Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 339

Archive 335

←

Archive 337

Archive 338

Archive 339

Archive 340

Archive 341

→

Archive 345

Reports in Al Akhbar and Asharq Al-Awsat for an alleged Israeli massacre

1. Sources (nb. these are AR-language articles but the Google translate version of them is relatively clear albeit with the usual warning that it may appear clear but still be a mistranslation):

• Asharq Al-Awsat (2001): [1]: Article title: "The only resistance who survived the Al-Zararia massacre tells Al-Sharq al-Awsat the details of the confrontations with the Israelis"
• Al Akhbar (2018): [2]: Article title: "Zrariyeh ... the witness and the martyr"
  

2. Article: Zrarieh massacre.

3. Content: At present these are the only sources potentially showing WP:LASTING coverage of this "massacre" as required by WP:EVENT. However whether or not these are reliable sources independent of the subject is disputed (see AFD discussion here). FOARP (talk) 11:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (Al Akhbar and Asharq Al-Awsat)≠

• To take the Al Akhbar translation here, I cannot see major contradictions between what it says about the attack and the available English sources. Arab News says the source is pro Hezbollah and "among the most read and respected newspapers in Lebanon". So perhaps a bit of bias but otherwise OK.Selfstudier (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• I have no real reason to doubt the London based Asharq Al-Awsat translation other than for matters Saudi related which this is not.Selfstudier (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• To also recap objections to these sources from the AFD argument: they are eye-witness accounts from "resistance" participants written in propagandistic language ("martyrs", "entity", "murderers", etc.) and not independent of the subject. FOARP (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Asharq Al-Awsat is one of the most well known Arabic newspapers on the planet. See for example this NYT rundown of Arabic news sources for why the idea that it is unreliable or not independent to an Israeli raid in Lebanon is not accurate. Al-Akhbar is on the same level as many Israeli sources, yes it uses language that represents a POV (martyr, resistance), whereas Israeli sources often use language that represents the diametrically opposed POV (terrorist, etc.), but POV does not make a source unreliable. See no reason these dont qualify as WP:NEWSORG given there are no sources brought that demonstrate any issue with their reliability, just an editor disliking their politics. Im not all that enamored with the politics of the Times of Israel or the Jerusalem Post, but they remain widely used on our pages as reliable sources. nableezy - 18:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Asharq Al-Awsat has substantially documented issues, including issues regarding their factual reporting (our article about them describes a particularly egregious incident in 2016), and should probably not be considered reliable. Al-Akhbar is openly pro-Hezbollah, and reliable sources that discuss them consistently mention their biases, so statements sourced to them should at a bare minimum be attributed as is standard with openly biased sources. NonReproBlue (talk) 07:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

That incident resulted in a correction and the firing of the journalist who reported it. Issuing corrections and taking such actions is an indicator of reliability, not unreliability. nableezy - 20:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not the only problem with their reporting, but this also goes beyond just a simple "correction". It's not like something was misstated but basically true (like the recent correction in the WaPo that has quite a few people up in arms), it was an entirely false story concocted for malicious reasons. It would have never held up under even a minimum amount of editorial oversight. The fact that a "journalist" such as that was ever hired speaks to the problematic nature of the publication, and I doubt that any retraction would have been issued, nor anyone fired, had there not been such a public rebuke from the supposed source cited in the article. "Corrections" are understandable. Publishing obviously fabricated stories is not, and does not speak to the robust fact checking and editorial oversight required of reliable sources. NonReproBlue (talk) 07:04, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

And the reporter was fired and a very visible correction was made. Again, issuing corrections and taking such actions is an indicator of reliability, not unreliability. Your doubt on a hypothetical is interesting, but not all that relevant as it is indeed entirely hypothetical. nableezy - 23:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, but I disagree. There is a substantial difference between correcting an error in an otherwise correct story (which could be an understandable lapse for an editor to have missed) and retracting entirely an article that was completely and maliciously fabricated (which is absolutely indicative of a nearly complete lack of editorial oversight prior to publication). On the balance of coverage in reliable sources, it seems that their editorial oversight system is much more concerned about ideological purity than journalistic integrity and accuracy. NonReproBlue (talk) 05:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Well it isnt my opinion, it is Wikipedia's. From WP:NEWSORG: Signals that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy are the publication of corrections and disclosures of conflicts of interest. Publishing corrections is an indicator of reliability, not unreliability. nableezy - 16:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable Note that Al-Akhbar is not pro-Hezbollah, it has been publishing As'ad AbuKhalil articles since 2007 and he criticizes Hezbollah, Nasrallah, Iran and Syria. Also the massacre has nothing to do with Hezbollah as Israel claims it was targeting Amal. -- Maudslay II (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable Its Hezbollah mouthpiece that used for propaganda and anything negative about Israel goes in --Shrike (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Huh???? Who is "Hezbollah mouthpiece"?? The Saudi-controlled Asharq Al-Awsat, or the leftist Al Akhbar???? Huldra (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Probably Al Akhbar. I don't know that "mouthpiece" is completely accurate, but they have a well documented bias in favor of Hezbollah (New York Times says "They are a remarkable blend: the paper champions gay rights, feminism and other leftist causes, even as it wholeheartedly supports Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed Shiite movement") and the court decision against them (for exposing the identity of purported witnesses against Hezbollah) is particularly damning: "With respect to the nature and gravity of the offence for which Mr Al A min is convicted, I find that the contemptuous behaviour here was particularly egregious: Mr Al Amin published the names, photographs and significant personal details of 17 purported confidential Tribunal witnesses and, after what was acknowledged by Mr Al Amin as public outcry and claims from various members of the public that his previous publication had infringed the law, he then published a second article with the photographs, names and personal information of a further 15"..."Furthermore, I have already concluded that portraying the 32 individuals as witnesses against Hezbollah is generally prohibited by principles governing the media and serves no journalistic value or pressing social need, and that in the impugned articles the author did not place himself as a neutral observer simply reporting on the results of an investigative inquiry but rather as a political advocate. Moreover, ample evidence demonstrates that the Accused's actions were inconsistent with investigative journalism." NonReproBlue (talk) 07:19, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Interesting; so we have a "Hezbollah mouthpiece", which allow atheist like As'ad AbuKhalil to publish in its pages? Lol, Huldra (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable. Al Akhbar is a provacative anti-capaitalist rag that according to the New York Times has "news pages that often show a loose mingling of fact, rumor and opinion". Asharq Al-Awsat is bettet, but has major problems as well, in particular in issues opposed by its firm editorial line.Free1Soul (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable, in this case: I would doubt anything Asharq Al-Awsat writes about the Saudi Royal family, but I see no reason to doubt them on this; neither do I see any reason to doubt Al Akhbar here, except a severe case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, Huldra (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable. Propaganda outlets with a clear agenda, not acceptable to report facts and events.--SoaringLL (talk) 05:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Reliable Both newspapers are RS and mainstream media in the Arab world. They're not marginal party propaganda or loony Islamist ranting, they are top selling daily newspapers. If they are critical of Israel, I don't think anyone should be particularly surprised or holler 'foul' - that's really just down to a partisan WP:IDONTLIKEIT bias. The Arab world has every right to a voice and these mainstream media are as close to that voice as you're going to find, TBH. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Alexandermcnab (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)14:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
• Unreliable, closely affiliated with the terrorist organization Hezbollah:
  1. "Hezbollah-backed, pro-Aoun daily Al Akhbar"[3]
  2. "Al-Akhbar, a Lebanese daily newspaper, is widely considered a mouthpiece for the terror group Hezbollah."[4]
  3. "Pro-Hezbollah mouthpiece Al-Akhbar" [5]
  4. "Lebanon's pro-Hezbollah Al-Akhbar newspaper"[6]
  5. "A newspaper affiliated with Hezbollah, Al-Akhbar,"[7]

It publishes shock news and messages from Hezbollah.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 10:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

It is undoubtedly pro-Hezbollah and leftist, too. And I don't particularly agree with that. It has a political stance - what decent newspaper doesn't? But 'Affiliated'? And offering up the Times of Israel as a source on the reliability or partiality of Arab media is a hoot, to say the least. Al Akhbar is one of the top selling newspapers in Lebanon and as a source its known stance should be taken into account. But completely dismissed? No. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

• Generally Reliable, they do definitely have a political slant, but I see no reason to doubt that their reporting is factual. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
• Probably reliable for this, but not all other topics. We should avoid Al-Akhbar as a source for facts relating to Hezbollah, factional politics in Lebanon, or the Syrian war where Hezbollah is a combatant, but it is mostly reliable outside that area. We should avoid Asharq Al-Awsat, especially Arabic-language articles, as a source for facts about geopolitical affairs where the Saudi government is a stakeholder, but it is mostly reliable outside that area. Therefore it is OK as a source for this topic. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

That is one of the more reasonable things I've seen posted here. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

ACRLog

• Ad Fontes Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Talk:Ad_Fontes_Media#Use_of_ACRLog_as_a_reference

Article content under consideration:

In 2021, an article on the Association of College and Research Libraries' blog explored some of the problematic aspects of the Media Bias Chart. The authors critiqued how the Chart promotes a false equivalency between left and right, lionizes a political “center” as being without bias, reinforces harmful perceptions about what constitutes “news” in our media ecosystem, and is ignored by anyone that doesn’t already hold a comparable view of the media landscape. The authors argued that trying to capture the complexities of source credibility in a visual chart was an oversimplification, and detrimental to information and media literacy efforts.

References

Is this blog entry reliable enough for our use for the content above? --Hipal (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC) (added "entry" for clarification --Hipal (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC))

• 1. The webpage does seem to have some review process before the articles are published, so I'd not say it is self-published.

2. The webpage states it was created in order to fulfill some points of ACRL Strategic Plan 2020, so it has endorsement from ACRL, which itself is a reputable organisation of subject matter experts.

3. The authors of the post are themselves subject matter experts (Candice Benjes-Small was president of Va. ACRL division); Nathan Elwood also seems to have some rather good credentials. Scientific articles of both authors are perfectly searchable.

I conclude it is perfectly reliable. Go ahead. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Hipal, eh, no. Sorry. I mean, I agree that the chart gives way too much credibility to the right-wing media bubble, and that the falsehoods of Breitbart are more toxic and dangerous than those of Alternet, but this article is not a scholarly analysis, it's more of a well-informed kvetch against centrists. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see your argument at all.

1. Hipal asked whether this blog, and not this particular entry, is good enough. If you believe the blog cannot be cited because it's by itself unreliable, feel free to share your opinion on that.

2. As for the article: it needn't be a scholarly analysis. Since WP:RS says: "The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint", and the resource itself seems to be legit, and the authors are experts, there should be no obstacles to include it while properly attributing their opinion. If appropriate, MBC owner's rebuttal might be mentioned (it exists). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

So what are the authors experts of, specifically? Politics? Psychology? Sociology? Those seem to be the areas relevant to the content, correct? --Hipal (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

From what I understand, these are academic librarians, i.e. they, if strictly speaking, discuss concepts pertaining to the maintenance of libraries and archives (so they would often compose bibliographies) - these are just another type of researchers, neither a politologue nor a psychologist nor a sociologist, but using bits of each of the sciences. These particular authors are instruction librarians, and as such they normally teach i.a. media literacy to new librarians. Ms Benjes-Small has written a textbook for new candidates and she was a co-author of a few articles and was interviewed for concepts relating to information/media literacy; Mr Elwood has also discussed methods to improve instruction on the subject and there is a video where he instructs people to check the reliability of the resources.

Since they discuss the flaws of a chart that sorts out the bad news sources and the good ones, and they actually cover the topic quite extensively as part of their research/teaching, it's definitely their area of expertise. However, you might want to hear input from other users, just to be sure there is consensus.Szmenderowiecki (talk) 02:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Evaluating sources is a cornerstone of information literacy, which is an area of expertise for librarians and librarianship. ACRL drafted the original Information Literacy Standards and their replacement, the Framework for Information Literacy in Higher Education.Rkmss99 (talk) 12:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)Rkmss99

References

So how does the proposed content fall under their areas of expertise? --Hipal (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

They are experts on media literacy commenting on the usefulness of a media literacy resource. That falls pretty squarely under their area of expertise. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Seems like a fine source to use in the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Wordpress on critical reception from writer already quoted in page

Hey there, I'd like to in include this article on Kaworu Nagisa, Critical reception section. Kraiser is used as reference #97 in a explicative article for IGN. I argued his personal blog could be used again as per WP:SPS but not everyone agrees. The article already has a lot of sources from sites I personally don't have a high opinion of and I think have a very clickbait line for these past few years, with more than a few very inaccurate articles showing opinion or fan theories as fact and making multiple mistakes. So I think this piece of critical reception is acceptable. What do you think?FelipeFritschF (talk) 07:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I believe this is the content you wanted to add:

Writer Vrai Kaiser notes that fans' perception of the character are polarizing, with negative interpretations being "pervasive", and positive ones present him as the single solution to Shinji's problems, disregarding the rest of the cast.

Wordpress is a technical platform, it has no influence on reliability. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Rotten Tomatoes (RSP entry) includes Kaiser's film and TV reviews in Tomatometer aggregate score when published in The Mary Sue (RSP entry).[8] Considering the context is about rather trivial matters – an opinion about fictional characters – the bar for establishing an author as an expert should not be set super high and hence I would consider the source a reliably sourced opinion for the context. I will skip assessing whether including the content is due. Politrukki (talk) 13:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. I'm not in a hurry so if anyone else wants to chip in I'll wait before making any more edits as I'm discussing the article at DRN regardless. Thanks again. FelipeFritschF (talk) 23:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Whether Rotten Tomatoes indexes someone is not really a barometer of anything important. They include a lot of sources that we'd never include. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Right, but him being published in more than one generally reliable source is useful, no? FelipeFritschF (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Myles Moylan

A new user has said that the birthplace of this person is incorrect and is providing sources for an alternate birth location. I'm not really certain of the overall reliability of the sources, and many of them I don't have access to. I'd appreciate a few more eyes on the sources they're offering up, and if anyone has access to familysearch.org, newspapers.com, myheritage.com or irishnewsarchives I'd appreciate them taking a look at the sources behind paywalls. Thanks for any help that can be provided. As an aside I seem to recall seeing somewhere where you could put a request for someone with an account to take a look at a source, but I can't seem to find it now. Did I imagine that? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:28, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Find a Grave and Family Search cannot be used as reliable sources as they're both user generated original research sites. See WP:RS/P. Canterbury Tail talk 18:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I actually had searched for Find a Grave on RS/P, but unfortunately I searched as findagrave so I didn't find it on that list. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually that entire conversation is basically one person doing original research to change what reliable sources are saying. Third party sources would be needed, not one person digging up old registry records and newspaper announcements and putting 2+2 together to show he was born in another country. Canterbury Tail talk 18:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

That's kinda how I felt about it, but after their IP got blocked for changing the place of birth and they created an account and started discussing the change I felt that I should at least try to see if there was any merit. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Which is reasonable. Doesn't however change that they're doing original research and making assumptions that name mentions are the same person. They need a reliable source that states they're the same person and he was actually born in Ireland, and none of them are. Canterbury Tail talk 18:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

RSP wording for SPLC

Right now the RSP wording is:

The Southern Poverty Law Center is considered generally reliable on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States. As an advocacy group, the SPLC is a biased and opinionated source. The organization's views, especially when labeling hate groups, should be attributed per WP:RSOPINION. Take care to ensure that content from the SPLC constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy. Some editors have questioned the reliability of the SPLC on non-United States topics. SPLC classifications should not automatically be included in the lead section of the article about the group which received the classification. The decision to include should rather be decided on a case-by-case basis.

I believe this should be amended to something more like:

The Southern Poverty Law Center is widely cited by reliable secondary sources as an authority on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States. As an advocacy group, the SPLC is a biased and opinionated source. The organization's views, especially when labeling hate groups, should be attributed per WP:RSOPINION. Take care to ensure that content from the SPLC constitutes due weight in the article (for example by reference to reporting of SPLC's statements in reliable independent secondary sources) and ensure all content conforms to the biographies of living persons policy. SPLC classifications should not automatically be included in the lead section of the article about the group which received the classification. The decision to include should rather be decided on a case-by-case basis and should be guided by secondary sources, not SPLC's own publications.

I'm not disputing SPLC's authority on hate groups (and anyone who wants to do so has already lost that argument, per the first sentence above - reliable sources see them as an authority, and if that is a problem, it is not our problem to fix). This is about the UNDUE question, and ensuring that we let RS judge whether a particular classification or statement is worthy of note, rather than quote-mining the internet for primary opinion sources, per WP:ARSEHOLES.

• WRONG: $GROUP is a hate group,<ref>SPLC page calling $GROUP a hate group</ref>
• WRONG: SPLC classifies $GROUP as a hate group,<ref>SPLC page calling $GROUP a hate group</ref>
• RIGHT: SPLC classifies $GROUP as a hate group,<ref>$RELIABLESOURCE noting that SPLC designates $GROUP as a hate group</ref>

I'd even be happy with mandating that we don't include it unless it's noted by two or more RS.

We'll never stop people demanding that we exclude SPLC designations on the basis that they reject them. We'll never stop Conservapedia from accusing us of being Zionist liberal cucks because we note that the Family Research Council are considered a hate group. But I thnk we can ensure that any fair-minded reader (if such a thing exists in today's polarised world) recognises that we're not just quote-mining the internet for stuff we agree with. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:10, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

This sounds sensible. Can you give some examples of groups that would be affected? That's is, ones SPLC calls them a hate group but other reliable sources do not mention it. Alaexis_¿question? 11:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Alaexis, all I know is that we have a large number of articles that cite SPLC as a source per splcenter.org  , and I think that number should be in single digits. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

JzG. Btw did you remove "Some editors have questioned the reliability of the SPLC on non-United States topics" from the proposed version on purpose? Alaexis_¿question? 11:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Alaexis, yes, because we don't care about "some editors" but we do care about reliable independent sources - especially since the "some editors" have consistently failed to achieve consensus. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Per Chesterton's fence, probably there was a reason why it was there in the first place, so I was wondering why you no longer consider it right. Alaexis_¿question? 18:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• all I know is that we have a large number of articles that cite SPLC as a source per splcenter.org  , and I think that number should be in single digits. I think you're forgetting that a large number of those cites are to the SPLC alongside a secondary source, which is entirely legitimate. I'm not a huge fan of citing opinion-pieces or over-reliance on WP:RSOPINION in general without secondary sources, but if we are going to retain that practice, the SPLC seems like a classic example of something that is citable as opinion - they have a strong reputation, large numbers of secondary sources defer to their assessments, and they're one of those few organizations high-profile enough that it's reasonable to say that their opinion on something is inherently worth noting. I would prefer a secondary source wherever possible but if you're suggesting we start scouring it down to single-digit primary citations in the manner we do for depreciated sources, I'm going to have to insist that the only way we could do that is by changing WP:RSOPINION to be much more strict in general - changing A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable to read something like Opinion cited via RSOPINION must be published in sources otherwise recognized as reliable or even Opinion cited under RSOPINION must always be accompanied by a secondary source indicating relevance. Or perhaps more specifically specifying the requirement for biased or opinionated RSOPINION, which is where the problem seems to lie ("opinionated opinion" might sound like a redundency, but the idea is to allow reviews provided they're written by roughly unbiased reviewers - and the objection here seems to be that the SPLC's strongly-opinionated nature calls for more caution.) Because if the SPLC doesn't qualify as RSOPINION then I'm hard-pressed to understand what WP:BIASED sources ever would - certainly, since their expertise in their topic-area is widely-recognized, I would rate them higher than an editorial or opinion-piece by a non-expert. --Aquillion (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

  Aquillion, ah, you are doing a masterful job of exposing my muddled thinking here, but broadly speaking, you are spot on with "opinionated opinion". There is far too much of this on Wikipedia right now. My personal bar is high: for example, I would not cite Maddow directly even if other sources note that Maddow has commented on something (exception: her books Bag Man and Blowout appear to be RS, footnoted and published by reputable publishing houses independent of the author or her network).

  The fact that SPLC is considered an authority by RS does nudge the needle towards direct inclusion as a supplementary source. But I am really not a fan of "X said Y about Z, source, X saying Y about Z on X's website" for anything, let alone accusations of being a hate group. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

  "There is far too much of this on Wikipedia right now" ← Word. There almost seems to be two Wikipedias, the "let's look in the library and find great sources on interesting topics" Wikipedia, and the "what in today's news can I get into Wikipedia in a way which advances my tribe's cause" Wikipedia. It's doin' my head in. Alexbrn (talk) 18:52, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• I partly agree... and partly disagree. There is actually a two step process in situations like this...

1) to mention THAT an advocacy group (such as the SPLC) label “X” as a hate group, we need to cite reliable secondary sources that are independent of both the advocacy group (SPLC) and “X”. The reason for this is to establish due weight. However...

2) once that due weight is established, we can (and should) then cite the advocacy group itself (as a primary source) for the details on WHAT the advocacy group says about “X”.

I would extend this to all “opinion sources”... first cite independent reliable sources to establish weight, then cite the opinion source itself for what it says. Blueboar (talk) 12:18, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Blueboar, I'm not adamantly opposed to a primary link after the significance is established, but I'd invite you to consider what this invites in terms of other primary links to opinion sources. Think-tanks, hyper-partisan websites, the Daily Mail and so on. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:35, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• • Yup... and I would apply the same standard. Set an extremely high bar on deciding WHETHER to mention the opinion in the first place (a function of DUE WEIGHT), but IF you do mention it, then we should turn to the original primary source (with attribution) for citing WHAT they say. Blueboar (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
• As I said above, this seems to strike at the heart of WP:RSOPINION. If you're going to make it a strict requirement to have secondary sources for biased or opinionated WP:RSOPINION, even in the cases where the opinion's source is well-regarded, high-profile, and has established expertise, I would happily agree... but it would have to be a general rule. I would strenuously oppose changing the current practice for using such opinions solely for the SPLC, which is near the high end of sources that are cited under the current practice. I am envisioning, essentially, a situation where a source can be generally-reliable for facts, but WP:BIASED, and still be citable; and could be WP:RSOPINION without strong biases, and still be citable; but something that is both WP:BIASED WP:RSOPINION would require a secondary source. Is that's what's being suggested here? --Aquillion (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
• I agree that descriptions of groups and individuals by the SPLC must be attributed in all cases. However I disagree with JzG's assertion that we should only use SPLC when used by other sources. Per WP:PARITY SPLC covers a lot of fringe hate figures and groups that receive little coverage otherwise, and to remove the ability use SPLC directly would be a detriment to the encyclopedia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • On the third hand... if the ONLY source to cover a fringe group is the SPLC, I would question whether WP should have an article on the group in the first place. Blueboar (talk) 18:12, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

    Blueboar, 100%. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

  Hemiauchenia, it's a primary opinion source, and it's a strong opinion. To include it directly when not covered by independent sources is a real problem. It's also not that common for a genuinely notable hate group not to have third parties note their listing by SPLC, in my experience. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• As for some above my concerns are that it would serve as precedent to dismiss WP:PARITY in other contexts. In theory, if secondary sources are lacking about a topic, the article should ideally be deleted for lack of notability. When well covered by secondary sources, it would naturally result in content that meets the above suggestion. I admit that there still are cases of articles subsisting despite the lack of independent criticism even where warranted... —PaleoNeonate – 02:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• I don't see any need for the additional wording. The reason we typically mention that the SPLC has called a group a hate group is that major news media typically report this in articles about the group. But the same guideline policy for any fact or opinion reported in any article. No opinion is noteworthy because of its source. The proposal is based on a false assumption that there are cases where media don't report the SPLC's categorization, which is dubious at best. Incidentally, saying it is "only an opinion" is misleading. It's an expert opinion, which means for all practical purposes it can be treated as a fact. It's in the same league as the opinion that smoking is harmful. The SPLC is biased and opinionated in the same sense that the Surgeon-General is by advising people not to smoke. TFD (talk) 05:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • You can back up claims around smoking with scientific evidence and evaluation under a scientific method using statistical tests and all that, and while there may be underlying political or biases to want to sway the results, there are still fundamental objective determinations that can be established and thus can be presented closer to fact (though I would still think that if the only source for such a claim is the S.G., we'd attribute that to the S.G. until there's further corroboration). Whereas even the SPLC is still using a subjective measure of what a hate group is to classify people and groups into these categories - one that is likely 95% in agreement with what most people think a hate group is but still which they have infrequently gotten flack for excessive inclusion and even backed off in some cases - because there is no objective process to make that determination. Thus while they are an expert source, and one we should include on groups that are in SPLC's classification, it should be treated as an RSOPINION about the group with clear inline citation to the SPLC, and definitely not treated as fact. Given there are legal ramifications around what are hate crimes and related terminology, and the SPLC is not a legal authority here but simply an expert source, we absolutely need to make sure it is clear classification by the SPLC (or similar agencies like ADL) are clearly delineated. --Masem (t) 05:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Masem, the concept of hate speech does however have an empirical basis. It is speech that is likely to promote hatred or violence against minorities on the basis of their immutable (or virtually immutable) characteristics. In the classical example, by persuading people that Jews were responsible for Germany's defeat in WW1 and were conspiring to destroy the German nation, the Nazis incentivized citizens to attack Jews and remove them from society. That's an empirically provable claim. Most opponents of the SPLC do not question that. What they question is whether certain groups deserve protection from discrimination. Rhetoric accusing Islam of being an evil religion is designed to restrict Muslims from entering the U.S. and practicing their religion. Anti-LGBT rhetoric is designed to promote anti-LGBT legislation. No one questions that. What SPLC opponents say is that Islam is evil and therefore Muslims should be banned and homosexuality encourages child abuse and therefore it should be banned. TFD (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
      • But hate speech, just like hate group, still has subjective facets despite having perhaps an objective core. I agree with how you define hate speech, for example, and I think that's a fairly objective definition, but when that definition is used in practice, it can be misused or misconstrued by subjective criteria built into that definition. People will look for the smallest slights in statements, particularly out of context, to call others out as racist or hatred or the like. This is one thing that the SPLC as an expert in the area we don't expect them to do, but we still need to keep aware that they are working with subjective determinations to what a hate group is based on their own biases. --Masem (t) 22:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
        • Not really. In all Western countries outside the U.S., hate speech is illegal and there are criteria for establishing what constitutes hate speech. While hate speech is constitutionally protected in the U.S., violent hate crimes are federal offenses, so just as in the rest of the world what constitutes hate is determined by courts. Supreme courts in the U.S. and every other country that has hate speech laws agree on where those laws apply and the SPLC uses the same standards. Can you show that the SPLC departs in anyway from what experts say? It's similar to saying that accounting standards are subjective. Indeed they are and accounting is not an exact science. As with other social sciences, judgment is required and opinions may very. But that doesn't mean the IRS and the Supreme Court are going to accept an "it's all subjective" claim when you fail to pay taxes. Pamela Geller for example was denied entry to the UK for promoting hate speech and challenged the decision in court. The Crown submitted evidence from the SPLC and the court upheld the government's decision. They didn't say, "Duh. It's all subjective. Her opinion that it isn't hate speech is as good as the SPLC's position that it is." Instead, they determined that her speech could lead to violence and she was barred. You of course are welcome to disagree with the consensus of legal experts and the SPLC, but must acknowledge that there is agreement. TFD (talk) 05:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
• On the issue of RSOPINION this comes back to a wholly separate matter I raised long before which had to deal with the Daily Mail and its television and film reviewers. In the area of mainstream British television and major films, there are several notable writers that have spent time at other UK papers but have ended up at the DM and part of the known body of reviewers of contemporary works). If I were looking for sources about a Brit TV episode or a film, their reviews as published by the Daily Mail would easily come up, and one would normally be expected to include their reviews... but we have the DM deprecation in place that would initially say they can't be used. That's basically BS, in that this is exactly what I was trying to propose for RSOPINION to be clear about, that as long as it is clear that for the specific topic area that there are experts that would normally be polled or used for their opinion, it doesn't matter where their opinion is published as long as we are confident it is there work - RSOPINION does not require that a secondary source be present to be able to include what has been determined what are known experts in the given topic area, as determined by consensus. So in the case of British television, these TV reviewers that work for the DM would be experts that could be included (presuming consensus agreed) just simply based on the DM publication. The same analogy works here for the SPLC or ADL. In the area of hate groups or other racist/bigotry etc. they are expert groups, I doubt we need consensus to demonstrate that, so their RSOPINION can be included without the need of a secondary source.

Obviously, when RSOPINION is evoked, inline sourcing is 100% required.

Now, UNDUE and secondary sources that reference the RSOPINION as to back up are important when there is possible significant disagreement. In the case of TV reviews, this isn't an issue - every critic has their own view, there's no majority view so all RSOPINIONS are equal. But for hate groups, we can anticipate hostile counterargument from the labeled group and its allies. If the group is significant, more than likely we'll have multiple RSes re-reporting the SPLC's classiciation and that will drown out the counterargument to a level that puts aside the UNDUE issues. If a group isn't significant, and we have almost no RSes re-reporting the SPLC's classificatoin, we first should probably re-review notability of the group, and if its still notable then, then we have to be careful with how much to talk about it, maybe at most just a sentence or even omission --Masem (t) 06:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Masem, That, especially the second paragraph, is exactly the analysis we should apply, IMO, and that's why I think we should change the wording / recommendation. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• I do not have an opinion on the wording. Sorry couldn't resist. Nil Einne (talk) 12:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
• I largely agree with this, but I think it should be more clear that any publishing on the SPLC's own website are considered self-published. This would help clarify the BLP concerns with using this as a source. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
• I don't believe such wording actually makes much sense. Since SPLC "is considered generally reliable on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States", the designation will likely appear in RS because people and news media generally respect SPLC's opinion, however imperfect, and they will often say "it has been labeled a hate group by SPLC" in their reporting in what is alleged/considered to be a hate group.

That said, I'd prefer an idea to have both SPLC and a reasonable amount of resources to corroborate the opinion and the rationale (I'd say 2 RSs would be enough, unless that's a particularly notorious group, in which case more can be added). In realistic terms, a majority of readers of Wikipedia will anyway read either the lead only or most of the text but still without going deep into references, so if there is indeed consensus this is a hate group, it will be the best way to show it (if there is not, I'd think twice before adding the sentence). So if I were to write the entry in the RSP, I'd ask to search for both SPLC and RSs.

PS. When citing the SPLC, find the article where they expand on the motives to include the group and not just the heat map. For people who will go deep into references, other references and the body of the article will show whether that opinion (and reasoning) is substantiated or RS actually doubt whether to follow SPLC's advice. And, of course, just as every opinion, it must be attributed whenever used. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced of the need for a change, though I think I can follow the motivations for suggesting it. Perhaps more examples would help: what article might be impacted by the change, and how? XOR'easter (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
• I'm not convinced that this change is a significant improvement, although some examples of what it would change in practice might help. Much of the discussion above seems to be about different interpretations of WP:RSOPINION and of determining what is and is not DUE more generally than the SPLC, but I don't think this the right venue for that discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Western Star source

I'm planning on adding a source to Western Star Trucks#Model Information to be a source for the 49X being part of a new series of trucks called the X-series and I just wanna make sure that this source: [9] would be a reliable source for the article as it is from the official website of Western Star Trucks. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

It would be an acceptable source so long as the material sourced to it complies with wp:ABOUTSELF. No issues with basic facts but the content shouldn't read like an advert (the Honda Ridgeline article is an example of that). It also shouldn't be used for any claims that might be controversial ("best in class", etc). If this is the only source then we would have to ask is this truck notable beyond saying it is a model offered by WST. Springee (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Otokonoko

Fellow editors, There some disagreement as to the reliability of the sources used (and proposed) at Otokonoko.

• Proposed sources are:
  • "Japanese Fans Rank Top 5 Anime Traps, "Otokonoko"!". Japanese kawaii idol music culture news | Tokyo Girls Update. Retrieved 2021-03-17.
  • Bhattacharya, Anirban (2021-01-03). "19 Best Anime Trap Series That Aren't Hentai - Cinemaholic". The Cinemaholic. Retrieved 2021-03-17.
  • "26 Best Anime Traps Characters". My Otaku World. 2020-02-03. Retrieved 2021-03-17.
• Are these reliable for the article text Otokonoko characters are commonly referred to by English-speaking anime and manga fans as "traps".? Alternatively, are these group blogs, therefore failing WP:RS?
• Currently used sources are:
  • Ashcraft, Brian (26 May 2011). "What Is Japan's Fetish This Week? Male Daughters". Kotaku. Retrieved 5 January 2014.
  • Clegg, Cara (7 June 2014). "Japan slowly begins to openly discuss crossdressing men in heterosexual relationships". SoraNews24. Retrieved 14 March 2018.
  • "業界用語集". Newmo (in Japanese). Retrieved 7 January 2020.
  • "OTOKONOKO : DES GARÇONS TROP MIGNONNES". Vice. 8 August 2013. Retrieved 5 January 2014.
  • 森友, ひい子 (2 June 2014). "「男の娘」「女装子」と呼ばれる人々 "中性化受け入れ"円満な夫婦の鍵 〈週刊朝日〉". AERA dot. (アエラドット) (in Japanese). Retrieved 14 March 2018.
• RSP has Vice as "no consensus", and doesn't have listings for Kotaku or SoraNews24, though both seem to be used extensively as references. Kotaku is considered generally reliable for video games coverage. AERAdot looks to be part of the Asahi Shimbun family. Newmo looks to be a job recruitment website.

Which of these are sufficiently reliable to be used as sources?

The article was previously discussed at WP:RSN here.

Thoughts? - Ryk72 ^talk 06:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think any of the proposed sources are reliable. It's bad enough anime articles tend to have to rely on blog tier articles due to a lack of coverage in western sources, but I don't think we should be bogging down what is ultimately a Japanese cultural concept with a (relatively) new and niche expression used by Americans to describe a similar concept. Although it is not a concern to me personally, it would also be a very controversial addition to the article due to it also being considered a slur against transgender people (which the article is not particularly describing). Paragon Deku (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The appellation "trap" is WP:BLUE in the anime pop culture sphere and does not require a citation. The only potential problem is due weight. DaysonZhang (talk) 19:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

WAAF Blogs ( https://waaf.radio.com/blogs/ )

Source: WAAF Blogs ( https://waaf.radio.com/blogs/ )

Article section: Louis C.K.#2018–2020: Return to stand-up comedy

Claim:

On December 31, 2018, an audience member secretly recorded C.K. working out new material and posted it online. The comedy set included controversial topics such as Auschwitz, non-binary people and victims of the 2018 Parkland shooting. The jokes drew condemnation from Parkland survivors and a divided reaction from fellow comedians. Ricky Gervais defended C.K.'s jokes saying "[C.K.’s] got nothing against those [Parkland] kids. It was him pretending to be angry for comedy."

References

I have no issue with the content of the claim or with CNN/Vox as sources, but I am questioning whether WAAF Blogs ( https://waaf.radio.com/blogs/ ) is an acceptable source for negative information in a BLP, or indeed for anything. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• I guess you'll be expecting this answer, but: no. The more controversial the claim, the less we should be prepared to accept blogs as sources, per WP:ARSEHOLES. Also this is potentially problematic per WP:C, as the material does not belong to the blog. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Sex Differences: Modern Biology and the Unisex Fallacy

I stumbled on this book called Sex Differences: Modern Biology and the Unisex Fallacy. It written by this guy named Ives Christen. I haven’t read the whole book but, when I took a look inside it talked about various things like feminism and sex related things.

This is probably me over analyzing but, it felt like I was reading a book written by one of those conservative nut jobs.(This is me judging it by first glance.)

So instantly assumed this book was unreliable but when I looked the guy up. Apparently he is a French biologist.

What do y’all think?CycoMa (talk) 04:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Which articles are citing it? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Not sure but, I am thinking about citing for some biology articles. Like sex or sexual characteristics.CycoMa (talk) 04:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

The book was first published in 1991 and focuses of biological aspects of sex. Basic info on biology can be found in more recent sources, which are preferable to cite. It probably isn't reliable for feminism, which has changed a lot since 1991. If you get the hunch that a book may be written with a WP:FRINGE viewpoint, it may be better to look for other sources. (t · c) buidhe 07:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC) According to his frwiki article,[10] he has association with the far-right and is involved in promoting eugenics and Social Darwinism. There are much more reliable sources out there, don't cite this one (t · c) buidhe 07:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Sima Ćirković

Hello! Is Sima Ćirković [[11]] a reliable source? Here they are constantly erasing his source from the book [[12]]89.172.3.107 (talk) 23:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the objections in the edit summaries, it looks like they're not just objecting to the reliability of the source; they're saying that it doesn't actually support the statement it is used to cite. (Cirkovic says that it is unknown who are Vlachs (different ethnic group or cattle breeders part of same ethnicity) so this information needs conformation from more sources). Perhaps raise the issue on the article talk page first, with quotes from the source, since it seems like there have literally never been any discussions there. --Aquillion (talk) 22:26, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

New York Post

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.

---

In October last year, New York Post reporters refused to write a story about "Hunter Biden's laptop" that even Fox rejected,[13] but the Post put it on the front page anyway.

Last weekend another politically motivated fabrication was published on the front page:

Under the tabloid-ready headline “KAM ON IN,” The Post, which is controlled by the conservative media baron Rupert Murdoch, claimed that copies of a children’s book written by Vice President Kamala Harris were provided at taxpayer expense in a “welcome kit” for unaccompanied migrant children at a shelter in Long Beach, Calif.
[...]
But the claims were untrue. And on Tuesday, the Post reporter who wrote the original article said she had resigned from the paper because of “an incorrect story I was ordered to write,” describing the episode as “my breaking point.”

— https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/27/business/media/new-york-post-kamala-harris.html

This is not a journalistic error. In both cases the paper ordered the writing and front page placement of false stories its own staff identified as dubious. The Post is currently marked "generally unreliable". I think it should probably be deprecated and potentially even blacklisted. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Here it's usually been claimed that correcting an error is generally a positive sign. I see that the article no longer claims that Harris' books are distributed to migrants [14]. Alaexis_¿question? 17:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

This is usually true yes. However that is as a result of publishing in good faith and later being corrected. Not as the journalist here claims, where from the outset it was known it was not true. Thats the key difference. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, according to this journalist. Alaexis_¿question? 19:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Alaexis, who, you know, was forced to write the article, and then resigned in disgust. So that's two egregious fabrications on the front page. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I’d give it a minute to see if we get confirmation of the reporter’s story from more than the NYT, those are certainly shocking allegations and *if true* would put NYP solidly into deprecate territory. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Both the Washington Post and CNN have detailed reports that agree with the NY Times report, and also say that the NY Post correction did not correct all of the falsehoods in the original report (in fact, repeating the part that the book in the photo was given to an immigrant child). NightHeron (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, it looks like we have a major issue here then. On a side note don’t we need to open an RfC to deprecate? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The New York Post acknowledged the error, posted a different story, and got the resignation of the reporter. The reporter responsible for the falsehood is now making a claim that some Wikipedia editors seem to think is worth considering without seeing whether there's any corroboration, but the verifiable facts point to: the New York Post did what we expect from a reliable source. In any case, if somebody had rushed to put it in Wikipedia, it could have been corrected on the appropriate page instead of going to WP:RSN without saying what Wikipedia page was affected. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Peter Gulutzan, no they did not. They partially corrected the story after they were caught out, but it still contains substantial inaccuracies, and has not been retracted despite having been made up from whole cloth by them. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing false about the Hunter Biden laptop story. Regarding the Harris book, the paper updated the story to include the correct details, which other organizations do all the time. Again this is common and happens all the time, and is expected of reliable sources when they make a mistake. In fact, the USA Today just recently edited a Stacey Abrams op-ed changing the tone of her support for boycotts in Georgia once a particularly impactful one was announced. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

"There's nothing false about the Hunter Biden laptop story". Oh dear, reality must be difficult sometimes (i.e. no-one knows what the truth actually is currently, so saying it's true or false is ... simply your opinion). Anyway, it appears that the paper told her to write a false story. If that is the case, then yes we must Deprecate. Black Kite (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

no-one knows what the truth actually is currently, so saying it's true or false is ... simply your opinion The funny this is that I've been trying to argue this for a few weeks now at the FAQ section for the laptop. According to CNN, the law enforcement assumption is that the laptop is Biden's. What do you think is false or wrong with the Post story? Mr Ernie (talk) 18:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, it would be greatly quicker to list all the things which have been proven true about it: there was a laptop. Everything else is somewhere on the scale from doubtful to known Russian disinformation. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

There is no "known" Russian disinformation about the Biden laptop story. Some suspect it, but there's no proof yet. Maybe we'll find out soon after this FBI raid at Giuliani's place? Mr Ernie (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, ah, so you haven't been keeping up with the intelligence declassifications. Since 2020. OK, then. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

It would be nice if we had an actual site guideline for when a generally unreliable source should become deprecated. For example, my understanding is we deprecate sources to prevent sloppy (or outright deceptive) reporting reaching and misinforming readers. The source is already considered generally unreliable, and at minimum that appears to be the correct classification based on this incident as well. To bump that up to deprecated surely there should be evidence that the status quo is proving insufficient. So: did someone actually try to push that New York Post story into an article, and did it successfully gain consensus to be pushed into an article? Does the NYP have these issues outside of American politics? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Separately, Fox News seems to be mentioned in the NYTimes report Guy links for their false reporting, apparently they repeated a report from the Daily Mail (lol).[15][16][17] Fox is currently at no consensus. Does this event constitute reason to up it to generally unreliable for politics? Again, a lack of site guidelines on generally unreliable sources is seemingly resulting in inconsistent outcomes. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it would probably be good to have a little more general guidance about the difference between pink, red, and gray at WP:RSP. XOR'easter (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, Fox's reaction to the Jan 6 insurrection was to fire Chris Stirewalt, who correctly called Alabama for Biden, and to promote bot Maria Bartiromo (a proponent of the Big Lie) and give more airtime to Tucker Carlson (Big Lie proponent now promoting white supremacist talking points to the delight of Stormfront, VDARE, The Daily Stormer and David Duke).

For the avoidance of doubt: fuck yeah. Fox is unreliable for politics. Entirely unreliable. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Arizona, not Alabama. XOR'easter (talk) 20:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, yes. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Status quo for this source seems OK, this incident would only reinforce what we already know and what WP:RSPSOURCES already says about NYP. --Chillabit (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• This journalistic malfeasance does not make The Post more reliable. At any rate, the new head of The New York Post is from [ WP:THESUN!!! ], so we probably should at least update with that info. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• This is indicative of a sick process within the NY Post. In no way does it reflect well upon them. I can sympathize with the inclination to push them even further into the red at WP:RSP, though I'm not sure how much of a difference it would make in practice. Do we have a problem with people trying to push their stories here that the current rating is inadequate to handle? (I'm not asking rhetorically; in my experience, the status quo seems to have been adequate, but I don't see everything.) XOR'easter (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• A quick search says that the New York Post is being used on 12,000 pages, which seems like an awful lot for a source whose RSP rating is generally unreliable. Furthermore, at a glance a lot of the usage seems to be for politics, especially New York City politics, which is the usage that the current RSP rating specifically warns against. It might make sense to depreciate it for politics specifically, although I would be more inclined to depreciate entirely - my assumption would be that it's not that the Post publishes more false stories about politics, just that those tend to get caught more often because they are more alarming. --Aquillion (talk) 03:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• I don't see a need to change from the status quo. If we have contentious information that is only corroborate to the Post, it should be removed as potentially wrong; but the Post otherwise usually is corroborating contentious information with other sources, but that means we should simply replace the Post with other sources, it should be. When the material is not contentious (eg around entertainment news) it seems far less in any type of hot water. Basically if the store seems to be front page clickbait, we should clearly avoid the Post and use other sources. --Masem (t) 20:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  Entertainment? Good for celebrity gossip should mean, wrap fish with it and throw it away. At any rate, do they really "corroborate", would that not require real journalism work? As opposed to say, notice a donated book on a bed in a Reuters picture, and write 500 words of innuendo and falsehoods about someone. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  Not celebrity gossip (though they do engage in that too and that should be swept away broadly that we simply don't do celebrity gossip). I mean, they will talk to producers/directors/actors to gain insight on a production if it happens in NYC, which is useful information for a show or film. We're probably talking different departments here at play, their "news" department ordered to be as sensational as possible while an "arts" department, far under the fold, is under far less pressure to draw readers so can actually be journalistic. --Masem (t) 22:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• I would at least deprecate this source for politics related content. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 20:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• Per what I said above I'd lean towards depreciation. This seems like a pretty clear-cut pattern of intentionally publishing false or misleading stories, which is the baseline for depreciation; more alarmingly, it looks very much like the current RSP rating isn't doing its job, since the Post is currently cited 12,000 times, many of them for politics or even New York City politics, which is the precise topic area where its current RSP entry specifically says it should not be used. --Aquillion (talk) 03:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• Deprecate for political topics specifically I think this and the many other incidents in the past have shown that the NYP can't be trusted for accurately reporting on political topics and, in fact, can be known for fabricating political stories that they then front-line. For that reason, I think any usage of the NYP for political articles and topics should be deprecated. For anything non-political, I think they are still trustworthy until/unless we obtain further evidence in the future that this corruption has spread to other parts of their news departments. Silverseren^C 03:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
• I would oppose deprecation and support the status quo, seeing as the NY Post does post op-eds and opinion pieces from notable individuals in U.S. politics, including sitting senator March Rubio and the mayor of New York City, The Speaker of NYC's Council, among others. A blanket deprecation would catch these opinion pieces as well, which may very well influence the ability of the project to provide balance on these sorts of issues, which might affect our ability to cover relevant political reactions (especially in New York City local politics), and it might help us to retain the source as generally usable for the quotes of these authors as it pertains to issues of public controversy. WP:GUNREL maintains that it is generally unreliable for facts, which appears very much to be the case, but deprecation might be a bridge too far here. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• I see that 6 discussions about the reliability of NYP have already taken place. Now I've seen movie reviews or film festival coverage published by NYP deleted from film articles based on WP:RSP. Whatever results from this particular discussion, a distinction needs to be made between using NYP for news stories and fact checking -- and an article such as a film review. We should not be cutting off the nose to spite the face. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• Reading the last few comments, I'd now say that I support deprecation. As Aquillion says, the current RSP rating isn't doing its job. I don't see a reason to separate out politics from other subjects; fundamentally, if they're willing to pull shenanigans on one topic, I don't see why we should respect them on any other. Tabloids will tabloid. Nor should we presume that they take any particular care in whose opinion pieces they run. Opinions are cheap, and for our purposes, they are not noteworthy unless reliable sources have taken note of them. XOR'easter (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose deprecation: The laptop story is referred to above as a politically motivated fabrication, but my understanding was that the laptop story had been substantially verified now. At least, the central element of the story that many people originally called into question - the claim that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden - is now assumed by many (including the law enforcement agencies that have possession of the laptop) to be true. According to a recent CNN article,

Hunter Biden told CBS News in an interview clip released on Friday that he has 'no idea whether or not' the laptop belongs to him, but acknowledged that it was 'certainly' a possibility, before raising several other theories.

A law enforcement source has told CNN that the assumption is that it is Hunter Biden's laptop.

I would genuinely be interested in hearing if there was some other aspect of the story that turned out to be false, but right now, I don't understand why this story is being characterized as a fabrication above.

Beyond the question of the laptop story, deprecation is a drastic step, and should only be taken for very few sources. I think there are problems with the NY Post (it's a tabloid, with the typical sensationalism that one finds in that medium), and editors should certainly be aware of its political leanings, but I don't think we should go as far as deprecating it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Thucydides411, no, the laptop story has not been "substantially verified". What you're missing when you quote the source that says the laptop belonged to Biden, is that there is no evidence whatsoever that it was Biden who handed it, along with two others, to MacIsaac. The involvement of Giuliani, Bannon, and a well-documented influence campaign by Russian intelligence in Ukraine, suggests the most likely explanation is that it was stolen and planted, along with a fabricated back-story founded on Giuliani's delusional belief that he would be accepted as a trusted source because he once played a lawyer on TV. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@JzG: I'm still waiting for that "smoking gun" Tucker Carlson claimed was on it when his delivery went missing (then was quickly found and delivered without a peep out of him). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@JzG: You called the story a politically motivated fabrication. Can you explain precisely what part of the NY Post story is a fabrication?

• there is no evidence whatsoever that it was Biden who handed it, along with two others, to MacIsaac: I've looked back at the original NY Post article, and it does not state that Biden himself handed the laptop to Mac Isaac. The original article states that The shop owner couldn't positively identify the customer as Hunter Biden.
• the most likely explanation is that it was stolen and planted: This is a hypothesis about how the laptop ended up at the repair shop, but even assuming that your speculation is correct, how does it render the NY Post story a politically motivated fabrication?

A fairly recent BBC article goes through some of the claims from the original NY Post articles, and it doesn't describe them as fabrications. I'll quote the BBC's discussion of one of the more controversial issues raised by the NY Post:

The New York Post reported an email from April 2015, in which an adviser to Burisma, Vadym Pozharskyi, apparently thanked Hunter Biden for inviting him to meet his father in Washington.

Hunter was a director on the board of Burisma - a Ukrainian-owned private energy company while his father was the Obama administration's pointman on US-Ukrainian relations. Hunter was one of several foreigners on its board.

The New York Post article did not provide evidence that the meeting had ever taken place. The Biden election campaign said there was no record of any such meeting on the former vice-president's 'official schedule' from the time.

But in a statement to Politico, the campaign also acknowledged that Mr Biden could have had an 'informal interaction' with the Burisma adviser that did not appear on his official schedule, though it said any such encounter would have been 'cursory'.

So the claim is difficult to verify, but there's prima facie evidence supporting it (the email on the laptop), and the Biden campaign acknowledges that it could be true (though it describes the possible meeting as an "informal interaction", rather than a formal meeting). The BBC also notes that while Biden's team has called the NY Post story as a whole "Russian disinformation", it does not dispute the authenticity of the emails. All in all, this story appears far less concerning than, say, the publication of the Steele dossier by Buzzfeed (Buzzfeed News: generally reliable, Buzzfeed: no consensus).

In my view, calling an article a politically motivated fabrication is a very strong claim, and you should ground it with some concrete examples of claims in the NY Post article that were fabrications. Given that you're arguing for deprecation, which is a drastic step, this is particularly important.

As I've said above, the NY Post is a tabloid and is prone to sensationalism, but I don't think that that justifies deprecation. And most importantly, a decision for deprecation should be based on actual facts, not unsupported assertions. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Thucydides411, I'm fully aware of the right-wing narrative and the attempt to fit facts to the story. It remains the case that there is no evidence that the laptop was not tampered with, no evidence that it was left by Biden, no evidence to support MacIsaac's story, strong evidence that Giuliani is compromised by Russian intelligence assets, strong evidence that neither Giuliani not Bannon is an honest broker and, above all, absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Joe Biden took any actions in Ukraine other than in furtherance of official bipartisan US policy.

There is, however, compelling evidence that Donald Trump tried to use his office to extort Ukraine for his own personal benefit, and that Trump appointees then tried to conceal the evidence of this. There is also compelling evidence that Rudy Giuliani used his contacts with the Trump regime to have Marie Yovanovitch fired as ambassador, at the request of Russian-backed Ukrainians.

The New York Post's story was a politically motivated fabrication., We have contemporaneous reporting that the Post writer who was forced to write it, refused to add his byline. Fox had turned it down. It is, in short, a rather obvious crock. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

There's a lot of invective in your reply, but not a lot of substance on the concrete question I asked you: what, specifically, was fabricated in the NY Post story? Maybe the BBC article I cited is part of the "right-wing narrative and the attempt to fit facts to the story", but please forgive me if I'm not convinced. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

The assertion that there must be outright fabrications in the story before we can consider it disingenuous is, ironically, quite disingenuous. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:30, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

JzG called the laptop story a politically motivated fabrication. There's nothing disingenuous about asking JzG to back up that characterization. Do you agree with JzG's characterization of the article? From your response to me, it sounds like you're conceding that there are no outright fabrications in the article, or have I misunderstood you?

Look, I just asked why JzG was describing the article as a fabrication, because my impression was that the central claims in the article had largely held up with time (e.g., Hunter Biden has conceded that the laptop might be his, the Biden campaign did not dispute the authenticity of the emails, and they conceded that the meeting described in one of the emails might have taken place). The responses to my straightforward question have been personally aggressive, but have avoided actually answering my question. I could have been convinced by a straightforward response laying out the elements of the story that the NY Post fabricated. The way you two have chosen to respond makes me more strongly suspect that there's nothing behind the "fabrication" claim. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Thucydides411, there is no possible doubt that the story was politically motivated - it was rejected by Fox and rammed through by the Post editors in the face of objections from their own staff. So the only question is whether "Russian-coordinated disinformation operation" and "fabrication" are synonymous. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

It's only "disinformation" if it's untrue. You keep asserting that the laptop story is untrue, a fabrication, Russian disinformation (by the way, I wouldn't care if it came from Russia - I just care if it's correct), etc. Can you back any of those claims up?

As for motivation, I wouldn't even dispute that the NY Post is a right-wing newspaper, and that editors should be aware of that bias. I think it would be naive to assume that any source is completely unbiased, and when it came to the 2020 US election, I think most newspapers had strong biases, one way or the other. But we don't deprecate newspapers because they're biased. We're supposed to deprecate sources that are so unreliable that they can be trusted for almost nothing.

I don't even like being in the position of defending the NY Post, but you made a very strong assertion about the laptop story, and you're using that assertion to argue for deprecating the entire newspaper. I'd just like to see some evidence. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

That's a lot of words for "I can't deny what you clearly meant, so I'm gonna deny the words you used to say it." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

• One of the only reasons I can think of to oppose deprecation is that their sports articles are pretty good. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
• Deprecate for the simple fact that we can't trust their editorial board, which means the articles we read might very well be different than the article their journalists write. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
• Deprecate, per MjolnirPants. I had not thought about it that way: the benchmark for what makes a reliable source is effective editorial oversight, and when two of the most prominent examples of fabrication originated with the editorial team who then coerced or bypassed the journalistic staff, that is such a complete reversal of how it's supposed to work that we cannot, indeed, trust it at all. This is the exact opposite of editorial oversight. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose deprecation. Relieved to see this touched on in comments by Pyxis Solitary: there are areas where a source (any source) might be considered unreliable and areas where it is reliable, so removing it wholesale from the encyclopedia would be extremely short-sighted. I work on 1960s/'70s music articles; Al Aronowitz wrote (quite famously) for the New York Post at that time – is the idea that any of his cultural reporting would be deleted from articles here? From watching this noticeboard since last year (when a music website was up for discussion), it's concerned me that a lot of editors proposing deprecation of a source seem to view Wikipedia through a straw ... Just sayin'. JG66 (talk) 15:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
• Deprecate political, allow all other uses - I agree that their political "reporting and news" is bull at this point. But at the same time, their historical reporting and their non-political reporting seem to be okay still. Seems like they have a double standard for their departments - but that's not on us to remove them completely. I am fine with saying that the NY Post should never be considered reliable for politics, but I think that anything beyond that is improper. Even if it's technically the same editorial board, it's clear they take a very different view on political stories than they do on others - and that is something we must consider. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
• Deprecate. The standard I use to differentiate unreliable versus deprecated is that an unreliable source is as reliable as an amateur making a good faith effort to fact-check, and any source we know to be less reliable than that we should deprecate. It's hard to be less reliable than that, but one easy way to get there is if there's proof that the source has deliberately lied, especially on more than one occasion. We have that for the NY Post, so we should deprecate it. Loki (talk) 03:17, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Can a source be deprecated without a formal RfC? Springee (talk) 03:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose deprecation without date cutoff. It seems clear from this discussion that the reliability has taken a nosedive, I'm not immediately sure when but it seems to be with the current editorial team. If we deprecate we need to be clear that it is only and explicitly for articles published after the cutoff date. If we don't do this then experience shows that some editors will simply remove all cites to the publication (without replacement), even if there were no concerns about the reliability of the source when that article was published. Thryduulf (talk) 09:34, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose further deprecation - We already caution against using NYP for political information. It is fine for less controversial topics (such as sports coverage). No need to change the status quo. Blueboar (talk) 12:12, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
• Deprecate [18][19][20][21][22][23] Nuff said. Firestar464 (talk) 02:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose deprecation as per Thucydides411, and the lack of any evidence politically biased or otherwise against their general content. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:57, 10 May 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.

Questions regarding Geo TV / Geo News (geo.tv)

The largest and most well-known Pakistani media outlet, and one that I've used frequently as a source, particularly when writing about Turkish TV. I would say it is reliable in its entertainment info. It offers occasional political commentary, although that is usually from field experts and should probably be considered in the same light as The Guardian. IronManCap (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Speedy close This isn't how a RfC is started, and there's no need to have one unless there are unresolved or repeated disputes. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 22:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

  Then better just have this as a regular discussion (without the RfC bit, since the RfC template was not even added anyway. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, newbies offen get that wrong despite the clear instructions at WP:RfC. Best to just quietly convert the pseudo-RfC to a normal discussion. Maybe we could create a user talk page template that starts with "Hi! I noticed that you labeled a discussion as and RfC without reading the instructions at [[W{:RFC]]. I have converted it to a regular discussion (optional: ...and moved it to the article talk page at X)." --Guy Macon (talk) 02:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Getting back to discussing geo.tv...

We have an article on Geo TV with a URL of https://harpalgeo.tv/ but I don't think that is the right Wikipedia article. The correct article appears to be at Geo News. Are they the same? Should the articles be merged?

Also, whenever I deal with a non-English source that has an English version, I always ask whether someone who speaks both languages could compare the two versions. Some sources just do a straight translation. A lot of them do a straight translation but only on selected articles. Sometimes you get wildly different content and editorial standards. Could someone who speaks both languages please tell me which ois true for geo.tv?

Despite the name, [ https://www.geo.tv/about-us ] is a contact-us page. The actual about-us page is at [ https://www.geo.tv/corporate-profile ].

[ https://www.geo.tv/privacy-policy-and-tos ] is interesting. That page led me to Jang Media Group, Daily Jang, and The News International. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian and Guy Macon:Sorry about putting this on this page, I saw other sources being listed and assumed this was how to get a reliability check. About Geo TV vs Geo News, the News is the news and bulletin branch of the outlet, whilst 'TV' is the station for airing various TV programs, including the likes of Geo Entertainment. Geo as a whole is owned by the larger Jang Media Group, which includes other outlets such as Daily Jang and The News International. If this is indeed given a reliability rating, maybe it should be done under the single 'Jang Media Group' header. I think the given website for Geo TV is correct as an on-demand website for the TV branch. IronManCap (talk) 12:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

No problem. You are doing fine, and this was a really good question to bring up. Wikipedia can be confusing for a new(ish) user, which is really more our fault than the new(ish) user's fault.

I just looked over a dozen articles on that site, and to me it looks like they print uncontroversial news items with a strong emphasis on local Pakistani stories. Unless someone gives me a reason to believe otherwise I am going to call this one as generally reliable. Of course some of their articles are useful as citations in an encyclopedia[24] while other articles are only of local interest[25] but that's true of most news sources.

Speaking of local news, I found this to be especially heartwarming. The world is full of good people. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• Reliable for most things but not politics, religion, or civil rights. Geo is decent by Pakistani standards, but those standards are incredibly low. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: Could I ask what you are basing that on? IronManCap (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I consume a lot of english language asian media, Geo is a tier below Dawn (newspaper) and Dawn isn’t super strong if we’re comparing it to global benchmarks like NYT, The Guardian, etc so I feel like putting Geo in the Generally Reliable tier would be a misstep. Their coverage is often a bit too sensational but that seems to be a journalism wide problem than anything to fault them specifically on, why I say to be careful when it comes to politics, religion, or civil rights is that Geo tends to mirror the opinions of its ownership on those issues while maintaining, at least in my opinion, a more open mind on other topics. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

About 'sensational coverage', the exuberance is just a trait of Pakistani media. They love to dramatise things, and every bulletin is more like a Bollywood blockbuster trailer. I don't think it makes them any less reliable as it doesn't affect how they present the facts; they aren't propagandist or anything. IronManCap (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

• @RandomCanadian and Guy Macon: Any comment? Do we need a broader assessment of Pakistani media? IronManCap (talk) 13:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

  My opinion was based upon 10 minutes of reading articles, so I would defer to HIB if they have looked more closely. How about reliable with attribution? Would that work for everybody? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• Probably additional considerations apply considering the state of freedom of press in Pakistan. Didn't see anything outlandish looking at their website, it is used as a citation on 2,409 articles per geo.tv  , so a discussion may not be unwarranted. I'll see what I can find with respect to its reliability. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

KUSI-TV

I have some concerns generally about the political slant, editorial independence and reliability of KUSI-TV, a television station in San Diego. In January 2019, the station said CNN had refused to have on one of their reporters for political reasons, but had no evidence for the claim. When U.S. Congressman Duncan D. Hunter did an interview with KUSI-TV in December 2019, while he was in the middle of a federal indictment, the station stuck to questions provided by his team. And in August 2020, they ran a highly flattering "exclusive" with notorious anti-vaccine activist (and later Capitol stormer) Simone Gold, framing her as "censored" and writing about "why the medical community, and Democrat legislators won’t embrace the drug as a valid treatment option for those infected with coronavirus" and "the success they have had using Hydroxychloroquine to treat patients infected with coronavirus." Needless to say, this recent track record of imbalance to the U.S. Republican Party and political right is concerning for what is supposed to be an independent station. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Huffpost

Link: [26]

HuffPost has failed fact checks [27][28][29]. Does this impact the reliability of HuffPost? Firestar464 (talk) 02:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The HuffPo story fact-checked by Snopes (your first link) did not state as true the fact that Snopes was checking. HuffPo made a correction to the story checked by CheckYourFact (your third link). I don't have a great read on what was going on with the FullFact checked story, but whatever happened, The Times also fell for it. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The FullFact one (second link) is a problem of how several newspapers, including the Times, as well as HuffPo misunderstood some stats. HuffPo corrected within four days with a full expalnation. This is an example of a corrected honest error not of unreliability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The CheckYourFact one (third link) seems pretty minor and it was corrected with an explanation within 17 hours of first publication. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Is the text of an Executive Order by the President of the United States a Reliable Source for the Content of that Order

Hi,

I changed the text of the Christopher Rufo article as shown below. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Rufo&type=revision&diff=1022288141&oldid=1022256751

Specifically, the language of the article stated, citing a secondary source, that the order prohibited

" diversity training in federal agencies".

 I changed this to 

'diversity training training incorporating certain "divisive concepts" (such as claims that the United States in intrinsically racist, or that individuals of certain races are inherently racist)',

following the language of the Executive Order, and because the order clearly was not a blanket prohibition on diversity training. (Please note that I placed scare quotes around the former President's value judgment that these concepts were divisive, so as not to make this claim in Wikipedia's name.)

After being reverted for "synthesis" and for "unreliable sources", another editor came in and changed the language to

"diversity training that addressed topics such as systemic racism, white privilege and critical race theory", again criticizing me for using a primary source for the language in my edit.

It seems to me that the most reliable source for what an Executive Order requires is the text of the Executive Order itself, not a third party's summary of what the Executive Order says. Certainly the courts, in adjudicating whether someone had violated the order, would rely on the text of the Executive Order itself and not someone else's interpretation of it. The words "systemic racism", "white privilege" and "critical race theory" do not appear in the Executive Order. I believe the most accurate description of what the Executive Order prohibited is that found in the Executive Order itself.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/09/28/2020-21534/combating-race-and-sex-stereotyping

Could someone please contact Snooganssnoogans and Neutrality and let them know I posted here. I'm not sure how to best do that.

2603:8080:4C01:B0B7:A9F1:A46E:6329:24BD (talk) 22:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Secondary sources are better than primary sources, and this is what Neutrality has added to the article. Guettarda (talk) 22:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

To expand on this - secondary sources are reliable and can be used to support "facts" - whereas the executive order can only be used as a source for what it says. The president issuing an order can say whatever they want to in that order - regardless of its truth or how misleading it may be, and regardless of whether it is true to the legal effect the order will have (as the President can't say what legal effect it will have, that's up to the courts and the implementation thereof). So no, it's not okay to use the executive order to make claims, outside of a quotation, about what the order will do. You placed quotes around only one part of it - which implies that the rest of it was Wikipedia making the claim - and that is not a claim that can be sourced to a primary source. I am not sure why it seems to you that it does - but it shouldn't. The courts will not rely on one quote from the order, they rely on it as a whole as well as many other pieces of information - as evidenced by the fact that Trump's orders claiming they weren't racist at all in banning people from specific countries (based on race) were almost all struck down for being illegal. That type of information doesn't come from the order - it comes from third party summaries of it - and it's why we could report that they were likely illegal on Wikipedia even before they were struck down. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:26, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm still not quite understanding. I thought I was using the text of the Executive Order for exactly that purpose. To report "what it says". It's particularly difficult for me to see that, for example, a wrongful termination lawsuit would be settled based on the court concluding that the plantiff had taught "Critical Race Theory". The ruling would be based on whether or not the plantiff had violated the precise language of the Order. The order specifically prohibits training based on a list of specified topics that I gave examples of.

If an editor is not qualified to interpret the literal language of the Executive Order to report what it says, how is s/he qualified to interpret the literal language of the secondary source to report what it says? I'm not interpreting anything here, I'm reporting what the Order says.

2603:8080:4C01:B0B7:A9F1:A46E:6329:24BD (talk) 22:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

2603:8080:4C01:B0B7:A9F1:A46E:6329:24BD (talk) 22:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Reporting what it said would be putting the entire thing in quotation marks, and attributing that text to the order itself. You did not do such. Furthermore, our due weight policy applies here. If the vast majority of reliable sources (other than the order itself) hold the legal opinion that the wording is inaccurate, misleading, etc. then including a direct quote of the order without also including why that quote is considered irrelevant or unenforceable by reliable sources is improperly introducing a point of view by omission into the article. User:Snooganssnoogans said it well - you cherry picked one quote, didn't put it in quotation marks or attribute it, and you ignored the secondary sources which state that the text has the legal enforcement potential of banning diversity training as a whole. In fact, you ignored some of Trump's own comments (and others) that stated in no uncertain terms that was the goal of the order. You're focusing a lot on the text, and you're trying to impart your opinion as to what the text would do on us, while you're ignoring the plethora of legal scholars that disagree with you. That's not how Wikipedia works. We respect mainstream consensus views of scholars in a field - not one person's opinion that disagrees with those that do this on a daily basis. We aren't "interpreting the literal language of the secondary source". We are repeating what the secondary sources say. You claimed in one edit that you "didn't have an axe to grind", but if not, then why are you trying so hard to state that your opinion on the order (which is contrary to mainstream consensus of legal scholars) is correct? That's the definition of trying to grind an axe, and it's not how Wikipedia works. Your opinion does not trump that of reliable secondary sources' opinion. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. If we could limit the discussion to the issues and not speculating on one another's motives, I think it would be very helpful. If NPOV is the issue, it might be worth pointing out that other media outlets summarized the order differently than that currently cited in the article. The WSJ stated that the Order

"prohibits federal agencies, companies with federal contracts, and recipients of federal grants from participating in training that “promotes race or sex-stereotyping or scapegoating.” https://www.wsj.com/articles/white-house-order-against-diversity-training-generates-confusion-11602063000

There are lots of opinions out there about what the Executive Order requires, but it seems to me that the literal language of the Order is what matters. Third parties can say that the order prohibits walking your dog after 7 pm. And if they are major media outlets we can report that they said that. But at some point we should mention that the words "walking your dog" don't appear in the text of the order.

Giving the literal language of the text is not "stating an opinion", let alone trying to force it on anyone.

2603:8080:4C01:B0B7:A9F1:A46E:6329:24BD (talk) 22:49, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

You once again cherrypick the WSJ quoting the order - not commenting on it. I'm not sure if you have access to the WSJ to read the entire article (I do), but they make clear that it will do more (and had, at that time done more) than it claims by a quote. And no, we don't generally care about mentioning what words are in primary sources - we leave it to secondary sources to summarize and opine and we then follow their claims as to what is in the order. That is why you were referred to WP:SYNTH - because by the way you're including the text of the order, you're attempting to present a viewpoint that is not present in reliable, secondary sources - again - it's the way you're including it and excluding other views. No, giving literal language isn't stating an opinion, but how you present it, and what information you choose to include/exclude, does. By excluding the many reliable sources that disagree with you, you are not attempting to follow a neutral point of view - you are attempting to only allow sources that agree with your personal opinion. I am not going to explain this further - because it's clear that you have no interest in actually becoming an editor, you are only here to attempt to push your point of view on that executive order into articles. If you continue to attempt to do this, then you may find yourself blocked from that/related article(s) for being disruptive and pushing a point of view. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:03, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, I see my respectful request that we not speculate on each other's motives will not be respected. In fact, the WSJ quotes are not scare quotes, they are quotes indicating that they are using the exact language from the order. I can see how things are going here, and so I'll drop this. But I never thought partisanship would rise so high as for people to claim that a document is not a reliable source for what the document says. That's Kafkaesque.

2603:8080:4C01:B0B7:A9F1:A46E:6329:24BD (talk) 23:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

The document is reliable for the content. For example, if we wanted to quote a Biblical passage that supports slavery we could - and we could summarise the meaning / translate for instance, so long as we fundamentally relied on the Primary Source for all content and context. But if we wanted to write a section about The Bible and quote the passage with various value judgements or meanings then that would be an incorrect use of the Primary Source. To try and use the Primary Source to override the interpretation of Secondary Sources is equally fallacious. It is a kind of appeal to authority, but where the authority is considered unreliable for the purposes of describing their own work (such is bias). This is why we generally do not use biographies or autobiographies or personal statements without some corroboration. Koncorde (talk) 00:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Note: There is an entire Wikiproject, which is Wikisource, which exists to host public domain primary source documents. If the aim here is to reproduce the contents of such a document, that is the place to do it. BD2412 T 00:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

It's a reliable (albeit primary) source, but in the context of your diff I think that's probably original research (as the executive order doesn't mention Rufo) and improper use of a primary source. In that context, you're bordering on implying the purpose of the order. It should really be for secondary sources to describe what the order actually did, not sourcing to what the government said it was. Otherwise we'd get very strange results; for example if you took the government's word on the 'purpose' of 2019 British prorogation controversy, Trump travel ban, United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, etc., you'd reach conclusions completely contradicting what reliable sources and scholars say about it. I suspect similar applies here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:36, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: just to note that the word "content" in the request is ambiguous. Content can mean the literal text, for which the EO is a reliable source, or it can mean the significance of the text, for which we require secondary sources if there is the slightest risk of misunderstanding. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Science Vs Podcast (and podcasts more generally)

As podcasts become more prominent is there any discussion about evaluating them individually as RS? Some are SPS and others are legitimate corporate media or educational productions affiliated with legit institutions. It's frustrating that all can be dismissed as merely a podcast. I suppose YouTube videos suffer from the same batch condemnation. Specifically, I'm asking about the podcast "Science Vs" which seems to me to be GREL. They make a comprehensive review of the literature and fact check much better than your average media outlet and provide extensive in line citations (often over a hundred) in the transcript. Produced by Gimlet Media, The show was a 2020 nominee for a Podcast Award, and the host Wendy Zukerman is a nominee for a 2021 Podcast Academy "Ambie" Best Host Award. It has over 13,000 reviews on Apple podcasts and a rating of 4.5 stars. It is Spotify's #1 science podcast in the US, Australia, Great Britain. It is Spotify's #48 podcast overall. It is Apple's #8 Science podcast in the US. This has come up here. Thanks. DolyaIskrina (talk) 07:49, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Not sure on this one specifically, but insofar that any podcast can be cited, it would be held to the same standards as radio and TV broadcasts. Wikipedia has a {{cite episode}} template, and has had one since 2006. Any policy we have for correctly citing a radio or TV broadcast would rather self-evidently be applicable to other similar media, such as podcasts. WP:RS sadly doesn't contain any specific guidance on broadcast sources, except noting that they would be covered no differently than written sources by existing policies and guidelines "The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online; however, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources." So, insofar as the source is reliable, being a podcast is not a particular hurdle to also clear. --Jayron32 14:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I see now that there is also a {{cite podcast}} template.DolyaIskrina (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

References

citypopulation.de

This website with unclear provenance is being used as a source for the list of megacities at Megacity. Is it reliable? It's been discussed at RSN a few times with unclear consensus (see eg Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_235#citypopulation.de; Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_164#citypopulation.de/). Pinging @JzG, The Four Deuces, and Emir of Wikipedia as some participants in past discussions. Site is apparently run by Thomas Brinkhoff, a professor at the Institute for Applied Photogrammetry and Geoinformatics at Jade University of Applied Sciences. Fwiw, I'm not sold on the reliability of Demographia, run by Wendell Cox, either. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 05:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Demographia, however Cox's views are controversial, is a good aggregator of data, as their methodology is reproducible and thoroughly described in the paper referenced. If you are going to change anything, maybe you'd want to use census data instead (from which he derived some calculations), because the numbers he gives for a lot of countries are approximations made by drawing polygons on a rather detailed density map.

This can't be said of citypopulation.de, which states in its methodology for the list that: "Official censuses and estimations are mostly the basis of this computation. The delimitation and composition of urban agglomerations is often defined or modified by »City Population« in order to increase comparability. This is a continuous, on-going process. The figures of such a statistic are all of varying accuracy. There are several reasons: varying relevance and accuracy of sources, difficulties of delimitation, errors in the projection and so on." It is unclear how they modify their areas and what are the other sources that Brinkhoff draws his data for. He is a subject-matter expert as well; he's even written a paper about how to determine them. Had he described his methodology thoroughly, it would be usable; without it, the data looks plausible but not rigorous enough.

One more thing: he seems to be using Wikidata at least at some parts of the website; IDK if he uses it in that particular table but, not being able to definitely exclude it, I see all the more reason to remove it. 09:42, 9 May 2021 Szmenderowiecki (talk) (UTC)

My comment about wanting to know more about Thomas Brinkhoff still stands. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Game Skinny

Is this site considered a reliable source? In its About page says:

We take a Native Journalism approach, which means writing crafted by people participating or personally involved and engaged in the topic they are writing about. GameSkinny features a collaborative online publishing system, which empowers gamers and game journalists to have ownership of the content and contribute their reasoned and rational voices to the global conversation. While we believe that the gamers are often the true experts in their field, we also believe that editor support is critical. This is why all of our content is edited and approved by a team of dedicated editors.

In Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources there is no mention of whether the site is reliable or not. However, I have seen some users claiming that the source is unreliable. I opened this consultation for the community to decide what shall be included about this source in Perennial sources. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 19:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I found this discussion from 2015 that touches on it, pointing out that it's user-submitted, albeit with an editorial board. I wouldn't consider them blanket reliable myself. I might use them, if there were an uncontentious fact needed by an article that couldn't be sourced elsewhere. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

MPants at work Yes, I saw some discussions. In Among Us, an user reversed another user claiming that the source was unreliable. However it would be interesting to have something about it in the perennial sources. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not really surprised that a smaller gaming journalism site would escape notice: the industry is so big and so incestuous (a result of its youth, IMO) that the odds of a small outfit finding a scoop of any sort are vanishingly small. So while I'd bet this has come across many an editor's radar, I'd also bet those editors quickly found the claim duplicated in a more well-known and reliable source.

Like I said, if it's just simple, uncontroversial information, I'd give it a shot and see if you get reverted. Even if you do, you might be able to persuade the other party that the sourcing is good enough for the claim. If you can share what the claim and the specific source used for it are, I could give you some more detailed thoughts. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• They're listed as unreliable at WP:GAMESOURCES, based on that discussion above. I'm unimpressed by the site. They have an editor with a background in journalism, but amateur writers. I looked through Google News and they don't get cited much at all by reputable media—many of the mentions were image credits, in fact—which suggests they don't have a good reputation, or one at all. I would find a better source, personally. If GameSkinny is the only site making this particular claim, then it's probably UNDUE. Woodroar (talk) 21:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
• Woodroar's link settles it, I think. That's linked to a discussion that didn't show up when I searched for it. Unfortunate that the WP search isn't more complete, but there's a pretty decent answer by this point. This is three instances now where a very small consensus of editors (a different group each time) have not been impressed by it. Ignore my advice to try it, and just don't use it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:21, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Woodroar These rules are quite sparse. Thank for information. I added in my PU. ✍A.WagnerC (talk)

Baltimore quote

In the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists there is an article by Nicholas Wade which has the following passage:[30]

For the lab escape scenario, the double CGG codon is no surprise. The human-preferred codon is routinely used in labs. So anyone who wanted to insert a furin cleavage site into the virus’s genome would synthesize the PRRA-making sequence in the lab and would be likely to use CGG codons to do so.

“When I first saw the furin cleavage site in the viral sequence, with its arginine codons, I said to my wife it was the smoking gun for the origin of the virus,” said David Baltimore, an eminent virologist and former president of CalTech. “These features make a powerful challenge to the idea of a natural origin for SARS2,” he said.

Is the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists a reliable source for stating that the most notable living virologist and former president of Caltech David Baltimore is of the opinion that:

“These features make a powerful challenge to the idea of a natural origin for SARS2,”

and that he questions the natural origin of SARS2? I am of the opinion that the source is reliable. The writer of the piece Nicholas Wade is a respected science writer who has worked on the staff of Nature, Science, and, for many years, the New York Times. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is a very well respected publication with an incredible leadership team. And lastly, David Baltimore himself is on the board of sponsors and therefore knows fully well that he is being quoted on the record. --Guest2625 (talk) 07:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

If you're looking for quotes to support WP:FRINGE viewpoints, David Baltimore looks like a good candidate given his prominence as a Nobel Laureate and well known scientist working in virology. His quote could be used to support the notion that there is a fringe viewpoint, but his singular opinion, in-and-of-itself is not sufficient to say that the accepted view among the preponderance of virologists that SARS-CoV-2 is of natural origin. Simply put, his viewpoint may be used to show its existence, but not to give it any credence as likely to be true. --Jayron32 14:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for input. I agree with your statement. --Guest2625 (talk) 23:36, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia fork

User:Ayaltimo is supporting wikipedia mirrors, i've explained to the user before that they're unreliable. [31] Reference being used [32] See their edit [33]. The user seems to think its ok to leave since it was on the page for 2 years based on their edit summary. [34]. The statement in the article isnt even found in the sources. The reference looks to be self published as well. I couldnt find any results that Yohannes is a "verified Ethiopian historian" per Ayaltimo's claim either. Magherbin (talk) 22:51, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Comparing the source added by Ayaltimo with a version of the article at the end of March 2013—that is, immediately before the source was published—shows huge swaths of copied text. I don't think the entire source is cut-and-paste plagiarism, but much of it is. And what isn't appears to be closely paraphrased, which is almost as bad. The author is certainly no scholar if he's copying our articles. Ayaltimo, this is not a reliable source and you should stop edit warring to include it. WP:BRD says that if you make an edit and it's reverted, it's up to you to make a case for the edit and the source's reliability on the Talk page. Woodroar (talk) 23:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps this should be taken to the talk or WP:ANI. Firestar464 (talk) 02:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Not reliable if it's copied as a circular reference. I hope Ayaltimo will heed the advice of editors here. Spudlace (talk) 18:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Not reliable. If you can use a mirror, then any Wikipedia editor can write something up in some small article, wait for it to appear in the mirror, and then use that mirror as reliale source everywhere.VikingDrummer (talk) 01:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

2021 Israel–Palestine crisis

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

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

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

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

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

ukrailnews.com

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

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

Mackensen: [35] [36] [37] Nightfury 11:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

US diplomatic cables on Wikileaks

In this Wikipedia:Biographies of living_persons/Noticeboard#Sisay Leudetmounsone, User:Thucydides411 has stated that we can be sure this document [38] is an original, unmodified, transmitted US diplomatic cable. To be clear, there is no reliable source discussion anyone has found of this cable. It's not something particularly interesting or contentious. It's only being used because so far no one has found a different source, such as an official Laotian government document or news report from the time. And although it's a US diplomatic cable, there isn't much concern over bias as it's simply a listing of members of the 8th Laotian Central Committee and whether they are new.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's a bit of a red flag.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, from Der Spiegel:

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

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

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

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

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

I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THIS WITH YOU ANYMORE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Redirect

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Descriptions of US Route 40 and US Route 70

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I came across this non-politics and non-science opinion piece article by Fox News [39]. Ordinarily this would be usable and reliable per WP:FOXNEWS but the same article seems to also seems to published by New York Post [40] a generally unreliable source per WP:NYPOST. Since it was published in both generally reliable and generally unreliable sources is it usable as an opinion piece? Does the fact that Fox News published this make worthy/reliable/due for inclusion? Or does the fact it was published by an unreliable source make it automatically unusable? I know discussions involving Fox often spiral into long verbose discussions often becoming unreleated to Fox itself so if I could politely request we stick to the matter at hand. Thanks. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 16:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with this as well. So long as we are posting opinion wish lists, I think we should also understand that opinions don't just exist with "Opinion" across the top. We should be careful when a source is offering their own commentary vs simply reporting the facts. Springee (talk) 19:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)