Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to the reliable sources noticeboard. This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context.
Before posting, please check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions of the source. If after reviewing, you feel a new post is warranted, please be sure to include the following information, if available:
Shortcuts
  • Links to past discussion of the source on this board.
  • Source. The book or web page being used as the source. For a book, include the author, title, publisher, page number, etc. For an online source, please include links. For example: [http://www.website.com/webpage.html].
  • Article. The Wikipedia article(s) in which the source is being used. For example: [[Article name]].
  • Content. The exact statement(s) in the article that the source supports. Please supply a diff, or put the content inside block quotes. For example: <blockquote>text</blockquote>. Many sources are reliable for statement "X," but unreliable for statement "Y".

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. If the discussion takes the form of a request for comment, a common format for writing the RfC question can be found here. Please be sure to include examples of editing disputes that show why you are seeking comment on the source.

While we attempt to offer a second opinion, and the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy.
Please focus your attention on the reliability of a source. This is not the place to discuss other issues, such as editor conduct. Please see dispute resolution for issues other than reliability.
If you are looking for a copy of a specific source, please ask at the resource exchange board.
Additional notes:
Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to start a new discussion

List of archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210
211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220
221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230
231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240
241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250
251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260
261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270
271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280
281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290
291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300
301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310
311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320
321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330
331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340
341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350
351, 352, 353, 354

RfC: Polish sources[edit]

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

Please evaluate the following resources in the following manner:

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

Survey: Polityka[edit]

Webpage: [1]

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

I'm posting it again as a separate remark since my previous note has been removed by Mellow Boris[2] Mellow Boris (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic and is a new account. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I registered on 21 May 2020, more than a year ago.Mellow Boris (talk) 09:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]
You made 64 edits in total, scattered within 7 days throughout the year (not including entries you made today). The bulk was regarding the area under discussion. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 1, per Szmenderowiecki. François Robere (talk) 12:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 1, I agree with many of the comments posted but especially to the comment made by Szmenderowiecki. Jurisdicta (talk) 03:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 1 per Volunteer Marek above.--Darwinek (talk) 02:53, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 1:Seems generaly reliable.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 1, blue-chip reliable source.--Astral Leap (talk) 13:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 1, it is reliable as pointed out above. I was alerted by bell to here.V.A. Obadiah (talk) 07:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC) ----<--- — V.A. Obadiah (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. []
  • Option 1, like The New Yorker but in Polish.
  • Option 1, left-leaning, but generally reliable, excellent history section Marcelus (talk) 11:22, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 1, Progressive leaning like the Washington Post, but has an excellent reputation.--PRL Dreams (talk) 10:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 1, a bit liberal and progressive leaning, but nobody without direct conflict with it doubts its reputation. Nadzik (talk) 06:58, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 1, a bit liberal but it has a good reputation for accuracy.--Droid I am (talk) 09:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Survey: OKO.press[edit]

Webpage: [3]

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

I'm posting it again as a separate remark since my previous note has been removed by Mellow Boris[19] Mellow Boris (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic and is a new account. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I registered on 21 May 2020, more than a year ago.Mellow Boris (talk) 09:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]
You made 64 edits in total, scattered within 7 days throughout the year (not including entries you made today). The bulk was regarding the area under discussion. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 1/2, per Szmenderowiecki. François Robere (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 1, as I said in previous discussions, Oko.Press is cited by the first class Italian center-right[20] and center-left[21] newspapers. I think it is to be considered reliable.--Mhorg (talk) 12:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]
And as others have already pointed out, being quoted somewhere does not establish reliability. Volunteer Marek 03:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Not really a fact-checker but a decent source nonetheless. Option 2/3 for anything non-political. Option 3 for political coverage. Highly biased and partisan outlet that is clearly "on a mission".--Darwinek (talk) 02:49, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 3: Open about being pure political attack site.Extremely hyberpolic and emotional writing aimed at pursuing political agenda.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MyMoloboaccount (talk • contribs) 19:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 1, excellent reputation like Snopes for Poland. International awards and used by others.--Astral Leap (talk) 13:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 1, it is reliable as pointed out above. I was alerted by bell to here.V.A. Obadiah (talk) 07:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)----<--- — V.A. Obadiah (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. []
  • Option 3 - small, newly created extremely biased - without question unreliable especially for the BLP’s and historical/political issues (see other rationales above) - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 1. They are critical of the current government, but press is supposed to be critical. They have received an international award and are well received in Poland.Nyx86 (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 1, like PolitiFact but in Polish. Won a significant international award and is used by other media and scholarship. --Kathy262 (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 3, very emotional, partisan with strong political bias. Associated with New Left, some very good pieces accompanied with really bad ones Marcelus (talk) 11:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 1, Progressive leaning like the Washington Post, but has an excellent reputation.--PRL Dreams (talk) 10:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
It’s nothing like Washington Post. Volunteer Marek 07:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
What in the world does that completely unrelated deletion discussion have to do with this source? Volunteer Marek 07:16, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 1/2, per Piotrus. Nadzik (talk) 07:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 1, a bit liberal but it has a good reputation for accuracy. Surprising anyone would challenge this after Szmenderowiecki showed extensive use of it for facts in scholarly works up above.--Droid I am (talk) 09:16, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 1 - there seems nothing to suggest that they are less reliable than an avarage source used on Wikipedia. If opinion pieces are used, they should just be attribued in the article as usual. BeŻet (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Survey: naTemat[edit]

Webpage: [22]

  • Option 2. Pretty tabloidish in some parts of coverage, but still usable for others. [23], for example, does not mention that in fact, the video had been selectively cut (though refers to CNN, saying this is "nonsense"). That said, its news sections (Świat, Dzieje się) are OK. There are better sources than that, though. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 2. The assessment above seems correct. I'd avoid it for anything controversial. Tabloid. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 2, since its reporting leans towards sensational.Mellow Boris (talk) 07:42, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I'm posting it again as a separate remark since my previous note has been removed by Mellow Boris[24] Mellow Boris (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic and is a new account. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I registered on 21 May 2020, more than a year ago.Mellow Boris (talk) 09:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]
You made 64 edits in total, scattered within 7 days throughout the year (not including entries you made today). The bulk was regarding the area under discussion. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 2, per Szmenderowiecki. François Robere (talk) 12:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 2 Not the best source but generally okay. I would avoid it for anything controversial, or where better sources exist.--Darwinek (talk) 02:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 2--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 2, per Szmenderowiecki.--Astral Leap (talk) 13:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 2, it is reliable as pointed out above. I was alerted by bell to here.V.A. Obadiah (talk) 07:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)----<--- — V.A. Obadiah (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. []
  • Option 2 because it is some tabloid like features. --Kathy262 (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 2 very tabloidish, should be used only as a source of basis political facts (who is who and so on) Marcelus (talk) 11:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 2, per Piotrus. Nadzik (talk) 07:03, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Survey: gazeta.pl[edit]

Webpage: [25]

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

I'm posting it again as a separate remark since my previous note has been removed by Mellow Boris[26] Mellow Boris (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic and is a new account. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I registered on 21 May 2020, more than a year ago.Mellow Boris (talk) 09:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]
You made 64 edits in total, scattered within 7 days throughout the year (not including entries you made today). The bulk was regarding the area under discussion. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 1, per Szmenderowiecki. Can't say about the particular sections without context. François Robere (talk) 12:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 1 but would lean to Option 2 if the portal continues its "tabloidization".--Darwinek (talk) 02:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 2 Generally reliable but politically engaged.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 2 Generally reliable but... it's really not that good. It's basically riding on the high reputation of Gazeta Wyborcza from the 90s and early 2000's. These days? It's mostly click bait garbage. Look at it: [27]. Look at the stories: Wooly mammoths are coming back! Shocking salaries of medical workers! Speeding tickets are brutal (sic - their words)! Etc. etc. etc. Volunteer Marek 01:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 1, per Szmenderowiecki.--Astral Leap (talk) 13:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 1, it is reliable as pointed out above. I was alerted by bell to here.V.A. Obadiah (talk) 07:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)----<--- — V.A. Obadiah (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. []
  • Option 1 as it has a positive reputation. --Kathy262 (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 1 Generally reliable Nadzik (talk) 07:04, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 1. Gazeta Wyborcza without the paywall is good.--Droid I am (talk) 09:21, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 2 - a bit click-baity, often makes mistakes in its articles. BeŻet (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

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

Webpage: [28]. Note. We are NOT discussing pundits or talk shows.

Option 2/leaning 1, not syndicated from PAP, pre-2015. TVP has had quite a lot of influence from whoever ruled, and indeed the news were skewed towards whoever ruled Poland, [35], [36], but it was a far smaller extent than today. A sample from protest coverage has actually shown TVP in quite a positive light [37], but it's more of a sample rather than a general assessment.
Option 1 for non-controversial non-political coverage. Sports, culture, and news reports in which the government, or the party, has not got interest, or some really trivial facts, like opening of a motorway, are not something shouldn't be able to source to them; though often this info is syndicated from PAP. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • It's complicated, which is to say, I mostly agree with Szmenderowiecki. In fact I'd even consider Option 4 for modern "political or otherwise controversial content". It's propaganda-level - "all hail the current political party and its glorious leaders", extremely biased and simplistic. It is of course important to note that their older articles, as well as the ones on non-controversial issues, are still ok-ish. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 3 to 4. Filled with anti-LGBT, anti-immigrant, anti-EU, and other far-right bullshit from the Polish government. It was better under previous government, but that just shows that they are independent editorially from the government.Mellow Boris (talk) 07:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I'm posting it again as a separate remark since my previous note has been removed by Mellow Boris[38] Mellow Boris (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic and is a new account. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I registered on 21 May 2020, more than a year ago.Mellow Boris (talk) 09:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]
You made 64 edits in total, scattered within 7 days throughout the year (not including entries you made today). The bulk was regarding the area under discussion. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 3 for anything post-2015, unless it's for something completely trivial (in the sense that it is narrow, numerical, and easy to verify) like the weather or sports scores. The opening of a motorway might seem trivial, but major infrastructure projects are often a political affair, so even that sort of coverage can be abused. I'll lean towards option 2 for anything pre-2015 if it can be shown that, despite its bias, the outlet was generally reliable pre-2015. François Robere (talk) 12:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 1 for non-political coverage. Option 1 even for political coverage but before 2015. Option 3 for political coverage post 2015.--Darwinek (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 1 Generally reliable but sometimes politically engaged.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 4, recent OSCE report [39][40] writes: "the public broadcaster became a campaign tool for the incumbent, while some reporting had clear xenophobic and anti-Semitic undertones".--Astral Leap (talk) 13:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 4, due to xenophobia issues above. I was alerted by bell to here.V.A. Obadiah (talk) 07:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)----<--- — V.A. Obadiah (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. []
  • Option 3, maybe 4. Since 2015 this is just government PR.Nyx86 (talk) 15:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 4 as shown above, it is controlled by a political party and broadcasts its agenda. --Kathy262 (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 3, It's ok for football scores, but in anything else it is unabashed propaganda of the controlling political party.--PRL Dreams (talk) 10:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 1/2 to everything pre-2015/16. After 2015/2016 I would say that that it could retain option 2 for non-political coverage. For everything concerning point-of-view or politics, option 4. See the document linked by Astral Leap Nadzik (talk) 07:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 3/4. The document linked by Astral Leap is a bid warning sign here.--Droid I am (talk) 09:22, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Survey: Polskie Radio[edit]

Webpage: [41]

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

I'm posting it again as a separate remark since my previous note has been removed by Mellow Boris[42] Mellow Boris (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic and is a new account. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I registered on 21 May 2020, more than a year ago.Mellow Boris (talk) 09:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]
You made 64 edits in total, scattered within 7 days throughout the year (not including entries you made today). The bulk was regarding the area under discussion. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Same as above, per Szmenderowiecki and my previous comment. François Robere (talk) 12:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 1 Generally reliable but sometimes politically engaged.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 4, same issues as the public TV broadcaster.--Astral Leap (talk) 13:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 4, due to xenophobia issues above. I was alerted by bell to here.V.A. Obadiah (talk) 07:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)----<--- — V.A. Obadiah (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. []
  • Option 3, maybe 4. Since 2015 this is just government PR.Nyx86 (talk) 15:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 4 as shown above, it is controlled by a political party and broadcasts its agenda. --Kathy262 (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 3, It's ok for football scores, but in anything else it is unabashed propaganda of the controlling political party.--PRL Dreams (talk) 10:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Same as TVP above Nadzik (talk) 07:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 3/4, same as TVP above.--Droid I am (talk) 09:22, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Survey: TV Republika[edit]

Webpage: [43].

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

I'm posting it again as a separate remark since my previous note has been removed by Mellow Boris[44] Mellow Boris (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic and is a new account. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I registered on 21 May 2020, more than a year ago.Mellow Boris (talk) 09:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]
You made 64 edits in total, scattered within 7 days throughout the year (not including entries you made today). The bulk was regarding the area under discussion. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Options 2 and 3, per Szmenderowiecki, with the caveat that syndicated pieces are usually available through several outlets, so whenever one is available that is better than TVR it should be preferred over it. François Robere (talk) 13:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 3, as it is very biased.--Astral Leap (talk) 13:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 3, as pointed out above. I was alerted by bell to here.V.A. Obadiah (talk) 07:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)----<--- — V.A. Obadiah (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. []
  • Option 3 because of too much syndication from unreliable sources. --Kathy262 (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 3 for political coverage. Option 2 for everything else. Nadzik (talk) 07:08, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Survey: Do Rzeczy[edit]

Webpage: [45]

  • Option 3/4. While some might argue that I am being excessively harsh towards conservative sources, the case here is essentially Washington Times or Washington Examiner, but they have a notoriously fringe position on COVID; rejecting scientific consensus altogether and spreading COVID misinformation as can be seen on prominently displayed editorials by Warzecha, Lisicki, etc., [46], [47], [48], [49] and in news coverage such as here: [50], [51]. The same goes for lockdowns and other COVID-related issues. No, mass media need not conform to WP:MEDRS standards but at least they should not spread misinformation. And yes, [52] they promote anti-immigrant discourse by essentially fear-mongering; and for them, climate science has more to do with hoaxes and religion than science. WP:ABOUTSELF statements are attributable to the website, but otherwise it merits at least the red label. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[]
To clarify my criteria: WSJ and The Australian also host quite a lot of climate deniers, lockdown and vaccine sceptics, and so on. The reason why they are considered reliable and Do Rzeczy (or Gazeta Polska, which in fact employs quite a lot of journalists from Do Rzeczy) is not is that the former strictly divide their opinion section from the normal reporting (which is good for WSJ and quite good for The Australian) while the latter do not. In fact, the only suggestion that it is an opinion piece is the URL of form dorzeczy.pl/opinie/* instead of dorzeczy.pl/* - they don't make it otherwise visible, and yes, not every opinion piece is under "Opinie" subsection. They quite often regurgiate debunked theories about COVID (PCR Ct (cycle threshold) number being apparently too high, vaccines overrated, I think I've even seen some mask disinfo too), or, in case of normal reporting, reporting on Geert Vanden Bossche in the first link ([53], [54], [55], [56] - quite a crank, as you can see), and, in the second link, using LifeSiteNews, which itself is deprecated. And that's not isolated to COVID, I've seen this trend for lockdowns and scientific topics in general. The same, to a slightly lesser extent (though not COVID, fortunately), concerns Gazeta Polska. At times it's better not to make any reporting than to make bad-faith reporting, as is the case here.
Even for normal news, meh. This article about the abolition of Latin in the Catholic Church is sourced from partly a blog and partly LifeSiteNews. I mean, there are certainly better outlets than that to find coverage on the same topic. For me, if you insist on right-of-center publications, it can be either Wprost (same owner, but better quality) or Rzeczpospolita, which is more centrist than right-of-center now, but still.
We don't strive for diversity of opinions at the expense of reliability.
As for superhistoria.pl, it was not impacted by the change made by VM, so I don't take it into consideration (though yes, I know it's affiliated). This might, in fact, merit a separate discussion or even RfC - history supplements to Polish newspapers, i.a. because of heightened requirements for antisemitism in Poland topics. I stick to dorzeczy.pl only. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I concur that their coverage on controversial or political issues is highly biased, but I am not sure they need to be totally depreciated. Articles like [57] or [58] - the first two I checked - seem fine. I'd say the source can be used on non-controversial issues, and on issues related to politics and medical topics, has to be attributed. Well, for medical, it probably should confirm to MEDRS which it doesn't, so there's that. If we really want to depreciate it from some areas, I'd like to see examples of specific controversial sentences referenced to it? In the end, the conservatives need to have their POV represented too (as long as it is clearly attributed). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    WP:ABOUTSELF statements can be sourced to virtually any outlet. It's an exception than a rule not to do that. Other than that, I see no legitimate uses of the source. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 3 to 4. This is a source that criticizes the Polish government for not being sufficiently anti-LGBT, anti-immigrant, and anti-EU.Mellow Boris (talk) 07:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I'm posting it again as a separate remark since my previous note has been removed by Mellow Boris[59] Mellow Boris (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic and is a new account. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I registered on 21 May 2020, more than a year ago.Mellow Boris (talk) 09:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]
You made 64 edits in total, scattered within 7 days throughout the year (not including entries you made today). The bulk was regarding the area under discussion. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 4, per Szmenderowiecki. I don't see any reason to be lenient with outlets that publish that sort of nonsense. François Robere (talk) 13:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 1 for non-political coverage like history, religion, art etc. Option 3 for political coverage (including Covid of course).--Darwinek (talk) 02:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 1 Reliable for history, religion, art etc. Option 3 for politics.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 4 per Szmenderowiecki, this is a highly biased sourced that is not appropriate for use.--Astral Leap (talk) 13:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 4, Covid crackpottery is not good. I was alerted by bell to here.V.A. Obadiah (talk) 07:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)----<--- — V.A. Obadiah (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. []
  • Option 3 to 4. Very biased and with disinformation on some subjects like COVID.Nyx86 (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 4 because of COVID fake news and other issues. --Kathy262 (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 3 for political coverage. Option 2 for everything else. Nadzik (talk) 07:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 3/4, full of conspiracies and garbage.--Droid I am (talk) 09:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Survey: niezalezna.pl[edit]

Webpage: [60]

  • Option 4 3. Even worse than above. Instead of Washington Examiner, we deal with Polish Breitbart here. Mistaken for Najwyższy Czas. For my evaluation, see comment under Piotrus's one. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    • You may be right, but what are your reliable sources about the bias / other problems with this source? The first two links we use are [61] and [62]. The first is on history and doesn't seem controversial, the second is on the politics and outside the general theme of stressing a controversial comment by a German politician doesn't seem to be factually wrong (it's just quoting, mostly). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Sorry, I've mistaken it with Najwyższy Czas!, which is quite awful. Mea culpa. Regarding niezalezna.pl, the first article you mention, the one about Dowbór-Muśnicki, is syndicated from dzieje.pl (a historical news arm of PAP), the second article is syndicated from PAP (to which they seem to have appended a clickbaity title), so in fact, we may need to evaluate syndicated content from Polish Press Agency in general for the purposes of this request for comment. It makes a big difference in this case if the reporting is syndicated. As for their own content, [63] they syndicate some content from TVP Info, which is not a good sign (in fairness, they are at least honest about it, as you can check it at the bottom of the page). They've also head some fear-mongering about immigrants reported as plain news, and use pretty much the same tactics as TVP Info does, such as exemplified here: [64], [65] (the first link also seems to be a house ad for Albicla (Parler for Poland), but I don't mind it too much, in fact). Fortunately, any more questionable articles that appear sometimes on climate change or science, vaccines and so on (and which are inadequately disclosed as such on Gazeta Polska or Do Rzeczy, are conveniently placed under "opinion" section. However, the methods of their own reporting (not syndicated content) are not what I believe to be compatible with either option 1 or 2, and often mimic the ones that TVP uses, which I have rated accordingly.
Articles for culture or history are almost entirely syndicated from PAP. Filarybiznesu.pl (niezalezna.pl's economic section) doesn't seem bad but will need attribution in most cases. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 3 to 4. This is a source that criticizes the Polish government for not being sufficiently anti-LGBT, anti-immigrant, and anti-EU.Mellow Boris (talk) 07:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I'm posting it again as a separate remark since my previous note has been removed by Mellow Boris[66] Mellow Boris (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic and is a new account. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I registered on 21 May 2020, more than a year ago.Mellow Boris (talk) 09:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]
You made 64 edits in total, scattered within 7 days throughout the year (not including entries you made today). The bulk was regarding the area under discussion. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 3/4, per Szmenderowiecki. François Robere (talk) 13:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Between Option 3 and 4, per Szmenderowiecki.--Astral Leap (talk) 13:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 3, as pointed out above. I was alerted by bell to here.V.A. Obadiah (talk) 07:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)----<--- — V.A. Obadiah (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. []
  • Option 3-4 per Szmenderowiecki.Nyx86 (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 3 because it does not appear to have a positive reputation. --Kathy262 (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 3 for political coverage. Option 2 for everything else. Nadzik (talk) 07:08, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 3 Cheerleaders of the PiS government, and present unreliable reporting. BeŻet (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Survey: Gazeta Polska[edit]

Webpage: [67]

  • Option 3/4. In fact, it's the same as Do Rzeczy, minus the coronascepticism and plus the xenophobic/Germanophobic front pages and content ([68], [69], [70], [71], [72]). And yes, they like conspiracy theories about Smolensk air disaster (the other two outlets do not mention it that prominently but try to say there's some middle ground between MAK's report and the assassination theory), and [73] they aren't at good terms with climate science. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Note. I'm commenting on post-2005 Gazeta Polska. It did have a different editor-in-chief prior to 2005 - I have not read their coverage before that, so I can't comment on it.
  • Comment - one consideration here is the vintage. The Gazeta Polska that existed before 2005 is a pretty different animal that has existed since. Volunteer Marek 19:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 3 to 4. This is a source that criticizes the Polish government for not being sufficiently anti-LGBT, anti-immigrant, and anti-EU.Mellow Boris (talk) 07:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I'm posting it again as a separate remark since my previous note has been removed by Mellow Boris[74] Mellow Boris (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic and is a new account. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I registered on 21 May 2020, more than a year ago.Mellow Boris (talk) 09:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]
You made 64 edits in total, scattered within 7 days throughout the year (not including entries you made today). The bulk was regarding the area under discussion. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 3/4, per Szmenderowiecki. François Robere (talk) 13:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment. I can't read Polish, so I won't attempt to affirmatively evaluate the source here, but the rationales given above are a bit concerning as far as WP:BIASEDSOURCES and WP:HEADLINE are concerned. We can't declare a source generally unreliable on the basis of its non-article cover pages, nor its political position per se. We have to evaluate the sources on the basis of their ability to conduct fact-checking, editorial independence, and editorial control. I'm not really seeing source reliability analysis here along those lines. I am, however, seeing explicit references to political positions as a reason to oppose reliability, which we should avoid. And, while some of the front pages might inspire concerns, the spirit of WP:HEADLINE would be to evaluate article content rather than things that are often not created by researchers and journalists who wrote the articles and are written to grab readers' attention quickly and briefly. Obviously, headlines and covers aren't the exact same thing, but I'd think that the same logic applies in analyzing them. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    @Mikehawk10 You are quite correct. Please see my edits here about the flagship news program of Telewizja Polska which introduced some academic studies. Most other sources discussed here are niche enough that they are rarely mentions by scholars... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Between Option 3 and 4, per Szmenderowiecki.--Astral Leap (talk) 13:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 4, xenophobia issues. I was alerted by bell to here.V.A. Obadiah (talk) 07:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)----<--- — V.A. Obadiah (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. []
  • Option 3-4 per Szmenderowiecki.Nyx86 (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 4 as this has a bad reputation, have Germanophobic covers, and advance Smolensk conspiracy theories. --Kathy262 (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 3 for political coverage. Option 2 for everything else. Nadzik (talk) 07:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 3/4, full of conspiracies and garbage.--Droid I am (talk) 09:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 3/4 - they have been sued in the past for posting incorrect statements. BeŻet (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Discussion[edit]

OP note[edit]

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

OKO.press has been objected to by three editors, Volunteer Marek (VM), Lembit Staan and GizzyCatBella, on the grounds that it was too partisan and was otherwise unreliable for BLP purposes. Ultimately, one of the fact checks they have produced ([75]) has been found to be unusable as a fact-check, but the reasons for exclusion were different (unreliability, non-notability of the sentence discussed, possible differences in understanding of the words). Other articles have not been universally accepted as either prefectly usable or absolutely unusable. In a similar fashion, objections have been made to include the other three sources from the first four, though no particular determination has been made.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion proper[edit]

Rosguill reverted the deletion, but changed the rating, believing that the claims were substantiated.: minor correction. I believe that VM's complaints in themselves are enough dissent, in the absence of a wide consensus for reliability, to merit listing as "no consensus". I have not recently evaluated VM's objections and have no opinion about whether the arguments are sound. signed, Rosguill talk 21:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Szmenderowiecki Since you are discussing 500/30 and sockpuppetry, I have to say that you are display an amazing level of competency on intricate wiki rules and politics, given that you started editing just few months ago, effectively since April, meaning that you've been here for less than half a year. Would you mind sharing a secret on how one can go from registering an account to understanding past ArbCom cases, policies like RS, reviewing DYKs and so on in just few months? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:59, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Four months is plenty of time to learn the ropes on how Wikipedia works. This comment is essentially casting aspersions that Szmenderowiecki is a sock without evidence. If you think that Szmenderowiecki is a sock of Icewhiz or whoever then you should present evidence at SPI, and not casting bad-faith aspersions here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Hemiauchenia - Where do you see the word "Icewhiz" in the above question not addressed to you? - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[]
GizzyCatBella, do you not want people not involved in your content dispute to participate here? The above question is an aspersion and anyone can point this out. In the same vein, your spamming of "new account with few edit" notes in every section above, with regards to Mellow Boris is an aspersion as well considering they were pinged here. Tayi Arajakate Talk 19:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Look Tayi Arajakate, you are obviously not in the loop, so please be cautious with your judgments. I'm simply disappointed when people ask legitimate questions and others say "you can't make that accusation, file SPI" and then you file an SPI, but that stays open for months. --> [76] - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[]
User Mellow Boris, who is in that SPI investigation, has no evidence of sockpuppetry presented against him yet on the SPI page, and the last edit in that investigation was done by you on 19 August, and btw you filed the request on 27 July. I mean, you were discussing the potential socks for 20 days and now the discussion is dead for almost the same time. Were I a checkuser, I'd have declined the request to check users (those not mentioned in the evidence presented) in the first place for want of evidence of apparent sockpuppetry.
I don't know the case, and you were the one who filed it, so I wish you good luck to prove it and get rid of the offenders (if any), as of course less socks => more fairness & less disruption. It's surely in the interest of the community, but it's also in your particular interest as a filer to get the case done. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[]

@Szmenderowiecki - Regarding some of the editors you pinged:

  • The new account Mellow Boris reactivated his account after one month of inactivity[77] to come here with their view[78].
  • New account V.A. Obadiah hasn't been active since April 27, 2021,[79].
  • Newish account CPCenjoyer hasn't been active since June 29/2021.[80]

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

I got the ping message and commented with a reasoned rationale. This innuendo is unseemly.Mellow Boris (talk) 09:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]
You made 64 edits in total, scattered within 7 days throughout the year (not including entries you made today). The bulk was regarding the area under discussion. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I pinged all accounts that were not blocked (or under current sanctions), which did not have a notice of WikiBreak/death/whatever excluding their possibility to edit and that participated in the discussion. If they had been inactive, they wouldn't have received a notification in the first place. If you believe the users you mentioned to be violating any policy or being WP:NOTHERE, please go ahead with an ANI/SPI complaint, and their !vote will be struck if such determination is made.
@Boris Mellow: Please do not remove the SPA tags, this makes you no good. Whether these are sound will be determined by the closer. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Szmenderowiecki - Inacurate - you also pinged accounts that are now blocked - GPinkerton - [81] - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:32, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]
OK, my bad, but they won't receive the notification anyway. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]
But all this means that we're back to the situation where "consensus" is constructed on the basis of input from multiple accounts that are either brand new or pretty much brand new and who don't even qualify to edit the articles under the 500/30 sanction. Volunteer Marek 21:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Volunteer Marek Indeed. Is there a way to bring this entire thread to the ArbCom's attention? They did discuss whether to extend 500/30 to related discussions a while ago, didn't they? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Well, let's begin with the fact that if you have evidence of sockpuppetry, long-term abuse or off-wiki coordination, we can always change the outcome because these votes will eventually be deemed invalid, and probably before this RfC closes. But first let's have the evidence of brand-new account/IP abuse. Not all under-500/30 accounts should be automatically suspect, just as no person who looks like a Mexican and who recently received an American passport should be automatically under increased scrutiny for voter fraud.
Secondly, as far as I am aware, there is no 500/30 limit for RfCs or for RSN discussions, unless the topic can be reasonably construed to involve a topic being under such restrictions. This is not the case here. What you seem to propose here (correct me if I'm wrong) is to give more weight to established editors (like you) and attach less weight to whoever is not an ECA, but that's really an WP:EQUAL violation. Tagging possible SPA accounts is appropriate but disregarding anyone who hasn't done X edits and been here for Y days if there is no policy or ruling mandating that is not.
However, if ArbCom has the possibility and wants to intervene here, the relevant policies are changed (or if ArbCom says the intervention is exceptional and a good reasoning is presented), why not? That said, I think this remedy should be used only in extreme cases, and so far I'm only seeing one "suspect" user vote that you propose to disregard. ArbCom should in any case generally exercise restraint. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[]
we can always change the outcome because these votes will eventually be deemed invalid - unfortunately that's not how this works. RSN and Wikipedia in general is littered with heaps of RfCs and discussions where the outcome was swayed or even determined by banned users with sock puppet accounts and no one ever went back and "changed it". Your example of "Mexican with American passport" is not only fallacious but also quite offensive along several dimensions - I suggest you strike it. Volunteer Marek 07:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
RSN and Wikipedia in general is littered with heaps of RfCs and discussions where the outcome was swayed or even determined by banned users with sock puppet accounts and no one ever went back and "changed it" Pretty easy. If the outcomes of the previous RfCs/RSN discussions are not changed after findings of abuse/sockpuppetry, what it means is that either a) we don't adequately weed out sockpuppets (but it's like with criminals - crime will always happen, and socks will always come here), b) we don't dissuade them well enough not to try to unduly influence discussions (it is hardly possible to convince sockpuppets to change their mind) or c) the community doesn't have adequately established reviews of the discussions influenced by socks/meatpuppets (which is the feasible solution). The fact these do not happen, if anything, is not a drawback of RfCs/discussions, which are meant to attract as many diverse voices as possible, but rather a reflection of the lack of (appropriately enforced) safeguards in Wikipedia. You can write Wikipedia history and establish an appropriate task force to determine the scope of what you say is a massive campaign (or several small-scale campaigns) attempting to derail Wikipedia's deliberation process.
The comment about Mexicans was made to demonstrate that such behaviour towards non-EC accounts might often be considered offensive in the eyes of new users, just like ethnic/racial profiling by the police/govt authorities is and should not happen. As such, I don't find it necessary to strike that comment. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Szmenderowiecki I very briefly dipped my toe into this dispute some months ago, and (wisely IMO) decided to get the hell out. Unfortunately, it seems the same people are arguing the same points they were last time I checked in. Perhaps it might be wise to list this as a proper RfC to get more fresh eyes on this, instead of rehashing the same debate that has been going on for months. BSMRD (talk) 05:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[]

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


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

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

Bad RFC[edit]

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

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

And even if we could, we shouldn't absent any 'clear' indication of what the actual dispute is supposed to be about. We are told this has arisen out of an article about a Polish politician but clearly this is related to a particular aspect of that person - and what is it? And why are general RFCs on all these media sources needed to arbitrate it when apparently the actual thing being discussed is not general, but specific? FOARP (talk) 07:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Funny thing is, the article on that politician doesn't even use any of most of these sources!!!!. It's just a false excuse. Volunteer Marek 07:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I believe you can adjudicate a general case coming out of a specific content dispute (which indeed took place, I just attempted to wrap it up so that you don't need to waste time reading through tons of text), or at the very least that's been quite a practice for some time. It may be wrong, but it is commonplace and seems to have become a new standard. You are certainly a person who's been here for longer - I have no benefit of remembering the olden days when the grass was greener and RfCs were topic-specific, so I can't even judge if the way the disputes were previously adjudicated were the ideal (or at least a better) way to establish quality of sources. RSP and NPPSG are apparently conducive to this type of general-grade RfCs based on specific cases of disputes.
The rationale is given in my note, which is the first post in the discussion. You can believe it not to be good enough, but I tried my best to explain why such admittedly big RfC is needed. In fact, archives 328 and 329 of RSN contain an even broader scope of Polish sources (based on which the NPPSG Polish list was initially established), the only difference being that the opener (Abcmaxx) did not call it an RfC. Additionally, the closer should reasonably exclude or diminish the weight of !votes whose rationale is only the wrong political stance when determining the close because of WP:BIASED. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]
This is such a bad RFC that I don’t even have a desire to comment. Do you desire a few editors, various brand-new suddenly appearing here, to establish the reliability of the nearly entire Polish media industry? Just like that, in one shot? Really Szmederowiecki? I’ll add more later if I find energy for it, but in my opinion, such an approach should be rejected. (Please also refer to critical comments above) - - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
How many times do I have to tell everyone that new users do not necessarily create worthless opinions? Please present evidence of wrongdoing, as for now the cries about improper influence, absent evidence, look more like fearmongering than legitimate concerns. Don't attribute something to malice what can be explained by coincidence. That's for one thing.
Second thing, the fact that all the sources here are in Polish is irrelevant to the possibility to start an RfC on them. It's true not everyone understands Polish, but it's also true that a discussion may be started on RSN to discuss all of them should a good reason be there, and there was it. (I'd suggest not to make such sweeping changes to any internal reliability trackers without prior discussion next time to avoid such situations). As for the "nearly entire Polish industry", I haven't even touched a half of it and kept the RfC to the minimum. Among the more known examples not mentioned here are (in no particular order) Rzeczpospolita, Dziennik Gazeta Prawna, Bankier, Puls Biznesu, Polsat News, TVN24, Newsweek Polska, Tygodnik Angora, historical supplements to Polish newspapers, regional newspapers owned by Orlen, w:pl:Warszawska Gazeta, Tygodnik Powszechny, Gość Niedzielny, Fakt, Super Express, Wirtualna Polska, Onet, w:pl:Klub Jagielloński, Krytyka Polityczna, hell, even Gazeta Wyborcza... Do I have to mention more titles not being discussed here to prove that we are not (re)establishing reliability of the nearly entire Polish media industry? What we are touching here is: two state-owned outlets and four right-wing outlets favoured and sponsored by the govt, often cross-employing journalists (the ones that VM decided to change the rating for for whatever reason); two left-leaning or left-wing (or at least anti-PiS) outlets that were disputed while editing on Żaryn, one outlet that got deleted for being a non-RS even while mentioning two historians' opinions (gazeta.pl) and naTemat.pl, whose reliability was also disputed.
The only thing that you may be right about is that such a discussion should have normally taken place on Polish Wikipedia as a place where more Polish speakers can actually have more insight into the sources, but then Polish Wikipedia doesn't have its own RSP.
Finally, while you say I’ll add more later if I find energy for it, I suspect you won't find the energy because you haven't yet found it for the investigation into Mellow Boris you started back in July (it's October now) has been dead for a while even though you were specifically asked and encouraged here to present evidence on SPI more than three weeks ago (you haven't commented there since). Of course, all work here is WP:VOLUNTARY so it's your full right to ignore my advice, or not comment further, just next time don't complain about sockpuppetry if you don't find the energy to present evidence of it happening. You can of course tag whomever you believe to be an single-purpose account. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:54, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Bad RfC. Assessing the reliability of sources tends to be difficult and it is normal to consider questions such as the quality of their editorial oversight, the frequency of errors that they make, and the response that they make to these errors. Unfortunately, as much as we try to avoid it, this can require a degree of WP:OR and as such this means that editors need to be able to spend more time reviewing these requests than others, and a large influx of sources to be assessed degrades our ability to do so as editors time is finite.
This issue, which already speaks to the problems with this RfC, is exacerbated by the nature of the sources in question. Specifically, the fact that they are Polish language sources, a fact that greatly complicates the ability of our editors, who typically do not read Polish, to assess them. This means that an already time consuming process is further extended.
As such, I believe this RfC would be better held over many months, such that the workload is spread out and editors can commit the proper amount of time to reviewing each source. Further, while there are some circumstances that holding an RfC without having a specific reference under dispute is suitable, I don't believe this is one of them, and would ask that if future RfC's are held, an example of a problematic reference is provided with them. Summoned by the bot; unclear to which RfC, and so drew the short straw BilledMammal (talk) 11:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]

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

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

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

Article: COVID-19 lab leak theory.

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

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

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

This source was cited 42 times. A recent review mentions this source, along with Relman DA (2020) (Opinion: to stop the next pandemic, we need to unravel the origins of COVID-19. Proc Nat Acad Sci 117(47):29246–29248), as a support of the hypothesis that that SARS-CoV-2 may have been manufactured in a laboratory. Nothing in that review suggests Sergio&Deigin is not reliable. However, it seems this source: Segreto, R., Deigin, Y., McCairn, K. et al. Should we discount the laboratory origin of COVID-19?. Environ Chem Lett 19, 2743–2757 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-021-01211-0 should be used instead, because it is more recent, and it is authored by the same authors. --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[]
See Template:Origins of COVID-19 (current consensus) #3. I don’t think anything has changed since. It’s not an RS. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[]
As a medical source, per WP:MEDRS, there are extra considerations. Keep in mind there was another study refuting their finding linked to on that same page, and also consider whether there is enough secondary source strength to warrant its use. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk)
Is this local consensus supposed to overturn our policy? This source meets all requirements that we apply to top-quality reliable sources. WP:MEDRS is noit a policy, but just guidelines. However, it seems this source is outdated, and the more recent source (see above) should be used instead.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[]
There is no separate standard to that applies to MEDRS that does not apply to RS. One is no less a "policy" than the other. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Anyway, here is the abstract of the 2021 paper by the same authors:
"There is a near-consensus view that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2), the causative agent of COVID-19, has a natural zoonotic origin; however, several characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 taken together are not easily explained by a natural zoonotic origin hypothesis. These include a low rate of evolution in the early phase of transmission; the lack of evidence for recombination events; a high pre-existing binding to human angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2); a novel furin cleavage site (FCS) insert; a flat ganglioside-binding domain (GBD) of the spike protein which conflicts with host evasion survival patterns exhibited by other coronaviruses; and high human and mouse peptide mimicry. Initial assumptions against a laboratory origin by contrast have remained unsubstantiated. Furthermore, over a year after the initial outbreak in Wuhan, there is still no clear evidence of zoonotic transfer from a bat or intermediate species. Given the immense social and economic impact of this pandemic, identifying the true origin of SARS-CoV-2 is fundamental to preventing future outbreaks. The search for SARS-CoV-2′s origin should include an open and unbiased inquiry into a possible laboratory origin."
--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Still WP:PRIMARY, still published by non-credentialed authors who have little expertise in viruses, or virology, or especially viral genetics. BTW, that envir chem lett paper is an Editorial, meaning it is not peer-reviewed, and is thus simply the opinion of the authors themselves.
The only ways in which this should be used is in how it is cited or discussed by secondary peer-reviewed review papers published in topic-relevant journals. They must tell us how we interpret the proposed ideas and how we perceive the credibility of its authors. BTW, from examining the authors list here, this is just an editorial by all the folks who have any semblance of scientific training in DRASTIC. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Not a RS. Segretto and Deigin's qualifications have not changed. They are still bucking against the majority consensus opinion of the scientific community, and BioEssays has no relevant expert editors in virology or similar topics. This is an opinion paper at best, it is not a review, it appears to be peer reviewed (it went through one round of revision), but it is published in an essays outlet, and does not contain much, if any, original research). It should be treated as an opinion piece published in a non-topic relevant journal. And, so it becomes a question of whether the opinions of the authors are particularly relevant to the topic or notable/DUE. And I would say they are not. Deigin's highest qualification is an MBA. He has never done any work on viruses, or in biosafety. Segretto's closest work is in fungal ecology, though she does have a PhD. She has not worked in high level biosafety labs or in environmental health and safety. Not every paper that is published in a scholarly journal is useful for our purposes. Especially ones that are purely primary opinion, and are not well respected by the scientific community. The consensus has not changed, that the ideas in this paper are not likely, that any genetic engineering of the virus is extremely unlikely, etc. For all these reasons, this is not an RS. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[]
BioEssays is a peer-reviewed journal with impact factor of 4.5 (not a top journal, but still quite decent). Why invent new rules that are not found in our policy?
According to the policy, it IS a quite reliable source. However, as I already explained, it is outdated.
For records: it is quite unlikely SARS-CoV2 was engineered.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[]
BioEssays is not well respected, especially not in the field of virology. Citations (e.g. impact factor) are not the only way to evaluate the reliability of a scientific source. This is far from the first time the reliability or usefulness of a piece published in Bioessays has been called into question. It has a long history of publishing pieces that are pure opinion, speculation, "out there" idea, that some have described as belonging more in the lay press or in blogs than in a scientific journal. It's interesting stuff, but people would be concerned if you cited it for a statement of fact in a dissertation. Example: The journal has been accused of using milquetoast peer-review, in which the ideas of the papers published within it are given only a cursory review, and not truly critiqued or subjected to the rigorous criticism normally demanded by the scientific community. Like in this paper about declining sperm counts. [82] or this paper by Gutierrez, Beall, et al in 2015. See criticism: [83]. Or Speijer in 2020 [84]. [85]. Or this cancer paper proposing the "TOFT model" [86]. [87] or the ativastic model: [88]. I'm not saying that Bioessays doesn't sometimes publish good stuff. it does. I even really like the Evolution essays they publish sometimes. But the point is that they often publish stuff that is a little out there. And not respected by the broader community. They like to publish stuff that is on the edge. Groundbreaking, fascinating, controversial. The editors of this journal have even said as much: [89] But this is exactly the opposite of what we need for reliable sources on Wikipedia. We need stable, tried and true, endlessly vetted secondary review papers which evaluate this stuff for us. Not the primary essays which propose these novel and controversial ideas. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[]
"It's a peer reviewed journal therefore it's default reliable" is not a good argument. Sourcing guidelines are not blunt instruments. Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology an Elsevier journal once published a paper that suggested cephalopods are aliens. Editors should always have discretion as to which sources are used. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[]
We cannot invent ad hoc rules.
The question was quite clear: "Does this source meet RS criteria"?
The formal answer is "Yes it does" (per our policy). However,
  • The source seems outdated (another, more recent paper by the same authors should be used instead, where they concede the natural hypothesis is an almost consensus view).
  • The source may not meet NPOV criteria: despite being reliable, it may represent minority of fringe view.
That means, (i) instead of this, formally reliable source, another, more recent source should be used, and (ii) a decision about usage of this source should be made if weight issues are resolved. I believe, it will not be difficult to make a brief search to find relative weight of that source. It may be quite likely it expresses nearly fringe view.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[]
No. See WP:SOURCE:

All three can affect reliability.

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

Hence, analyses suggesting that the evolutionary origins of the RmYN02 S1/S2 cleavage site can be revealed by a simple nucleotide alignment (Segreto and Deigin, 2020) are overly simplistic. [90]

Or, more dramatically, entirely unflattering:

Proponents of theories for the unnatural origin of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) have asserted that the 12 nucleotide insert in the spike gene, which results in acquisition of a furin cleavage site in spike, may have arisen by laboratory manipulation (Relman, 2020; Segreto and Deigin, 2020; Seyran et al., 2020; Sirotkin and Sirotkin, 2020). Here, we compile evidence demonstrating that insertion/deletion (indel) events at the S1/S2 and S2’ protease cleavage sites of the spike precursors are commonly occurring natural features of coronavirus evolution. [91]

Putting all that together; you have a paper which wasn't actually cited in other peer-reviewed research, certainly not positively (so it is extremely unlikely to be representative of the mainstream view); it's from non-experts and it's in a dubious journal. So, since it fails all three criteria, not an RS. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Again, that is not true.
  • A journal with impact factor of 4.5 is hardly dubious. Is is quite good.
  • Tyshkovskiy & Panchin's article [92], a direct responce to Segreto and Deigin, was published in the very same journal. If BioEssays is a dubious journal, why the two bioinformatic scientists from Misha Gelfand's institute publish their response there? The fact that they are real experts cannot be questioned by nobody in clear mind. The fact that leading experts respond to that article means it is by no means fringe.
  • The article was cited 42 times, which is pretty decent for the 2020 article.
We all agree that lab leakage is highly unlikely. However, do not modify WP rules to remove the source that you don't like. If you misinterpret our policy to reject some source, somebody else may do the same to approve some other source.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Fetishizing impact factor as an exclusive and all-encompassing way to assess the quality of journals will lead us down some very dark paths. I say this as someone who has published in many "high impact" journals (Science, Nature, Immunity). I don't regret it, but I also don't value those papers as exceptionally good, either. Examples of crappy journals with impact factors around that of BioEssays:
I could go on and on. This is a bad argument.
Saying that a quality scientist also published there does not make it a good journal. Good scientists publish in bad journals and vice versa. Andrew Wakefield's infamous MMR anti-vaxx study was published in The Lancet [93] [94]. Medical Hypotheses has published AIDS denialism (infamously [95]), but they have also published papers by V. S. Ramachandran and several nobel laureates. Doesn't make it a good journal. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 02:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Please, mind your tong. Nobody here is fetishizing anything. Impact factor does not guarantee credibility, but it is a relatively good predictor of quality. And, that was just one my argument out of several. Again, if BioEssay is bad for us, why it is not bad for Panchin? Or you reject Pancin's article as a good source too?
Look, if we reject Segreto's article (who supports a lab leakage hypothesis), we must reject Panchin's article too. But we are not going to do that, right?
--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Keep in mind, I am criticizing your arguments, not you. You seem to be a very reasonable person, and I have no reason to criticize or demean you in any way, and have tried hard to avoid doing so. I would describe Panchin's article as also an opinion piece published in a low quality journal, and therefore also would not cite it. BTW, it is also WP:PRIMARY and should be avoided for that reason as well. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 02:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Well, if Wikipedians are allowed to arbitrarily decide what is an opinion piece and what is not, then its quality will deteriorate further.
Ok, I trust you that you authored several Nature papers (which means you are pretty notable person and a true expert). But what if in reality you are just a 10th grade high school student? Why your opinion on Panchin matters? What if I respond you that I personally know his supervisor, and I guarantee he is a leading expert in bioinformatics, and his opinion (as well as the opinion of people working under his supervision) is 146% reliable (no matter where it is published)? That may be true, or I may lie, who knows? And what shall we do in that situation? Vote?
Alas, that does not work like that. We either use some formal criteria, or Wikipedia will become even a greater mess.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:39, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Never said I published multiple Nature papers. I have published in the journals I referenced. The Nature article is a forthcoming topic review I have authored with my former advisor about flaviviruses. That is neither here nor there. Opinion pieces are not inherently bad. Expert opinion is often quite useful. But it depends on the person saying the opinion, as you have referenced. Sometimes, it's amazingly useful, and reliable, like in the many very great articles published in The Conversation which we cite with attribution.
The thing that makes this Deigin and Segretto paper opinion, imo, is that it makes broad sweeping statements that are not verifiable or testable. Is that subjective? Yes. Is all RS-determination of non-WP:RSP sources somewhat subjective? Also yes. This is not a court of law, it is not a mathematical equation. There is some subjectivity in our interpretations of the sources and their qualities. And that is why consensus is more than just "Does it meet the formal criteria?" And why this noticeboard exists, frankly.
The fact that this Deigin and Segretto piece is published by two people who no mainstream scientist discusses, references, or cites, is why they are fringe and would, therefore, be almost always WP:UNDUE to quote. The bad journal, non-expert authors, questionable editorial series, and WP:PRIMARY status are why this particular paper is not a WP:RS. Doesn't even particularly matter whether it's opinion for that part of the determination. As several other editors above have agreed. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 02:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[]
All of that would be completely correct if Wikipedia were edited by professionals. The problem is, however, that that is not the case. Many people even don't understand the concept of peer-reviewing. Imagine you are discussing all of that with 10 users who are 10th grade students, and they achieved a consensus that you are not right. What will you do in that situation? That is why more formal criteria are needed. And the approach is as follows: this source formally passes WP:V, but does not pass (or marginally passes) WP:NPOV.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[]
As WP:1AM recommends, I would either 1) put it out of my mind and accept that the encyclopedia is forever a work in progress and it being "wrong" to me in one area does not diminish its overall greatness, 2) start an RfC, or 3) escalate it to this noticeboard, as Forch has done.
Do you have a WP:PAG-based reason for circumventing consensus? Could you provide a quotation of the relevant passage? Because I am not reading that anywhere in the relevant policies. It appears to be your opinion on how Wikipedia should work, not an accurate assessment of how it does. Such opinions on altering PAGs should be placed on the talk pages of the relevant guidelines. They are not relevant here. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 03:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[]
WP:V is if the content is verifiable to the source (reliable or not, vs WP:RS). I also see multiple claims from you that editors would be using their own special rules, when WP:PRIMARY is not that ambiguous. —PaleoNeonate – 04:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Shibbolethink, I am rarely editing science related topics, but I know most people here are pretty reasonable. In addition, the amount and quality of scientific publications allows easy evaluation of quality and notability of each source, so these should be not much disagreement in these topics even if we approach the problem totally formally. In connection to that, I find it very dangerous when some users decide to come to consensus about reliability of certain category of sources that are not described in the policy or guidelines. It is dangerous because in some other topics, such as history or religion, many users apply lower standards to sources, and if we allow local consensus to approve or reject some certain category of sources, that may lead (and is already leading) to huge NPOV and OR problems in some topics.
Look, we both agree that this source should not be used. However, I came to that conclusion based on a letter and spirit of WP:V/NPOV, whereas you refer to some local ad hoc invented rules. Whose approach, in your opinion, is less dangerous?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The criteria we are using to judge this source are not ad hoc or invented. You are mistaken.
The policies themselves describe the metrics we are applying, as several editors above have communicated to you. Primary vs Secondary, Author, Journal, Relevant expertise, acceptance by the wider scientific community, opinion vs scientific description of findings, etc. etc. are all described as ways to judge source reliability in WP:PAGs and essays. See: WP:SOURCE, WP:SCHOLARSHIP, WP:RSPRIMARY, WP:MEDANIMAL, WP:BESTSOURCES, WP:MEDPRI (policies and guidelines) and WP:RSE, WP:SCIRS, WP:RSUW (essays).
I am not pulling these criteria out of nowhere. They come from the guidelines and essays above. We are not inventing ad hoc rules. We are applying the rules described in the above pages.
Explanatory supplements explicitly endorse the idea of using context to judge reliability, See: Wikipedia:Inaccuracy#Appendix: Reliability in the context.
You are the one who is asserting a new way to understand RSes and what counts and what does not count. If I am mistaken, please provide a quotation from a policy or guideline which describes your approach of ignoring consensus. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Shibbolethink, our disagreement does not affect the verdict about this concrete source (we both agree it should not be used). Therefore, this discussion is about the procedure in general. If you want, we may continue it, but feel free to stop at any moment.
Actually, the disagreement is only about allowing too much freedom to Wikipedians in their decision of what source is reliable. Let's check you and my approaches (and I apologize in advance if I misinterpret you)
  • Primary vs Secondary. No disagreement, except one aspect. Being an author of peer-reviewed publications, you perfectly know that the Introduction and, partially, "Discussion" sections are the summary of the current state of the field: "Introduction" is a mini-review, and "Discussion" is a discussion of own results in a context of the results of previous studies. Therefore, even research articles are, partially, secondary sources. Of course, the author's own data are, by and large, primary.
  • Author My approach: The number of citations and/or h-index is a good measure. You propose to analyze if the author is an expert in this concrete topic. You approach works fine if your opponents are reasonable and well educated people, but what if they are not familiar with a subject or are civil POV-pushers? What is they establish consensus that this particular author's qualification in this particular field is insufficient?
  • Journal My approach: if the journal is generally relevant (e.g. Organic Chemistry, Biophysics, Biochemistry, Environmental Chemistry, etc are relevant to biomedicine) and its impact factor should be at least 1. Your approach seems to include a detailed analysis of event the journal's editorial board. Again, my approach is more formal (and less strict), but it allows less freedom for misuse by poorly educated of bad faith users.
  • Relevant expertise My approach: if the source/author was cited by several other sources, and there is no wholesale criticism/rejection, then it is acceptable. Your approach seems to require a detailed analysis of the content, which, again, may be a seed of endless debates and possible edit wars.
  • opinion vs scientific description of findings Don't see any difference with secondary vs primary.
  • At that point you stop and conclude the source fails WP:V. In contrast, I continue, and ask another question: "If this source passes WP:V, should we use it per WP:FRINGE?" And the answer is, most likely, "No". If our approaches lead to the same verdict, but my approach allows less manipulations, why do you think you are right, and I am not?
I doubt my interpretation of our policy and guidelines is less correct than yours. I would say you demonstrate more creativity in policy interpretation. Actually, you are bringing the standards of scientific community into Wikipedia. Personally, I would wholeheartedly supported this approach, but it works only when all users are professionals, which is not the case (and will never be).
--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[]
...the Introduction and, partially, "Discussion" sections are the summary of the current state of the field: "Introduction" is a mini-review, and "Discussion" is a discussion of own results in a context of the results of previous studies. Therefore, even research articles are, partially, secondary sources. There is rarely any reason to cite the summary of the field from primary research article intros/discussions because, if the topic is DUE, it will have been discussed in detail in far more comprehensive secondary reviews. JoelleJay (talk) 09:02, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]

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

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

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

  • This [96] is clearly a secondary RS per our policies. This is NOT an original research publication, but rather a critical review or analysis of already published information. The fact it was cited 40+ times only makes the publication more notable and deserving inclusion. This is not a medical claim and not a medical question, as has been debated to nausea. Therefore, WP:MEDRS does not apply, although one might reasonably argue that it is a WP:MEDRS source as a review/analysis article. It does not really matter that authors are not virologists, but biologists. It does not mean that the authors are right. To make it balanced include some opposing views please. My very best wishes (talk) 14:39, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[]
In other words, (a) BioEssays is generally an RS on biological subjects, and (b) I do not see anything to disqualify authors of the publications as knowledgeable biologists. This is NOT a misinformation, but a justifiable view that was widely cited and shared by a number of people. Sure, their views and analysis are disoutable, but it is important to cite BioEssays and biologists, rather than only politicians and journalists. I do not see why this needs to be censored. My very best wishes (talk) 19:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]
But Deigin is not a biologist in any sense and Segreto is in an unrelated field of biology... JoelleJay (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Yes, he seems to be a biotech enterpreneur by profession, but I do not think that makes their articles in Bioessays (more recently here) not RS. Most people seem to argue their views are undue on specific page, but the sources are definitely secondary RS. My very best wishes (talk) 16:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Problems and Paradigms is not a review series. Segretto and Deigin formulate novel analyses and take primary data they themselves have generated for the publication and interpret it. That makes this publication a PRIMARY source. Not a secondary review. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    @Shibboleth, no different to the joint China-WHO report then? Aeonx (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    If I were Shibboleth, I wouldn't bother replying with more than "false equivalance". Entirely ignoring the fact that most of our coverage on the topic is not even based on the WHO report anyway. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Huh? An official statement from a prominent medical body is WP:MEDRS, a very different standard. —PaleoNeonate – 04:50, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Segretto and Deigin speak only for themselves when they assert broad-based opinions. The WHO report speaks with the authority of a team of experts formally assembled by the WHO. Big difference. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • It does not matter if this is called "review". This is in fact a review/analysis article. Yes, sure, they are not speaking for the entire scientific community. No one does. I voted "RS" because such source would easily pass as an RS on a typical WP page about a biological subject, and there is nothing wrong with using it anywhere. Yes, this is apparently a minority view, but a very large minority. Personally, I am not a supporter of this view. My very best wishes (talk) 13:42, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    MVBW, you have always been a very reasonable editor in our exchanges. You are being reasonable here. But I still disagree, I see only parts of this article are secondary, much like how many primary articles have introductions that are secondary. But the components where they create their own alignments, hypothesize on the significance of those alignments, etc. are primary. As are their conclusions, which are novel to this paper. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I think you are mistaken. See Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources: "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources...". Author's own thinking. Every good review provides an analysis by authors. A bad review is just a collection of information. I do not think that one is so great, but just mentioning what it say should not be a problem. My very best wishes (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Yes, but most reviews do not include primary research investigations such as creating alignments and pointing out things about those alignments. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Some of them do. But here is my point. Would including such ref on a page would be helpful for a typical WP reader who is interested in this subject? Yes, it definitely would. My very best wishes (talk) 14:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of relevant information. We have a duty to our readers to maintain our standards of reliability in sourced info. Reading all the screeds of the DRASTIC team would probably be interesting to a user curious about this topic, but we still don't cite them. Because they are unreliable. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Just to jump in on the primary/secondary aspect. This one's definintely a mix. However there are big chiunks that are pretty primary, e.g. the sequence analysis of the furin site is original research in that paper as far as I can see. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 00:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]

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

  • Every critical analysis/review article expresses an opinion by authors to some degree. That does not make a source non-RS. To the contrary, consider Current Opinion (Elsevier) Their review articles are great. Although yes, an opinion to some degree, they are generally very good WP:MEDRS sources. They are not "opinion pieces" as in CNN (and even an opinion in CNN is a valid RS if written by an expert). My very best wishes (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Colin, Shibbolethink is right in almost everything but one thing: this source is reliable (passes WP:V), but it, most likely, does not pass WP:NPOV. Your "Thinking that "Yes it is reliable => I can write whatever I want (about topic X) based on that source" is wrong." is WRONG. A correct statement should be as follows:
"Yes it is reliable. However, before using that source, we must make sure it represents at least a significant minority viewpoint.
Clearly, the facts presented during this discussion demonstrate that it is even not a significant minority view, and the authors themselves recognize that in their next publication.
I think, if we want to follow the WP:V spirit and letter, the formal summary should be:
Formally speaking, it is reliable, but it should not be used as an insignificant minority view.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Paul Siebert, I don't see how your "correct statement" contradicts my statement you say is "WRONG". And that "correct statement" examines only one aspect (representing a significant minority viewpoint". That still doesn't allow anyone to cite that source and "write whatever they want based on it". WEIGHT would impact how much text to write, where to write it (lead, body, which article(s)), etc. And we still wouldn't be able to state it as fact, just as a minority opinion. And as others note, there may be more recent papers: people are allowed to change their opinions and what might have been thought important at one point may no longer be. Just saying "Yes it is reliable." is problematic. What on earth is it reliable for? Very little of it is reliable for anything more than the opinion of its authors at that point in time. My very best wishes is wrong. Merely citing other papers doesn't turn an opinion piece into a formal literature review (never mind a systematic review). -- Colin°Talk 15:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[]
In this case, the point of determining whether an article is an RS is moot if you anyway argue it should not be included. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Paul Siebert, If we want to follow Wikipedia policy to the letter, we would wait for someone to close this discussion and determine the consensus established here, and that would tell everyone whether or not this publication should be considered reliable for use in the Investigations article. And if that consensus were to establish the source as reliable, it would have to be robust enough to overturn the consensus established on the relevant talk pages, which is that these publications are not reliable. We wouldn't just follow your opinion or my opinion of what we should do. We would follow the consensus opinion. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Since both you and I have no disagreement about this concrete publication (I think it should not be used too, unless someone decides to include Panchin's article, which is a quite reliable RS; in that case it may be instrumental to mention that Panchin analyzed a possibility that RaTG13 was an ancestor of SARS-CoV2, which was proposed by Segreto), no closure is needed. The outcome of our dispute relates to the policy interpretation, not to this concrete source.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Colin agreed. You can find the relevant discussions about how various users have intended to use the paper at the top of this discussion section. Or also in this consensus template. In brief, several users have wished to use this source to describe how the genetic engineering hypothesis of COVID-19 origins is viable, and not a conspiracy theory. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:39, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[]
If those users wished to use this source to confirm viability of the hypothesis of artificial origin of COVID-19, then all of that is an NPOV issue, not V. Which is exactly what I said initially.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • RS; it's published in an indexed, peer-reviewed journal and widely cited in reputable sources. Except in an exceptional circumstance, no further information should be required nor investigation of the source undertaken. Any original analysis, by us, as to its content is an inferior form of peer review (done by laypersons) to that which it's already undergone. The MEDRS arguments are stretching that guideline, in my opinion, to cover any article or topic that touches in any way on biology, which is an unconvincing reach. The arguments about its conclusions not aligning with the scientific consensus are also entirely unconvincing. Consensus is what we use to make decisions on WP, not judge the merits of knowledge or purported knowledge. Our WP:UNDUE policy says that articles should represent significant viewpoints, not majoritarian viewpoints. That said, it would be appropriate to give any content cited to this source diminished weight in the article, also with respect to our DUE/UNDUE policy. Chetsford (talk) 22:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    By your criteria, the fraudulent vaccine-autism paper by Andrew Wakefield is also an RS, since it's in an indexed, peer-reviewed journal (Lancet) and it is widely cited in reputable sources. Crucially, what your analysis misses is that it is widely cited for the wrong reasons - i.e. the only citations from actually reputable sources are as an example of fraud (the Wakefield paper). Or in our case, refutations. WP:SCHOLARSHIP is the basic summary of this guideline - i.e. works by actual scholars in their fields and not random nobodies, especially not then there's a huge WP:REDFLAG hanging all over it (something that goes against the prevailing view within the relevant scientific community [virologists], is published by non-experts, and is a primary source, is certainly not the kind of thing that satisfies any of the "high quality reliable source" bit). This, critically analysing the context and the content of a source is the kind of reflection on sources that's entirely routine in serious academic studies, and that's certainly the viewpoint Wikipedia should be written from. Not a popularity contest of which thing gets more attention in US newspapers. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:44, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Correct me if I am wrong, but hadn't that paper been debunked? If yes, then the analogy is incorrect.
And, yes, fringe source if published in a good peer-reviewed journal is RS. However, if that RS is fringe, it should be treated as such, i.e., ignored. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:57, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]
"By your criteria, the fraudulent vaccine-autism paper by Andrew Wakefield is also an RS, since it's in an indexed, peer-reviewed journal (Lancet) and it is widely cited in reputable sources" Not at all. My standard is "... it's published in an indexed, peer-reviewed journal and widely cited in reputable sources. Except in an exceptional circumstance, no further information should be required nor investigation of the source undertaken." The example you mention, as noted by Paul Siebert, was debunked which is obviously an "exceptional circumstance" in the plain meaning of the phrase. The rest of your comment ("the only citations from actually reputable sources are as an example of fraud" is a demonstrably false statement (e.g. here [97] where it's routinely referenced in a study by the ENS virologist Erwan Sallard and the CNRS virologist Etienne Decroly in the first quartile journal Environmental Chemistry Letters) so I won't bother doing a point-by-point reply. Chetsford (talk) 02:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Not an RS Let's see, it pertains directly to human health, so WP:MEDRS is in full force (in a way that it wouldn't be for, say, choanoflagellate mucus or sauropod vertebrae); it's evidently a primary source; the authors lack relevant expertise; the journal deliberately skews toward the provocative; impact factor is a shoddy way of telling what journals are worthwhile. Also, 42 citations is a pitifully small number for a hot topic, particularly given that they include refutations, self-citations, and MDPI. XOR'easter (talk) 01:31, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I am impressed how can we arbitrarily use formal criteria (if that leads to a desirable result) and use more creative approach (when formal criteria do not work as we want). Clearly, the spirit of WP:MEDRS is: "do not use research articles, because you may misinterpret the raw data from them, and a reader may take that as a direct medical advice". In other words MEDRS warns (not prohibits, for it is just guidelines) against usage of research articles when it may cause a direct harm to reader's health. In connection to that, I am wondering what concrete health risk may be caused by the fact that the two authors assert (wrongly, imo) that SARS-CoV2 was engineered, and, concretely, RaTG13 was its direct ancestor? I cannot imagine a situation when this information may cause any harm to our readers.
Furthermore, 42 citations in less than 2 years is very good, just take a look at this list: majority of research articles in this list have even smaller number of citations.
In addition, some articles in that list (for example, this one, which is quite a secondary source and RS) cite articles published in BioEssays (including Sirotkin's article about a plausibility of the lab leakage hypothesis, which was cited without obvious criticism). I am wondering why those authors are unfamiliar with the fact that that journal is unreliable?
I am not a proponent of the lab leakage hypothesis, and of this concrete source, but we must avoid twisting our policy and guidelines to achieve our own agenda (even if it is quite noble).--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:28, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Clearly, the spirit of WP:MEDRS is: "do not use research articles, because you may misinterpret the raw data from them, and a reader may take that as a direct medical advice". This is a total misreading of both the current language of and intent behind MEDRS. Here's a line from the recent close that fell strongly in favor of removing mention of medical advice from the lead:

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

Furthermore, 42 citations in less than 2 years is very good, just take a look at this list: majority of research articles in this list have even smaller number of citations. The paper has only 16 citations in published journal articles. GS does not order hits by citation number so I can't see how you're able to make a comparison among similar papers unless you've looked at all the results, and anyway the search terms you use return all sorts of COVID papers from any time up to the present so it's useless for gauging relative impact.
In addition, some articles in that list (for example, this one, which is quite a secondary source and RS) cite articles published in BioEssays (including Sirotkin's article about a plausibility of the lab leakage hypothesis, which was cited without obvious criticism). The citation to the Sirotkins is followed immediately by reasoned dismissal of their hypothesis. It was most likely included because it is one of the few (and first) papers remotely entertaining the idea, despite the attention it's gotten in the lay media; there's nothing compelling authors only cite high-quality research for a topic they're just going to rebut anyway, especially if HQRS doesn't even exist for it. JoelleJay (talk) 15:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]
In addition, some articles in that list (for example, this one, which is quite a secondary source and RS) cite articles published in BioEssays - This is another opinion editorial, and is explicitly labelled as such. It, therefore, is not a RS, not in the scholarly sense. It could be used with attribution of course, but should not be used for statements of fact. WP:RSOPINION. I would advise you to be more careful about what you label as obvious secondary RS. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Primary source that has been reputably published but it's certainly not HQRS, which is what this topic needs, regardless of whether you apply MEDRS to it or not. This is not a widely cited piece (citations in predatory journals, pre-prints, self cites and refutations are the predominant results on google scholar), it has not been published in a mainstream journal and the credentials of the authors are lacking. Context matters and the context is that there is no dearth of scholarly publications on this topic and that this publication in particular goes against the present scientific consensus (it admits as much). This doesn't mean it's just a minority view but one that is not a significant view among reliable sources. It'd be completely undue to include in practically any form, and if used at all needs to be based on review article(s). Tayi Arajakate Talk 02:31, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "it has not been published in a mainstream journal" Am I missing something? The journal is: (a) first quartile, [98] (b) indexed by SCOPUS and PubMed, [99] (c) published by Wiley & Sons. I must be missing something. Hopefully you can help me understand. Chetsford (talk) 03:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    By not being mainstream, I meant not being so for the topic area, i.e the field of virology. Tayi Arajakate Talk 04:42, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Alas, I presented an example of BioEssays articles that are cited by good CARS-CoV2 related publications as reliable (without any obvious criticism). If they are treated as reliable by peers, why should we treat them differently?--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Non-RS, primary source. As others have already said at length here, and as I have said in the diffs linked at the top of this thread, this source fails MEDRS and our standards for the high-quality RS required to cover fringe topics. That BioEssays apparently does not vet the credentials of its "Hypothesis" series authors is a red flag but the poor reputation of the journal is by no means the only reason to reject this paper, so it's not a great use of editor time debating impact factor etc. here. JoelleJay (talk) 09:19, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Overall RS, with some parts of the source being primary hypothesis After reviewing the source and many of the comments above. There appears there may be some bias and WP:PUSH by the usual suspects whom have their own pre-formed perceptions on the various lab leak theories. Ignoring all that, just looking at the source and evaluating whether this is a reliable source of information is relatively straight-forward. The source is a WP:RS for the clear reasons mentioned above, however it does contain some secondary scientific analysis of both secondary and primary data and forms a novel hypothesis; the source is reliable for it's analysis on others data, but is not reliable for the primary data and subsequent hypothesis. Aeonx (talk) 10:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Instead of accusing other users of attempting to push a point-of-view (which is unhelpful, borderline WP:BATTLEGROUND); you really ought to substantiate your "clear reasons mentioned above". Is it the fact this is a primary source? Is this the fact that the author's credentials are unimpressive, to say the least? Is it the fact the source is only cited by at best dubious publications, with the few instances of not dubious publications citing it being refutations? Is it the fact that it's definitively at odds with other, more reliable and more recent sources on the matter (WP:REDFLAG)? What exactly makes you think that this is an acceptable source? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:26, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    The article contains both novel study data and other data, and provides analysis on both, at times independently and at times not. I believe it is possible to be more nuanced than perhaps you would like. Rather than categorise the source into primary or non-primary, how about addressing the content with more fidelity, examine which parts of the article specifically you interpret to be primary. I've already given my perspective, although you've summarily ignored that and instead launched a whataboutism argument. Which is frankly a false argument. The issue of WP:REDFLAG does not dispute a sources reliability, only it's relative weight in any given article. The reasons of why this is a [WP:RS]] are that it meets the policy criteria as detailed above by others. Me repeating that issue wasting other editors time, as indeed you appear to do. I'm concerned that given your past edits and edit warring with others that you might have an unconscious or intentional bias on this, not an accusation - just something for you to personally consider. Aeonx (talk) 23:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Dubious first, I don't think there's any question that not everything published in what is normally a reliable publisher is a reliable source. There are plenty of examples, some here, of bad material published in good journals. If Bioessays indeed does not vet the credentials of its "Hypothesis" authors as suggested above, I agree that's clearly a red flag. Lack of author credentials alone is usually enough not to use something. It also isn't a journal with any specialism in the field of virology, another reason to be dubious about its use. Doug Weller talk 12:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Not an RS. Has been discussed before, again and again and again, see here. Fails WP:MEDRS, WP:PRIMARY, WP:FRINGE, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:DEADHORSE, WP:FORUMSHOP, WP:IDHT, and probably a bunch of other such pages. I have no patience with users who think guidelines can be ignored because they are not policies; if that reasoning were valid, we should just delete all guidelines because they would never be used anyway. WP:CIR is another relevant page here: if I rarely edited science pages, I would not insist on my lay opinion for several days in the face of users who daily edit science pages contradicting me. They know what they are doing, they even explained why they are doing it several times, and there is nothing arbitrary in using the fine print of the rules in addition to their headlines. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I made this post on the policy page, because I think this discussion is an indication of different understanding of our policy by different users.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Not an RS per Hob Gadling rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Not RS. Not suitable for Wikipedia's purpose of reflecting accepted knowledge, WP:PROFRINGE instrument only. Alexbrn (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • RS, just barely. Paul Siebert makes a good point that any paper published in any non-predatory journal fulfills the minimun requirements for WP:Primary. However, we are discussing a specific claim that requires deeper judgment, and wikipolicies allow us to to invoke the case-by-case rule here. It is done all the time in WP:RSN, that's what it is there for. Here are my two cents onto the subject of reliability
1) Authors: Deigin lacks proper scientific credentials, though Segreto is barely ok. So its not definitive what to make of a paper by them, I guess we can trust the more reliable of the two. This rule would apply to those papers with large number of coauthors in which one can be a Ph.D student or someone lacking expertise, but it should not hurt the credentials of the overall authorship group.
2) Journal: There are precedents that Bioessays is taken seriously by top journals. For example, in Martin and Koonin (2006), doi:10.1038/nature04531, they cite Poole et al (1999), published in Bioessays. So it is a non-predatory journal that, at least in one ocassion, has entered the top levels of scientific discussion.
3) The specific case of the Furin Cleavage Site claim: So, we have a claim going around in different sources saying that FCS is so peculiar and odd that it might have come from a lab instead of nature. Has this claim been repeated in News media? Yes. They tend to cite Nicholas Wade's opinion piece published at the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists as the source for it. If one reads Wade's article, he gives credit to a Deigin opinion article published in Medium as source for the FCS claim. That medium article is related to the Segreto and Deigin Bioessays paper, in my opinion, it is almost a preprint of it. Has this claim being repeated in top cientific journals? Yes. The Holmes et al (2021) review published in Cell mentions that The genesis of the polybasic (furin) cleavage site in the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 has been subject to recurrent speculation. Although the furin cleavage site is absent from the closest known relatives of SARS-CoV-2 (Andersen et al., 2020), this is unsurprising because the lineage leading to this virus is poorly sampled and the closest bat viruses have divergent spike proteins due to recombination (Boni et al., 2020; Lytras et al., 2021; Zhou et al., 2021). Furin cleavage sites are commonplace in other coronavirus spike proteins, including some feline alphacoronaviruses, MERS-CoV, most but not all strains of mouse hepatitis virus, as well as in endemic human betacoronaviruses such as HCoV-OC43 and HCoV-HKU1 (Gombold et al., 1993; de Haan et al., 2008; Kirchdoerfer et al., 2016). A near identical nucleotide sequence is found in the spike gene of the bat coronavirus HKU9-1 (Gallaher, 2020), and both SARS-CoV-2 and HKU9-1 contain short palindromic sequences immediately upstream of this sequence that are indicative of natural recombination break-points via template switching (Gallaher, 2020). Hence, simple evolutionary mechanisms can readily explain the evolution of an out-of-frame insertion of a furin cleavage site in SARS-CoV-2 (Figure 2). Here we see that Holmes et al omit citing Segreto and Deigin, or Wade. They introduce the FCS claim when they say "The genesis of the polybasic (furin) cleavage site in the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 has been subject to recurrent speculation." but with no citations there, which seems to be a mistake or at least, a failure in research protocol for a literature review to properly give credit where is due, in my opinion. It is very hard to believe that they missed the Bioessays paper during their the keyword search part of the review, I mean, just type furin cleavage site sars-cov-2 on google scholar and the Segreto and Deigin appears in the top 15 results. In conclusion, here, most of top newspapers trace the FCS assertion as Wade -> Deigin (Medium) -> Segreto and Deigin (2020, Bioessays), and the best secondary reviews omit them, so its a tie here. So, authors and journal passed the test, and specific case of analysis of the claim results in a draw, a not definitive conclusion, which means that overall its an RS, although just barely. Forich (talk) 04:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Not convinced by pro-Deigin analyses. Clearly a WP:MEDRS standard applies here, and any such claim (as presented by Segreto/Deigin) must come through strict scrutiny. I will try to respond to what I understand to be necessary criteria before the article comes cited and mentioned
  • Is BioEssays a WP:MEDRS, as the claim is certainly within MEDRS scope? It is certainly a legitimate scientific journal, and the example Forich mentions is quite good to show that for genetics (though not exactly a related subdomain to the one being here in dispute), it is at least sometimes treated seriously. But we have more area of expertise than one touched in this question, and that is in particular virology. Shibbolethink convincingly, in my opinion, showed that the journal has a stated purpose to test new ideas, but Wikipedia is not supposed to be a dumpster of whatever new research and new ideas appear. So yes, the journal is OK, but we should bear in mind what journal does, that is, publish some really new ideas which have not yet been vetted (as is the case here). So, for the third criterion of WP:SOURCE, it's a pass grade but nothing close to spectacular. Just acceptable.
  • Are the authors qualified? The answer here, is no. Deigin has little to do with virology, biosafety, and has touched genetics only to the extent that it was concerned with aging. Not convinced about his virology skills at all. Segreto has much better credentials and her contributions to genetics, I believe, should not be disputed, but all the time she's been working with fungi, not viruses. Again, COVID or COVID-like diseases are not her domain of expertise, and there's no evidence she has received additional virology training before switching to publishing papers on COVID.
  • Is the work itself OK? Well, to begin with, we don't establish accuracy, or even prominence of a scientific (MEDRS-sense) idea using normal press. While the claim may resonate among the lay publications, it is totally irrelevant to the scientific consensus (or lack thereof) in the scientific community, which is what counts. There's one more troubling thing, though. The citations, from my review, rarely, if ever, supported their findings, and many more were in fact rebuttals. There is a good reason Holmes et al. avoided Nicholas Wade and the pair of authors discussed here. The former, who became one of the most active supporters of the theory, has published his opinion in a journal absolutely unrelated to the topic (Bulletin of Atomic Scientists), and he does not have the expertise, either (probably the least among the three of the people mentioned here). As Forich shows, the scheme is Wade -> Deigin (Medium) -> Segreto and Deigin (2020, Bioessays). But it's the Wade to Deigin transition that is by itself worrying. A person who is barely a scientist (and I'm being generous here) makes a claim based on an opinion (piece) of a non-scientist (he was merely a journalist for Nature and Science) and then passes through peer review of a journal that, by self-admission, likes to test the boundaries of science by publishing not-exactly-mainstream papers. This is all too fishy for me. As an opinion piece, provided that due weight is given, probably it could be used (though I don't even recommend doing that), but certainly not on par with other articles.
Totting up: journal is acceptable, authors are not good enough, and to say that such a paper conforms to WP:MEDRS, or even WP:RS requirements is quite a stretch. Find some better sources. I see no reasons for consensus change. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • May be that one is better? Seems to be an RS, and it includes more authors. My very best wishes (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    While the journal is again OK by itself, it's off-topic for the claims they make. Environmental Chemistry Letters does not really cover genetics, and this article is so full of them that they must have chosen a better publication (just like Wade must have chosen a better publication for his hypothesis, too). The citations reveal three papers of the Deigin/Segreto pair (actually two, because two citations actually refer to one article), one which is unpublished (Shneider) and the other articles barely getting one citation at most.
    And yes, even though there are more authors listed, the main two authors still remain Deigin and Segreto, which does not really get rid of the problem of their lack of qualifications. I think this does not pass muster, either. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
"Environmental Chemistry Letters does not really cover genetics...". I am sorry, but such argument is wrong. For example, one can use any reasonable RS for claims about proteins (for example), not only something like Proteins (journal). My very best wishes (talk) 15:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Uh, what? It absolutely matters where a biomedical claim is published -- see the third sentence of WP:MEDSCI. Even if you don't agree that this falls under MEDRS, it should be obvious that a journal reliable in one discipline is not going to be nearly as reliable in a completely different discipline. See WP:RSCONTEXT: Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. Environmental Chemistry Letters is a great journal for research in the fields its editors publish in...which categorically do not include anything remotely relevant to the Segreto paper:
Subfields of editors based on major Scopus topics and papers
  • Eric Lichtfouse: biocathodes; biosorbents; wastewater bioremediation
  • Jan Schwarzbauer: PPCP; micropollutant; carbamazepine; PAHs
  • Didier Robert: photocatalytic activity; perovskites; titanium dioxide nanoparticles
  • Rengasamy Alagarsamy: sediment contamination; trace metal; pollution load
  • Jayanta Kumar Biswas: sediment contamination; trace metal; pollution load
  • Hong Chen: perovskite solar cells; electrocatalysts; water splitting
  • Nandita Dasgupta: nanoemulsions; titanium dioxide nanoparticles; ecotoxicity
  • Shiming Ding: chelex; porewater; sediment-water interface
  • Mark Fitzsimons: PPCP; micropollutant; carbamazepine; pharmaceutical contamination
  • Sophie Fourmentin-Lamotte: cyclodextrins; complexation; soil remediation
  • Santiago Gómez-Ruiz: mesoporous silica nanoparticles; drug liberation; nanocarriers; nanocatalysts
  • Giuliana Gorrasi: nanoclays; nanotubes; agro-waste
  • Nathalie Gova: PAHs; exosomes; organophosphorus pesticides; hair analysis
  • Jie Han: chemisorption/adsorption of estrone pollution; Ti anodization; wastewater heavy metal recovery; interestingly, he published zero papers between 2017 and September 2020, when he and a couple other editors started capitalizing on COVID with a broad array of completely unrelated-to-their-expertise opportunistic hypothesis editorials published in Env Chem Lett: "Have artificial lighting and noise pollution caused zoonosis and the COVID-19 pandemic? A review", "Unflushable or missing toilet paper, the dilemma for developing communities during the COVID-19 episode", "Electrostatic fine particles emitted from laser printers as potential vectors for airborne transmission of COVID-19", "Locked on salt? Excessive consumption of high-sodium foods during COVID-19 presents an underappreciated public health risk: a review", "Unprotected mothers and infants breastfeeding in public amenities during the COVID-19 pandemic"...
  • Andrew Hursthouse: antimony; urban soils; environmental contamination
  • Inamuddin: enzymatic fuel cells; bioanodes; ultrafiltration
  • Hanzhong Jia: elemental carbon; particulate matter; soil contamination
  • Branimir Jovančićević: paleoenvironment; petroleum pollutants
  • Sunil Kumar: cyclodextrins; sludge composting; solid waste management; pig manure
  • Rock Keey Liew: bio-oil; pyrolysis; biochar
  • Cong Li: haloacetic acid removal; disinfection byproducts; wastewater treatment
  • Lingxiangyu Li: environmental nanoparticles; ecotoxicity
  • Yangxian Liu: flue gases; coal-fired power plant; denitrification
  • Yong Liu: aerosols; liquid-air interface; FTIR analysis of fluoroanions and carboxylic acid salts
  • Xingmao Ma: phytotoxicity; ZnO nanoparticle; ecotoxicity
  • Sixto Malato: microcontaminants; wastewater reclamation; micropollutants
  • Christian Mougin: soil biochemistry; cyanobacterial toxins; agricultural soil
  • Sonil Nanda: gasification of organic wastes; biochar; bioenergy
  • Dai Viet N. Vo: dry reforming methane; steam reforming; syngas; bioenergy; wastewater; biomass/waste valorization
  • Mehmet Oturan: soil washing; nonionic surfactants; electrocatalysis
  • Srinath Pashikanti: biotransformation; nuclear fuel and electronic waste treatment
  • Shivendu Ranjan: nanoemulsions; TiO2 nanoparticles; nanofibers; ecotoxicity
  • Mashallah Rezakazemi: fluid dynamics/modeling; microporous membrane systems; bioreactors
  • Claire Richard: photochemistry; photocatalytic degradation of pollutants
  • Tatiana Rusanova: Ag nanoparticles; nanofibers; immunoassay detection of contaminants/toxins; optical acidity sensors
  • Mika Sillanpaa: brown carbon; biomass burning; radiative forcing; electrochemical oxidation; soil washing; biosorbents; wastewater
  • Vasudevan Subramanyan: electrochemical oxidation; soil washing; wastewater
  • Ngoc Han Tran: micropollutant; antibiotic resistance in wastewater and rivers; wastewater treatment
  • Polonca Trebse: UV filters; oxybenzone; toxic effects of waste materials on microbes
  • Isabel Villaescusa: biosorption; heavy metal removal from wastewater
  • Stuart Wagland: waste disposal facilities; refuse-derived fuels; secondary raw material; municipal solid waste
  • Chuanyi Wang: photochemistry; biosorption; environmental pollutant removal
  • Ruiyang Xiao: micropollutant; environmental pollutant removal; radical-mediated disinfection
  • Shaocai Yu: haze; air pollution; particulate matter
  • Zhien Zhang: gas, water, solid waste treatment technology; solvent- and membrane-mediated CO2 capture; whatever this paper is: "Efficiency investigation on energy harvesting from airflows in HVAC system based on galloping of isosceles triangle sectioned bluff bodies"
As you can see, not a single one of its 47 editors has any expertise in genetics or biology in general, let alone viral genetic engineering. Publishing papers in fields well outside a journal's stated specialty is a big red flag for reliability, especially when seemingly zero effort was made to recruit editors with even minimal background in virology/epidemiology. Like Szmenderowiecki already said, numerous other journals that are actually specialized in the type of data Segreto et al produced would have been far, far more appropriate. So we have to ask why their paper wasn't published in any of those, and the easiest answer is that it couldn't have been due to quality control by the editors. JoelleJay (talk) 18:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • No, you are mistaken. Simply looking at the list of articles published in latest issue of Environmental Chemistry Letters, I see The impact of human vaccines on bacterial antimicrobial resistance. A review. So such subjects are actually within the area of their publications. And the journal by Springer is an RS. If it were a fradulent/retracted paper, then it would be different. But this is more like just a secondary analysis/interpretation of data/publications other people may agree or disagree about. My very best wishes (talk) 02:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    As you can see, not a single one of its 47 editors has any expertise in genetics or biology in general, let alone viral genetic engineering. Publishing papers in fields well outside a journal's stated specialty is a big red flag for reliability, especially when seemingly zero effort was made to recruit editors with even minimal background in virology/epidemiology.
    I specifically said they are publishing papers in this field, but that none of their editors are remotely qualified to assess them, which is why it's a big red flag. JoelleJay (talk) 07:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "not a single one of its 47 editors has any expertise in genetics or biology in general"??? That is where you are wrong. You have no idea what was the actual education of the editors. Maybe some of them were taking classes or read books on genetics or biology in general? I am sure some of them did. Now, the article in question is not a rocket science, and someone with a general biological education would be qualified to make a judgement beased on peer review. Once again, they take articles on vaccines, resistance, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 01:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • @Szmenderowiecki: a journal on genetics would be the appropriate type of publication for a matter that is purely or mainly about genetics, but determining the origins of the genome cannot be solved only by looking at the genome of SARS-COV-2, just like we cannot know the origin of Cavendish bananas from looking its genome alone. We know that Cavendish bananas originate from Mauritius by way of a greenhouse in Chatsworth House where they were first cultivated and they are now fully dependent on cloning for reproduction. If we looked only at the DNA of this fruit, we wouldn’t be able to tell if it was a product of natural evolution or directed evolution, and we would rely on a genetics journal to answer this question. Also, was first published in médecine/sciences (10.1051/medsci/2020123), which even Alexbrn agreed is a reliable source. This topic area is plagued by editors with an extreme prejudice who nitpick at any little thing they can find, and there is no point in any of these discussions on these noticeboards. If you have something specific you would like to add to a specific article for the benefit of our readers, I can find multiple sources for you. Ruling out primary sources like this Segreto/Deigin paper only means that we can’t attribute the original source, as in some secondary sources they are not given credit. For example, this Reuters article quotes Fauci mentioning the Mojiang Miners, without crediting TheSeeker268 of DRASTIC. For now we can just reference the Reuters article, because no one will argue about that on this noticeboard, and when its published, we can reference Alina Chan and Matt Ridley’s to assure that TheSeeker is properly credited. --Francesco espo (talk) 00:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Well, first of all, I would ask you to set your "prejudiced editors" comments aside, 'cause that is not going to let you to anywhere good.
    Secondly, the Segreto/Deigin paper is reliant from A to Z on genetic evidence that they say indicates an alternative path might be a better explanation for the origins of COVID. This is not what this journal really writes about. Look at the content of the issue: [100] (or the previous issue, and point me to one article that is this deep into genetics as either of the two in question. They have simply chosen the wrong journal for that purpose. Yes, we have to compare genetic material between each other, but there are other, specialised publications. And, to finish this discussion, as I said, their work was not really cited much in respectable or influential publications, so it is unlikely they are a representation of a significant viewpoint, let alone good enough for facts when we have other publications (previous discussions have, unsurprisingly, seen similar conclusions).
    Thirdly, 10.1051/medsci/2020123 hasn't even been discussed here. Deigin et al. only cite him once (in their attempt to synthetise other papers seeking to uphold the lab leak theory), and whether Sallard et al. is admissible is another story (and it's not the same paper as Deigin's, or not even close to a translation from French), and evaluation of them is for another discussion. We stick to Deigin.
    Ruling out primary sources like this Segreto/Deigin paper only means that we can’t attribute the original source, as in some secondary sources they are not given credit. But do we need to mention them in the first place? My answer is no due to above reasons.
    For example, this Reuters article quotes Fauci mentioning the Mojiang Miners, without crediting TheSeeker268 of DRASTIC. Because Fauci's opinion is notable, unlike that of an Twitter activist aka amateur researcher; besides, Fauci needn't have consulted TheSeeker268 to get to their conclusion. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 01:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Szmenderowiecki, all good points, but I don’t understand what you mean about Fauci consulting TheSeeker268. It was TheSeeker268 who made the discovery about the Mojiang Miners, where the WIV later admitted to collecting RaTG13 from, after obfuscating it and even outright lying about it (on NBC news [101]). I’m not sure if you’ve read this Segreto and Deigin paper or if you understand the significance of tying the virus most similar to SARS-COV-2 to a mine where people died of a SARS-like illness, but Fauci does seem to have read the paper and called for the Chinese to clarify this matter. As Colin and Tayi Arajakate say above, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and what is missing from this discussion is any proposed context for any proposed text. I see a rough consensus not to use this paper for COVID-19 investigations, but I don’t think there would be a problem using it to explain Mojiang Miners incident in the COVID-19 lab leak and DRASTIC articles in conjunction with secondary sources. I do not see the point of this discussion if we are not focused on content. Do you agree? Tagging Forich and Paul Siebert. Francesco espo (talk) 23:26, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    What I meant is that Fauci and his advisors are not likely to be following DRASTIC on Twitter, and even if they do, they reasonably took all of their findings with a grain of salt and researched it independently, ultimately replicating their ideas (btw, not aware of their Mojiang Miners scoop, could you please send a link of proof that they were indeed the first). However, few scientists would want to publicly say "I've been making COVID guidance based on DRASTIC", and that's for a good reason.
    As for Segreto and Deigin papers, I've read them both, but my reasons remain unchanged + I see no evidence Fauci started to call for Chinese to clarify their involvement because of the Deigin's paper.
    what is missing from this discussion is any proposed context for any proposed text I don't see the text (yet), but if you insist on using Deigin and the text is not in the framing of "several amateur scientists, some of whom are known to be part of DRASTIC...", then it's an automatic no because their opinion is not an expert opinion; not to mention that inclusion of the text even in this framing would be seen as inappropriate where we are describing expert investigations into COVID and not Twitter activists/mycologists looking for what seems to contradict the main narrative). If you want to explain Mojiang Miners incident, on the other hand, you actually don't need MEDRS-quality sources (but you should be extra careful: just to state that such an incident existed does not need a MEDRS, but any genetic claims of links b/w RaTG13 and SARS-CoV-2 must use MEDRS; and extraordinary claims would require extraordinary sources). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 07:12, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • RS. I agree with the comments above from Paul Siebert, Chetsford, My very best wishes and Aeonx. I see other editors here are opposed to using this paper as a source as it is a primary source, but many of its findings can be found in secondary sources. I see many articles on Wikipedia citing primary and secondary sources in conjunction with each other because it’s important to attribute findings to their authors and enable readers to check the original source for themselves.--Francesco espo (talk) 23:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Since you pinged me, I have a feeling some clarification is needed. By saying that this source is reliable, I meant it meets WP:V standards, but that does not mean it meets WP:NOR/MPOV criteria. Numerous argumets presented during that discussion confirm it fails NOR/NPOV, which means it should not be used except in a context of its criticism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]

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

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

Survey (Segreto and Deigin)[edit]

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

  • Leaving MEDRS/NPOV/NOR considerations beyond the scope, is the Segreto and Deigin's paper reliable per WP:V only?
Answers
  • Yes --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • No[a] Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Yes Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Depends, it satisfies WP:V for the claims/findings of its authors, not necessarily for anything else. It should be handled per guidelines on primary sources with the consideration that it's reputably published. Tayi Arajakate Talk 19:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • No, because WP:V is context-based, and these fail on contextual usage due to the author, journal, editorial basis which are delineated as ways to assess exceptional claims.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Yes, Forich (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • No per shibbolethink XOR'easter (talk) 21:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • No WP:BURDEN (part of WP:V) requires that "burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." (emphasis mine) A reliable source is then described in the next section, WP:SOURCE, "The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings [...] All three can affect reliability." Per my analysis and that of others, the paper is not a reliable source, and thus cannot be used to satisfy WP:V, since verifiability requires a reliable source. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • No. Context matters, and especially for minority (at best) claims only the strongest sourcing should be used. JoelleJay (talk) 22:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Irrelevant Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Yes, certainly - based on WP:Verifiability. My very best wishes (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Yes, but that's an irrelevantly low bar in this case. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 05:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Only for the opinion of the authors, that differ from other experts. --Kathy262 (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]
(your answer) (please, write it above this text)
  • Does the Segreto and Deigin's paper comply with the WP:MEDRS recommendations?
Answers
(your answer) (please, write it above this text)
  • Can the Segreto and Deigin's paper be considered non-fringe per WP:FRINGE, and does it pass the WP:REDFLAG filter?
Answers
  • No --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • No Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • No Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • No Tayi Arajakate Talk 19:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • No — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Yes - Forich (talk) 20:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • No XOR'easter (talk) 21:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • No Many of its claims have been contradicted or directly refuted by mainstream scientific publications, and the paper does not appear to have garnered any positive (as opposed to sources which then refute it or describe it in other unflattering terms; as described in the previous discussion) citations in such mainstream publications. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • No. JoelleJay (talk) 22:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • No Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Yes for the following reasons: (a) the publication express non-fringe minority views; a lot of other publications discuss the same possibility (hence this is not fringe) (b) BioEssays is a mainstream source on biological subjects, (c) the opinion/analysis in the paper just discusses well known scientific data. My very best wishes (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • No I feel like I've been answering the same question for months. How much longer is this bloody article going to be shopped around by WP:PROFRINGE adherents? Alexbrn (talk) 04:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • No, Still very fringe position currently. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 05:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • No as it is very different from most other sources. --Kathy262 (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]
(your answer) (please, write it above this text)
  • Can the Segreto and Deigin's paper be considered as a secondary source in this context?
Answers
  • No --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Yes[b] Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • No Source seems like more of a database of primary research than an author's analysis in this context. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • No Tayi Arajakate Talk 19:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • No/Depends on how it's used. It is secondary only for undisputed facts, and primary for most of what people want to use it for. (e.g. the sequence analyses, considerations of genetic engineering. In these it creates novel hypotheses based on novel data, and thus is primary.)— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • No. But this is not the question that we are asking. It is a primary source from within the scientific community (albeit from a low-ranked journal) that has managed to be cited in RS secondary sources (news sources, not MEDRS). Whenever a secondsary source acknowledges a primary source, the two can and should be mentioned to backup claims. Forich (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • No XOR'easter (talk) 21:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • No per Shibboleth. "Undisputed facts" can be cited to better sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • No. As has been repeatedly discussed here and elsewhere. JoelleJay (talk) 22:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Irrelevant Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Yes, simply by definition: it provides analaysis and interpretation of data published in other sources. My very best wishes (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • No, for parts relevant to this discussion (e.g. the furin site sequence analysis) much of it is original research. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 05:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
(your answer) (please, write it above this text)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CounterPunch and Al Bawaba[edit]

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

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

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

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

Relevant points here are that

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

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

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

If its uncontroversial then there is no problem to find other WP:RS especially in WP:BLP we shouldn't use sources with questionable reliability and the WP:ONUS for them was not met --Shrike (talk) 17:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "If its uncontroversial then there is no problem to find other WP:RS": that was not the question I asked. I asked whether the two sources are reliable for the specific statements. Whether the same information can be found elsewhere is not relevant. If another source disputed the information then that would make a difference but that has not occurred here. Are the two sources reliable for the specific statements?
  • "the WP:ONUS for them was not met": again that is not the question asked.
Burrobert (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I think that CounterPunch, although it does have some very good content, has a lot of really poor content, including conspiracy theories. It shares writers with deprecated and generally unreliable sources such as GlobalResearch and Unz Review. And a lot of what it publishes is opinion rather than factual, and would rarely be due. Therefore we should both exercise extreme caution and take it on a case by case basis. In this particular case, as I suggest on the article talk page, it's hard to see why the author - a retired conservationist active in the Peace and Freedom Party, whose name and affiliation are currently red links - should be seen as authoritative. I also observed that the cited article appears to have been re-posted unchanged from Dissident Voice, which I don't think has any editorial oversight. A recent discussion of DV here reached a consensus that it is generally unreliable. The article really reads like a press release from Saab's defence campaign, concluding with a link to a petition in support of him.
I'm less familiar with Al Bawaba, but their reporting on Alex Saab seems a little off to me. As NoonIcarus notes on the talk page, their reporting in the cited article[102] seems pretty partisan. It is also almost entirely made up of quotes from the defense team, suggesting it a lot of it is copied from a press release or similar. It seems Al Bawaba has quite a large number of articles on Saab,[103] which are all basically long verbatim quotes from the defense team. The latest, "Defense Team Responds, Alex Saab, is a Victim of a Failing Judicial System in Cape Verde",[104] makes not attempt at neutral reporting. I suspect this is a case of churnalism, with the co-ordinated PR campaign using an online magazine's desire for content to seed biased opinion in the newsphere. I don't know if this is a common MO for al Bawaba, but I think it needs to be treated with extreme caution. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Firstly CounterPunch:
  • “really poor content, including conspiracy theories“ : some examples would be useful. It is such a vague statement that it is meaningless.
  • “It shares writers with deprecated and generally unreliable sources such as GlobalResearch and Unz Review”. I hope this guilt by association argument holds no weight with editors.
  • “whose name and affiliation are currently red links”: funny, because you added the red links. Generally that means you think they deserve their own articles.
  • Dissident Voice: the article was published by CounterPunch which is responsible for content on its site. CounterPunch has editorial oversight.
  • “The article really reads like a press release … “. The statement that is sourced to the article is a simple and uncontroversial factual statement: “On 24 August, according to CounterPunch, the US asked that the period allowed for its response be extended to 7 October”.
Al Bawaba:
  • “the cited article[120] seems pretty partisan”. The statements that are sourced to the article are simple and uncontroversial factual statements: “In August 2021, Saab's defence team asked that the site of his detention be moved from the island of Sal to Praia. It said Saab's health had deteriorated and that he needed access to specialist medical care for his cancer. On 1 September 2021, the Barlavento Court of Appeal granted Saab's request”. and “Saab's defence team asked the Cape Verde courts to refuse Saab's extradition on the grounds that there were legal irregularities associated with his arrest. By September 2021, the request had reached the Cape Verde Constitutional Court”.
  • the second statement sourced to Al Bawaba is verified by the next sentence in the article which reads: "On 8 September 2021 the Constitutional Tribunal of Cape Verde rejected Saab's defence appeal ... ".
Burrobert (talk) 02:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Burrobert:I've never heard of Al Bawbaa, so I won't comment on it without looking in a bit, but I do think that Counterpunch, although it does have some very good content, has a lot of really poor content, including conspiracy theories seems to be accurate. A list of some conspiracy and fringe theories published by the magazine are below:
  • The site has a history of publishing 9/11 conspiracy theories. A 2019 piece claimed that WTC-7 was not hit by a plane like the rest of the complex but was bombed! The bombing let to WTC-7 being destroyed from a fire that burned for 7 hours — until the building collapsed at 5:20 p.m.. A 2021 piece (here is the correct link) endorses the conspiracy theory that the CIA deliberately planted explosives in WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 in order to ensure their collapse, citing a report by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Another article seems to endorse the belief that "Zionists" were responsible for 9/11, stating that In the Western World, Corporatism has become ‘subject’ to Zionism and in consequence Capitalist Democracy has been usurped by the power of a concentrated accumulation of resources – and this- no mere product of ‘happenstance’ – but rather part of a systemic scheme whereby the rich are to get richer and the poor to get poorer? \ When 2.3 Trillion Dollars can ‘go missing’ from an Economy and disappear down a ‘memory hole’ as part of a historical revisionism aka denial; when the very day after the gone missing is ‘announced’ and the Rabbi Dov Zakheim as Comptroller is not held to account because it ‘happens’ there is an attack on the Twin Towers (also WTC 7) and the Pentagon which becomes the focus of attention and a casus belli for war then something is seriously wrong – and psycho political abuse is in operation? Let us also not forget the ‘weapons grade anthrax’ – such the ‘memory hole’?. This isn't the only piece that reiterates the antisemitic canard to attempt to tie Jews to 9/11.
  • On the note of the piece holding "Zionists" responsible for 9/11, there's even more antisemitic conspiracy at this publication! This 2014 piece states that It is forbidden by the censors who channel acceptable opinion to draw parallels with the Nazis’ modus operandi. But if the shoe fits … \ There is Israel’s Mengelian experimentation on caged Gazans, apart from saturation bombing, with nerve gas, depleted uranium, white phosphorous and flechette shells. More, the model of the Reichstag fire false flag has been readily replicated, not least in the 1954 Lavon Affair and, most spectacularly, in 9/11 (whence the five dancing Israelis at Liberty Park?). Practice makes perfect with false flags. Add extra-judicial murders made to order. (For those unfamiliar with "dancing Israelis", see this ADL piece.)
  • A 2017 piece in the magazine also appears to deny the Holodomor, calling it fiction.
  • A 2018 piece appears to deny the existence of the Xinjiang internment camps, calling it a bald and barefaced accusation... made with nary a shred of supporting evidence. The piece also denies widespread abuses against Uyghurs in the region, stating that The deluge of fake news from Western corporate media since the beginning of this year seeks to demonize the Chinese government, painting it as a gross violator of human rights, when the truth is the exact opposite. Another 2018 piece described the internment of over 1 million Muslims as wild allegations. Another piece seems to recommend The Qiao Collective's Chinese state media-filled resource compilation on the topic, as well as deprecated source The Grayzone.
If the source were pseudonymous, I'd be inclined to put it in the same bucket as Zerohedge: it contains some good stuff but also conspiracy theories, and should be deprecated. However, since it's possible to attribute items to an author, I'd say that publications by the magazine are generally unreliable and not due unless referenced by a reliable secondary source. I'd be extremely hesitant to use the source in a [[WP:|BLP]]], even if it were given attribution, and I think that the source would be best avoided altogether in that context. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:27, 15 September 2021 (UTC) (See the RfC below for my current thoughts, which changed based off of vaccine conspiracies and an apparent jarring lack of editorial control.)[]
Re Burrobert on CounterPunch: Conspiracy theory content: who is Israel Shamir, Counterpunch's resident intelligence correspondent? Alternately known as Jöran Jermas and Adam Ermash, Shamir is a fringe writer who has devoted his professional life to exposing the supposed criminality of "Jewish power," a paranoid anti-Semite who curates a website full of links to Holocaust denial and neo-Nazi sites, defenses of blood libel myths, and references to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Ali Abunimah, Hussein Ibish, and Nigel Parry have warned their fellow Palestinian activists to avoid contact with Shamir--Reason.com 2010; Counterpunch [allowed] one of its most popular contributors, Paul Craig Roberts, to air his [9/11] Truther arguments on their website --Stephen M. E. Marmura International Journal of Communication, 2014; “It’s one that you run into time and time again,” [9/11 and now Covid truther Mark Crispin Miller] said on an October 11 episode of CounterPunch Radio. “To the point that I now believe that anyone who uses that phrase [conspiracy theory] in a pejorative sense is a witting or unwitting CIA asset.”--Observer.com, 2017; Alison Weir, Israel Shamir and Gilad Atzmon] are three crypto-antisemites who have been openly circulated in the progressive world, appearing in supposedly leftist publications like CounterPunch in particular... CounterPunch...has published antisemitic writers for many years--Spencer Sunshine, Journal of Social Justice, 2019; CounterPunch keeps citing Global Research well into 2020--Emmee Bevensee, Centre for Analysis of the Radical Right , 2020 (Sunshine lists several examples here; The left-wing magazine CounterPunch has published a significant number of articles condemning Beijing’s repression of Uyghurs in Xinjiang. However, it has also occasionally featured pieces that deny any such thing is taking place.--CodaStory, 2020. See also Jovan Byford here. This may be a small proportion of what CounterPunch publishes, and it has certainly improved since the 2000s, but it means we need to exercise extreme caution. Guilt by association: This isn't guilt by association; it's about assessing reliability on a case by case basis. An article in this publication by an author who also writes for reliable sources might be worth using; an article by an author mainly known for publishing in GlobalResearch, ZeroHedge, Unz, Infowars etc is worth avoiding. Red links: I added links on the assumption that organisations/people we consider noteworthy are likely to be notable in their own right and therefore should have articles. If they're not notable, we need to be certain they are due, so I think red links are an important part of building Wikipedia. If you think they're notable, maybe start the article. Editorial oversight: Sure, CP has editorial oversight over what it publishes, but when it is syndicating articles from sloppier sources, such as Dissident Voice, we need to exercise extra care. Uncontroversial content: I'm not saying we definitely don't want to use this, but I flagged it with "better source" because if it is indeed uncontroversial we should be able to find a better source not drive traffic to a press release from partisans in the story. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Starting at the top:

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

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

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

RfC: CounterPunch[edit]

First close attempt challenged on my talk page and so withdrawn. Can somebody else uninvolved take a look? Thanks.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:06, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

There is consensus in favor of deprecating CounterPunch as a source. This RfC has gone on for nearly a month, and is a pretty good example of the original meaning of the WP:SNOW clause. Namely, I am making a polite request that we not waste any more editor time/effort here. Most, if not all, respondents concur that the site is unreliable, more akin to a blogging platform than a news site. It is agreed by all respondents that they do, however, assert some editorial discretion in who blogs there. An argument was made (and persuasive to the vast majority of respondents) that the direction of those editorial decisions is the issue. Multiple examples were provided of misleading, fringe, or downright false statements published on the site. Many users agreed that the site itself leans towards favoring fringe viewpoints, and publishes such viewpoints preferentially, not indiscriminately. This was the original purpose of the WP:DEPRECATED tag, first awarded to The Daily Mail in 2017. Indeed, many many respondents directly compared CounterPunch to The Daily Mail unfavorably. If most uses of the source would be detrimental to the project, and only very few uses could ever be justified (e.g. WP:ABOUTSELF), then deprecation is the appropriate course of action. We have consensus that this is the situation here. (non-admin closure) — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:43, 9 October 2021 (UTC)}}[]

Uninvolved editor here. Shibbolethink's wording sums up the RFC accurately, so I'll reproduce it here: There is consensus in favor of deprecating CounterPunch as a source. This RfC has gone on for nearly a month, and is a pretty good example of the original meaning of the WP:SNOW clause. Namely, I am making a polite request that we not waste any more editor time/effort here. Most, if not all, respondents concur that the site is unreliable, more akin to a blogging platform than a news site. It is agreed by all respondents that they do, however, assert some editorial discretion in who blogs there. An argument was made (and persuasive to the vast majority of respondents) that the direction of those editorial decisions is the issue. Multiple examples were provided of misleading, fringe, or downright false statements published on the site. Many users agreed that the site itself leans towards favoring fringe viewpoints, and publishes such viewpoints preferentially, not indiscriminately. This was the original purpose of the WP:DEPRECATED tag, first awarded to The Daily Mail in 2017. Indeed, many many respondents directly compared CounterPunch to The Daily Mail unfavorably. If most uses of the source would be detrimental to the project, and only very few uses could ever be justified (e.g. WP:ABOUTSELF), then deprecation is the appropriate course of action. We have consensus that this is the situation here. - David Gerard (talk) 01:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Which of the following best describes the reliability of CounterPunch?

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

Discussion: RfC: CounterPunch[edit]

  • Option 4: CounterPunch has a history of publishing false and fabricated information, including numerous conspiracy theories, and should be deprecated.
    1. As I noted in my comments above, the site's history of publishing 9/11 conspiracy theories is widespread. A 2019 piece claimed that WTC-7 was not hit by a plane like the rest of the complex but was bombed! The bombing let to WTC-7 being destroyed from a fire that burned for 7 hours — until the building collapsed at 5:20 p.m.. A 2021 piece endorses the conspiracy theory that the CIA deliberately planted explosives in WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 in order to ensure their collapse, citing a report by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Another article seems to endorse the belief that "Zionists" were responsible for 9/11, stating that In the Western World, Corporatism has become ‘subject’ to Zionism and in consequence Capitalist Democracy has been usurped by the power of a concentrated accumulation of resources – and this- no mere product of ‘happenstance’ – but rather part of a systemic scheme whereby the rich are to get richer and the poor to get poorer? \ When 2.3 Trillion Dollars can ‘go missing’ from an Economy and disappear down a ‘memory hole’ as part of a historical revisionism aka denial; when the very day after the gone missing is ‘announced’ and the Rabbi Dov Zakheim as Comptroller is not held to account because it ‘happens’ there is an attack on the Twin Towers (also WTC 7) and the Pentagon which becomes the focus of attention and a casus belli for war then something is seriously wrong – and psycho political abuse is in operation? Let us also not forget the ‘weapons grade anthrax’ – such the ‘memory hole’?. This isn't the only piece that reiterates the antisemitic canard to attempt to tie Jews to 9/11.
    2. On the note of the piece holding "Zionists" responsible for 9/11, there's even more antisemitic conspiracy at this publication! This 2014 piece states that It is forbidden by the censors who channel acceptable opinion to draw parallels with the Nazis’ modus operandi. But if the shoe fits … \ There is Israel’s Mengelian experimentation on caged Gazans, apart from saturation bombing, with nerve gas, depleted uranium, white phosphorous and flechette shells. More, the model of the Reichstag fire false flag has been readily replicated, not least in the 1954 Lavon Affair and, most spectacularly, in 9/11 (whence the five dancing Israelis at Liberty Park?). Practice makes perfect with false flags. Add extra-judicial murders made to order. (For those unfamiliar with "dancing Israelis", see this ADL piece.)
    3. A 2017 piece in the magazine also appears to deny the Holodomor, calling it fiction.
    4. A 2018 piece appears to deny the existence of the Xinjiang internment camps, calling it a bald and barefaced accusation... made with nary a shred of supporting evidence. The piece also denies widespread abuses against Uyghurs in the region, stating that The deluge of fake news from Western corporate media since the beginning of this year seeks to demonize the Chinese government, painting it as a gross violator of human rights, when the truth is the exact opposite. Another 2018 piece described the internment of over 1 million Muslims as wild allegations. Another piece seems to recommend The Qiao Collective's Chinese state media-filled resource compilation on the topic, as well as content from deprecated source The Grayzone.
    5. And, to add on to the above, the website has a troubled history of supporting the bogus vaccine-autism conspiracy theory.
    6. Their editorial process is also rather suspect; the magazine has failed to vet the identity of freelance journalists to the extent that it has, in recent years, published literal propaganda made by the GRU without having a clue that the person they were giving a byline to did not exist. And, on top of that, the magazine didn't know that much of the language in those propaganda pieces had been plagiarized from other sources.
Taken together, I don't think consider CounterPunch as a source to be something we can use to verify facts, except possibly in an WP:ABOUTSELF fashion. (And, even with respect to ABOUTSELF, I'd use it with caution given its issues vetting who its contributors actually are.) This publication should be deprecated as a source for facts. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Just looking at the vaccine articles. One is by Richard Gale, who is a hardcore anti-vaxx activist[105] who writes regularly for GlobalResearch[DOTca/author/richard-gale] and The Defender,[106] usually with Gary Null. Several are by Anne McElroy Dachel[107] of anti-vaxx/pro-Ivermectin/Hydroxychloroquine blog Age of Autism.[108]. I hadn't realised quite how bad they were on this. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 4. Per the investigation above, they have promoted numerous conspiracy theories, including antisemitic ones. Not reliable at all and should be deprecated; anything cited to it, if not covered elsewhere, isn't worth saying. Crossroads -talk- 03:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 4 Huh, I knew this publication had a strong POV but I wasn't aware that they routinely spread conspiracy theories. One study describes them as a "an ostensibly left magazine that has given space to white nationalists and antisemites" [109]. Conspiracy theory expert Jovan Byford describes CounterPunch as an antisemitic and conspiracist magazine [110], and a Stanford researcher included CounterPunch on a list of prominent conspiracy sites [111]. Their contributors include numerous conspiracy theorists, including Israel Shamir, 9/11 truther Paul Craig Roberts [112], Wayne Madsen [113], Mark Crispin Miller [114] and others. Scholars Stephen Zunes and John Feffer documented how false claims made by CounterPunch and similar websites about the Albert Einstein Institution ended up on Wikipedia and Sourcewatch [115]. Other nonsense claims by CounterPunch can be found in the Algemeiner [116]. The 9/11 conspiracies, vaccine conspiracies, and Uyghur genocide denialism, as described by Mikehawk, is just icing on the cake at this point. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 09:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • There are over 2,500 references to CounterPunch on Wikipedia. The instructions are that "Requests for comment for deprecation, or for blacklisting or classification as generally unreliable of sources that are widely used in articles, should be registered here using rfc|prop. As usual with RfCs, consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based argument". I suggest putting the RfC in its own section rather than as a appendage of a previous discussion. Burrobert (talk) 10:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Seconding that request. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 4: Regularly publishes conspiracy theories as per Mikehawk excellent analysis shouldn't be used in Wikipedia --Shrike (talk) 10:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I want to comment on the claim that "experts" are regularly published in this source. The fact that they printed in source that promulgate white supremacy and other conspiracy theories raise a big question about their expertise and WP:DUE inclusion on their opinion. If their opinion is really notable we can source to more reputable source if its not then its probably WP:UNDUE to include. --Shrike (talk) 13:31, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 4: - Very good research above, demonstrating why it can't be used. Inf-in MD (talk) 11:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 4. The above research is both informative and alarming. If there are 2500 references to this source on Wikipedia, we should create the consensus necessary to remove them. Generalrelative (talk) 14:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment. I do not know the source, so I will not really submit a vote here (though so far the deprecation case is pretty clear); but I will ask the closer to look in the 10 discussions about CounterPunch and determine in particular:
    If the print version of CounterPunch is any better (see first discussion of CounterPunch);
    Whether deprecation is needed in certain subject areas only (such as 9/11, anti-Semitism, vaccines, China) or a blanket deprecation is needed, as previous discussions have yielded mixed results (and there have been quite a lot of them). That is, are not simply the opinions of folks publishing there, but also the quality of news reporting low. So far, the only case made on this field was about being a conduit for Russian propaganda, but I don't really believe that's per se sufficient reason for deprecation, because whether that's a pattern remains to be seen (forget about PropOrNot, which is by itself dubious), but that certainly speaks much for unreliability.
    How (if to any degree) previous discussions about CounterPunch are to be reconciled with the findings of the current RfC and what seems to be an imminent deprecation.
I specifically ask to double-check these because, unlike in the case of Rolling Stone, which I recently closed, a proposed solution is to deprecate it completely, regardless of content and time frame, which seems to be quite a change given that previous (including relatively recent) discussions gave a "yeah, better avoid it because of strong bias, but ultimately it's not the worst" rating. Ultimately the result of this RfC will greatly influence RSP position of the source. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Very good points Szmenderowiecki. Re the dissonance with previous discussions, my sense is that previously nobody bothered to provide examples of unreliability but generally voted according to political position, plus vaccine disinformation has become weightier since the pandemic and the GRU creating a fake persona to publish at CounterPunch was revealed after most of the discussions. (Possibly ironically, as to my mind CP has actually improved since the GRU op used it.) To specify the subject areas where it should be avoided: anything to do with US foreign policy, the war on terror, Russian or Chinese geopolitical interests or domestic politics, the Syria war, anything to do with Israel/Jews/the Holocaust. Vaccines should go with out saying per WP:MEDRS but worth mentioning to flag that they have been especially egregious in this area. It BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 4 due to a concerning lack of editorial oversight, as well as the detail explanation above. This is particularly important given the amount of times it is used in articles. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Note added to WP:UPSD as deprecated. Will update if the close ends up different, but it's snowing. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 4 per Mikehawk10 and Dr. Swag Lord. I think the deprecation should be a blanket one, because many of the issues are egregious and spread across many topic areas. GretLomborg (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 3+. Per Mikehawk10 and Dr. Swag Lord, the site has regularly published conspiracy theories and publishes several extremely fringe writers, including antisemitic ones, so it should be rated at least generally unreliable. I have reservations about blanket deprecation, because it does publish some notable writers who we might want to cite if due, so would prefer a case by case approach but with a presumption against use. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    @Bobfrombrockley: I don't think that we could meaningfully take a scalpel and carve particular islands of (un)reliability from the remainder of the publication. I've provided the various conspiracy theories that are being published; I think the scope of those conspiracies reflects the magazine's poor reliability for politics, generally. For me, a political newsletter being deprecation-worthy in the area of politics is fatal, especially for a publication that seems to describe its content as news articles. While we could interpret the deprecation-worthy areas to be very narrow with respect to those particular conspiracies listed above, I think that the publication of these conspiracy theories reflects so poorly over the entire editorial operation that CounterPunch shouldn't be used as a source for facts in articles. After all, how can we trust content from a source that publishes that "Zionists" are responsible for 9/11? Even if the absolute most that could be done would be to consider everything as WP:SPS given a clear lack of editorial oversight and fact-checking from the CounterPunch staff, the fact that their author vetting system has failed so badly (Alice Donovan did not actually exist, but was credited with articles that were literal Russian propaganda) makes me not feel fully confident to attribute the site's content to the particular person named as the article's author. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 3+ or 4 it is. My very best wishes (talk) 00:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 4, obvious fake news and conspiracies being pushed here. 11Fox11 (talk) 09:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 2 obviously. Counterpunch is essentially a group blog, and it does not confer reliability by being published there. However, when an expert in their field writes something on Counterpunch it is usable for that experts view. For example here is an article by Dean Baker. Is anybody going to argue that Dean Baker cannot be cited? The specifics matter here, and the effort to deprecate a source for links that nobody would ever use (pray tell how many of the counterpunch links that are actually used on Wikipedia are in any way objectionable?) in order to remove the citations that nobody can object to on their own standing is a tad concerning. nableezy - 13:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The impression that I get is that deprecation is for sources that "[publish] false or fabricated information" (either deliberately or negligently with little effort to get things right or make corrections), and it does not matter how much accurate information is mixed in with it. WP:DEPRECATED#Acceptable_uses_of_deprecated_sources says deprecated sources can still be used in WP:ABOUTSELF cases, and I think that would apply to the article authors speaking about themselves and their own views. Also if Dean Baker is actually an established subject-matter expert, I would expect he's published elsewhere and those sources can be cited for his views instead of a deprecated one. - GretLomborg (talk) 17:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
CounterPunch makes no claim to any editorial control, the only thing that matters for a site like that is the author. CounterPunch is not the source, it is a convenience link for the actual source, that being the author. For things like the Daily Mail, where the articles are written by staff members and controlled by editors, then the editorial process certainly is what should matter. CounterPunch is not that, it is essentially an op-ed repository. What matters with op-eds is the author. And of course Baker is published elsewhere, but this specific column may not be. If Baker published something on his personal blog it would be usable, so too would it be if he publishes on CounterPunch. nableezy - 20:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
You say that Counterpunch is essentially a group blog, and it does not confer reliability by being published there...CounterPunch makes no claim to any editorial control. If that's the case, then this source would automatically fail WP:RS and would be considered WP:QUESTIONABLE, even if experts occasionally write for CounterPunch. However, I'm not sure it can be considered a "group blog" or an "op-ed repository" when they have a CEO, a mailing address, an editorial team, print editions of their magazines, their own radio show, their own merchandise, and their own books [117]. Not to mention, CounterPunch is a registered 501(c)(3) non-profit organization whose stated mission is to help readers make informed and balanced assessments – vital for a healthy democratic society – on the public issues of the day. It does this by providing credible reporting and commentary in its magazine CounterPunch, on its website (www.counterpunch.org) and by publishing non-fiction books. [118]. I don't believe 9/11 conspiracies or genocide denial is vital for a "democratic society" and is certainly not "credible reporting." Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Very much no, it would mean that determining the reliability of any particular piece would depend on the author. New York Times op-eds also are published in print. As far as the argmentum ad aburdum at the end there, who is citing 9/11 conspiracies or genocide denial? The things that are written by experts in the field they are writing in are usable sources even if self-published. CounterPunch should be treated as though it were a self-publishing outlet, where reliability is determined by the author. There are no staff writers there, every single piece is attributed to an outside contributor. That contributor determines the reliability. I dont actually understand why you think its tax status is relevant, but cool story? nableezy - 20:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
You keep insisting that CounterPunch "should" be treated as a self-publishing outlet. This conflates with the reality of the situation: CounterPunch is not a self-published source. It has editorial control (albeit, highly inept editorial control). You may also want to check out WP:SOURCES. The work, author, and publisher of the work can all affect reliability. A piece of work written by a respected expert who gets published by Cambridge University Press is probably going to be a reliable source. A piece of work written by a respected expert who gets published by a conspiracy site like CounterPunch is probably not going to be treated as a reliable source. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 08:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Consult it yourself, youll find that That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. When an expert writes something, even on their own personal website, it is citable. When an expert writes something on CounterPunch it would still be appropriate to use as the work of an established expert. I dont think you actually know how wide, and silly, a brush your painting with here. Vijay Prashad (published by such university presses as OUP, University of California Press), Dean Baker (published by MIT, Cambridge, University of Chicago and on and on), Peter Mayo, Ralph Nader, Bernie Sanders are all currently featured on their front page. Any and all of these would be appropriate to cite for their own views, including their own views expressed on CounterPunch, and in all but the last two they are clearly established experts in their area of academic expertise. CounterPunch, the website, is very much a group blog. They do not make any claim to fact-checking, which means that the author's reputation is what should matter. nableezy - 19:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Any and all of these would be appropriate to cite for their own views, including their own views expressed on CounterPunch. I fully agree with you. You do realize that depreciation would still allow us to use CounterPunch for WP:ABOUTSELF reasons? However, you may run into problems if you attempt to use CounterPunch outside of the expert's article. They do not make any claim to fact-checking. This is again incorrect. Part of their mission is to provide credible reporting. What do you think credible reporting means? It means trustworthy and factual accounts. In other words: fact-checking. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
It would fail ABOUTSELF, they aren't writing about themselves. The article by Henry Giroux there rn for example is about Paulo Freire, a topic Giroux is an unquestionably solid source on, and that piece should be able to be cited. Even if it is hosted on CounterPunch. Again, I have no idea why you are talking about their 501c3 registration or their mission statement, they have an editor in that a person selects which pieces to host and which not, but no they do not do any fact checking of the hosted pieces. The website at least is very much a group blog. nableezy - 20:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 4, I have little to add to the excellent editors above me, all of the arguments I would make have already been made and I just want to endorse them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 4 - Per all of the above. It is clearly not a reliable outlet. Grayfell (talk) 23:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 4 Regularly publishes disinformation and should not be used on Wikipedia. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 10:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 4 - Persistent publication of disinfo. Neutralitytalk 16:33, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 2: It is kind of amusing, seeing editors list the mistakes that CounterPunch has done over the years, and using that as a excuse to ban them all out. Does anyone remember how MSM (say, New York Times) all "knew" that Saddam had WMD? Or that Muammar Gaddafi, for sure! was going to massacre the people of Bengasi? All lies; and lies that cost the lives of hundred of thosands of innocent people (At the same time as it greatly increased the profit of Western weapon-manufactures, and Western oil companies). Shall we then ban, say the New York Times for their persistent false info, wrt to Iraq and Libya? I think not. Nor do I think CounterPunch should be banned, even if it has gotten the story wrong, at times, Huldra (talk) 23:54, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    I think that framing articles that baselessly claim that the "Zionists" did 9/11 as mistakes doesn't quite do it justice—factual mistakes result in corrections or retractions at reputable newspapers. None of those are present in the CounterPunch articles linked above. The fact that the content is live on their website shows a near-total lack of editorial control, a willingness to publish conspiracies without regard for factual accuracy, and a demonstrated lack of correcting verifiably false information. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Lol, NYT still has up that baselessly claim that the Saddam pursued atomic weapons, eg by Judith Miller: link; archive. Sooooo: " The fact that the content is live on their website shows a near-total lack of editorial control, a willingness to publish conspiracies without regard for factual accuracy, and a demonstrated lack of correcting verifiably false information"? Shall we ban the NYT, now? cheers, (PWS: I really, really hate double standards) Huldra (talk) 23:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Huldra I’m not seeing what you say is in that article in there... Where exactly does it say that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
"More than a decade after Saddam Hussein agreed to give up weapons of mass destruction, Iraq has stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and has embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb", quting the Bush administration as if they were telling the truth,Huldra (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The New York Times editorial board issued a full apology for their reporting on WMD and Saddam Hussein. [119] [120] Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I have never seen NYT (or any other MSM) aplologise for the lies about Gaddafi, have you? Huldra (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 4. Considering that now it's "no consensus" maybe start with Option 3 and defer to the editors' judgement. This days the accusations of promoting conspiracy theories get thrown at everyone but in this case it's hard not to agree with it. Alaexis¿question? 19:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment. Good grief. Utterly bizarre.

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

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

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

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

  • Option 2 - The evidence presented against Counterpunch is enough to suggest that we can't rely on the publication's editors fact-checking the contributions. But, the evidence thus far suggests that a significant portion of the contributors, possibly even a majority, are experts in their field who are citeable regardless of the editorial staff. Randomly clicking on the current front page, the only articles not written by academics were ones written by a circuit judge and an activist. It's certainly not generally reliable, but if a significant portion of the source's content is written by experts in relevant fields then that sounds more like "Unclear or additional considerations apply" than anything else. signed, Rosguill talk 04:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Re Nishidani and Rosguill: I agree CP publishes some significant authors whose opinion might occasionally be due, which is why I argued for option 3 not 4. But the list of "reputable professionals most with academic work to their name and reliably published elsewhere" given here doesn't inspire confidence. Gareth Porter, who says that Assad isn't responsible for chemical attacks in Syria; Ray McGovern, who compared 9/11 to the Reichstag fire and said the DNC hack was an inside job; Tariq Ali, who claimed the White Helmets are actually al-Qaeda[121]; Lenni Brenner, whose work is cited by Holocaust denialists and has been called an "antisemitic hoax";[122] Diana Johnstone, whose work denies the basic facts of the Yugoslav war and who used her Counterpunch column to say that there's no evidence that Marine Le Pen is antisemitic. A 2015 analysis done by one anti-Zionist activist showed that the content by significant leftist writers such as Pilger was dwarfed by the quantity of content by white supremacists and cranks, with Gilad Atzmon, Israel Shamir and Alison Weir getting a large number of columns, and Paul Craig Roberts and Franklin Lamb being among the most published authors.[123] BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
For its time, Lenni Brenner's work was pathfinding, a point of departure, not arrival. Anyone can play that game Bob. I see you cite Paul Bogdanor, 'An Antisemitic Hoax: Lenni Brenner on Zionist ‘Collaboration’ With the Nazis,' Fathom get at Lenni Brenner as another 'self-hating Jew' (by the way a large number of contributors to CounterPunch happen to be Jewish, and anti-Zionist, and are never forgiven for breaking ranks. I remember Bogdanor's reliability being questioned for one or two wikibios years back because of his perceived rhetoric of smearing and guilt by association, and consensually excluded. Suffice it to read his puerile attempt to take the measure of Noam Chomsky in the 2017 book. As for the rest, give me the name of a journalist with an impeccable record for making the correct call throughout their careers. Thomas Friedman? who fell, like several dozen other major names in the trade, Christopher Hitchens etc. hook line and sinker for the known fairy tale manufactured by the Bush administration to get a justification for invading Iraq? Every major journalist or scholar will have some skeleton in the closet. Not by that token must it be dragged out on every occasion to smear the general professionalism. Giorgio Bocca, one of Italy’s finest postwar journalists, when he was a 19 years old apprentice, raised almost completely within Fascism, paraphrased the Protocols of Zion to make a point about what he called Zionist imperialism back in 1939. He woke up to the bullshit he had been fed when war broke out, and joined the resistance. He became a star of postwar critical journalism, and happened to be in Israel in 1967 when the war broke out, writing for the mainstream Corriere della Sera. His articles noted that Israelis appeared untroubled by the implications of their occupation of the West Bank. This was unforgiveable and soon after, and for 2 decades he was hounded on numerous occasions by people waving photostats of his juvenile piece, suggesting he was a doctrinaire antisemite and not to be trusted in anything he wrote, merely because he made a negative murmur about Israel's problems. That was bullshit of course, and never affected the recognition broadly given him as a great investigative journalist. Examples of this tactic are becoming legion: especially now in the witchhunts for putative antisemites under every rug or nook and cranny. Dissent from an orthodoxy is not acceptable. And let me add, I find Gilad Atzmon well worth reading (and indeed listening to, esp. when he engages with Yaakov Shapiro, an ultra-orthodox rabbi who isn't hamstrung by fear of arguments). I find nothing scandalous in CP airing his views here and there. I don't share his views; I'm stimulated by the spectre of the straightjacket he thinks he was born in and his wild Houdini like philosophical struggle to wriggle out of those toils. He's dealing with a personal crisis of identity, and no one in the fold should feel menaced, since his use of 'Jew' is self-reflexive.) I'm not unnerved by prejudice. I am unnerved by attempts to police minority views out of sight. CounterPunch does not cater to conspiracies, or regularly run fake news as is being repeatedly asserted here. We should use it when the author is a respected expert in their field, and has useful information. That is not an endorsement of CP, but commonsense.Nishidani (talk) 16:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Yeah, I honestly struggled with whether option 2, 3 or even 4 best fit my assessment of the situation; after all, even deprecated sources are technically OK for use if the article in question is a verifiable relevant expert. My concern is that I'm honestly unsure as to the balance of reputable vs crank on Counterpunch, and at such a juncture I think it would be foolish to push for anything other than an "unclear/no consensus" outcome. A lot of editors in this discussion (and other reliability discussions) clearly hold the perspective that any valid cause for doubt is reason for deprecation, which I think is a bit reckless. I would like to see more analyses like the Meldungen source you cite that actually attempt to answer what the balance of content is. signed, Rosguill talk 14:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
No, some of the outside contributors who have articles hosted on CP have cited WP as a source. The two I checked arent written by established experts and as such should not be cited. Please try to recognize that saying "CounterPunch" does something is essentially meaningless, given there are no staff writers and every piece is attributed to an outside contributor. That outside contributor cited WP, and that may well mean that column should not be cited. It does not mean that the work by actual experts (eg Henry Giroux writing about Paulo Freire are any less reliable. nableezy - 15:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 2. The amount of unacknowledged borrowing from or accessing of, Wikipedia by (mainstream) journalists is highly notable: anyone who has worked to secure quality in several areas of the encyclopedia must be familiar with the experience of seeing, even in turns of phrase, recurrent unacknowledged reliance on our anonymous work. The frenetic know-all expectations of a 24/7 newscycle stresses the need both to be competitive in the market, and knowledgeable at speed by casting for data bases that provide one with a quick overview or research point of departure. We should be both proud of that, and, at the same time, demand of ourselves and the articles we assist in writing rigorous criteria to ensure that what is on a page is reliable. But that has a caveat.
Wiki is programmed for neutrality - but that does not translate out as restricting what we add to it to 'mainstream newspaper sources', since they too have their editorial biases. The New York Times or the Washington Post will not tell its readers most of the details about the Middle East conflict that any reader of the mainstream Israeli press can garner, for example. The latter leaves that to the lower circulation, highbrow New York Review of Books, which, in its articles, extends the scope and focus to the less comfortable details you get in the Israeli press, or academia or on any number of 'muckraking' counter-systemic publications like Mondoweiss and Counterpunch. It makes that partition in coverage apparently on a rather cynical analysis of what the respective readerships can tolerate. Our neutrality therefore cannot acquiesce in the rather simplistic idea that the 'mainstream' press tells it all (WP:Systemic bias). In discussing RS on controversial topics, one would make a grievous error to make Wikipedia merely a pipeline or mirror of mainstream papers, official policy papers or the output of positioned and prestigious national thinktanks -most of which are locked into a normative narrow national interest perspective. The key point is to look at the quality of the authorship, not the venue, though I think one must give pause while considering that the absurd caricature we have above in a short laundry list of offbeat articles over 27 years should not undercut our awareness that a venue established by a distinguished family of professional journalists- Alexander Cockburn, Andrew Cockburn and Patrick Cockburn who work or worked for numerous mainstream papers and monthlies cannot be dismissed out of hand as fringe, unreliable, or their counter mainstream reportage trashed as incompetent paranoia mongering. I for one only read perhaps 5% of what Mondoweiss or Counterpunch offers, on the basis of the professional qualifications of the authors hosted. A blanket dismissal of such websites, as is proposed here, would seriously damage the comprehensiveness of our coverage. I join Rosquill and Nableezy: if the 4 options we are given are the straightjacket in which we must 'vote', option two is the way to go. Nishidani (talk) 09:15, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Nishidani Is it correct to say the Cockburn family rather than Alexander specifically founded it? If so, does it being a family enterprise make it more reliable? Especially when the father was famous for publishing fake news from the Spanish Civil War on Moscow's orders, as per our article on him? BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:07, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
By that link I meant to show that the Cockburns, apart from Claud (whose memoirs I read with some skepticism when they came out in one volume) have for 2 generations cut their teeth on journalism, and the three sons, now two, were/are acknowledged to be very professional and highly knowledgeable writers in that field. Yes, their father was a communist, and faked news. Unless you religiously believe that the sins of the fathers are visited on their sons (Deuteronomy 5:9, corrected however at Deut.24:16), your point is guilt by association. Cockburn opposed appeasement on the other hand which notable parts of the British establishment commended. There are two forms of reporterly deception which wikipolicy doesn't appear to grasp in their complicit forms:one is outright misrepresentation of the facts (we cope with that by our RS criteria). The other consists of knowingly excluding crucial information that has been ascertained and written up by experts, scholars, etc. Our 'mainstream' guidelines fail to come up with measures to cope with this. Everytime I click on any number of endless links to the The Algemeiner, Tablet, Jewish News, I read rubbish, a soothing spin for a comforting community-wide POV, thoroughly addicted to suppressing any fact that might render their simplistic narratives more nuanced. None of them can call on the range of expertise CounterPunch draws on. Yet no one complains. The difference is only that CounterPunch is 'leftist' (whatever that means) or counter-consensual. Several of the erase-as-deprecatable find nothing wrong with that kind of source. Neutrality demands that all significant points of view, per WP:Due, be heard. Erasure of a source like this is simply censoring a legitimate source of querying of a mainstream narrative, frequently by authoritative scholars, journalists and writers. Worse, it is a form of laziness. One should read, where possible, everything relevant, rather than restrict what can be read for use to a handful of centrist news organs, which we all know, share variously particular interests and POVs. It's the devil's advocate side of good reportage.Nishidani (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Not really sure alternatively blaming the CIA and the Jews for 9/11 is the devil's advocate side of good reportage. I agree that sources that will buck mainstream Western narratives at times, like Reason, Al Jazeera, Kommersant, and The New Indian Express are good to use for providing balance. But, the difference lies in the how these sorts of established news organizations (a) fact-check before publication and (b) respond when they find factual errors in their reporting. If the organization engages in fact-checkign before printing information and responds by issuing corrections and retractions when their coverage is factually incorrect, those represent editorial control and help to build a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. CounterPunch, however, does not appear to do this to any reasonable extent; I have no clue how the ol' "Jews-did-9/11" trope would slip through multiple times if CounterPunch actually was an entity with a habit of producing good reportage that we could confidently use to verify facts. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 2 per excellent contributions from Nableezy and Nishidani and others. --NSH001 (talk) 09:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 4. While editors have established that otherwise-reliable sources do write articles for it, Dr. Swag Lord makes an excellent point about WP:SOURCES; that the work, the creator, and the publisher all affect reliability. In this case, that means we have to take into account the fact that these sources choose to write a particular article for a publisher who regularly publishes false and fabricated information and not a more reliable publisher. Because of this, the only prudent course of action is to depreciate the publisher and through them the particular article in question, unless the particular article has also been published in reliable sources with an editorial process added later to correct ambiguity, see below. Summoned by the bot; unclear to which RfC, and so drew the short straw BilledMammal (talk) 12:01, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 4, at mosta 3+++. This site is full of crap and conspiracy theories by nobodies. Sometimes more significant people post there when they can't publish what they want to say elsewhere. No editorial oversight to speak of. Free1Soul (talk) 16:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 4 - "All significant viewpoints" - if the only place you can find a particular point of view is CounterPunch, that's probably a sign that the point of view is not WP:DUE. We can, should, and must demand better from our sources. We don't need to dig in the deepest cesspits of muck to include fringe nonsense. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 2 per Nableezy, Nishidani, and Rosguill, and Option 3 per BobFromBrockley; in general anything but 1 and 4. We may mention that they have published authors with fringe views or who have promoted conspiracy, or that it should not be used for key facts or controversies, but that articles written by academic and subject-matters can be used if due, and caution to be careful. I do not understand how that means we have to take into account the fact that these sources [I assume they mean the author] choose to write a particular article for a publisher who regularly publishes false and fabricated information and not a more reliable publisher. Does that mean any academic or subject-expert is no longer reliable because they have written for CounterPunch? Either way, I err on the case of caution per Rosquill, and that it would be foolish to push for anything other than an "unclear/no consensus" outcome. I also concur that it would be helpful, rather than cite controversial CounterPunch's own articles (e.g. the Holodomor being 'fiction' refers to the etymological sense to emphasize that it was a genocide and deliberate, on which there is a dispute about among scholars; [t]here was a very serious famine in the USSR, including (but not limited to) the Ukrainian SSR, in 1932–33. But there has never been any evidence of a 'Holodomor' or 'deliberate famine' ...), to cite more analyses like the Meldungen source ... that actually attempt to answer what the balance of content is. Davide King (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Thank you for pointing out that lack of clarity; I believe it is more clear now. BilledMammal (talk) 00:03, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 4, full of conspiracy theories on 9/11 and vaccinations.Nyx86 (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 4 - it’s a shame to see a once great publication come crashing down like this. I still remember at the outset of the wars after 9/11 (specifically the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq) when it used to publish exposes that nobody in the mainstream media dared to touch with a ten foot pole. Somewhere along the line things took a very wrong turn and now it’s just a cottage industry of conspiracy theories. The example of its position on vaccines is one I had no idea about till I read this comment section and one find especially disappointing and alarming. I can understand why it or anybody would see big pharma as the great satan but this can’t come at the cost of playing god with people’s lives. (Which in essence is what they are doing by telling people to not get vaccinated) Estnot (talk) 22:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Comment. Do you really think you can get away with that kind of counterfactual rubbish? Counterfactual rubbish. Again, ‘votes’ which are based on a blatant form of dismissive caricature that ignore the factual record and the fact that editorially, CounterPunch doesn't dictate a line. It hosts numerous contrasting viewpoints and leaves it to its readers individually to judge. E.g. numerous recent endorsements of anti covid vaccination and control methods such as here, here, here, and here (deconstructing conspiracy theories of Covid and China, or here and here, to cite just this last month or so.Nishidani (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
was your comment to me? Estnot (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Comment I am totally dismayed about the double-standard here; with MSM all sorts of wrong info is accepted for years, and nobody here wants to ban them. I have mentioned false information by The New York Times above, I can also mention the "info" by Luke Harding in The Guardian about a meeting between Paul Manafort and Assange; a meeting for which there is exactly zero evidence, and which other reportes now take as a joke. (The article/lie is still up, and the Guardian has never apologised). If we treated The Guardian as some here wants to treat CounterPunch, then The Guardian would no longer be a WP:RS. Huldra (talk) 22:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
was your comment to me? Estnot (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
MY comment was to all (who treat Counterpunch differently from The Guardian, or the NYT); not to a specific editor. And I could link to further absurdhoods from Harding in The Guardian about Assange/Trumph; just in the last month or two) Huldra (talk) 23:41, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 2 - per Nishidani and Huldra. You can say most news sources or opinion tabloids as untrustworthy if you "cherry picked" articles. I don't see how this is any different from WP or NYT. Qiushufang (talk) 00:49, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Comment - how convenient of you to show up here AFTER I have voted and while we are in the middle of two edit wars. Estnot (talk) 02:15, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 4 I'm not sure why the integrity of NYT and other reliable sources is being questioned when they have a clear history of retracting and apologizing for errors. From what I've seen, CounterPunch is too busy pursuing scandals to establish actual, non-conspiracy support for their most fringe theories. Even if their conspiracy articles make up an arbitrary 1 in 100 of their pieces, the risks of recognizing CounterPunch as a quality source outweigh the benefits of including them as references. RFZYNSPY talk 21:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 4 Per WP:Source, articles should rely on published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Counterpunch regularly blurs news with opinion and under the guise of muckracking had published unsubstantiated and misleading material regarding notable issues such as the Holocaust or vaccines. It can be used to substantiate the author's opinion but no further. Crystalfile (talk) 15:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 4, fake news on 9/11 and vaccinations. It is worse than a random website, because we know this website publishes fake news. --Kathy262 (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 4, as it has been well-established as a purveyor of disinformation. Amigao (talk) 20:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 4 Counterpunch has minimal editorial oversight - no guidelines, fact-checking, corrections or retractions - and is awash with conspiratorial nonsense as MikeHawk10 above demonstrates. AllOtherNamesWereTaken (talk) 11:17, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 4, minimal if any positive editorial oversight, they regularly publish conspiracies.--Droid I am (talk) 09:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment The Media Bias/Fact Check find it "left bias" and "Mostly accurate": (link), while
Ad Fontes Media find CounterPunch has a reliability score of 29.04 (where "Scores above 24 are generally acceptable; scores above 32 are generally good"), while bias (to the left) is -20.33 (on a scale of -42 to + 42,) link, Huldra (talk) 20:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I don't think that Media Bias/Fact Check and Ad fontes Media are really all that reliable, and neither does WP:RSP. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
AD Fontes also give a score of 30.61 to WP:Daily Mail which is higher then Counterpunch. So I think the conclusion is obvious --Shrike (talk) 10:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 2. The number of "me too" !votes here is a real concern. Only a handful have provided any evidence. CounterPunch is a blog aggregator, not a newspaper. More like a publisher than a source in itself. If we banned publishers according to the most atrocious material they ever published, there would be very few left and even many esteemed university presses would bite the dust. Individual articles on CounterPunch are the responsibility of their authors and should be judged according to the expertise of the author. Some of the articles are appalling and absolutely must not be used as sources, while others are perfectly fine essays by mainstream experts. Zerotalk 01:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • How is a "blog aggregator" marginally reliable? Surely, if we're treating this as a self-published blogging platform, the above would lean it towards being no better than generally unreliable, just like Medium. And, given that there are actually people who pick which stories they originally publish—it's not as if I can put something up on the CounterPunch website just by making my own blog—I think that the (lack of) fact-checking by CounterPunch does actually put this in a worse category than Medium or BlogSpot.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikehawk10 (talk • contribs)
I didn't say CounterPunch is reliable, I said that articles are the responsibility of their authors. CounterPunch is not an open blog; they choose to allow or disallow articles. But they do not offer any type of fact-checking nor do they promise that articles are correct. Actually, op-eds in mainstream newspapers are not fact-checked either; that's a wiki-myth. Unless you think that CounterPunch maliciously alters the articles that are published there, only the expertise of the author is relevant to deciding reliability. Zerotalk 13:28, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • This argument was brought and was debunked they do have editorial board[145] but the problem that their editorial control is similar to WP:Dailymail --Shrike (talk) 05:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 2. Seems odd that a potentially valuable contribution might be rendered unusable for its mere appearance in Counterpunch. Verify as one might for any other source and attribute as necessary.Selfstudier (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 4. Worse than the WP:DAILYMAIL, they regularly showcase 9/11 and vaccine conspiracy theories. It is a cesspool that published what nobody else is willing to publish.--Hippeus (talk) 17:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) as Source[edit]

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

Which of the following best describe the work of ASPI:

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

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

  • Comment @Vladimir.copic: The ordinary 4-option RfC for source reliability would allow for WP:BIASED sources to also be WP:GREL, which is in line with the reliable sources guideline. The current format doesn't really allow for that, since "neutrality disputed" would be mutually exclusive with "generally reliable". I'd recommend changing option 2 into the standard Unclear or additional considerations apply or the alternative marginally reliable or additional considerations apply. Otherwise, this is a Bad RfC.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC) (Seeing as the format for the RfC has been updated, I am striking this comment so as to not confuse people who decide to participate in the RfC below. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC))[]
Thanks Mikehawk10. I originally had this format but I thought option 4 was unnecessary for this source and might make me look biased. Fixed it up now. Vladimir.copic (talk)
  • Option 2. Certainly they seem to have expertise in their field, but some serious concerns have been raised regarding their objectivity and I can't find any indication that what they published is substantially fact checked or peer reviewed. So, might be usable in some cases, but with case by case evaluation, and almost certainly with attribution (if at all) if other reliable sources don't corroborate what they're saying. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 2 As an ex-ADF member with an abiding interest in defence matters, I read ASPI papers and listen to their podcasts, but almost all of what they put out is opinion, although there are often some solid facts included in what they say. Founded by government and supported by defence industry, they are proponents to government of particular policies in the defence and defence industry area, and a pseudo lobby group, and they rarely compare and contrast ideas that clash with their own. Their work needs to be in-text attributed in most cases when it might be appropriate to use them. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 1 They're frequently cited as authoritative by many clearly established WP:RS, so they at least pass the WP:USEBYOTHERS criterion. For example:
  • New York Times: [146] (article mainly based off findings of an ASPI report, "Researchers at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute on Thursday challenged those claims with an investigation"),
  • New York Times: [147] (article mainly based off findings of an ASPI report, "according to new estimates by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, which analyzed satellite imagery"),
  • New York Times: [148] (article heavily cites ASPI, "This approach reached an all-time high last year, according to a report published last week by researchers at the International Cyber Policy Center of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, or ASPI.").
  • Guardian: [149] (article mainly based off findings of an ASPI report, "The revelations are contained in an expansive data project by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), which used satellite imagery and on-the-ground reporting to map...")
  • Guardian: [150] (article mainly based off findings of an ASPI report, "...according to analysts from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI).")
  • Guardian: [151] (article mainly based off findings of an ASPI report, "...an Australian thinktank has found....according to the latest satellite imaging obtained by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute....In total ASPI identified")
  • Deutsche Welle: [152] (article mainly based off findings of an ASPI report, "In a new report, Uighurs for sale, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) identified at least 27 factories across China where detainees from camps in the western region of Xinjiang had been relocated since 2017.)
  • Deutsche Welle: [153] (article mainly based off findings of an ASPI report, "The Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) published a report last week...)
  • Deutsche Welle: [154] (cites ASPI, "Fergus Hanson at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) thinks...")
The above list is by no means exhaustive, and was quickly and easily compiled by searching "The Australian Strategic Policy Institute" on the news outlet websites and looking at the first few links returned. - GretLomborg (talk) 22:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 2 Looking at the above comments I think this source should only be used with in-text attribution or when the information is independently verified by another reliable source. There seem to be reasonable concerns around the independence of ASPI's work even though it is probably quite rigorous. Some of their work (like the unitracker) would be a stretch to describe as "factual reporting". Because ASPI's work is mainly on contentious topics, I think it is prudent to be explicit when using their work. The above argument of WP:USEBYOTHERS is compelling but the sources all explicitly point back to ASPI as their source. Australian sources (opinion pieces admittedly) and politicians have also questioned ASPI's independence ([155] [156]). Sources explicitly attribute the work to ASPI and I think we should do the same. Vladimir.copic (talk) 02:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Re: "the sources all explicitly point back to ASPI as their source": that's to be expected, because my list was compiled by explicitly looking for those pointers in WP:RS media. It's impossible (or at least extremely impractical) to find instances where a source is used by a WP:RS without being attributed at all. Also it should be noted that newspapers and Wikipedia have different attribution practices: newspapers typically only do attribution in-text since they don't use footnotes and you can't hyperlink newsprint, so a newspaper doing an in-text attribution doesn't imply that Wikipedia should follow the same practice. However, I think the key point is that ASPI wasn't just cited as credible in a larger story, but in many cases its reports are credible enough for high-quality WP:RS to base the factual content of whole stories off of them directly. Re: "Australian sources (opinion pieces admittedly) and politicians have also questioned ASPI's independence ([10] [11]).": I can't read the first link due to paywall/adblocker nonsense, but the second article actually supports the independence of ASPI, showing that it is not subject to government interference and it frequently takes positions different from its government (e.g. Iraq war is a bad idea), etc. I put zero weight in the opinions of any politician on the reliability of any source (it's likely that for every well known WP:RS you can think of, you can dig up some politician strongly denouncing it). The stuff about funding coming from places like Western governments, NATO, etc. has been a perennial controversy for all kinds of sources, but in every case I'm aware it's actually been irrelevant. Where they get their funding doesn't matter to Wikipedia. - GretLomborg (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I managed to read the first link you listed that I had trouble with earlier. It's an opinion piece and a rather tendentious one at that. As part of its argument it minimizes the re-education camps in Xinjiang. It said "There is no proof of the genocide of the Uighur people. There is proof of the detention of some for political purposes, and there is proof of the intimidation and repression of many others." I think the absolute lowest credible estimates of people detained in reeducation camps in Xinjiang is in the hundreds of thousands, and the main estimates here are all more than a million, which is definitely more than "some." That opinion piece seems to represent a view towards the fringes rather than a mainstream one. It's worth noting that the ASPI is one of the main bugbears for the Chinese government and Western fringe sources with an interest in denying or minimizing what's happening in Xinjiang. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 1 and attribute. A look at WP:USEBYOTHERS makes a convincing case that the Australian Strategic Policy institute is a highly-respected think tank that is relied on for facts by reliable sources. Academic sources that have cited it as a source for facts include numerous peer-reviewed papers across a variety of subjects, some of which are listed below in the collapsed section below (though this list is by no means exhaustive and probably could be expanded upon widely):
Some peer-reviewed academic sources using ASPI
More recently, there's been widespread use of ASPI's investigative reporting in news media, particularly with reference to Uyghurs and Xinjiang. When the ASPI report Uyghurs for Sale described Uyghurs being sold en masse, Los Angeles Times stated in its own voice that [i]t's the latest step in a campaign of forced assimilation into Han Chinese culture through mass detention, reeducation and labor that Beijing has implemented in Xinjiang since 2017 — one that now reaches global supply chains and U.S. consumers. China Digital Times stated that the report documented likely forced Uyghur labor in factories providing exports for global brands. Maclean's called it a major investigative report. Reporting from Coda Story seems to use ASPI for a source of facts, and put in their own voice that [a] series of advertisements on Baidu — China’s answer to Google — suggest that this incentivized market for cheap Uyghur labor has thrived throughout the pandemic. One advert, from April, offered “Xinjiang Uyghur workers, all female, 18-35 years old, proficient in Chinese, obey arrangements. Coda Story has commented positively on ASPI's research elsewhere, as well. The Times backs up its statement that Some have been put to work for companies that human rights campaigners claim supply parts to global brands with this very ASPI report. In general, there seems to be a lot of positive use of ASPI by reputable sources with respect to Uyghur forced labor transfers.
But it's not just the one report that's being widely cited; ASPI is viewed as a credible organization that researches Chinese disinformation networks, and Xinjiang more broadly, as well. The Wall Street Journal supports its statement that [t]he Chinese government’s activity on Twitter and Facebook over its policies toward ethnic minorities in Xinjiang reached an all-time high last year, as Beijing sought to portray its approach, including use of widespread internment camps and surveillance, as beneficial to the remote northwestern region with an ASPI report. The Times cites an ASPI report to assert, in its own voice, that China has 380 detention facilities built or under construction in the far west region of Xinjiang, contradicting claims by Beijing that all “students” in its “education and vocational training centres” had “graduated”. USA Today seems to use them to identify a lower bar on the number of newly built detention camps in Xinjiang since 2017. And, as SupChina notes, the New York Times draws extensively on ASPI reporting in its own multimedia news reports on the destruction of mosques in Xinjiang.
Overall, ASPI seems to be a highly respected think tank, and one that's generally reliable for claims of fact that proceed from its investigative reporting. And, its analyses seems to be cited by peer-reviewed journals. Being a think tank, however, its analysis framework of defensive neorealism is going to lead towards some bias in its policy recommendations and its forecasts of things along the lines of various opportunity costs. But, it does not appear that this affects the reliability of its investigative reporting, as evidenced by extensive WP:USEBYOTHERS in that realm, and I do believe the think tank is generally reliable for accurately reporting facts. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The Eltham and Burns' paper is worth quoting here as I think it nicely shows the reservations on independence of the think-tank that exist:
Key think-tanks such as the Lowy Institute and the Australian Strategic Policy Institute are part of this academic-policymaker network and provide public contestability of policymaking. However, this network is defined, relatively insular, and possibly self-selective.
And speaking of the institute's reaction to Australian government defence papers says: The Howard-created Australian Strategic Policy Institute has provided limited contestability, and has focused on budget and doctrine analysis. (My emphasis.)
I hope I'm not too annoying here but I am a bit of a "read your sources" editor. Just because an academic source cites ASPI does not mean it is an endorsement of the think-tank's reputation or reliability. For example Wallis' paper mainly cites ASPI publications to explain the point-of-view of Australia or Australian government decisions. This is similar in the Moore paper and Schreer and Lee paper and, more importantly, Schreer has worked/written for ASPI so doesn't really count. As has Adam Lockyer (obviously must be a small pool of Australian academics in this field). Don't want to get bogged down in the weeds here as we seem to be on the same page: use with attribution. Just think it's important to dig into and consider sources sometimes. Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Isn't the fact that Australian academics publishing in reputable journals have previously worked or written for ASPI a point in its favour re reliability, not a point against it? BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 2, they are reliable within their field of expertise (geopolitics, security, info-pacific happenings) but I would not consider them generally reliable. I categorically do not consider think tanks and the like to be generally reliable, even the best ones (of which this is one) need to be handled with additional considerations and extreme care should be used when using them outside of their area of expertise. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Good Option 2, significant opinions, usable with attribution. Their stuff is well-researched, solid and informative - but tends to reflect the opinions of their funders, e.g. this piece on China's DC/EP central bank digital currency strongly reflects Facebook's marketing pitch for its Libra (as it was called then) digital currency, and whoops, there's "Funding statement: Funding for this report was partly provided by Facebook Inc."! So I take their stuff seriously, but with a grain of salt; they may best be mined for their sources in turn - David Gerard (talk) 17:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 1/2 Definitely a top-tier think tank. Their work on the Uighur genocide has been corroborated by the Associated Press and other sources. However, they seem to be largely agenda-driven and some of their research has been criticized by other government-affiliated institutions [157]. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 07:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment As usual with many think tanks, it's heavily partisan in some geopolitical arenas. And it's definitely not independent, so the usual WP:INTEXT attribution considerations apply. MarioGom (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 1: The frequency at which it has been cited and referenced means that for us to consider it unreliable would require exceptional evidence, evidence that I do not see presented here. However, reliable doesn't mean unbiased, and it seems to me that they have a relatively high degree of bias; this is something that I feel Vladimir.copic's Wallis' source speaks to. As such, while I believe the source is reliable, I believe it should be used with attribution. Summoned by the bot; unclear to which RfC, and so drew the short straw BilledMammal (talk) 12:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 2 While they have produced some good content, and are generally at least factual (if not objective), they don't really do factual reporting. Rather, they are a think-tank and lobbying group with a very clear objective that can be gleaned pretty easily from their name and the kind of content they produce. I would recommend avoiding citing them directly for matters directly relating to the Australian government/military (and it's areas of interest i.e. China and the Pacific) and instead follow through to the sources they use for their reports. Additionally, if cited directly, they should always be used with in-text attribution. BSMRD (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
You said "they don't really do factual reporting," but I'd dispute that assessment. Pretty much every time I've come into contact with them has been through reports they've made based on detailed analysis of satellite photos, Chinese documents, etc. and that's pretty clearly original "factual reporting" (and is doubly clear when those reports are re-reported in-depth by prestigious traditional media outlets). Also it doesn't make much sense to avoid using them for their areas of expertise because of any affiliation they have. We've been through that before for many, many sources: what matters is they accurately report facts to a reasonable standard, not who funds them. - GretLomborg (talk) 04:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • In-text attribution is required for ASPI. ASPI is a think tank created by the Australian government, and funded by the US State Department, the Australian Ministry of Defence, and US weapons manufacturers. In other words, it is very closely linked to the US and Australian military and foreign-policy establishments. This should be taken into consideration when deciding whether to include any claims sourced to ASPI, and such claims should always have in-text attribution, noting ASPI's connections to the US and Australian governments, if at all relevant (for example, these connections would be relevant when it comes to ASPI's claims about China, given political tensions between China and the US/Australia). -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 1, reliable for facts. In-text attribution should be provided for analysis or opinions. Cavalryman (talk) 08:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC).[]

RfC: Perennial sources consideration for Caixin?[edit]

@WhinyTheYounger:

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

Which of the following best describe the work of Caixin:

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

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

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

  • Option 1/2, it's mostly generally reliable, but for anything closely related to the Chinese government I would exercise caution. I assume btw you're referring to both language versions of their news sites, caixin.com and caixinglobal.com? My understanding is that Caixin is broadly independent and free from government co-option; they have for instance criticized the government's censorship and published an investigation questioning the official COVID-19 death count in Wuhan. Western media sources also seem to view them favourably and describe them as reliable, e.g. the NYT described them as an influential and respected news organization, and the (Australian) ABC described them as the most influential financial news outlet in China and is widely regarded as one of the most outspoken and reputable in a tightly-controlled environment, and they have collaborated a lot with other reliable Western media sources (e.g. the BBC, WSJ, CNBC, etc.). I think caution should still be advised for things particularly close to the CPC – their criticism of the government's censorship came off the back of one of their own articles being censored, and as the as the NYT noted: while Caixin has always had more leeway than [state-controlled] organizations, it must still obey increasingly strict rules on what news organizations can publish. I would be particularly wary about WP:DUE concerns as it pertains to the CPC, as while they probably won't publish things that are factually inaccurate, censorship in the country may prevent them from fairly representing all sides of an issue. They would otherwise appear to me to be generally reliable. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 17:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 2: Additional Considerations Apply. Caixin is, unquestionably, one of the most reliable sources based within mainland China. However, it is based within mainland China. As a result, the company is state-affilited and subject to state censorship (though it has also at times publicly told official censors to more or less buzz off, which is exceptionally rare in China). Much like The Straits Times, which is Singapore’s paper of record, we need to be cautious when using Caixin's news reporting within the field of politics or for extraordinary claims. For mainland Chinese media, this would be especially so for coverage of Chinese domestic politics or topics that are politically sensitive in China. For ordinary reporting on the activity of businesses, I think it would be perfectly fine to use with attribution.
The source has historically engaged in partnerships with a number of highly respected publications, although these partnerships have raised some eyebrows. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Would they really need attribution for e.g. routine finance/business reporting? I don't think there's reason to generally worry about the factual accuracy of their news, and if it's not an issue they might be censored away from fairly covering both sides of, I wouldn't see a problem using them without attribution. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 06:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
If they're the only one providing a fact, I'd generally attribute. I don't see a need to attribute "X business was founded in Y year and launched P product in Q quarter of 2020" or those types of facts that are unlikely to be contested. It's more for the reporting of "X company may have misled consumers and committed fraud" that I'd prefer to see attributed. "Ordinary" was the wrong choice of a word. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 2. Caixin is probably generally reliable for factual accuracy in the facts it does report and general news, but any publications subject to the jurisdiction of totalitarian regimes without free press guarantees should be approached with substantial caution on any matters those regimes may be sensitive about. Since they may in those instances be subject to both self-censorship and in some cases outright censorship, they should not generally be treated as independent or objective on those issues. In this case, any reporting in Caixin about subjects which may be of concern to the Chinese government should be approached with that in mind, and confirmation looked for by reliable sources not subject to Chinese jurisdiction. If Caixin is the only source reporting something it should generally be attributed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • High end of Option 2 - I find it very useful in practice as a financial paper, but with considerations and attribution above - David Gerard (talk) 20:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 2 For factual reporting, not opinion or perspective. It does seem a shame to reduce the credibility of an outlet without an exact article or documented trend of reporting in mind. However the Chinese government has made no secret of the restrictions it places on the media. If Caixin is the only place we could get the information I would be happy for us to use it. My problem is more with what they don't say, then what they do. Dushan Jugum (talk) 20:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 1 Unless editors can provide actual specific evidence of the Chinese government manipulating content produced by Caixin, that they are based in China is not inherently enough to downgrade them. They produce reliable, factually accurate content by all accounts. Obviously the normal considerations apply for opinion pieces and such. BSMRD (talk) 17:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    The government has deleted an article of theirs previously. It would be incorrect to say that they "manipulate" content that Caixin produces, but censorship of their work has occurred, though I do think some of the participants in this discussion have overstated the degree to which censorship does/will happen. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 05:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    An article being deleted after publication doesn't necessarily affect reliability. Articles are pulled off in many jurisdictions for a variety of reasons, often following a Court order, and I never heard about that action being used to discredit the reliability of the affected media outlet. MarioGom (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    That really depends on the reason of the pulling off. When a court order found that the material in question was defamatory, that rather weighs against the source. If an article is pulled because of govt/business interference against media criticising the institutions in question, it means it hasn't got complete editorial independence, which is also a reason to be more cautious*. It doesn't matter if there was an outcry after that.
    *what is meant here is not interference due to exposure of state secrets, which is not covered by the freedom of press, but rather pre-emptory censorship or govt interference in matters which are not normally sensitive/classified. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 1/2 Caixin is the gold standard for business news in China, something like FT. It's obviously constrained by the Chinese govt censorship, and that is something that has to be kept in mind. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 1/2: It is unfortunate, but on occasion when considering a sources reliability we need to consider the context that they operate in, and in the case of Caixin, that means we need to consider them in the context of the fact that they operate in China, and the environment in China is, to put it mildly extremely problematic. The primary consequence of this is that Caixin will have gaps in their reporting; and while this does cause issues in regards to due weight, I feel that these issues are too nebulous for us to consider and rule on.
What we do need to consider is the chance that they have to alter the stories they do issue in such a manner to comply with Chinese censorship, though it is important to balance this with the fact that no outright inaccuracies have been identified.
Considering all of this, I believe the our best option is to consider them compromised on topics broadly relating to China or Chinese interests; on these topics, if a less compromised source cannot be found, they should be used only with attribution. Further, if other reliable sources conflict with them on these topics, weight should be given to these other sources. Summoned by the bot; unclear to which RfC, and so drew the short straw BilledMammal (talk) 12:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 1 with the only caveats being for obviously sensitive issues like the The Three Ts etc., which are unlikely to be covered in depth anyways. Particularly for matters of finance, Caixin is a gold standard. The concerns of censorship and Party influence, of course, are warranted, but those concerns are materially different than they would be for a fully state- or Party-operated outlet like Xinhua or People’s Daily—the primary worry here is of omission, it seems, rather than falsification. While serious, this presents much less of a problem in the context of an article where other sources can provide missing context. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 15:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 0 Invalid RFC - this should not be listed at all, because WP:RSP is for “sources whose reliability and use on Wikipedia are frequently discussed.” Caixin is not frequently discussed or used, and since it is a Chinese language site behind a paywall it will not see use as a cite. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 0 Not appropriate for listing at RSP (as the reliability of this source is not a perennial issue). That said, I have no problem with continuing to discuss the source’s reliability/unreliability in a non-RSP focused way. (No opinion on that). Blueboar (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Inappropriate RfC: RSP has gotten completely out of control, and we're being asked to override context-based reliability and essentially give entire publications thumbs up or thumbs down. I can understand using RSP to flag the most egregious of sources that make up stories out of whole cloth, but these threads long ago descended into discussions about whether editors like a particular source, typically based on the overall political tone of its reporting. That being said, if Caixin is going to be added to RSP (which would be inappropriate, in my opinion), I would say that it is one of the highest-quality newspapers covering China today. When it comes to Chinese topics, I would trust its reporting above that of the NY Times, for example. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
It looks like the consensus here is Option 2, which isn't giving this publication a thumbs up/down, and fits well with giving consideration to context. LondonIP (talk) 22:54, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
That's the default for any publication, including the NY Times, the Washington Post, the Guardian, etc. (all of which have inferior - both in terms of quantity and quality - reporting than Caixin when it comes to China). -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:40, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Some editors may argue that additional considerations should apply to Caixin in the context of domestic issues subject to Censorship in China. For example, the issue of COVID-19 origins is heavily censored in Chinese domestic media, including Caixin, so some editors may say we can't use them in that context. According to some RS, the Chinese government is reportedly promoting a narrative of having contained the virus, claiming to have only a few or zero cases with a population of over a billion, while other RSs like The Economist say the real figures may exceed 1.5m. This is an example of how additional considerations may apply, so I think this is a good RfC. LondonIP (talk) 16:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 1.5, but also Bad RFC, as others have mentioned there isn't reason behind this other than "why not?", but I don't see any problems with this source other than the usual considerations for media based out of mainland China. It might be better to consolidate the consensus of mainland Chinese media (and possibly other countries where state has heavy thumb on the scale) when not otherwise stated into a "don't use this to cite three T's/Xinjiang stuff, otherwise OK for domestic", so discussions can be focused on the true garbage (Global Times, open wikis like Baike, maybe some of the Chinese SPS blog platforms if it becomes a problem...) Jumpytoo Talk 09:20, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Re: "It might be better to consolidate the consensus of mainland Chinese media...when not otherwise stated into a don't use this to cite three T's/Xinjiang stuff, otherwise OK for domestic": that might be a good idea, but a blanket pass for domestic news would be problematic given that could be politically sensitive and centrally-managed. I think language like that used at WP:XINHUA would be better. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:01, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • There have been relevant developments since the opening of this discussion, see yesterday’s piece in The Diplomat: "In a bid to further concentrate state control over public messaging, China released draft regulations on Friday that would ban “non-public capital” from funding “news gathering, editing and broadcasting.” The proposal is contained in the Market Access Negative List (2021), released by the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), the country’s main economic planning agency. If adopted, the Negative List would deal a significant blow to Caixin, a print and online financial news service revered for investigative journalism, including into the death toll of COVID-19 in Wuhan last year... The draft Negative List is comprehensive in banning “non-public” money from funding “broadcasts relating to politics, economics, the military, diplomacy, society, culture, technology, health, education, sports and other activities or events relating to governance.” It is not official yet but under “public consultation,” and stakeholders are invited to submit comments to the NDRC before a revised draft is approved and enacted. However, most regulations in China are passed with little modification following the “public consultation” period."[158] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

RfC: Republic TV[edit]

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

Survey (Republic TV)[edit]

  • Deprecate - For an example of nonsense peddled by this channeled, check this news. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Deprecate Despite being a possibility of genuine news related to entertainment, including but not limited to films, the blatant hoaxes, fake news, fabricated misinformation, and what not, that the organization publishes is quite rampant that makes it dangerous for us here — DaxServer (talk to me) 17:33, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose deprecation, I think that “generally unreliable” is still appropriate. Much like similar news orgs most of the blatant stuff seems to be contained within talk shows not within hard news segments. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Horse Eye's Back, I don't think that's accurate. All sorts of claims are made on their talk shows but the same claims are replicated all across their website and well within their "hard news". See for example, a search on Alt News produces pages after pages on fabrications and includes both talk shows and news stories. I'll try to tabulate a more comprehensive list on them, along with secondary sourcing once I get bit more time. Tayi Arajakate Talk 23:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I see coverage of errors in that link, what I don’t really see is fabrications... Being wrong and making a lot of mistakes makes you unreliable, being purposefully wrong makes you deprecatable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Horse Eye's Back, there are numerous fabrications in there? I don't know how this, this or this can be explained as anything else. Demonstrably false and completely invented stories, these don't even originate on social media but from them though not sure what difference it would make. Beyond this they are also persistently pushing conspiracy theories such as Love Jihad [159], Corona Jihad [160], how Sushant Singh Rajput was murdered [161], etc. Tayi Arajakate Talk 00:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
It does seem likely that there are fabrications there, but again thats not the same thing as a source actually saying that they knowingly fabricated a story. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
If I were fabricating something, I wouldn't publicly agree or give a hint of it that I'm fabricating. It is upto other to fact check and investigate if I did it this time or if there's a pattern. If there's a pattern, then that would mean I intentionally do it, even if the fact checkers don't say so? — DaxServer (talk to me) 08:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
How does one unknowingly fabricate stories? That too repeatedly and consistently in favor of a particular position. By the way, Affective Politics of Digital Media: Propaganda by Other Means (pp. 226–239) which is linked above for Love Jihad, does say that they are deliberately pushing the conspiracy theory. Tayi Arajakate Talk 08:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Deprecate, considering its history of fabrications including multiple conspiracy theories, it'd be irresponsible to allow citations to this outlet to persist. In my mind, its equivalent to sources like Brietbart and Swarajya. Tayi Arajakate Talk 23:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Theres nothing magical about deprecation, we don’t auto remove deprecated sources... Citations to this outlet will still exist if we deprecate, someone is still going to have to go through one by one and evaluate whether its appropriate. Theres also no need for the source to be deprecated to start doing that, generally unreliable is enough to remove a source in >90% of use cases. If you’re concerned about the persistence of citations to this outlet then get at it dog! You’ve got no-one to blame but yourself. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I know what deprecation is and I'd prefer that a stronger consensus exists for removing them en masse before doing so, considering the number of articles they are cited on. Tayi Arajakate Talk 00:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Deprecation is *not* consensus for removing them en-mass, each one would still need to be done individually and with due care. I have begun assessing our use cases, no need to wait when we already have a clear consensus of unreliability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Sure exceptional circumstances may exist so each case needs to be considered individually but otherwise it is de facto that. Most questionable sources don't have widespread use so this doesn't really matter but that's not the case here. The edit filter would also be useful to discourage future cites to it. Tayi Arajakate Talk 08:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Deprecate Known purveyor of fake news and conspiracy theories. There's really no point in ever using this source. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 07:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose deprecation (keep Unreliable). No sources provided that this outlet knowingly publishes fake news a la Daily Mail. The initiator should explain why the current status (unreliable) is problematic (not just that this source is used 1000s of times). Happy to change my vote if a proper case is made for deprecation. Alaexis¿question? 17:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Alaexis, if you are asking for examples which show that they deliberately publish fake news a la Daily Mail, then I did link them in my discussion with HEB above. I probably should have provided some examples in the discussion section below but anyways I will bring up some new ones, for example this where they took Rahul Gandhi and Asaduddin Owaisi's objection against a rule mandating the national anthem to be played before every film in cinema halls and turned it into them claiming that people shouldn't stand up for the national anthem, or this where they took an old photo, appropriated it as their own and claimed that they are bringing exclusive pictures from the Kashmir conflict. I don't know these can be regarded as being simple mistakes. This is just the tip of iceberg as well. Tayi Arajakate Talk 18:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Okay, it does look like a trash source. And why is the current designation (unreliable, meaning that "Outside exceptional circumstances, the source should normally not be used, and it should never be used for information about a living person.") not sufficient to remove contentious information sourced to it? Alaexis¿question? 19:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Alaexis, the misinformation extends beyond contentious topics (through churnalism and sensationalism without any regard for fact checking) as well, there is no real way for us to tell whether something that can only be sourced to them is reliable information so an across the board removal is needed while it's also being continuously added as a citation and there is no strong consensus (i.e, in the form of an RfC) on it at present. Deprecation through a formal RfC would help us make the process easier, as in prevent it from getting bogged down in multiple individual disputes and improve awareness. Tayi Arajakate Talk 19:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Again, unreliable sources should not be used normally, so it should be an easy to remove it. I see that now most of references to it are in articles about various media personalities. Is it unreliable there too? Is there really a widespread problem with this source? Alaexis¿question? 05:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Well, it is an unreliable source being used normally and deprecation as a process exists to discourage continued use like this. Most of the references aren't solely in articles about media personalities, they include all kinds of topics from sports and films to protests and conflicts. And yes it certainly should not be used for articles on media personalities or for any BLP. For instance after Sushant Singh Rajput's suicide, the channel (along with Times Now) pushed a conspiracy theory that he was murdered and went after people like Deepika Padukone, Rhea Chakraborty and various others throwing accusations of drug abuse, conspiracy to murder, etc against them. (see [162], [163], [164], [165]) Tayi Arajakate Talk 12:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Deprecate, and purge citations. Demonstrating that there's knowing fabrication requires access to internal deliberations that we do not have; what we do have is evidence that RW has stuck to its fabricated stories even after obvious evidence of their being false became public [166], [167], not to mention numerous instances of egregious fake news with massive real-world impacts [168], [169]. If RW is used for contentious information, it obviously should not be; if it's used for uncontentious information, should be possible to replace it with a superior source. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Deprecate, and purge citations. Known to give communal twist to regular news[1], conduct Trial by media[2], harass people based on speculation[3][4].--coolk (talk) 22:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Deprecate. The evidence presented for deprecation is convincing and so far undisputed. Of particular note is that this unreliability is broad, and not limited to a definable area, and as such I believe deprecation is our only option. Summoned by the bot; unclear to which RfC, and so drew the short straw BilledMammal (talk) 12:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Deprecate, full of conspiracy theories.Nyx86 (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Deprecate as the evidence above is convincing for deprecation showing wide areas of unreliability. --Kathy262 (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose deprecation - there seems no actual issue here, no actual need for an extreme step of deprecation. It is being productively used at a few thousand points and has not been part of many RSN or local debates, and no bad content is shown as under debate. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:28, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]

References

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

Discussion (Republic TV)[edit]

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

RfC: GNIS[edit]

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

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

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

Background (GNIS)[edit]

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

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

Survey (GNIS)[edit]

Discussion (GNIS)[edit]

  • Option 5, with the standard objection to creation of mass numbers of non-notable permastubs on "populated places" to start with; these should be on lists, not in permastubs. That aside, clearly this is not a vetted and fact-checked source for this purpose, nor in any way legally binding in order to create "legal recognition". Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 5, concur with OP and above. GNIS is filled with "populated places" that aren't. MB 22:27, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 5. In my experience, the coordinates are correct, but GNIS alone cannot establish whether a feature is a "legally recognized" place. Yilloslime (talk) 22:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 5. The coordinates are typically correct, though sometimes vague. The categorization is sometimes wrong and many, many articles have been created citing only the GNIS. It would be nice to identify articles that cite only the GNIS and *.hometownlocator.com (which seems to be derived from the GNIS) and consider them for deletion. Having only a GNIS ref (and *.hometownlocator.com) means that the subject probably existed at one time and that's about it. Cxbrx (talk) 23:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 5. GHIS is a coordinate dumpster of various databases and gazetteers, often obsolete, not verified by experts. Several years ago I remember an absolutely stupid discussion about some misspelled Armenin location. Lembit Staan (talk)
  • Any such overall characterization is an overgeneralization (invited by the bot) This important choice was omitted from the RFC. Certainly, the limitations of the source should be recognized. If there is a question or concern expressed about the content in an article (not just a challenge based only on the source) a cite to this source should not be considered enough to keep the material in. North8000 (talk) 11:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • As a nuanced answer, maybe "option 6", it should be considered "generally reliable for information about place names of any kind, but cannot be used to determine notability for stand-alone articles in any way, even if it calls a place a "populated place"." The issue is not that the GNIS is unreliable for information, it is that it is not a sufficiently in-depth source that would pass WP:GNG. It notes the existence of things, it does not contain source text we can use to write prose and build an article with. That should be the only consideration when considering whether or not to write a stand-alone article. --Jayron32 18:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
We have actually run into reliability issues with GNIS: The "feature class" designations (railroad siding, crossroads, populated place, church, stream, locale, etc) are often factually incorrect, causing errors to be propagated into our articles. –dlthewave ☎ 21:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I mean, that's a glitch in a computer database (which, I'll note, is currently being rebuilt). It's perfectly reasonable for reliable sources to have errors in them sometimes: if I read an OCR copy of a New York Times article talking about "Richard NLxon", it would not be grounds to request that Richard Nixon be moved to that title. At the same time, this would not be grounds to say that the New York Times was an unreliable source. jp×g 07:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 5 - I've had quite a bit of a experience with this source. The issues with this source are that we've used this in ways that it isn't intended to. It's meant to be a definitive database of names and coordinates, which is generally correct on. "Feature class" appears to only be an approximation and generally contrasts with other sources. I've found it telling that older 1980s USGS print gazetteers are generally much more accurate on feature class than the GNIS. And as a database, it shouldn't be used to determine notability. Hog Farm Talk 02:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 5 - I concur with many of the opinions already expressed. GNIS is a database for names and coordinates, and citations that are looking to explain more than this should not rely upon GNIS. Jurisdicta (talk) 03:22, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 5, it accurately shows that a "place" exists, but it can't accurately show if a place is populated or passes geoland.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 5; I have had some experience with this topic at AfD, in particular in regards to "unincorporated community", and there is clearly a significant issue with its reliability on this matter and as such we should not rely on its feature assessments, but as the issue is limited to that area there is no need for a broader classification of unreliability. Summoned by the bot; unclear to which RfC, and so drew the short straw BilledMammal (talk) 12:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Silly RfC. While it's clear there there are lots of shitty GNIS stubs from 2006 (and I !vote to delete them often at AfD), it's not clear to me that formal deprecation (even if partial) is an appropriate response to the situation, or that it will address the problem in a meaningful way. There is already a functioning solution to the issue of shitty GNIS stubs: they end up at AfD, and either sources are found and they're kept or sources aren't found and they're deleted. Perhaps we could add some language to WP:NGEO clarifying that GNIS often has stupid things listed as "populated places". What would putting GNIS on RSP accomplish -- would additional (or different) actions be taken at AfD? jp×g 07:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 5 as it is great for coordinate information, but for place that may or may not have been populated it is not a definitive source as it mostly focuses on the where the location is. --Kathy262 (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Flirty Fishing references[edit]

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

Hi, could you link to the sources you feel might be dodgy?Boynamedsue (talk) 15:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Any of the sources that come from Xfamily. It's just a wiki holding random PDFs of unknown origin. At the time of writing this citations 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10. The only thing that has a valid citation in that whole article is that the term "Flirty fishing" was notable enough to make it into a single news article once in the 90s.--222.109.91.138 (talk) 01:00, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Yup, that article is an abomination. The topic may possibly be notable, but any legitimate article on the subject needs much better sourcing than this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I see that following my comment above, the IP 222.109.91.138 removed the citations to xfamily.org from the article -entirely appropriately, in my opinion, quite obviously. This edit was reverted by User:Thorwald, with a claim that "We have already debated this ad nauseam". I can find no evidence of any such discussion, and have accordingly restored the IP's edit. There are multiple issues with citing xfamily.org, most of which should surely be readily apparent to anyone even remotely familiar with Wikipedia policy. The provenance of the images is unverifiable, and we have no way of knowing if they are what they are claimed to be. We have no way of knowing if they have been tampered with. They may have been uploaded in breach of copyright. And even if they are genuine, and hosted legitimately, the use to which they are being put is WP:OR. Likewise I see no reason whatsoever to see the xfamily.org wiki, or other self-published documents to be even remotely WP:RS for anything.
I now see that xfamily.org material is also being cited in The Family International, where clearly the same issues arise. That article too needs scrutiny. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:06, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The David Berg article, which is closely related, also cites this website. Stephen A. Kent in an academic who has studied this group relatively extensively, so that might be a good starting point for anyone looking for more reliable replacement sources. Grayfell (talk) 02:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
If there are other sources available, that is clearly a good thing. The issue here though isn't sources that aren't currently being cited, but sources that are. Accordingly, I'd like to learn whether other people share my opinion (and apparently that of the IP above) that the xfamiliy.org website isn't even remotely suitable as a source for any article relating to The Family International. It would seem a simple enough question, given Wikipedia RS policy, but nevertheless it would seem to need answering, given User:Thorwald's (as yet unverified) claim that the matter has 'already been debated'. A claim used to justify citing unverifiable primary-source material for blatant WP:OR, along with content from a Wiki that has copied material from Wikipedia and other self-published material. I don't think it is too much to ask to suggest that rather than going off at a tangent, this noticeboard needs to actually addresses the concerns raised here by the IP. Isn't that what this notice board is supposed to be for? AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:48, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I had a quick look at the wiki and the pdfs seem to be copies of The Family's literature from the period and suitably presented as such. I don't see this as any different to say a contemporary road test of a car of that period that has been scanned and published on another site. We accept these as a reliable source in the same way as we accept material archived on the internet archive, archive.today etc. Taking a broader view, the text in wikis is not generally regarded as WP:RS, but that doesn't extend to external sources presented by the wiki. That said, these scans are WP:PRIMARY so the article needs secondary sources to be added. --John B123 (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
See Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works: "if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work... Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States... Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors." That seems clear and unambiguous. The xfamily.org website is not an 'archive'. It is a website run by critics/former members of The Family. It clearly doesn't hold the copyright to the documents.
And then there is the way the documents are used, which doesn't remotely comply with WP:RS and WP:OR requirements: "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors, and not those of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves". We aren't citing a 'road test of a car', we are citing material specifically selected by contributors to an unreliable source with a strong POV regarding the subject matter. We can't even be certain that the material is genuine and hasn't been altered. And where we aren't citing these questionably-uploaded documents, we are citing the Wiki itself: several of the citations are to xfamily.org Wiki pages, not uploaded documents. None of this material is compliant with Wikipedia policies. None of it can be used, per fundamental Wikipedia policies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
US copyright law isn't as black and white as you seem to think. I doubt the wiki owns the copyright of the scans, but that doesn't automatically prevent them from using it. The law promotes freedom of expression by permitting the unlicensed use of copyright-protected works in certain circumstances[170], and including specifically for purposes such as criticism (Section 107). A website run by critics/former members of The Family using The Family's literature would seem to fall under 'fair use' per s107.
As I said above, the article desperately needs secondary sources, but the scans of what The Family was actually promoting at the time provides a valuable asset to increase the depth of the article. --John B123 (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Even if what you say regarding copyright law is correct Wikipedia isn't linking xfamily.org's 'fair-use' criticism of the primary source material, it is linking the material itself, to cite as a 'source' for a Wikipedia contributor's own interpretation. And that doesn't seem to me to be compliant with Wikipedia policy: see the last sentence of WP:LINKVIO. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
It doesn't matter what the PDFS 'seem' like. We can't verify what they are. As far as we can tell, they're random PDFs and images hosted on some random 3rd party wiki. We have absolutely no way of verifying if those PDFs are legitimate copies or if they've been altered in anyway. That wiki has no reliable editorial oversight that we can reference.--222.109.91.138 (talk) 00:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]

These are obscure primary sources, and usually should be avoided for that reason alone. We don't need to presume that xfamily.org is fraudulent, and I don't see any compelling reason to go that far. Are they making extraordinary claims, based on how reliable, independent sources discuss this group? As an archive of obscure primary sources, the website may, plausibly, claim to be hosting these for fair use (similar to xenu.net and Scientology). For us to cite these sources, however, we would need a specific reason, and that reason would have to be based on a reliable, WP:IS. Specific primary sources could be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Earlier I mentioned Stephen A. Kent as an example of what that kind of source would look like, although I really didn't make that clear enough. Grayfell (talk) 01:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]

In this era of Photoshop, purported scans of published content do not meet our standards of reliable sources, regardless of the intentions of the hosts. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:22, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Many of the scans are from The Family's publications Family News and True Komix, which are also archived elsewhere, for example The 7 F's of FFing --John B123 (talk) 11:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Material uploaded to Scribd has exactly the same issues. Probably more so, given how often material is uploaded there with flagrant disregard for copyright. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
It actually addresses your earlier comment we have no way of knowing if they are what they are claimed to be --John B123 (talk) 13:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Nope. They could both be derived from the same source - i.e. the Scribed version copied from xfamily.com, or both copied from a doctored source elsewhere. Neither is WP:RS. Neither should be cited. And note that even if they are genuine, the use they are being put to in the Flirty Fishing article is WP:OR. It is astonishingly naive to take statements from Children of God sources as factual. If properly sourced (i.e. directly from WP:RS), such documents might possibly be of use as secondary citations to back up RS material directly stating that '...the Children of God claimed...' or '...believed...' something, but that is all they could possibly be used for. Absolutely nothing sourced solely to xfamily.com belongs in the article at all. It isn't RS for anything, and can't be cited, per policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:36, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
It is astonishingly naive to take statements from Children of God sources as factual How is what they were promoting at the time 'straight from the horses mouth' not factual? such documents might possibly be of use as secondary citations which is what I posted in my first comment on this thread. To clarify, the article needs referencing from reliable secondary sources, but these scans can still add depth to the article in, as you put it, '...the Children of God claimed...' as additional sources. --John B123 (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
You might be willing to take at face value claims made by the Children of God, in material apparently intended to encourage their female supporters to engage in 'flirty fishing', that such supporters had already successfully 'fished' 110,640 souls. I certainly wouldn't. Even the least controversial religious organisation might perhaps be expected to sometimes exaggerate its success in order to encourage it supporters further efforts, and if there is a good reason why the Children of God could be trusted not to do the same, I can't think of one. And more to the point, WP:RS doesn't oblige me to, since such unverifiable promotional claims cannot be cited as factual. Not that it really matters, since as yet we don't have a valid WP:RS source for them making the claims at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
This is like trying to knit fog. Either you are saying be of use as secondary citations or can't be cited. As for 'successfully 'fished' 110,640 souls', this is claim they have made. However dubious that may it's still a fact that they claimed this. --John B123 (talk) 15:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Nothing sourced to xfamily.com can be cited at all. It is a self-published Wiki. It isn't even remotely WP:RS. Just how difficult is that to understand? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Extremely difficult when you make contradictory statements. I'm getting fed up of your aggressive attitude and sarcastic comments both here and elsewhere. Please see WP:TALK. --John B123 (talk) 17:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Yeah, well I'm getting fed up with your endless attempts to sidetrack this discussion on the reliability of the xfamily.com wiki as a source, and actually address the substantive issue. So a simple question: do you contend that said wiki is a reliable source, under policy? A simple yes or no answer will do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
How is responding to points raised by you and others during this discussion side-tracking it? There isn't a simple yes or no answer to your question. To reiterate my earlier comments: the wiki itself isn't a RS but the scans there are useful additional sources for what The Family were advocating or claiming at the time. --John B123 (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Unless you had the actual publications in hand or the content of them was being reported by a reliable source that had the opportunity to verify the primary sources as being real, you have no way of knowing whether or not those are real scans of the publication, or whether or not they're being presented in an honest and objective manner. We have no idea if those scans have been altered and we also don't know if they're being presented in full context. many of the sources I saw were links to single pages out of a publication and not even the whole publication. These are no better than a blog, a forum post, or even a facebook forward. If you have other sources that can cite that material that pass WP:RS feel free to provide them, but nothing you've stated here does anything to make xfamily pass the requirements to be reliable.--222.109.91.138 (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • One problem I am seeing is a misidentification of what the actual source material is. Xfamily is not the source, it is the host site on which copies of the source material can be found. The actual source materials are the original primary documents. Those are what should be cited. This is like citing “YouTube” instead of the specific video hosted on YouTube.
Now, primary documents are of very limited use here on WP. We have all sorts of restrictions on not just whether they can be used, but how they are used. A key one is: when they are hosted on-line, we need to be confident that the host site is presenting a “true and accurate” copy that has not been tampered with. A user generated Wiki like XFamily does not give us that confidence. So, even if the original documents are usable, we should not be linking to the copies found on XFamily. Blueboar (talk) 18:00, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Thank you, that seems clear enough. I'll note that the Flirty Fishing article is (or was - it is currently being edited to deal with some of the issues at least) also citing the xfamily.com wiki directly as a source in a couple of places. Clearly that is unacceptable too, and as far as I can tell, nobody here has suggested otherwise, so such citations will have to go too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
6 or 7 it looks like. There are also numerous references used on this article The Family International and I expect any other article related to this topic.--222.109.91.138 (talk) 10:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Yup. Clearly where xfamily.com is being cited elsewhere it needs fixing too, though at least those other articles aren't built almost entirely around this single wiki source like the Flirty Fishing one was. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I don't suppose there are any tools that would tell us which wikipedia pages link to a specific site are there?--222.109.91.138 (talk) 00:44, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Special:LinkSearch does that, but it's not as intuitive as it could be. The tool lists 218 links for http://*.xfamily.org, and 9 links for https://*.xfamily.org. Template:linksummary is also useful, especially for cross-wiki issues:
xfamily.org: Linksearch en (https) (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com • Alexa
Grayfell (talk) 22:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

RfC: The Daily Wire[edit]

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

  • Option 1: Yes
  • Option 2: No

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

Survey, The Daily Wire[edit]

  • Yes. It is so unreliable, pushes views contrary to many facts of great importance, and lacks a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, that it deserves deprecation with this one exception: can only be used in its own article, and then only if it's not unduly self-serving (per WP:ABOUTSELF). -- Valjean (talk) 04:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    [citation needed] Buffs (talk) 04:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Yes. I'm sure other editors will post sources, so I won't bother. When I was doing research on the Palmer Report, academic sources I found frequently labeled the Daily Wire as a junk news source or a fake news source. Daily Wire is a pretty popular source so deprecation is probably a good idea in case an editor mistakenly believes it's a RS. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    I’m confused, is the Palmer Report unbiased? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Use google please (talk • contribs) 08:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
    @Use google please: I modified your indentation to comply with WP:Accessibility. Palmer Report is a fake news website as per our article. I assume this is why User:Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d came across discussions of Daily Wire being a fake news website, since they were looking at sources discussing fake news websites which gave Palmer Report and Daily Wire as examples. Nil Einne (talk) 18:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Daily Wire has their own journalists division, Palmer Report just post op-eds of Twitter feeds. Use google please (talk) 07:54, September 29, 2021‎ (UTC)
  • No I'll go by what this NPR piece from July explains well. "The articles The Daily Wire publishes don't normally include falsehoods (with some exceptions), and the site said it is committed to 'truthful, accurate and ethical reporting.' But as Settle explains, by only covering specific stories that bolster the conservative agenda (such as negative reports about socialist countries and polarizing ones about race and sexuality issues) and only including certain facts, readers still come away from The Daily Wire's content with the impression that Republican politicians can do little wrong and cancel culture is among the nation's greatest threats." Add that its aim is towards Facebook engagement and clickbait-style attention grabbers, and that makes it generally unreliable, but not to the point where deprecation seems required. --Masem (t) 05:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • No and more appropriately None of the above/Option 3: Treat as a partisan source for information on par with the HuffPost politics and Fox News politics. This shouldn't be an RfC in this manner as it's a False dilemma. Many others have requested an upgrade to the source on WP:RSPSOURCES. To frame this statement as such is an attempt to game the system. The same would be appropriately said if someone phrased the initial question as
    Should the status of The Daily Wire be changed to Generally Reliable Source or Neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable, and may be usable depending on context? See discussion at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Daily Wire
    • Option 1 Generally Reliable Source
    • Option 2 Neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable
    Buffs (talk) 05:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Example of misleading summaries Scores high for bias and low for reliability on https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/ In fact, click the source and you'll find it is actually "Reliable for news, but high in analysis/opinion content". Given the breadth of such responses, I question whether these opinions based on sources are mistakes, just highly biased interpretations, or intentionally misleading summaries. Buffs (talk) 05:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Yes - Noted for publishing blatant falsehoods and medical misinformation about COVID-19, along with rank homophobia and scaremongering worthy of the gay panic defense era. No one has cited any content of redeeming value which would be lost by deprecation. It's a partisan clickbait factory and we can and should demand far more from our sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    This is indicative of the kind of issue we're running into. People are citing links (or making a claim without any justification) and/or then giving misleading descriptions of said links:
    Please read such links before commenting (yes, even mine!). Such arguments are nothing more than guilt-by-accusation. Buffs (talk) 06:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    An NPR review of stories on The Daily Wire about the COVID-19 pandemic over the past two months found numerous stories about potential side effects from COVID-19 vaccines, but none that portrayed the scientifically demonstrated efficacy of the vaccines or that focused explicitly on the hesitancy that has slowed the U.S. rollout. Disinformation by omission is disinformation just the same. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    I would suggest that NPR didn't look very hard then. Ben Shapiro mentioned the vaccine frequently on his podcast and encouraged people to go and get it frequently for ~the first 6 months of the year. Ben Shapiro of The Daily Wire, who has been a vocal proponent of vaccination all along, also told his followers today on Twitter, “Get vaxxed. I did. My wife did. My parents did." and has been doing so since late 2020 once vaccines were available. My quick scan of available show notes shows he mentioned it on nearly every show after Jan 22 through 9 Mar and then 2-4 times a week until July. If they didn't find it, it's because they aren't looking. Ex: 2/5 "the vaccine is ninety one percent effective seven days or more after the second injection". Feel free to browse yourself if you don't believe me (not the best transcript, but you can CTRL+F "vaccine" pretty quickly) Buffs (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Forgive my ignorance here, and I know the Daily Wire is largely Shapiro's outlet, but they are distinct voices, yes? Thus, proof that Shapiro is himself staunchly pro-vaccine is not the same as saying the Daily Wire is? Or am I mistaken about that? Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Valid question. Ben Shapiro used to be editor-in-chief of DW. He is now listed as Editor-Emeritus. The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production. Buffs (talk) 21:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    That being the case, it strikes me that both what you say and the NPR story may be entirely true and not in contradiction. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    I'm tired of hearing people repeatedly assert on this RSN/RfC that Shapiro is pro-vaccine (implying pro-Covid vaccine) because Shapiro and DW are just giving lip service while using the vaccine issue as a launch-point to their other agendas; this is a classic DW tactic. Ben Shapiro posted a YouTube of himself launching his #DoNotComply campaign. That video appears to have been removed, and in its place is his organization spokesman, Jeremy Boreing ("co-founder, Co-CEO and god-king of The Daily Wire."); so that covers both the man and his organization. Shapiro and Boreing have directed their company DW to openly and publicly refuse the OSHA mandate and are encouraging other businesses to do the same. They have stated in interviews that they have built up a legal machine, and are ready for a legal war on this point — "we're prepared to go to battle", "we're going to use every method and resource at our disposal to defy" and "we are staffing up right now on the legal side". When they speak of the mandate they brush aside the point where the mandate doesn't actually require everyone get the vaccine, but employees could instead be tested weekly (which nowadays is usually a simple saliva swab). In other words, their actions speak louder than their words. If you listen carefully to their wording, the two men say they are "pro-vaccine" while letting the listener dub in that they meant pro-COVID vaccine. In one breath they give accolades to the Covid vaccine (an object), while a minute later issue subtle snide remarks about those who get it (people). Under their breath they give 2 seconds to briefly mention the 'opt-out with testing' as an option while spending the next 5 minutes ranting about how no one should be required to get a vaccine. Shapiro, Boreing, and DW are NOT pro-Covid vaccine, despite what one thinks they heard, so it is time to quit asserting it. Such covert and ubiquitous misdirection is one of the main reasons why DW has earned itself 'generally unreliable' status here on Wikipedia. It should be deprecated at this time. Platonk (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    The specifics of such a mandate have not been made public, so your assessment is based on speculation. The rest is accusations with no real evidence to back it up + WP:OR. Weekly testing (even if it is part of the mandate) is still an additional cost with the threat of a $14K fine if they don't. I'm not saying Shapiro is pro-vaccine (implying pro-Covid vaccine), I'm saying he's outright pro-Covid vaccine and has been since the vaccine was released. There is a wide chasm between saying "I think something is good and you should do it" and "I think the government should force everyone to do what I think is good". If you think Shapiro, Boreing, and DW are NOT pro-Covid vaccine because they don't support Biden's mandates, I don't think we can have a reasonable discussion. Buffs (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    @Buffs: My assessment is based on my evaluation, as is everyone else's. WP:OR doesn't apply because we are discussing DW's status on RSP, not discussing DW, and (most importantly) not editing content in wiki articles. "We" are not trying to have a "reasonable discussion" because WP:NOTFORUM. While I try to keep my comments to why is DW not a reliable source, why should DW be deprecated, how does DW misdirect, etc., you keep trying to argue DW's/Shapiro's points of view. Again... WP:NOTFORUM. Platonk (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    You accuse me of gaslighting then say I try to keep my comments to why is DW not a reliable source, why should DW be deprecated, how does DW misdirect, etc., you keep trying to argue DW's/Shapiro's points of view? Look one post above where you specifically point out what Shapiro is claiming/doing. Your logic appears to be that you should be able to make such claims, but I can't respond as to how your claim is misleading and/or outright false. Lastly, yes, I am trying to have a reasonable discussion per WP:TALK. Buffs (talk) 15:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    I cannot believe you just posted that what I wrote on Oct 5th came before what I wrote on Sept 29th. That sort of deliberate chronological distortion is described in Wikipedia's behavioral guideline WP:GASLIGHTING, which is part of Wikipedia:Gaming the system#Gaming the consensus-building process: "Employing gaslighting tactics – such as history re-writing, reality denial, misdirection, baseless contradiction, projection of one's own foibles onto others, repetition, or off-topic rambling – to destabilize a discussion by sowing doubt and discord." Cease and desist! Platonk (talk) 18:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • That specific article mentions nothing about medical misinfo about COVID-19 - the specific note to Daily Wire is in reference to the situation during the presidential campaign when Texas citizens had followed a Biden bus out of state, and that article discusses how DW described the situation -- which falls in line with the biased side of presenting the news per the NPR article. Also, having a homophobic stance is not a reason to deprecate a source, though still a very good reason to consider it unreliable. --Masem (t) 13:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Yes - Prim. per NBSB. It won't take long to find out rank garbage they publish on a regular basis. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • No First, Buffs is correct that this is not a good RfC question. Second, deprecation should really be a last resort. It came about because some were concerned that a widely used source was unreliable. Is this source widely used? Third, the only meaningful evidence presented thus far is Masem's NPR article. NPR supports the current ranking of the source and does not support a deprecation. Deprecation is something that really needs to be reviewed as a blunt tool used far too often in cases where there isn't a problem (source was rarely ever used, source was already acknowledged to be poor etc). Springee (talk) 12:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Yes, Unreliable for basically any and all matters of fact. It has been known to publish blatant falsehoods. It should be reliable only for matters of completely undisputed facts in its own article, as with other extremely partisan and possible disingenuous sources. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    [citation needed] Buffs (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Unreliable. I would reinforce that it's a generally unreliable source, and mention criticism by climate experts in Climate Feedback, per this RSN discussion, of the Daily Wire's climate change coverage. That was more or less what I had to say at RSP talk, and I guess I'll restate it here for visibility. I mentioned it there because it wasn't present on the source's entry. The conversation there is worth reviewing, as Aquillon seemed to bring a lot more receipts. --Chillabit (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • No in the absence of specific information concerning the deliberate biasing of the source. We need to be wary of the use of the source, but we also need to be wary in assuming that a source contains lies. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Unreliable for the reasons I gave at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources (and per others there). Should not be cited for any statement of fact and shouldn't carry weight except when reported on by other, reliable sources. As for deprecation: meh. Abstain (in part per what I wrote below). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Yes. Mostly copying-and-pasting my comment from the WP:RSP discussion, but: It does no original reporting and has repeatedly spread misinformation, especially about COVID ([171]) but also eg. the election ([172]), Greta Thunberg ([173]), climate change ([174]), and the George Floyd protests ([175]); academic sources describe it as a low-quality source ([176]) and as unreliable ([177]) and have used it as an example of misinformation and junk news ([178][179][180][181]). The issue isn't simply that it is partisan, the issue is that its purpose is to publish intentionally false stories in order to advance its partisan goals. Academic coverage largely describes it as publishing intentional misinformation, which is the sort of thing that requires depreciation if it seems like there are people still trying to use it. --Aquillion (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Robert McClenon, ^^THIS^^ comment by Aquillion is relevant to your comment above. See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Daily Wire for other comments with documentation from RS. I hope you will reconsider your "no". We must "assume" that sources like TDW that fully back Trump must be "a source contains lies." They have no choice. Sources that defend his lies must contain lies. -- Valjean (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      • You keep making the claim "We must 'assume' that sources like TDW that fully back Trump..." You need to provide evidence that they "fully back Trump" first. From 2016 to 2021, Daily Wire spoke out against Trump's excesses: Donald Trump is a liar (2016) up to Trump is deeply irresponsible 2021. Your remarks are full of assumptions that aren't backed by the facts. Buffs (talk) 22:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Aquillion, are you normally in the habit of citing undergrad papers that aren't peer reviewed? Springee (talk) 18:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    As noted below, these particular sources are a perfect example of how such accusations, despite being sourced, are not grounded in the content of the sources:
    • It does no original reporting demonstrably false. The NPR article above states "produces little original reporting", so, by definition, it produces at least some. It largely produces analysis. Likewise, lots of publications don't produce "original reporting".
    • This article is an ungraded undergraduate paper/advocacy piece that equates criticism of the media (regardless of how valid/invalid) as tantamount to blindly supporting Trump, equates asking about the origins of COVID-19 as "COVID misinformation", and speculating/guessing as to what the future impact the virus may have on economics as disinformation. Likewise, more criticism of the media's portrayal of COVID in a negative light with Trump and a positive light with Biden isn't COVID denial/misinformation. It's criticism of the media, which has a known leftward slant.
    • misinformation (about) the election: No where in this article is there any misinformation about the election. They criticized Wallace and Biden. Daily Wire also reported how others called it a "****-show" and that both sides lost calling both sides "a new low" in debate performance. Shapiro himself called it a "[bleep]-show". That's HARDLY misinformation in ANY way.
    • misinformation about Greta Thunberg: One host called her "mentally ill" in an interview and Daily Wire apologized for the comment (as noted). Calling political opponents mentally ill, while distasteful, is not uncommon
    • "misinformation on the climate" from another ungraded undergraduate thesis: In fact, the only thing this paper cites is criticism of the most extreme predictions (example, Al Gore's claim that Miami would be underwater by 2016) Criticizing the extremes is hardly criticizing the core science.
    • misinformation about George Floyd protests There's no misinformation even cited in the article, only criticisms (example, making people in public wear masks, but protestors in closer proximity are not required to do so).
    • one source describes as a low-quality source The same source put it on-par with Daily Kos and labeled it "hyperpartisan" and not "Fake News".
    • one source describes as unreliable Given that you've cited this source now twice despite criticism, I'm forced to believe that you're being misleading intentionally (if I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me). No where in this entire article do they use the word "unreliable". Daily Wire is only mentioned once as a pejorative without documentation to back it up: "Relying on nationwide panels of internet users who donate their feeds to the project, it was found that after the Capitol rampage progressive Facebook users were routinely fed mainstream media such as CNN and NPR, whilst conservative users sources considered rather less reliable (such as The Daily Wire and Breitbart most salient)". They do not categorize anything in the article as "unreliable".
    • misinformation and junk news 1 Subscription only; unable to view
    • misinformation and junk news 2 There are two criticisms of Daily Wire. The first criticism is that they wrote an article about tweets of "media figures" who threatened violence. Indeed, members of the media threatened to "burn this place to the ground" and "Burn the entire f***ing thing down". There is nothing inaccurate about this report. The second, verbatim, is "Finally, junk news outlets have also promoted unsubstantiated claims that Democratic Party leaders were pushing conspiracy theories. A Daily Wire article with over 162,000 engagements claimed that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi had asserted that the Republican party were involved a conspiracy to “come after your children" But if you look at the source material and her full remarks, it's clear that the quotation is completely accurate. Saying "a group is coming after your children!" is or isn't a "conspiracy" is really splitting hairs or is, at a bare minimum, subjective.
    • misinformation and junk news 3 The actual quote: "Friday June 5th, that initially showed a significant drop in unemployment rate from 14.7% in April to 13.3% in May. This was soon corrected by the Department of Labor to 16.3%, and accompanied by a statement that the inaccuracy stemmed from incorrect labelling during interviews...A Daily Wire article with over 87,000 engagements...celebrated Trumps false claims of success...The Daily Wire published a correction article the next day. So the basis for the "junk news" rating is that they reported on the same information and that it was good for Trump, DoL printed a correction, and DW printed a correction. I'm hard pressed to know what a competent news organization should have done otherwise (especially considering every news outlet had to do the same thing). 
    • misinformation and junk news 4 Whitmer indeed threatened and extension of "safety measures" and blamed the protesters as the reason she had to do it. Nothing about that statement is inaccurate.
    Your significant over reliance on COMPROP is misguided. First, their definition of "junk news" is "whether their content is extremist, sensationalist, conspiratorial, or commentary masked as news". Daily Wire openly admits they are a conservative news organization and that they do analysis of news from a conservative perspective...that hardly fits the category of "sensationalist", especially looking at the articles you chose to cite. Second, you seem to assume that commentary here equates to evidence that they are "junk news" rather than simply an analysis of what was said on a source they call junk news (two separate categories). Buffs (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    @Buffs: Regarding the paper in Studies in Conflict & Terrorism you were unable to view, the relevant quote (p. 9) is here: "Besides these organizations-specific Facebook pages and groups, Facebook also hosts open groups that are not related to a specific organization, ranging from “news” groups that share and discuss articles containing misinformation from outlets such as Ben Shapiro’s Daily Wire, to groups dedicated to the sharing of right-wing extremist memes". --Chillabit (talk) 18:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Chillabit Thanks. So...that's the "proof" it's misinformation? Facebook, the company, hosts open groups and just calls it "misinformation". That's pretty weak. Any reference with that? Who wrote it? Buffs (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    As far as this (and most of your other) complaints go, the point is that, on the whole, high-quality secondary sources classify its output as misinformation, to the point where it is broadly and widely used as an example of a source of that nature. Your personal belief otherwise and your personal arguments that you believe them to be right has no weight or relevance; our evaluation of sources is based on how they are covered - their broad reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. --Aquillion (talk) 02:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Are you saying that an undergrad report or even a masters thesis is something Wikipedia counts as a high quality source? Buffs correctly points out flaws in the sources you provided and notes that they don't prove things like DW was inventing claims. If you were using those sources to prove that the DW shouldn't be "reliable" or "considerations apply" I would totally agree. However, you are arguing they are sufficient to deprecate the source. So what standard do you think is needed to rise (or sink) to the level of deprecation and can you show that DW has passed that line? Springee (talk) 02:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    can you show that DW has passed that line? This question has been answered by multiple people already. At this point you come across like you haven't read the extensive detail already in this discussion section - David Gerard (talk) 12:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    When arguments for deprecation rely solely on disparaging terms, their arguments are no more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Buffs (talk) 16:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • No. I originally declined to comment on this particular topic but I've since rethought that decision in light of the evidence presented for depreciation. In particular, while I haven't reviewed every source, those I have reviewed do not say quite what the person citing them believes to say. For instance, this source is presented as saying they present "medical misinformation about COVID". It doesn't do that; instead, it says this "Another article from The Daily Wire with over 150,000 engagements similarly celebrated the intimidation, endorsing the view that these cars were “just showing support”, and derided the Biden campaign’s statements on the issue as having “ripped [into]” the drivers.". This is a statement showing bias and hyper-partisanship, but we do not depreciate solely on those grounds, and we certainly don't interpret this line as stating that DW presents "medical misinformation about COVID" - indeed, the context that it is in is related to the election, not COVID. Meanwhile, the post I am replying to has similar misconceptions; for instance, it presents this source as stating that the Daily Wire is "low-quality", and while it does exactly that, the commenter didn't notice that it classified sources under three headers; "Reliable", "Hyper-partisan", and "Fake News", and that the Daily Wire is classified as "Hyper-partisan" not "Fake News". (Note: This is an argument against using this source for depreciation, not arguing for its use as a source against depreciation, as I have serious concerns about how accurate their classification system is)
Meanwhile, this source which was interpreted as saying that the Daily Wire "spread misinformation about ... Greta Thunburg" states that the Daily Wire also retracted that misinformation; retractions are typically not considered when assessing a sources reliability, as retractions are typically evidence of some sort of functioning editorial process, and thus we can't consider this incident when assessing whether to depreciate or not.
I also looked at this source, which was interpreted as describing the Daily Wire as "unreliable"; what it states is "considered rather less reliable", and makes no statement on its own about reliability. Instead, it sources to this article on The Markup, which also makes no claim about reliability, and instead describes it as "conservative news coverage".
As such, I have no choice but to !vote "No"; as the evidence presented in supported of depreciation does not actually say what those citing it believe it says; if I have misinterpreted a given source, or if there is a particular source that I have not looked into that I should, please let me know, but as matters currently stand I see additional restrictions on the use of this source as unwarranted. BilledMammal (talk) 02:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Yes, deprecate Daily Wire has fallen over the cliff into outright conspiracy and disinformation. No respect and no reputation for fact-checking, the exact opposite in fact... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Please provide sources for such an accusation. Buffs (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Yes, deprecate Nothing reliable about it these days. Volunteer Marek 18:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • No. According to the NPR article cited by Masem it's biased but doesn't normally include falsehoods. I looked at the purported misinformation examples provided by Aquillion and I'm not convinced. The George Floyd-related examples are "one Daily Wire article ... disparaged New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio for for allowing public gatherings to protest but not allowing businesses to open or religious gatherings to occur" and "a Daily Wire opinion piece even defended the US record on race, stating that it was “the only civilization in history to oppose racism and for one reason only: Christianity”". The Covid-related misinformation is DW hosts' opinions from February 2020. In the hindsight we can definitely say that there were wrong but it doesn't make it misinformation. Just to remind, "unreliable" status means that "the source should normally not be used, and it should never be used for information about a living person," it's not clear at all why the deprecation is necessary. Alaexis¿question? 19:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Yes, deprecate. I was engaged in a project to evaluate the use the Daily Wire citations in Wikipedia, locating them using this search tool [187]. At the start, there were about 125 articles containing a link to dailywire.com. Today, there are 41. In my work, I found that most of the DW citations were used as a citation alongside one to five other non-DW-citations and the DW citation was therefore unnecessary (I would remove the DW citation). In others, I found that the DW article itself contained links to other articles published by those not on RSP which could serve just as well (I would replace the DW citation with the better source). After reading many DW articles, I found DW to be very opinionated (bad), partisan (not necessarily bad), and it had a hardcore agenda (very bad) in most of its articles. Often, the author would take some minor point from an entire scene/incident/issue and rag on just that one point to the detriment of coverage. Under no circumstances could one view these articles as "news" or "news coverage". It was pure editorializing. Sure, some of those articles weren't "technically" wrong for the precise reason that the author was quoting someone else (often of marginal reliability), however by forwarding false or mostly false or heavily skewed viewpoints, then adding its own opinions, I agree that Daily Wire should be treated with no more value than any other non-subject matter expert's personal opinion... which we consider a primary self-published source with very limited use as a citation in Wikipedia. Unfortunately, there are those editors on Wikipedia that don't understand the meaning of GUNREL and think that leaves open a door to using Daily Wire (and other GUNREL sources) as citations as long as they use inline attribution. I support deprecating. Platonk (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    I found that most of the DW citations were used as a citation alongside one to five other non-DW-citations and the DW citation was therefore unnecessary (I would remove the DW citation). So, the DW citation was accurate? When you eliminate all examples where DW was completely accurate, you're going to be left with any/all instances where they are either appropriate or questionable. Effectively, you've created the logic to support your own circular argument: "References from DW aren't accurate, so I eliminated references. This shows they aren't accurate." Buffs (talk) 20:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    @Buffs: Your logic is faulty. RSP said Daily Wire was a "generally unreliable source" (GUNREL), therefore replacing a Daily Wire citation with a different reliable source citation is quite appropriate. Per REFBOMB it is neither appropriate nor desirable to have multiple citations following a simple statement in an article. With multiple citations after a single sentence (one of which was a GUNREL), I wouldn't even need to read the GUNREL article to see if it was accurate or not. I would only need to read one other citation to ensure that it was an appropriate source to support the content, and then I could delete the GUNREL citation without any further evaluation of it. An editor "improving citations" in an article per Wikipedia guidelines is not proof of anything you assert here, nor earlier. And your statements that my removing GUNREL citations out of Wikipedia amounts to a 'war against conservatives' is ludicrous and a personal attack. Platonk (talk) 01:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    The only person using the word "war" here (repeatedly) is you. Likewise, I didn't say removing citations was appropriate or inappropriate in any way. I said citing your own actions to support those actions is a circular rationale. Buffs (talk) 02:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Oh, yes indeed, you repeatedly asserted that "removing citations was appropriate or inappropriate". You've asserted that numerous times over the last several weeks. Here are merely three of the diffs I found on this, but I recall reading much more: (1) "Your "project" appears to be a personal vendetta." (You were referring to my project to remove GUNREL refs), (2) "When ALL conservative opinions are labeled “unreliable”, you’ve completely lost neutrality." (Part of your debate that RSP labels as 'generally unreliable' more conservative outlets than liberal ones, thus skewing Wikipedia's NPOV), and (3) "You don't get to suppress conservative views" (as you reverted one of my edits). On top of those were the edit wars over swapping out or removing GUNREL cites. Platonk (talk) 08:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    This is again getting rather personal and off-topic. You are (intentionally?) misconstruing my remarks. I stand by my assertion that "I didn't say removing citations was appropriate or inappropriate in any way" as a general statement. Removing citations or any sort of edit can be appropriate or inappropriate. My statement was intending to show that I never made such a blanket assertion that "removing citations is inappropriate". My issue was not so much that you removed the citation, but that you removed the content as well; that's what my edit summary addressed. It wasn't just remarks cited on DW either (pretending otherwise is disingenuous). Your "project" was self-appointed and you not only removed citations, but you assigned a claim of being false to such assertions and removed not only the citation, but the content as well. Calling your desired goals a "project" doesn't make them any more/less correct and to choose to do so is a personal choice. Yes, I reverted your citation removal to replace the content, which was inappropriately removed. Lastly, your baseless accusations are not appreciated. Buffs (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Yes, deprecate, for the reasons stated by Aquillion and Platonk. John M Baker (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • No but with a caveat: The Daily Wire grossly quotes without appropriate context “Lawn Boy” by Johnathan Evison. Here is The Daily Wire Quote: “What if I told you I touched another guy’s d***? What if I told you I sucked it? I was ten years old, but it’s true. I sucked Doug Goble’s d***, the real estate guy, and he sucked mine too.” (redaction of words in source), along with a more full quote. Now, here’s the bit that’s deceptive: They do not clarify that both the kid and Dick Goble were young at the time (another quote from the book they neglected to mention: “eight or nine other kids, including my hero, Doug Goble”), and the part they quoted, in isolation, certainly strongly implies that the book shows an adult (“Real estate guy”) having oral sex with a 10-year-old kid. While the quote from the book was accurate, quoting just the passage without a more full context makes things look worse than they are. That said, since they did accurately (albeit without enough context) quote the book, it was not a bald face lie. I reserve deprecation for straight up dishonest or fabricated content (for example, Rolling Stone is merely “Generally unreliable” even though they allowed two out right fabricated stories to be published in the last seven years). Samboy (talk) 12:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    But it's worse than that. The source starts off with "found that books graphically depicting pedophilia" which is in Daily Wire's voice. They then go on to quote someone who appeared before the board "Both of these books include pedophilia, sex between men and boys". While they only presented the latter as a quote rather than their own voice, they do not clarify that the person they're quoting was simply wrong at least about one of the books. Indeed when taken together with the earlier bit, it's quite likely most readers will think that according to the Daily Wire, the book includes "sex between men and boys" even before they see the bit from the book they quote latter. They then go on to quote parts in a way which further re-enforces this view. As you've acknowledged no where do they make it clear that the scene they're discussing involved a recollection of something that happened between two children. Nil Einne (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Didn't really catch this until now, but they mention other books...and a quote of that book. Perhaps it's in those. Without clear context, it's hard to know. Buffs (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    For the record, “generally unreliable” means that we almost never use the source, and that claims which only come from the source can be deleted or marked “citation needed” (with very few limited exceptions). I recently deleted a contentious BLP-violating claim sourced from Rolling Stone; now that Rolling Stone is “generally unreliable” for political and WP:BLP claims, no one contested my removal of the questionable claim. Samboy (talk) 14:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • NO - Deprecation is overkill. Usage should continue to be limited, but not deprecated. The Daily Wire is an opinion source, not a news outlet. As such, it is reliable as a primary source for attributed statements as to the opinions of its contributors, but not for unattributed statements of fact. Whether a specific opinion should be included in a specific article is a function of DUE WEIGHT, not reliability. Usage is subject specific. Blueboar (talk) 14:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Yes, deprecate, per resources provided above. Too much unreliable / conspiratorial opinion, not enough news. Anything worth covering would be covered by much better sources. --K.e.coffman (talk) 14:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Deprecating a source for having "too much unreliable / conspiratorial opinion" is a rather extreme and hostile position to be taken, and begs the question that other sources including those on the left with extreme opinion pieces should simply be removed too (which I don't think we want). Tagging the source as "generally unreliable" and using WP:UNDUE to consider if TDW's opinion is worth inclusion (which given its stance likely never would be in most cases) is sufficient and avoids having the same question of deprecation on this basis of being a bad opinion being used to question other sources. Deprecation should only be used when we know the source fundamentally misreports/falsifies information to be completely unusable like Daily Mail. --Masem (t) 14:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      • It's not worth it having DUE / UNDUE discussions as suggested, about a fundamentally unsuitable source. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
        • I can absolutely see TDW being used in an RSOPINION manner alongside other conservative sources (Fox, etc.) if there is a section on a controversial topic that is weighing liberal press opinions against conservative press opinions - though in the larger picture of things, such sections heavily weighing press commentary from either side would likely be a problem under RECENTISM. But as Blueboar states, deprecation should only be used for fundamental flawed sources that are known for outright fabrication of news to the point of being flat out unusable in any context. --Masem (t) 15:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
          • Who are the Daily Wire authors who may fall under RSOPINION in your view? --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
            • I'll let Masem answer for himself, but, to throw my opinion in, Shapiro would probably be the most prominent example. His podcast is top ten on Apple podcasts and has significant exposure. He'd be on par with Hannity (whom I despise). Buffs (talk) 18:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
              • Ooooh! That doesn't help. In a list of "people as sources", Hannity and Shapiro would be near the top of those we can only use in their own articles. -- Valjean (talk) 18:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
                • I am absolutely not saying this must be used, I'm only pulling an example that is an opinion but not Shapiro but that would fit the type of RSOPINION that TDW would be suitable for potential inclusion in discussion of one side of the views related to cancel culture via these series of opinions [188] at TWD (Parts 1, 5, and 6 specifically marked "Opinion", the others would be unusable under the current "generally unreliable"). There are of course many other "Opinion" authors at TDW that aren't Shapiro on other topics. But there are also a lot of other factors that have to be considered in context of where they would be used, what other sources are used in support of the same viewpoint as well as those in counter-points, etc; just being an opinion piece in TDW absolutely does not mean we should include it because of all the complicating factors that an UNDUE analysis would have to consider. --Masem (t) 18:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
                  • That's pretty much all I'm looking for for such usage. Perhaps "The View" would have been a better comparison. Both shows are highly opinionated. But they are notable for the reach they have and the general points of view that are discussed as part of the public political dialogue in America. Citing them for what they said should not be controversial. It serves as both a primary source ("yeah, Ben said that" or "yeah, Whoopi said that") as well as evidence that their dialogue was widely disseminated (both shows have a substantial base viewership) and, in general, is representative of the views of their political persuasion. I'm NOT looking to have any DW article as the source for some wild claim. Buffs (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
                    • You seriously want to compare Daily Wire to The View? The View is a show that has been running for 25 years on a 73-year-old commercial broadcast television network. DW is merely 6 years old. The View has multiple hosts at any one time, with a mix of people from both sides of the political spectrum in each show and tries to present and discuss all angles. DW, as best I can tell, has only one viewpoint. I'm not promoting The View (I don't like it and don't watch it), but even I know that V and DW are worlds apart. Platonk (talk) 23:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
                      • Yes, seriously. People espousing political views/perspectives...that's pretty much DW in a nutshell too. They invite debates and discussion with all kinds of views on their audio and video programs, for example, the Sunday Special: Vox Founder Matthew Yglesias John Stossel (staunch libertarian) Michael Shermer (founder of Skeptic Magazine), as well as tons of debates you can find on YouTube (some under the Daily Wire banner and some are under Turning Point...I'm referring to the former). DW, as best I can tell, has only one viewpoint treating all conservative views as some sort of monotone monolith is part of the problem here. They are not all the same. Ben Shapiro, for example, is highly pro-vaccine, Jewish, and has TONS of criticism of Trump, his policies, and his treatment of the election results. Contrast this with people like Hannity who are practically Trump yes-men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talk • contribs) 16:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
                        • With due respect, it seems to me there's conflation occurring again here. In response to "the Daily Wire only has one view," you respond "conservative thought is diverse." Both propositions may be true. Perhaps there are diverse views at the Daily Wire, but you're not actually making that argument. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
                          • Actually, I am making exactly that argument and just pointed out multiple long-form discussions hosted by DW where libertarian, liberal, and other voices were welcomed. Shapiro's positions, as demonstrated, are in stark contrast to remarks above "We must 'assume' that sources like TDW that fully back Trump must be 'a source contains lies.' They have no choice. Sources that defend his lies must contain lies" which literally being used to support deprecation based on the idea that anyone agreeing with Trump about anything should be deprecated. Others at Daily Wire (Boering, for example) choose not to get vaccinated and have explained that, because they are healthy and are willing to accept the consequences if they get the virus, they shouldn't be required to take it which is in opposition to Shapiro's stance. I can go through dozens of different points where different hosts/components of DW differ. But the point is that they are indeed a diverse group of ideas and do not all subscribe to "one view". Buffs (talk) 18:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
                • Besides Shapiro, who else? I'm trying to understand how WP:RSOPINION applies here. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
                  • K.e.coffman, I'm not sure if you're addressing me or Masem, but here's my understanding, using some examples.
All content (and that is literally ALL!!!) at Wikipedia must be based on RS with only ONE exception, WP:ABOUTSELF. That allows, sometimes in exceptional cases, the use of even blacklisted sources in a bio article about themselves, and nowhere else. (That's how we can document the "sum of all human knowledge" for conspiracy theories, lies, pseudoscience, etc.) IOW, for example, Trump (one of the least reliable people known) cannot be cited anywhere but in his own article, unless RS have quoted him (and they do because he is notable), in which case a RS can be used to cite him in other articles. The RS may be giving that content due weight.
If it weren't for WP:ABOUTSELF, we could never cite someone who has no regard for truth, and/or habitually spews lies, and/or misleading propaganda, and/or pseudoscientific nonsense all the time. That applies to people like Trump, Giuliani, Hannity, Limbaugh, Carlson, Jones, Mercola, Tenpenny, and maybe even Shapiro. (I'll let you judge which might apply to each, and RS do have plenty to say about their lack of reliability.) We couldn't use primary sources or an unreliable source like The Daily Wire to cite them. OTOH, we could cite them if a RS cited them because the RS may be used to judge due weight.
I obviously disagree with some of what I think (I may be wrong) Masem has said above. If something in The Daily Wire is not found elsewhere in a RS, then it doesn't have enough due weight for mention in any other place than the TDW and/or Shapiro article. Other contributers at TDW should write for reputable sources if they want to get mention here. The fact they write for TDW shows very poor judgement. Obviously there are exceptions to every rule, so take the above with a grain of salt. I'm sure someone can come up with some form of exception. Face-wink.svg -- Valjean (talk) 00:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
To be clear, if TDW is the only one, or one of a very few number of sources that would fall into the usable RSOPINION class that opine on a minority viewpoint, then yes, per UNDUE, we should not be including them at all. But if TDW is in general broad agreement with a large body of other opinion sources (but with there own specific takes in a few places) - this is why I used cancel culture as an example where a body of opinions that bemoan cancel cancel readily exist that coverage of that view is not UNDUE - then it should be a reason to consider, but that's only a necessary but not sufficient condition for inclusion of TDW's opinion. A plethera of other factors related to RSOPINION and other factors come into play at that point.
What is key towards my argument (in that I support maintaining "generally unreliable" and opposed making it "deprecated") is that none of the evidence above shows the same types of problems that works like The Daily Mail or with state-owned works like RT to make us even doubt the veracity of their opinion pages. We can argue their opinion is very unlikely to be used in any reasonable WP article, and that's a completely fair assessment, as I agree the threshold to include TDW would be rather high. But there's no reason to pre-emptively say we can never use it based on the evidence given - nothing suggests the Daily Mail-type problems, and the sources that try to discuss TDW in depth do speak to its bias problems but attempts to stay factual. All that to me points to treating similar to Fox News, with very delicate hands but not hands off. --Masem (t) 01:49, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Masem hits the nail on the head. Use of it could be easily used to show a general or notable ATTRIBUTED opinion on a subject. Deprecating it feels spiteful. Buffs (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Deprecate per Aquillion and Platonk above. Cheers, all, and happy Tuesday. Dumuzid (talk) 14:52, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 1 without doubt major conduit for new right disinformation (while masquerading as libertarian source with "objective slant"). Acousmana 15:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • No The current status is already an over-generalization, and this would make it even worse. North8000 (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Deprecate　ー　The examples provided here are sufficient. The Daily Wire's tabloid language is consistently deceptive. Arguments that it is technically not fake news are either pedantry or sophistry. Any opinions published by this website would almost always require reliable independent sources contextualizing why those opinion are encyclopedically significant. Grayfell (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I think Buffs has done a really good job showing that the examples are really poor. They may show extreme opinion but nothing that rises to the level of deprecation. At the same time the generally respected Adfontes media puts three DW is a bucket similar to Salon. There is a serious disconnect between what sources say vs what editors feel. Springee (talk) 22:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Interesting how you present what you "think" as being in a different category from what other editors "feel". Almost like "facts don't care about your feelings"? The examples, and my own eyes, are sufficient for me to conclude that this outlet is extremely misleading. These opinions are not "extreme" in the same way that saying "pop tarts are a sandwich" is extreme, they are extreme in how they ignore very important context that would undermine their own ideological positions, and they are extreme in how they phrase things in an emotive, misleading way while pretending to be dispassionate and "rational". This is a form of fake news, and this set of tactics is a constant from this outlet. Grayfell (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Also, since it's been mentioned twice now, I will mention that Ad Fontes Media is not generally reliable on Wikipedia, per WP:RSP. If you want to make the case that it's "generally respected", you have your work cut out for you, but that's clearly a separate discussion. I don't respect Ad Fontes Media, neither for this discussion, nor in general. Grayfell (talk) 22:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Just a constatation, but I noticed that the position changes depending on the chart version/year. In 2018 it was "extreme/unfair representation of the news", "hyper-partisan right". —PaleoNeonate – 22:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
[citation needed] Buffs (talk) 20:27, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Version 4.0 of the chart —PaleoNeonate – 07:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Literally the majority of Buffs' responses were "nu-UH, I think this source is wrong." Come on. It's a list I threw together rapidly from a Google Scholar search, and I'll grant that there's some stuff in there I wouldn't put in an article, but there's a ton of really solid stuff there, too. "I don't agree with this peer-reviewed paper's definition of misinformation" or "I, personally, think the Daily Wire was right here even if this academic source says it was misinformation" is not a meaningful argument. Overall I presented a solid snapshot showing that academia largely views the Daily Wire as a source of politically-motivated misinformation, and I stand by that assessment. --Aquillion (talk) 02:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • No, I stated that your conclusion was wrong based on faulty analysis of the given information. "It's a list I threw together rapidly from a Google Scholar search" alone sort of proves my point. You created an amalgam of links that didn't support the conclusions you drew. It appears you simply assumed they did (i.e. "this article shows it's fake news" when, in fact, it mentions Daily Wire, also has "fake news", but doesn't connect the two. Buffs (talk) 20:27, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Not reliable. Do not deprecate. The DW does not have a reputation for fact-checking or accuracy. However, they are making efforts in that direction. They do have a corrections policy[189] and have corrected their articles [190][191][192][193][194][195]. In light of this, deprecation would be going too far at this time. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Yes, deprecate DailyWire aggregates items from other sources, rewriting to fit an agenda. There is no reliable fact checking or verification of the items. DW can not be treated as a Reliable Source because the chain of newsgathering editorial control is broken: in other words, as an aggregator, they can not supervise their content creators (unlike, for example, the AP, or CBS, or TBS, or BBC, or WP, or CT, or... <I'm being US centric here, but those are media sources I know>). — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 05:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    More guilt by accusation? They do original reporting too (note above). Quoting someone and giving analysis/opinion is not the same as "rewriting to fit an agenda". Likewise, There is no reliable fact checking or verification of the items? Really? Media bias for DW is assessed as "Reliable for news, but high in analysis/opinion content". What's your source? Buffs (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
It is "assessed" by an unreliable blog. As I mentioned above, Ad Fontes Media is not reliable, nor is it particularly trustworthy. Its methodology is shallow and inconsistent and the premise itself is simplistic. Taking political compass memes too seriously is a bad idea, for several reasons. Grayfell (talk) 21:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
It's hardly an "unreliable blog", but ok. Here's another that labels it as "questionable", but (explicitly) not "Fake News" as described above. [196] Buffs (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
WP:MBFC is Generally Unreliable for Wikipedia. I also urge you to stop WP:BADGERing literally every person in this discussion that doesn't agree with you - David Gerard (talk) 21:29, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I'd urge you to stop exaggerating to make your points. I've hardly responded to literally every person in this discussion that doesn't agree with [me]. I've been selective. Buffs (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • No Changing the status does nothing to improve articles. Under the current rating, no article in the publication would be considered reliable unless it was written by an expert, that is, someone who had papers about the topic published in the academic press. It's like killing a cockroach with a cruise missile. TFD (talk) 05:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Yes – there can't be any possible reason to use this source, with the WP:ABOUTSELF exception mentioned by Valjean. --bonadea contributions talk 14:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Yes The fact that occasional valid content appears is irrelevant. If it is not deprecated, we'll have endless pointless discussions about trying to use dubious or false content sourced from its generally unreliable publication. SPECIFICO talk 03:14, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Agreed. Re "endless pointless discussions"... For two weeks I've been watching this relentless campaigning about Daily Wire initiated by Buffs. I wish he'd give it a break. He started in on it on my User talk page (Sept 15), edit warred on an article (Sept 15-Sept 17), argued more at the article's talk page (Sept 17-Sept 19), on another editor's user talk page, and even more on his own talk page (Sept 17). I watched two editors get temporary blocks, and witnessed one ridiculous marathon ANI (Sept 16-17). After 48 hours of watching the biggest wiki BATTLE I've ever witnessed, I made an about-face and walked away from all the drama. I have ignored him since then, until I noticed Buffs tried three times in under 24 hours to unilaterally remove Daily Wire from WP:RSP on Sept 26-27 (1st, 2nd, 3rd removals). And so here we are. Platonk (talk) 05:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
We should avoid tying issues related to behavior of a single editor to the assessment of reliability of a website. Just because one bad seed pushed a specific website in an inappropriate manner does not necessarily make that website a bad website - though it is possible that a separate evaluation of that website not tied to that editor will reveal faults. --Masem (t) 12:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Well, when you slant it like that. How about "A few people had a disagreement. Buffs tried multiple options (including attempting one-on-one discussions as required in a collegial discussion until it was clear that nothing was going to be gained. After having insults hurled at him and removing them from his talk page and despite CLEAR guidance that it was allowed, he was blocked, so he reached out for help. He also noticed that a summary on WP:RSP was placed unilaterally by an IP address and reverted it. Another editor who swore he wouldn't interact with me ever again, then proceeded to simply undo anything I'd done and then placed a rigged RFC here (both options get what he wants and doesn't address anything I brought up...and refused to add any more options/allow a different RfC)?" Reasonable people can disagree. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean I'm a problem. You don't have to be here if you don't want to be.
If y'all are going to disparage/badmouth me on a public page, the least you could do is tag me. Calling discussions and disagreements "ridiculous" is absurd. So is calling me "one bad seed". Buffs (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I was merely responding to SPECIFICO's remark ("If it is not deprecated, we'll have endless pointless discussions about trying to use dubious or false content sourced from its generally unreliable publication.") with an example of such endlessness which was actually related to this discussion. There is no need to go into long defenses and extend said endlessness. This RSN/RfC is quite enough, and I hope it's the last I see of this topic. Platonk (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
You were not "merely responding" and you know it. You took a chance to have one more jab at me/chance to needle me when it wasn't warranted in the slightest. If you don't want to see this topic, you don't have to look. Buffs (talk) 18:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Buffs: Knock it off! Your style of writing towards me on this topic has not been merely uncivil, but has been dismissive, overbearing, bullying... and ongoing. That's the umpteenth time you've told me I could walk away instead of dealing with your tendentious behavior. Knock off the BATTLE and PA and stick to the subject matter. Platonk (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Let me see if I can summarize how I see this portion going:
  • SPECIFICO !votes "yes" and cites his reason as "If not, we'll have endless pointless discussions"
  • You respond with, effectively, yes, "Buffs is a terrible editor and here's why" (paraphrased) with a lengthy list of gripes/exaggerations about me including descriptors like "relentless campaigning", "I wish he'd give it a break", "he started it on my talk page", "edit warred", "argued more", "the biggest wiki BATTLE I've ever witnessed", "[argued] even more on his own talk page". You then say you "walked away from all the drama", disparaged my edits (which I think reasonable and hardly "unilateral" any more than the previous addition in the first place by an IP who was clearly trying to hide their real identity) and attempts at a compromise, and lastly tried to frame that as "here we are...[this is all his fault]"
None of that was necessary and was pretty much a repeat of what you tried to (unsuccessfully) bring up at WP:ANI. It doesn't have any bearing on this RfC and you made it highly personal for no reason. Buffs (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Buffs: This RfC is not a war against you even though you keep framing it as one. See WP:USTHEM. Platonk (talk) 01:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Only one person here keeps referring to this as a "war against <anything>" here and it isn't me. Buffs (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Yes, deprecate. Per Aquillion and David Gerard. Any content from DailyWire is better sourced elsewhere. Cedar777 (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Yes Sometimes when I'm bored I listen to the various Daily Wire podcasts. Even though they word things differently, it would be completely wrong to say they have differing opinions. 99% of the time it's all just the same disinformation but re-packaged for a different audience depending on the podcast. In the 1% of cases where it isn't there's better sources to get the information anyway. So no big lose. That said, people could probably make the same argument for MSNBC and them endlessly repeating "the walls are closing in" on Trump over the Russia thing, but whatever. This isn't an RfC about MSNBC. If it was, I'd probably vote the same way. In the meantime though, DW should clearly not be used as a reference for anything. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment WP:Deprecated sources seems to be at odds with the general direction of this RfC. Reading that information page i get the impression that Daily Wire would be de facto deprecated and the question would be ...often cited by unaware editors, or those that come up in discussion the most often – for example, due to real-world controversy, borderline reliability, or a tendency to be promoted on-wiki... vs. instruction creep. SPECIFICO and Platonk's arguments would then be most relevant. fiveby(zero) 13:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    • The Daily Mail deprecation RFC came about because it was a clearly terrible source, but some editors insisted it was excellent and insisted on using it anyway; this meant there was a genuine dispute over the matter. This is the same reason this RFC exists: an editor insisting at length, in multiple venues, over weeks, that it's a quality source in the face of the evidence it isn't. This could be treated as an editor issue - the dispute did make it to the admin noticeboards - but it's arguably useful to weigh it up as a sourcing issue - David Gerard (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      • True, @David Gerard:. I'm exhausted from all that 'insisting' even though I wasn't even participating in all those discussions. Was there an ANI I missed? I'm only familiar with two that the 'insister' filed on other editors who had been trying to set them straight on the GUNREL status of Daily Wire. Platonk (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
        • And in the meantime this has sat for two weeks without response? deprecate fiveby(zero) 18:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
          • @Fiveby: I'd forgotten all about that one. BTW, you might want to change your 'comment' to a !vote, if you want it counted (from within this wall-of-text RfC). Platonk (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • No: there is a lot of reaching and exaggeration in the comments above, unfortunately. I was perfectly willing to be convinced that the source should be deprecated, but no-one has actually presented concerns strong enough for this very severe outcome. Note that my comment is not a comment either way about whether the Daily Wire should be categorised as "Generally unreliable" or recategorised, just opposition to deprecation. — Bilorv (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Bad RfC. Now some administrators are interpreting "deprecate" as "can be added to spam-blacklist" so all RfCs with this word can be used for more than deprecating. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 12:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Peter Gulutzan, who is doing that? Please provide the diff. Regardless, we do not make decisions based on abuse, misuse, or misunderstandings. The exceptional misuse should not affect our decisions or this process, so please strike or reword your comment. -- Valjean (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
      • Valjean: here, here, and I think I'm allowed to disagree with you. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC) Update: I edited my original comment to strike out quote marks. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
        • Peter Gulutzan, I need actual diff(s) to the single edit(s), not to the whole thread. Those are to threads about ancient-origins.net, so I don't understand what's going on or how it relates to The Daily Wire. (BTW, of course you're allowed to disagree with me!! No problemo. My point still stands, that rare exceptions shouldn't dictate general actions. -- Valjean (talk) 01:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Valjean: One has to read more than one post in the thread to see that the request was deprecation and the result was spam-blacklist. You choose to believe the administrators' actions were exceptional, that's not how I interpreted their remarks. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi Peter. I only searched for mention of The Daily Wire and didn't fiind it, so didn't read any further. So, if I understand you correctly, some admin(s) responded to a request for deprecation of some source with blacklisting it? Is that what happened? Was that website comparable to TDW? -- Valjean (talk) 03:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Also, I see no indication anywhere that there is any danger that TDW would be blacklisted. There is no cause for concern. -- Valjean (talk) 03:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
It is correct that the suggestion was deprecation and the result was adding to the spam blacklist. The administrators gave no advance indication. So I will regard pro-deprecation RfCs as causes for concern. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Is there any recent deprecation RFC that you've participated in and not claimed is a "bad RFC"? You may be opposed to deprecation in general, but RFCs for such were validated by an RFC on that topic on this page. Your continuing claims that clearly valid RFCs are bad is getting tendentious, and don't appear to have convinced anyone - David Gerard (talk) 22:54, October 3, 2021‎ (UTC)
David Gerard: As far as I can see in WP:RFC, there is nothing that obliges me to comment on this RfC in a way that you prescribe. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
David Gerard, that was an unnecessarily personal remark that really has no place on WP discussions. I, for one, don't find the argument to be having this RfC in this manner to be very convincing and several others have expressed similar concerns below. Buffs (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Yes, deprecate. Not reliable on facts. Gerntrash (talk) 12:19, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • No This is a pointless question which has wasted a lot of editor effort. If it's generally unreliable we can quote people for their opinions or in the remote event an expert writes an article for facts. If it's deprecated, we can't. Can someone explain how making this change improves the encyclopedia? TFD (talk) 02:52, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • No. The assessments of the highest quality secondary sources that have been cited in this discussion (e.g. NPR, Adfontes' Interactive Media Bias Chart) are not consistent with deprecation. Colin M (talk) 14:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Since Ad Fontes is unreliable per WP:RSP, it is not accurate to list it as one of the highest quality sources. As for NPR, it also says But The Daily Wire has turned anger into an art form and recycled content into a business model.[197] That shows that this outlet has a negative reputation from its journalistic peers. If this content is at best repackaged from elsewhere with an unreliable political slant, then there is no reason to cite this outlet instead of the more reliable original source. This matches other deceptive or clickbait outlets which have already been deprecated. Grayfell (talk) 00:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
The most recent RSN discussion on Ad Fontes seems to suggest that people consider it useful for assessing sources (i.e. what we're doing right now) but not appropriate to cite in mainspace articles for the purposes of supporting claims about the bias/reliability of publications. Colin M (talk) 04:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I get what that discussion is aiming at, but it appears to be an attempt at a compromise. Ad Fontes's presentation is more glossy and respectible-seeming than some alternatives, but the underlying content is opaque, subjective, and pseudoscientific. It lacks a positive reputation as a source itself. If it's not reliable for articles, why, exactly is it supposed to be useful for us here? Is it do as we say, not as we do? Regardless, if it's not even reliable, than it's definitely not a high quality source, even for evaluating other sources. Grayfell (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Yes, deprecate. Aquillon and David Gerard give ample sourcing of the DW lying, and nobody on the no side since appears to be able to offer anyone but their opinion that lying is not lying or doesn't count somehow. Even some of the sources given to counter that the DW was lying prove that they were lying: for example, when the DW says BLM activists led a protest on Monday at Carmine’s Italian Restaurant in New York City after a hostess denied entry to three black women last week because they would not provide proof of vaccination, Buffs cites to bolster this story a story by Newsweek (itself a marginal source) which said in a story published the same day It later emerged that the three women had provided documentation of COVID-19 vaccinations. This detail fundamentally changes the story, and this all happened weeks ago, ample time to correct the article. Loki (talk) 02:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Yes. As stated at WP:DEPS, "Deprecation is a formalization that arises from Wikipedia’s normal processes for evaluating sources. It primarily exists to save time by avoiding the endless discussion of the same issues, and to raise awareness among editors of the status of the sources in question." As shown in previous discussions and above, this is not a reliable source. I am persuaded by evidence of their dishonest reporting, and unpersuaded by defenses of the same. No one denies that the majority of their conent is, as a matter of their practice, easily sourcable in other places. We should deprecate to save editor time, raise awareness, and better inform our readers. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • No As demonstrated my others yes it is unreliable but not to the extent that deprecation is required. Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 04:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Malformed survey[edit]

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

The following options should be added:
Option 3: Treat as a partisan source for information on par with the HuffPost politics and Fox News politics
Option 4: Treat as a generally reliable source for information
Buffs (talk) 05:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Nah. When this RfC is completely finished, you can create one with those options.
The discussion at RS/P produced such excellent and strong criticism from many good reliable and scholarly sources that I was tempted to go for full blacklisting, but decided to go for what was suggested there, which was deprecation. -- Valjean (talk) 05:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Nah. When this RfC is completely finished, you can create one with those options. When the conclusion prevents such a discussion? Yeah right. Like I said, this is an attempt to game the system. Buffs (talk) 05:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Why can't we use the same format as Metalmaidens.com listed below for this RfC? Oh, right, it would prevent you from getting the exact result you want and prevents me (or others) from offering any alternatives. Yep: WP:GAME. Buffs (talk) 05:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I chose this because the rules for RfCs allow several different formats, and, based on the direction and recommendations in the previous discussion, this seemed to be the logical choice. All the arguments and sources presented there undercut your attempts to get TDW rated as a good source when it's actually a horrible source. -- Valjean (talk) 05:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
It isn't a neutral statement, therefore it fails RfC criteria. Sources used as a rationale for such options in the past are misleadingly summarized; Example: "Scores high for bias and low for reliability on https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/" when in fact it states ""Reliable for news, but high in analysis/opinion content" As such, neither option is an appropriate choice, but you've excluded those options and ignored other discussions on that page as well as other discussions in the past. So, no, that isn't a faithful summary of the previous discussions on the subject. Buffs (talk) 05:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Nor did you invite the previous people in those discussions to this RfC... Buffs (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Buffs: The RfC nom did, actually. I direct you to WP:Canvassing. The RfC nom correctly used appropriate notification to notify participants in several other threads. If he/she omitted any by mistake (since you've buttered this topic all over Wikipedia, and who can keep track of it all), you were/are welcome to notify those other participants or threads yourself. Platonk (talk) 01:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
To the best of my knowledge, he only mentioned this RfC in one of the two on that page and did not invite any previous participants. If he's made more efforts, he should publish them. You're the one who's claiming he did so. Where else has this been published? Why hasn't it been marked at the top of the discussion per Wikipedia:Publicising_discussions? Why haven't other editors been informed? Buffs (talk) 21:04, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Buffs: I see notices and invitations/pings at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Daily Wire [198] [199] and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Please restore RfC remarks [200]. Where else do you think editors should have been notified? Who wasn't notified that you think should have been? Platonk (talk) 22:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
How about all the people who were involved in the previous 3 discussions 1 2 3 and other discussions I've mentioned above? How about the talk page of the subject? Instead, he chose one specific thread and one barely tangentially related ANI page where opinion was in his favor and posted links/tagged those people only. So, no, that's not a neutral notification. Buffs (talk) 16:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
If there are no objections, I'll happily tag all those people and invite them here (assuming they haven't already been invited), but I'm also not going to be accused of WP:CANVASSING if there are. The originator has already said "nah" to including anyone else. Buffs (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Buffs, I placed a prominent notice at the end of the discussion, as noted above. Everyone in that thread, especially yourself, as the starter of the thread, had a chance to read it. The RfC process automatically alerted two different topic areas, so even more people would notice this RfC. So those who had been involved in your WP:RS/P discussion noticed it, as well as many who didn't know anything about what was going on. My edit summaries, which are read by many people who don't participate, were also clear about the new RfC here. I tried to do the right thing. I don't start RfCs very often.
Also, I don't recall saying anything like that above about "anyone else" ("The originator has already said "nah" to including anyone else."). What I said was "Nah. When this RfC is completely finished, you can create one with those options." That was at 05:13, 27 September 2021. -- Valjean (talk) 03:18, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
As noted above, see Wikipedia:Publicising_discussions#Best_pracitces:
  • If you do post notices, also post a comment at the discussion talk page that such notices have been made.
  • Best practice include making a note of where the discussion has been publicised
Dozens of people participated in previous discussions. The only way they'd know about this one is if they regularly follow the page. Those people should be contacted/tagged, IMHO. If there is no objection, I'll try to contact them in a few days. Buffs (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
This line of discussion is disruptive. There is no constructive reason for you to beat this dead horse and repeatedly harangue an editor over your days-old accusation of an omission that you yourself could have remedied if it were true. If putting a generic notice on a particular talk page isn't canvassing, then do it and quit complaining that someone else didn't do it. If notifying individual editors who were involved in discussions that took place in 2018, 2019 and 2020 is canvassing, then don't do that. If you are uncertain about the scope or details of the WP:Canvassing guidelines, then try asking your questions on its talk page or on a noticeboard with the purpose of discussing/clarifying policies. See also WP:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Platonk (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
If you think this is disruptive, then stop asking questions. You can't ask repeated questions/ask for clarification and then use that as evidence of alleged disruption when a person responds. I can't possibly ask some talk page to see what your opinion is or seek clarification of your intent (if I do so, couldn't that be considered canvassing when I ask about the situation?). Asking for clarification is what a talk page is for; it's not disruption. Buffs (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Buffs: Don't twist this around to pretend your hands are clean and your disruptive comments are all my fault. I asked questions once [201] and it was rhetorical — to suggest you do it yourself. And that was after I told you to handle alleged omissions yourself [202]. But instead of doing that, you have continued this line of badgering by posting five more comments [203] [204] [205] [206] [207]. This noticeboard is not a talk page and your contributions here should be focused on improving the encyclopedia. Your pattern of pettifogging comments suggests you are not trying to resolve anything, but instead are being POINTY to the brink of exasperation. So if anyone has been making this subthread continue, it sure as day wasn't my questions 7 posts back! Stop gaslighting me! Platonk (talk) 21:04, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Which is why I asked the originator of this RfC for clarification, not you (a request that has been ignored). This noticeboard is effectively a talk page just like any other notice board and a place to discuss differences and reach a consensus (thereby improving WP). Discussing behavioral standards is part of that. To categorize dissent from your personal views/collegial discussion as "disruption" is inherently uncivil. You are the one who is slinging accusations left and right here, not me, and I ask that you stop. Buffs (talk) 14:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Buffs if there is one piece of advice I could give you, it is that replying endlessly to all of these threads and comments with "citation needed" and repetitions of previously answered arguments.... all of it is detrimental to your goal. Reading this thread, uninvolved users are less likely to side with you as a result, not more. My advice overall is to step back from this and take a breather. If your criticisms are indeed valid, it is very likely someone else will respond. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I didn't ask for your advice. I've not replied to "all these threads" and exaggerations like these are part of the problem here. Comments like "it's garbage propaganda" need a citation as they are feeding a negative image that is being formed via guilt-by-accusation. Others have responded. Buffs (talk) 16:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Referring to 67 replies by a single user on just one RfC is not 'an exaggeration'. Platonk (talk) 16:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Platonk without making any statement on right/wrong/otherwise of these opinions etc. I think this is a very clear case of WP:IDHT. In general, my advice to you is to also stop responding. Uninvolved editors can very easily see and understand the situation here. It's not rocket science. Indeed, this is actually often used as a shorthand to understand how lopsided the consensus is. Seeing intense "badgerers" (for lack of a better term) in a discussion.
I admit, I myself have been guilty of this. I would bet most of us have been at one point or another! But the important thing is recognizing it. It's difficult to recognize in oneself, but very easy to recognize in others. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

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

I see your actions as an attempt to game the system. I asked for you to include options I want and you've refused. Given that you've also stated you control the conversation now and that I can't start an RfC until this one is over, I stand by my assessment. This isn't the place for such discussion. If you want to discuss it further, you know the proper venues. Buffs (talk) 05:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
collapsed per WP:OFFTOPIC— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

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

I think you are confusing Lawn Boy and Lawn Boy. My comments are that WP has the exact same standards as DW and the mother in question. Restore my comments. Buffs (talk) 07:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Wrong. You know nothing about books and nothing about the First Amendment. As evidenced by the book's Amazon entry, Jonathan Evison's coming-of-age novel Lawn Boy was published by Algonquin Books, favorably reviewed by the NYT, the Washington Post, and a variety of other mainstream outlets, given starred reviews by Library Journal, Booklist, and Publishers Weekly, and named a 2018 Editors Choice pick of Booklist. The novel is factually and legally not "pedophilia" and for you to suggest or state that it is, is frankly outright libelous toward the author. You may not use this platform to smear Jonathan Evison, a living person and a noted novelist, as a purported advocate of pedophilia - or to smear me for defending the work as being of literary merit. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Off-topic, but I am reminded of Cuties. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
"Wrong. You know nothing about books..." is hardly a WP:CIVIL comment. Furthermore, I very clearly did not "smear" you and went so far as to clarify it. As for this particular passage, I was pointing out what the person who was talking to the school board was presenting. If she was inaccurate, that's on her. There's a vast difference. The point here (and that I very clearly repeated before you deleted it) was that such passages, as described, fell under pedophilia and that WP has the same standards. In case there was any misconception, let me be crystal clear: I am NOT in any way accusing you of posting or defending pedophilia at this time. Reasonable people can disagree about content and whether it is appropriate for a school to have. Buffs (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

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

So, procedurally disruptive, but because you agree with him it's ok? Isn't that a bit of a double standard? Buffs (talk) 16:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
No, and no. I highlighted a key difference in the hypothetical, but it's a hypothetical. If you read my !vote, I didn't support (or oppose) deprecation. We could use an RfC on it, I suppose, so while this one isn't ideal, I figured I'd respond as though it were a more typical source reliability RfC. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Consulting the Media Bias Chart: Disclaimer, I know Adfontes isn't the infinite oracle of wisdom here but I think it's interesting to compare how a source scored there vs how Wikipedia treats them. The Daily Wire is rated as 34.41 and 14.43 for reliability and bias (positive bias = right, negative = left). What sources have similar scores (looking at absolute bias), Salon is 33.72, -18.08 so less reliable and more biased. New Republic is basically the same reliability but a bias of -18 vs 14.4. The Week is again about the same reliability but bias of 12. Vanity Fair is 36.15 and about the same bias. The Daily Beast and MSNBC are both about 2pts better in reliability and about the same for bias. None of this says Daily Wire is good but it does suggest our attempt to deprecate are overkill. These are all sites that fall into the "Analysis or High Variation in Reliability" bucket. Aquillion has listed a number of references but are they good? The first one I clicked on was a masters thesis [208]. Is that our standard now? This paper doesn't make a strong case for depreciation [209]. It basically says the DW criticized another news source for bias. If that was our standard then CNN would have to do away for their fixation on talking about "what Fox News just did". No question it isn't quality reporting but it's not the sort of thing that justifies depreciation nor is it something none of our acceptable sources would engage in. This one is an undergrad thesis [210]. The strongest material in here is a group that seems to repeatedly use the Daily Wire as part of their misinformation briefs but they don't provide examples of why the articles are wrong rather they are looking at web engagement. When the Daily Mail was deprecated, if I'm not mistaken, there were concrete examples of where they did something wrong. In the recent Rolling Stone discussion again there were clear examples of the source getting things wrong, refusing to correct etc. Here we have a lot of editor opinion (and undergrad opinions) but little in the way of true substance. Absent that true substance we shouldn't deprecate. Springee (talk) 18:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]

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

Call for close[edit]

I would like to respectfully suggest that this topic has long since passed the point at which it created more heat than light. I don't know that I see a consensus, but as I !voted, I'll leave that to others to judge. Still, for the good of all, I think it's time to close this survey. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:26, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I concur that it's reached the going in circles stage. I asked at WP:RFCC for a close - David Gerard (talk) 21:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I disagree. Multiple people have weighed in including 3 in the last 24 hours. The originator hasn't even pinged those in discussions who opposed his point of view. Buffs (talk) 03:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
With all due respect, your third sentence here is an example of why I think we have hit the "drama for drama's sake" phase of the proceedings. Reasonable minds may disagree. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Doesn't sound very respectful. Dismissing my concerns as "drama" is not collegial. Buffs (talk) 15:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Collegiality does not demand that you and I agree on everything, or indeed, anything at all. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:01, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

RfC: Metalmaidens.com[edit]

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

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

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

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

Survey (Metalmaidens)[edit]

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

Discussion (Metalmaidens)[edit]

  • The source seems more like a fan made zine of questionable quality. —TheSandDoctor (mobile) (talk) 21:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Looking at the "about us" section, it appears to be a husband and wife team with a small group (half a dozen) occasional guest contributors, and as such I would consider it no different to a blog. However, I don't believe that it is suitable for an RfC; the use is too limited for the formal process, and would be best discussed on the individual articles should an objection be raised about its removal. Should that discussion fail, then the matter could be brought here as a standard question.
Perhaps if all those approaches fail, then it would be appropriate for an RfC, but until then I don't think it is worth the collective time and effort it would take to assess this as an RfC. Summoned by the bot; unclear to which RfC, and so drew the short straw BilledMammal (talk) 13:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@BilledMammal: I respectfully disagree. WP:METALEXPERIENCE was discussed and passed just fine despite similarly low usage rates and these are rather similar. Basically you'd rather have (up to) 37 RfCs about how this isn't a reliable source probably get no comments and then come back here after wasting time? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. --TheSandDoctor Talk 22:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I should have clarified that I meant the elements should be removed WP:BOLDly, and iff there are objection then a local discussion can be have; I will note that I don't believe these discussions need to be an RfC; a casual discussion on the talk page would be more suitable. I have tried removing a couple of the sources (a few others I came across I left, as it seems to be an interview sourcing an about-self fact); lets see how this BOLD action goes. BilledMammal (talk) 22:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship[edit]

Is the Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship a reliable source?

Epachamo (talk) 07:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Generally unreliable: This journal's self stated purpose is scholarship that increases faith in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, known colloquially as Mormons. A major focus is on finding ancient sources and evidence to support fringe ideas such as a group of Native Americans are descended from Israelites per Book of Mormon, that other translations of Joseph Smith such as the Book of Abraham is a legitimate Egyptian translation derived from an ancient source, that the Book of Moses was written by Moses and revealed to Joseph Smith later. The Interpreter Journal is a great source for noting Latter-day Saint beliefs, pronunciations of Latter-day Saint themed material, and other narrow defined topics. In various rankings of Journals such as SJR, JQRS or Google Scholar rankings. I could not even find it listed in JSTOR. Epachamo (talk) 07:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • It's reliable for what the Mormons believe regarding these sorts of things, which is probably important these sorts of articles. However, it is definitely fringe with respect to its archaeology and anthropology, but they don't immediately seem to be the areas that seem to be relevant here. That being said, declaring a piece a "substantive rebuttal" would require a third-party source, which obviously was not provided. I would not use the source to support facts generally, though it would be a perfectly reliable resource to describe what Mormons believe. Being that the author of that piece was the Associate Dean of Religion at BYU and is a fairly prominent Mormon scholar, it is probably WP:DUE in some capacity per WP:RNPOV, even if his views are not widely held among non-Mormons. This particular intellectual dispute is largely within the realm of intertextual literary analysis, and I do not see the potential for pushing pseudoscience being an issue with respect to this particular dispute in literary biblical criticism. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • This falls within what I would call in-house history, its going to be reliable within the Latter-day historical tradition but I would not expect it to be reliable within the secular historical tradition. This distinction exists for pretty much every religious group that has an organized scholarly tradition (which is to say most of them), so its important that we get this sort of thing right. In general I would say that both in-house and secular traditions are WP:DUE but what I think we should avoid is pitting them against each other (e.g. "substantive rebuttal") unless a third party source frames the discourse as such. We also have to be careful to avoid a false balance, we have to remember that from a reliability perspective secular scholarship is always preferable to in-house scholarship. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • As per above, usable where WP:DUE for presenting an LDS apologetics perspective; but I would suggest fringe claims about the origins of American indigenous peoples are going to virtually never be due anywhere in the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    In articles discussing Mormonism, they're probably due for explaining Mormon beliefs. In terms of using them in Wikivoice to describe human migration into the Americas, absolutely not. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Agreed, moreover, the beliefs should be presented as such in these cases (WP:YESPOV, WP:GEVAL and WP:ABOUTSELF remain relevant) and it's always best to use independent sources on the topic where available... —PaleoNeonate – 06:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Pinkvilla, Meaww & Bollywood Life[edit]

 – Tayi Arajakate Talk 02:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Are Indian entertainment sites like Pinkvilla, Meaww and Bollywood Life considered acceptable reliable sources? I've been seeing them used increasingly lately on various pages I monitor (to source film/tv show/ent news), but they read at times like Just Jared and TMZ. Though they do report on regular news also, PV+BL feature a lot of celebrity+entertainment gossip pieces and don't strike me as high quality sources. Meaww appears to be more reliable than the other two (it doesn't have any section titled Gossip/Celeb Gossip). -- Carlobunnie (talk) 23:51, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Carlobunnie, you should move this to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if you want more responses. This talk page is mostly for discussing the perennial sources list and not source reliability itself. But anyways, you are right about Bollywood Life and Pinkvilla being gossip/clickbait sites, Pinkvilla is better with editorial control when compared to most other similar sites and has actual journalists working for them unlike the others but still not the best source. Don't know about Meaww, it doesn't appear to be an Indian site? Tayi Arajakate Talk 07:28, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]
My apologies. I thought here was appropriate to ask, but I'll go there. Thank you for the reply. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 07:46, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force. Tayi Arajakate Talk 02:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I'm familiar only with Meaww, but it is a terrible low quality internet tabloid that should be removed on sight. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Meaww is listed as generally unreliable for biographies of living people, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#MEAWW. When it comes to Pinkvilla and Bollywoodlife, I agree – they publish a lot of gossip/trivia that has nothing to do with actual information about a person or a film. The Indian cinema task force guidelines on sources lists both Pinkvilla and Bollywoodlife as sources that "should not be considered reliable sources". --bonadea contributions talk 13:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks for pointing out it has an entry on the page. Just saw it was added to the list since July. No clue how I missed that as I check here pretty often. To be specific, all three sites are being used to source episodic content for this ongoing South Korean web series, not BLP content. Though I wouldn't use them at all, ik certain lower-quality sources are sometimes allowed when it's regarding non-BLP/non-political content, hence my requesting further opinions before taking it up w the editor that's been adding them (and other unreliable sources like Republicworld) to the article. I'm assuming they're unaware the sites are considered unreliable or that they believe they're okay for non-controversial content. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Note, I've removed the present MEAWW entry, there are two past discussions on it but with minimal comments; e.g, the second one has one query and a single line reply to it so I don't think it meets WP:RSPCRITERIA. It can probably be included back after this discussion is archived, if enough people discuss its reliability. Tayi Arajakate Talk 00:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I hope more editors participate in the discussion so the entry can be re-added to the page. I spoke to the editor I mentioned above (who was using the 3 sites + Republic World) and they apparently believe that once a source has an article on WP that means it can be used. I can't even begin to imagine how many others might also mistakenly think the same way and be using unrel sources elsewhere on WP. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 00:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
That's a very strange arguement for them to make. Btw, one can still link to the discussions in the archives to show there is a consensus that Meaww is unreliable, the RSP list isn't supposed to be exhaustive. Tayi Arajakate Talk 02:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Meaww is generally unreliable. I've removed it from several BLPs in the past due to gossip and reliability issues. Specifically, I suspect it's a WP:CIRC risk, since I've seen it used to support info that is unlikely to have come from anywhere other than Wikipedia (WP:DOB info comes to mind). No comment on the other two. Grayfell (talk) 05:16, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I want to comment in agreement with Grayfell. Meaww always seems to come up in Google results for a lot of pop cultural topics. I have never gotten the sense that their articles were meant for anything besides clicks (happy to be shown that I'm wrong tho). For that reason, I don't think (at the very least) it can be used a measure of notability which is one of the key expectations for a reliable source imo. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:16, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

RfC -- Yahoo! News[edit]

Is Yahoo! News in-house reporting, not its aggregator content, RS for current news? SPECIFICO talk 23:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Yes[edit]

  • Yes, per WP:USEBYOTHERS: NYT #1, NYT #2, The Guardian. Alaexis¿question? 06:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Yes, but the specific question is raising issues that are also currently under discussion at WT:V, in that is the inclusion of a yet-collaborated report by Yahoo! with specific BLP claims necessarily appropriate at this point in time on WP, which is a wholly separate question from reliability. --Masem (t) 13:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Yes, it's a normal WP:NEWSORG for its own content. This absolutely does not apply to reprinted material, which appears to be entirely indiscriminate with regard to quality - but I'm not aware of any issues with their own stuff - David Gerard (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Yes, as David says it's a news organisation that carries out its own reporting. It also offers syndicated content, where the original source should be cited instead if used. It appears to have high editorial standards and its staff are serious reporters, including several journalists with established good reputations. Cambial foliage❧ 17:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Yes, as a WP:NEWSORG with significant WP:USEBYOTHERS, my understanding is that we assume it is reliable for their own reporting. This assessment might change if some well-founded dispute is brought up. MarioGom (talk) 12:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

No[edit]

Neutral[edit]

  • It depends. Yes for any neutral statement of uncontroversial fact (e.g., "X was born on XYZ date"). Questionable on controversial or contested or non-neutral statements; if used on Wikipedia these statements should be either attributed to Yahoo! News or backed up by citations to more reliable sources. Softlavender (talk) 07:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Unsure I am unsure they have a great reputation (indeed I thought they were just as news aggregator until recently). But I am unsure they are also all that unreliable.Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Little evidence that this needs to be decided here and now. See my comment below. [211] I don't think sufficient evidence here has been offered to suggest that a general determination regarding Yahoo! News needs to be made at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • I concur - this is insufficient cause for an RFC - David Gerard (talk) 21:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Unsure I agree with the comments in this "Neutral" section. I avoid using it, and can't recall an instance where I haven't been able to find a better reference to replace it's use. --Hipal (talk) 02:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Unsure How can one tell if a story is Yahoo original or aggregated? Adoring nanny (talk) 12:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Because reprints have the logo of the original source at top-left, it's pretty clear in practice - David Gerard (talk) 12:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Discussion (Yahoo News)[edit]

SPECIFICO, can you explain why WP:RSN needs to make a general determination as to the reliability of this source? Where has it been discussed before? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I think there's general confusion as to the reliability of content on Yahoo! News. Most of it is republication of RS media, but its in-house reporting is another matter. This was prompted by a discussion at the Assange article where some editors appear to accept the site's reporting as solid mainstream RS and others do not. SPECIFICO talk 00:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
So Yahoo! News has been discussed in relation to other content, beyond the Assange article? If so, it might help to provide links so we can get a sense of what the issues are, and whether there was any particular consensus. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I think it is the wrong question. Yahoo News is probably rs. The issue is what if any weight should be provided to investigative journalism. I would say that WP:REDFLAG applies. It doesn't matter where the report was originally published but the degree of attention it received in the body of reliable sources. TFD (talk) 00:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Yahoo News original content has been obviously a NEWSORG in past discussion. We need more than ongoing arguments on a single article - David Gerard (talk) 06:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Yes, but Yahoo's fortunes continue to decline. The question is whether that quick OK is still valid. SPECIFICO talk 07:06, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I'm asking you to make an actual claim here. What in particular can you raise as evidence of concern with Yahoo! News' original content, that would maybe convince someone who thought Yahoo! News was a normal NEWSORG for its original content? - David Gerard (talk) 13:18, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
It is related to the RFC mentioned above.Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
It's a general issue related to any article that uses it as a source. Yahoo has been bought and sold multiple times recently, in so-far failed attempts to restore its former prominence. There was the noteworthy hire of Katie Couric for Yahoo News, that did not last long. On the site, I see no mention of editorial policy or anything other than the names of two journeyman professionals in editorial roles. SPECIFICO talk 13:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Yahoo News was discussed not that long ago here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_332#Yahoo!_News_article_for_PragerU. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Having come back to regular Wikipedia editing after a break of some years, I've noticed what seems to be a change in the way WP:RSN is being used - in particular, there seem to be more general 'is X a reliable source' questions, sometimes framed as an RfC, than used to be the case. I'm less than convinced that this pattern of trying to sort sources (particularly journalistic ones) according to a simple binary reliable/non-reliable classification is necessarily a good thing. And nor does it seem to me to be in accord with what WP:RS has to say. While there are clearly some types of sources which should simply never be used, per policy, a more nuanced approach (particularly in regard to news media) is generally advisable, and generally the proper question to be asked is 'is X a reliable source for Y'. Context matters, and it really isn't appropriate, in my opinion, for a limited number of contributors at WP:RSN to be making absolutist determinations on 'reliability' without evidence that there is a general issue with a specific source. Such determinations may on occasion be necessary, if the same source comes up time and time again, but this should be the last stage of the process, not the first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

As I(and others) already noted in a previous discussion on that noticeboard (COVID-19 lab leakage), and at WP:V talk page, the problem with "reliability" is that per our policy it is a composite term, which means any binary answer is intrinsically incomplete, and it is a source of incessant conflicts and manipulations.
First, the WP:RSN is linked primarily to the guidelines, not a policy. These guidelines are broader than WP:V, and they partially cover other policies (NPOV and NORN). Therefore, the answer "reliable" means actually "acceptable per V, NPOV, and NOR". Thus, some users answer (about some source) "Unreliable for this statement, because it is a primary source" (which is clearly a NORN argument), or "Unreliable, because it is fringe" (which is NPOV argument).
Second, the policy (WP:V) explains that the three aspects of reliability are the work, the author, the publisher. The policy does not explain that properly, so I interpret it as follows.
The work. Is the work relevant to the topic? Does it have a professional structure? For example, if the source tells about, e.g. virology, it is relevant to the article about COVID-19. If its structure fit a criteria of a scientific publication, that makes is especially relevant.
The author. Is the author an expert in the field? Thus, if the source is authored by a virologist, bioinformatic scientist, biochemist or molecular biologist, that adds credibility to that source.
The publisher. This aspect is explained in the policy in details. The publishers that pay a special attention to "a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments" are the most trustworthy. To that, I would add that stability is an important criterion (for many references in Wikipedia are dead links).
In summary, relevance, author's expertise, and reputability are the three components of what we call "reliability". Clearly, these three components are totally independent, so in many cases it would be fundamentally incorrect to expect a single "Yes".--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment: The way the wind seems to be blowing in this survey so far, it would seem to me that a more specific survey/poll/RFC should be applied to a specific case and specific statement/content and specific Yahoo! News article regarding specific Wikipedia content cited to said news article. If, that is, such a case arises and is in dispute. Softlavender (talk) 03:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment: Having been away from Wikipedia for a number of years, like AndyTheGrump, I've also noticed what seems to be a more voter orientated style in building consensus. Perhaps this is due to the five years of Trump our American colleagues had to endure, but I would hope we can return to the more organic procedures. I agree with Paul Siebert's analysis above, and I also agree with Softlavender's point about discussing specific content, as from what I remember, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS more than anything else. LondonIP (talk) 22:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

RfC: The Ronin[edit]

Which of the following best describes the reliability of The Ronin?

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

This source from IGN writer Christopher Marc has been previously discussed at my talk page. One editor sites a claim that the source cannot be used because it is run by one person. On my talk page, others say it can be used because Marc has connections to the industry from his work for IGN. I also believe the source is reliable because most of his reports have proven true across several film and television topics. So, I am looking for a consensus. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Option 2 because Marc is a topic expert but his website is WP:SELFPUBLISHed so considerations for that apply.--Droid I am (talk) 09:11, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Option 2: I agree with Droid I am. Aside from the self-published aspects, there are possible WP:NPOV concerns. -- Otr500 (talk) 14:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Droid I am and Otr500: I also wanted to point out that their 'exclusive' reports (of which they have four pages of) have proven true for films and television shows that are or have been in production. In September 2020, they reported John Mathieson would serve as cinematographer for Doctor Strange 2. This was not added to Wikipedia until a writer briefly mentioned it in an interview in June 2021. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

RfC: Is Shodan (website)'s blog reliable?[edit]

They are a vulnerability searching company and I wanted to reference their list of top site defacer. But got reverted.[212]. Blog, softpedia tertiary source: http://blog.shodan.io/tracking-hacked-websites-2/

https://news.softpedia.com/news/top-10-website-defacers-january-2016-edition-499112.shtml

Greatder (talk) 12:04, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Since noone replied yet, my impression is that they are a primary source. It may be useful for some statistics, but they gather their data using spiders and scanners themselves. It's a bit controversial as the resulting databases may also serve to easily find known vulnerable targets to attack. Shodan scanners are often blocked by netadmins. It's notable and if the information is not controversial, I think it can be used where useful with attribution (WP:SPS, WP:ATTRIBUTION, WP:BLOGS). —PaleoNeonate – 06:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Is Gait 1906 a reliable source for this particular claim[edit]

Gait, 1906, p:44 makes a particular statement: On the other hand, Colonel Dalton considered them (Koches) to be Dravidian, and Mr. Risley, while admitting an intermixture with Mongoloid stock, holds that Dravidian characteristics predominate. This divergence of views seems to have arisen from the confusion caused by the use of the term Rajbansi, which originally referred to an entirely distinct community of Dravidian affinities, but was afterwards adopted by the Koches west of the Manas river, who, when they attorned to Hinduism, appropriated the caste name of the most numerous Hinduized community in their neighbourhood..

Is this a reliable source for any of the claims made in these sentences?

Disclaimer
I have taken a position on this in a talk page discussion. My concern is that Gait is a colonial officer, who wrote beyond his ken. In particular, here he is using Risley's discredited racial definition of Dravidian (which, as the Wikipedia link adduces, is today defined as a linguistic group). I think Wikipedia should not be using and propagating these racial definitions and furthermore, we should not use them when used by others WP:POISON.

Chaipau (talk) 12:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Without knowing any of the background, your analysis is certainly convincing and I will be astonished if the counter-argument can match it. I doubt it even meets the threshold for WP: FRINGE. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
there must be very few instances where using a source dating from 1906 is appropriate, and this certainly isn't one of them. Not even remotely. An earlier WP:RS/N discussion [213] on Raj ethnography (already linked in the Talk:Rajbongshi_people discussion) explains in detail why, and there is no need to repeat it all here. Ancient, discredited 'racial' theories, based on poor scholarship by non-specialists, simply don't belong in articles at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:46, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
WP:RAJ is a good guide to such topics. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:56, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Thank you for both of your comments. I was aware of this discussion, but the WP:RAJ link is much more comprehensive! Chaipau (talk) 16:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Views on the races have changed so radically since 1906, that nothing from that time could be considered reliable. TFD (talk) 11:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Gait 1906 would not reliable for either history or ethnography and is at best a primary source. As already pointed out WP:RAJ exists and note that Gait is mentioned in WP:RAJ § Writings of British Raj administrators, although the essay focuses on caste sources, much of the issues mentioned (and the related discussions) apply to Raj era sources in general, which are usually discouraged by WikiProject India contributors outside exceptional circumstances. Tayi Arajakate Talk 17:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

fee.org Foundation for Economic Education[edit]

I found the "Foundation for Economic Education" used in a reference added in this edit (and this earlier edit) at Sturmabteilung by 2A02:C7F:EA5C:2300:5CB2:23A2:9BB1:ADDC (talk · contribs) about the Nazis-are-left-not-right issue. (IP's view is that "Nazis were Far-Left Authoritarian socialists"). They linked this article from fee.org in support. I hadn't heard of fee.org before, but browsing a bit and checking their About us, they appear to be a foundation espousing free-market conservatism, perhaps somewhat like Heritage Foundation, with various educational pursuits and publications, and the FEE website is sort of their Medium, maybe. At first glance, I see no a priori reason to think they are not generally as reliable source as Heritage or Cato is, but I'm not clear what their publication requirements are, and whether the linked article should be considered SPS, personal opinion, or backed by peer review. If anyone has thoughts either about FEE generally, or how to handle this particular article, I'd appreciate hearing it. As far as the particular edit at Sturmabteilung, I've reverted here, as it looks like a RGW-POV edit, especially given their edit summary. My initial view is that the article could be used as a reference for the author's opinion, but not for widely covered issues with settled opinion in peer-reviewed publications. Thoughts on all this? Mathglot (talk) 06:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • FEE is a crank - sorry, "heterodox" - economics group blog trying to project itself as a serious think tank. I can't think of any circumstance in which FEE would be a good and useful source of definitions of anything else. I think even stuff written in FEE would need to be noted in RSes to be worth mentioning, same as a random blog post. FEE is not a useful source for what Wikipedia does - David Gerard (talk) 09:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • nearing 300 uses of this thing, most of which appear to be used to promote fringe ideas - David Gerard (talk) 10:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
      • See here. I note that it is used in the American Medical Association to back the statement in Wikipedia's voice "The American Medical Association is accused of acting like a cartel, deliberately keeping high the prices paid to physicians by purposefully limiting the licensing of physicians and the admittance into medical schools." Doug Weller talk 13:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
        • An example of why the passive voice is bad. "A heterodox economics blog accuses the American Medical Association of" doesn't sound nearly as portentous, or worthy of inclusion - David Gerard (talk) 14:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I would say it shouldn't be used. Think tanks are not automatically considered reliable sources by default; they're like rando websites in that regard - they reflect the views of the people who created them and nothing else. There needs to be a specific reason to think that they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and that they have editorial controls; I'm not seeing either of those things here. --Aquillion (talk) 03:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

RfC: Slovenski Narod newspaper[edit]

Note: this is the second re-listing.

source: The source in question is an article in the Slovenian newspaper Slovenski Narod from 1904. The full edition is available from the Digital Library of Slovenia here where it can be downloaded as a PDF. For those without a grasp on South Slavic languages, the text can be highlighted, copied, and pasted into a web-translation for a decent idea on what is being stated. The article in question within this newspaper edition is "Položaj v Macedoniji" which is based on a conversation with revolutionary leader Hristo Tatarchev.

article: I added this article as a source to the article of Hristo Tatarchev (and was promptly reverted).

content: I used the source to support two sentences I added: diff. I essentially paraphrase two points explicitly stated in the article, one being that Turkish reforms were insufficient in his view and the other that his organization would never allow Macedonia to join Serbia or Bulgaria.

I look forward to any guidance from uninvolved editors regarding why this source can or cannot be considered reliable for the purposes I had attempted to use it. Thanks. --Local hero talk 05:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi, I am the other editor involved in this issue. The article in the newspaper is used by User:Local hero in historical context. However per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history), historical scholarship is generally not:
  • Journalism
  • Opinion pieces by non-scholars
  • Popular works that were not reviewed, especially works by journalists, or memoirs—these may be useful to supplement an article that relies upon scholarly sources
  • Any primary source, etc.
Per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history), to determine scholarly opinions about a historical topic, consult the following sources in order:
  • Recent scholarly books and chapters on the historiography of the topic
  • "Review Articles", or historiographical essays that explicitly discuss recent scholarship in an area.
  • Similarly conference papers that were peer reviewed in full before publication that are field reviews or have as their central argument the historiography.
  • Journal articles or peer reviewed conference papers that open with a review of the historiography, etc.
That means if somebody want to use such a primary source (newspaper clipping in a language that is unclear to all the readers of the English-language Wikipedia and older then 100 years) it must be supported by recent scholarly books in English, etc. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 06:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I’ll quickly note that the page you reference is not a Wikipedia policy and that this newspaper source is not a “clipping” as the full edition is available. Looking forward to input from uninvolved editors. --Local hero talk 06:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I will clarify that the idea backed by this newspaper's article contradicts with a lot of secondary WP:RS cited in the same article (Hristo Tatarchev).Jingiby (talk) 06:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Krunoslav Draganović[edit]

Does the community think Krunoslav Draganović is a reliable source? His books have been cited in a number of articles (mostly on medieval Bosnian history) and their removal from reference lists has been challenged by several users. [214] [215] For context, Draganović was a fascist collaborator and later played a role in helping many fascist officials, most notably Ante Pavelić and Klaus Barbie, escape justice after WW2. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I seem to recall his name cropping up a while back, and no I doubt someone this biased can be reliable for anything relating to history.Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Not a WP:RS, maybe on their own page with great caution but never as a third party source or unattributed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Before you start jumping to conclusions - we don't reject sources based on authors background that we don't like. We reject them based on our assessment of how much of their work is influenced and compromised by their ideological or political persuasion, and for that we need good argument and maybe some examples, not just "he cannot possibly". Yes, Dragović was a sympathizer and probably a collaborator, but he was left alone by a judicial and security apparatus after the war. Then again, we have great deal of such sources used all over the project, and not one policy or guideline which specifically deals with such a situations (no WP:Reliable authors). We have myriad of historians just from Germany and Austria, whose expertise in some field of historical research was rarely questioned in spite of the fact that many if not most of them were a members of the Nazi party itself, not just sympathizers. Good portion of the Category:Austrian historians were members of the party and many of them are used in our project (you can start with Walter Schlesinger, Otto Brunner). In case of mentioned articles only Draganovic's contribution-research for the synthesis on the medieval history of Bosnia, a seminal book on the subject, was used as a source, which is the field in which he was trained. He is not the only historian who may expressed bias in his work - most Serbian and Croatian historians are ideologically biased when it comes to medieval or any history of Bosnia and Herzegovina, but that does not mean that we cannot or should not use them all, because it is possible to simply filter out nonsense, fringe, polemical or contentious claims - we can manage in refining and deciding which part of their work is usable, which is contentious or simply outdated. Draganovic's particular citation is used as a reference on a perfectly innocuous statement in the article on medieval history, and his conclusions are perfectly correct in the cited book. (I am referring to this as an example, which should be checked out.). In other words, it's not some piece of ideological-political claptrap in relation to World War II or some subject related to his ideological-political thinking or activities that were used. Thus, he, just like any Serbo-Croatian historian, can be used with a care and only for issues related to their specific training. However, I am not saying we should not reject this person in principle if community believe that course of action would be appropriate. I also gave an argument at TP Stjepan Vukcic Kosaca, and there are many interesting discussions at WP:Reliable sources talk page, especially this one in archive: Nazi and Soviet sources.--౪ Santa ౪99° 23:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Draganović was an Ustasha member, and an active one at that. Besides his role as an organizer of ratlines to help Nazi and fascists escape to South America, the article also states he was the military chaplain for the Jasenovac concentration camp. So he was literally a fascist and Nazi collaborator who played a role in the genocidal slaughter of people, not simply a "sympathizer" or someone who was possibly maybe a collaborator. Brunner and Schlesinger are both historians who are known for their scholarship, and not as Nazis or fascists. They happened to sympathize with the Nazi party, which at the time wasn't uncommon given that they were the dominant party (Schlesinger's article even states he became disillusioned with the party for a while). So it is hardly comparable to the Draganović situation. Is he even known as a historian? At least more so than being a priest and aiding Nazi/fascist war criminals evade justice. You're also making another false equivalence when you compare Draganović to any other random Serbian or Croatian historian with nationalist tendencies, which are a dime a dozen. But as far as I know weren't members of a fascist regime.
Having said that, I sort of understand your point regarding the Stjepan Vukčić Kosača article, which is essentially "Yes, he was a bad person but this is a non-controversial statement cited to him so it's ok". On the other hand, if the statement is innocuous then surely a better and reliable source in Serbo-Croatian could be found and cited to that passage instead? (and one newer than 1942 which also falls under WP:AGEMATTERS and is another problem). Maybe I'm wrong but it looks to me like there are three passages cited to him, two of which have citations to other works as well leaving only one passage that is entirely dependent on his book alone. --Griboski (talk) 01:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I can't talk about which Nazi is bigger and nastier Nazi, because I'm not an expert on Nazis - I can only say that we use Nazi, Soviet, communist and various other controversial sources all the time in our project. Having said all this, does not mean that we can use them without control, nor that we should not challenge them in principle and declare them unreliable, but it all depends on how much their expert work, or which part, is compromised by their ideology - as community we are able to decide how much and in what way we will use some part of their opus, what is contentious, what is controversial, and carefully decide what is usable and what is not. Draganović, as far as I know, could be an invaluable source on the subject of Catholic church history, especially medieval to modern - and yes, he was a trained medievalist. His work on these subjects is appreciated and cited by Yugoslav historians without any fuss. WP: AGEMATTERS in case of particular Draganovic's conclusions that were used in several articles (it concerns one very specific issue), does not apply, because those are still relevant - there is no update on those conclusions - and are valid for other articles as well, since it is the same conclusion that has been "copied / pasted" in several biographical articles on personalities from the time of the fall of Bosnia under the Ottomans.--౪ Santa ౪99° 08:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

If we can avoid citing a Nazi, we should. And that he was a historian of the Middle Ages doesn't mean we can cite him on the pretext that that stuff is so old it's innocent--the treatment of the Middle Ages is not somehow value-free, on the contrary. Santasa99, I don't understand this revert. Griboski's removal left only one uncited paragraph, and that happens to be a paragraph starting "it is also noteworthy", which is a completely unencyclopedic throwaway comment, and "probably realizing" is as weak as it gets--so what do we lose by removing the citations and that particular paragraph? Nothing. Drmies (talk) 19:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • And Amanuensis Balkanicus, the easy way to deal with this here is to find another source, even if that means cutting the paragraph down or whatever. I want to agree with you on the principle, but if pragmatic solutions are found to remove Nazis then we achieve the same effect. Drmies (talk) 19:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Instead of questioning and discussing his (un)ethical approach to research and scholarship in the field he was trained, we are questioning and discussing his character, and the ethics and morality of his political deeds.
@Drmies: I really don't know where did you read something even resembling "stuff is so old it's innocent", I didn't even imply something that would create such a context even remotely. But, to avoid repeating myself, you can re-read my above posts, I did my best to be as clear and concrete as possible, sacrificing coveted conciseness in the process. I am not sure that he was a Nazi either - it's maybe my fault for playing above with the label and comparing him to prominent Austrian historians who were members of the Nazi Party yet regularly used as a source in our project - he was anti-communist-ethno-nationalist who sympathized and collaborated with NDH Croatian fascists. Epilogue of the case is that he mysteriously appeared in Yugoslavia in 1966 and was completely rehabilitated in 1967 (my conclusion is undeservedly), by Yugoslav regime, the only regime that sought to prosecute him. He was also medievalist whose work, strictly speaking, on medieval and Catholic church history was cited by other Yugoslav historians, while being regularly published both in Yugoslavia and abroad until his death in 80's (especially is unique his work on church statistic, organization, etc. in period from middle ages to beginning of the 20th century, and would be silly to reject it) Meanwhile, University of Zagreb, Catholic Faculty of Theology, has his Faculty Member profile at unizg.academia.edu, with his published books on history, while just last month Catholic Faculty of Theology of University of Sarajevo had a presentation of his book “Catalog of parishes and the decline of the Catholic element in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the 17th century” !?
As for my revert - until we sort it out, in my view he is RS, limited by our rational, sensible and neutral application; of three statements in question, all three absolutely uncontroversial and his refed conclusion from the book correct and still relevant, and all from one page, 555:
  • this statement is based solely on him: It is also noteworthy that Herzog Stjepan refrained from claiming the Bosnian crown for his adolescent grandson Sigismund, Catherine's son and Stephen Tomašević's half-brother, probably realizing that Bosnia needed a strong, mature monarch in a time of peril.((sfn|Draganović|1942|p=555)); why we need it is self-evident - he chose to support his mortal enemy's son over his teenaged grandson for the sake of state unity and stability, and Draganović gives a very sound explanation of that behavior. Other two statements are similarly innocuous and source conclusion again true:
  • Strained relations with his stepmother, Herzog Stjepan's daughter, the 37-year-old Queen Catherine, were relaxed as he guaranteed she would retain her title and privileges. This was noted by her father, Stjepan, who wrote to Venetian officials that the King had "taken her as his mother".((sfn|Draganović|1942|p=555))+((sfn|Mandić)).
  • Very swiftly upon strengthening his own position, peace was finally restored and reconciliation achieved, finally ensuring the nobility's absolute support of their king and loyalty to the kingdom.((sfn|Draganović|1942|p=555))+((sfn|Miller))((sfn|Ćirković|))((sfn|Ljubez)).--౪ Santa ౪99° 10:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
That will what might be called the "Irving factor", to what degree does a persons poltics affect their ability to present neutral and accurate research. As a nationalist (and indeed ethnonatialist) writer his work, must be suspect when talking about national identity in any way.Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Well, @Slatersteven:, I agree with you, maybe the example is a little extreme. My personal position in this regard, in our project, is on display here, where I question and object the uncritical usage of the particular conclusion made by another Croatian medievalist, Mladen Ančić, who is current professor at the Cathedra of Medievalistics at the University of Zadar, and so on, and so forth. We can do a better job in discerning, critically, using reviews, commentaries and other sources, which so-and-so author's book, research paper, part of the book/paper, statement and conclusion we should and should not use, than just sweepingly dismiss entire opuses based on ideological or political background of their authors. To this day and since its inception, Serbian and Croatian historiography on Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo and Montenegro is marred with ideology and politics - in terms of their academic work, there is less difference between the late doctor and professor Draganović and the still very much active doctor and professor Ančić than people would think!--౪ Santa ౪99° 13:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I'm not easily going to accept historical accounts that come from Nazis, given how invested Nazis were in rewriting history. Drmies (talk) 14:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
You don't need any Nazis in Serbo-Croatian historiography, either old or new, to lose yourself in the labyrinth of history rewriting and negative revision ;-)--౪ Santa ౪99° 15:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
That may be true--but again, that's actually supportive of getting rid of them, to eliminate at least one complicating factor. Speaking as a medievalist, I do not trust any Nazi historian. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

A quick read of this, Adriano, Pino; Cingolanie, Giorgio (2018). "The Massacres of Serbs, Jews, and Romani". In Adriano, Pino; Cingolani, Giorgio (eds.). Nationalism and Terror: Ante Pavelić and Ustasha Terrorism from Fascism to the Cold War. Central European University Press. pp. 189–218. ISBN 9789633862063., and a perusal of the other hits in JSTOR convince me that we should NOT use the works of Draganović to cite anything. The man used his historical work to justify a set of despicable atrocities; that the forced conversion of Serbian orthodox Christians is a "return" to some original state and therefore justified is unacceptable even if not already historically questionable. Drmies (talk) 15:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Absolutely, as an environmental anthropologist ;-), i think we should trim their usage as much as possible (any comprehensive uprooting should be undertaken upon serious discussion in WP:Reliable sources TP) - by the way I did not introduce Draganović, he was referenced by another editor, whom I fully trust on the subject matter of medieval history - editor Surtsicna - unfortunately they have been absent from the project for nearly two months, which is, in this age of Covid, quite disconcerting - I really hope his absence is totally unrelated. Draganović conducted a rather invaluable research on history of the Catholic church in Bosnia, and that research is used by other researchers all the time. In the case of these articles, as you can attest, his conclusions are quite harmless for our project, and only one statement is based on him alone. So, we can manage if are serious and sensible in our work here.--౪ Santa ౪99° 15:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
His "invaluable research on the history of the Catholic church in Bosnia" explains how "orthodox priests" took "our living space". They were of a "violent Dinaric type" (that's a pretty common catchphrase) "of a very alien blood". In other words, the racist theorizing (debunked, of course) was there from the beginning. In other words, racism masking as scholarship. See Yeomans, Rory (2007). "Of 'Yugoslav' Barbarians and Croatian Gentlemen Scholars: Nationalist Ideology and Racial Anthropology in Interwar Yugoslavia". In Turda, Marius; Weindling, Paul (eds.). "Blood and Homeland": Eugenics and Racial Nationalism in Central and Southeast Europe, 1900-1940. Central European University Press. ISBN 9789637326813.. I'm sticking these references in, fully templated, for anyone who wants to improve the article on this gentleman racist. Drmies (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Did you now read how he used his " research on history of the Catholic church in Bosnia" to justify forced conversions? Nothing he says can be divorced from his agenda.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
You can take any a little more nationalistic historian from Serbia (Vladimir Ćorović, Milorad Ekmečić to name a few) and you will find that their works has been used for slaughter of Muslims by Serbs in 1940's and in 1990's.--౪ Santa ౪99° 16:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
And? This is not about them. If you have issues with those sources bring them here.Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
And!? No, I don't have any problems with them, nor numerous others who used their work in history research to justify slaughter of Bosnian Muslims, but that's my point exactly.--౪ Santa ౪99° 16:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Then what is your point?Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Really, after all this back and forth?! My point is that if one is serious in her/his approach to editing Wikipedia, and mature adult person with a strong character (some basic intelligence and collaboration with other editors not precluding), then, one could refed any author whose work is controversial, but still nevertheless used and published by many serious mainstream academic institutions and used by some peers, while not being really of Irving kind.--౪ Santa ౪99° 16:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Which goes directly against wp:rs WP:undue and wp:fringe. This is my last word here, he is not usable.Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Yeah, except he's not a fringe nor undue, which is quite obvious from those three para's above taken out of the article.--౪ Santa ౪99° 17:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
The consensus so far is that Draganović is not a reliable source and should be avoided. Therefore, I don't think you have the right to be edit-warring in order to keep re-inserting him as a source. --Griboski (talk) 17:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Of course he’s fringe, what in the world would make you think otherwise? You haven’t presented evidence that his works are "used and published by many serious mainstream academic institutions” but if you would like to you can now. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Yes, I think fringe would apply here. Generally, encyclopedias shouldn't use controversial sources but note when controversies exist. User:Santasa99 says above that Wikipedia uses Nazi sources as RS in articles - do we? I've never seen Nazis cites on Wikipedia as reliable. This discussion has gone on and on and it's hard to even see it as good faith without some evidence to back up these claims.Spudlace (talk) 23:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Griboski:, no one has a right to edit-war; "consensus so far" does not exists as a norm! WP:RSN needs to be closed, and when it close and if result is that it's unreliable, I will remove it myself, don't worry that much.--౪ Santa ౪99° 18:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Horse Eye's Back:, of gee, how about those links above, how about WorldCat, is that place where we look in these cases?--౪ Santa ౪99° 18:21, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
WorldCat says basically nobody cites him. What are you seeing that I am not? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Renegade Tribune[edit]

I have seen this edit on my watchlist (the IP added it five times and was blocked for edit-warring). Is there a good reason why we do not have a edit filter disallowing use of this source on Wikipedia?--Ymblanter (talk) 16:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

What an utterly disgusting source, I would second this request. This is pure holocaust denial. I'm not really going to go into the details, but it not only denies the existence of the vast majority of holocaust deaths, but also insults the dead. This filter should be put in place ASAP. Boynamedsue (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • It has its own page here. Almost goes without saying, but I don't think we'd lose anything by filtering it. Notably, their site appears to include such wonders of life as antisemitic Flat Earthers, a crossover I didn't know existed. --Chillabit (talk) 12:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Ymblanter: You are asking for WP:EDITFILTER with setting = disallow for any article or talk-page edit that contains renegadetribune.com, no further filtering, no alternatives? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Yes, I think so - with the exception of their Wikipedia page.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Alas, I asked too late. It's already been added to Spam-blacklist. I think that makes this request pointless. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Indeed, looks like we can close it. Thanks everybody.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Don't forget its co-website (podcasts instead of articles): renegadebroadcasting dot com. That needs to be added to the spamlist requests, too. Platonk (talk) 15:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

min.news[edit]

Source: 8.36 meters, 22-year-old Asian long jump genius won the championship and set the world's sixth highest victory over Huang Changzhou this year

Article:Japan Championships in Athletics

The min.news website has been added into blacklist, as it's a content farm website. As for the above article, the reference link's display time can't match the content in the article. By the way, there's no editor/reportes etc on the page. Kethyga (talk) 07:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Kirkus Reviews, again[edit]

I started a new article about an author (Isabel Thomas), and used a few of those like [216] as refs. I found this Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_180#Kirkus_Reviews earlier discussion, and wonder if that wisdom still holds. Is a KR "safe" if it doesn't indicate "Kirkus Indie"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Kirkus Reviews is a great source, and is usually the first I check before creating a new article. Concerning their paid review program, it seems like nothing has changed, as reviews are still tagged under their Kirkus Indie program, as you can see in this review published today. Aside from that, I imagine Kirkus Reviews works like any other big journal/magazine, reviewing hundreds of books sent by the big publishers every month. Isabelle 🔔 17:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks for bringing this up, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, and thanks for the link, User:Isabelle Belato--I had no idea. I've used their reviews too, but never knew about this, and never noticed "Indie". I think that I've used them only for things whose notability wasn't ever in question, but this is good to know. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

New York Public Library event and program bios[edit]

The New York Public Library website's events and programs pages provide a short writeup of the performer or the subject. These come under the URL www.nypl.org/events/programs/. A bunch of such citations (such as) have been tagged as unreliable at Oopali Operajita with reason Appears to be a self-submitted bio for a performance.

Can such writeups be considered reliable sources for biographies and BLPs? Jay (talk) 07:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • I'm the editor who tagged the source as "unreliable source?". The source appears to be the bio an artist or speaker typically submits for inclusion on the website and/or in the program for an event, similar to an actor's bio in a Playbill. I'm somewhat skeptical it was either assembled by, or closely vetted by, the NYPL's staff. That said, if it's just used for uncontroversial points, doesn't seem egregious to me - that's why I used the ?. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 12:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    We probably shouldn't use bios of this sort as sources - resume padding is, unfortunately, all too common and these bios are not carefully whetted (not saying that this is the case here). In this particular case, do we want to be mentioning a masters thesis in the first place? They are a dime a dozen and "supervisor" doesn't mean a whole lot. --RegentsPark (comment) 12:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Question[edit]

The site www.quansuvn.net is, save for a couple other sources, the only source largely supporting Draft:Weapons of the First Indochina War. The site appears to be a message board/forum-type venue, but it's (I believe) Vietnamese, so I'm posting here to seek assistance in confirming its suitability as a reliable source. Thanks - wolf 18:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Sadly, I think you are correct to question it. It does seem to be a message board/forum, which would not be considered reliable. Blueboar (talk) 19:37, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
That draft reminds me of this user and other poorly-sourced claims on Weapons of the Vietnam War. I haven't been able to find any substantiatable link between them but the poor sourcing and throwing every weapon conceivable into the list seem similar. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Is "Mail+" the Daily Mail?[edit]

See Special:Diff/1049745811 and https://www.mailplus.co.uk – is this just a repackaging of the same ol' WP:DAILYMAIL or something completely different? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

The same old - "Mail+ is a premium digital platform from Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday"... DoubleCross (‡) 16:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
It would seem yes.Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Guess that URL prefix should be added to the edit filter then? Didn't trigger any tags that I saw. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I would say yes, same shit just with a premium tag.Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Seem to be branding themselves as "The new way to experience The Daily Mail": 1 2. --Chillabit (talk) 17:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Added to WP:RSP, WP:DEPS and good ol' filter 869 - David Gerard (talk) 18:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

designntrend.com / Design & Trend[edit]

I was taking a look at the sources currently being used over at MatPat, and I saw this one. It seems to have been owned by IBT Media, so should I just treat it the same as WP:RS/P#IBT? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

thespruceeats.com and its parent[edit]

Brought here by a question on the Teahouse about a ref to [217] in the article about dough. It does get linked for recipes quite a few times, but reading their editorial policy, it does not strike me as something with the highest editorial standards. Thoughts? TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 09:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=1049945565"