely has devolved on me over the years), though we also receive (but have not been overwhelmed by) unsolicited submissions.

Decisions on what to publish (as with any journal) ultimately rest with the editor, who in this case, for better or worse, has acted as the peer reviewer. I often see what I think is gold in material that could never find its way into a standard academic publication. But the perils of rarely seeking outside opinions may mean things slip through without acknowledgement that a subject has been thoroughly treated elsewhere.

The lack of formal peer review does have the unfortunate consequence that junior scholars hoping to advance in their profession may avoid us, since their promotion will depend in the first instance on peer reviewed publication, however excellent (and widely cited) a piece might be which we would publish. Yet in some cases where there is a premium for academics in other countries to publish in a respected journal in English, we have been able to provide just such an opportunity. Many of the senior scholars we have solicited for contributions have politely refused to write for us, since they are already over-committed [...]

So basically, the Silk Road Foundation is a mill for primary research that is not formally peer reviewed. The editor describes himself as someone who often sees "gold in material that would never find its way in to a standard academic publication". A lot of researchers don't want to write for it, and those that do are disproportionately from non-English speaking countries, who struggle to get their theories published in standard English-language journals.

To my mind, this is very near to the definition of predatory publishing, with the exception that the Silk Road Foundation does not even provide useful quirks like DOI. So it's really more like an internet blog.

The Silk Road Foundation is cited on various ethnical and archaeological articles on Wikipedia, often advancing pet theories, which is out of touch with WP:RS, which says that Wikipedia should prioritize high-quality, peer reviewed secondary research over this kind of stuff.

Thanks for your attention, and I look forward to your comments. Hunan201p (talk) 03:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

What exactly are you looking for here? You've answered your own question. It's not peer-reviewed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't make myself clear, Headbomb: this source is widely cited on Wikipedia and especially on ethnographical and historical articles. What I'm looking at here is whether or not this is a matter for deprecation or classification as generally unreliable, because a lot of people are apparently unaware that the publisher doesn't peer review, and will continue citing it in the future if it doesn't get blackballed. Hunan201p (talk) 03:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Hunan201p: It seems you wanted to trigger the RfC on the topic of reliability of the Silk Road Foundation (diff). If so, a few things:

1. "Wikipedia proposals" is a non-article RfC (project-wide), so it's not very suitable for evaluation for reliability of articles published on a source in question. "Wikipedia proposals" have more to do with changing the rules Wikipedia governs itself, and seems to be a general venue for other non-article RfCs, too. You might want to ask for the opinion of folks in "History and geography" for evaluation of the source, though, as this is the closest topic to archaeology available.

2. Please place the RfC header at the top of the whole discussion, and formulate a short question. Guidance of how to write them is described in WP:RfC. It then should appear on the RfC webpage - if it doesn't, you'll probably have to make it shorter.

3. It would be desirable to have an ongoing dispute about the resource in the first place to trigger an RfC. While the usage is indeed quite wide on Wikipedia, I would like to see the underlying arguments and possibly then vote for something. Could you please link to some discussions (not necessarily ongoing) that feature the resource?

PS. I have removed spare lines from the quotes because they looked awful in the source text. And unfortunately, I've got nothing to say on the merits. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 05:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Szmenderowiecki. Thank you for fixing the source and for your helpful advice. The purpose of opening this discussion here is to get an RfC on whether The Silk Road Foundation should be deprecated, or classified as unreliable, as happened at the Daily Mail RfC. I'm not aware of any discussions that were ever made about Silk Road Foundation, and I don't believe anyone has noticed on Wikipedia up until now that this is not a peer reviewed source.

As I understand from the banner at the top of this page, and the aforementioned Daily Mail RfC, this is the place to "seek requests for comment for deprecation, or for blacklisting or classification as generally unreliable of sources that are widely used in articles". I don't have any articles on Wikipedia to complain about, or any Silk Road Foundation articles to complain about, this topic is strictly about the reliability of Silk Road Foundation. The Silk Road PDF I quoted is provided here only as evidence that the publication itself is not peer reviewed, and the complaint here is that a borderline predatory publisher is being prolifically cited on controversial subjects like linguistics and ethnic origins. Take care. Hunan201p (talk) 06:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

1. If there are no disputes you are aware of and no discussions have been held, I'd suggest you remove the RfC tag, because it's not yet something that was significant enough to be disputed, and it will anyway not really appear in WP:RSP, as the criteria of inclusion include at least 2-3 discussions on the topic. You may also ask folks in WP:ARCHAEO for their opinion on the resource. I also agree with Headbomb that you have essentially answered your question, so if you want an RfC held, rewrite it so that it is not a polemic with yourself.

2. If you decide to stay with the RfC, Legobot (the bot that moves the question to the feedback request service list) does not see the content of the question. You should make the question shorter and put it at the top, too, for example: Is Silk Road Foundation's publication a predatory journal? or Should Silk Road Foundation's publication be used for Far East archaeology articles? etc. You then have to sign the question so that the bot copies the question. Also, I'd also suggest you mark the place for discussion and voting. See previous RfCs for reference. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 07:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki: I greatly appreciate your efforts to help me through this process. I intend to re-post my question in the way that you suggest. I have a question for you. I recently found a comment from the WP:RS archive about the Silk Road Foundation that essentially mirrors my concerns. It was authored by Fifelfoo on 12:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC) and can be seen at Archive 82. Do you believe that that discussion, along with my RfC, could meet the criteria for inclusion in WP:RSP? I intend to start a discussion at ARCHAEO. Hunan201p (talk) 09:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Hunan201p: The comment is indeed confirming your suspicions, so you could use it as support for your position. I doubt, however, that it will be included in WP:RSP, because per WP:RSPCRITERIA, a discussion should normally have 3+ editors who weigh in their opinions on authenticity/reliability (as the title is different from the source in question), and there is only one editor who analysed it. Also, the topic itself doesn't really merit an RfC on WP:ARCHAEO, these are usually reserved for questions governing WikiProject and not specific enquiries as this one; and one more thing, it's a niche topic. Cheers. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Deprecation/blacklisting is not necessary since this journal is already formally disqualified per default by the general rules of WP:SCHOLARSHIP (last bullet point). The case of the Daily Mail is different, because it belongs to a group of sources (news media) that per se are neither reliable nor unreliable, but are evaluated as unreliable based on their track record of spreading misinformation. I can understand Hunan201p's intention to have a strong tool that discourages editors to insert information solely based on Silk Road Foundation-articles, and which also justifies the removal of such information if it cannot be verified otherwise. But we already have this tool with WP:SCHOLARSHIP. –Austronesier (talk) 09:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• @Hunan201p: what is your brief and neutral statement? At nearly 3,500 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia proposals. The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Wondering how I can use these PDFs in a published Google Drive folder

So I know about WP:PUBLISHED and how editors need to use sources that are directly available to the public. But I would like to use PDFs without linking to a Google Drive folder that can be taken down at any time. I'm specifically talking about these for the article I've started here. The page that points to this link is here. How can I do this properly? Do I upload them to Commons or something? Buffaboy ^talk 05:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Consider the copyright issue, as it seems the book was written after 1948: odds are it's still copyrighted in the US and Europe (normally 70 years after death of the author). Generally though, no problem if you have the right to post it on Wikimedia Commons. PS. I wonder why you ask the question here - there's a Village Pump at the Wikimedia Commons if you want to ask questions related to uploading files to the project. This is not the venue :). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 05:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki: Yes I was lost on where to go, but I think I'll approach them as well and see if they have any ideas as well. Thanks for the info. Buffaboy ^talk 07:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

1) In this era of Photoshop, we don't consider clipping files and scans like this to be reliable sources. 2) These appear to be scans of some mimeoed self-published history compilation. Again, not a RS: WP:SPS. 3) These may be copyright violations as well. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually, these are likely not to be copyright violations -- according to Google Books, this history was published in 1948. Given that the West Side Rowing Club is in Buffalo, NY, this is likely originally pubilshed in the US. Checking the copyright registrations for 1948 and 1949, I don't find this book registered. Under US copyright law at the time, if you published a book without registering the copyright, it went right in the public domain. (Even if they had registered copyright, they would've had to have renewed the copyright in 1976 for it to stay in effect.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

West Side Oars appears to be unpublished archival material held by the Buffalo History Museum: [48]. It's probably not suitable as a source, unfortunately, absent evidence that it's been vetted or used in other sources. To answer your original question, I believe copyright in unpublished material is life of the author plus 70 years, or 120 years from date of creation if the death date is unknown. Mackensen (talk) 11:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Turning Point USA and Right Wing Watch (People for the American Way)

• tpusa.com  
• rightwingwatch.org  
• www.pfaw.org  

Can we agree that even though these two organizations are non-profits they lean very left and very right, respectively? They have shared content numbers times that is not accurate. They should not be sources in my opinion. I think they should both be deprecated. Both organizations claim to run news organizations. If nothing else, can we agree these are politically biased sources and should be used with great caution.

See these example failed fact checks instances for Turning Point USA: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/apr/02/turning-point-usa/video-gives-inaccurate-reading-redistricting-overh/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/mar/27/turning-point-usa/conservative-group-meme-distorts-nevadas-chloroqui/

Their website states "Turning Point USA has embarked on a mission to build the most organized, active, and powerful conservative grassroots activist network on high school and college campuses across the country."

See these example of failed fact checks instances for Right Wing Watch and People for the American Way (Parent Organization): https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/apr/14/people-american-way/did-marco-rubio-vote-deport-dreamers/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2009/jan/14/people-american-way/seeing-red-over-warren/

Their website says "People For the American Way is a progressive advocacy organization."

DoctorTexan (talk) 06:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Is there some place where you have having a disagreement with someone who is using one of these sources without appropriate caution? --JBL (talk) 11:19, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I would be wary of drawing equivalence between these two sources just because they're both biased does not put them in the same category. I'd also be cautious of reducing Right Wing Watch's reliabilty to that of its parent People for the American Way as it may have seperate editorial processes. What are they being used for here? BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Which usages in Wikipedia are drawing your attention? Without context, it is hard to assess whether or not the sites are being cited inappropriately. --Jayron32 15:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• I'd be appalled if anyone cited TPUSA for anything on Wikipedia, and quite disappointed if we used Right Wing Watch other than in informal discussions on Talk to point to more reliable sources or issues that might be covered in such. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• Both biased sources, but they're not equivalent. TPUSA has actively spread disinformation and I'd be surprised if anyone who even casually glanced at WP:RS claimed it to be reliable. If there were a pattern of people trying to use TPUSA as a source, it would almost certainly be deprecated. RWW is an unambiguously WP:BIASEDSOURCE operated by People for the American Way, though its reputation for accuracy isn't bad. It's mainly clips and quotes of right-wing politicians/pundits/activists saying extreme/false/whatever things, and sometimes contextualizing (with commentary) or juxtaposing them, and always critically, of course. It's more of a WP:WEIGHT and attribution issue. It generally shouldn't be used to present potentially controversial statements of fact without attribution, and odds are good that if something it covers is worth including, it's been picked up by other sources, too. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• Both sources are quite terrible, and I can't imagine a scenario where you'll actually need to use them except for the most basic WP:ABOUTSELF claims. Both are hyperpartisan advocacy groups that have no reputation for fact-checking. Right Wing Watch/People For the American Way has been running false ads for years ([49], [50], [51]). Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• PFAW is a partisan political advocacy group, which means I generally trust them about as far as I can throw them. They have absolutely no motivations to be honest, only to "win the fight" as it were. Right Wing Watch might be an exception to the treatment their parent org gets, as they're widely cited by RSes and don't do anything but documenting right-wing figures. It would really depend on how they're used.

Turning Point USA is a laughing stock. They're basically the poster child for the Dunning Kruger effect in political thought. I don't think I've ever seen one of TPUsa's ads and not laughed at how moronic it is. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:54, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

MPants at work, I have, but only because it was so stupid that I had to go and check if it was real. They are the living embodiment of Poe's Law. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Guy, that's actually a good point. Interpreted as deliberate satire, their ads are far too stupid to maintain any trace of humor. They're only funny when you know they're serious, and even then, only if you don't pause to consider what their popularity says about us as a species. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:18, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a specific question about use of one of these sources for a specific claim in a specific article? I'm starting to get a little tired of these open-ended discussions about sources with no context. Can you give more specifics? -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why you would want to use these sources, but absent an example of use discussion here is difficult.Nyx86 (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Self published books and racial bias

Are books such as this one from CreateSpace and martial arts movies such as Kung Fu Panda reliable sources for Chinese martial arts? It has been suggested that it is racist to say no. More viewpoints would be very welcome at Talk:Chinese_martial_arts#Discipleship. - MrOllie (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Kung Fu Panda is a cartoon, it is not a realistic portrayal of anything.Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, that's not what the person who wrote that said. Whether or not their criticism is true or not, they didn't say that you were racist for not citing Kung Fu Panda. There's a lot of rhetoric, intentional misrepresentation, veiled personal attacks, and all together unhelpful commentary to go around on all sides there. If you want a sober discussion of the source material, then you should avoid such mischaracterizations of the comments made by other people. You may very well be correct that the source material is not appropriate to use, however, if you misrepresent the arguments of others, you are going to have a hard time getting people to reach the correct conclusions about those sources. --Jayron32 17:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jayron32:, the edit summary literally said "It appears that the person who repeatedly deletes this section has a (racist?) bias against Chinese Culture, and is bent on eliminating valid presentation of its traditional attributes on Wikipedia."

The edit summary it replied to said "continued reliance on unreliable sources. Self published books and martial arts movies are not acceptable sources."

In short, MrOllie removed the material for the stated reason that the sources were no good, then the IP claimed that MrOllie was biased against Chinese MAs, and suggested that racism would explain that.

I don't think it is unfair for MrOllie to have said what he did, here. I've also looked over the discussion at talk, and MrOllie seems to have maintained good composure there, as well. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The OP should definitely not have called MrOllie racist. That was uncalled for. However, he called Mr. Ollie racist for the removal of text, not because Mr. Ollie refused to specifically accept Kung Fu Panda as a source (which, it wasn't being used as such). As I said, Mr. Ollie is likely 100% correct, but by mischaracterizing other people and the reasons for their actions, they will end up (unfortunately) losing the argument, and that would be a real shame, because then Wikipedia doesn't get better when it should. That is why behavioral policies exist and why we should adhere to them, because when people who are correct in their editing misbehave, it ruins their opportunity to make Wikipedia better. --Jayron32 18:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I think if you also read the 3 other times racism was brought up on the talk page, then my characterization will make more sense to you. - MrOllie (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Lets not discuss user conduct here, please?Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• To address the original question, I would refer the reader to the words of the hon. Mr. Bender. A self-published book by a chiropractor, and a children's animated movie, are not appropriate sources. Obviously. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  The user did not try to use a cartoon as a source. The cartoon was part of a list of cultural depictions of martial arts. Had the person in question actually done what the OP said that they did, then that would be laughable. --Jayron32 18:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  This will make a bit more sense if you look at the IP's latest talk page comment. Perhaps it is just the term 'reference' is causing a bit of a misunderstanding. Either way I don't think the IP is likely to listen to anything appearing above my signature at this point, so other people chiming in to clear up any misunderstandings will be welcome. - MrOllie (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  I am of the opinion that animated children's films should not be cited as examples of real-world phenomenon that do not relate to children's stories or animation, except for sections which are explicitly about the portrayal of the real-world phenomenon in fiction. There's no guarantee that the portrayal in the films is an accurate one. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Hello everyone and thank you for sharing your viewpoints on the subject matter at hand. I am uncertain as to why people stuck to Kung Fu Panda as the prime example? The section included 12 feature films, and 2 television series, of which 3 are animated. The films and television series were not cited as references, but mentioned as cultural expressions of the subjects discussed in this section - that of discipleship. All other sources aside Kung Fu Panda were ignored in the ensuing discussion here, unfortunately, as were all of my other claims from the talk page. The references included 10 books and 6 articles, all written by experts, of which the minority were self-published. I once more challenge anyone here to refute the claim that any of these sources were not written and published by experts. As such, why are they not relevant, and why is it that people completely ignore them and then focus on "the silliness of Kung Fu Panda" due to the fact that it is a children's film, though it was not a referenced source but a cultural example?... I must ask whether anyone here has ever been a practitioner of traditional Chinese martial arts? Or is your knowledge of them limited to watching Kung Fu Panda? As was explained on the talk page, Discipleship is something as basic to these traditions as wheels to a car. 187.244.113.106 (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I must ask whether anyone here has ever been a practitioner of traditional Chinese martial arts? I have. I studied Wing chun for two years, though my experience lies more with Japanese and modern MAs. I also heartily disagree with you, your sources, and your editing style.

I urge you to stop arguing about this for a moment, take a read of WP:FIND, which outlines our guidelines for finding reliable sourcing, and use those guidelines to find sources to support the content.

The content you were adding was problematic, but salvageable. However the sources and examples you chose are, frankly, laughable to any experienced Wikipedian.

If it will help you to take a step back, I will look through some books I have on the subject when I get home and see what they have to say about discipleship, and try to sus out something that will cover the topic without causing problems like your edit.

As a final note: Accusing others of racism is a quick way to get blocked per WP:CRYRACIST, so I would advise you to stop that immediately and entirely. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I have. This is irrelevant to the way Wikipedia works. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• This sounds more like a potential WP:No original research issue than a RS issue. Who says these films and movies are cultural examples of “discipleship”. If it is an expert, we should attribute the opinion to that expert. Blueboar (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  Focusing on the main issue, Blueboar is 100% correct. The passage is a combination of a novel synthesis of disparate ideas, created by the writer, a few unreliable sources, and original research. If the article is to contain the information that has been removed, it needs to be cited to an actual reliable source that makes the same basic points. --Jayron32 14:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Think tanks

Quick search:

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_253#Are_Think_Tanks_considered_reliable_sources_for_politically_controversial_articles?
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_3#Think_Tanks_as_A_Source
• Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Archive_61#Think_tank_or_special_interest_sources

I'm uncomfortable with the use of think tanks in articles. They are pretty much advocacy groups, and my understanding is that they should almost never be cited without WP:INTEXT attribution and should not be used as a source for statements of fact in wikivoice, especially controversial ones. I believe the above discussions confirm this. The context to this discussion is the (at times) extensive use of think tank pieces without attribution on 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis. I'd appreciate some uninvolved opinions on the reliability of think tanks for statements of fact. If my understanding is correct, can we add some wording to this effect in WP:RS? Possibly they should be treated as SPS? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Same question for NGOs that focus on advocacy. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• The problem is that the field is so broad its basically an unanswerable question. There are think tanks/NGOs out there with the very highest reputation and credentials and there are think tanks/NGOs out there which actively spread disinformation and conspiracy theories. Most are somewhere in between, in my experience attribution with an in-text link normally clears up the problem and if thats not possible because the think tank/NGO doesn’t have a wikipedia page then thats a situation in which you’d want to take a good hard look at whether you should be using it at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Think tanks are not always advocacy groups. Many just have a topic focus for research, some focus on research in order to advocate particular political positions, and some mainly just produce propaganda. Compare Pew Research Center to The Heritage Foundation, for example. They're also not clearly defined. Would we consider any research and/or policy-focused organization that isn't part of government or academia a think tank? All of this is to say they can't really be treated as a group. At minimum, the quality of their research and degree to which they're considered authorities on this or that topic varies dramatically. Could you give some examples of controversial use in the 2021 Israel-Palestine context? That's certainly a subject for which there are tons of think tanks operating, and a subject for which there is a massive amount of coverage such that irrespective of reliability there could be a local consensus to only pick up think tank material once it's been covered by a secondary source or whatnot... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  One example: A piece from the NGO Avocats Sans Frontières is used to cast doubt on the legality of the property transfers in the dispute.[52] The think tank Kohelet Policy Forum says nobody seriously questions the legality of those transfers.[53] Another example, slightly less controversial but eh: the entire bulk of the "Historic dispute" section is sourced to a publication by The Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies, another think tank.[54] ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  Why not mention both views on the legality of the transfers as the New York Times does? VR _talk 08:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  The NYT unfortunately doesn't go into sufficient detail to verify the entire prose afaik. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  Regarding think tanks are not always advocacy groups, one thing I mentioned further down is that looking at a think tank's mission statement and stated purpose can be a good starting point. Obviously some may have a stated goal that diverges from reality, so we also have to look at their reputation, but it's a good place to start - eg. the Pew Research Center has providing accurate information as its stated purpose. Whereas if a think tank's stated purpose is to advance an ideological goal, we can stop there - those think tanks would never be usable for anything but WP:RSOPINION at best (and I would caution against using them even for that without a secondary source; that falls far short of the RSOPINION gold standard of opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. Publication in an advocacy-oriented think tank doesn't generally mean anything beyond 'the people who pay the think tank believe publishing this will advance their agenda'; people publishing there are essentially "hired guns", which gives what they say no inherent weight. Citing such a think tank directly would be like citing a TV commercial directly - it doesn't matter how many screens they paid to get it on; if the only source you can find for something is someplace where someone had to pay exclusively to push it out there, that's a pretty strong sign that it's not worth covering. --Aquillion (talk) 08:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• To add to Horse Eye's Black, it's down to having a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I have used material from the Brookings Institution and the Council on Foreign Relations to source factual statements before, but only when I was not able to find material in high quality press. WP:EXCEPTIONAL, WP:RSOPINION (and WP:DUE) may apply. JBchrch (talk) 09:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• I assume you're referring to this edit: [55]. Unless Weinberg's quote has received significant secondary coverage (i.e., other articles commenting on his Op-Ed), then I don't think his quote should be mentioned in the article. This is less an issue of think tanks than a question of inclusion all sorts of opinions on quickly evolving news stories. I don't think we should be including opinions from random Op-Eds, unless there's some reason to believe that they're particularly weighty (as evidenced by secondary coverage). -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  That's one of such edits I'm concerned with, yeah, but it was properly attributed so more of a due/undue issue. My feeling is more that 'facts' that can only be found in think tank publications should generally be attributed. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment This question keeps coming up in one form or another as with Human Rights Watch and B'Tselem recently, blue chip hr orgs but often described (wrongly) as advocacy orgs. In IP area, safest course is to attribute if in doubt, it only leads to disputes else.Selfstudier (talk) 12:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  Comment. Since PR has requested 3rd party input, I'll keep out of this. But I would note that mentioning Avocats Sans Frontières wasn't meant 'to cast doubt on the legality of the property transfers in the dispute.' It was cited simply to state the fact that the Palestinians involved in the case have repeatedly challenged the authencity of the documentation presented. That is a fact known from several sources. Whether their challenge is valid or note isn't known. Since we do not have independent legal analyses of the court documents. We only know that Israeli laws regarding property owned by Palestinians (there are numerous academic studies on this) make it extremely difficult for the plaintiffs to win a case there. The most famous example is at Susya, where Israel's leading land expert determined that the Palestinian villagers had title and their Ottoman era documents were authentic. The Israeli court has consistently supported their eviction notwithstanding the proof of ownership. Ottoman era documents secure a Jewish right, but are not valid for assertions of a Palestinian claim (which here likewise is armed with Ottoman era documents whose relevance is dismissed). Nishidani (talk) 13:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

It's difficult to follow what you are talking about without diffs, but I think you're referring to this: [56]. The claim that Palestinians have challenged the authenticity of certain documents in court does not appear in any way WP:EXTRAORDINARY to me, so Avocats Sans Frontières (ASF) should be reliable for this claim. If ASF were claiming that the Palestinian claimants were correct, then that opinion would best be attributed in-text, with a brief description of who ASF is. Whether this material is WP:DUE is another matter - I would look at whether secondary sources covering the issue tend to mention it or not. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Sheikh Jarrah property dispute is up for DYK, any POV issues will get picked up there I should think.Selfstudier (talk) 13:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Another claim in the article that's sourced to a think tank is as follows: According to the Jerusalem Institute for Policy Research, this approach to property rights is unacceptable in international law. The source a report from the Jerusalem Institute for Policy Research. I can't actually find this claim in the JIPR's own voice, though the report does note that several different parties (including an Israeli Attorney General and representatives of various countries) have stated that Israel's evictions in Sheikh Jarrah are illegal under international law. JIPR appears to be a fairly pro-Israeli organization, and its report framed from the perspective of advancing Israel's national interests, so I don't think there are pro-Palestinian biases that would make this source particularly unreliable in this context. From a reliability standpoint, it is usable in this case, though the text should clarify that JIPR does not call Israel's actions illegal in its own voice, but rather attributes this opinion to others. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• I completely agree: we should never cite think-tanks as primary sources. They are a special case of primary sourced opinion, which is a bad idea to start with (see WP:ARSEHOLES) but unlike most opinion sources, they exist solely to advance an agenda through the expenditure of money. If you want to see how pernicious the influence of think-tanks is, look at the Kansas experiment, where a state was nearly bankrupted by believing the writing of right wing think tanks. Or look at the effect of climate change denial, which, as Oreskes does a masterful job of establishing, was built and suystained by think-tanks. Where think-tanks produce research, it is very often policy-based evidence making designed to serve the economic interests of the people who are paying them. Don't use think tanks as sources is an excellent rule for Wikipedia. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I think "be aware of their possible biases" and "when in doubt, attribute" are reasonable rules to go by. But each case needs to be considered: above, we have a somewhat pro-Israeli think tank noting that international observers have called Israel's evictions of Palestinian families in East Jerusalem illegal under international law. The think tank has a bias, but what it's writing in this particular case actually goes against that bias. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:DUE may still not be established, maybe if the viewpoint is published somewhere as a WP:RSOPINION but quoting a report selectively seems eh. There is lots of material in these 3 reports which favours one side or the other, much of it not reported in independent reliable secondary sources. How are we meant to decide which to include, which to treat reliable, etc? You can take totally different interpretations of what the majority position is depending on which think tank piece you read. The point of think tanks, policy institutes, and many NGOs is often to promote a certain agenda or to produce 'research' to support their position. Their primary goal is not to report facts. Even if some of their statements are true, what might they have omitted? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, WP:DUE must still be established - that goes for any source. But given that fairly high-ranking officials from a number of countries (France, UK) and supra-national organizations (UN, EU) have commented on the (international) legality of the evictions, this particular claim seems due to me: [57]. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Thucydides411, no, you're talking about the content, not the source. The fact of it being arguably illegal under international law is likely significant, but we don't then go out and trawl the internet for any source that makes the statement we want, where a colourable argument for reliability could be made.

If multiple world statespeople are saying it's illegal, there will be non-opinion sources saying so. If this opinion is uniquely insightful, it will be referenced in secondary sources. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Thucydides411, then cite third party sources that establish the significance of that opinion. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Clearly, the WP:BURDEN in this example would be on Thucudides411, if he were to advocate the content. SPECIFICO talk 15:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@JzG: What is Pew Research Center's political agenda? Who is a better authority on, say, demographics of internet use? If you're only talking about the policy-focused opinions, then fine, but you're talking about all think tanks like they're all the sort that produces research about cigarettes not causing cancer, which isn't true. It's too broad a brush. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, it's usually very easy to find a secondary source for Pew research. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

? But that's not what I asked? If we're talking about an absolute prohibition on primary research, then fine, but this section is just about think tanks. What is Pew's political agenda or poor record of reliability such that it would be subject to different rules from other well respected sources of primary research? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, my response is that it's not for us to judge. Pew genuinely is nonpartisan, but most think-tanks claim to be (largely in order to qualify for 501(c)3). Yes there is a difference between Pew's nonpartisan nonpartisan approach, and the nonpartisan approach of think thanks that support all hard-right pro-corporate positions regardless of party, but in the end it's still a think-tank, and primary-sourced opinion is still primary-sourced opinion. Defer to secondary sources - which, for Pew, normally exist. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

It sounds like you're saying to find a secondary source for Pew not because of a principled primary vs. secondary sources which extends beyond think tanks, and not because there's anything at all wrong with Pew's reliability, but because the reliability of some sources within the category "think tank" is inconvenient to an effort to prohibit use of all of them. I'm just saying it's too lazy to try to write off the entire category because there is clear evidence they're not all propaganda garbage, so they need to be evaluated on a case by case basis like any other primary source. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, actually it's a straightforward question of WP:RS/WP:UNDUE. Primary opinion sources are a terrible idea. Pew is an edge case because a lot of what they publish is not opinion or advocacy, but factual reporting, accepted as such by reliable sources, but still, if no reliable independent source mentions it, it's likely UNDUE IMO. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

---

I think all this depends entirely on (1) what think tank; (2) what topic; and (3) what kind of piece. The Council on Foreign Relations has a series of excellent, authoritative, up-to-date "backgrounder" documents, and I think it's entirely appropriate to freely use and cite these as sources without in-text attribution. Ditto for things like Pew Research Center. But purely opinion pieces from think tanks, or pieces from think tanks that are partisan, state-controlled, or less well-known, will often require in-text attribution. Neutrality^talk 15:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• This isn't an easy question in my view. One option is to just treat all think tanks and their related publications as primary sources and then say a secondary source is required to establish weight. I kind of like this since it is at least simple to understand. However, if we pick that path would it stand to reason that we would treat other focused organizations in a similar fashion? What makes a think tank different than the SLPC or many of the climate focused organizations that release reports on climate change (groups we might call climate change watch dogs)? At some level these organizations are all similar. They have made it their mission to discuss/persuade others to adopt their views on issues, to support what they like and condemn what they dislike. If think tanks are considered primary then I'm not sure why we wouldn't treat basically all advocacy organizations in a similar way. It would also open a question like, is a book by a person at a think tank an acceptable resource if published via normal press even if it just says what this person has said through the think tank? I can see another issue with my proposal. Why would I treat a strongly biased news source as acceptable/DUE but not treat a think tank the same way. An organization like CATO might actually have higher publishing standards than a local left leaning alterative news paper. Why would we treat the paper as reliable while CATO isn't? I can see an argument if the types of things being cited (basic facts vs analysis/interpretations) are different. However, if say VOX says the economic impact of a new law is up (not quotes a source, but offer's their own analysis) while CATO says it's down would we only report VOX's opinion (for argument sake these are the only two sources and consensus is the discussion is DUE). The core of this second line of questioning is, what is the difference between activist press vs a think tank? Why would we treat one as secondary source while the other is primary in a case where both are generating original claims/views/opinions? I agree with the view that there are lots of think tanks and many show limited ability to actually think but I think if we justify treating all as primary sources based on their inherent bias, what makes that different than many other sources we use? Springee (talk) 23:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• I responded to this in more detail below (since I think the comparison is illustrative), but I want to underline that Vox and the Cato Institute are in starkly different categories. Vox is a WP:NEWSORG with a commitment to fact-checking and accuracy and a mission statement based around accurately explaining the news; the Cato Institute's mission is to advance Charles Koch's ideological goals in the form of libertarian principles. They are completely different categories. No news organization is completely free of bias; some may even be biased to the point where it interferes with their accuracy, although I think you'd be hard-pressed to find evidence of that for Vox, whose reputation is generally strong. But the Cato Institute is not even attempting to accurately explain the world - that is not its purpose. It makes no commitment whatsoever to telling anyone the truth or to performing even the most minimal fact-checking on anything it publishes. (Notably, the small number of think tanks that people are mentioning as reliable are different - they are ones that both were founded primarily to provide accurate information and which have sterling reputations at doing so. The Cato Institute not only fails to do so, it is not attempting to do so.) --Aquillion (talk) 08:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• I picked Cato and VOX somewhat at random but more on that in a moment. Consider if the comparison were Jacobian, Slate, Snopes (not a traditional news org) or Jezebel? I think a problem is there isn't some sort of unbiased, independent body that certifies "news organizations". To some extent the difference only comes down to funding. A news org has to convince advertisers to buy add space while a think tank with a reporting component, presumably, does not. While I don't think we should ever turn over our source discussions to the Ad Fontes Media team it is interesting to look at their ratings of CATO[[58]] and VOX [[59]]. CATO is rated as more reliable (41 vs 39) and less biased (5 vs -11). Don't get me wrong, I understand the choice to treat think tanks as primary and thus only include their views if a secondary RS covers it. What I'm asking is if this would mean we automatically apply the same rule to other purposed organizations (SPLC, various climate change groups) and/or at what point do we ask if a strong POV news source is really any different than a think tank when it comes to things like bias, analysis/commentary etc. Sometimes the difference between a think tank with a reporting component and an activist press source seems little more than how they are funded. This isn't so much an answer/path forward as it is a question that should be asked with respect to any path forward. An alternative might be to move away from treating sources and generally reliable/due or not and towards spending more time asking if particular source articles/reports and reliable/due in context. Springee (talk) 11:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Regarding the SPLC (the easier question), I mentioned three categories of think-tanks below - the "default" where a think tank isn't really useful for anything; think tanks that are so well-known and widely-cited on a topic that their opinion is almost automatically relevant when that topic comes up (but the threshold for this is usually that we can always find a secondary source when we need one, so it doesn't matter); and a small number of think tanks who actually have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and usually have that as part of their mission statement, which can be cited for facts. The SPLC is in the second category - almost any source that discusses hate groups cites their opinion, which I think means we can consider their opinion significant enough to mention on its own but usually shouldn't have to. I wouldn't cite them without attribution, though - they are respected because their opinions are considered authoritative, not because they are known for accuracy. Regarding newsorgs, again - if a source does have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, bias alone doesn't disqualify it, though we have to take its biases into account and an extreme bias can be a reason to doubt that reputation. But the basic point is that a newsorg is, by definition, something that at least notionally aspires to fact-checking and accuracy; assuming they're not completely unknown, there's a presumption of "they're doing what they say" that has to be overcome by demonstrating otherwise to show they're unreliable. An advocacy-oriented think tank is the reverse - they are not claiming to do any fact-checking, and are specifically saying they have other priorities, so you have to start from zero (or a net negative, even) and show that they are specifically reputable for that before it would become even debatable whether they might be citable for facts. Certainly I agree that there are less-unreliable newsorgs and more-reliable thinktanks, but all else being equal being a newsorg is a positive and being an advocacy-oriented think tank is a net negative (when it comes to citations for facts, being an advocacy-oriented think tank is such a severe net negative that I would say it is nearly impossible to overcome, since it means their core definition as an organization is to be as WP:BIASED as possible; the only situations we might cite them for facts are extremely limited, unexceptional, non-self-serving WP:ABOUTSELF stuff and the other narrow exceptions that let us cite anything.) --Aquillion (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Summed up very well by Springee, Neutrality, Rhododendrites, and I particularly commend Springee's analysis, thank you very much. Not all research by think tanks is partisan/unreliable, some is actually very worthy, and I don't believe all think tank research to be primary, too, since they (at least claim to) include other bits of data to (mis)guide policy. While WP:ARSEHOLES makes a point that think tank policy may ruin entire governments, we as editors are not here to determine if they are bound to (unless we were all scholars in the economical domains, which we are not); at most, we could point to some glaring flaws in reasoning as reported in widespread scholarly criticism to make the point made by the think tank look bleak, or to a pattern of factual inaccuracies or outright lies made in the reports. Just as we do with any news outlet. The difference may be that we might want to pay more attention to manipulations or lies by omission they (may) make, but other than that, I'd treat is as any other source. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 04:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with JZG we need a secondary source from WP:NEWSORG or scholarly publication to make their claims notable --Shrike (talk) 07:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• Most think tanks are unusable without a secondary source; status as a think-tank (unlike status as a WP:NEWSORG) provides no presumption of reliability in and of itself, and few think-tanks have anything else that would give them a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A few exist that are important enough that we ought to cover what they say (though the threshold for this is generally that we will not need to cite them on their own since anything important they say will have secondary coverage.) A very small number of further exceptions exist that have reputations for fact-checking and accuracy sufficient that they can be cited for facts despite being think tanks; generally these are the few think-tanks whose mission statements are focused on providing accurate information and which have a reputation to affirm that they live up to that. But most think tanks, even very well-funded and well-known think-tanks, are by default not attempting to be reliable source as we understand the term; most of them exist solely to advance the agenda they were founded for and have no commitment to (and make no pretense of committing to) fact-checking or accuracy. At best such think-tanks are usable for opinion, and for opinion they are usually WP:UNDUE because publication in a think tank means nothing beyond "people with the money to fund a think tank wanted to say this." (ie. publication in a source otherwise recognizable as reliable, like the editorial page of a major paper, carries at least some implication of due weight; publication in a think tank carries no such weight because a think tank will by definition publish anything that they think advances their goals.)

The comparison of the Cato Institute, in particular, to Vox is very telling - while people may disagree with Vox in various ways, it is fundamentally a news organization, with a commitment to, and a reputation for, fact-checking and accuracy; no matter how much some people may disagree with its conclusions, it is by all accounts at least attempting to accurately describe the world, and accurately explaining the world is at least notionally its purpose. The Cato institute has no such commitment or reputation and, more importantly, is not intended to perform any sort of fact-checking; it is not intended to explain, only to convince. Its purpose is to advance Charles Koch's political agenda (and the agenda of anyone else who funds it); it can maybe be cited as a WP:PRIMARY source in contexts where that opinion is relevant, ideally with a secondary source to establish this, but cannot be cited for statements of fact ever. As with personal websites, there are a small number of think tanks whose reputation is strong enough to overcome this, but it has to be demonstrated on an individual basis because unlike a WP:NEWSORG there is no commitment to fact-checking or accuracy inherent to defining oneself as a think tank (and in fact, in many cases, a commitment that runs counter to it - again, the Cato Institute vs. Vox comparison in particular is a good example because the Cato Institute's founding mission is explicitly to push a specific agenda, not to report anything accurately. If you want to show that Vox is unreliable, you have to demonstrate that it is failing to live up to its mission of reporting with fact-checking and accuracy. If you want to argue that the Cato Institute is reliable, you have to demonstrate that it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy despite giving no evidence that this is a priority, and despite a mission statement that directly implies that it will say and do anything to achieve its policy goals. --Aquillion (talk) 08:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Aquillion, exactly so. In short, Wikipedia is looking for facts, think-tanks almost always exist to promote Truth™. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

JzG, What do you think about starting RFC about this matter here or at WP:RS? Shrike (talk) 11:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Shrike, in my view it's more of an UNDUE question than an RS question, but regardless, some kind of centralised discussion to firm up guidance would be a good idea. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@JzG: IMO it's an RS question too. The claims of think tanks are often made in wikivoice, and asserted as fact. On the Israel-Palestine crisis article I would guess, as a matter of fact, the current claims cited to them are factually accurate, but this doesn't itself make it an appropriate usage. After all, the Daily Mail might, in some article, publish something factually correct but that wouldn't be good reason to use DM as a cite. Ultimately the issue becomes whether it can be trusted that the claim is factually correct. When an organisation's purpose/mission, as Aquillion says, is not the reporting of facts, I'd say it's quite dubious to trust indeed. It's also a DUE question in cases where they're actually attributed. ProcSock (talk) 10:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Are we asking for citations to statements of fact (i.e. events that happened) or are we asking for citations to interpretations of events (i.e. statements of opinion). The first is the realm of WP:RS. The second is the realm of WP:UNDUE. If we are citing someone for their opinion, then the only issue related to reliability is "can we trust this source to accurately represent the opinion of the person or group in question". A self published source is sufficient for that. If we're asking "Is this opinion well-recognized enough to be even worth citing", that's a different issue, but is unrelated to reliability, which is primarily about trusting sources to present reality accurately, and not about how we should feel about reality. --Jayron32 12:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I think, as several have argued, that it is dangerous just to use a generic label, 'think tanks' and then judge the RS reliability in terms of that designation. They differ widely and RS must be evaluated case by case. Concretely, to return to the original query.

(a) Avocats sans Frontières financed a team of British lawyers to conduct a fact-finding mission in 2011. The only 'fact' we use is that they register the datum that the claims of Jewish parties based on Ottoman documents, have been challenged. This fact was entered per WP:NPOV. There are 2 sides to the dispute. The Ottoman documents are almost certainly, regarding a purchase, authentic (in my view). Israeli courts that determine this have systematically dismissed Palestinian documentation from the Ottoman period. So, while the court verdict is given most space (Israeli POV), the existence of dissent is required (Palestinian POV).

(b) The second source challenged is this, the most extensive reconstruction of the dispute and its roots available, and written by two major area scholars, one who is considered one of the front-ranking experts on land in East Jerusalem. It vindicates the historicity of the Ottoman documents, (Israeli POV) but concludes after a close examination of the evidence that the settler groups using the Israeli courts to expel Palestinians and reclaim a portion of land there are acting in a way which will have serious consequences for the Israeli government,(p.71) and undermine attempts to reach a peace accommodation with the Palestinians. That is a very middle of the road approach, 'fact rich' all sourced to primary and secondary sources according to rigorous research protocols, and outlining Jewish claims as authentic, while detailing in the text the huge problems this creates for Palestinians in the area (Palestinian POV recognized). It has done its work with reasonable neutrality. And, apart from the aim to put before Israeli policy makers an overview of the history and the potential dangers arising from the purely judicial resolution, rather than a political resolution that mediates between the parties, they also wished to create a neutral record of this obscure incident's travailed history, almost exclusively in Hebrew documents, for the international community. The quality of the study meets exacting academic standards, and is cited as such in the relevant literature. I think therefore we are fussing too much. The two are used sparsely, and for two facts. Nishidani (talk) 13:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Nishidani, unless I am misreading, the challenged doc is published by The Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies. They would on the face of it have a dog int he fight. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, just as, and I think this is a fair characterization, nearly all news sources from the New York Times down to the Jerusalem Post - use of which is never questioned - have a mongrel in the baiting square. (The NYTs's reportage is notably partisan, customarily omits or 'balances' out anything negative with 'but-on-the-other-hand'-waffling, but if you read its I/P reportage in the elitist New York Review of Books, with a sparse but important circulation, they put the boot on the other foot, and publish overwhelmingly top-ranking but little known Israeli or Jewish scholars of the system whose devastating reviews would never get past the moderation board on their daily version.) Abstract rules cannot resolve all these issues on wiki. At times one needs commonsense, and discretional judgment (always before one's peers here) on a case-by-case basis.

I'm not good on wiki rules, I admit. I just apply the methods I was taught to use by Greek and Japanese scholars at university for writing summaries of the state of the scholarship in an academic field. These at least are comprehensible and virtually universal - tight source control, examine the background of the publishing organ and the writers; ensure that the material used reflects standard analytic protocols. So when I read, say Martin Bernal's 2 volume Black Athena I could see that nearby all of the 800 pages (excluding the historical overview, which most specialists thought made a cogent case for the existence of racism at the historic heart of Greek studies) was unusable, despite my partiality for the idea that, contrary to the standard model, Greek mythology reflected decidedly strong semitic and Asiatic elements. So here, I don't think, with my known 'Pro-Palestinian' POV, 'Ah, The Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies is just another Israeli policy lobby, so I'll exclude it!' I read its 96 pages closely and came away with the impression that it fits the highest standards of the kind of scholarship we regard as optimal. I don't share their optimistic decent faith in high principles, no. But I respect quality from whatever quarter it comes form. Sorry for the length. Nishidani (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nishidani: For the record, it's obvious you're well read in this topic area, and the publication does look high quality, so I don't doubt you might be right as a matter of fact. But, as I linked above, another think tank report written by a few university professors seems to say the majority opinion is that nobody seriously disputes the legality of the ownership. For the sake of argument let's say this think tank is correct. So our portrayal in the article, which seems a bit like WP:FALSEBALANCE, actually gives the impression the legality is more disputable than it actually is. Let's instead assume your think tank report is accurate, and the legality is indeed dubious, then the current portrayal is accurate. But your think tank report is produced by a source which clearly has a advocacy focus, and I'm assuming Kohelet does too. So which think tank do we trust, and on what fair and consistent grounds do we make this decision? And how can our readers trust it too? Your point about news orgs, as you showed with evidence re. the Irish Times, is taken, but I am not sure falling back to think tank pieces are the solution. ProcSock (talk) 10:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

You're asking me to put two vastly different types of documents, both from Israeli think tanks, on a par, precisely, a WP:FALSEBALANCE.

• (a) Avi Bell, Understanding the Current Sheikh Jarrah (Jerusalem) Property Dispute Kohelet Policy Forum 9 May 2021
• (b)Yitzhak Reiter,Lior Lehrs 'The Sheikh Jarrah Affair:The Strategic Implications of Jewish Settlement in an Arab Neighborhood in East Jerusalem,' The Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies,

(a) is, excuse the harshness, an opinionized rant, unfootnoteded, undocumented, asserting that international law is being misinterpreted by 'bigots' who deny Jews their property rights solely because they are Jewish. (Subtext: the 'squatters' and their supporters are antisemitic)

(This is embarassing since, as Reiter and Lehrs point out,the descendants of Arabs and Christians who once owned and had title to 45% of West Jerusalem (10,000 of the finest homes), as opposed to the 30% on its outer suburbs owned by Jews, have zero property rights of restitution under Israeli law. Bell complains of ethnic bias in Sheikh Jarrah, and turns a blind eye to the elephant in the room of West Jerusalem (as Reiters and Lehrs don't). In short he has no concept of ethnic-neutral law) It goes on for 5 pages. It ignores what international law states (the basis of Palestinian counterclaims), asserts East Jerusalem is in Israel. No, forget the details: the blatant error-ratio is so high, it would end up in a WP:TLDR tract.

(b) Is coauthored by a top Israeli Islamic studies specialist, and a leading Israeli authority on land in East Jerusalem. It had 96 pages, annexes, 213 footnotes, 19 annexes, with maps, photos of sites, statistical breakdowns etc and detailed coverage of both sides, and of the international legal problems the Israeli court decisions cause.

I don’t think one can make analogies between chalk and cheese, or apples or oranges. One could cite Avi Bell’s paper for Bell’s view. By wiki criteria, one could cite Reiter and Lehrs’ paper for factual details about all aspects of the ongoing legal, sociological, political battle and its historical roots. One paper is an abrupt set of outraged expostulations, many of which patently ignore the legal details and international law. The other is a careful meticulously documented outline and overview of all of the cruxes in the Sheikh Jarrah quagmire, and strives for even-handedness.

Bell's piece is so careless in its language of assertion that it states from the outset (which you quote)

No one seriously disputes the validity of the transactions through which the current owners acquired rights from their predecessors in title.

The meaning is, since Palestinians are asserting International Law endorses their argument, and has a higher legal force than an ethnically-biased Israeli framework of legislation, Palestinians are nobodies. That kind of extraordinary thoughtless gaffe sets the tone for the rest.Nishidani (talk) 12:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Along the lines of my previous comments consider the following hypothetical. We have a US state trying to pass a firearms law that would ban and collect all phased plasma rifles with ranges over 1 watt. Slate comes out with an article which has a clear editorial slant towards supporting law and cites things like how dangerous such weapons are when combined with T800s etc. Cato comes out with an article opposing the law noting that these rifles aren't available in stores and even in the 40 watt range these just aren't a factor in firearms crimes in the US. Both articles have a clear editorial bias, both contain gathered facts (crime stats, sales volumes etc), and both have commentary in that they make arguments based on the facts they have gathered. So why would we give one the presumption of WEIGHT (and thus presumed inclusion) while the other is considered a primary source and would thus require mention by a 3rd party before inclusion? If both sources are processing the information and offering their own commentary why would I treat one as fundamentally secondary while the other is fundamentally primary? It would seem in this case both are doing the same thing, a kind of investigative expose. I grant this is a cherry picked hypothetical but it gets to my question/concern, why would we assume a biased news source is fundamentally more reliable than report to come out of a think tank. I think the same is true of questions of weight. If CATO or Inside Climate News decide a story is important why would that have more/less weight than if a low circulation traditional news source decides to cover the same content? Also, if we decide that think tank reports/claims require 2nd party coverage to establish weight, should the same be true of other non-news sources (SPLC, Climate Feedback, Snopes etc)? I personally don't have a good answer because I can see both sides here. I don't think it's a simple answer even if the question seems simple. Springee (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• To be clear, InsideClimate News is not a think tank. It is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalism outlet. Neutrality^talk 15:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• I didn't mean to imply ICN was a think tank, rather they are an organization which investigates/reports with an intent to persuade. I believe they are also funded in a way that is not unlike many some think tanks. Like CATO they are a not for profit with a specific focus. They are not a traditional new source but we often treat their reports as such. Springee (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• I don't really think "intent to persuade" is part of the InsideClimateNews mission. Intent to inform, certainly. I don't understand the analogy to Cato. Non-profit journalism is a thing (InsideClimateNews andProPublica, among others, are both very highly regarded non-profit journalism outlets), and non-profit journalism is very different from think tanks. Neutrality^talk 16:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• I was with you when you were arguing that "An organization like CATO might actually have higher publishing standards than a local left leaning alterative news paper.” but you then proceeded to pitch CATO against high quality sources like Vox/Slate and not local left leaning alternative newspapers (the Portland Mercury for example). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• According to Ad Fontes CATO is more reliable and less biased than either Slate or Vox. However, I'm offering all of these as examples for the sake of argument and I'm picking these only as examples vs just inventing sources to make the same argument. Please don't take these to be absolute statements about any particular source. Springee (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

We don’t use Ad Fontes. Please stick to reliable sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

We don't use Ad Fontes as a RS for articles. I'm just pointing out that a source rating site that, unlike Media Bias Fact Check, does seem to get respect around here, does say CATO falls in the reasonably respectable camp using their ratings. My intent isn't to force a new rule rather to spark some debate about where we are and where we might go. Springee (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok, as long as its clear to you that your argument has shifted massively and that Vox/Slate are not local left leaning alternative newspapers. I agree with your original argument but the convoluted and tortured thing that stands before us now is anathema to me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I will grant that we can dispute if VOX/Slate are appropriate examples and I absolutely agree that neither are "local left leaning alternative papers". The argument is that some sources that we would consider "news sources" may have lower editorial quality than some think tanks. I would totally allow that the specific example sourced I picked were picked quickly and may not have been the best specific examples. Springee (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• I'd also like to extend this discussion to academic research projects and papers as well as think tanks - I've seen arguments that all sources without overt editorial structure constitute WP:SPS and should preferably not be used, especially in BLP articles. For example, Georgetown University runs an academic project on Islamophobia staffed by a bevy of area studies experts such as(John Esposito, Farid Hafez,Susan_L._Douglass etc,[60] but this was repeatedly challenged as lacking the qualities of an RS. Similarly, other editors repeatedly challenged a report for a think tank called Data & Society by a professor called Vanessa Tripodi[61] was also repeatedly challenged on the grounds that it was a 'self-published source' and couldn't be used in BLP articles. I think the existing policy needs clarification as to whether think tanks, academic research projects and reports written by academics/experts can be considered RS, especially on BLP pages Noteduck (talk) 01:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Criterion Channel

Would film descriptions on The Criterion Collection be considered reliable for plot summary details? Specifically, this [62] description of The Hot Rock (film) uses the term "Afghanistan banana stand" as opposed to "afghanistan bananastan" apparently heard in this clip [63]. I hear "afghanistan banana stand" but appreciate this is a subtle difference hence the need for RS—blindlynx (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:COMMONSENSE is above policy. "Afghanistan bananastan" (a play on banana republic) makes common sense while "Afghanistan banana stand" is nonsense. -- GreenC 18:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

The original book uses "banana stand" as well so common sense would be it's the same in the moive no?—blindlynx (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Sheesh a mess.. ok so the book says "banana stand" and the movie sounds like "bananastan" or "banana stand" and there are secondary sources that could provide for both also. For Wikipedia purposes, I would state "banana stand" with a Note some sources report it as "bananastan" but the original book is "banana stand". A version of the movie script online says "banana stand" [64] if you consider it reliable. -- GreenC 20:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

No kidding, i have half a mind to just leave it out entierly. But thanks!—blindlynx (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes! We Have No Bananas -- GreenC 01:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

New Economic Perspectives

Is neweconomicperspectives.org a reliable source for a BLP? Currently, it's the only source in the criticism section for Tyler Cowen. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

It looks a lot like a wordpress blog, which would generally be unreliable as it is self-published. It self-describes as a blog, and while it might be an expert blog in some areas, WP:BLP is pretty clear that we should not use self-published sources in a BLP unless it is a source published by the article subject that describes non-controversial information. Seeing as the website a blog that explicitly exists to push Modern Monetary Theory, it's a bit odd to me that it would be included in a BLP given the current BLP policies. There doesn't appear to be strong editorial oversight on the blog, either, so I don't think it's one of those websites that calls itself a "blog" but actually qualifies as a WP:NEWSORG for having a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and editorial oversight (think SCOTUSblog). (MMT itself may well be WP:FRINGE, as well, so it's event odder for the source to be WP:DUE in a BLP, even if it weren't a group blog.) — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

MMT is for now an out-of-mainstream doctrine (and is generally considered to be so), but a) economics do allow heterodox doctrines to be discussed, b) seems COVID forced MMT closer to the center of the economic debate. I don't think we should discredit an economist based on his/her being an MMT supporter. If we allow Austrian School for discussion, so we should MMT. It is certainly an advocacy group (something that, in a more professional setting, would be called a think tank), and I oppose dismissing think tanks just for being think tanks.

The criticism section gave too much space for a single person, agreed; however, it was salvageable and, in my view, acceptable, as the guy in question is a subject-matter expert with relevant expertise and papers published, therefore I don't agree with Mikehawk's revert. There are some folks on the forum who are not subject matter experts (J.D. Alt is an architect who became interested in MMT), but others have the necessary credentials, and the stories they publish seem to be just fine for an WP:OPINION piece. In particular, the pieces that were deleted were actually editor-in-chief's posts. While WP:SELFPUB says no self-published source should be used for whichever BLP claim, the post does not relate strictly to BLP but rather to the scholarship the person writes, which is not, from my reading, covered by WP:BLP - this has more to do with normal debate rather than making claims about a person's life.

I'd directly attribute to Blake's opinions, noting he's an MMT supporter, but not exclude it. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 07:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Black's posts [65][66][67] have a distinctly unrestrained "blog" tone which, frankly, sometimes borders on personal attack. This is clearly not scholarly material and not appropriate for BLPs. JBchrch talk 10:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree that as a blog, they could allow much laxer tone restrictions - not necessarily a bad thing for me. Style is not something that make the resource not to be trusted. I don't find it a typically self-published resource, as they seem to hint, at least a little, that they do have some editorial oversight, though it is certainly not as rigorous as in typical scientific publications. The question for me is not whether the oversight exists (it does) but is oversight present there enough to make the source usable for BLP statements. The problem is, some treat the scientific research/advocacy for policy as part of BLP, which I doubt very much, given that WP:BLP addresses primarily stuff connected with private life, privacy and not the products of making the job - a similar blog could criticise the economic policy of Margaret Thatcher or Paul Krugman in the same terms and we would only then consider the WP:UNDUE part of opinion, because it is obvious the economic policy of Thatcher/Krugman has little to do with BLP, so if there is criticism of the policies policies, we need to publish it from subject-matter experts, wherever they publish it, if only it's due. The WP:UNDUE questions, however, should rather not be discussed here, but on the talk page.

Can I trust it to be the opinion of the folks representing MMT community? Pretty much so, from what I see, because MMT pretty much is about government regulation (mostly, of taxes, which they claim to be the most important). Is the opinion piece grounded in fact and MMT view on economics? Yes. Is it just ad hominem attacks? Not from what I read from the cited passages, although admittedly the person uses strong words of opinion, but at least it is made clear it is opinion and I don't believe the author crossed red lines. Is the person an economist with expertise in the domain? Certainly.

Tl;dr: The passage should have been reformulated and not deleted, and Mikehawk10, in my view, misapplied WP:BLP to criticism of scholarship, which would better but need not be published in a scientific paper (so long as it is a subject matter expert and they don't make some obvious lies or misrepresentations), and therefore we are not answering the right question in this particular case (see that in WP:GRAPEVINE they suggest us to look at WP:LIBEL for additional guidance, and it's certainly not libellous). Questions of WP:UNDUE do not belong here. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

It is really this complex? WP:SPS is pretty clear: Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. JBchrch talk 22:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not complex, because my belief is it isn't. Fortunately I am able to read, thank you, but since it is my belief that it is not self-published, I saw this particular sentence as inapplicable in the context. See I don't find it a typically self-published resource, as they seem to hint, at least a little, that they do have some editorial oversight, though it is certainly not as rigorous as in typical scientific publications. With the word "typically" I mean that I can't definitely rule it out, but for me, odds are it is not self-published. A resource can't be both self-published and have at least some degree of editorial oversight at the same time - these statements are mutually exclusive. Does it mean it's reliable? Not necessarily (though I believe it is reliable for opinions of the subject-matter experts who publish there). Is it automatically usable for BLP because it's not self-published? Nope. But I believe the arguments for reverting the edit counterweigh the arguments for leaving the article in the current state. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Gotcha. I did not understand that you didn't consider it to be 100% self-pub and I certainly did not mean my comment as a personal attack. I still think it's inappropriate for a BLP but now I understand your argument. JBchrch talk 23:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I guess my point is more that if there isn't evidence of significant oversight, we have a tendency to treat it as a WP:SPS. I have seen reliable sources refer to it as a blog, and I admittedly cannot find the blog's editorial standards and/or its retraction policy, if such policies exist. I have seen that the editor-in-chief has changed since 2013, but I don't know that giving someone the title of Editor-in-Chief is a reason to move it from an SPS to a source with editorial controls; Forbes Contributors have titular editors assigned to them, for example, but there isn’t editorial oversight prior to a piece being published. If an editor could find their editorial policies, it would be helpful in establishing the extent of oversight over each new post. Absent published editorial policies, I find it a bit difficult to assume that it has editorial oversight. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you in that I neither can find their policy, and I'm afraid I won't even get an answer if I ask for one, because the last post was written in early April last year and the contact form is broken. That said, a group of experts which The New Yorker recognizes the blog as being the most influential one of the MMT group. Moreover, I found a link from University of Mo. - Kansas City that the blog is the blog of the UMKC Economics Department (or so it was in 2012). For a prominent group of MMT theoretics who have an endorsement from a university, there are more chances for them to have the oversight than not. We can't say that for a blog considered influential, especially with the majority of those writing there being scholars, the chance of it not having any review whatsoever is small.

Their works have also been cited by Penn Political Review (1), praised by these researchers in a peer-reviewed paper and used as a source in another. They are also acknowledged here, and there is evidence they are cited in research; not very much but still. All of these signs indicate to me that they are recognised as a group of scholars whose papers can be trusted to be passing through some form of editorial review; otherwise they wouldn't be cited (you know, citing self-published sources for a peer-reviewed paper is not necessarily a good idea). That's how I see it. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 04:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I am not impressed by the sources you are bringing up.

• The Penn Political Review says We are not an academic journal, but rather a “soapbox” for members of the Penn community to share their opinions and learn from one another about the diverse viewpoints found on Penn’s campus [68].
• The Journal of Post Keynesian Economics contests the mainstream orthodoxy with Keynes’s vision of open-ended economic study [69]. The article describes them as a blog.
• People at Renewal believe that a radical and emancipatory vision of social democracy can be realised in the twenty-first century and demand the expansion of real freedom and equality for all, and an end to the commodification of nature and daily life [70].
• Epstein describes the website as a blog and calls them bloggers and advocates.
• I am not clear on what the Google Scholar link shows?

All in all, this only confirms that this is blog pushing heterodox (if not fringe) views in the field of economics. Should stay out of BLPs. JBchrch talk 15:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I dug through Google Scholar, so thanks for pointing out faultiness of some resources. I'll discuss them below based on the info.

You seem to conflate "blog" and "self-published, therefore unreliable for BLP". A recent discussion on ACRLog concluded that it was a blog, but it was reliable because it had endorsement from librarians' academic associations and those who posted info were academics, and the info was reviewed. So even there blog≠self-published, though I agree it is often the case. Even an advocacy blog may have editorial review, and I stated explicitly that while it is an advocacy resource, the opinions can be attributed.

As for the resources - Penn Political Review - yep, my bad. Journal of Post-Keynesian Economics is a peer-reviewed journal, and while it is niche, we shouldn't be excluding journals only based on their worldview (well, there is strong indication a lot of folks do, but that doesn't mean we should, too). Bias does not influence reliability. Ditto for Renewal. Remember that MMT will attract people from the left - it is by no means disqualifying. Epstein is right to say that it is a blog, because, as you have probably read from The New Yorker/WSJ, it was intended to be one.

The Google Scholar link I provided was to show that the articles from New Economic Perspectives are cited, two or three times, but they still are. Is it therefore fringe (because of little citation)? Well, MMT is described as heterodox, but that is not a disqualifying trait for RS, either. The only problem might be that it is not due, but again, MMT is now pretty much talked about in the media and slowly comes out from a niche and towards the centre of debate. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Personal or group blogs are considered self-published per WP:SPS: Nothing controversial here. The discussion on ACRLog was not about a BLP. Regarding the heterodoxy of MMT, I was simply responding to your WP:USEBYOTHERS argument: this heterodox blog was cited in heterodox outlets, not the Journal of Political Economy. So that says very little about its general reliability. JBchrch talk 22:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable or WP:UNDUE? It isn't currently being cited for any facts other than the facts that the blog does indeed contain the quotes and paraphrases that express the opinions we are citing. As with 75% of the things we deal with here, this isn't a reliability issue, which is about "Can we trust the information this source is presenting about events that happened") it is instead "is this opinion well promulgated enough for us to include the opinion and attribute it to this person". That's not WP:RS, that WP:UNDUE. --Jayron32 12:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with Mikwehawk's removal. Whether or not we're talking about Cowen himself or his work, this still falls under BLP. WP:BLPSPS makes it pretty clear that we can't use blogs or other self-published sources in BLPs. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

" Research that has not been peer-reviewed is akin to a blog — anyone can publish one online with little expertise."

From Did Chinese Virologist Dr. Li-Meng Yan Say COVID-19 Was Made in a Wuhan Lab? on Snopes:

"...the suggestion is false, misleading, and based on a non-peer-reviewed report that was published in two separate studies on Sept. 14 and Oct. 8 in the preprint server Zenodo, which means that the research had not gone through rigorous editorial critically evaluated by scientific experts with an extra degree of scrutiny. Research that has not been peer-reviewed is akin to a blog — anyone can publish one online with little expertise. A reviewed study, on the other hand, is on par with a well-vetted, expertly researched textbook."

--Guy Macon (talk) 00:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Like, is this not common knowledge? Nobody should be citing unreviewed preprints for statements of fact. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: uses of Zenodo in our articles.[71] Doug Weller talk 10:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Doug Weller, good luck purging those. The Zenodo fanbois are loud. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey, @JzG:, @Guy Macon:, you all mind if I assist in their removal too? Question: Does Zenodo clearly label and show when a pre-print has been properly published in a journal like bioRxiv does? Since I presume papers that have been properly published are fine to stay (though the reference should really be swapped over to point at that version), but i'd like to focus for now on the not yet published stuff. If Zenodo doesn't have that accessibility function, that makes this more annoying and I guess i'd be more inclined to just remove all such references wholesale. Silverseren^C 21:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Silver seren, they generally do not identify subsequent publication, is my experience. But this may have changed over time. And it's possible they may have removed all the copyright violations as well. But I'd want evidence. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

You weren't kidding, Guy, my god. Look at Pyu language (Sino-Tibetan). It's all Zenodo, it's all RS violations front to back and there's article after article like this. I can see why it's aggravating to deal with, since you're basically having to trash entire articles on clearly notable topics and i'm sure there's a ton of resistance. Welp...*rolls up sleeves* I'm going in anyways. Silverseren^C 23:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I would say that is a google search for "exact name on preprint" (with the quotes) doesn't show it being later published we can assume that it wasn't. If the published paper is paywalled, I say leave both citations in the article with a (preprint) label on one of them.

I think in a few select cases you might be able to keep the content and replace the preprint citation with a Citation Needed, but mostly the claim would have to go.

So should we ask the edit notice gnomes for an edit notice for whenever someone tries to add or re-add a preprint citation? Are there sites other than Zenodo that contain only preprints? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

List of ant genera is an example of Zenodo being used with actual published studies. Not sure why the Zenodo preprint is the one being linked to through when there should be actual journal published page links one can use. Still not entirely defensible of a decision, but not one where the reference itself should be removed, since it is done properly outside of the URL itself. Silverseren^C 00:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

A good time to pimp WP:UPSD, which will highlight Zenodo, ResearchGate, Academia.edu, etc... in yellow and make it easier to review source provenance and reliability. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Silver seren: While you continue to purge all Zenodo sources from WP, I would like to point out that a few of them are from established subject-matter experts, e.g. Ulrike Mosel [72] who spent her lifetime studying the languages of western Oceania. If I find that a source is fine considering all necessary caveats per WP:SELFPUB (also if it's not just indiscriminate refspamming—most of the stuff you have weeded clearly is plain refspamming), I will reinstate it with a comment line why I believe it passes as RS. –Austronesier (talk) 11:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Did that subject matter expert never publish their work? Considering we have an article on Ulrike Mosel, I would presume they actually have published studies and books that can be cited, rather than a pre-print archive? Not sure why their non-peer reviewed stuff should be included. Silverseren^C 18:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Mosel has published several peer-reviewed articles on Teop, which makes her the subject matter expert. The case of dictionaries has become a bit different from typical scholarly works, as many of them are work-in-progress databases that won't ever see a peer-reviewed print version or at least a final static peer-reviewed online version. This includes epochal and oft-cited works such as Sergei Starostin's Towel of Babel or Robert Blust's Austronesian Comparative Dictionary. Actually, the Zenodo link of Mosel's Teop dictionary is not self-published, but part of a project by the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology (MPI EVA). It has a more respectable URL under [73], but note that the DOI used by the MPI EVA goes to Zenodo which here serves as more than just a pre-print archive. That said, the article content currently does not depend on this source. The URL was added as an "External link", which makes sense since we often have dictionaries under "Further reading" or "External links". –Austronesier (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Following up from the above, is Andy Hsiu a reliable source for languages?

User:Guy Macon and User:JzG have pointed out problems with Zenodo and its use, so I thought I'd take a look. Hsui is used as a source for a number of languages. He has a BA degree from UCal and states that

"My name is Andy Hsiu (Chinese name: 修至誠), a linguist and researcher from the US. I was born in California, USA to Taiwanese immigrant parents, and lived in California for most of my life. In 2013, I obtained my B.A. in Linguistics from the University of California, San Diego.

From 2012-2015, I traveled extensively around the world to collect data on various endangered languages of southern China and Southeast Asia. Inspired by Jerold Edmondson's audio recordings collected during his northern Vietnam expedition during the late 1990's, I decided to collect basic vocabulary word lists of various undocumented or under-documented language varieties. I have focused primarily on "divergent" languages (or "basal clades" using the terminology of biological taxonomy) that would provide us with important clues on how languages evolved and how the 5 language phyla of Southeast Asia had dispersed."[74]

His publications are listed here. I don't see anything peer reviewed. Doug Weller talk 16:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I am seeing zero evidence that anyone else considers him to be an expert in the field. According to [75], he does have a B.A. in Linguistics. He lists his publications here.[76], and he got thanks for being a research assistant in this paper:[77] -- but was that paper ever published in a peer-reviewed academic journal? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• In the absence of evidence of peered-reviewed publication, I'd say not. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Google Scholar query negative for peer-reviewed publications; so far he participated in some scientific conferences on linguistics and distributed handouts, but it's odd that no peer-reviewed publications are available, and citation of his materials has been minimal or absent. On the other hand, it might also reflect the fact there is next to no linguistic paper that would accept a source on such a niche topic, so he's left to present his findings on conferences only (to which he is accepted). Too hard to say. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

WhatDoTheyKnow.com and freedom of information requests

An editor has recently added a large amount of information to the Gatwick Airport drone incident article, citing WhatDoTheyKnow, a website that publishes British responses to Freedom of information requests. Lots of the writing/presentation of the information here is dubious imo, but that aside, is this OK to use as a source? Popcornfud (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)and I

For easy reference, here's a diff covering the edits I think Popcornfud is referring to. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I think a site like that might be okay for sourcing noncontroversial factual details, but it's not going to prove those details are noteworthy enough for inclusion in the article. It's basically original research. Not necessarily incorrect, but we should be reporting what reliable sources are saying, not doing our own research. —valereee (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Valereee, the information is technically correct - the best kind of correct! - but as you say, without third party sources, it seems WP:UNDUE, especially given the number of third party sources that cover the subject matter. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The FoI requests are reputably published in that I can be sure they are not altered, and the info presented there can be sourced for facts, as presented in point 3 of WP:PRIMARY, and they are properly attributed, which is good. For publishing answers to FoI requests, I'd trust WhatDoTheyKnow.

The problem is not with reliability but with the fact the section added is too heavily reliant of FoI requests. I'd personally incorporate some of the information into the "Events" section (the timing of first and last sightings, their frequency and the fact DfT has no idea how the drone looks like), but instructions on how police were to treat media are not relevant here. EDIT: Fixed - most of the edits from the user either concerned insignificant information or were WP:OR of FoI requests or even tweets (!). The discussion seems to be largely moot, as there was only one salvageable reference to an FoI request; other info was largely covered in the Events section (see diff) Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

As others have said, the problem with WDTK isn't the reliability, it's the due weight of the information. FOIA requests themselves (regardless of name around the world) are generally not reliable for anything other than an attributed opinion to the organization/person filing the request. The response, assuming it's reputably published (i.e. can be virtually certain it wasn't altered/forged) is reliable for information that meets the requirements of primary sourcing to a government agency for factual information (or attributed opinion, when the released information is agency opinion/analysis) from the government in question. I agree with Szmenderowiecki that everything after the timeline appears undue. The timeline, as referenced, appears like it may be due weight to include (at least as a government-accepted timeline, and possibly as factual), and the fact the government admits to not having a description of the drone in question is likely due, but needs phrased more NPOV. The material regarding airport capabilities, and "should they have done more" is not due because at this point it's nothing more than "we don't know". The BBC reference is likely due weight as well, but does not support the cited material - other material may be included based on it that may be beneficial (specifically the specifics of geofencing and how it works) - but that's outside the scope of this noticeboard as the BBC is widely regarded as reliable and this is about the FOI requests/responses. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks all - I agree with the assessment of the WP:UNDUE situation etc, but wanted to make sure the FOI thing was legit first at all before I set about tackling it. I see another editor has already sorted it out on the page. Thanks again. Popcornfud (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• It’s effectively a WP:PRIMARY source so all those limitations should apply. Technically they republish primary sources, released under the FOIA. They are reliable in the sense that they have a respected reputation and don’t just make up entries. For example: If a request is made to the Home Office for example and a response is received, it can be trusted that the response came from the Home Office. As for using that response, it should be treat as a primary source, because that’s what it is (‘internal’ documents/data from the Home Office). ProcSock (talk) 00:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Food Safety News

• foodsafetynews.com  

Is this a RS? It's used on, for example, Food irradiation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Articles with lurid titles like Monsanto Teams Up with Congress to Shred the Constitution suggest not, but some of the content seems bland. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Their HQ are literally on the same floor as a law firm specialising in food poisoning litigation [78]. JBchrch talk 19:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually I did not need to go this far : This website was created by Marler Clark, L.L.P., P.S. so that you could learn more about our law firm and legal services that we offer. [79] JBchrch talk 19:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The content Food Safety News Produces (as concerns usual reporting) is neutral and doesn't seem to be advocating for much of stuff. The article you cited concerns a person that was apparently writing editorials for the Food Safety News, but you could only guess about whether it's an editorial or the opinion of Food Safety News (and anyway she was fired/stopped contributing in 2013). Most of the content they publish is simple news; editorials appear to be all from guests and are mostly (though there are some omissions; probably they introduced signing of opinion pieces after 2013) signed as opinion pieces, contributed, or as "Guest Contributed" (see list of contributors). It is sponsored by the law firm of the owner of the publication, but they are transparent about it and it doesn't look like it is actually influencing coverage, at least after having read a dozen or two of their news pieces chosen at random from 2019 to 2021.

Basically looks like a niche but generally reliable news source for food safety matters. Should only be avoided in self-promotion articles (if they have any, because I haven't found them in the news), but other than that, the coverage seems neutral and adequate.

EDIT: The Legal Statement also says that This website, and the information it contains, is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship between Marler Clark attorneys and the visitors or users of the website. And indeed the news coverage they have, from what I've seen, does not advertise the company - probably only columns made by William Marler, but even there (from the few I read) I didn't notice any explicit endorsement for their legal services. JBChrch, don't make hasty conclusions based on Legal Disclaimers alone - these more often than not reflect the legal realities of the state/country they operate in rather than the true purpose of the site (see their state disclaimers - even if Oregon, Kentucky and New Mexico oblige all law-firm affiliated sites to write something to the tune that they advertise their services doesn't mean they indeed do so - it's just done to prevent any unnecessary litigation. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I understand that we have to be careful about legal disclaimers. But the website is run by a law firm that hired a journalist. It is written in the law firm's office. So can we agree that it's a self-published source, that's (broadly speaking) not written by a subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications? It might even be a great ressource for professionals. I just can't see how it fits the policy requirements. JBchrch talk 08:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I can't agree with you here. The resource admits opinions from various folks connected with food safety - lobbyists, govt officials, food technicians etc. Since only expert opinion is admitted there, there is substantial editorial oversight over the resource (I, for instance, will not be able to publish an editorial). This is one reason.

The other is that while the person who owns the site is a lawyer (actually prominent enough to has his own article on Wikipedia), he must understand the intricacies of law procedures and preferably also the scientific aspects of food safety processes, contamination, etc. No, he's not a scientist, but he has written a few papers on legal aspects of food safety. He was also recognised in food safety conferences in Florida, Alberta, Illinois (HACCP), and also he participated in Food and Drug Law Institute proceedings.

Daniel Flynn seems to be a faithful and fairly impartial reporter. I wouldn't expect him to be published in scientific/law journals, but he does his job very well (apparently for 12 years, according to his Linkedin page), as I mentioned.

Therefore, even if we assume it's SPS (and I strongly suspect it isn't, it's 100% certainty here), it is directed by a recognised professional and expert in a field and the quality of reporting is good; I'd conclude it's reliable enough to be cited on its own without much reservations in the domain the website specialises in. It's like a trade magazine, really. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I still don't understand your objection to the idea that this is self-published. The website is explicitly published by a law firm to advertise their services. It's not my opinion, it's written on the website. If Mr. Marler wanted to create an actually independent publication, he would have done so. See also self-publishing, i.e. the publication of media by its author without the involvement of an established publisher.

Accordingly, per WP:SPS subject-matter experts may be cited in their areas of expertise. So Mr. Marler himself can be cited in the area of food law. Other published experts can be cited in their domain. But the rest of the website, including the hundreds of "News Desk" article are straightforward SPS. As for Mr. Flynn, I don't know the guy. JBchrch talk 09:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

The website is explicitly published by a law firm to advertise their services [...] it's written on the website. Errm, I haven't seen that in the coverage. Were you only to read the coverage (news) itself, you'd have no idea what was written in the legal disclaimer, on which, as we seem to agree, we shouldn't rely too much. Also, you wouldn't actually suspect that it is sponsored by a law firm.

If Mr. Marler wanted to create an actually independent publication, he would have done so. I doubt it could be possible in this case. First, he contributes to the newspaper. Secondly, an independent publication specialising in food safety owned by a food law attorney, who also happens to own a food litigation law firm (and probably funding its publication from the profits of the firm)? Funny. That's an obvious COI, so I perfectly understand him disclosing it. Fortunately, in my view, that COI does not seem to influence the quality of publication. I was suspicious, but at least from what I have read and seen, this doesn't seem to influence reliability.

I don't know Mr Flynn either, but neither do we know most of the journalists working for WaPo, LA Times, WSJ, or, dunno, Idaho Statesman, Orlando Sentinel etc. This shouldn't be a factor in deciding reliability.

Now, to the final question concerning SPS: even if it were SPS, it would actually only impact BLPs, which are not extensively covered in the resource. I can drop that opinion for the sake of ending the dispute, as being considered an SPS in this case is unlikely to severely impact its possibility to be referenced to on Wikipedia. I think we can return to that question when folks will try to use that resource for BLP claims. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Self-publication absolutely affects reliability outside of BLPs. I once again draw your attention to WP:SPS, which is a longstanding policy that has broad consensus and has even been recently upheld [80][81]. SPS sources are only acceptable when they are written by subject-matter experts, except in the context of BLPs, where they are never acceptable. On the rest, I have nothing to add to my previous comments. JBchrch talk 22:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

What I only meant is that people writing there are usually subject-matter experts, and there is no indication Mr Flynn (who makes the normal news reports) misreports the information on food news matters (not opinions), which either a) means there is editorial oversight or b) he's a journalist who can be trusted because of good record, or both, which generally means that WP:SPS stops mattering that much in this particular context. Remember that otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a blog-style format for some or all of their content may be as reliable as if published in standard news article format..

I am not here to dispute current policy; I just believe you are being too conservative while interpreting it (or else you may believe I am too liberal with the policy). That dropping of my opinion was just a proposal to stop discussion, because we are unlikely here to agree (unless there is substantial 3rd-party input). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 00:18, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Is academia.edu a legitimate secondary source, or should it count as UGC?

I don't have any specific examples or context, but I'm curious to see what other editors think of Academia.edu (website), which is apparently a platform for sharing research papers. Is it categorically different from UGC? Can it be used either for the purposes of verifying information or demonstrating notability, or should it be avoided altogether?

I have very limited experience with that website, so I have no biases towards or against it. This is my first time participating in the reliable sources noticeboard, so I apologize if this thread is malformed.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

It should be considered a self-published website, in that by default, the content on it should be presumed unreviewed (as I've seen student theses and unpublished papers on it). That said, academics have published their peer-reviewed works to it. If this is such the case, verifying that the work is a peer-reviewed journal, then it is better to just source that journal, avoiding the link to academia.edu, but we're going to turn a blind eye if you happen to use the paper off academia for your own sourcing. --Masem (t) 23:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

It's an unreviewed repository of papers. Many are peer-reviewed, many aren't, many are from predatory journals. If you can trace the paper to a reliable journal, then it's fine. If you can't, then treat it as any other self-published source. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

What Headbomb says. Think of it as a library containing different sorts of sources, some reliable and some not. It should be clear what type of thing each paper is, e.g. a peer-reviewed journal article by a professor or a student essay. If it appears reliable, it would be better to find and cite an actual published version, but that might be less accessible. Note of caution: sometimes uploaded versions are pre-peer review or (more often) peer-reviewed but not copy edited, and therefore sometimes differ from the published version. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I would think of it like YouTube: It's a repository of sources, but it is not itself a source. The reliability is attached to the writer/publisher of the specific paper being cited, not to academia.edu, which does not itself have any editorial oversight of what is posted there, anymore than YouTube has over the videos posted to its site. --Jayron32 16:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

If the paper is peer-reviewed or a published book excerpt, I will cite the work, link to the academia.edu upload, and then put Academia.edu in the "via" parameter.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Irish slaves myth article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are a multitude of reasons.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Historians have already done this. Liam Hogan compiled a list of slaveholding Americans with unique Irish surnames from the 1850 census and found over 8,600 slaveholders who owned almost 100,000 slaves[82]. It's a dubious practice linking surnames to ancestry, but this was Kelly's method.

Historian Nini Rodgers has also cautioned that the Irish were in no sense confined to Anglo-Caribbean and Anglo-American colonies, as many had established commercial relations (and networks that often connected to Ireland) with other European empires, particularly Irish Catholics and their coreligionists in France and Spain. Jane Ohlmeyer has similarly written that, "By 1660 Irish people [Protestant and Catholic], mostly men, were to be found in the French Caribbean, the Portuguese and later Dutch Amazon, Spanish Mexico, and the English colonies in the Atlantic and Asia where they joined colonial settlements, served as soldiers and clergymen, forged commercial networks as they traded calicos, spices, tobacco, sugar, and slaves." (see here [83])

In addition, Nini Rodgers, Liam Hogan, Jane Ohlmeyer et al. have also explored the ways in which slavery benefitted Ireland's national economy, a topic British and American historians have explored extensively for decades (in the context of British and American economic histories). Unfortunately Kelly either downplays or completely ignores this subject, which may have something to do with his Marxist political leanings (not many Marxists are keen on acknowledging the advantages or socioeconomic benefits of free trade). You can read some of Nini Rodgers work in this area here [84].

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

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

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

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

Every single one of those historians I cited publish directly on this topic. Here's some of Akenson's work: [85]

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

Here's some of Nini Rodgers' work: [86]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The piece of work itself (the article, book)

The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)

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

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

Those are the standards I'm applying.

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

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

Was his essay vetted? Nope.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's a description of Brian Kelly's academic background [87].

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

You (or some other editor) cited Brian Kelly to challenge (or "balance") content from Nini Rodgers who is by all hands considered the foremost expert in this area. Here's some of Rodgers' publications on the subject [88]. I won't waste time citing all the scholarly articles she's published on the topic, although they are easy to find.

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

Here's an article by Bryan Fanning, who is also recognised as an authority [89]. He mentions virtually every leading expert in this particular area of research and says nothing about Brian Kelly.

There's a serious problem in that article. Every leading expert who was written about the Irish slaves myth has said that it's used to obscure the interaction between Ireland, Irish people and slavery throughout transatlantic history. But in the body of the article you have content sourced to Brian Kelly that does exactly that (claiming that all profits went to the British), which contradicts Nini Rodgers' work. Rodgers never even said anything about which "class" in Ireland was the most complicit in slavery, which you would've known if you actually read her work (see for example this review: [90]). So that whole section is out of context and essentially straw-mans Rodgers.

And finally, if you had any experience reviewing articles published in History Ireland you'd know that the publication isn't by itself an RS. History Ireland is the kind of magazine that tries to make scholarship accessible to consumers, but it doesn't vet its opinion pieces the way academic journals do. It has even published Irish slaves myth content in the past. Here's one historian calling them out for it [91]. Here's a public apology the editor of HI had to issue to Liam Hogan [92].Jonathan f1 (talk) 09:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Bastun, it's my understanding that RS standards for academic history articles are quite high. They want a source that's gone through the typical process scholarship has to go through before and after it's published, or they want a source that may not be a scholarly article or monograph but is published by a historian who's published scholarship and is recognised as an expert in the specific topic we're covering. Obviously if Nini Rodgers or Donald Akenson publish an article in History Ireland we can cite that. And obviously Brian Kelly is reliable for topics having to do with US labour history during Reconstruction and can be cited up and down the page on those particular articles. But when it comes to the topic of Ireland and the Black Atlantic World, Kelly has no scholarship and his HI essay wasn't vetted. Here's an article Nini Rodgers published in HI [93]. Look at the depth, nuance and complexity with which she writes about this subject and compare it to Kelly's essay.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Communities, Segments, Synonyms, Surnames and Titles

Hi, I'm Sumit banaphar. I have been trying to make changes in Banaphar by participate on the talk page , so i want to ask did this book consider reliable source for making changes.

Book:- Communities, Segments, Synonyms, Surnames and Titles

Author:- Kumar Suresh Singh

Publisher:- Anthropological Survey of India

Page.no:- page 1876[94]

The article Banaphar currently includes the text

Banaphar, also spelled Banafar and Banafer, is a clan of mixed Ahir and Rajput origin in India.

And I want to change it to

"Banaphar, also spelled Banafar and Banafer, is a clan Rajputs origin in India.

so i want ask that, is this source is reliable for making the changes.

According to your link, "Your search - banaphar clan of rajputs - did not match any documents". I searched for "Udal of Mahoba" and got the same result. Why should the source used in the article be ignored, it seems like a good one? It is also clearly about the topic of the article, Udal of Mahoba, that matters. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

See also previous reply at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_320#Uttar_Pradesh. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry, I have to  ask for Banaphar page, not for Udal of Mahoba.

I had already tried to put the matter in before, that Alf Hiltebeitel is talking about banaphars (alha, udal, malkhan, sulakhan) not about whole clan and he also mentioned once here[95] and that's why I want to change it. It may be a good source for Alha and Udal of Mahoba but not for Banaphar

And talking about the link i have given is correct for the article please check again. Because the book is a government published book and the author Kumar Suresh Singh is an Indian administrative service officer and PhD scholar. And the book is based on clans and caste and follows all the rules of WP:RS.Sumit banaphar (talk) 12:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:REDACT, don't change your comments after someone has replied like you did here [96], that is quite annoying. IMO, you are still beating the same WP:DEADHORSE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I didn't do this by purpose it happen mistakingly, because I had made every request for Udal of Mahoba every time, but this time I have to ask for Banaphar only and sorry for bothering you but it's important for me,please try understand. I'm just trying to find the reliable source for the changes, that's itSumit banaphar (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Police department press releases

From The Guardian:

• They kill the person twice’: police spread falsehoods after using deadly force, analysis finds

"A review of police killings in California showed that law enforcement spokespeople frequently publish highly misleading or sometimes false information about the people they have killed. Over the last five years, the Guardian found at least a dozen examples in the state of initial police statements misrepresenting events, with major omissions about the officers’ actions, inaccurate narratives about the victims’ behaviors, or blatant falsehoods about decisive factors.

In some cases, police cited vague “medical emergencies” without disclosing that officers had caused the emergencies through their use of force. In others, departments falsely claimed that the civilians had been armed or had overdosed. In most instances, media outlets repeated the police version of events with little skepticism."

From Wikipedia's standpoint the way to handle this is the way we always have: when reporting a press release from any organization, including cities and police departments, use attribution. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, direct attribution seems required, since there's been far too many incidents of police reports being found to contain fabrications after the fact. Especially since many of those reports are just the information from the officers' reports, whom themselves are an involved party in such incidents. So there would obviously be a bias from the get go. Silverseren^C 21:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

CNN

Note: Moved from Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Myself and another editor had advised TheeFactChecker to bring this to RSN, so I think that's what they meant to do. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

CNN is not a reliable source
Here are just a few examples
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/business/media/cnn-retraction-trump-scaramucci.html
https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6248938060001 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheeFactChecker (talk • contribs) 22:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

The fact that CNN issues retractions when they make a mistake is actually a sign that they are reliable. Perfection is not a realistic expectation. As for the Sky News piece, it's another video released by Project Veritas, who doctor their videos to create the narratives they want to create. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)TheeFactChecker, shouldn't this be at WP:RSN as User:Jorm pointed out to you at Talk:Gab (social network) § Gab, the company engagement in antisemitism? Before stating your case, it would be wise to familiarise yourself with past debates around this, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources § CNN, before restating past arguments that went nowhere and wasting everyone's time in the process. 15 (talk) 23:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Also worth noting that Project Veritas' allegations against CNN were specifically brought up twice quite recently and consensus both times was to retain the generally reliable status: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 322#RfC: CNN, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 334 GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I am not wasting time, I'm doing exactly as I was instructed to do so by Gorillawarfare TheeFactChecker (talk) 10:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I find nothing to indicate in this evidence provided by TheeFactChecker that CNN either a) willfully publishes false stories or b) fails to correct good-faith mistakes when they are aware that they made mistakes. In fact, the posts above indicate that CNN has all of the hallmarks of a reliable source, especially because they retract stories where their initial descriptions of events turned out to be incorrect. That's what reliable sources are supposed to do. If nothing else, TheeFactChecker has only provided evidence that CNN is more reliable that previously thought. --Jayron32 11:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hopital CEO wins case against CNN for publishing skewed statistics https://lawandcrime.com/uncategorized/hospital-ceo-wins-major-court-ruling-after-accusing-cnn-of-false-reporting/

CNN lied about inauguration ratings https://www.businessinsider.com/cnn-fox-news-inauguration-ratings-2017-1?r=US&IR=T

CNN bought into Russia conspiracy theories even without a shred of evidence of Russian collusion.

CNN had plenty of tabloid style articles such as “Trump uses knife fork to eat fried chicken on a plane”. The same sort of article you would get in the Sun, an unreliable news source. This article along with many others were purposely made to “joke and mock[quoting from CNN article itself]”, which clearly shows their bias gets in the way of their reporting. A lot of their articles during the Trump era were inflammatory and peddled false and misleading claims.

CNN claimed that only the media could legally download content from Wikileaks. Another false statement.

June 22, 2017, CNN reported that Trump aide Anthony Scaramucci was involved with the Russian Direct Investment Fund, under Senate investigation. He was not.

CNN’s own fact check about immigrants in cages proves they are lying by the skin of their teeth as the say “Conclusion: Trump is wrong that his administration inherited a policy that would lead to the separation” while their “supporting evidence” goes on to assert that “separations did occur under Obama...the chain-link enclosures at a processing facility along the border that have been labeled as cages were built by the Obama administration. Some individuals — including children — were held in those cells during processing. ” With conclusions that don’t match their own evidence, they are not a reliable source. TheeFactChecker (talk) 12:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hopital CEO wins case against CNN for publishing skewed statistics This is false, as your own source shows. The "major court victory" mentioned in the headline is the judge allowing the case to move forward. It appears Carbone and CNN settled the case confidentially ([97], [98]), which unfortunately doesn't give us much to go on, though as far as I can see CNN has not published retractions.

CNN lied about inauguration ratings The article you linked reports that CNN's PR team conflated two statistics in a tweet, which is certainly misleading, I agree. But when we're discussing the reliability of a source we refer to their published articles, which are subject to editorial oversight, not statements on Twitter by a PR team.

You seemed to realize in your first two comments that you are expected to provide sources for claims you make here, so I'm not sure why you stopped doing that. Please add sources for the rest of your claims so they can be properly evaluated by editors here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

So...we're left with the question as to whether tweets by CNN's PR team should be stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice...I'd say no. Guettarda (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

It's probably worth noting that TheeFactChecker's concerns about CNN are based not on someone trying to use a CNN PR team tweet as a RS, but the usage of a standard journalistic article published on CNN's website. See Talk:Gab (social network)#Gab, the company engagement in antisemitism for background. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Unhelpful discussion at this time. There is the § CNN - Video piece from Brian Stelter discussion about CNN also taking place right now. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

It is relevant to note that the phrasing at WP:RSP is "generally reliable". It is not "absolute reliability", and thus single issues (esp when retracted/corrected) cannot be said to make a generally reliable source anything but. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

This is a little bit confusing. Project Veritas has been upheld twice recently. Project Veritas has a CNN technical director admitting the network was pushing propaganda with fake stories https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/cnn-technical-director-admits-the-network-was-pushing-propaganda-with-fake-stories but we see no evidence CNN purposely fakes news? 2601:46:C801:B1F0:DC42:DBDE:9306:BD1B (talk) 02:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Middle East Monitor

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

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

Jeune Afrique

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

According to Le Monde, Jeune Afrique is a reputable outlet (an "institution"), although it has received some criticism for being too friendly with the powers that be [100][101][102]. It has recently interviewed French President Emmanuel Macron [103]. All in all reliable, but additional sourcing is welcome. JBchrch talk 00:46, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

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

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