Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:52, 17 May 2021

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.

Additional notes:

• WP:RSN
• WP:RS/N
• WP:V/N

• 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.

Village pumps

policy

tech

proposals

idea lab

WMF

misc

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation

• view
• edit
• history
• watch
• archive
• talk
• purge

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: ) 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 we cite a US government-funded newsource and "the U.S. Department of State’s platform for communicating American foreign policy worldwide" 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 . Jume's father had earlier been the imam of the mosque, prior to his assassination .

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 Misplaced Pages 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 . 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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  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: Misplaced Pages: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.

• --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) 19:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

RfC: The Globe and Mail

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

Which of the following options should apply to the The Globe and Mail for its news coverage of international events?

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting on these topics.

— Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Survey (RfC: The Globe and Mail)

Please use the discussion subsection below for responses and threaded discussion and leave this subsection for one comment or !vote per editor.

• Option 1. The Globe and Mail has long been recognized as a Canadian newspaper of record and is quite possibly the most prestigious newspaper in Canada (1 2 3 4 5). The paper has extensive WP:USEBYOTHERS across many topic areas, with use by The Times of London (1 2 3 4 5), The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post (1 2 3 4 5 6 7), and The Associated Press (1 2 3 4), among other news sources. The use of the source by others across a multitude of topics, including its news coverage of international events, only points additionally towards the source's exceptionally high reliability more broadly and supports its status as Canada's English-language paper of record. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1. It is a reliable and rather conservative publication in Canada and is considered a newspaper of record, as it has been actually cited quite well in the lede to the article, and their international coverage isn't bad, either.

For the answer to the specific issue, see my comment in Discussion. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:25, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Option 4, this should not even be suggested without a seriously good reason. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 18:39, 4 May 2021 (UTC) Revoke my vote. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 18:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 as a newspaper of record like  The New York Times (RSP entry) and  South China Morning Post (RSP entry). Chompy Ace 22:25, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2, reporting is generally factual on international topics but their reporting and sourcing has taken an incredibly hawkish bent in regards to nations like China. I'd say just be cautious and use in-line attribution for potentially extraordinary claims. Paragon Deku (talk) 22:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1, they are one of Canada’s papers of record and I have not seen their reporting called into question in any substantive way. Strong reputation, use by others, location in a country with significant press freedoms, and a history of editorial independence all speak in their favor. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1. Reputable source with a good track record.Sea Ane (talk) 02:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 The Globe is as reliable as the independent or New York Times or other quality media. Whether or not Western media coverage of China is accurate is a wider issue. While it may or may not be unfair, all Western media treat China in the same way. In the 1970s, the Globe was the only Western newspaper in China and its articles were routinely picked up in other Western media. The paper is owned by the Thomson family which also owns Reuters, one of the world's leading wire services, and at one time owned the Times of London, which is one of the world's most respected newspapers. TFD (talk) 03:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1. Usually I say of RS that it mostly depends on context, but this RFC includes context of international events and coverage that is reporting. (That does not however say their coverage of a specific like Memet June is right.) As Mikehawk10 said above, the newspaper has good reputation and use by others. I would place this paper above the other mentioned New York Times or South China Morning Post paper. will add that its own circulation also has a respectable WEIGHT. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 Seems like a standard newspaper of record. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 in many cases, but Option 2-3 with regards to some aspects of China coverage. Adding to comments from Markbassett, TFD, and Paragon Deku here, and Aquillion, Thucydides411, and Jayron32 below: general reliability doesn't guarantee that a couple articles published by The Globe and Mail provide a neutral or comprehensive treatment of the status of the Id Kah Mosque, of its imam Memet Jume, or of related issues in China.

Last year, the University of Alberta's China Institute published a comprehensive evaluation of The Globe and Mail's recent coverage of China . The report observes that this recent period has been one of tension between Canada and China, characterized by a steep decline in state-to-state relations, a "reality" reflected in Canadian newspapers. From the executive summary:

These political and economic conflicts weighed heavily on the way newspaper coverage framed China, with “unpredictable” and “conflict” leaping into first and second place as the most prominent descriptive frames applied to China.

The report explains how specific language used by the paper frames readers to perceive China as threatening. After quoting from a Globe and Mail news article (page 7), the report describes the paper's writing :

Firstly, it invokes the Chinese Communist Party’s authoritarianism, a connotatively negative association that serves to prime readers to be critical of China. Secondly, it gives the impression that Canada is vulnerable to China by implicating “China’s political apparatus,” whose authoritarian quality has been foregrounded, to “a key Canadian industrial sector.”

Of course we can use The Globe and Mail as a source. But we're not obliged to replicate its editorial biases. We need to be critical editors and acknowledge, like the University of Alberta researchers, that newspapers can also have biases, sometimes subtle and sometimes overt.

Editors have these biases too. Right now, in the lead (!) of Id Kah Mosque, we describe it as a

former mosque turned into a historic tourist attraction.

Is it really a "former mosque," i.e., only a tourist attraction? Of the two articles from the Globe and Mail one states that it is transformed into a tourist attraction, and the other provides more detail: visitors in the past few years have reported that the religious site has been transformed into a tourist destination where people at Friday prayers now number only in the dozens. More recently, the mosque's main entrance has been padlocked. The article itself is attributing these statements to reports from visitors (we've dropped attribution in our own text), and according to the visitors, Id Kah is both a mosque and a tourist attraction, with religious attendance far lower than it was at some point in the past.

Whatever biases a newspaper might have, it would be a shame if we did worse because of our own. -Darouet (talk) 15:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

The study shows that the tone, extent of coverage and topics covered in Canadian media have changed in line with government policy on China. However, the writers say, "We refrain from commenting on the accuracy of the coverage." "However," as policy states, "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." The change in tone or coverage is a totally separate issue from the accuracy of reporting. Furthermore, you would need to show that the Globe's coverage is more biased than the rest of Western media before singling out the paper. See Dean Baker "Media's biased reporting on China serves only the rich and powerful" (The Hill 8/20/17), Dan Hu, "Is Australian Media Biased Against China?" (The Diplomat February 15, 2020), "International media coverage of China: Chinese perceptions and the challenges for foreign journalists" (2011). Accusations of anti-China bias are not unique to the Globe among Western media. TFD (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed - neither I, nor the report, state that The Globe and Mail is worse than many other outlets. Rather, the report shows that this paper, used as a prominent example among others, has shifted its tone in response to political conflict. You're basically right that it has changed in line with government policy on China, and this should come as no surprise: the paper's opinion section is a hub for the political who's who in Canada. But just because most Western media have bias doesn't mean that we should ignore specific cases. The textual analysis done by the U Albert China Center, which I quoted above, is a great demonstration of how this works in one instance, and the report is evaluating this for The Globe and Mail and The National Post generally in recent years. When you write below that we should leave the correction of Western media bias to society, that's partly what this research report is doing. -Darouet (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

The way we resolve bias in media is to await the publication and acceptance of peer-reviewed research. When there is consensus in scholarly writing about the "Uyghur genocide," we should use it to rewrite articles based on news reports. But that is already in RS: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." But unless we can show that the Globe is less reliable than its competitors, it makes no sense to single it out for sanction. In fact it may well be more reliable and even-handed than U.S. or UK media. In fact as pointed out above, Rosie DiManno, the Pentagon cheerleader who writes for The Toronto Star, accused the Globe of being soft on China. TFD (talk) 21:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

TFD, the report I'm citing from is itself a scholarly work, showing anti-Chinese framing in major Canadian papers. Right now, at RSP, we are systematically labeling newspapers with editorial views outside the NATO political framework as biased or unreliable. I wish that all editors were savvy enough to recognize that all national presses have political biases, but they're not. For that reason we do need the scholarly descriptions of those biases to be reflected in the RSP entries. We should not place special sanction on The Globe and Mail or The National Post, but we should include similar descriptions of national biases at other RSP entries, if scholarly treatment of those biases is available. -Darouet (talk) 14:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Why would we start including scholarly descriptions of ... biases in RSP entries, in cases where they do not affect the factual reliability of sources? Are you aware of a policy-relevant reason to do this, because I'm not seeing one. It looks like a case of portable goalposts from here, and the NATO political framework appears to be a chimera/conspiracy theory in this context, unless you have sourcing that has some bearing on the reliability of published facts/events. Newimpartial (talk) 14:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

If scholarly descriptions of media biases have no place in RSP entries, Newimpartial, I'm not sure what you think should replace those. At every point in this discussion, you've declined to address the reliability of the specific issue at hand: a claim about the Id Kah mosque. Now you're saying that scholarly descriptions of bias by The Globe and Mail are irrelevant to an RSP entry about that same paper. Such an assertion is so ludicrous as to be practically tendentious. If you don't want to discuss the paper or what academic sources say about it, please stop WP:BLUDGEONING my comment. -Darouet (talk) 15:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

The question at issue in this RSN RfC is the factual reliability of the Globe & Mail source, which you have addressed by deflecting the discussion to alleged bias - citing as your only a source a study that explicitly declines to address questions of factual reliability. I don't know what game you think you're playing, but it isn't cricket. Newimpartial (talk) 15:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

To use you your own terminology if that helps you, your statements deflect from the specific factual question at hand in this case (the Id Kah Mosque), and from the larger, well-sourced reality of editorial bias regarding China by The Globe and Mail, which you insist is irrelevant. It isn't. -Darouet (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

2. Have you presented any evidence whatever that the G&M is not reliable, even on the specific factual question of the Mosque? 3. In what way is the supposed well-sorced reality of editorial bias regarding China by The Globe and Mail supposed to be relevant to the RSN question of its factual reliability? You keep asserting this without either real-world evidence or policy-based argumentation. Newimpartial (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial, this is your sixth response to my comment here. If you're not satisfied you can take the discussion to the "discussion" section below. Were you to do that, you'd see that nearly every comment there — by other editors — answers the issue you're debating with me here. Literally the first and second comments announce that the Id Kah Mosque is the motivation for this RfC, and that the RfC framework is inappropriate to resolving that dispute. Otherwise, you're telling me that an anti-Chinese editorial line is perfectly consistent with factual reporting on China, and that for the Globe and Mail's coverage of China, there's no reason to believe that such bias should mean that "other considerations" may apply, or that the paper might be factually inaccurate in some cases. I hear you, and respectfully, I think your certainty that editorial bias won't influence reliability is ludicrous. -Darouet (talk) 15:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

And you have replied eight times in this section to comments on your !vote, including six replies to me, without answering the basic question of why any editorial line is not compatible with factual reporting on any subject. By policy, these are two distinct considerations, but I suspect that WP policy is not really your thang. Newimpartial (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Darouet: @Newimpartial: This dispute starts to look ugly for my taste (and it is there for at least a day). Please cool down and don't escalate. Also, as @Darouet has rightly noticed, the place for such arguments should be in the Discussion section; please do not move your argument there now, at least not until the heat of the discussion goes down at least somewhat. Leave the survey section for just one or two sentences of justification. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Darouet appears to be misreading the China Institute at the University of Alberta source. There is nothing in that source to suggest that the Globe & Mail is anything other than reliable for factual reporting, which is the RSN question. A shift in tone of coverage over time, or in the terms prominently used in news stories, is not evidence of "factual inaccuracy" or even that additional considerations apply in the use of a source. Newimpartial (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

By no means: Newimpartial you are misreading my comment. I stated nothing about "factual inaccuracy," and the report specifically states, We refrain from commenting on the accuracy of the coverage. -Darouet (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Your !vote was for Option 2-3 with regards to some aspects of China coverage, where Option 2 is "additional considerations apply" and Option 3 is "unreliable for factual reporting". If you didn't intend your reference to the U. of A. piece to support your !vote, then why did you make it in this section? Newimpartial (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

As I've stated repeatedly in the past, these categories are poorly fitted to real world decisions about how to use sources. For that reason I often write that options 1-2, or 2-3, should be considered for sources in order to take into account the possibility of bias. The Globe and Mail is an important source, but we should expect it to be biased in some cases (as TFD notes, that would be normal for all newspapers). In this specific case, editors should be aware that The Globe and Mail tends to have a particular editorial view with regards to China, and it's unclear if or to what extent their reporting on the Id Kah mosque is neutral or accurate. If you don't think that bias on the part of The Globe and Mail could impact the reliability of their reporting, I disagree; the U Albert report explicitly declines to comment on that question. -Darouet (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

A source that declines to comment on X can scarcely be used as evidence for or against X. And whether a source is biased or not is entirely tangential - that is, irrelevant - to whether or not it is generally reliable, so any evidence you give that the G & M may or not be biased is strictly irrelevant to this RfC. As a point of comparison, Fox News is not considered unreliable for factual reporting because it is biased; it is considered unreliable for factual reporting because its factual reporting is unreliable. Newimpartial (talk) 18:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Your commentary is deviating so far from the quotes I provided from the report on Canadian media that to answer you will take us in circles. I'd urge you to read the comments being made in the "discussion" section of this RfC. -Darouet (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 Szmenderowiecki stated it well. I do not read it, but it is Canada's newspaper of record. Suggest a snow close. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 Canada's newspaper of record. No source is perfect. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1. The Globe and Mail is a well-established newspaper of record. Concerns about the use of this source relative to a specific article are not sufficient cause to discredit the use of this source in general. DaysonZhang (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (RfC: The Globe and Mail)

•  Note: This RfC was inspired by a disagreement over the reliability of the source that occurred in a discussion on the talk page of Id Kah Mosque. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• If I read that discussion correctly, I believe Darouet is saying that the Globe and Mail is WP:BIASED on that subject and therefore requires attribution (and is possibly WP:UNDUE for the lead), not that it is generally unreliable. @Darouet: clarification? Seeing people leap straight to a broad RFC about an entire source when there's no indication someone is outright stating the source is unreliable always makes me uneasy - there sometimes reasons to be cautious about using a source for a specific claim that can be applicable even if it is generally the most reliable source in the world. More generally these sorts of broad RFCs are for when a source is repeatedly challenged - they're not the correct way to resolve an individual specific dispute over whether the source can be used in a specific situation. Especially when you're plainly seeking a positive answer - there are sources that are so unreliable as to be effectively useless in any place we're likely to use them, outside of a few exceptions like WP:ABOUTSELF; but there are no sources so reliable as to be completely, automatically usable in every possible context, or which are completely guaranteed to be utterly free from bias in all circumstances. In other words, a "generally reliable" result here isn't going to resolve your specific dispute. --Aquillion (talk) 06:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
• As for alleged China bias, if anything, it has been criticized by its opponent, Toronto Star, of directly copypasting state Chinese media in the "China Watch section", which is sort of incompatible with the claim it is being too harsh towards China.

But even if so, perceived hawkishness on China may be a bias, but unless The Globe and Mail has produced falsehoods about the issue of China and it has been established by, let's say, fact-checkers, we should not deprecate it. Unlike RFA, it doesn't have a government mission, so there should be no controversy about possible pressure from the government. It has been known that the West has soured on China and has made even more coverage about it, so it's predictable more negative content will appear.

The Globe and Mail has reported on visitors' testimony (who for obvious reasons cannot be identified) and there has been no misconduct or fabrication proven in creating the story other than the govt of China does not agree with stances different than theirs. That is perfectly understandable but means nothing to whether it's true.

Xinhua may be OK if that's a statement of government, but is otherwise notoriously unreliable. I have no belief whatsoever in the independence of that imam's opinions (I don't care who his father was). It is totally unbelievable that one of top religious authorities's statements would not be scripted for the purpose of the interview in a country known for its propaganda and censorship, particularly given he's on government payroll, could be fired immediately if he doesn't please the party (or, in worse cases, face prosecution from authorities) and it is a geopolitically charged area. Simply no way.

So if you say the imam, underlining he is a Chinese government employee, said that and that and link it to Xinhua's interview, I'm fine, but otherwise I'd leave it.

All of that is not to say his statement is necessarily false actually, but there are reasonable doubts to the story as presented by the Chinese state media.

PS. As they used to say in Russia in one of Radio Yerevan jokes: "How do you know if the news is true or just another provocation? - Well, if BBC runs a news story about something, which is then refuted by Pravda, you can easily trust the news".

Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:25, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Szmenderowiecki, it's not The Star, but Rosie DiManno, who is a columnist. TFD (talk) 03:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, you're right. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing the imam's statement to state media is reasonable, but describing him as a government employee is not, unless we're sure that's true. -Darouet (talk) 15:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's actually accurate to describe the imam as a government employee. As for the issue at hand, both the current imam and his late father's views on the issues in Xinjiang are well known (they've criticized the separatist movement and what they see as religious extremism, and advocated co-existence of different ethnic groups). The Globe and Mail related an extraordinary claim made by a US-based Uyghur activist, that the ancient Id Kah mosque is no longer used as a mosque. The imam of the mosque has disputed this assertion. The imam's statement is significant, and should not be simply swept under the rug. We can inform the reader that the imam made his statement in an interview with a Chinese state media outlet. Readers can decide what to make of that for themselves, but to censor the interview entirely would be wrong, and disrespectful to our readers. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's actually accurate to describe the imam as a government employee. Well, I strongly believe he is. His father was appointed by the government, so should be the current imam as the policy towards appointment of religious leaders has not changed since.

Their views on cohabitation of different nations, while laudable, are irrelevant. The only thing that is is whether a Xinhua interview is to be trusted (and mentioned) and to which degree we should trust other sources. I don't deny that imam's statement might be significant (as I hope I indicated clearly), but the reader must understand the caveat that he's appointed by the government and therefore has an interest not to speak against it for fear he, at the mildest, loses his job and falls out of favour with the party. That is exactly the reason we don't trust Xinhua - we don't know if the guy speaks as an imam or as a government employee and we don't know if the fact he'd given the interview to Xinhua changed its content significantly. That said, we might mention it but we should cue the reader into exercising caution while reading the passage (and mention imam's ties to govt).

The Globe and Mail related an extraordinary claim made by a US-based Uyghur activist There is no reason to believe that The Globe and Mail has not made its own analysis of claims or its own investigation (as it actually indicates in their March 2021 article). It is certainly not a copy-paste or a brief summary of an article from RFA or WUC or whatever. If we had Uyghurs claiming that and the reference reports the claim without deep analysis of their claims, just as with the imam, we should be cautious and indicate the reader should be, too; however, the newspaper is independent of both and we needn't apply such precautions here. Just because the author is critical of China's conduct doesn't mean he deliberately manipulated the facts or is biased (you must prove it) - you can be both critical and impartial in assessing some events. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The government having a role in the imam's appointment and him being a government employee are two different things. The imam's views are relevant, because there are real divisions among Uyghurs in Xinjiang, with the exile groups in Washington, DC not necessarily representing the views of all (or even most) Uyghurs. If we systematically exclude any statements from within China, we will end up with extremely skewed coverage, reflecting solely what exile groups in Washington, DC (many of them funded directly by the US government) say. There is no reason to believe that The Globe and Mail has not made its own analysis of claims: There's also no indication that The Globe and Mail has done any serious independent investigation into the claims either. Given the extraordinary nature of the claims, and the fact that people directly involved are disputing the claims, we cannot present one side alone. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

You would have a fair point if the Chinese government hadn’t hounded every reporter who attempted to do on the ground reporting in Xinjiang out of China along with a fair number of their news agencies... Al Jazeera was the first to be kicked out for its coverage of Xinjiang (in 2012) and its gotten so bad now that there are almost no foreign reporters left in China. Its not us "systematically exclude any statements from within China” its the Chinese government. I would also note that if the imam is a government employee and can be demonstrated as such then theres a lot more Chinese sources we can use. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

You've been arguing for excluding the imam's statements. To then turn around and justify your attempt at excluding the imam's statements by pointing to Chinese government censorship in other cases is just absurd. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

If, as we’ve both agreed, the imam is not a government official then yes we should excluding the imam's statements. But if Szmenderowiecki is right and we’re both wrong that changes the discussion completely, Xinhua is reliable for the statements of government officials. What is absurd is suggesting that the The Globe and Mail could have "done any serious independent investigation into the claims” with the current restrictions in place on reporting in Xinjiang. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

1. I couldn't confirm he's a government employee, so I drop it and urge others to do so, too. That said, given that the state exercises very strong control over religion and religious authorities (as reported by numerous RS) and the appointment procedures (p. 48) are such that any candidate appointed by the government will be as harmless and obedient to the CCP as humanly possible, I can say that he represents the opinion of the government. To corroborate this, his opinions on how the people should coexist in Xinjiang happens to mirror CCP's official policy. It might be a coincidence, but I highly doubt it. I also don't believe he would have said otherwise if the mosque was demolished or converted into a tourist centre. As they say, the difference between the freedom of speech in China and Canada is that China has freedom of speech, but Canada has freedom after speech. With that, I can't trust him to be the voice of the Islamic community, but as a government-affiliated person, sure (in this case, I would say he's just a proxy for government claims).

2. Journalists, as just any other folks, are innocent until proven guilty. You can't assume bad faith on behalf of the journalist unless there are valid reasons to think so (censorship, his boss forcing him to publish a false story, his agenda which is known to preclude impartiality (in this case, Sinophobia), financing from a rival government that substantially influences reporting, or general unreliability of the publication). I see no proof to any of the factors; if you believe otherwise, the onus is on you to prove it.

3. I don't get your accusation of me wanting to strike out the imam's narrative when I repeatedly said we should include it, but only if we indicate appropriate precautions must be made to interpret the statement (he's appointed by the government, China has very strong control over religion).

Which leads me to the final point:

4. Let's not engage in false balance. Just because Western media coverage happens to confirm the claims made by Uyghurs, particularly those in exile, most of the time doesn't mean Western media peddle false narratives just because the claims were made by Uyghurs. Also, even if the majority opinion of Uyghurs is that the tactics used by the Chinese officials are non-repressive or non-discriminatory doesn't mean they indeed are not. The encyclopaedia we write does not need to cover each position equally, either. What we do need to report is the evidence as accurately as possible.

I think I made my case clear, I've spoken a little too much. Sorry if my texts seem to be on the long side. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Clarification. The sources that were sort of confirming my suspicion he's a government employee are these: 1. Ayup said the Chinese government was giving the imams salaries ranging from 600 to 5000 RMB before its clampdown campaign in Xinjiang. (Voice of America)

2. Monks, priests and imams on the mainland earn an average of only 500 yuan (HK$630) a month, a quarter of them are not medically insured, and 40 per cent have no old-age pension insurance, a study has found. (South China Morning Post, 2015)

3. Some (of Hui imams) live at the mosque or in an affiliated Muslim school, and some are paid salaries, while a smaller number volunteer. (Aramco World)

4. "I haven't had any students since 1996," she says, shaking her head. "Women don't want be imams anymore, because the salaries in the mosques are too low. No one is willing to do it." (NPR-affiliated). The info is also cited here

5. The position of imam carries a good deal of respect and influence, but leading a mosque as a profession garners a very small salary and little actual power. (p. 89, 78 per book) Also from the book: "One of the teaching ahongs at Beiguan Mosque (one of the oldest surviving mosques in downtown Xining) told me that he and most others declined a 500 RMB monthly salary because they taught out of service to the community and had other means of making a living." (p. 111, 100 per book)

(Alexander B. Stewart, Chinese Muslims and the Global Ummah: Islamic Revival and Ethnic Identity Among the Hui of Qinghai Province. Routledge Contemporary China: New York, 2016)

I could not conclusively say, based on the sources, that he received a government salary and was therefore a government employee; he might have refused it. However, my hunch says that it might be very true in the case with the current imam of Id Kah mosque; it's just I couldn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. You may come to other conclusions. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: If the Globe and Mail has not independently verified the claims, then they are just relating what an activist has said. The fact that accurate information is difficult to obtain is not an excuse to put unsubstantiated claims into Wikivoice. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

1. ^ As Waldemar Łysiak once noted, "when so many people praise the same thing, it is easy to come to the conclusion: eat shit, as the millions of flies can't possibly be wrong." That is absolutely not how we should evaluate evidence. Moreover, any such poll would be unreliable, because people, well, they can say they are being repressed, only to be repressed even more by the govt for sowing dissent. Any such poll or estimate will include people who basically will say: "Well, it's shit, I know that, I don't like it, but do I have a choice?"

• Aquillion and Thucydides411 are right on target: the allegation that the oldest and most venerated mosque in Xinjiang is nothing more, now, than a tourist attraction is an extraordinary claim, particularly since the claim is contested by the mosque's imam. The claim might be printable here with attribution, but it shouldn't be stated in wikivoice. If the claim is put into the article, the imam's response needs to be present as well (also with attribution). As a reader, I would expect an encyclopedia to tell me what the relevant parties had stated, including the Chinese government itself, if it took a position on the matter. -Darouet (talk) 15:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Two problems with that... We don’t know when the imam made his statement and he doesn't directly contest that claim (it not clear that he’s even aware that such a claim has been made). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Emir of Misplaced Pages: There are only 3 options in this RfC. Did you place your !vote in the wrong discussion section? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

  I have revoked my vote. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 18:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Mikehawk10: I would like to add that this is the second time that a discussion over a specific usage of a source (a claim made in one article from that source) has been inflated into a generic RfC in the line of perennial usage. This happened previously with Coda Story and you were told not to do it again by other editors. I would seriously ask you to please not do it a third time if such a situation comes up again, especially when other editors tell you it's not the proper usage of RS discussions. Paragon Deku (talk) 22:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Paragon Deku: This isn't about the particular use of the source. If you read the talk page, you will notice that an editor questioned the general reliability of the paper, writing that The Independent is a great paper (The Globe and Mail far less so). The question for this RfC was framed in light of its ability to cover international news generally, and indeed there are editors (including yourself) who were party to that talk page discussion who do not believe that The Globe and Mail is WP:GREL for its international news coverage. The point of making an RfC on WP:RSN is to bring in the community to see if the source is reliable in general (within a broad context). The WP:NPOVN noticeboard is the appropriate location for questions about the use of a generally reliable source in a particular article. Since there was disagreement over the source's general reliability (not just the specific use of the source in a single article), I believe that this RfC has been placed on this board appropriately. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:13, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually, it's abundantly clear that the questions raised were mainly about the Id Kah Mosque specific sources. This is corroborated by multiple editors in this RfC, including ones participating in discussion below. This is, as I have said, the second time you have done this, and it feels like WP:BLUDGEONING to stop individual interpretation of sources. Paragon Deku (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Paragon Deku:

1. If you read WP:BLUDGEONING, you will note that it says that Bludgeoning the process is where someone attempts to force their point of view by the sheer volume of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own. If you believe that I am spamming the discussion with my own comments, then I won't be able to change your mind on it, but I really don't think it's reasonable to conclude that I'm doing that here. Would you please point to where I am spamming my comments in this conversation?
2. It's perfectly acceptable to call an RfC where there is a dispute over a source's general reliability in a context. Again, I agree that questions concerning the use of sources that would generally be considered reliable, for specific content, probably belong at WP:NPOVN. But, this particular dispute (as evidenced by your !vote and that of another involved editor) is not one in which there was agreement over the general reliability of the source; the dispute includes whether the source would generally be considered reliable in its coverage of China, broadly construed. As such, I believe it to be appropriate on this board.

— Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mikehawk10:

1. Key word here is "like," it creates a situation where you're obfuscating the actual discussion to overwhelm the original questioner with a slew of uninvolved editors who have been robbed of context. It's an outsourced torrential downpour of new content to sort and reply to.
2. This is blatant RfC spam and others have already called this into question besides me. This is not some sort of unique argument on my part.

- Paragon Deku (talk) 07:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not bludgeoning (which is when an editor comments excessively in a thread, perhaps replying to every single comment), but it is an inappropriate use of WP:RSN. If one has a question about a particular source for a particular claim in a particular article, one does not launch an RfC about the source in general. There was a dispute about whether an extraordinary claim (that a famous mosque is a now a "former mosque") could be made in Wikivoice, based on a particular article in the Globe and Mail. Mikehawk10 then launched this RfC about the Globe and Mail in general, knowing that the overall response would be positive. I believe the idea was then to go back to the original dispute and argue that since the Globe and Mail now has the green stamp of approval, it must be acceptable to make this particular extraordinary claim in Wikivoice using one particular article from the newspaper. But Mikehawk10 did not just come to RSN and ask the original question directly. The whole exercise is a roundabout way of trying to get some sort of stamp of approval from RSN, without actually discussing the sourcing issue at hand. I think this is a misuse of the RfC process. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

The reason I compare it to bludgeoning is that the massive positive response that comes in from uninolved editors who are not given the entire context becomes a burden to bear by the editors originally raising claims of reliability. It's not the same in methods, but it's the same in effect: the original questioner becomes overwhelmed by a large number of responses and can't correct the record and keep up. Paragon Deku (talk) 08:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

To respond to Paragon Deku, I don't see an issue with involving the community more broadly where the individuals on the talk page cannot reach a consensus. At the end of the day, this is about building consensus, rather than seeking a pre-determined outcome that goes one way or the other. I don't understand why a large number of uninvolved editors being drawn into these sorts of discussions is a bad thing, especially when it helps to achieve consensus. When discussions fail, it is good practice to use established processes to attract outside editors to offer opinions. This is often useful to break simple, good-faith deadlocks, because uninvolved editors can bring in fresh perspectives, and can help involved editors see middle ground that they cannot see for themselves. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone is objecting to "involving the community more broadly where the individuals on the talk page cannot reach a consensus." What I object to - and I think that many others do, too - is filing an RfC instead of first engaging in a more informal process. It's fantastic when editors (responsibly) ask others for input and advice but we don't need editors jumping straight from "a few editors in the Talk page of one article can't come to consensus" to "we need to fire a red flair to summon as many editors as we possibly can (through an RfC)." There are intermediate steps that can resolve many of these discussions and disagreements and editors should be encouraged to try them first. ElKevbo (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

The problem with a RfC such as this one is that an answer of "Yes - reliable" here doesn't necessarily mean "Yes - reliable for the specific case in question". This RfC can't provide an affirmative answer the question that prompted the RfC. Only an answer of "unreliable" would impact that specific question. Springee (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

To respond to @Mikehawk10:, this is as I have said the second time you have been asked not to do this exact thing and any attempts to dodge that observable fact with the guise of involving the community does not seem genuine. Paragon Deku (talk) 01:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• I think this RFC is completely misguided in that the problem is not with reliability in general, it is with the use of information from a reliable source. Just because a source is thought to be a generally high-quality reliable source does not mean that citations from that source can be used however we want in Misplaced Pages without any restrictions or guidance or whatever. Sometimes, information from a reliable source needs direct attribution, or explanation, or clarification based on what other reliable sources may say (which may be in conflict with the first source). If that is the case, we have a number of ways to deal with the first source, but none of that means that the source in question is unreliable, generally. Reliability is not perfection, and if it can be demonstrated that an otherwise reliable source was incorrect (or in conflict with what other reliable sources say) that doesn't mean we are required to use the incorrect information. Being cited to a source doesn't mean we must use it, especially if it is demonstrably wrong. Furthermore, even if it is not wrong but merely in dispute (that is, it is unclear which of two conflicting sources is correct) then perhaps we should directly attribute each source to let the reader know that the is not widespread agreement. That's okay too. What's not okay is finding a single mistake, or conflicting viewpoint, or whatever, and then trying to elevate that singular situation to question the entire reputation of the source as a means to affect the use of that one citation. Deal with the citation on its own terms. The result of this discussion will do nothing to resolve the conflict in question, and is a distraction and a waste of time. There are other, more productive, ways to resolve this conflict. --Jayron32 16:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I wish more editors understood this fundamental issue. Unfortunately, while helpful in principle, the framework of WP:RSP is being misused to eliminate critical thinking and subtlety from the evaluation of sources. -Darouet (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

As I wrote above, there is no evidence that the Globe is more biased and less accurate than Western media in general. Singling out one publication which has a relatively high reputation among its peers is unhelpful. A better discussion would be how articles should deal with the issue of Western media bias in general. Personally, while I believe that a lot of the reporting is unfair including on many other topics, I think that Misplaced Pages articles should reflect what sources say and leave the correction of Western media bias to society. The best we can do is to ensure that articles have proper tone and weight. TFD (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• I oppose the continuing volume and structure of these RFCs on principle. Most if not all news sources that provide information about the previous days news are not unbiased on all subjects. I generally trust the BBC, but would not go to them for neutral coverage of the British Monarchy. I generally trust al-Jazeera, but would not go to them for neutral coverage of Saudi Arabia. I generally trust the Washington Post, but would not go to them for neutral coverage of Amazon.com . This insistence among a large part of the community that we can do a simple "reliable/not reliable" assessment of news sources is simply incorrect; hopefully through time and persuasion more editors will see this. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

  I don't have the time or energy to draft one, but I would support someone else's RFC imposing a (6 month?) moratorium on RfCs specifically about adding sources to WP:RSP. All the truly "perennial" sources should be there already, perhaps we can figure out a better way forward. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if that's exactly the right solution, even though I pretty much agree with you. I think the question is "we know users are using perennial RfCs as a smokescreen for discussions that are actually about specific articles and pieces, so how do we prevent this without limiting actual perennial discussions?" Overall it's a very messy situation. Paragon Deku (talk) 19:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

So long as we are complaining about RSP, I am concerned that some of the additions seem to be rather subjective interpretations of a few RSN discussions. We may have a few RSN discussions that ask, "is source X good for this claim". The answer is yes, then the source gets added as a "Green" source. Did we really have a wide ranging consensus that source X was generally reliable? Now a question that comes to RSN asking, "is X a good source for this controversial claim" may not be considered on the merits of the claim, rather on the color of the RSP entry. Springee (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

power~enwiki: An RfC re a moratorium in 2019 failed. Springee: you're right again. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• Agree with those who think these RfC are not helpful. RSN shouldn't be continuously blessing/condemning sources as reliable/not reliable. Instead we should be answering questions about using a specific source for a specific claim. This is an important distinction because many times the underlying issue is a generally reliable source being used in a way where say an opinion is treated as fact or the more relevant question should be DUE rather than WP:V. I certainly see no reason to see the Globe as anything other than generally reliable but that should never be treated as cart blanche for ignoring things like attribution of opinions/commentary, RECENT, UDE etc. Springee (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

  Well put. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• Voicing my support that we need to stop RFCs seeking deprecation of sources due to one or two incidents and/or claims of bias. A well-formed RFC on the matter, showing a record of problems over multiple areas and many years, is what needs to be presented (of which, for example, we have had with Daily Mail, RT, and Fox News). But we have editors that seem to want to use RS/P as a means to win content conflicts by declaring a source bad. I think that if we add clear wording to the top of this page and RSP about what serious RSP RFC requests should be constructed around, admins should have the freedom to immediately shut down RFCs that clearly are not of a proper type so that we aren't dragging too many editors into a content issue at RSN. (eg here, there is a fair question of whther the given Globe and Mail article can be used for the claim about this site become a tourist attraction, but that absolutely did not need to drag in the overall reliability of G&M into question). --Masem (t) 20:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Agree 100% with Springee and Masem. This noticeboard absolutely needs to get back to discussing sources in specific context (what the source is being cited FOR)... and WP:RSP needs to be reserved for sources that keep coming up (the “P” stands for PERENNIAL after all). Blueboar (talk) 20:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Agreeing with this 100 % myself, can I also add that we need to develop more realistic categories for news organizations. Humans are extraordinarily susceptible to us vs. them thinking, and the these RSP discussions have devolved into mob-like environments with people voting for 1 or 4 depending on their political views. That's not the way the world works, and Misplaced Pages can do better. -Darouet (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Blueboar, Darouet - 100% agree. We took a massive wrong turn with the DM Ban and it's time to bring things back onto the right track. This doesn't mean it's suddenly "OK" to use generally low quality sources like the DM, but context really is key here and we shouldn't discuss reliability in a vacuum. FOARP (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Edmond Paris, Genocide in Satellite Croatia, 1941-1945: A Record of Racial and Religious Persecutions and Massacres, 1961, American Institute for Balkan Affairs

Just wanted to get a sense from some uninvolved users regarding the use of this book on articles about controversial aspects of the Balkans in WWII, specifically regarding the Ustasha genocide of Serbs, Jews and Roma. The book was reviewed in Slavic Review in 1962 here. Given the observations that Paris (now deceased) was not a historian or a participant, not a "craftsman of scholarship", had not "bothered much with the rules for screening, organising, and presenting evidence", and that he had overlooked important sources and made numerous errors, and the age of the work, nearly sixty years old, in an topic area where a lot of scholarship has been ongoing since the early 1960s, it seems to me that it cannot be considered reliable for articles regarding the Ustasha genocide. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Another issue is apparently critics of his work state Paris had a large bias against the Catholic Church which motivated writing literature magnifying any negative historical instances, perhaps magnifying, involving Catholic individuals or related groups. I don’t know if anyone here might have more about it. His quotes of testimonies have been used in other articles recently and I am concerned as well, is this a reliable source to be used all on its own?OyMosby (talk) 13:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't use an article from 1961 because per Age matters older sources may no longer be accurate. That doesn't mean we cannot mention the work if it is cited in recent reliable sources. Even if the information is accurate, weight is also a requirement for inclusion. If you can't find the facts in more recent publications, then they lack weight for inclusions. TFD (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I cannot think of hardly any cases where it would be appropriate to cite a source from 1961 for World War II atrocities. So in short I would not cite it (t · c) buidhe 22:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks all. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:38, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd look at what it is being cited for. If more modern sources disagree then that's one thing, if simply contains not particularly controversial details not found elsewhere I wouldn't dismiss it. Controversial coverage not discussed elsewhere is going to raised the question of why, it being a controversial claim, it hasn't been discussed at all since 1961. Simple age is not a good reason to dismiss - stuff written closer to WW2 does at least have the advantage of more direct sourcing. FOARP (talk) 12:34, 14 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 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 "Misplaced Pages 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 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)

Eran Elhaik

The use of the following source for the genetic scientist Eran Elhaik 's wikibio:-

Aram Yardumian,Theodore G Schurr, 'The Geography of Jewish Ethnogenesis,' Journal of Anthropological Research Volume 75, Number 2 pp.206–234

has been challenged on the grounds of insufficient competence by the two scholars who wrote it. Aram Yardumian is part of the team at the Laboratory of Molecular Anthropology at Upenn. Theodore G Schurr is Director of the North American Regional Center of the Genographic Project and has specialized in human evolutionary genetic for three decades. Both have published extensively in peer-reviewed journals on anthropology and genetics. Nishidani (talk) 13:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

For what information the cite was used? --Shrike (talk) 13:18, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

The source mentions Elhaik and the Khazar hypothesis only in passing. The mention of the paper including both author's names in running text is quite undue in an article about Elhaik. The source could be used with such prominence in an article that covers the same topic, i.e. an article about the genetic evidence for the origin of the Jewish diaspora population (an article about research, not researchers). But even there, only with all caveats per WP:PRIMARY and WP:RECENT. The source is still new and hardly cited yet by peers. –Austronesier (talk) 13:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I apologize if this is an annoyingly long wall of text; I hope to cover everything necessary. Much as I expressed earlier on the article's Talk page ], my concern with the source is not as much the authors' competences as concerns that its use may be somewhat WP:UNDUE given that it proposes a hypothesis that is strongly at odds with mainstream consensus among poplation geneticists, as known from published research (which is that most Jewish groups - e.g. the Sephardi, Ashkenazi, and Mizrahi - do share a substantial Middle Eastern genetic component, with a common origin, though also carrying substantial differential admixtures in each from non-Jewish host population sources), whereas this source "proposes to invert" the traditional model and controversially states that Jewish groups do not have a common origin. But its proposals do not seem to have been cited or otherwise engaged with by the nainstream since its release in 2019. It appears to have no citations. See here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=Yardumian+Jewish+ethnogenesis&btnG=

It seems to me that aspects of WP:REDFLAG may apply, particularly the first and fourth. From "Redflag", which explains:

"Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources...Warnings (red flags) that should prompt extra caution include:

Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;"

And:

"Claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions—especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living and recently dead people."

Currently, there are not "multiple high-quality sources" but rather one source of unclear quality

The authors, of which there are only two, Yardumian and Shurr, while they are published in genetics (Schurr more so than Yardumian), interpret and characterize several papers by more notable and cited researchers in the area of Jewish and Near Eastern population genetics in ways that depart significantly from the conclusions (and statements) of the studies themselves (which are part of the mainstream consensus described above).

For these reasons, the addition seems to me to go against WP:WEIGHT and to give WP:UNDUE attention to a minority position (which could be described as an "extraordinary claim") advanced in one relatively new work that has not yet been engaged with by the mainstream of researchers in the field. It seems best to wait until there has been some mainstrem engagement with its proposals before using it. Thus I suggested that some caution is warranted. Skllagyook (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Austronesier: It would seem to me that the same issues mentioned above would also apply to its use in an article discussing the genetic evidence for the origin of the Jewish diaspora population, as well as, I would agree, those of WP:PRIMARY and WP:RECENT. Skllagyook (talk) 13:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I must add that my concerns about WP:PRIMARY only refer to Yardumian and Schurr's own conclusions. Much of the paper however contains a review of exisiting research results; as such, it's a also secondary source, and per the authors' credentials, a reliable one. –Austronesier (talk) 14:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

in no regard is it a prim ary source and the distinction you make confuses policy.

A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.

This is purely a secondary source evaluating primary source papers on genetics, and written by two ranking scholars whose credentials attest thorough competence in the field. Their conclusions can not be excerpted as primary except by the most antic of misreadings about how RS criteria are to be read.Nishidani (talk) 15:05, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

It is true that it contains a review. However Yardumian and Schurr's conclusions are in part derived from their interpretations of existing research, and those interpretations (in several cases), the subject of genetics, are very different from those of the conclusions of the authors of that research itself, and in some cases seems to characterize the conclusions of that research differently than its authors do. I'm not sure how one would distinguish their own conclusions from the review. (As mentioned, the WP:RECENT nature of the paper combined with its proposals that strongly diverge from consensus and lack of engagement -e.g. citations - with its conclusions from other specialists seems to recommend caution as well.) Skllagyook (talk) 15:13, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Look. This is getting exasperating. What you criticize is how science works. Hammer is cited by Behar, Behar by Atsmon, Atsmon by Elhaik in a continuing peer group argument as different models and data bases are used bearing on this question, and innovative analytic approaches are developed. All review each others' work and, in science, as in scholarship, reviewing scholars do their job also by disagreeing with their peers when the occasion requires. The fact that Yardumian and Schurr find a different interpretation for the research results of Hammer, Atzmon, Behar Elhaik et al., is perfectly normal. It doesn't mean some 'exceptional claim' is being made. It simply means that there are, in their view, other ways to assess that evidence. That is how serious science and scholarship work, and there is no reason for us to suddenly raise objections to these two scholars because they, in reviewing the evidence, suggest a model they think copes with it in a way that they consider more cogent and, above all, more in accordance with Jewish history, something many of these geneticists are not particularly familiar with (as opposed to many Jewish historians, who know how important conversion has been). Nishidani (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nishidani: My concern/criticism, as explained earlier, is not merely with "how science works" or that scholars are reviewing each other with differences of opinion, but that a source is being added that makes an extraordinary claim that seems to strongly contradict the mainstream consensus (which is comprised of multiple studies/reseachers over years) of the relevant community (population geneticists) and as yet has no citations or other other engagement from the mainstream. (And I believe Yardumian and Schurr are also not historians.)

Not very long ago, in an admitedly more extreme than this, but perhaps broadly comparable case, I, and others, engaged in discussion (here ]) with a user who had added a source (which I believe also contained a review) to Early expansions of hominins out of Africa that proposed a theory of Homo Sapiens origins strongly/radically at odds with the mainstream view. It was written by two authors (at least one of whom had relevant credentials), peer reviewed, and published in a legitimate journal, but was recent and had no expert citations. Skllagyook (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I am inclined to accept the reliability of the source, keeping in mind that WP:PRIMARY sources are not prohibited, but must be used with care. The question then, I assume, is how much WP:WEIGHT to give it for this BLP. I look at the page history and I see that a previous version features a gigantic blockquote of the paper , which is obviously suboptimal. The current version of the "Criticism" section is better . However, Nishidani, could you explain why it is necessary to outline this specific criticism in detail, when other are very succinctly outlined by the sentence The accuracy and reliability of Elhaik's population genetic theory of the Khazars has been strongly criticised by other academics in peer-reviewed publications based on linguistic and genetic evidence. News articles written by academics and commentators on Jewish history and genealogy have also criticised his population genetic methods and software, and historical and linguistic inferences., with 10 footnotes? This gives it way more weight than the other criticisms, and I wonder whether that's really WP:DUE. JBchrch (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I devote I think three lines to paraphrasing their views. The line you quote originally read earlier today

The accuracy and reliability of Elhaik's population genetic research has been strongly criticised by other academics

which has been around apparently for a while, suggested that Elhaik is deemed incompetent by his peers. I made a minor fix - Elhaik trained under Dan Graur, an extremely rigorous and distinguished molecular biologist who has a high regard for Elhaik, and was unfazed by the hullabaloo over the latter's Khazar hypothesis. Whether he accepted it or not is not the point. Elhaik knows his stuff, which is not the impression you get on any wiki mention of him. I'm not here to support Elhaik's hypothesis, but to ensure he is not smeared by reductive caricature as some freak in his field.

The text you cite draws on several nondescript journalistic reports of reactions to his first formulation of the Khazar hypothesis, quoting peers whom Elhaik in turn had vigorously criticized for their ideological fixations.* So that requires expansion, rather than serving as a model of such terse concision that, for example, my paraphrase of the 2019 paper, a mere three lines, might seem a tad excessive. But it is not my parsimony that requires trimming. Rather it is the section you greenquote that requires expansion. Nishidani (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I think this approach makes sense per WP:IMPERFECT. I cannot commit, but I may work on expanding the other criticisms at some point in the future to correct this (temporary) imbalance. JBchrch (talk) 16:16, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

::*The dispute is entrammeled by different perceptions of Israel's narrative of return entertained by Elhaik's several peers and one which he, an Israeli, challenges. The ideological investment is best put in the following remark one of the people he criticizes, Harry Ostrer:

'The stakes in genetic analysis are high. It is more than an issue of who belongs in the family and can partake in Jewish life and Israeli citizenship. It touches on the heart of Zionist claims for a Jewish homeland in Israel. One can imagine future disputes about exactly how large the shared Middle Eastern ancestry of Jewish groups has to be to justify Zionist claims. Harry Ostrer, Legacy: A Genetic History of the Jewish People, 2012

My concern is that the refusal to accept a straightforward review article here reflects this ideological tension. The uneasiness that many have with the idea that many Jews do not descend from the early Jewish population of Israel/Palestine. Nishidani (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Maybe, but let's try to WP:AGF here. JBchrch (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nishidani: I have explained my concerns more than once (at length and, I feel, engaged with your criticisms). My issue is not a personal ideological objection or resistence, and with respect, the suggestion that it is feels unjust (given that I have explained my reasoning) and not entirely appropriate. Skllagyook (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I am absolutely sure that Skllagyook is not one of our ideologists with a POV remit. My apologies if that general statement came over that way. I am much concerned with the neglected WP:Systemic bias problem. I certainly have never noted any edit by you, in articles I have on my watchlist, which suggest you are POV-driven. My point was, editors should be keenly aware that, particularly in areas like this, ideology plays no small role even in scholarship. There is a good article by N. Kirsh showing how deeply these concerns inflouenced Israeli scientists from the early 50s. The ethnonationalist meme of 'return' is however ideological. Of that there is no dispute, and we should be aware that this is operative, even in genetics, as some Israeli geneticists have noted. Precisely for this reason, wikipedians should strive to assess potential articles for inclusion per NPOV. If the two authors here challenge an ideological meme, that is an eminently reasonable point of view, minority (though growing) but certainly not to be treated as fringe, or as some odd disrespect for the 'consensual' meme. Not to be aware of these emotional investments is, - that is the worry - to inadvertently fall prey to what is ideological rather than factual.Nishidani (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nishidani: As I understand, our job as editors is to go according to what the sources in the relevant community (which is this case is population geneticists) say/are and the consensus among that group. Bringing to bear opinions or information derived from other disciplines/writings (not from the relevant field) about (what we may believe of know about) biases in Israeli society (etc.) on how we treat on the scientific sources (or suggesting that the mainstream opinion/consensus in the field is less credible because if it) seems to me a bit POV and possibly a little WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, as well as suggestive of righting great wrongs; (as the "Advocacy" page says, "Misplaced Pages is not a venue to right great wrongs, to promote ideas or beliefs which have been ignored or marginalized in the Real World,..") Skllagyook (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

All of those policy flags you are waving hav e nothing to do with my work here or my objections to holding a good article to ransom on Elhaik's page. I've been editing for 16 years. I have never seen any challenge to a source as obviously high standard RS as this. Two specialists in the discipline challenged because of their conclusion does not endorse a traditional view. The objections to it remain, in my view, either incomprehensible in terms of standard practice or are totally unrelated to policy, and, as somewhere above, screw up an elementary understanding of one such simply policy (primary/secondary). That disconcerting spectre made me think that a meme is being taken as a verified fact. Note that, all of my remarks about how science works, of which this paper is a normal example, were ignored. Still . I have to go out an do shopping for neighbours and knock off a beer or two with some local cronies. I'd prefer not to continue this conversation. We have said our piece, and this forum is invaluable for third party comments, which I hope will be provided. Co nversation between the parties only serves to create threads that drive off third parties. Nishidani (talk) 17:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Conversation between the parties only serves to create threads that drive off third parties Exactly. So back to the main point. @Nishidani: you have said that I'm not here to support Elhaik's hypothesis, but to ensure he is not smeared by reductive caricature as some freak in his field. What is the role of Yardumian & Schurr (2019) in the BLP then? They mention him directly only once in prose ("This problem cannot be approached analytically in the way that Elhaik (2012) attempted (p. 18 in the linked PDF)") and twice per citation. If it is to illustrate that scholars consider him a worthy peer and can engange and disagree with his research without drama, it should be made explicit in some way. If it is to show that his most vocal critics might be just as off the mark as Elhaik himself (as it reads now), the source better fits in Khazar_hypothesis_of_Ashkenazi_ancestry#Criticism_of_the_Elhaik_studies (no idea if it ever was there with all the back-and-forth editing) and would certainly be an enrichment among all the news articles cited there. –Austronesier (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

(Your query should go to the talk page, but I'll reply here. Please follow it up there if you wish) The section deals with criticism of Elhaik. Yardumian & Schurr state the general model and Elhaik's theory have opposed conclusions, but share a common homeland-diaspora dispersion premise, which they criticize.

(1)The major circulating ideas about Jewish ethnogenesis were developed in a time prior to advanced human genetic and genomic studies. These ideas have tended toward the homeland-diaspora model, drawing on biblical and post-biblical sources for an exile/founder effect model, or the Khazar model (which has been tested twice without success;see Elhaik 2012 and Das et al. 2016).The two models, in all their forms, visualize Jewish ethnogenesis as an expansive process, beginning with a single source population that then spreads and develops into multiple different geographic communities.' p.212

(2)It is this uncertainty that has given rise to both the mainstream theories of a Judean ancestry for contemporary Jewry and to alternative theories, such as the Khazar Hypothesis(Behar et al. 2013; Elhaik 2012; Koestler 1976). Neither of these theories, in their simplest forms, are supportable by current evidence.' p.222 n.3

(3)DNA sequences obtained from a variety of Jewish mortuary contexts or even Natufian or other Neolithic/Bronze Age Levantine populations.. .would provide useful information about the nature of genetic diversity that is at the root of the Jewish ethnogenesis narrative. This problem cannot be approached analytically in the way that Elhaik (2012) attempted.' p.223 n.13

I added to the page's Elhaik criticism section therefore:-

Yardumian and Schurr have criticized both Elhaik's Khazar hypothesis and the mainstream model it challenged, on the grounds that, in their view, both assume the same homeland-diaspora expansion model. As opposed to this, they view Jewish ethnogenesis as one rooted in multiple heterogeneous populations which, often after conversion, coalesced to form modern day Jews.'

Why is such a simple use of a quality RS critical of Elhaik not appropriate to the criticism section? Is it because it also criticizes the 'mainstream' model that Elhaik himself opposed? Is one not allowed to mention that though Elhaik's work has been criticized, those who criticize it have also come under challenge? Extraordinary.Nishidani (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Austronesier: I added disputed text to Khazar Hypothesis as you suggested

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Khazar_hypothesis_of_Ashkenazi_ancestry&type=revision&diff=1022218010&oldid=1022203273 SteveBenassi (talk) 06:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@SteveBenassi: I don't believe the disputed text should be added anywhere untill the issues discussed are resolved. That has not yet ocurred. Skllagyook (talk) 06:48, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Regarding ... (3)DNA sequences obtained from a variety of Jewish mortuary contexts or even Natufian or other Neolithic/Bronze Age Levantine populations.. .would provide useful information about the nature of genetic diversity that is at the root of the Jewish ethnogenesis narrative.

New research does exactly that, and it confirms that Zagoros/Caucasus population during the Bronze Age, and Today, contributed to the Genome in the Levant, indicating Elhaik may be partially correct that Ashkenazi Jews are converts from the north. See Graphical Abstract ... The Genomic History of the Bronze Age Southern Levant https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(20)30487-6 SteveBenassi (talk) 07:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

The paper does not support the idea that Ashkenazi Jews are converts from the north, but rather the idea that all Levantine groups have admixture from that area of the north (since/dating to the Chacolithic-Bronze Age) from before the formation of the religion of Judaism and before the Jewish diaspora, some of which admixture would therefore also be carried in Ashkenazi and other Jews (and Levantines/other groups with Levantine ancestry) - not only Ashkenazi Jews. Skllagyook (talk) 07:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: See Graphical Abstract ... 3 lines from Zagoros/Caucasus at 3 different times including from the Bronze Age to Today. SteveBenassi (talk) 08:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what section you're referring to. The paper in Cell does not say anything about Ashkenazi being descended from northern converts. It found that Levantines in general (since the Bronze Age on, including Bronze Age Canaanites) have/had admixture (from the Zagros or Caucasus) which had arrived in the Levant in the Bronze Age (as your own comment said). This is quite different from the hypothesis of Elhaik, which is that very few of the Ashkenazi's ancestors ever lived in the Levant at all, and that they descend entirely/almost entirely from converts outside the Levant from a much later period than the Bronze Age. Skllagyook (talk) 08:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

hypothesis of Elhaik, which is that very few of the Ashkenazi's ancestors ever lived in the Levant at all

That's not 'Elhaik's hypothesis'. The same conclusion could be made from Atzmon (2010), Behar (2013) Costa (2013) and many other papers. It all depends on how you define 'identity' (A light hearted laugh about the genetic industry's Ashkenazi profiling can be found in Gideon Levy's article about the conclusions of his test: (a) he is thoroughly Ashkenazi, genetically tied in to millions of others of that description. (b) there is no trace in either his maternal or paternal lineages of having any connection with a hypothetical ancestor in the Levant:'astonishingly, there’s not a trace of the Land of Israel in my ancestors’ journeys in the past 275,000 years.'). But this is not the place for such a discussion. Another key point relevant for inclusion is that editors have stacked the Elhaik bio with over 10 hostile sources, that implicitly espouse the 'mainstream' theory. Now that we have one high RS paper that is equally critical of Elhaik and the mainstream model he challenges,introducing some balance, the presence of the latter is being questioned. That is a serious WP:NPOV violation.Nishidani (talk) 09:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nishidani: You wrote:

"That's not 'Elhaik's hypothesis'. The same conclusion could be made from Atzmon (2010), Behar (2013) Costa (2013) and many other papers."

But that is not the conclusion made in Atzmon, Behar or Costa, nor in most other genetic studues on the topic. It is in fact a small minority view, as far as can be known from the stated conclusions of the research. Regarding Gideon Levy's article: I suppose this is not the place for such discussions, but Levy seems perhaps not to understand the importance autosomal DNA (which reflects overall ancestry); an individual's paternal and maternal lineages alone are not always representative of overall ancestral ethic makeup (especially coming from a mixed population like the Ashkenazi or other diasporic group), and the majority view is that Ashkenazi autosomal ancestry carries a substantial Middle Eastern component (as well as a substantial European one) - some such as Behar (2017), have also suggested that the R1a branch of Y-DNA Levy carries found in some Ashkenazi, came from the Levant). But this is beside the point I was making, which was merely that the Cell paper does not particularly support Elhaik's theory. Skllagyook (talk) 10:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

You're wrong. This is not the place to discuss this. But I suggest you read Atsmon et al 2010 p.857 closely, to cite just one of the four. (And certainly: do not take at their word what the several wiki articles write in their partisan syntheses of the debates). Ignore the fact that they get their history wrong (6 million practising Jews (mostly converts) in Graeco Roman times) on key points. The big difference is that Elhaik and others contest the assumption/meme of a prior 'Jewish genetic' homogeneity in Palestine datable to the time of the Babylonian exile. They don't believe interpretations of genetic data should be sieved through religious writ as though the latter were unimpeachably historical. That is ideological, not science, and the situation is rather like that which emerged when endosymbiotic theory was first broached: the mainstream insisted on an internal evolutionary development of cells - and the minority view argued for gene transfer qua organelles from captured bacteria. But, as I say, this is not the place to argue that. The point here is to decide if a high quality RS critical of both Elhaik and of his critics is appropriate to the criticism section of his page, partioularly since that page is intensely edited to include overwhelmingly criticisms of Elhaik from the mainstream POV, without any conmpensatory balance as NPOV requires.Nishidani (talk) 12:08, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

"Another key point relevant for inclusion is that editors have stacked the Elhaik bio with over 10 hostile sources, that implicitly espouse the 'mainstream' theory. Now that we have one high RS paper that is equally critical of Elhaik and the mainstream model he challenges,introducing some balance, the presence of the latter is being questioned." This sounds like a textbook example of WP:FRINGE. One or two outliers challenging the mainstream consensus of something is the definition of fringe. In this case, "introducing some balance" introduces "balance" between the mainstream consensus and a fringe view, which is against policy. Policy specifically states not to give such balance, where it says not to present fringe theories "alongside the scientific or academic consensus as though they are opposing but still equal views". It is worth noting that this study has not been cited by anyone else in the field following its publication, which is a strong indication of it being fringe. NonReproBlue (talk) 11:45, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Don't be silly. A work published in mid 2019 by definition will take some years to get considered response, as any academic knows. All of these three are tenured professors and scholars, and recognized as competent in their fields. Nishidani (talk) 12:08, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not silly. To contrast this with the mainstream sources, the cited study by Flegontov, et al, had already been cited four times within one year of its publication. Behar, et al, ad been cited 13 times within 2 years of publication. It has been two years since Yardumian and Schurr published, and there have been zero citations to the study. You even admit that their view is not held by the mainstream consensus when you say "include overwhelmingly criticisms of Elhaik from the mainstream POV, without any conmpensatory balance as NPOV requires." The thing is, NPOV does not require us to "balance" the mainstream POV with the fringe POV. Policy actually states the opposite, and says not to give false balance between mainstream consensus and fringe positions. NonReproBlue (talk) 13:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I would add that "The genomic history of the Bronze Age southern Levant" (the aforementioned paper in Cell) was published in 2020 and has been cited 10 times (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=Genomic+History+of+Southern+Levant&oq=Geno). Skllagyook (talk) 14:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

And it has been reviewed here on his page by Elhaik. Cf. also this. None of this is quotable, because it is his blog. The objection is profoundly silly because you cannot challenge a paper published by tenured mainstream scholars in a standard peer reviewed journal out of personal disagreement with its content (for that is what Skllagyook's objection amounts to, with the point about it contradicting some hypothetical 'consensus'). This would give Misplaced Pages editors a right to stand over scholarship and assume control over what may and may not be mentioned in state of the art scholarship. To assert it is 'fringe' would require a source, and there is none. It is just new. Nishidani (talk) 16:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

It is precisely the job of Misplaced Pages editors to determine what may and may not be mentioned by weighing the sources and evaluating them based on our policies. But now it seems you are moving the goalposts. As the WP:FRINGE policy points out, determining that an idea is fringe does not in fact require sources saying that, as many fringe subjects and assertions are just ignored by the mainstream. It is true that it would require a source to say, in Misplaced Pages's voice, that something is fringe. However, to make a determination that a source is fringe, and outside the scope of mainstream consensus, requires evaluating a source based on the criteria laid in the policy. Furthermore, much, if not all, of this is being derived directly from a primary source (the study itself) rather than secondary sources as would be preferable. What reliable secondary sources do discuss, and describe, is that Ostrer, Behar, etc. represent the mainstream consensus viewpoint. They say it directly. You even say it when you say that this material is equally critical of Elhaik and "the mainstream model he challenges". If SteveBenassi is to be believed, even one of the study's authors says "we can't be placed in the Elhaik camp or in the mainstream view". It is abundantly clear that there is an accepted mainstream model, and this is a single paper that challenges it. That is fringe. There is no other way to view it. If it proves to be correct, the mainstream consensus will support it, and it then would absolutely merit inclusion. Until then, there is no reason why it should be given such prominence. It is clearly undue weight. NonReproBlue (talk) 17:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Yardumian and Schurr's article is not a primary source. Read the policy. The matter of it being not yet cited is irrelevant. In scholarship, you get published in journals through a prepublication process of peer-consultancy and review. That is why the authors' qualifications, and the authoritativeness of the publishing venue are all that count. Don't any of you know that Mendel's paper on hybridization was ignored, with just 3 cites in the relevant scholarship forthree decades or so, until someone woke up? Going beyond this to assert as editors that the conclusions run contrary to some hypothetical consensus and therefore the piece cannot be used is an abuse of editing, tantamount to censorship. Minority viewpoints are not 'fringe' in this context: we include them. We have no remit to pick and choose RS depending on our personal assessments of the state of scholarship. I expect a very old hand like yourself would chime in this way, but am surprised Skllagyook cannot perceive they have exceeded their remit. Punto e basta.Nishidani (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Seems totally reasonable to expect scholarship to take the same amount of time to make its way into the mainstream now as it did during Mendel's time. I can't think of any information sharing technologies that could have possibly changed between then and now. But please, continue to escalate the ad hominem attacks and move the goalposts rather than deal with the chance there might be substance to what I am saying. Glad to see you are similarly familiar with WP:NPA and WP:AGF as you are with WP:FRINGE. NonReproBlue (talk) 04:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The editors here insist that

@Skllagyook: I emailed Aram Yardumian three days ago about the suppression of his article on Misplaced Pages, he responded "Dear Steve

Thanks for this email note and the link to the Eran Elhaik wikipedia discussion page. That was interesting to see.

Your question about why our article didn't warrant any news coverage is a good one. First of all, it was just a review article. There was no new data or genetic analysis. Had we undertaken new sample collections or a new kind of analysis -- as Eran Elhaik has done more than once -- I'm sure it would have at least registered a blip on the radar. Review articles often pass unnoticed.

Perhaps also: our view of Jewish ethnogenesis is actually somewhat at odds with Elhaik's. You may be aware that I posted an article on BioRxiv back in 2013 that was very critical of his methods (i.e., using Armenians and Georgians as surrogates for Khazars). Since we can't be placed in the Elhaik camp or in the mainstream view, perhaps nobody really knew what to do with us. Perhaps in some ways it's a blessing.

There's probably more that could be said, but I'll leave it there for now and ask how you came to be interested in this subject...

Regards Aram" SteveBenassi (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

A note: I (and others) am referring, not just to (a lack of) news coverage, but also academic citations. Skllagyook (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

As I said, high immediate citation has nothing to do with evaluating RS per se. In genetics, research turnover is rapid, with rapid responses, and a very thick field of academic researchers. In history things are slower, and there are not many who have the dual competences (historical anthropology and genetics) which the two authors have. In fact, reading genetics papers irritates historians because there they rarely shown familiarity with the state of the art research on history. Nishidani (talk) 16:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

So far we have one completely neutral third party editor providing us with input. So perhaps I should restate the problem so that no one wishing to comment need do the grind of actually reading the paper or the papers it refers to.

Research, particularly at the cutting edge, is often rancorous. Suffice it to read David Quammen's The Tangled Tree, a history of recent evolutionary biology's leading thinkers, to note only one of many studies. In a rapidly developing field like population genetics, it is wrong to speak of consensus, as editors hostile to the use of this paper repeatedly say. The article simply quotes or paraphrases four landmark sources ((Atzmon et al. 2010; Behar et al. 2013; Costa et al. 2013; Xue et al. 2017), which editors here state as mainstream as admitting the Ashkenazis have a close profile to European, rather than Levantine, populations.

• Atzmon et al. 2010 'concluded that Ashkenazi Jews were more closely related to regional “host” European populations than to Levantine or other Middle Eastern populations, whereas Iranian and Iraqi Jews clustered more closely with their host populations in the Arab and Persian worlds. . .In their opinion, the genetic proximity of Ashkenazi Jews to French and Mediterranean populations “favors the idea of ‘non-Semitic’ Mediterranean ancestry in the formation of the European/Syrian Jewish groups.

• (Behar et al. (2013) 'they observed that “Ashkenazi Jews show significant IBD sharing only with Eastern Europeans, North African Jews and Sephardi Jews” (as well as Cypriots and Sicilians), and only minimally with Middle Eastern populations.')

• ((Costa et al. 2013)'They concluded that 65–81% of Ashkenazi mtDNAs belonged to autochthonous European lineages, and that only 8% of them were demonstrably “Near Eastern” in origin.')

• (Xue et al, 2017) 'The most compelling evidence to date of a mosaic ancestry for contemporary Jews comes from the work of Xue et al. (2017). Their admixture analysis suggested a 70% European origin (and within this, 55% Southern Europe, 10% Eastern Europe, 5% Western Europe) and a 30% “Levantine” component in Jewish populations. In making these estimates, Xue et al. (2017) assumed the Levant to be the most likely source for the “Middle Eastern” apportionment of Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry and, thus, did not make any effort to distinguish Levantine from Anatolian or Babylonian ancestral components . .While the analysis was unable to identify the ultimate source population, the founding event for Ashkenazi Jewry almost certainly occurred in Southern Europe.'

The farce of denial of the appropriateness of the paper by Yardumian and Schurr for inclusion in Misplaced Pages consists in asserting that it holds a fringe view since there is a putative consensus about the ultimate Levantine origin of Ashkenazi Jews. As the above quotes show, the very authors cited for this consensus say precisely the opposite (of course, some of their papers contain the Levantine qualification, but the authors suggest the empirical evidence for that part of their work is frail). It is acceptable for them to criticize Elhaik, but it is unacceptable to cite them when their work shows that the other school also, like Elhaik, suggests the 'Levantine' component is nugatory. That veto is incomprehensible. All the two authors are doing is (a) pointing out what the ostensible 'mainstream' says: of three Jewish groups, Ashkenazis have a strong Euroipean genetic profile, and (b) this suggests Jewish ethnogenesis is variegated, hardly a shocking surmise. Nishidani (talk) 11:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Those characterizations from the Yarmudian paper are not entirely representative of the sources quoted or their conclusions. That is what I was referring to when I said that the source characterises papers in a way different from what they state. I will expand upon this, in this comment soon. Skllagyook (talk) 12:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

They are not characterisations, but direct quotes. Neither you nor I as wiki editors have a right to sit in judgment over what scholars do. 'I said that the source characterises papers in a way different from what they state.' In other words you are asserting that you privately as a wiki editor contest the accuracy of Yardumian and Schurr's summation of the genetic evidence - their area of expertise, and want to give your reading of the primary sources as proof. That is egregiously WP:OR, not permitted, and used by an editor to criticize an RS, whose status as RS no one would question. Please don't post a massive expansion of your views. We need third party input, not another endless discussion of our respective private interpretations of genetic papers. I disagree quite strongly with the two authors' reading of Elhaik, but I haven't breathed a word of it, or provided proof (which I have) that they do misread him. We have no right to do this. I have refrained from exceeding our remit, and so should you. Nishidani (talk) 12:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nishidani:. It is not my own interpretation of what the authors they quote say but what the authors (Atzmon et al., Behar et al., and Xue et al.) themselves said that I was referring to, not my views. What you excerpted from Yardumian and Schurr are direct quotes from studies but they appear to be selective in light of what the papers quoted in fact state and conclude. Again, this is not an expansion of my views or judgements but of what Atzmon, Behar, and Xue say (their views, not mine). Above you quoted Yardumian and Schurr's excerpts of Atzmon, Behar, Xue, and Costa to support the statement that the findings of the aforementioned researchers were in line with the idea that Ashkenazi Jews have only nugatory Middle Eastern or Levantine ancestry. But according to the papers themselves, that is simply not the case. (And the opinions of the researchers are relevant to the nature of the mainstream consensus.) See below.

It is not being disputed that it has been found, and is widely agreed, that Ashkenazi Jews have substantial European admuxture (that is fairly mainstream). But Atzmon, Behar, Xue, and others also agree that they, and most other Jewish groups, also carry a substantial shared Middle Eastern admixture component that has been identified as from the Levant and shared with other Jewish groups.

Atzmon et al. (2010) says:

"...genome-wide analysis of seven Jewish groups (Iranian, Iraqi, Syrian, Italian, Turkish, Greek, and Ashkenazi) and comparison with non-Jewish groups demonstrated distinctive Jewish population clusters, each with shared Middle Eastern ancestry, proximity to contemporary Middle Eastern populations, and variable degrees of European and North African admixture. Two major groups were identified by principal component, phylogenetic, and identity by descent (IBD) analysis: Middle Eastern Jews and European/Syrian Jews."

According to them, Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews were distinguished from Mizrahi Jews by the presence of southern (and other European) admixture in the former lacking in the latter, and other admixture in the lacking in the former (shared Middle Eastern ancestry combined with differential admixtures).

And:

"Two major differences among the populations in this study were the high degree of European admixture (30%–60%) among the Ashkenazi, Sephardic, Italian, and Syrian Jews and the genetic proximity of these populations to each other compared to their proximity to Iranian and Iraqi Jews. This time of a split between Middle Eastern Iraqi and Iranian Jews and European/Syrian Jews, calculated by simulation and comparison of length distributions of IBD segments, is 100–150 generations, compatible with a historical divide that is reported to have occurred more than 2500 years ago. The Middle Eastern populations were formed by Jews in the Babylonian and Persian empires who are thought to have remained geographically continuous in those locales. In contrast, the other Jewish populations were formed more recently from Jews who migrated or were expelled from Palestine and from individuals who were converted to Judaism during Hellenic-Hasmonean times...Thus, the genetic proximity of these European/Syrian Jewish populations, including Ashkenazi Jews, to each other and to French, Northern Italian, and Sardinian populations favors the idea of non-Semitic Mediterranean ancestry in the formation of the European/Syrian Jewish group."

Thus the study concludes the Ashkenazi, Sephardi, and Italian Jews share a substantial component of Middle Eastern ancestry with Iraqi and Iranian Jews that dates to the time of the diaspora and which they attribute to Levantine Jewish migrants, but also carry significant southern European admixture from intermixture with non-Semitic Mediterranean converts (thus they have a mixed origin including both).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3032072/

You quoted (from Yardumian's discussion of Behar):

"Behar et al. (2013) 'they observed that “Ashkenazi Jews show significant IBD sharing only with Eastern Europeans, North African Jews and Sephardi Jews” (as well as Cypriots and Sicilians), and only minimally with Middle Eastern populations.')"

This does not mean that Behar et al. 2013 conclude that Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews lack significant Middle Eastern or Levantine ancestry. Behar et al. explicitly state that Ashkenazi Jews mostly share affinity and ancestry with populations from southern Europe and the Middle East (and to a lesser extent Eastern Europe). From the abstract:

"Thus, analysis of Ashkenazi Jews together with a large sample from the region of the Khazar Khaganate corroborates the earlier results that Ashkenazi Jews derive their ancestry primarily from populations of the Middle East and Europe, that they possess considerable shared ancestry with other Jewish populations"

Regarding IBD sharing, Behar et al 2013 explain:

"Analysis of genomic sharing, focused on IBD sharing between Ashkenazi Jews and population groups, further sharpens the results from genetic distance analysis (Figure 6). IBD analysis, which focuses on the most recent tens of genera-tions of ancestry, is expected to generate tighter clustering of individuals within populations, between populations that have a recent common ancestral deme, or between populations that have recently experienced reciprocal gene Áow (Gusev et al. 2009, 2012). Considering the IBD threshold of 3 Mb for shared segments, Ashkenazi Jews are expected to show no signiÀcant IBD sharing with any population from which they have been isolated for >~20 generations. In accordance with the results from the other methods of analysis, Ashkenazi Jews show signiÀcant IBD sharing only with Eastern Europeans, North African Jews, and Sephardi Jews. Sharing was minimal with Middle Eastern populations, a not unexpected result given that the time frame for the split from Middle Eastern populations is beyond the detection power of our IBD."(Page 882)

And according to Behar et al., the populations with the closest affinity to (and most common ancestry with) the Ashkenazi are firstly other Jewish groups from Southern Europe and North Africa, and then Southern Europeans and Levantines. According to them, their genetic signature reflects an admixed ancestry mainly from Levantines and southern Europeans (with a smaller Eastern European component):

"Admixture demonstrates the connection of Ashkenazi, North African, and Sephardi Jews, with the most similar non-Jewish populations to Ashkenazi Jews being Mediterranean Europeans from Italy (Sicily, Abruzzo, Tuscany), Greece, and Cyprus. When subtracting the k5 component, which perhaps originates in Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews from admixture with European hosts, the best matches for membership patterns of the Ashkenazi Jews shift to the Levant: Cypriots, Druze, Lebanese, and Samaritans."(P.882)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264390976_No_Evidence_from_Genome-Wide_Data_of_a_Khazar_Origin_for_the_Ashkenazi_Jews

In Xue et al. 2017 the final Middle Eastern admixture estimate for Ashkenazi is not in fact 30% but 40%, which they estimate after reviewing several methods (whole genome analysis, LAI, and Gkobetrotter) that yeild varying estimates. They estimate that Ashkenazi are about 40% Middle Eastern (which they consider to be Levantine) and about 69% European (with being mostly southern European)

They say:

"The estimates for the total European ancestry in AJ range from ≈49% using our previous whole-genome sequencing analysis , to ≈53% using the LAI analysis here, and ≈67% using the calibrated Globetrotter analysis. The proportion of Western/Eastern European ancestry was estimated between ≈15% (Globetrotter and the LAI-based localization method)..."

And:

"Running RFMix on the AJ genomes with our EU and ME reference panels and summing up the lengths of all tracts assigned to each ancestry, the genome-wide ancestry was ≈53% EU and ≈47% ME, consistent with our previous estimate based on a smaller sequencing panel ."

"We used the f4 statistics to infer the fraction of European ancestry in AJ, as explained in Patterson et al. . Assuming that the true source is Southern Europe, the EU ancestry proportion is theoretically given by f4(West-EU,YRI;AJ,ME)/f4(West-EU,YRI;South-EU,ME)≈67% (S4 Fig, part B). However, when simulating genomes with 50% European ancestry, the f4-inferred fraction came out as 63%; thus, an inferred European ancestry proportion of 67% is broadly consistent with the RFMix-based estimate of ≈53%."

And finally:

"Finally, we considered GLOBETROTTER , which can infer both the contribution of each ancestral source and the admixture time. The first step in a GLOBETROTTER analysis is running CHROMOPAINTER , in order to determine the proportion of ancestry of each individual that is “copied” from each other individual in the dataset. Then, an ancestry profile for each population is reconstructed, representing the contribution of each other population to its ancestry . The inferred ancestry profile for AJ was 5% Western EU, 10% Eastern EU, 30% Levant, and 55% Southern EU. The combined Western and Eastern EU component is in line with our other estimates, as well as the dominance of the Southern EU component. However, the overall European ancestry, ≈70% (or ≈67% after calibration by simulations; S1 Text section 5), is about 15% higher than the LAI-based estimate, as well as our previous results based on whole-genome sequencing . Our detailed simulations (S1 Text section 5) demonstrate that evidence exists to support either estimate. Possibly, the true fraction of EU ancestry is midway around ≈60%."

Their paper includes a graph (Fig 7) that shows the estimated range of European and Middle Eastern admixture in Ashkenazi Jews: Middle Eastern at 40-65%, southern European 35-60%, and Eastern European 15-25%. (Which is not dissimilar to Atzmon's estimate of 30-60% European admixture in Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews.)

The authors do identify the Levant as the most likely source of the Middle Eastern component. They state:

"We observed that in simulations of admixed genomes, the Middle-Eastern regional source could have also been recovered by running the same localization pipeline. Applying that pipeline to the AJ genomes, we identified Levant as the most likely ME source: the proportions of chromosomes classified as Levantine was 51.6%, compared to 21.7% and 22.2% classified as Druze and Southern ME, respectively."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5380316/

Finally, Costa et al. (2013) do propose that the great majority of Ashkenazi MtDNA (maternal) lineages are of European origin, but do not contest that most of their paternal lineages (and a significant component of their autosomal DNA) is or could be of Middle Eastern origin. Costa's findings were cited and have received responses/mainstream engagement from notable researchers in (particularly Jewish) population genetics (including Karl Skorecki, Antonio Torrroni, David B. Goldstein, and Doron Behar), whose reactions (some of which which are mentioned on pages Misplaced Pages pages discussing the topic) were mixed, with some considering them plausible, and others considering them not likely. Another paper published soon after (Fernandez et al. 2014) found evidence that that the common Ashkenazi MtDNA K lineages identified as European by Costa might in fact have been Levantine (but it is uncertain).

None of this is consistent, as you seemed to imply, with the idea that the Levantine component in Askenazi and Sephardi Jews is nugatory (i.e. trivial/insignificant), but seemingly far from it. That opinion is in fact a small minority one in the published literature, held by Elhaik and his group and proposed (albeit perhaps to a somewhat less extreme extent) in this recent paper that has not yet been engaged with by the mainstream (which does not hold that view). Skllagyook (talk) 14:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The above WP:TLDR effectively buries a quite simple request under a load of opinion. The essence of Skllagyook's post is that they understand genetics better than the two professors who authored the article. And since he knows better, he refuses to accept the article on Misplaced Pages. Now, can we have third party input on the authors' status as competent scholars and the venue for their publication in terms of RS? All that is asked is this simple question. Not some discussions about our opinions of the topic.Nishidani (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nishidani: That is not the essense of my post at all. Your description of my reply is unfair and puzzling. I never said or indicated that I knew genetics better than the two professors. Above I quoted the quite explicit statements and conclusions of those notable sources (substantially quoted, which unfortunately caused the reply to be long), with their own positions, not my opinion or synthesis (which I added nowhere). It is not about my personal opinion. You seemed to be indicating that expert consensus is in line with the paper under discussion (and you brought up those sources). It is not (at least not currently) I agree that we need and should wait for third party input. Skllagyook (talk) 18:25, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

In fact your post clearly suggests you know the topic better than the professors. Their description of the sources, you are arguing, is inadequate. Your point seems to be to bury this simple request about competence and RS venue into one more of the endless debates, in genetics and everywhere else, about Jewish origins, about which there is not consensus. Please desist and allow third parties to examine the credentials of the authors and the venue, and make a call whether or not it fits our criteria.Nishidani (talk) 20:49, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Is the dispute about mentioning Shurr and Yardumian's criticism of Elhaik's conclusions in the article about him? If yes, I don't see a big problem in it; per WP:UNDUE it should be a short mention so that it doesn't appear to be more substantial than other criticism of his work. It doesn't necessarily mean that Shurr and Yardumian's findings need to be mentioned elsewhere. Each case would have to be considered separately as it appears that their conclusions are far from the scientific mainstream. I'm assuming that the scholars who were originally brought up by Nishidani (Hammer, Atzmon, Behar) and then quoted by Skllagyook represent the mainstream. Alaexis_¿question? 21:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Theirs is the only individual criticism that is fully expressed as such (the rest are all summarized in the preceding paragraph, without going into the details of any individual criticism from the 10 or so sources), and it has nearly the same amount of text devoted to it as the summary of all the other, mainstream criticisms. It seems very much like undue weight, especially considering that they, like Elhaik, hold a fringe viewpoint. NonReproBlue (talk) 03:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

There is no 'scientific mainstream', Alaexis, but, so far a 'majority' view which the paper shows tends to repeat the Levantine component, though with differing conclusions. I can't go into the details (which I know about) but Elhaik and his colleagues question the analytic reliability of one of the mathematical techniques used in population genetics - and do so at a very high level of formal criticism that will never make for the kind of tabloid reportage his wikibio thrives on - not sexy enough. That will emerge. In the meantime, wikieditors persist in trying to maintain 10 critical newspaper sources against him, while pressing for extreme limitations on any material, like the present paper, that hints at these complexities. That is where the POV pushing is. Nishidani (talk) 08:55, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a bit lost here. Is the discussion about the criticism of Elhaik's work by Schurr and Yardumian or about the Elhaik's criticism of the majority view? Alaexis_¿question? 10:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

It's about Yardumian and Schurr's criticism of both, which I felt was undue (and I feel currently has undue prominence), since, like Elhaik, they take an unusual minority view among geneticists (seemingly held by only them), and their paper has not had any mainstream engagement (not yet cited, etc.). Part of my issue was the undue prominence it was given, especially in the initial form added by SteveBenassi, before Nishidani's rewriting of it, which I welcomed/was an improvement, but even after that as well. I don't know that I'd object to a short reference to it in the Eran Elhaik article, or perhaps among the other refs, whose prominence, per WP:WEIGHT, is not out of balance with other references criticizing Elhaik (which includes scientific sources, not only Journalistic). Skllagyook (talk) 10:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

they take an unusual minority view among geneticists

Please desist with this undocumented and repeated assertion. You are exceeding your remit in asserting a competence, in a highly technical area of science, for which there is no evidence and, in asserting your superior judgment against two mainstream professors. I for one disagree with their reading of Elhaik, but that is immaterial, and I don't mention it. The appearance of some vaunted master of this topic is embarrassing. Again, let third parties comment.Nishidani (talk) 11:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Your assertions that they are mainstream is belied by the fact that you have repeatedly asserted that they are challenging the mainstream view (and if you trust SteveBenassi, as it seems you do, so does one of the studies author's "Since we can't be placed in the Elhaik camp or in the mainstream view, perhaps nobody really knew what to do with us.") If they are challenging the mainstream view, they cannot represent it. If there is no mainstream view, they cannot challenge it. You say If the two authors here challenge an ideological meme, that is an eminently reasonable point of view, minority (though growing)", then you say that saying they hold a minority view is an "undocumented and repeated assertion". It seems that the real issue might be that you yourself do not agree with the mainstream view, which is fine, but that does not mean that you can add information in such a way as to emphasize what you feel are the shortcomings of that view, out of proportion to what actual mainstream RS say about it. Also, it seems incredibly hypocritical to talk of having secret info about Elhaik's research that you cannot go into depth on that proves both the mainstream and other fringe ideas wrong, and at the same time chastising Skllagyook for "exceeding your remit and asserting a competence, in a highly technical area of science, for which there is no evidence an in asserting your superior judgment". I think your personal feelings on this matter might be clouding your ability to neutrally analyze the body of RS as a whole. NonReproBlue (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Learn to read. By mainstream is meant that there is no evidence whatsoever that Yardumian and Schurr are anything but professors with strong research records and no hint anywhere that their respective research has been challenged as fringe by their peers. Now let's stop this sepulchral drift of chat and its probable function of burying the simple request asked of third parties.Nishidani (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

All I see are more ad hominem attacks and aspersions that seem more in line with a battleground mentality than a genuine desire to effectively collaborate with others. Since you are such a pro at reading, perhaps give WP:NPA a gander. NonReproBlue (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Could we have third party input please.Nishidani (talk) 14:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I have no control over that. But I have no intention of remaining silent as you insult me, so if you want me to stop responding you are going to have to keep your attitude in check. NonReproBlue (talk) 15:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

When I said "an unusual minority view among geneticists" I was only referring to what is stated in/known from the published research, since that is all we can go on. I am not claiming a superior judgement. Perhaps it would have been better to say "an unusual minority view in the genetic literature." or "unusual minority of the genetic research" Or something similar. Skllagyook (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

To make that judgment implies you have a total command of the genetic literature at your fingertips, - the premise for the assertion you made. I see no evidence of such technical mastery. Now, can we drop it for once, and listen to others? Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 13:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

This is how I would mention their criticism. Possibly it would be worth expanding the section, and then both Schurr&Yardumian's and everyone else's findings can be mentioned in more detail. I'm definitely not an expert, but nothing in the article or in this thread justifies a special emphasis on Schurr&Yardumian's criticism. Alaexis_¿question? 19:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

There is no special emphasis. The criticism passage refers to Elhaik's work. Schurr&Yardumian criticize him. Mentioning this upsets two editors. The page is stacked with criticism of Elhaik in poor journalists reports. This new piece criticizes him, and his critics. The furore by POV pushers consists of wishing not to mention that his critics are also criticized for the same topic.Nishidani (talk) 20:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

That his critics are criticised too seems to be less relevant for the article about Elhaik (which is why I asked about the scope of the discussion). It might be relevant for other articles. Alaexis_¿question? 20:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Alaexis: Your revision seems fine to me. Skllagyook (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Alaexis: Yardumian and Schurr are Reliable Sources for the Eran Elhaik Misplaced Pages page. I made two edits to the Eran Elhaik page, one on Ostrer "will not defame Jews" comment, and another on The Geography of Jewish Ethnogenesis paper, causing this debate. The point I am trying to make is, in layman's terms, are Jews a race or not a race. Ostrer and his camp say Jews are a race, they are more homogenous than not, they are closely related, and they are mostly the descendants from the Ancient Hebrew in the Levant. Elhaik, Yardumian and Schurr say no, Jews are not a race, they are more heterogenous than not, they are not closely related, they are not mostly the descendants from the Ancient Hebrew in the Levant, but are mostly the descendants of converts to Judaism outside of the the Levant. Elhaik is a Zionist but is not biased in his research, he says his intention was not to disprove a connection to biblical Jews, but rather "to eliminate the racist underpinnings of anti-Semitism in Europe". Elhaik's paper was highly cited, it created a firestorm, many articles were written about it, because it threatens one of the justifications for Israel's right to exist in Palestine, DNA. I think we should modify this to reflect the above "Yardumian and Schurr have criticized both Elhaik's Khazar hypothesis and the mainstream model it challenged, on the grounds that, in their view, both assume the same homeland-diaspora expansion model. As opposed to this, they view Jewish ethnogenesis as one rooted in multiple heterogeneous populations which, often after conversion, coalesced to form modern day Jews. " SteveBenassi (talk) 04:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I have read the paper of Yardumian and Schurr. It is a secondary source by two qualified authors published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. The authors openly disagree with the conclusions drawn by some of the papers they review and give reasons for their disagreement; this is how science works and it isn't our business to take sides. I don't want to comment on exactly how it is used in articles, but I don't see the slightest reason to prohibit its use. Zero 07:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Neutral editors please note that the use of this perfectly normal academic article is being edited out of several pages: not only at the Eran Elhaik page, which is crammed with references hostile to the author (in violation of wiki bio's NPOV policy) but also at the Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry here by Skllagyook, and then by User:Shrike (here and at Genetic studies on Jews here by Skllagyook, and at Jewish History here, again by Skllagyook.

It would appear in all four cases that Skllagyook has taken it upon himself to disallow a new perfectly normal piece of academic research to be cited for its conclusions anywhere on Misplaced Pages; That they do so because they are convinced the majority view is tantamount to the truth and not a contestable opinion. That is not only abusive POV pushing. It is outright censorship of any dissonant voice, one in this case, coming from perfectly respectable scholars. I.e. we have the extraordinary phenomenon of a peer-reviewed piece of scholarship suffering interdiction from appearing on Misplaced Pages because an editor has arrogated the right to step in an assume the mantle of ultimate judge on what can, and cannot be thought, about the topic. An editor of unknown background is acting as if they knew more about the topic of population statistics, genetics and Jewish history than the scholars who specialize in it or the peer-review committee who approved its publication on vetting it. Nishidani (talk) 08:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Please read WP:ONUS. Their view is WP:FRINGE and hence WP:UNDUE Shrike (talk) 08:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Vapid policy flagwaving in lieu of a focused argument. What's that got to do with the price of fish? What you are saying is that any new research, issued through the normal processes of peer-review and published in a standard journal, is ipso facto 'fringe' because it happens, in an overview of scholarship to date, to differ from a majority opinion and suggest other ways of interpreting the data ostensibly underwriting that majority view. Were that true Misplaced Pages could never keep abreast of the fluid world of scholarly developments. Ridiculous.Nishidani (talk) 08:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

There is no need to panic remove this from articles. Its not the kind of source that will be disqualified for reliability. It may be out of scope for a biography but that discussion should continue at the article talk page."The Khazar hypothesis" saved lives in Vichy France. It should not be taken drastically out of its historical context to smear Elhaik. Separately, the Khazar hypothesis enjoyed a Muslim revival after the founding of the modern state of Israel and the English speaking rose to the bait but it's never been the heart of Zionism. SteveBenassi asks "are Jews a race or not a race". The answer was once a matter of life or death. But the "right to exist in Palestine" is not justified by genetics. The only place I've seen such rubbish claims is the The New York Times which is not a reliable source for science. Why would Jews who were deported to Israel by the nations that were ethnically cleansing them justify their presence in Israel by genetic studies? On Misplaced Pages we should not be "taking sides" but continuing to improve the weight or NPOV issue by discussion. Spudlace (talk) 09:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nishidani: (and to any other editors reading) In the diffs you (Nishidani) link above (where I removed the disputed additions), SteveBenassi has added the them to several articles while it was being discussed here instead of waiting for the issue to be resolved, after having been warned about edit warring. That did not seem appropriate. He also added them prominently to article leads, which was also undue given that the the additions represent a minority view. In the case of the Jewish history article there is no other material referencing genetic studies, so adding it seemed especially undue. And he had almost completely refused to engage in any kind of Talk page discussion since the beginning (since his first edits at Eran Elhaik).

As I have tried to explain, I do not claim any kind of special knowledge or expertise (I am not an expert), and your accusations - now of "arrogance" - are becoming increasingly personal and uncivil and beginning to enter the territory of personal attacks, which I would like to ask that you not do.

In making the point that the new paper is strongly divergent from the mainstream (as we can be aware of the mainstream and majority view, from published research) I merely quoted (and refered to) what much of the research itself says/concludes quite explicitly. I can find no other published research (by population geneticists, the relevant expert community) that takes positions similar to those of Yardumian and Schurr. And you admit above they they are not of the majority view. I merely argued that their position is extraordinary and has not yet had mainstream engagement (e.g. been cited by experts) and this that some caution should be used at this stage. But if the paper is to be used in this or any article, which I concede that it likely will in some capacity, it should at least not be given undue prominence. Skllagyook (talk) 11:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: I am a Newbie, I don't know how to use Misplaced Pages, I was getting erased by three people unfairly I thought, I fought back, went to Wiki-Jail for 36 hours, made one final post, and this one, I apologize for my inexperience. I am not planning on making any more edits for a while, I got my message out, now I am done, and will watch others and learn. It was quite the experience. Thank You for putting up with me the past few days. SteveBenassi (talk) 12:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@SteveBenassi: Your statement that your violations of Misplaced Pages policies were honest mistakes from ignorance seems to be directly contradicted by your other recent statement on another page (along with the fact that you repeatedly edit warred and refused to engage in Talk after several warnings and explanations.

Namely this statement that you wrote on your Talk page ]"I intentionally made a scene to draw attention to the Ostrer issue, I knew I would be put in wiki-Jail for a day or two, I thought it was worth it, and it worked, Huldra came to the rescue.". As User:NonReproBlue (who mentioned it to me at WP:ANI) correctly said, this "would seem to strongly suggest that this user is not here to build an encyclopedia. Knowingly breaking policy because the punishments are "worth it" seems like textbook tendentious editing." Skllagyook (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

We can't conduct a civil debate if simple words in English are misunderstood, and even taken as personal attacks. 'Arrogate' in 'arrogate the right' does not mean 'arrogance'. It means 'claim a right without justification'.

When on the wikibio page I showed you that numerous Jewish historians (and they have read these science papers) doubt the claims, you dismiss their objections as invalid because they are historians. The error there is that you are saying historians cannot judge the historical implications of science, but scientists can (re)write history beyond the challenge of historians.

When I note, as several scholarly books have observed, that these claims are, despite the science, embedded in politics, I am told keep politics out of it. But one of the masterly overviews of Jewish identity debates by Weitzman finds it,

'impossible to dismiss the argument that the scholarship of Jewish origin, certainly as practiced in the past but also as being pursued today, is really at its core a form of political self-positioning.' Steven Weitzman, The Origin of the Jews The Quest for roots in a rootless age, Princeton University Press 2017 p.20

Weitzman devotes a whole chapter to the genetic theories you take as an unchallenged consensus, and says they don't work. He is an historian, but rest assured his summary of the material was vetted by competent scholars in the area. He admits he is not competent to judge the merits of genetics (p.298) but he shows that for example claims by genetics about the so-called Cohen hapoltype have been challenged by other geneticists. He looked at Behar and co., notes that Elhaik 'in an interesting way' challenged their conclusions (he is a geneticist like them) and claimed that '70% oif European Jewws ad nd almost all Eastern European Jews cluster with their populations. In other words, Elhaik's analysis showed that the ancestors of Ashkenazic Jews do not hail from the Near East.' op,299

Scrupulously, he then notes Elhaik's conclusions have been challenged and 'there are reasons to be skeptical', since his proxies are poor choices. And he notes Behar's response, which confirmed a Middle east origin. But then Behar's account of Ashkenazic Levites concluded that they were closer to non-Jewish populations of Eastern European origin', a conclusion which shows that Behar and his collaborators 'are willing to entertain historical conclusions at odds with conventional thinking babout the origin of the Jews if that is where the evidence leads them' p.301

Behar also argued that 40% of Ashkenazic Jews came from four founding mothers. His group claimed they originated in the Middle East, but Martin Richards in 2013 contradicted this conclusion, arguing in turn that they were Mediterranean and possibly were converts. (p.302) It doesn't stop there, for another finds East Asian traces in the Ashkenazi. Conclusion? Your vaunted 'majority consensus' is a scam meme that buries the marked differences in research results in a highly mobile discipline of modern science. The point again is made by Weitzman:-

This kind of research is still very new: it seems to be updating itself all the time, and the conclusions described here are tentative and revisable-in fact some have already been revised.

His finally survey is of critics who argue that genetic evidence, though invaluable is 'far less ambiguous' than other types of evidence. In this view genetics is rehabilitating racialized thinking and fails to substantiate the historical claims it has been making. pp.304ff.

So? Your idea of majority/consensus used repeatedly to challenge the use of new research flies in the face of what science does, particularly here at its cutting edge. It is an open vibrantly fluid field of various hypotheses, in which papers develop, refine or challenge peer conclusions in a rapid turnover of research. The sociology of science is full of narratives of minority views that are generally discounted only to achieve acceptance in a generation or two (Horizontal gene transfer or symbiogenesis are obvious cases in point. In your approach no one could have mentioned early hypotheses in the literature until decades later, when the hypotheses were broadly confirmed. Rubbish. Misplaced Pages must keep abreast of what qualified scholars and theorists are arguing, and avoid the dangerous editorial authoritarianism of censoring new research because it 'contradicts' what is just a generally widespread viewpoint or model or, as here, a dicey meme.Nishidani (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

By all means reply, but do not give us your personal view of the state of the art, to contradict Weitzman's summary. What you have to answer to is the fact that you appear to assert is either that there is no minority view within population genetic research on Jews/Ashkenazim or no disagreement in the ranks. Secondary sources affirm the opposite, and, so far, your repeated claims of a consensus are personal takes on the topic which ignore the diversity of conclusions that have emerged over the last decade, a diversity reflected in the very paper you are trying to suppress from being cited here. That is wildly exceeding our remit as editors, and I am quite shocked third parties so far can't see it for what it is.Nishidani (talk) 13:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nishidani: You are correct that I misread "arrogate" as "arrogant". My mistake, and my apologies.

As I mentioned before, it is not controversial that European Jews have substantial European/non-Near Eastern admixture (some studies indicating which some of the Weitzman excerpt mentions). But this is different from the position that they have negligable Middle Eastern or Levantine ancestry, a view held by Elhaik which does not seem to be mainstream.

Regarding Weitzman and his status as a historian you wrote:

"The error there is that you are saying historians cannot judge the historical implications of science, but scientists can (re)write history beyond the challenge of historians."

What I was saying is that historians such as Weitzman (without qualifications in genetics) may be quotable and reliable sources on other topics and contexts, but their opinions on the genetic evidence would not be quotable/WP:RS on pages or article sections covering genetic evidence and studies (that are meant to represent the findings and conclusions of scholars in that field). Nor does it speak to the consensus in that field, which is the relevant consensus in this duscussion. Skllagyook (talk) 13:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

No need to apologize. There is a vast difference between Middle Eastern and Levantine ancestry. You evidently haven't read Elhaik ('the position that they have negligable Middle Eastern or Levantine ancestry, a view held by Elhaik'). Elhaik explicitly identifies two Middle eastern areas as formative for the foundation of the Ashkenazi. Let's not go into the details here.

You have no qualifications in genetics by your own admission. Neither do I. But you alone are holding out against our use of historians and specialists whose work analyses the literature and who have the competence to do so. Yardumian and Schurr publish widely on the topic. Weitzman is Professor of Semitic Languages and Literatures in the department of Religious Studies at the University of Pennsylvania, and has written one of the defining overview analyses of Jewish identity arguments, his book is peer-reviewed (that means here he got competent specialists to read over what he wrote about genetics) and is published by Princeton University Press; Aram Yardumian specializes in Human evolutionary genetics ep. re the Caucasus, Anatolia and the Middle East regions at the Laboratory of Molecular Anthropology at the University of Pennsylvania; Theodore Schurr is Professor of anthropology at the Population Studies Center at UPenn, Director of the North American Regional Center of the Genographic Project, and Head of the Laboratory of Molecular Anthropology at the University of Pennsylvania. And you personally object to their presence on a page splotched with tabloid level coverage of this genetic dispute by the likes of Matthew Thomas, Jordan Kutzik, Jon Entine and Cnaan Liphshiz, none of whom have any professional knowledge of population genetics, and all are publicists/journalists. It is quite outrageous that we are having this debate on Misplaced Pages. In normative wiki editing the source selection would be inverted, eliding the journalists and privileging people who have the academic professionalism or area-specific competence of the three scholars named. Nishidani (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nishidani: You wrote: "There is a vast difference between Middle Eastern and Levantine ancestry. You evidently haven't read Elhaik"

I have read Elhaik. I spoke imprecisely. The position that Ashkenazi Jews are of Iranian, Anatolian, and Slavic descent and have very essentially no Levantine ancestry is also a minority position (judging by the statements of the published research by experts in the field). My argument is not that the majority position is unchallenged (that is rarely the case in science) but that certain strongly divergent positions (under discussion here) are marginal enough/enough of a minority to warrant caution in giving them too much weight (and certainly avoiding WP:FALSEBALANCE). As mentioned, I concede that Yarmudian and Schurr will be included in some capacity on the page. The issue is now how to incorporate the source and how much prominence to give it. I currently see no problem with User:Alaexis's edit. Skllagyook (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

My full disclosure is that I haven't read Elhaik. I was responding to the suggestion proposed above by SteveBenassi that doesn't mention Ashkenazi:

"Yardumian and Schurr have criticized both Elhaik's Khazar hypothesis and the mainstream model it challenged, on the grounds that, in their view, both assume the same homeland-diaspora expansion model. As opposed to this, they view Jewish ethnogenesis as one rooted in multiple heterogeneous populations which, often after conversion, coalesced to form modern day Jews."

The form of the Khazar theory that is taken seriously by scholars is not a theory of Ashkenazi ancestry. Khazar was a slur in Soviet Russia (basically calling them Turks and blaming them for everything, which we call anti-Semitism), and it was also a theory developed mostly by Karaim scholars about Karaim origins.

The related Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry is not supported by any evidence, historical or scientific, and is not taken seriously by any scholars, with the apparent exception of Elhaik. I think we can call this fringe.

Yardumian and Schurr are reliable and can be used in other articles. Despite the comments in the email, I don't think this is a new or fringe position. The well-established Rhineland hypothesis implies multiple heterogeneous populations. It remains controversial but it's not fringe. The issue of deleting the Yardumian and Schurr source from multiple articles as non-reliable came up. While there is no consensus here for that, it can still be challenged under other policies like WP:UNDUE. Spudlace (talk) 05:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Several geneticists, Behar included, had earlier (2004) suggested might be a possible line of investigation. Elhaik took up the challenge (the theory had a long history of support in many Jewish historians), but his paper was deemed flawed for its choice of proxy. Normal science. (a 'Perhaps this? (b) 'Well, here's my model.' (c) 'No, that doesn't work . . .' Elhaik was singled out for a firestorm of outrage for testing that hypothesis, as his peers suggested worth doing, and much of this was political. In 2019, two scholars reviewed all the evidence, criticized both the mainstream school and Elhaik, and offered a theory of multiple origins (which, in any case, is implicit in much of the literature). One editor went overboard and edited out mention of this on four wiki articles. So0 far there has been no cogent reason given for eliding the article from Elhaik or any other page. It is a legitimate view, even if minority. And, in particular, given that Elhaik's page is stacked with negative criticism sourced to journalists, the balancing act Yardumian and Schurr follow, in treating both the widespread view and the Elhaik theory as sharing a similar assumption, is necessary per NPOV. In the Elhaik section, the undue weighting overwhelmingly in favour of negative press reportage that favours the 'mainstream' view, is somewhat balanced if we add a brief note that the 'general' view is itself challenged. Fail to do that, and the wikibio looks like an attack page, studiously exempting any mention of problems with the mainstream model his paper questioned.Nishidani (talk) 11:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

There's just no actual evidence of any East to West migration of Khazars fleeing from Genghis Khan. It's a work of creative historical fiction and it was rejected because there is no good explanation for the vast linguistic difference. Khazars disappear from history in the time of Genghis Khan is why Elhaik's study has been rejected. The assumptions he makes are wild and implausible in many ways. The Caucasus is relatively isolated (with the exception of the many dignitaries, visitors, oil explorers, Persian travelers and occupying armies that visited one of the worlds most significant oil producing countries). And Sephardim and Ashkenazi have been marrying for centuries. You don't have to be an expert in genetics to see that this doesn't add up. For RS/N purposes the source should not be removed for reliability but it was removed as WP:UNDUE I don't think we can resolve it here. Spudlace (talk) 21:59, 13 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 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) 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages - 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 Misplaced Pages (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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages (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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

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... . 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 but it was immediately restored by Alexandermcnabb. 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.”. 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)

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 . 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)

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></ref> Where a change.org petition has become worthy of note, other sources have reported it. Ritchie333 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 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)

US diplomatic cables on Wikileaks

In this Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living_persons/Noticeboard#Sisay Leudetmounsone, User:Thucydides411 has stated that we can be sure this document is an original, unmodified, transmitted US diplomatic cable. To be clear, there is no reliable source discussion anyone has found of this cable. It's not something particularly interesting or contentious. It's only being used because so far no one has found a different source, such as an official Laotian government document or news report from the time. And although it's a US diplomatic cable, there isn't much concern over bias as it's simply a listing of members of the 8th Laotian Central Committee and whether they are new.

The main question is whether we can be sure of this cable since Wikileaks by their nature isn't that transparent over where the information came from, and how it was processed. There was a set of US diplomatic cables leaked over a decade ago that most RS consider authentic, but it's not clear to me how we know from Wikileaks this is part of that batch, however Thucydides411 believes it is part of the batch.

Also, while this cable has metadata suggesting it was transmitted, it's not clear to me how we can be sure without WP:OR that this cable was transmitted, instead of something like a draft.

WP:RSPS suggests there are concerns over whether documents hosted on Wikileaks are what they purport to be, but that doesn't preclude a particular set of documents being considered definitely authentic. Although this concerns a BLP and there is an ongoing discussion at BLPN, I felt it might be useful to bring here since RSN editors are more familiar with assessing the reliability of sources which is the main issue at the moment rather than BLP specific issues.

At the moment, my personal view is that the cable isn't an acceptable source, given uncertainty over its authenticity, but if the general consensus is with Thucydides411 that we can be sure this cable is authentic, then I guess I'm wrong. It may be better to comment at BLPN to avoid a split discussion.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:16, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I see no problems with using it, possibly with attribution to Wikileaks. You can never have 100% confidence as even the most reliable sources make errors so you can cast this kind of existential doubt on everything. Wikileaks have been criticised a lot for many things but I don't think they have been accused of forging cables. Alaexis_¿question? 11:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Its a BLP, source is required to be reliable and secondary except for uncontentious primary sources (those released by the subject themselves). Even if you take out Wikileaks involvement, it would at best still be a primary source (for the government) if we were 100% certain of its origin. And for that to be the case, it would have needed to be released by the author, or have a reliable secondary source confirming its authenticity. The problem with this one is that while the leaks in general are considered authentic per secondary sources, they are in context of discussing a particular cable "in cable blah ambassador blah said blah". There is no secondary coverage on this, and we only have Wikileaks word for it that they are part of the released cables, and last I checked, Wikileaks themselves are not a reliable source either. So no, the ENWP article is about a living person, and this is so far below our requirements for BLP's that I am surprised people are even questioning it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Nil Einne, This is the only English-language source that the editor, user Ruling party, can find to support the statement that the subject, a living person, has been a member of the ruling party since the 8th congress.

That's a bit of a red flag.

The stolen cables are primary sources, not subject to editorial oversight, and published on a source with a rather clear political agenda these days. This seems to me to be very simple. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The claim that this source supports is entirely uncontentious. Sisay Leudetmounsone is a Laotian politician, who we know from other sources was a member of the 9th, 10th and 11th Central Committees of the ruling party in Laos. This source is being used to document that she first joined the 8th Central Committee. This is not in any way an extraordinary claim, or one that would in any way be damaging to the subject of the BLP.

The US diplomatic cable in question is extremely straightforward. It is simply a list of members of the Central Committee of the ruling party in Laos, with a few pieces of data on each member (present position, former positions, date of birth, place of birth, ethnicity, whether or not they are new members of the Central Committee). This is not a nuanced source that requires any analysis by editors here.

I think this cable could reasonably be considered a secondary source. It's an unusual secondary source, in that it was never meant for public consumption. It was intended to update the US State Department on the composition of the Laotian ruling party's Central Committee. But it is a work of analysis by someone (US embassy staff) not directly connected to the events in question (the election of the Central Committee). As for reliability, I see no reason why the US embassy in Vientiane would be unreliable for basic factual information of this kind. Many other cables contain subjective analysis of politics and other matters, but this is a straightforward list of people sitting on a prominent political body in Laos.

This is an authentic US diplomatic cable. The US diplomatic cables obtained by WikiLeaks from Chelsea Manning are widely acknowledged as genuine, and have been used by countless articles in reliable sources for reporting. Der Spiegel published a FAQ on the cables, which states:

DER SPIEGEL, the New York Times, London's Guardian, Paris' Le Monde and Madrid's El Pais have viewed, analyzed and vetted the mass of data provided to the publications by WikiLeaks.

When it first began publishing on the cables, New York Times described them in this way:

A cache of a quarter-million confidential American diplomatic cables, most of them from the past three years, provides an unprecedented look at back-room bargaining by embassies around the world, brutally candid views of foreign leaders and frank assessments of nuclear and terrorist threats.

These cables have been used and treated as genuine in so many articles that it's impossible to even begin to count. I'll give just a few random examples: The Hindu, The BBC, CBC, FT, Haaretz, and CNN. There's no doubt about whether or not the cables are genuine, so the only question is whether or not this particular cable can be considered a reliable source for the claim it's making.

Finally, there is not a huge amount of coverage of Laotian politics in the international press. For larger/wealthier countries, I would expect there to be plenty of news coverage of the composition of the leading political bodies in the country. I have looked for other English-language sources on the composition of the 8th Central Committee of the Laotian ruling party, and I have not found any. Yet this is clearly an important political body within Laos, and not using this source would leave a gap in Misplaced Pages's coverage. We have problems with WP:SYSTEMICBIAS and global perspective, and part of the problem is spotty English-language coverage of events in some parts of the world. But in this case, we have a relatively straightforward source that should be reliable for this sort of basic factual information, and I think we should use it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

For a BLP, no it isn't reliable. Being unable to find an alternative source makes it more important to not use it. Anyway, intelligence reports and diplomatic cables often contain mistakes; that's why we need historians. Zero 13:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Why is it unreliable? Newspaper articles also often contain mistakes, but that's not a reason to dismiss them entirely. This is a straightforward list of members of a major political body in Laos. I don't see any reason to doubt the reliability of the list - it seems like the sort of information that a diplomatic cable would be highly reliable for. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• I think it's ridiculous to suggest that this source is primary: It was not written by the BLP or the government/committee the BLP was part of.

But I also think it's ridiculous to assert that this source passes any other criteria at WP:RS. Wikileaks itself is unreliable for various reasons, and as such, we can't trust material hosted by them unless that material is independently vetted.

The claim seems remarkably uncontentious, however. So I really think this is a good question for this board, and not for WP:BLPN, as that's reserved for BLP issues, and this is entirely a non-issue. I personally don't believe this source merits inclusion on WP, for any claim, as things stand. But I find the arguments that it's not BLP worthy or that it's primary to be spurious.

I'm open to revising my opinion if anyone can find an RS that establishes that this particular cable was part of the verified leak. That would include any copy (whole or partial) of the leak hosted by an RS which includes this cable. Basically, find this cable hosted by any RS, and I'm willing to accept that it's RS for the purposes of this claim. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:23, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The cache of 250k diplomatic cables on WikiLeaks' site is the same cache that Der Spiegel, the NY Times, the Guardian, Le Monde and El Pais reported on. Le Monde (and the other 4 news outlets that WikiLeaks worked with) explicitly stated that this is the case:

WikiLeaks, le site spécialisé dans la publication de documents confidentiels, a publié dans la nuit de jeudi à vendredi 2 septembre la base de données complète et non expurgée des 250 000 câbles diplomatiques américains en sa possession. L'an dernier, le site avait communiqué à cinq journaux partenaires, dont Le Monde, ces documents confidentiels.

WikiLeaks, the site that specializes in the publication of confidential documents, published the entire non-redacted database of 250,000 American diplomatic cables in its possession on the night of Friday, 2 September. Last year, the site had communicated these confidential documents to five partner newspapers, including Le Monde.

The diplomatic cables are a very well known database, so it's not as if we're discussing some obscure WikiLeaks leak here. We're discussing possibly the most famous leak, which is treated as genuine by every news article I've ever seen on the subject. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The cache of 250k diplomatic cables on WikiLeaks' site is the same cache that Der Spiegel, the NY Times, the Guardian, Le Monde and El Pais reported on. I'm aware, it's just that we can't know that this cable was a part of that cache at the time, or that it was one of the individual cables they verified (because we know they didn't laboriously go through each and every one).

Basically, the cache itself has been confirmed, but we don't have confirmation that this cable belongs to it, except by data generated by Wikileaks, which is not reliable. If any RS can link this cable to the cash, then I'd be happy to consider it RS for this claim.

My personal opinion is that this cable is most likely authentic and accurate, but without being able to demonstrate such, I don't think we can use it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're saying. The cable we're discussing is from the cache of US diplomatic cables - the one that Le Monde discusses above. I've never heard of a different cache of US diplomatic cables hosted by WikiLeaks, so I'm quite confused by what you're saying. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that we don't know that this isn't some fake document inserted into the cache or falsely claimed to be a part of the cache by some bad faith actor (which might include Wikileaks itself). I highly doubt that's the case because I can't think of a reason they would do this. However, I'm not an international cyberespionage expert, so it remains a possibility unless and until we can connect this specific cable to the cache through some RS. My advice would be to do a backlink search for the URL of the document on Wikileaks, then look for a result that appears in an RS. So if, for example, the NYT links this document deep in the bowels of one of their stories on the cache leak, than that would be enough proof to convince me that this is a legit document, good enough for the claim. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@Thucydides411: It occurs to me that if the claim is that she joined in the 8th Central Committee, then I think one could use WP:CALC to grab a source for the 7th that doesn't list her as a member, and a source for that 9th that lists her as a returning member, and use that. I'd be okay with it, because there's really no logical explanation for that except that she joined during the 8th. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Der Spiegel explicitly says (as I quoted above) that the five newspapers that WikiLeaks worked with vetted the entire cache. Le Monde (as well as many other news agencies) reported that the cache published by WikiLeaks is the same cache that the five newspapers worked with. Additionally, countless news articles treat this cache as genuine (see the random sample of news articles I linked to above). On the contrary, I've never seen any reliable source claim that there are any faked cables in the cache. The idea that the cache contains fake cables is a new claim to me, but if there are sources that support it, please provide them. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I do not see the assertion that "five newspapers that WikiLeaks worked with vetted the entire cache" (emphasis added), either in your quotes or in the Der Spiegel English-language article you linked. I see the assertion that 5 RSes have vetted "the cache", however. But perhaps they did that by spot-checking a representative sample.

Also, even if they had, in fact, checked every single document, there's no way to know whether or not this was retroactively added to it at a later date.

You keep asserting that the document on WikiLeaks is "inarguably" part of the original cache and thus, a legitimate US cable, but that's the very assertion that I (and others here and, I'm sure, on BLPN) are disputing. Clearly, it's not inarguable.

To put it another way, it is the provenance of this individual document which is being disputed, not the authenticity of the cache, or even the contents of this document.

As mentioned above, I see two paths forward here: you can establish the provenance of this document through an RS mention (a backlink search would be your friend here), or you can sidestep the objections by finding two other citations and doing a WP:CALC. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Again, from Der Spiegel:

DER SPIEGEL, the New York Times, London's Guardian, Paris' Le Monde and Madrid's El Pais have viewed, analyzed and vetted the mass of data provided to the publications by WikiLeaks. (emphasis added)

Der Spiegel don't say they've vetted just a few select cables. They clearly say that they've vetted the cache, as a whole. Afterwards, when WikiLeaks put the entire cache on its website, these same publications stated that WikiLeaks had published the cache of US diplomatic cables. Le Monde, which I quoted from above, explicitly says that the cache of US diplomatic cables that WikiLeaks published is the same cache that the 5 newspapers were working with. You're speculating about that cache having been somehow tampered with afterwards. What are you basing your speculation on? Are you basing your speculation on reliable sources, or are we just discussing your own musings here? -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

At this point, all of the good faith I was willing to extend you is used up, as you're just blatantly ignoring 90% of what I'm saying to continue making an obviously false claim in order to argue against the other 10%. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I've asked you twice now for sources to ground your speculation about the cache of cables containing non-genuine cables. I don't know what you're claiming is an obviously false claim, but I've provided sources to back up my statements about the cache published by WikiLeaks being the same cache that was vetted by 5 newspapers, and I don't see what sources your speculation is based on. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Jesus H Christ, are you really failing to grok even as simple a statement as my last comment? Let me spell it out in terms a 3yo would understand:

I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THIS WITH YOU ANYMORE.

I tried to help, but you ignored that in favor of picking another argument with me. I've learned my lesson and I'll not try to help you out, ever again. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• As I said before the lack of a reliable publisher puts us in a tough spot with the wikileaks cables, my general interpretation is that unless content from one from one of them is published by a WP:RS (such as the BBC NYT etc) then they simply do not fall into the material usable under our WP:VERIFIABILITY policy. Anytime you’re examining metadata to determine accuracy you’re deep into OR and jumped the shark long ago. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

For the purposes of this discussion, the source whose reliability we have to determine is the US embassy in Vientiane, as they authored the document. For this sort of basic, factual information, I consider them reliable. If we were dealing with matters of opinion or nuanced analysis, then I would say that they are a potentially biased source. However, for a simple list of members of a prominent political body in Laos, they strike me as being just as reliable as any other good secondary source. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think thats true, we also have to determine the reliability of the publisher who in this case is wikileaks. If the US embassy in Vientiane had published this document you would have a point, but they didn’t. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:36, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The US embassy in Vientiane authored the document. WikiLeaks is simply the platform that hosts the document. It's universally acknowledged by reliable sources that these are genuine US diplomatic cables. Calling that into question would really just be a waste of everyone's time here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I don’t get it, you agree that WikiLeaks is the publisher and the US embassy in Vientiane is the author but you’re saying that it would be a waste of everyones time to point out that WikiLeaks is not considered to be reliable by consensus? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I consider it a waste of everyone's time to speculate about whether an extremely famous cache of US diplomatic cables, which is described as such by countless reliable sources, which was vetted by Der Spiegel, the Guardian, the New York Times, Le Monde and El Pais, is anything other than a cache of US diplomatic cables. If we're operating on the basis of reality, then we should discuss the actual sourcing question (whether a list of Central Committee members drawn up by the US embassy in Vientiane is a reliable source), rather than a red herring (editors' private and source-free speculation about whether this well known cache of US diplomatic cables contains forgeries). -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Lets focus on that then, is WikiLeaks a reliable publisher of the list of Central Committee members drawn up by the US embassy in Vientiane? Because as far as I can tell this particular document has not been vetted or covered by Der Spiegel, the Guardian, the New York Times, Le Monde and El Pais etc (if it had we wouldn’t be having this discussion). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:32, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

WikiLeaks is irrelevant here. They didn't draw up this list. The US embassy in Vientiane authored and transmitted this list. Any discussion of reliability has to focus on them, or else we're just wasting our time. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikileaks didn’t draw up the list but they did publish it, it most certainly was not published by the US embassy in Vientiane. This reliability discussion, like all other reliability discussions, will focus on *both* the author and the publisher. Note that Misplaced Pages:No original research requires anything we use to have been "reputably published” even if they’re primary. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

No, we're discussing the document hosted on Wikileaks. This is indisputably a primary source and we only use those with caution. The onus is on those arguing that this document is reliable and so far I haven't seen much evidence of that. Moreover, if the only place information can be found is in a primary source with questionable reliability then it's highly unlikely that the information should be included in an encyclopedia article at all. ElKevbo (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with the OP, we don't consider Wikileaks an acceptable source. It's listed at Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources as generally unreliable. This came up at my Kigali FAC, which was also related to a diplomatic cable, and I was asked to switch the source to a different one.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:RSP is not a holy scripture. The grounds for declaring Wikileaks unreliable were very weak in my opinion: the summary mentions possible tampering with cables which hasn't been proven yet. Alaexis_¿question? 19:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Alaexis, and also irrelevant to the fact that this is not an authoritative source for a claim off act on a BLP. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, the purported unreliability of Wikileaks has been mentioned multiple times here, so I think it is relevant. Alaexis_¿question? 21:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@Alaexis: I looked at the discussions about WikiLeaks that WP:RSP linked to, and it looks to me like the RSP entry does not correspond to the discussions. The discussions were fairly nuanced, and tended to emphasize that most documents on WikiLeaks are WP:PRIMARY, and that reliability has to be determined on a case-by-case basis. I don't know how this got translated into a "generally unreliable" rating on WP:RSP. The main point I gather from previous discussions is that the documents that WikiLeaks publishes come from many different sources, so an overall statement on their reliability is impossible. In this discussion, for example, the key question is the reliability of the US embassy in Vientiane for basic factual information about who sits on what political body in Laos. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• I wouldn't use it in a BLP. For basic factual information like this there will be other sources. Spudlace (talk) 19:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Not for Laotian politics, apparently. This subject area is not extensively covered in English-language media. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Generally agree that we should never reference anything from Wikileaks directly. If another RS talks about Wikileaks material in a manner that we can use, that's different, but we ourselves cannot use it to start with. --Masem (t) 21:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• It can be deduced from the policy on Misplaced Pages, and I agree with that, that Wikileaks is a primary source (or rather, a republisher of a primary source). I do agree that whenever possible, Wikileaks should not be used unless corroborated by other RS. Now, I don't agree with Thucydides411 that this is the cable that the media have certainly viewed precisely for the reason that the same user mentions later: there is next to no coverage of Laotian politics in RS (and that even concerns French-language media or SE Asia-based media, let alone English-language media), not because it can't be covered reliably, but because there's little interest in reporting the news, particularly connected with the party (for which the Lao News Agency is doing their job well).

That said, I believe it should exceptionally be admitted here as a source, and here is why:

1. There is virtually no chance a minor member of Lao's Central Committee will be covered in any RS. In the cable, she is listed 48th. Now, if that was the claim about guys from the top three, there could be some chance that it would appear in RS, but not when 48th (order is important, because the members seem to be sorted by seniority). Putting such a requirement in this particular case is just too stringent on behalf of users who dismiss Wikileaks as an unreliable/unverifiable source (indeed, it is generally so - remember, though, that generally≠always). While we should certainly cite RS whenever possible, there's no chance for us to find such RS in the case of Ms Leudetmounsone, at least the one dated 2006. I would not accept the Wikileaks cable about her now that we are in 2021 and she has a senior position in the LPRP, but at the time, I would not expect any coverage on her.

2. The official report on the proceedings of the VIII Party Congress do not mention any folks apart from the newly-chosen LPRP Politburo. It is understandable, as in Communist systems merely being secretary of the Central Committee does ensure you are in the elites but not that you are going to get extensive coverage (unless you have some other notable position). Also, Lao internet is rather poorly developed, so I won't expect anybody to find much on the Internet.

3. Unlike a lot of diplomatic cables, which share diplomats' opinions, which I strongly believe we should not cite, this document has verifiable information on each and every member of the Committee, is emotionally neutral and not contentious. Ideally if anyone could have access to this book, it would be great, but I don't and neither do I know Lao.

4. While there is a technical possibility of messing around with the text, I saw no indications it was in this particular case, and neither does this look like a document over which folks would make a fuss.

We have no better source than that (and by itself it is among the least controversial of what WikiLeaks has), so cite it with attribution. Beggars can't be choosers. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Given that the information is so mundane and clerical in nature (and unlikely to be reported in Secondary English sources), I don't really see an issue with including it. Even as a primary source the information it gives is self-evident and requires no OR on the part of an editor or reader. Paragon Deku (talk) 02:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• I'm a bit confused about this question. We have a clear policy at RSPS of generally unreliable (WikiLeaks is a repository of primary source documents leaked by anonymous sources. Some editors believe that documents from WikiLeaks fail the verifiability policy, because WikiLeaks does not adequately authenticate them, and there are concerns regarding whether the documents are genuine or tampered. It may be appropriate to cite a document from WikiLeaks as a primary source, but only if it is discussed by a reliable source. Either those advocating for use in this case need to show why this case would be exceptional (so far the arguments for exception are that it is basically too trivial to be contentious, in which case it's not noteworthy, or that Laotian Kremlinology is a marginalised topic because of systematic bias in sourcing so we should be lenient, which seems a little weak) OR they are advocating that we need to rewrite our RSPS listing as it doesn't reflect actual RSN consensus accurately, in which case it should be taken up on the RSPS talk page not here (particularly as re-litigating here seems to have shown a stronger consensus for the RSPS listing, if anything). Or am I missing something? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I think you aren't getting it quite right. It doesn't follow from the fact that something is not contentious that something is not noteworthy. Entry into the Central Committee of a Communist Party is definitely something worth to mention, even if her role inside it was only advisory; just like you'd normally mention that someone was elected to parliament. (In Laos LPRP has monopoly of power by law).

that Laotian Kremlinology is a marginalised topic because of systematic bias in sourcing so we should be lenient... Perhaps not systematic bias, just omission for lack of interest. If anything, Lao News Agency would exhibit it as LPRP-controlled entity. There is basically no bias because there is (almost) no reporting on LPRP in the first place. BBC mentioned Laos only 18 times during more than 3 years; nothing of it was about LPRP. NYT didn't run stories more often, either. WSJ - not too much. Le Monde has only written one story about something resembling LPRP, but it was in the context of repressions against some dissidents - that being in 6 years' time. Results were negative for The Independent, Frankfurter Allgemeine and Swiss Le Temps gave negative results. Coverage from the Financial Times, Bloomberg etc. are more on the economy side (which is expected), but again, nothing about Communists.

It does not follow, however, that this event was not important just because Western RS don't describe it. To me, most of the concerns about Wikileaks are valid but not relevant. I won't expect the US Embassy in Vientiane to own up to having published such document given its minor newsworthiness; I won't expect some news media to suddenly cover every Party Congress in Laos; therefore, demanding that RS describe it is demanding the impossible. We simply don't have the luxury of citing RS here.

While the conclusion mentioned on WP:RSP is good enough for what was discussed, most of these discussions were either "Is WikiLeaks reliable? Discuss." or assertions which could be as well found in secondary resources. We now are in a situation which was not covered by previous discussions. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Redirect

I'd like to ask for input on the actual sourcing question: whether the list drawn up by the US embassy in Vientiane is a reliable source. The cache of diplomatic cables is extremely well known, and reliable sources that I've seen universally treat it as a cache of genuine US diplomatic cables. Der Spiegel has stated that it, the Guardian, the New York Times, Le Monde and El Pais vetted the cache, and these same newspapers (for example, Le Monde) say that the cache that WikiLeaks published is the same as the cache they worked with. In the real world, there's no question about whether or not the cables in the published cache are genuine, and any ink we spill on that question is wasted.

The actual question here is how we regard the list transmitted by the US embassy. I've explained my view above, that this is essentially a secondary source (though one which was originally intended for internal use by the US State Department), and that for such a routine matter as who sits on the Central Committee of the ruling party of Laos, the US embassy is a reliable source. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Thucydides411, this is irrelevant. It is a primary source, it's work product but not yet vetted.

How come a fact of such towering significance has no other sources whatsoever? Remember: that is why we are here. The user cannot - or at least will not - find a reliable independent secondary source. And yes, I know you think that WikiLeaks is the most reliable source on the planet, but the actual source here is diplomatic letters, which are probably reliable but absolutely not authoritative for claims of fact. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Laotian politics does not appear to be well covered in English-language media. This is a known issue with its own Wiki acronym: WP:GLOBAL. As for the most reliable source on the planet, that sounds hyperbolic to me. The diplomatic cables are well known and universally acknowledged as being genuine. I'm asking for input on the actual sourcing question, which regards the cable sent by the US embassy in Vientiane. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Figuring out what to use from a diplomatic cable, what is true, what is false, and what is some error, is an exercise in original synthesis.VikingDrummer (talk) 01:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
• Baffled that this discussion went on for so long. What VikingDrummer said is basically true, although I would say this is WP:OR rather than WP:SYNTH. Just because you think something is really important and just because you're extremely frustrated that you can't find sources covering it in a language you can read does not make it permissible to dig through unpublished government documents in an effort to research your desired conclusion yourself. If you think actual published sources exist, in some language, that cover this, find someone who reads the correct language or use translation software and dig them up - we are not limited to western or English-language sources. We are, however, limited to published sources - the idea that an editor can dig through a trove of leaked documents to support a conclusion they particularly desire to illustrate is one of the most textbook examples of WP:OR I've seen in my time here. If this is not impermissible original research, what on earth would be? --Aquillion (talk) 06:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

A published document does exist - the US diplomatic cable that we're discussing above. It has been published by WikiLeaks. There's no reasonable doubt about whether or not it is a genuine US diplomatic cable, so we should regard this document in the same way as we would regard a cable declassified by the State Department and published through an official channel. I can appreciate that editors would consider a diplomatic cable to be unsuitable as a source, but I regard the whole discussion about whether the cable exists and is genuine to be a bit puzzling. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

How do we deal with opinion pieces published in both reliable and unreliable sources? (Fox News and New York Post)

I came across this non-politics and non-science opinion piece article by Fox News . Ordinarily this would be usable and reliable per WP:FOXNEWS but the same article seems to also seems to published by New York Post a generally unreliable source per WP:NYPOST. Since it was published in both generally reliable and generally unreliable sources is it usable as an opinion piece? Does the fact that Fox News published this make worthy/reliable/due for inclusion? Or does the fact it was published by an unreliable source make it automatically unusable? I know discussions involving Fox often spiral into long verbose discussions often becoming unreleated to Fox itself so if I could politely request we stick to the matter at hand. Thanks. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  16:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• We cite the opinion to the author, linking to the reliable source and not the unreliable one. Blueboar (talk) 16:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
• I do note that the Fox piece indicates the author is from the Post. While Blueboar is right that for RSOPINIONS that we do look to the author here for the expert-ness, keeping in mind we are talking a BLP factor here and that NYPost has issues in terms of its celebrity gossip, even the opinion as republished by Fox News (as "reliable" in this area) would be worrisome, unless this author is already considered an expert in this area. --Masem (t) 16:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes... I was addressing the issue of HOW and WHAT to cite, not WHETHER to cite it. For “whether”, so much depends on who the author is, and what their subject expertise might be. If the author is opining on something out of their area of expertise, it probably should not be used, even if published in a very reliable source. On the other hand, an opinion written by a true expert probably could be used, even if published by a source that is deemed less than reliable. Blueboar (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• I say use neither. If this were a genuine case of the same author being published in multiple outlets I'd be fine with using any publication in a reliable source. But in this case, Fox is acting as just an aggregator and is rebroadcasting a New York Post article, as seen in the byline. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
• In this specific case I’d say avoid using it at all, Maureen Callahan does not appear to be a subject matter expert so I really don’t see this rising to the high standard of BLP... Especially when it seems that actual WP:RS exist for most if not all of the claims made. To answer the question posed in the header I would say in general use the most reliable source its been published in. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
• What are you citing specifically with this opinion piece? Which is to say, in a very specific way, what is the exact bit of Misplaced Pages article text this is intended to cite, and in which article will it appear and what is the context around the bit of text itself? All of that matters, and it's not as simple as "is the source reliable?" --Jayron32 17:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  Jayron32 I have not cited or added to any article yet I wanted to see what others thought of its usability first The two most likely places would probably be Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd followed by Johnny Depp but probably more approriate on the former. I see what you mean as in context matters especially in this case.  Spy-cicle💥  20:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Spy-cicle, sorry, you said there was a reliable source as well as Fox and NYP? Obviously there's no way we would include that opinion, because it's a BLP violation (and, for the record, I hold no brief whatever for Depp). Guy (help! - typo?) 17:55, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

JzG To clarify my initial post, I was only referring to two sources with only one being considered generally reliable (in this Fox News is) and NYP which is not generally unreliable.  Spy-cicle💥  20:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Spy-cicle, Fox is not reliable for opinion. Canonically unreliable, in fact - they rely on this in court. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

JzG But I thought that only applied to their talk shows (like Hannity, Tucker Carlson Tonight, The Ingraham Angle, and Fox & Friends) not opinion pieces on their website? At least that is what it seems like on their RSP listing.  Spy-cicle💥  20:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

The RSP listing is citing our decided-upon policy, however, JzG is offering you some invaluable advice as an experienced editor. It might be technically okay to use this as a regular opinion source, linked to Fox, but neither JzG nor I would do so, because it's begging to either start an edit war with someone who hates Fox, or to end up having introduced a false claim into WP that lasts until some episode of Misplaced Pages: Fact or Fiction? does an episode on it where an acknowledged expert makes fun of the idiot who added that claim. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I understand the point you are trying to make but introducing this source as simplying providing the opinion of the author in some capacity, I do not really see how it could introduce a false claim although I suppose this depends upon the context this is used.  Spy-cicle💥  21:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Spy-cicle, this is an opinion piece mentioned only in two right-wing sources of dubious reliability, and you want to include it in a BLP. How about we don't do that? Now, if the argument was based on two sources with equal bias and opposite parity (e.g. Fox and Vanity Fair), that might be a different question. I still think it'd be trivia, but at least it would not be open to the accusation of being politically motivated. We start from WP:BLP and work down, right? Guy (help! - typo?) 21:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

JzG You make some fair points. I do not agree with you entirely but thank you for the input.  Spy-cicle💥  21:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Spy-cicle, sure, we're absolutely likely to butt heads on this, but consider if it were reversed: MSNBC and The Atlantic publish a story reporting allegations of Keith Olberman re DTJ and Kimberly Guilfoyle making similar claims. Would you include it? I sure as hell wouldn't. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• On the general principle, if we regard a venue as reliable, it should check material that it syndicates, so the fact that it appears in a reliable venue is what matters. If it accepts syndicated material without checking, that is reason to reevaluate the venue. I'm not sure how much I trust Fox News on syndicated content. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• This is one of the problems with WP:RSP – not every piece of writing that appears in the same publication has the same reliability. It's normal for publications to hold their opinion pieces to a lower standard of fact-checking than their news reporting. Accordingly, we should not usually rely on opinion pieces for statements of fact, regardless of whether they're published in the New York Times, the New York Post, or wherever. Opinion pieces are mainly reliable as sources for their authors' opinions. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• If something is published in multiple places, the highest-quality source is the one we look at, since they're putting their reputation behind whatever they're publishing. That said I would not use that opinion-piece for anything, for reasons mostly unrelated to the venue where it's published - it's an opinion piece by a non-expert, making extremely BLP-sensitive statements, with (I gather) no secondary coverage. Nor is it published or framed in a way that makes it at all reasonable to infer that it represents some broader trend in opinion worth noting; without secondary sourcing we can't determine the significance of Callahan's views. In short, why should the reader care what Maureen Callahan's opinion is? What is the value of establishing it? I feel like we need to crack down hard on opinion-pieces that are included simply because an editor likes or agrees with their argument, or finds a line in them snappy, or has a personal feeling that what they're saying is important - those things are what we use non-opinion sources for, or cite opinion via secondary sources. The only valid use of a direct citation to an opinion piece ought to be to establish "this is what person X says", in a context where what person X says, specifically, is important, or where person X is such a clearly significant figure in the field that their opinion is obviously relevant. None of that applies here. --Aquillion (talk) 21:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Per News organizations, opinion pieces are rarely reliable sources wherever they are published. (While there are rare exceptions, this isn't one of them.) So basically these sources are as reliable as something you posted on facebook. Whether or not to include this opinion is a matter of weight. Unless actual news stories report the opinions, it probably lacks weight for inclusion. The best example of an opinion making news is J'Accuse…!, a letter written by Zola to a French newspaper during the Dreyfus affair. It received extensive coverage in media and academic writing, which is why there is a Misplaced Pages article about it. TFD (talk) 21:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately there are absolutely editors who read If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact and WP:RSOPINION to mean, essentially, "I can cite any opinion-piece I want, for any reason I want, as long as I put an in-line citation saying 'X says...' at the beginning." I obviously strenuously disagree with this interpretation and would prefer to actually change policy to unambiguously put much tighter restrictions on the use of opinion pieces, but it is what it is - articles on contentious topics in particular tend to have massive reception / commentary sections that turn into dumping grounds for whatever opinion pieces one editor or another happened to agree with. (And I think part of the problem is that allowing one such random opinion piece with no secondary coverage immediately invites other people to add more, either ones that say the opposite in order to "rebut" it, or ones that agree with it in order to push an argument by sheer weight of text. Though the worst for me is when we have a ton of such opinion pieces, all from people who generally agree with each other, all saying the same thing, in a plain effort to characterize the overall reception the topic received via WP:SYNTH.) --Aquillion (talk) 18:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

This is probably where it is likely necessary to add back to RSOPINION that something along the lines that this doesn't mean "every random published opinion can be included under RSOPINION", but stress the need that opinions, particularly in the short term, should be from either those writers that are considered the field's experts, or otherwise people that are directly and or intimately involved with the topic whose opinion would be fully appropriate to include (such as the writer or producer of a creative work, commenting personally on how it came out), with consensus used to determine when these criteria are met. This would be atop when opinion is specifically highlighted through RSes (eg NYtimes repeating a quote published in the DM from a BLP, we just take out the DM middleman). As the topic ages, we should have a better way to include non-RSOPINION assessments from better RSes like academic works or long-form retrospectives and avoid the rush to include every talking-head quote at the onset. --Masem (t) 18:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this as well. So long as we are posting opinion wish lists, I think we should also understand that opinions don't just exist with "Opinion" across the top. We should be careful when a source is offering their own commentary vs simply reporting the facts. Springee (talk) 19:27, 13 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. Misplaced Pages 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: . --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 Misplaced Pages 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

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

• 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 Misplaced Pages.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 \\ 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 ". An edit like this is OK "According to the NYT documents released by Wikileaks showed the State Department issued a request to... " 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages-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, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 (), 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)

• 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 . 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. Misplaced Pages is not a court. The question for Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages policies may bar us from using it, which we are to determine here.

2. No policy on Misplaced Pages 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 \\ 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages to consider a policy on using documents gathered using FOIA requests. Here you go. --JBL (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

2021 Israel–Palestine crisis

There's a lot of editors at the talk page for 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis trying to make decisions on what is and isn't a reliable source without taking it here. This, of course, is not ideal because a) it may lead to actually reliable sources being effectively blacklisted from that article and b) if they're indeed right on something, the source will continue to be added around Misplaced Pages. I'm notifying this board so more relevantly experienced editors have been made aware of the situation. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 09:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Could you be more specific as to which discussions you are concerned about? I saw Talk:2021 Israel–Palestine crisis/Archives/ 1#Situation in Lod, where Selfstudier objected to The Times of Israel on the grounds of a pro-Likud bias. This specific complaint is easily dealt with: a newspaper can be reliable even though it is biased, so allegations of bias are not grounds for forbidding claims sourced to that paper. Instead reliably sourced information should be assessed for cogency (not all information is encyclopediac or relevant to any given article) and bias (material that is not clearly neutral should be attributed). — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

As in all breaking news articles, and esp. in this area, the 24/7 competitive news cycle will toss up a huge volume of planted nonsense or chat. Last night one experienced commentator on RAI3 Tv wondered how on earth we could get to war simply because a few families had been evicted from rented apartments. She didn't know that 50,000 Palestinian houses have been destroyed over the last 5 decades to make way for Jewish immigrants, and that the specifically Sheikh Jarrah episode was just the tipping point of outrage for an endlessly displaced population. Another on a different channel of the same broadcaster came up with a theory that it all started with a TICTOC video of some Palestinian lout slapping the face of a placid, seated orthodox fellow - a point being pressed by agencies intent on burying the whole historical context of these incessantly repeated outbreaks. Nothing is possible in coverage until the heat of irresponsible media coverage cools.Nishidani (talk) 13:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Just for clarity, it was not I objecting on the grounds of pro-Likud bias.Selfstudier (talk) 13:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Here's a long discussion regarding the The Times of Israel from 2015 which appears to have been in a different format and with no consensus. As could be predicted, it devolved into partisan name-calling and irrelevant arguments. Didn't bother to read the whole thing though. I would support a renewed (and civil) discussion, and probably include The Jerusalem Post as well. From what I've seen, both are reliable, but ideal to settle the issue once and for all. Haven't dealt with this process before though, and if it can't be restricted to extended-confirmed (and moderated), probably not worth it. "I'd rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me" - George S. Patton :: markus1423 (talk) 20:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

ukrailnews.com

Can someone take a look at the above and ascertain if it can be used as a reliable source??? Slenderman7676 seems to think so, however I have my reservations. No copyright marks, website does not show up on Google when searched for, no continuity in most of their "articles"; part of the website is set up to be used as "factfiles" for several pieces of British railway rolling stock (which contradicts WP:BLOG); and may have taken data off of WP for use on there, while there is a link to send messages to the page owner/author etc there is not anything on there to say who they are operated by; where their registered office is... and probably a lot more questionable items. Thanks all Nightfury 11:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I've dropped a note at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject UK Railways. Could you please post some diffs of the proposed use of this source? Mackensen (talk) 11:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Mackensen: Nightfury 11:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything on the "News" portion of the site that is incorrect for what I know (from a mix of public and non-public sources), but the wording of some of the articles suggests that it was written by someone with access to Network Rail's internal incident logs (or is second-hand reporting of information from someone with such) which are not public documents, but there is nowhere near the full range of detail presented in those logs so it's not a copy-paste job and it also covers stories that are well outside the scope of those logs. The whole thing gives the impression as being run by a small group of enthusiasts using information from reliable industry sources. I've run out of time to look in more detail, but my initial impression is a very cautious "reliable". Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Having read a bit more, I think the only thing we can say for certain is that it is too new for us to know its reliability. It hasn't got a reputation (good or bad) at all, we don't know how it responds to corrections being required after publishing because its not yet needed to make one. We don't know how it responds to stories that were accurate when published but are not so now due to changes in the real world because none of its stories are old enough for that to be a factor. I've still not seen anything obviously inaccurate based on what I know and what I spot checked. Based on that I don't think appearance in this source can convey any weight for notability purposes but I wouldn't have any issues with this being used to verify uncontroversial facts. Absolutely all of this could (and at least some likely will) change if it continues to publish long-term though so setting any decision in stone would be inappropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 02:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The homepage has only been recorded once by the Wayback Machine on 11 April 2021 which is around the time the first news articles appeared and the same date that those guides you mentioned appeared. Doesn't exactly scream "reliable" to me. NemesisAT (talk) 11:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

It feels like a fan site to me - why would a steam locomotive history appear on a serious 'news' site? They claim to have been operating on Instagram for the last couple of years and we wouldn't generally rely on that as a sources. It shouldn't be confused with Railnews which is an industry newspaper that has been published for years and I would trust for informed and reliable content. Geof Sheppard (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• Eh, no. One of a long line of non-authoritative interest sites. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Origins of SARS-CoV-2

Please help to reconcile the contradictory claims documented at Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

Kosta Nikolić: New Documents on the War in Vukovar in 1991

Wanted to see what the consensus is on this source. Kosta Nikolić: New Documents on the War in Vukovar in 1991. I’ve been told this is a “weak” or invalid source to use. I don’t see why. Any input would be appreciated. Thanks! OyMosby (talk) 19:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

It was published on Tragovi, which is a peer-reviewed, academic journal(WP:RS).--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I figured it should be okay as it looks like a legitimately verified secondary source. While the author is from the Balkans, it seems fairly neutral. Being we are both involved in Balkan articles, I would like an “outside” party to give us some insight. Nothing personal, I am not insinuating you or I biased. Just for the reassurance of others that we are as neutral as possible. OyMosby (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

H Ref

I am trying to use H Ref as a source https://www.h-ref.de/literatur/h/hoffmann-joachim/gutachten.php but some one is saying it is not a good source to use https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Joachim_Hoffmann#Holocaust_sub-section. But it is recognized in real life as a reliable source on the Holocaust.Thelostone41 (talk) 02:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

BY Markus Nesselrodt Holocaust deniers have existed since the Holocaust. This is a decades-old phenomenon that can still be found today. In the Federal Republic of Germany, denial of the Holocaust has been a criminal offense as incitement to hatred under Section 130 (3) of the Criminal Code (StGB) since 1994.

The Holocaust Reference website would like to offer arguments against Holocaust deniers and at the same time document their positions. Navigation through the portal is possible along thematic focal points. The menu item “The literature of Auschwitz deniers” lists texts that Holocaust deniers refer to again and again. Keywords can be searched in the “ABC”. Well-known theses of an alleged “preventive war” and other positions directly connected with the war are listed in the “War” section. In the next menu item, specific denials, for example with regard to the Babi Yar massacre, the use of Zyklon B and the Wannsee Conference are refuted. The term “persons” refers to actors, but also deliberately misinterpreted scientists, to whom Holocaust deniers repeatedly refer. Some clubs and groups, those who deny the reality of the genocide of the Jews in Germany are presented under the heading "Organizations". “Numbers games, tricks and deception maneuvers” make it their task to refute the arguments of the Holocaust deniers in detail and to pave their way through the thicket of perfidious falsification of history and distortion of facts. Finally, numerous anti-Semitic and other conspiracy theories are refuted under the heading “Enemy Images”.

The operator of the portal and author of the texts, Jürgen Langowski, has created a huge pool of arguments and counter-arguments that make it possible to respond to Holocaust denial. http://lernen-aus-der-geschichte.de/Lernen-und-Lehren/content/8978/2010-11-08-Webportal-Holocaust-Referenz. And this is Markus Nesselrodt https://www.netzwerkdpforschung.uni-bonn.de/mitglieder/markus-nesselroth.Thelostone41 (talk) 03:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• (commenting here because Thelostone41 mentioned me as "someone" in this request). This is a self-published source at best. Looking at individual postings (like that one), I do not see who is the author of the postings. Jürgen Langowski appears on the bottom of the page only as a copyright holder. But even if he is an author of all these postings (I am not sure), is he actually an expert on the subject? Who is he? Do we even have a page about him? If person X is indeed a Holocaust denier, I am sure there are much better scholarly sources that call him such. Labeling people as Holocaust deniers based on questionable sources is a very bad idea. My very best wishes (talk) 03:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• If a sit is recognized in the holocaust field in Germany I don't see how its a bad source.Thelostone41 (talk) 03:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Why do you think that Jürgen Langowski is author of all these texts? Also, can you please make any links to publications about Jürgen Langowski, so we could see that he is an expert, rather than a political activist who wants to defame/accuse of crime other people on his personal website? My very best wishes (talk) 03:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• The sit is recognized in the holocaust field in Germany I don't think it would be recognized in the holocaust field. If it was some political activist who wants to defame/accuse people of a crime like you said.Thelostone41 (talk) 03:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Can you show that it is routinely cited in academic sources? TFD (talk) 03:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• This is good suggestion, but something like Kavkaz Center was cited in many books, which does not make it an RS. And even if it was cited, this is still a self-published source simply by definition. This is published by a single person. No fact checking by colleagues, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 04:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Here is one source http://lernen-aus-der-geschichte.de/Lernen-und-Lehren/content/8978/2010-11-08-Webportal-Holocaust-Referenz and one more that talks about it trategien der extremen Rechten: Hintergründe - Analysen - Antworten on page 598 Websites such as the homepage Holocaust - Reference ' contain an extensive fund of arguments against right-wing extremism and the denial of the Holocaust. https://www.google.com/search?q=Die+Holocaust-Referenz-Website&hl=en&sxsrf=ALeKk02opFRHaXuvbupxjHH-bGlyegNY4A:1620879134117&source=lnms&tbm=bks&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwil3Yyo5cXwAhUMn-AKHYLZCO0Q_AUoAXoECAEQCw&biw=1920&bih=938 Thelostone41 (talk) 04:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• I did show the site was fact checked by a reputable institute and recognized in the holocaust field in Germany.Thelostone41 (talk) 04:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. Not only this is a self-published posting of uncertain authorship, but it is used to support such very strong claim. However, even this self-published source does not explicitly makes such claim if one looks at the Google translation. This is very simple. Please produce at least a couple of strong academic RS that explicitly make such claim (as opposed to an ordinary criticism/scientific discourse), and we can include it. My very best wishes (talk) 22:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. I already showed sources that show h-ref is recognized in the holocaust field in Germany. He said in Auschwitz a number of only 74,000 victims can be considered certain https://www.h-ref.de/literatur/h/hoffmann-joachim/gutachten.php. .That's a Holocaust denier talking point? Just like we say on Grover Furrs page he is a Soviet war crimes denier who holds fringe views regarding Soviet and Communist studies.Thelostone41 (talk) 23:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

No. What you are saying: (a) based on a single questionable source, and (b) represents WP:SYN. You need strong multiple secondary RS explicitly saying that "person X is a conspiracy theorist/racist/pseudoscientist/whatever" as opposed to something like "what a hell he was saying nonsense in the court as an expert-witness" (that is more like the claim by your self-published source). My very best wishes (talk) 23:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok then what about this Joachim Hoffmann (1 December 1930 – 8 February 2002) was a German historian, who held fringe views on World War II and was the scientific director of the German Armed Forces Military History Research Office. there are sources on the page. That say Hoffmann has been criticized by historians for his uncritical attitude to the Nazi regime, just like we say on Grover Furrs page he is a Soviet war crimes denier who holds fringe views regarding Soviet and Communist studies from the sources that are on that page.Thelostone41 (talk) 23:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Then you need sources saying that he held "fringe views" (I do not see such sources either). More important, such content must be specific. What exactly views/ideas by person X were criticized and why in RS? My very best wishes (talk) 23:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I responded to you on here about your concern https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Joachim_Hoffmann#Controversies.Thelostone41 (talk) 00:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. What exactly scientific or other expert credentials the alleged author of these postings (Jürgen Langowski) has? If he has significant credentials, authored some books on the subject, etc., then the source might be regarded as a self-published opinion by an expert per WP:SELFPUB. But if not, then no. We also need to know that Jürgen Langowski was indeed the author.My very best wishes (talk) 15:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Descriptions of US Route 40 and US Route 70

The Wikiepdia entry for US Route 40 actually describes US Route 70 and the entry for Route 70 describes Route40.

• Um... I took a quick look, and this does not seem to be the case. Please double check. Blueboar (talk) 10:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Part of the confusion may be that because of the way the United States Numbered Highway System and the Interstate Highway System are different systems, and in this case, there's TWO paired routes from each system that roughly parallel each other, US 40 follows I-70 in many places and similarly US-70 follows I-40 in many places. I'm not sure which is the source of confusion here, but either would cause it. If one were looking at a map of US-40, they may think it was a map of I-70, and vice-versa. I could see that as the source of the OP's problems. --Jayron32 15:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah... yes... I could easily see how someone might think that US Route = Interstate (but as Jayron notes, they are actually separate systems). The fact that US-40 overlaps with I-70 while US-70 overlaps with I-40 is a fascinating (but confusing) coincidence. Blueboar (talk) 16:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

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

This is in part a discussion about the use of German sources in an English Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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

1. "Bundesverfassungsgericht - Entscheidungen - Erfolglose Verfassungsbeschwerde gegen den Ordnungswidrigkeitentatbestand der sexuellen Handlung mit Tieren". www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de. Archived from the original on 11 November 2020. Retrieved 9 May 2021. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 12 November 2020 suggested (help)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 ' 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 Misplaced Pages 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 the contribution." So simply using your own interpretation of BvR 1864/14 isn't acceptable. Shiloh6555 (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Genealogy reliable sources

Hi , Are any of these sources considered reliable for a biography of a living person ?

• Geni
• Geneanet
• Geneastar
• MyHeritage
• WikiTree
• Ancientfaces
• Genealogics

Thanks--Farfall (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

No. Most of them are user generated, hence not reliable. Even if they were reliable, we could not use the information since it would require interpretation. Writers of secondary sources may of course use these sources to assist their research, but then we are relying on the writers' ability to assess the accuracy and significance of the data, which is something Misplaced Pages editors cannot do. TFD (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

A book on Genetics

I found this book called Genetics. It’s written by this one biologist, named Benjamin Pierce. I can’t find any Misplaced Pages articles on the author so I’m not sure if he’s the most reliable source in the world, but doing a google search on this guy shows that he’s a biology professor at Christian universities.

So I’m not so certain he’s the nos reliable to be honest. I told myself that just because someone is a biologist at a Christian university doesn’t mean they aren’t reliable.

I wanting to use this source for biology related articles. So what’s y’all opinions?CycoMa (talk) 02:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

It’s a college textbook, written by a professor at an accredited university and published by a major publishing house. Looks pretty RS to me. I would not be concerned about the author’s teaching at a university associated with the United Methodist Church, a mainstream denomination that accepts evolution. John M Baker (talk) 05:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Echoing John M Baker. I understand your concern about his teaching on a Methodist university possibly introducing creationist/intelligent design BS, but that's not the case here. One more argument in favour of its reliability: the book is now in 7th edition and has been translated into other languages (at least Portuguese). The only general advice from me will be to use a newer-edition textbook to keep up with the scientific understanding of the topic, because 15 years in genetics is an enormous gap. I checked the 7th ed. and it is available in at least one shadow library; no links though, because WP:C. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

HS Insider (Los Angeles Times)

Hope this is the right place to do this, as this is my first RFC post. Would the LA Times' "HS Insider" (https://highschool.latimes.com/) be considered a reliable source? I figured so since it's a division of the Los Angeles Times which is already considered reliable, but I'm looking for a second opinion. I'm not really trying to cite anything, just want to personally know if I could use this source in any articles in the future. The about us page for HS Insider calls it a user-generated content website, so I'm unsure of any level of moderation. I know that generally student journalism isn't really considered a reliable source in most cases (see WP:MUSICBIO for an example of that kind of rule), but I'm not sure of how reliable it would additionally be if there's a source such as the LA Times attached to it.

Here's an example article from this source.

Thanks a lot for your help in this manner Wizzito (talk) 04:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it has sufficient fact-checking to be considered reliable. Basically they publish stories submitted by students. But the students aren't professional journalists and there is no indication that the paper fact-checks their stories. Also, a story originally reported by a student writer than is not picked up beyond HS Insider isn't noteworthy. TFD (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Skerne Bridge public information board

(For reference: board is in left foreground of this photograph - File:Skerne Railway Bridge South Side Centre May 2021.jpg)

I have been developing this article, and have added some photographs (uploaded to Commons). Darlington Council have erected a public information board near the bridge, with an account of its history, photographs, and a annotated map. I came to the conclusion that it was an artistic object, and therefore not acceptable to upload a photograph of it to Commons. Am I correct? More importantly, would it count as a Reliable Source? I would understand it as being analogous to a description of an exhibit in a museum (it being hard to place a bridge in a museum, especially when it is still in use), but the previous discussions of museum captions don't seem to have a definitive answer on whether they are a RS.--Verbarson (talk) 09:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

And if it is, how do I reference it?!--Verbarson (talk) 09:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I can't answer your main question, although it's the sort of thing I'd say would be due for an attributed claim if nothing else, but {{cite sign}} exists for the how. Thryduulf (talk) 11:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Thryduulf, thanks. I shall take that as an encouraging sign, and boldly go and cite.--Verbarson (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Verbarson, in terms of copyrighted images there is freedom of panorama in the UK for objects permanently located in public places, so if you take a picture of the board it should be OK to upload (and no doubt useful!) (t · c) buidhe 05:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe, thank you for directing me to that. But I note that under Freedom of panorama#United Kingdom, it says "Accordingly, photographs may not freely be taken of artworks such as murals or posters even if they are permanently located in a public place." I think that a free-standing information board, designed to complement and improve a public space, and incorporating extended text, photographs and a map, would be included in such a category. I have therefore cited information from the board in the article, but I have not uploaded a photograph.--Verbarson (talk) 09:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The consensus at Commons is certainly that 2D maps and artworks, etc are not covered by UK freedom of panorama, and even if they were that wouldn't extend to when they were the focus of the image. A text-only board might be acceptable, but that's not how this one is described. Whether the board could be uploaded to Misplaced Pages as fair use for the purposes of citing it I don't know, that's something to ask at WT:NFC I suspect. Also worth looking to see if the council (or a friends group, etc) have put a photo or text of the board on their website anywhere. Thryduulf (talk) 11:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Turkish News Sites

News websites İnternethaber (286 links), Aydınlık (44 links) and Yeniçağ (158 links) are sources that are used in Misplaced Pages especially about subjects related to Turkey. But their on early May they published news regarding the article Turkish War of Independence in which they claim that Misplaced Pages is carrying out a smear campaign which was not true. This creates questioning about their reliability. What are your opinions?--V. E. (talk) 17:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't read Turkish, so I cannot comment on the specific incident. Did they publish someone's opinion or was it a regular reporting? Other than this, have there been issues with their reliability? When it comes to press freedom, Turkey is currently slightly worse than Russia and slightly better than Belarus , so probably these media outlets should be used carefully, especially for contentious topics. Alaexis_¿question? 17:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

They were not publishing someone else's opinion.--V. E. (talk) 19:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

İnternethaber reads very much like a tabloid, for example here; that being at least through the lens of Google Translate. Using clickbait titles on the main page ("Rezalet! Öğrencisiyle tuvalette") and exclamation marks with emotionally loaded words doesn't help their case. Aydınlık and Yeniçağ look even more tabloid-like in the worst sense of the word; particularly the latter with "He shared the scandal from his social media account" sticker on the headline image makes me extremely skeptic to cite it immediately. Also, Aydınlık and Yeniçağ are known to be nationalist newspapers, and Aydınlık is a left-wing party's press organ. I won't comment much on İnternethaber besides not having a good first impression, but better alternatives should be definitely sought for the latter two. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 01:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

They're definitely not reliable sources for the claim that Misplaced Pages is conducting a campaign against Turkey. Opinion pieces in general are not reliable sources regardless. They probably should be replaced by more reliable sources in articles like Suruç bombing, Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey, or Armenian Genocide recognition. (t · c) buidhe 06:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

News Corp

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

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 Misplaced Pages 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-Misplaced Pages) 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: . 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 Misplaced Pages. 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", "Death toll from spurious liquor consumption jumps to 14 in Bogura", "Decision to scrap FF gallantry awards of Zia, four others" (t · c) buidhe 19:06, 16 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

1. Brian Stelter "stelter-consequence-culture-comes-for-lou-dobb" CNN Business 7/7/2021 https://edition.cnn.com/videos/business/2021/02/07/stelter-consequence-culture-comes-for-lou-dobbs.cnn

• 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 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)

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 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💕 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). (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 Misplaced Pages, 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. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Trotsyist 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)

• 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages. 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: . Even sources that plainly favor calling it a genocide often acknowledge that there is debate, eg. . 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)

@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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages editors as a Wikivoice statement. -19:57, 17 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 Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#The_Federalist in this regard. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The Silk Road

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Misplaced Pages proposals When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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 Misplaced Pages, often advancing pet theories, which is out of touch with WP:RS, which says that Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. "Misplaced Pages 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. "Misplaced Pages proposals" have more to do with changing the rules Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 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 07:07, 17 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 \\ 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 (, , ). Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:30, 17 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 Misplaced Pages."

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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

1. "Hahahahahahaha! Oh wait, you're serious? Let me laugh even harder! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!". -- Bender

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)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment