Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 340

Eran Elhaik
The use of the following source for the genetic scientist Eran Elhaik 's wikibio:- "Aram Yardumian,Theodore G Schurr, 'The Geography of Jewish Ethnogenesis,' Journal of Anthropological Research Volume 75, Number 2 pp.206–234"

has been challenged on the grounds of insufficient competence by the two scholars who wrote it. Aram Yardumian is part of the team at the Laboratory of Molecular Anthropology at Upenn. Theodore G Schurr is Director of the North American Regional Center of the Genographic Project and has specialized in human evolutionary genetic for three decades. Both have published extensively in peer-reviewed journals on anthropology and genetics. Nishidani (talk) 13:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * For what information the cite was used? --Shrike (talk) 13:18, 8 May 2021 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


 * And:


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


 * Currently, there are not "multiple high-quality sources" but rather one source of unclear quality
 * The authors, of which there are only two, Yardumian and Shurr, while they are published in genetics (Schurr more so than Yardumian), interpret and characterize several papers by more notable and cited researchers in the area of Jewish and Near Eastern population genetics in ways that depart significantly from the conclusions (and statements) of the studies themselves (which are part of the mainstream consensus described above).
 * For these reasons, the addition seems to me to go against WP:WEIGHT and to give WP:UNDUE attention to a minority position (which could be described as an "extraordinary claim") advanced in one relatively new work that has not yet been engaged with by the mainstream of researchers in the field. It seems best to wait until there has been some mainstrem engagement with its proposals before using it. Thus I suggested that some caution is warranted. Skllagyook (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)


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


 * I must add that my concerns about WP:PRIMARY only refer to Yardumian and Schurr's own conclusions. Much of the paper however contains a review of exisiting research results; as such, it's a also secondary source, and per the authors' credentials, a reliable one. –Austronesier (talk) 14:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * in no regard is it a prim ary source and the distinction you make confuses policy.
 * "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources."
 * This is purely a secondary source evaluating primary source papers on genetics, and written by two ranking scholars whose credentials attest thorough competence in the field. Their conclusions can not be excerpted as primary except by the most antic of misreadings about how RS criteria are to be read.Nishidani (talk) 15:05, 8 May 2021 (UTC)


 * It is true that it contains a review. However Yardumian and Schurr's conclusions are in part derived from their interpretations of existing research, and those interpretations (in several cases), the subject of genetics, are very different from those of the conclusions of the authors of that research itself, and in some cases seems to characterize the conclusions of that research differently than its authors do. I'm not sure how one would distinguish their own conclusions from the review. (As mentioned, the WP:RECENT nature of the paper combined with its proposals that strongly diverge from consensus and lack of engagement -e.g. citations - with its conclusions from other specialists seems to  recommend caution as well.) Skllagyook (talk) 15:13, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Look. This is getting exasperating. What you criticize is how science works. Hammer is cited by Behar, Behar by Atsmon, Atsmon by Elhaik in a continuing peer group argument as different models and data bases are used bearing on this question, and innovative analytic approaches are developed. All review each others' work and, in science, as in scholarship, reviewing scholars do their job also by disagreeing with their peers when the occasion requires. The fact that  Yardumian and Schurr find a different interpretation for the research results of Hammer, Atzmon, Behar Elhaik et al., is perfectly normal. It doesn't mean some 'exceptional claim' is being made. It simply  means that there are, in their view, other ways to assess that evidence. That is how serious science and scholarship work, and there is no reason for us to suddenly raise objections to these two scholars because they, in reviewing the evidence, suggest a model they think copes with it in a way that they consider more cogent and, above all, more in accordance with Jewish history, something many of these geneticists are not particularly familiar with (as opposed to many Jewish historians, who know how important conversion has been). Nishidani (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * My concern/criticism, as explained earlier, is not merely with "how science works" or that scholars are reviewing each other with differences of opinion, but that a source is being added that makes an extraordinary claim that seems to strongly contradict the mainstream consensus (which is comprised of multiple studies/reseachers over years) of the relevant community (population geneticists) and as yet has no citations or other other engagement from the mainstream. (And I believe Yardumian and Schurr are also not historians.)
 * Not very long ago, in an admitedly more extreme than this, but perhaps broadly comparable case, I, and others, engaged in discussion (here []) with a user who had added a source (which I believe also contained a review) to Early expansions of hominins out of Africa that proposed a theory of Homo Sapiens origins strongly/radically at odds with the mainstream view. It was written by two authors (at least one of whom had relevant credentials), peer reviewed, and published in a legitimate journal, but was recent and had no expert citations. Skllagyook (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I am inclined to accept the reliability of the source, keeping in mind that WP:PRIMARY sources are not prohibited, but must be used with care. The question then, I assume, is how much WP:WEIGHT to give it for this BLP. I look at the page history and I see that a previous version features a gigantic blockquote of the paper, which is obviously suboptimal. The current version of the "Criticism" section is better . However, , could you explain why it is necessary to outline this specific criticism in detail, when other are very succinctly outlined by the sentence The accuracy and reliability of Elhaik's population genetic theory of the Khazars has been strongly criticised by other academics in peer-reviewed publications based on linguistic and genetic evidence. News articles written by academics and commentators on Jewish history and genealogy have also criticised his population genetic methods and software, and historical and linguistic inferences., with 10 footnotes? This gives it way more weight than the other criticisms, and I wonder whether that's really WP:DUE. JBchrch (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I devote I think three lines to paraphrasing their views. The line you quote originally read earlier today
 * "The accuracy and reliability of Elhaik's population genetic research has been strongly criticised by other academics"
 * which has been around apparently for a while, suggested that Elhaik is deemed incompetent by his peers. I made a minor fix - Elhaik trained under Dan Graur, an extremely rigorous and distinguished molecular biologist who has a high regard for Elhaik, and was unfazed by the hullabaloo over the latter's Khazar hypothesis. Whether he accepted it or not is not the point. Elhaik knows his stuff, which is not the impression you get on any wiki mention of him. I'm not here to support Elhaik's hypothesis, but to ensure he is not smeared by reductive caricature as some freak in his field.
 * The text you cite draws on several nondescript journalistic reports of reactions to his first formulation of the  Khazar hypothesis, quoting peers whom Elhaik in turn had vigorously criticized for their ideological fixations.* So that requires expansion, rather than serving as a model of such terse concision that, for example, my paraphrase of the 2019 paper, a mere three lines, might seem a tad excessive. But it is not my parsimony that requires trimming. Rather it is the section you greenquote that requires expansion. Nishidani (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this approach makes sense per WP:IMPERFECT. I cannot commit, but I may work on expanding the other criticisms at some point in the future to correct this (temporary) imbalance. JBchrch (talk) 16:16, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

The ideological investment is best put in the following remark one of the people he criticizes, Harry Ostrer:
 * 'The stakes in genetic analysis are high. It is more than an issue of who belongs in the family and can partake in Jewish life and Israeli citizenship. It touches on the heart of Zionist claims for a Jewish homeland in Israel. One can imagine future disputes about exactly how large the shared Middle Eastern ancestry of Jewish groups has to be to justify Zionist claims. Harry Ostrer, Legacy: A Genetic History of the Jewish People, 2012
 * My concern is that the refusal to accept a straightforward review article here reflects this ideological tension. The uneasiness that many have with the idea that many Jews do not descend from the early Jewish population of Israel/Palestine. Nishidani (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but let's try to WP:AGF here. JBchrch (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I have explained my concerns more than once (at length and, I feel, engaged with your criticisms). My issue is not a personal ideological objection or resistence, and with respect, the suggestion that it is feels unjust (given that I have explained my reasoning) and not entirely appropriate. Skllagyook (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I am absolutely sure that Skllagyook is not one of our ideologists with a POV remit. My apologies if that general statement came over that way. I am much concerned with the neglected WP:Systemic bias problem. I certainly have never noted any edit by you, in articles I have on my watchlist, which suggest you are POV-driven. My point was, editors should be keenly aware that, particularly in areas like this, ideology plays no small role even in scholarship. There is a good article by N. Kirsh showing how deeply these concerns inflouenced Israeli scientists from the early 50s. The ethnonationalist meme of 'return' is however ideological. Of that there is no dispute, and we should be aware that this is operative, even in genetics, as some Israeli geneticists have noted. Precisely for this reason, wikipedians should strive to assess potential articles for inclusion per NPOV. If the two authors here challenge an ideological meme, that is an eminently reasonable point of view, minority (though growing) but certainly not to be treated as fringe, or as some odd disrespect for the 'consensual' meme. Not to be aware of these emotional investments is, - that is the worry - to inadvertently fall prey to what is ideological rather than factual.Nishidani (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As I understand, our job as editors is to go according to what the sources in the relevant community (which is this case is population geneticists) say/are and the consensus among that group. Bringing to bear opinions or information derived from other disciplines/writings (not from the relevant field) about (what we may believe of know about) biases in Israeli society (etc.) on how we treat on the scientific sources (or suggesting that the mainstream opinion/consensus in the field is less credible because if it) seems to me a bit POV and possibly a little WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, as well as suggestive of righting great wrongs; (as the "Advocacy" page says, "Wikipedia is not a venue to right great wrongs, to promote ideas or beliefs which have been ignored or marginalized in the Real World,..") Skllagyook (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * All of those policy flags you are waving hav e nothing to do with my work here or my objections to holding a good article to ransom on Elhaik's page. I've been editing for 16 years. I have never seen any challenge to a source as obviously high standard RS as this. Two specialists in the discipline challenged because of their conclusion does not endorse a traditional view. The objections to it remain, in my view, either incomprehensible in terms of standard practice or are totally unrelated to policy, and, as somewhere above, screw up an elementary understanding of one such simply policy (primary/secondary). That disconcerting spectre made me think that a meme is being taken as a verified fact. Note that, all of my remarks about how science works, of which this paper is a normal example, were ignored. Still . I have to go out an do shopping for neighbours and knock off a beer or two with some local cronies. I'd prefer not to continue this conversation. We have said our piece, and this forum is invaluable for third party comments, which I hope will be provided. Co nversation between the parties only serves to create threads that drive off third parties. Nishidani (talk) 17:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Conversation between the parties only serves to create threads that drive off third parties Exactly. So back to the main point. you have said that I'm not here to support Elhaik's hypothesis, but to ensure he is not smeared by reductive caricature as some freak in his field. What is the role of Yardumian & Schurr (2019) in the BLP then? They mention him directly only once in prose ("This problem cannot be approached analytically in the way that Elhaik (2012) attempted (p. 18 in the linked PDF)") and twice per citation. If it is to illustrate that scholars consider him a worthy peer and can engange and disagree with his research without drama, it should be made explicit in some way. If it is to show that his most vocal critics might be just as off the mark as Elhaik himself (as it reads now), the source better fits in Khazar_hypothesis_of_Ashkenazi_ancestry (no idea if it ever was there with all the back-and-forth editing) and would certainly be an enrichment among all the news articles cited there. –Austronesier (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * (Your query should go to the talk page, but I'll reply here. Please follow it up there if you wish) The section deals with criticism of Elhaik. Yardumian & Schurr state the general model and Elhaik's theory have opposed conclusions, but share a common homeland-diaspora dispersion premise, which they criticize.
 * "(1)The major circulating ideas about Jewish ethnogenesis were developed in a time prior to advanced human genetic and genomic studies. These ideas have tended toward the homeland-diaspora model, drawing on biblical and post-biblical sources for an exile/founder effect model, or the Khazar model (which has been tested twice without success;see Elhaik 2012 and Das et al. 2016).The two models, in all their forms, visualize Jewish ethnogenesis as an expansive process, beginning with a single source population that then spreads and develops into multiple different geographic communities.' p.212"
 * "(2)It is this uncertainty that has given rise to both the mainstream theories of a Judean ancestry for contemporary Jewry and to alternative theories, such as the Khazar Hypothesis(Behar et al. 2013; Elhaik 2012; Koestler 1976). Neither of these theories, in their simplest forms, are supportable by current evidence.' p.222 n.3"
 * "(3)DNA sequences obtained from a variety of Jewish mortuary contexts or even Natufian or other Neolithic/Bronze Age Levantine populations.. .would provide useful information about the nature of genetic diversity that is at the root of the Jewish ethnogenesis narrative. This problem cannot be approached analytically in the way that Elhaik (2012) attempted.' p.223 n.13"
 * I added to the page's Elhaik criticism section therefore:-
 * "Yardumian and Schurr have criticized both Elhaik's Khazar hypothesis and the mainstream model it challenged, on the grounds that, in their view, both assume the same homeland-diaspora expansion model. As opposed to this, they view Jewish ethnogenesis as one rooted in multiple heterogeneous populations which, often after conversion, coalesced to form modern day Jews.'"
 * Why is such a simple use of a quality RS critical of Elhaik not appropriate to the criticism section? Is it because it also criticizes the 'mainstream' model that Elhaik himself opposed? Is one not allowed to mention that though Elhaik's work has been criticized, those who criticize it have also come under challenge? Extraordinary.Nishidani (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I added disputed text to Khazar Hypothesis as you suggested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khazar_hypothesis_of_Ashkenazi_ancestry&type=revision&diff=1022218010&oldid=1022203273 SteveBenassi (talk) 06:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't believe the disputed text should be added anywhere untill the issues discussed are resolved. That has not yet ocurred. Skllagyook (talk) 06:48, 9 May 2021 (UTC)


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

New research does exactly that, and it confirms that Zagoros/Caucasus population during the Bronze Age, and Today, contributed to the Genome in the Levant, indicating Elhaik may be partially correct that Ashkenazi Jews are converts from the north. See Graphical Abstract ... The Genomic History of the Bronze Age Southern Levant https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(20)30487-6   SteveBenassi (talk) 07:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The paper does not support the idea that Ashkenazi Jews are converts from the north, but rather the idea that all Levantine groups have admixture from that area of the north (since/dating to the Chacolithic-Bronze Age) from before the formation of the religion of Judaism and before the Jewish diaspora, some of which admixture would therefore also be carried in Ashkenazi and other Jews (and Levantines/other groups with Levantine ancestry) - not only Ashkenazi Jews. Skllagyook (talk) 07:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)


 * See Graphical Abstract ... 3 lines from Zagoros/Caucasus at 3 different times including from the Bronze Age to Today.  SteveBenassi (talk) 08:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what section you're referring to. The paper in Cell does not say anything about Ashkenazi being descended from northern converts. It found that Levantines in general (since the Bronze Age on, including Bronze Age Canaanites) have/had admixture (from the Zagros or Caucasus) which had arrived in the Levant in the Bronze Age (as your own comment said). This is quite different from the hypothesis of Elhaik, which is that very few of the Ashkenazi's ancestors ever lived in the Levant at all, and that they descend entirely/almost entirely from converts outside the Levant from a much later period than the Bronze Age. Skllagyook (talk) 08:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "hypothesis of Elhaik, which is that very few of the Ashkenazi's ancestors ever lived in the Levant at all"
 * That's not 'Elhaik's hypothesis'. The same conclusion could be made from Atzmon (2010), Behar (2013) Costa (2013) and many other papers. It all depends on how you define 'identity' (A light hearted laugh about the genetic industry's Ashkenazi profiling can be found in Gideon Levy's article about the conclusions of his test: (a) he is thoroughly Ashkenazi, genetically tied in to millions of others of that description. (b) there is no trace in either his maternal or paternal lineages of having any connection with a hypothetical ancestor in the Levant:'astonishingly, there’s not a trace of the Land of Israel in my ancestors’ journeys in the past 275,000 years.'). But this is not the place for such a discussion. Another key point relevant for inclusion is that editors have stacked the Elhaik bio with over 10 hostile sources, that implicitly espouse the 'mainstream' theory. Now that we have one high RS paper that is equally critical of Elhaik and the mainstream model he challenges,introducing some balance, the presence of the latter is being questioned. That is a serious WP:NPOV violation.Nishidani (talk) 09:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You wrote:
 * "That's not 'Elhaik's hypothesis'. The same conclusion could be made from Atzmon (2010), Behar (2013) Costa (2013) and many other papers."
 * But that is not the conclusion made in Atzmon, Behar or Costa, nor in most other genetic studues on the topic. It is in fact a small minority view, as far as can be known from the stated conclusions of the research. Regarding Gideon Levy's article: I suppose this is not the place for such discussions, but Levy seems perhaps not to understand the importance autosomal DNA (which reflects overall ancestry); an individual's paternal and maternal lineages alone are not always representative of overall ancestral ethic makeup (especially coming from a mixed population like the Ashkenazi or other diasporic group), and the majority view is that Ashkenazi autosomal ancestry carries a substantial Middle Eastern component (as well as a substantial European one) - some such as Behar (2017), have also suggested that the R1a branch of Y-DNA Levy carries found in some Ashkenazi, came from the Levant). But this is beside the point I was making, which was merely that the Cell paper does not particularly support Elhaik's theory. Skllagyook (talk) 10:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You're wrong. This is not the place to discuss this. But I suggest you read Atsmon et al 2010 p.857 closely, to cite just one of the four. (And certainly: do not take at their word what the several wiki articles write in their partisan syntheses of the debates). Ignore the fact that they get their history wrong (6 million practising Jews (mostly converts) in Graeco Roman times) on key points. The big difference is that Elhaik and others contest the assumption/meme of a prior 'Jewish genetic' homogeneity in Palestine datable to the time of the Babylonian exile. They don't believe interpretations of genetic data should be sieved through religious writ as though the latter were unimpeachably historical. That is ideological, not science, and the situation is rather like that which emerged when endosymbiotic theory was first broached: the mainstream insisted on an internal evolutionary development of cells -  and the minority view argued for gene transfer qua organelles from captured bacteria. But, as I say, this is not the place to argue that. The point here is to decide if a high quality RS critical of both Elhaik and of his critics is appropriate to the criticism section of his page, partioularly since that page is intensely edited to include overwhelmingly criticisms of Elhaik from the mainstream POV, without any conmpensatory balance as NPOV requires.Nishidani (talk) 12:08, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "Another key point relevant for inclusion is that editors have stacked the Elhaik bio with over 10 hostile sources, that implicitly espouse the 'mainstream' theory. Now that we have one high RS paper that is equally critical of Elhaik and the mainstream model he challenges,introducing some balance, the presence of the latter is being questioned." This sounds like a textbook example of WP:FRINGE. One or two outliers challenging the mainstream consensus of something is the definition of fringe. In this case, "introducing some balance" introduces "balance" between the mainstream consensus and a fringe view, which is against policy. Policy specifically states not to give such balance, where it says not to present fringe theories "alongside the scientific or academic consensus as though they are opposing but still equal views". It is worth noting that this study has not been cited by anyone else in the field following its publication, which is a strong indication of it being fringe. NonReproBlue (talk) 11:45, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't be silly. A work published in mid 2019 by definition will take some years to get considered response, as any academic knows. All of these three are tenured professors and scholars, and recognized as competent in their fields.  Nishidani (talk) 12:08, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not silly. To contrast this with the mainstream sources, the cited study by Flegontov, et al, had already been cited four times within one year of its publication. Behar, et al, ad been cited 13 times within 2 years of publication. It has been two years since Yardumian and Schurr published, and there have been zero citations to the study. You even admit that their view is not held by the mainstream consensus when you say "include overwhelmingly criticisms of Elhaik from the mainstream POV, without any conmpensatory balance as NPOV requires." The thing is, NPOV does not require us to "balance" the mainstream POV with the fringe POV. Policy actually states the opposite, and says not to give false balance between mainstream consensus and fringe positions. NonReproBlue (talk) 13:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I would add that "The genomic history of the Bronze Age southern Levant" (the aforementioned paper in Cell) was published in 2020 and has been cited 10 times (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=Genomic+History+of+Southern+Levant&oq=Geno). Skllagyook (talk) 14:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * And it has been reviewed here on his page by Elhaik. Cf. also this. None of this is quotable, because it is his blog. The objection is profoundly silly because you cannot challenge a paper published by tenured mainstream scholars in a standard peer reviewed journal out of personal disagreement with its content (for that is what Skllagyook's objection amounts to, with the point about it contradicting some hypothetical 'consensus'). This would give Wikipedia editors a right to stand over scholarship and assume control over what may and may not be mentioned in state of the art scholarship. To assert it is 'fringe' would require a source, and there is none. It is just new. Nishidani (talk) 16:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It is precisely the job of Wikipedia editors to determine what may and may not be mentioned by weighing the sources and evaluating them based on our policies. But now it seems you are moving the goalposts. As the WP:FRINGE policy points out, determining that an idea is fringe does not in fact require sources saying that, as many fringe subjects and assertions are just ignored by the mainstream. It is true that it would require a source to say, in Wikipedia's voice, that something is fringe. However, to make a determination that a source is fringe, and outside the scope of mainstream consensus, requires evaluating a source based on the criteria laid in the policy. Furthermore, much, if not all, of this is being derived directly from a primary source (the study itself) rather than secondary sources as would be preferable. What reliable secondary sources do discuss, and describe, is that Ostrer, Behar, etc. represent the mainstream consensus viewpoint. They say it directly. You even say it when you say that this material is equally critical of Elhaik and "the mainstream model he challenges". If SteveBenassi is to be believed, even one of the study's authors says "we can't be placed in the Elhaik camp or in the mainstream view". It is abundantly clear that there is an accepted mainstream model, and this is a single paper that challenges it. That is fringe. There is no other way to view it. If it proves to be correct, the mainstream consensus will support it, and it then would absolutely merit inclusion. Until then, there is no reason why it should be given such prominence. It is clearly undue weight. NonReproBlue (talk) 17:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yardumian and Schurr's article is not a primary source. Read the policy. The matter of it being not yet cited is irrelevant. In scholarship, you get published in journals through a prepublication process of peer-consultancy and review. That is why the authors' qualifications, and the authoritativeness of the publishing venue are all that count. Don't any of you know that Mendel's paper on hybridization was ignored, with just 3 cites in the relevant scholarship forthree decades or so, until someone woke up? Going beyond this to assert as editors that the conclusions run contrary to some hypothetical consensus and therefore the piece cannot be used is an abuse of editing, tantamount to censorship. Minority viewpoints are not 'fringe' in this context: we include them. We have no remit to pick and choose RS depending on our personal assessments of the state of scholarship. I expect a very old hand like yourself would chime in this way, but am surprised Skllagyook cannot perceive they have exceeded their remit. Punto e basta.Nishidani (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems totally reasonable to expect scholarship to take the same amount of time to make its way into the mainstream now as it did during Mendel's time. I can't think of any information sharing technologies that could have possibly changed between then and now. But please, continue to escalate the ad hominem attacks and move the goalposts rather than deal with the chance there might be substance to what I am saying. Glad to see you are similarly familiar with WP:NPA and WP:AGF as you are with WP:FRINGE. NonReproBlue (talk) 04:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The editors here insist that
 * I emailed Aram Yardumian three days ago about the suppression of his article on Wikipedia, he responded "Dear Steve

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

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

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

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

Regards Aram" SteveBenassi (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * A note: I (and others) am referring, not just to (a lack of) news coverage, but also academic citations. Skllagyook (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said, high immediate citation has nothing to do with evaluating RS per se. In genetics, research turnover is rapid, with rapid responses, and a very thick field of academic researchers. In history things are slower, and there are not many who have the dual competences (historical anthropology and genetics) which the two authors have. In fact, reading genetics papers irritates historians because there they rarely shown familiarity with the state of the art research  on history. Nishidani (talk) 16:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Research, particularly at the cutting edge, is often rancorous. Suffice it to read David Quammen's The Tangled Tree, a history of recent evolutionary biology's leading thinkers, to note only one of many studies. In a rapidly developing field like population genetics, it is wrong to speak of consensus, as editors hostile to the use of this paper repeatedly say. The article simply quotes or paraphrases four landmark sources ((Atzmon et al. 2010; Behar et al. 2013; Costa et al. 2013; Xue et al. 2017), which editors here state as mainstream as admitting the Ashkenazis have a close profile to European, rather than Levantine, populations. The farce of denial of the appropriateness of the paper by Yardumian and Schurr for inclusion in Wikipedia consists in asserting that it holds a fringe view since there is a putative consensus about the ultimate Levantine origin of Ashkenazi Jews. As the above quotes show, the very authors cited for this consensus say precisely the opposite (of course, some of their papers contain the Levantine qualification, but the authors suggest the empirical evidence for that part of their work is frail).  It is acceptable for them to criticize Elhaik, but it is unacceptable to cite them when their work shows that the other school also, like Elhaik, suggests the 'Levantine' component is nugatory. That veto is incomprehensible. All the two authors are doing is (a) pointing out what the ostensible 'mainstream' says: of three Jewish groups, Ashkenazis have a strong Euroipean genetic profile, and (b) this suggests Jewish ethnogenesis is variegated, hardly a shocking surmise. Nishidani (talk) 11:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "Atzmon et al. 2010 'concluded that Ashkenazi Jews were more closely related to regional “host” European populations than to Levantine or other Middle Eastern populations, whereas Iranian and Iraqi Jews clustered more closely with their host populations in the Arab and Persian worlds. . .In their opinion, the genetic proximity of Ashkenazi Jews to French and Mediterranean populations “favors the idea of ‘non-Semitic’ Mediterranean ancestry in the formation of the European/Syrian Jewish groups."
 * "(Behar et al. (2013) 'they observed that “Ashkenazi Jews show significant IBD sharing only with Eastern Europeans, North African Jews and Sephardi Jews” (as well as Cypriots and Sicilians), and only minimally with Middle Eastern populations.')"
 * "((Costa et al. 2013)'They concluded that 65–81% of Ashkenazi mtDNAs belonged to autochthonous European lineages, and that only 8% of them were demonstrably “Near Eastern” in origin.')"
 * "(Xue et al, 2017) 'The most compelling evidence to date of a mosaic ancestry for contemporary Jews comes from the work of Xue et al. (2017). Their admixture analysis suggested a 70% European origin (and within this, 55% Southern Europe, 10% Eastern Europe, 5% Western Europe) and a 30% “Levantine” component in Jewish populations. In making these estimates, Xue et al. (2017) assumed the Levant to be the most likely source for the “Middle Eastern” apportionment of Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry and, thus, did not make any effort to distinguish Levantine from Anatolian or Babylonian ancestral components . .While the analysis was unable to identify the ultimate source population, the founding event for Ashkenazi Jewry almost certainly occurred in Southern Europe.'"
 * Those characterizations from the Yarmudian paper are not entirely representative of the sources quoted or their conclusions. That is what I was referring to when I said that the source characterises papers in a way different from what they state. I will expand upon this, in this comment soon. Skllagyook (talk) 12:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * They are not characterisations, but direct quotes. Neither you nor I as wiki editors have a right to sit in judgment over what scholars do. 'I said that the source characterises papers in a way different from what they state.' In other words you are asserting that you privately as a wiki editor contest the accuracy of Yardumian and Schurr's summation of the genetic evidence - their area of expertise, and want to give your reading of the primary sources as proof.  That is egregiously WP:OR, not permitted, and used by an editor to criticize an RS, whose status as RS no one would question. Please don't post a massive expansion of your views. We need third party input, not another endless discussion of our respective private interpretations of genetic papers. I disagree quite strongly with the two authors' reading of Elhaik, but I haven't breathed a word of it, or provided  proof (which I have) that they do misread him. We have no right to do this. I have refrained from exceeding our remit, and so should you. Nishidani (talk) 12:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


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


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


 * Atzmon et al. (2010) says:
 * "'...genome-wide analysis of seven Jewish groups (Iranian, Iraqi, Syrian, Italian, Turkish, Greek, and Ashkenazi) and comparison with non-Jewish groups demonstrated distinctive Jewish population clusters, each with shared Middle Eastern ancestry, proximity to contemporary Middle Eastern populations, and variable degrees of European and North African admixture. Two major groups were identified by principal component, phylogenetic, and identity by descent (IBD) analysis: Middle Eastern Jews and European/Syrian Jews.'"


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


 * And:


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


 * Thus the study concludes the Ashkenazi, Sephardi, and Italian Jews share a substantial component of Middle Eastern ancestry with Iraqi and Iranian Jews that dates to the time of the diaspora and which they attribute to Levantine Jewish migrants, but also carry significant southern European admixture from intermixture with non-Semitic Mediterranean converts (thus they have a mixed origin including both).
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3032072/


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


 * This does not mean that Behar et al. 2013 conclude that Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews lack significant Middle Eastern or Levantine ancestry. Behar et al. explicitly state that Ashkenazi Jews mostly share affinity and ancestry with populations from southern Europe and the Middle East (and to a lesser extent Eastern Europe). From the abstract:
 * "'Thus, analysis of Ashkenazi Jews together with a large sample from the region of the Khazar Khaganate corroborates the earlier results that Ashkenazi Jews derive their ancestry primarily from populations of the Middle East and Europe, that they possess considerable shared ancestry with other Jewish populations'"


 * Regarding IBD sharing, Behar et al 2013 explain:


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


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


 * "'Admixture demonstrates the connection of Ashkenazi, North African, and Sephardi Jews, with the most similar non-Jewish populations to Ashkenazi Jews being Mediterranean Europeans from Italy (Sicily, Abruzzo, Tuscany), Greece, and Cyprus. When subtracting the k5 component, which perhaps originates in Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews from admixture with European hosts, the best matches for membership patterns of the Ashkenazi Jews shift to the Levant: Cypriots, Druze, Lebanese, and Samaritans.'(P.882)"
 * https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264390976_No_Evidence_from_Genome-Wide_Data_of_a_Khazar_Origin_for_the_Ashkenazi_Jews


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


 * They say:
 * "'The estimates for the total European ancestry in AJ [Ashkenazi] range from ≈49% using our previous whole-genome sequencing analysis [9], to ≈53% using the LAI analysis here, and ≈67% using the calibrated Globetrotter analysis. The proportion of Western/Eastern European ancestry was estimated between ≈15% (Globetrotter and the LAI-based localization method)...'"
 * And:


 * "Running RFMix on the AJ genomes with our EU [European] and ME [Middle Eastern] reference panels and summing up the lengths of all tracts assigned to each ancestry, the genome-wide ancestry was ≈53% EU and ≈47% ME, consistent with our previous estimate based on a smaller sequencing panel [9]."
 * "We used the f4 statistics to infer the fraction of European ancestry in AJ, as explained in Patterson et al. [48]. Assuming that the true source is Southern Europe, the EU ancestry proportion is theoretically given by f4(West-EU,YRI;AJ,ME)/f4(West-EU,YRI;South-EU,ME)≈67% (S4 Fig, part B). However, when simulating genomes with 50% European ancestry, the f4-inferred fraction came out as 63%; thus, an inferred European ancestry proportion of 67% is broadly consistent with the RFMix-based estimate of ≈53%."


 * And finally:


 * "'Finally, we considered GLOBETROTTER [21], which can infer both the contribution of each ancestral source and the admixture time. The first step in a GLOBETROTTER analysis is running CHROMOPAINTER [20], in order to determine the proportion of ancestry of each individual that is “copied” from each other individual in the dataset. Then, an ancestry profile for each population is reconstructed, representing the contribution of each other population to its ancestry [21, 22]. The inferred ancestry profile for AJ was 5% Western EU, 10% Eastern EU, 30% Levant, and 55% Southern EU. The combined Western and Eastern EU component is in line with our other estimates, as well as the dominance of the Southern EU component. However, the overall European ancestry, ≈70% (or ≈67% after calibration by simulations; S1 Text section 5), is about 15% higher than the LAI-based estimate, as well as our previous results based on whole-genome sequencing [9]. Our detailed simulations (S1 Text section 5) demonstrate that evidence exists to support either estimate. Possibly, the true fraction of EU ancestry is midway around ≈60%.'"


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


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


 * "'We observed that in simulations of admixed genomes, the Middle-Eastern regional source could have also been recovered by running the same localization pipeline. Applying that pipeline to the AJ genomes, we identified Levant as the most likely ME source: the proportions of chromosomes classified as Levantine was 51.6%, compared to 21.7% and 22.2% classified as Druze and Southern ME, respectively.'"
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5380316/


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


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

The above WP:TLDR effectively buries a quite simple request under a load of opinion. The essence of Skllagyook's post is that they understand genetics better than the two professors who authored the article. And since he knows better, he refuses to accept the article on Wikipedia. Now, can we have third party input on the authors' status as competent scholars and the venue for their publication in terms of RS? All that is asked is this simple question. Not some discussions about our opinions of the topic.Nishidani (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That is not the essense of my post at all. Your description of my reply is unfair and puzzling. I never said or indicated that I knew genetics better than the two professors. Above I quoted the quite explicit statements and conclusions of those notable sources (substantially quoted, which unfortunately caused the reply to be long), with their own positions, not my opinion or synthesis (which I added nowhere). It is not about my personal opinion. You seemed to be indicating that expert consensus is in line with the paper under discussion (and you brought up those sources). It is not (at least not currently) I agree that we need and should wait for third party input. Skllagyook (talk) 18:25, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In fact your post clearly suggests you know the topic better than the professors. Their description of the sources, you are arguing, is inadequate. Your point seems to be to bury this simple request about competence and RS venue into one more of the endless debates, in genetics and everywhere else, about Jewish origins, about which there is not consensus. Please desist and allow third parties to examine the credentials of the authors and the venue, and make a call whether or not it fits our criteria.Nishidani (talk) 20:49, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Is the dispute about mentioning Shurr and Yardumian's criticism of Elhaik's conclusions in the article about him? If yes, I don't see a big problem in it; per WP:UNDUE it should be a short mention so that it doesn't appear to be more substantial than other criticism of his work. It doesn't necessarily mean that Shurr and Yardumian's findings need to be mentioned elsewhere. Each case would have to be considered separately as it appears that their conclusions are far from the scientific mainstream. I'm assuming that the scholars who were originally brought up by Nishidani (Hammer, Atzmon, Behar) and then quoted by Skllagyook represent the mainstream. Alaexis¿question? 21:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. Theirs is the only individual criticism that is fully expressed as such (the rest are all summarized in the preceding paragraph, without going into the details of any individual criticism from the 10 or so sources), and it has nearly the same amount of text devoted to it as the summary of all the other, mainstream criticisms. It seems very much like undue weight, especially considering that they, like Elhaik, hold a fringe viewpoint. NonReproBlue (talk) 03:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no 'scientific mainstream', Alaexis, but, so far a 'majority' view which the paper shows tends to repeat the Levantine component, though with differing conclusions. I can't go into the details (which I know about) but Elhaik and his colleagues question the analytic reliability of one of the mathematical techniques used in population genetics - and do so at a very high level of formal criticism that will never make for the kind of tabloid reportage his wikibio thrives on - not sexy enough. That will emerge. In the meantime, wikieditors persist in trying to  maintain 10 critical newspaper sources against him, while pressing for extreme limitations on any material, like the present paper, that hints at these complexities. That is where the POV pushing is. Nishidani (talk) 08:55, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm a bit lost here. Is the discussion about the criticism of Elhaik's work by Schurr and Yardumian or about the Elhaik's criticism of the majority view? Alaexis¿question? 10:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's about Yardumian and Schurr's criticism of both, which I felt was undue (and I feel currently has undue prominence), since, like Elhaik, they take an unusual minority view among geneticists (seemingly held by only them), and their paper has not had any mainstream engagement (not yet cited, etc.). Part of my issue was the undue prominence it was given, especially in the initial form added by SteveBenassi, before Nishidani's rewriting of it, which I welcomed/was an improvement, but even after that as well. I don't know that I'd object to a short reference to it in the Eran Elhaik article, or perhaps among the other refs, whose prominence, per WP:WEIGHT, is not out of balance with other references criticizing Elhaik (which includes scientific sources, not only Journalistic). Skllagyook (talk) 10:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "they take an unusual minority view among geneticists"
 * Please desist with this undocumented and repeated assertion. You are exceeding your remit in asserting a competence, in a highly technical area of science, for which there is no evidence and, in asserting your superior judgment against two mainstream professors. I for one disagree with their reading of Elhaik, but that is immaterial, and I don't mention it. The appearance of some vaunted master of this topic is embarrassing. Again, let third parties comment.Nishidani (talk) 11:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Your assertions that they are mainstream is belied by the fact that you have repeatedly asserted that they are challenging the mainstream view (and if you trust SteveBenassi, as it seems you do, so does one of the studies author's "Since we can't be placed in the Elhaik camp or in the mainstream view, perhaps nobody really knew what to do with us.") If they are challenging the mainstream view, they cannot represent it. If there is no mainstream view, they cannot challenge it. You say If the two authors here challenge an ideological meme, that is an eminently reasonable point of view, minority (though growing)", then you say that saying they hold a minority view is an "undocumented and repeated assertion". It seems that the real issue might be that you yourself do not agree with the mainstream view, which is fine, but that does not mean that you can add information in such a way as to emphasize what you feel are the shortcomings of that view, out of proportion to what actual mainstream RS say about it. Also, it seems incredibly hypocritical to talk of having secret info about Elhaik's research that you cannot go into depth on that proves both the mainstream and other fringe ideas wrong, and at the same time chastising Skllagyook for "exceeding your remit and asserting a competence, in a highly technical area of science, for which there is no evidence an in asserting your superior judgment". I think your personal feelings on this matter might be clouding your ability to neutrally analyze the body of RS as a whole. NonReproBlue (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Learn to read. By mainstream is meant that there is no evidence whatsoever that Yardumian and Schurr are anything but professors with strong research records and no hint anywhere that their respective research has been challenged as fringe by their peers. Now let's stop this sepulchral drift of chat and its probable function of burying the simple request asked of third parties.Nishidani (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * All I see are more ad hominem attacks and aspersions that seem more in line with a battleground mentality than a genuine desire to effectively collaborate with others. Since you are such a pro at reading, perhaps give WP:NPA a gander. NonReproBlue (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Could we have third party input please.Nishidani (talk) 14:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no control over that. But I have no intention of remaining silent as you insult me, so if you want me to stop responding you are going to have to keep your attitude in check. NonReproBlue (talk) 15:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * When I said "an unusual minority view among geneticists" I was only referring to what is stated in/known from the published research, since that is all we can go on. I am not claiming a superior judgement. Perhaps it would have been better to say "an unusual minority view in the genetic literature." or "unusual minority of the genetic research" Or something similar. Skllagyook (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * To make that judgment implies you have a total command of the genetic literature at your fingertips, - the premise for the assertion you made. I see no evidence of such technical mastery. Now, can we drop it for once, and listen to others? Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 13:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This is how I would mention their criticism. Possibly it would be worth expanding the section, and then both Schurr&Yardumian's and everyone else's findings can be mentioned in more detail. I'm definitely not an expert, but nothing in the article or in this thread justifies a special emphasis on Schurr&Yardumian's criticism. Alaexis¿question? 19:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no special emphasis. The criticism passage refers to Elhaik's work. Schurr&Yardumian criticize him. Mentioning this upsets two editors. The page is stacked with criticism of Elhaik in poor journalists reports. This new piece criticizes him, and his critics. The furore by POV pushers consists of wishing not to mention that his critics are also criticized for the same topic.Nishidani (talk) 20:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That his critics are criticised too seems to be less relevant for the article about Elhaik (which is why I asked about the scope of the discussion). It might be relevant for other articles. Alaexis¿question? 20:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Your revision seems fine to me. Skllagyook (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


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

I have read the paper of Yardumian and Schurr. It is a secondary source by two qualified authors published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. The authors openly disagree with the conclusions drawn by some of the papers they review and give reasons for their disagreement; this is how science works and it isn't our business to take sides. I don't want to comment on exactly how it is used in articles, but I don't see the slightest reason to prohibit its use. Zerotalk 07:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC) Neutral editors please note that the use of this perfectly normal academic article is being edited out of several pages: not only at the Eran Elhaik page, which is crammed with references hostile to the author (in violation of wiki bio's NPOV policy) but also at the Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry here by Skllagyook, and then by User:Shrike (here and at  Genetic studies on Jews here by Skllagyook, and at Jewish History  here, again by Skllagyook.

It would appear in all four cases that Skllagyook has taken it upon himself to disallow a new perfectly normal piece of academic research to be cited for its conclusions anywhere on Wikipedia; That they do so because they are convinced the majority view is tantamount to the truth and not a contestable opinion. That is not only abusive POV pushing. It is outright censorship of any dissonant voice, one in this case, coming from perfectly respectable scholars. I.e. we have the extraordinary phenomenon of a peer-reviewed piece of scholarship suffering interdiction from appearing on Wikipedia because an editor has arrogated the right to step in an assume the mantle of ultimate judge on what can, and cannot be thought, about the topic. An editor of unknown background is acting as if they knew more about the topic of population statistics, genetics and Jewish history than the scholars who specialize in it or the peer-review committee who approved its publication on vetting it. Nishidani (talk) 08:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:ONUS. Their view is WP:FRINGE and hence WP:UNDUE Shrike (talk) 08:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Vapid policy flagwaving in lieu of a focused argument. What's that got to do with the price of fish? What you are saying is that any new research, issued through the normal processes of peer-review and published in a standard journal, is ipso facto 'fringe' because it happens, in an overview of scholarship to date, to differ from a majority opinion and suggest other ways of interpreting the data ostensibly underwriting that majority view. Were that true Wikipedia could never keep abreast of the fluid world of scholarly developments. Ridiculous.Nishidani (talk) 08:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no need to panic remove this from articles. Its not the kind of source that will be disqualified for reliability. It may be out of scope for a biography but that discussion should continue at the article talk page."The Khazar hypothesis" saved lives in Vichy France. It should not be taken drastically out of its historical context to smear Elhaik. Separately, the Khazar hypothesis enjoyed a Muslim revival after the founding of the modern state of Israel and the English speaking rose to the bait but it's never been the heart of Zionism. SteveBenassi asks "are Jews a race or not a race". The answer was once a matter of life or death. But the "right to exist in Palestine" is not justified by genetics. The only place I've seen such rubbish claims is the The New York Times which is not a reliable source for science. Why would Jews who were deported to Israel by the nations that were ethnically cleansing them justify their presence in Israel by genetic studies? On Wikipedia we should not be "taking sides" but continuing to improve the weight or NPOV issue by discussion. Spudlace (talk) 09:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * (and to any other editors reading) In the diffs you (Nishidani) link above (where I removed the disputed additions), SteveBenassi has added the them to several articles while it was being discussed here instead of waiting for the issue to be resolved, after having been warned about edit warring. That did not seem appropriate. He also added them prominently to article leads, which was also undue given that the the additions represent a minority view. In the case of the Jewish history article there is no other material referencing genetic studies, so adding it seemed especially undue. And he had almost completely refused to engage in any kind of Talk page discussion since the beginning (since his first edits at Eran Elhaik).
 * As I have tried to explain, I do not claim any kind of special knowledge or expertise (I am not an expert), and your accusations - now of "arrogance" - are becoming increasingly personal and uncivil and beginning to enter the territory of personal attacks, which I would like to ask that you not do.
 * In making the point that the new paper is strongly divergent from the mainstream (as we can be aware of the mainstream and majority view, from published research) I merely quoted (and refered to) what much of the research itself says/concludes quite explicitly. I can find no other published research (by population geneticists, the relevant expert community) that takes positions similar to those of Yardumian and Schurr. And you admit above they they are not of the majority view. I merely argued that their position is extraordinary and has not yet had mainstream engagement (e.g. been cited by experts) and this that some caution should be used at this stage. But if the paper is to be used in this or any article, which I concede that it likely will in some capacity, it should at least not be given undue prominence. Skllagyook (talk) 11:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I am a Newbie, I don't know how to use Wikipedia, I was getting erased by three people unfairly I thought, I fought back, went to Wiki-Jail for 36 hours, made one final post, and this one, I apologize for my inexperience. I am not planning on making any more edits for a while, I got my message out, now I am done, and will watch others and learn.  It was quite the experience.  Thank You for putting up with me the past few days. SteveBenassi (talk) 12:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Your statement that your violations of Wikipedia policies were honest mistakes from ignorance seems to be directly contradicted by your other recent statement on another page (along with the fact that you repeatedly edit warred and refused to engage in Talk after several warnings and explanations.
 * Namely this statement that you wrote on your Talk page []"I intentionally made a scene to draw attention to the Ostrer issue, I knew I would be put in wiki-Jail for a day or two, I thought it was worth it, and it worked, Huldra came to the rescue.". As User:NonReproBlue (who mentioned it to me at WP:ANI) correctly said, this "would seem to strongly suggest that this user is not here to build an encyclopedia. Knowingly breaking policy because the punishments are "worth it" seems like textbook tendentious editing." Skllagyook (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * We can't conduct a civil debate if simple words in English are misunderstood, and even taken as personal attacks. 'Arrogate' in 'arrogate the right' does not mean 'arrogance'. It means 'claim a  right without justification'.
 * When on the wikibio page I showed you that numerous Jewish historians (and they have read these science papers) doubt the claims, you dismiss their objections as invalid because they are historians. The error there is that you are saying historians cannot judge the historical implications of science, but scientists can (re)write history beyond the challenge of historians.
 * When I note, as several scholarly books have observed, that these claims are, despite the science, embedded in politics, I am told keep politics out of it. But one of the masterly overviews of Jewish identity debates by Weitzman finds it,
 * "'impossible to dismiss the argument that the scholarship of Jewish origin, certainly as practiced in the past but also as   being pursued today, is really at its core a form of political self-positioning.' Steven Weitzman, The Origin of the Jews The Quest for roots in a rootless age, Princeton University Press 2017 p.20"
 * Weitzman devotes a whole chapter to the genetic theories you take as an unchallenged consensus, and says they don't work. He is an historian, but rest assured his summary of the material was vetted by competent scholars in the area. He admits he is not competent to judge the merits of genetics (p.298) but he shows that for example claims by genetics about the so-called Cohen hapoltype have been challenged by other geneticists. He looked at Behar and co., notes that Elhaik 'in an interesting way' challenged their conclusions (he is a geneticist like them) and claimed that '70% oif European Jewws ad nd almost all Eastern European Jews cluster with their populations. In other words, Elhaik's analysis showed that the ancestors of Ashkenazic Jews do not hail from the Near East.' op,299
 * Scrupulously, he then notes Elhaik's conclusions have been challenged and 'there are reasons to be skeptical', since his proxies are poor choices. And he notes Behar's response, which confirmed a Middle east origin. But then Behar's account of Ashkenazic Levites concluded that they were closer to non-Jewish populations of Eastern European origin', a conclusion which shows that Behar and his collaborators 'are willing to entertain historical conclusions at odds with conventional thinking babout the origin of the Jews if that is where the evidence leads them' p.301
 * Behar also argued that 40% of Ashkenazic Jews came from four founding mothers. His group claimed they originated in the Middle East, but Martin Richards in 2013 contradicted this conclusion, arguing in turn that they were Mediterranean and possibly were converts. (p.302) It doesn't stop there, for another finds East Asian traces in the Ashkenazi. Conclusion? Your vaunted 'majority consensus' is a scam meme that buries the marked differences in research results in a highly mobile discipline of modern science. The point again is made by Weitzman:-
 * "This kind of research is still very new: it seems to be updating itself all the time, and the conclusions described here are tentative and revisable-in fact some have already been revised."
 * His finally survey is of critics who argue that genetic evidence, though invaluable is 'far less ambiguous' than other types of evidence. In this view genetics is rehabilitating racialized thinking and fails to substantiate the historical claims it has been making. pp.304ff.
 * So? Your idea of majority/consensus used repeatedly to challenge the use of new research flies in the face of what science does, particularly here at its cutting edge. It is an open vibrantly fluid field of various hypotheses, in which papers develop, refine or challenge peer conclusions in a rapid turnover of research. The sociology of science is full of narratives of minority views that are generally discounted only to achieve acceptance in a generation or two (Horizontal gene transfer or symbiogenesis are obvious cases in point. In your approach no one could have mentioned early hypotheses in the literature until decades later, when the hypotheses were broadly confirmed. Rubbish. Wikipedia must keep abreast of what qualified scholars and theorists are arguing, and avoid the dangerous editorial authoritarianism of censoring new research because it 'contradicts' what is just a generally widespread viewpoint or model or, as here, a dicey meme.Nishidani (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * By all means reply, but do not give us your personal view of the state of the art, to contradict Weitzman's summary. What you have to answer to is the fact that you appear to assert is either that there is no minority view within population genetic research on Jews/Ashkenazim or no disagreement in the ranks. Secondary sources affirm the opposite, and, so far, your repeated claims of a consensus are personal takes on the topic which ignore the diversity of conclusions that have emerged over the last decade, a diversity reflected in the very paper you are trying to suppress from being cited here. That is wildly exceeding our remit as editors, and I am quite shocked third parties so far can't see it for what it is.Nishidani (talk) 13:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You are correct that I misread "arrogate" as "arrogant". My mistake, and my apologies.
 * As I mentioned before, it is not controversial that European Jews have substantial European/non-Near Eastern admixture (some studies indicating which some of the Weitzman excerpt mentions). But this is different from the position that they have negligable Middle Eastern or Levantine ancestry, a view held by Elhaik which does not seem to be mainstream.
 * Regarding Weitzman and his status as a historian you wrote:
 * "The error there is that you are saying historians cannot judge the historical implications of science, but scientists can (re)write history beyond the challenge of historians."
 * What I was saying is that historians such as Weitzman (without qualifications in genetics) may be quotable and reliable sources on other topics and contexts, but their opinions on the genetic evidence would not be quotable/WP:RS on pages or article sections covering genetic evidence and studies (that are meant to represent the findings and conclusions of scholars in that field). Nor does it speak to the consensus in that field, which is the relevant consensus in this duscussion. Skllagyook (talk) 13:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize. There is a vast difference between Middle Eastern and Levantine ancestry. You evidently haven't read Elhaik ('the position that they have negligable Middle Eastern or Levantine ancestry, a view held by Elhaik'). Elhaik explicitly identifies two Middle eastern areas as formative for the foundation of the Ashkenazi. Let's not go into the details here.
 * You have no qualifications in genetics by your own admission. Neither do I. But you alone are holding out against our use of historians and specialists whose work analyses the literature and who have the competence to do so. Yardumian and Schurr publish widely on the topic. Weitzman is Professor of Semitic Languages and Literatures in the department of Religious Studies at the University of Pennsylvania, and has written one of the defining overview analyses of Jewish identity arguments, his book is peer-reviewed (that means here he got competent specialists to read over what he wrote about genetics) and is published by Princeton University Press; Aram Yardumian specializes in Human evolutionary genetics ep. re the Caucasus, Anatolia and the Middle East regions at the Laboratory of Molecular Anthropology at the University of Pennsylvania; Theodore Schurr is Professor of anthropology at the Population Studies Center at UPenn, Director of the North American Regional Center of the Genographic Project, and Head of the Laboratory of Molecular Anthropology at the University of Pennsylvania. And you personally object to their presence on a page splotched with tabloid level coverage of this genetic dispute by the likes of Matthew Thomas, Jordan Kutzik, Jon Entine and Cnaan  Liphshiz, none of whom have any professional knowledge of population genetics, and all are publicists/journalists. It is quite outrageous that we are having this debate on Wikipedia. In normative wiki editing the source selection would be inverted, eliding the journalists and privileging people who have the academic professionalism or area-specific competence of the three scholars named.  Nishidani (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You wrote: "There is a vast difference between Middle Eastern and Levantine ancestry. You evidently haven't read Elhaik"
 * I have read Elhaik. I spoke imprecisely. The position that Ashkenazi Jews are of Iranian, Anatolian, and Slavic descent and have very essentially no Levantine ancestry is also a minority position (judging by the statements of the published research by experts in the field). My argument is not that the majority position is unchallenged (that is rarely the case in science) but that certain strongly divergent positions (under discussion here) are marginal enough/enough of a minority to warrant caution in giving them too much weight (and certainly avoiding WP:FALSEBALANCE). As mentioned, I concede that Yarmudian and Schurr will be included in some capacity on the page. The issue is now how to incorporate the source and how much prominence to give it. I currently see no problem with User:Alaexis's edit. Skllagyook (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * My full disclosure is that I haven't read Elhaik. I was responding to the suggestion proposed above by SteveBenassi that doesn't mention Ashkenazi:


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


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


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


 * Yardumian and Schurr are reliable and can be used in other articles. Despite the comments in the email, I don't think this is a new or fringe position. The well-established Rhineland hypothesis implies multiple heterogeneous populations. It remains controversial but it's not fringe. The issue of deleting the Yardumian and Schurr source from multiple articles as non-reliable came up. While there is no consensus here for that, it can still be challenged under other policies like WP:UNDUE. Spudlace (talk) 05:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Several geneticists, Behar included, had earlier (2004) suggested might be a possible line of investigation. Elhaik took up the challenge (the theory had a long history of support in many Jewish historians), but his paper was deemed flawed for its choice of proxy. Normal science. (a 'Perhaps this? (b) 'Well, here's my model.' (c) 'No, that doesn't work . . .' Elhaik was singled out for a firestorm of outrage for testing that hypothesis, as his peers suggested worth doing, and much of this was political. In 2019, two scholars reviewed all the evidence, criticized both the mainstream school and Elhaik, and offered a theory of multiple origins (which, in any case, is implicit in much of the literature). One editor went overboard and edited out mention of this on four wiki articles. So0 far there has been no cogent reason given for eliding the article from Elhaik or any other page. It is a legitimate view, even if minority. And, in particular, given that Elhaik's page is stacked with negative criticism sourced to journalists, the balancing act Yardumian and Schurr follow, in treating both the widespread view and the Elhaik theory as sharing a similar assumption, is necessary per NPOV. In the Elhaik section, the undue weighting overwhelmingly in favour of negative press reportage that favours the 'mainstream' view, is somewhat balanced if we add a brief note that the 'general' view is itself challenged. Fail to do that, and the wikibio looks like an attack page, studiously exempting any mention of problems with the mainstream model his paper questioned.Nishidani (talk) 11:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There's just no actual evidence of any East to West migration of Khazars fleeing from Genghis Khan. It's a work of creative historical fiction and it was rejected because there is no good explanation for the vast linguistic difference. Khazars disappear from history in the time of Genghis Khan is why Elhaik's study has been rejected. The assumptions he makes are wild and implausible in many ways. The Caucasus is relatively isolated (with the exception of the many dignitaries, visitors, oil explorers, Persian travelers and occupying armies that visited one of the worlds most significant oil producing countries). And Sephardim and Ashkenazi have been marrying for centuries. You don't have to be an expert in genetics to see that this doesn't add up. For RS/N purposes the source should not be removed for reliability but it was removed as WP:UNDUE I don't think we can resolve it here. Spudlace (talk) 21:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Edmond Paris, Genocide in Satellite Croatia, 1941-1945: A Record of Racial and Religious Persecutions and Massacres, 1961, American Institute for Balkan Affairs
Just wanted to get a sense from some uninvolved users regarding the use of this book on articles about controversial aspects of the Balkans in WWII, specifically regarding the Ustasha genocide of Serbs, Jews and Roma. The book was reviewed in Slavic Review in 1962 here. Given the observations that Paris (now deceased) was not a historian or a participant, not a "craftsman of scholarship", had not "bothered much with the rules for screening, organising, and presenting evidence", and that he had overlooked important sources and made numerous errors, and the age of the work, nearly sixty years old, in an topic area where a lot of scholarship has been ongoing since the early 1960s, it seems to me that it cannot be considered reliable for articles regarding the Ustasha genocide. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Another issue is apparently critics of his work state Paris had a large bias against the Catholic Church which motivated writing literature magnifying any negative historical instances, perhaps magnifying, involving Catholic individuals or related groups. I don’t know if anyone here might have more about it. His quotes of testimonies have been used in other articles recently and I am concerned as well, is this a reliable source to be used all on its own?OyMosby (talk) 13:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't use an article from 1961 because per Age matters older sources may no longer be accurate. That doesn't mean we cannot mention the work if it is cited in recent reliable sources. Even if the information is accurate, weight is also a requirement for inclusion. If you can't find the facts in more recent publications, then they lack weight for inclusions. TFD (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I cannot think of hardly any cases where it would be appropriate to cite a source from 1961 for World War II atrocities. So in short I would not cite it (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


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


 * I'd look at what it is being cited for. If more modern sources disagree then that's one thing, if simply contains not particularly controversial details not found elsewhere I wouldn't dismiss it. Controversial coverage not discussed elsewhere is going to raised the question of why, it being a controversial claim, it hasn't been discussed at all since 1961. Simple age is not a good reason to dismiss - stuff written closer to WW2 does at least have the advantage of more direct sourcing. FOARP (talk) 12:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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


 * If a sit is recognized in the holocaust field in Germany I don't see how its a bad source.Thelostone41 (talk) 03:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Why do you think that Jürgen Langowski is author of all these texts? Also, can you please make any links to publications about Jürgen Langowski, so we could see that he is an expert, rather than a political activist who wants to defame/accuse of crime other people on his personal website? My very best wishes (talk) 03:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The sit is recognized in the holocaust field in Germany I don't think it would be  recognized in the holocaust field. If it was some political activist who wants to defame/accuse people of a crime like you said.Thelostone41 (talk) 03:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you show that it is routinely cited in academic sources? TFD (talk) 03:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This is good suggestion, but something like Kavkaz Center was cited in many books, which does not make it an RS. And even if it was cited, this is still a self-published source simply by definition. This is published by a single person. No fact checking by colleagues, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 04:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * Comment. I already showed sources that show h-ref is recognized in the holocaust field in Germany. He said in Auschwitz a number of only 74,000 victims can be considered certain https://www.h-ref.de/literatur/h/hoffmann-joachim/gutachten.php. .That's a Holocaust denier talking point? Just like we say on Grover Furrs page he is a Soviet war crimes denier who holds fringe views regarding Soviet and Communist studies.Thelostone41 (talk) 23:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No. What you are saying: (a) based on a single questionable source, and (b) represents WP:SYN. You need strong multiple secondary RS explicitly saying that "person X is a conspiracy theorist/racist/pseudoscientist/whatever" as opposed to something like "what a hell he was saying nonsense in the court as an expert-witness" (that is more like the claim by your self-published source). My very best wishes (talk) 23:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok then what about this Joachim Hoffmann (1 December 1930 – 8 February 2002) was a German historian, who held fringe views on World War II and was the scientific director of the German Armed Forces Military History Research Office. there are sources on the page. That say Hoffmann has been criticized by historians for his uncritical attitude to the Nazi regime, just like we say on Grover Furrs page he is a Soviet war crimes denier who holds fringe views regarding Soviet and Communist studies from the sources that are on that page.Thelostone41 (talk) 23:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Then you need sources saying that he held "fringe views" (I do not see such sources either). More important, such content must be specific. What exactly views/ideas by person X were criticized and why in RS? My very best wishes (talk) 23:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


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


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

Genealogy reliable sources
Hi , Are any of these sources considered reliable for a biography of a living person ? Thanks--Farfall (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Geni
 * Geneanet
 * Geneastar
 * MyHeritage
 * WikiTree
 * Ancientfaces
 * Genealogics


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

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

Here's an example article from this source.

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


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

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

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

I wanting to use this source for biology related articles. So what’s y’all opinions?CycoMa (talk) 02:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It’s a college textbook, written by a professor at an accredited university and published by a major publishing house. Looks pretty RS to me. I would not be concerned about the author’s teaching at a university associated with the United Methodist Church, a mainstream denomination that accepts evolution. John M Baker (talk) 05:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Echoing John M Baker. I understand your concern about his teaching on a Methodist university possibly introducing creationist/intelligent design BS, but that's not the case here. One more argument in favour of its reliability: the book is now in 7th edition and has been translated into other languages (at least Portuguese). The only general advice from me will be to use a newer-edition textbook to keep up with the scientific understanding of the topic, because 15 years in genetics is an enormous gap. I checked the 7th ed. and it is available in at least one shadow library; no links though, because WP:C. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

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


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

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

Survey (RfC: The Globe and Mail)
Please use the discussion subsection below for responses and threaded discussion and leave this subsection for one comment or !vote per editor.


 * Option 1. The Globe and Mail has long been recognized as a Canadian newspaper of record and is quite possibly the most prestigious newspaper in Canada (1 2 3 4 5). The paper has extensive WP:USEBYOTHERS across many topic areas, with use by The Times of London (1 2 3 4 5), The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post (1 2 3 4 5 6 7), and The Associated Press (1 2 3 4), among other news sources. The use of the source by others across a multitude of topics, including its news coverage of international events, only points additionally towards the source's exceptionally high reliability more broadly and supports its status as Canada's English-language paper of record. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 1. It is a reliable and rather conservative publication in Canada and is considered a newspaper of record, as it has been actually cited quite well in the lede to the article, and their international coverage isn't bad, either.
 * For the answer to the specific issue, see my comment in Discussion. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:25, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Option 4, this should not even be suggested without a seriously good reason. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:39, 4 May 2021 (UTC) Revoke my vote. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 1 as a newspaper of record like and . Chompy Ace 22:25, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 2, reporting is generally factual on international topics but their reporting and sourcing has taken an incredibly hawkish bent in regards to nations like China. I'd say just be cautious and use in-line attribution for potentially extraordinary claims. Paragon Deku (talk) 22:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 1, they are one of Canada’s papers of record and I have not seen their reporting called into question in any substantive way. Strong reputation, use by others, location in a country with significant press freedoms, and a history of editorial independence all speak in their favor. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 1. Reputable source with a good track record.Sea Ane (talk) 02:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 1 The Globe is as reliable as the independent or New York Times or other quality media. Whether or not Western media coverage of China is accurate is a wider issue. While it may or may not be unfair, all Western media treat China in the same way. In the 1970s, the Globe was the only Western newspaper in China and its articles were routinely picked up in other Western media. The paper is owned by the Thomson family which also owns Reuters, one of the world's leading wire services, and at one time owned the Times of London, which is one of the world's most respected newspapers. TFD (talk) 03:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 1.  Usually I say of RS that it mostly depends on context, but this RFC includes context of international events and coverage that is reporting. (That does not however say their coverage of a specific like Memet June is right.) As Mikehawk10 said above, the newspaper has good reputation and use by others.  I would place this paper above the other mentioned New York Times or South China Morning Post paper.  will add that its own circulation also has a respectable WEIGHT.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 1 Seems like a standard newspaper of record. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 1 in many cases, but Option 2-3 with regards to some aspects of China coverage. Adding to comments from Markbassett, TFD, and Paragon Deku here, and Aquillion, Thucydides411, and Jayron32 below: general reliability doesn't guarantee that a couple articles published by The Globe and Mail provide a neutral or comprehensive treatment of the status of the Id Kah Mosque, of its imam Memet Jume, or of related issues in China.
 * Last year, the University of Alberta's China Institute published a comprehensive evaluation of The Globe and Mail's recent coverage of China . The report observes that this recent period has been one of tension between Canada and China, characterized by a steep decline in state-to-state relations, a "reality" reflected in Canadian newspapers. From the executive summary:
 * The report explains how specific language used by the paper frames readers to perceive China as threatening. After quoting from a Globe and Mail news article (page 7), the report describes the paper's writing :
 * Of course we can use The Globe and Mail as a source. But we're not obliged to replicate its editorial biases. We need to be critical editors and acknowledge, like the University of Alberta researchers, that newspapers can also have biases, sometimes subtle and sometimes overt.
 * Editors have these biases too. Right now, in the lead (!) of Id Kah Mosque, we describe it as a
 * Is it really a "former mosque," i.e., only a tourist attraction? Of the two articles from the Globe and Mail one states that it is transformed into a tourist attraction, and the other provides more detail: visitors in the past few years have reported that the religious site has been transformed into a tourist destination where people at Friday prayers now number only in the dozens. More recently, the mosque's main entrance has been padlocked. The article itself is attributing these statements to reports from visitors (we've dropped attribution in our own text), and according to the visitors, Id Kah is both a mosque and a tourist attraction, with religious attendance far lower than it was at some point in the past.
 * Whatever biases a newspaper might have, it would be a shame if we did worse because of our own. -Darouet (talk) 15:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The study shows that the tone, extent of coverage and topics covered in Canadian media have changed in line with government policy on China. However, the writers say, "We refrain from commenting on the accuracy of the coverage." "However," as policy states, "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." The change in tone or coverage is a totally separate issue from the accuracy of reporting. Furthermore, you would need to show that the Globe's coverage is more biased than the rest of Western media before singling out the paper. See Dean Baker "Media's biased reporting on China serves only the rich and powerful" (The Hill 8/20/17), Dan Hu, "Is Australian Media Biased Against China?" (The Diplomat February 15, 2020), "International media coverage of China: Chinese perceptions and the challenges for foreign journalists" (2011). Accusations of anti-China bias are not unique to the Globe among Western media. TFD (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed - neither I, nor the report, state that The Globe and Mail is worse than many other outlets. Rather, the report shows that this paper, used as a prominent example among others, has shifted its tone in response to political conflict. You're basically right that it has changed in line with government policy on China, and this should come as no surprise: the paper's opinion section is a hub for the political who's who in Canada. But just because most Western media have bias doesn't mean that we should ignore specific cases. The textual analysis done by the U Albert China Center, which I quoted above, is a great demonstration of how this works in one instance, and the report is evaluating this for The Globe and Mail and The National Post generally in recent years. When you write below that we should leave the correction of Western media bias to society, that's partly what this research report is doing. -Darouet (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The way we resolve bias in media is to await the publication and acceptance of peer-reviewed research. When there is consensus in scholarly writing about the "Uyghur genocide," we should use it to rewrite articles based on news reports. But that is already in RS: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." But unless we can show that the Globe is less reliable than its competitors, it makes no sense to single it out for sanction. In fact it may well be more reliable and even-handed than U.S. or UK media. In fact as pointed out above, Rosie DiManno, the Pentagon cheerleader who writes for The Toronto Star, accused the Globe of being soft on China. TFD (talk) 21:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * TFD, the report I'm citing from is itself a scholarly work, showing anti-Chinese framing in major Canadian papers. Right now, at RSP, we are systematically labeling newspapers with editorial views outside the NATO political framework as biased or unreliable. I wish that all editors were savvy enough to recognize that all national presses have political biases, but they're not. For that reason we do need the scholarly descriptions of those biases to be reflected in the RSP entries. We should not place special sanction on The Globe and Mail or The National Post, but we should include similar descriptions of national biases at other RSP entries, if scholarly treatment of those biases is available. -Darouet (talk) 14:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Why would we start including scholarly descriptions of ... biases in RSP entries, in cases where they do not affect the factual reliability of sources? Are you aware of a policy-relevant reason to do this, because I'm not seeing one. It looks like a case of portable goalposts from here, and the NATO political framework appears to be a chimera/conspiracy theory in this context, unless you have sourcing that has some bearing on the reliability of published facts/events. Newimpartial (talk) 14:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If scholarly descriptions of media biases have no place in RSP entries, Newimpartial, I'm not sure what you think should replace those. At every point in this discussion, you've declined to address the reliability of the specific issue at hand: a claim about the Id Kah mosque. Now you're saying that scholarly descriptions of bias by The Globe and Mail are irrelevant to an RSP entry about that same paper. Such an assertion is so ludicrous as to be practically tendentious. If you don't want to discuss the paper or what academic sources say about it, please stop WP:BLUDGEONING my comment. -Darouet (talk) 15:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The question at issue in this RSN RfC is the factual reliability of the Globe & Mail source, which you have addressed by deflecting the discussion to alleged bias - citing as your only a source a study that explicitly declines to address questions of factual reliability. I don't know what game you think you're playing, but it isn't cricket. Newimpartial (talk) 15:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * To use you your own terminology if that helps you, your statements deflect from the specific factual question at hand in this case (the Id Kah Mosque), and from the larger, well-sourced reality of editorial bias regarding China by The Globe and Mail, which you insist is irrelevant. It isn't. -Darouet (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If scholarly descriptions of media biases have no place in RSP entries, Newimpartial, I'm not sure what you think should replace those. At every point in this discussion, you've declined to address the reliability of the specific issue at hand: a claim about the Id Kah mosque. Now you're saying that scholarly descriptions of bias by The Globe and Mail are irrelevant to an RSP entry about that same paper. Such an assertion is so ludicrous as to be practically tendentious. If you don't want to discuss the paper or what academic sources say about it, please stop WP:BLUDGEONING my comment. -Darouet (talk) 15:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The question at issue in this RSN RfC is the factual reliability of the Globe & Mail source, which you have addressed by deflecting the discussion to alleged bias - citing as your only a source a study that explicitly declines to address questions of factual reliability. I don't know what game you think you're playing, but it isn't cricket. Newimpartial (talk) 15:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * To use you your own terminology if that helps you, your statements deflect from the specific factual question at hand in this case (the Id Kah Mosque), and from the larger, well-sourced reality of editorial bias regarding China by The Globe and Mail, which you insist is irrelevant. It isn't. -Darouet (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

1. The specific factual question of the Id Kah Mosque is not the topic of the RfC. 2. Have you presented any evidence whatever that the G&M is not reliable, even on the specific factual question of the Mosque? 3. In what way is the supposed well-sorced reality of editorial bias regarding China by The Globe and Mail supposed to be relevant to the RSN question of its factual reliability? You keep asserting this without either real-world evidence or policy-based argumentation. Newimpartial (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Newimpartial, this is your sixth response to my comment here. If you're not satisfied you can take the discussion to the "discussion" section below. Were you to do that, you'd see that nearly every comment there — by other editors — answers the issue you're debating with me here. Literally the first and second comments announce that the Id Kah Mosque is the motivation for this RfC, and that the RfC framework is inappropriate to resolving that dispute. Otherwise, you're telling me that an anti-Chinese editorial line is perfectly consistent with factual reporting on China, and that for the Globe and Mail's coverage of China, there's no reason to believe that such bias should mean that "other considerations" may apply, or that the paper might be factually inaccurate in some cases. I hear you, and respectfully, I think your certainty that editorial bias won't influence reliability is ludicrous. -Darouet (talk) 15:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * And you have replied eight times in this section to comments on your !vote, including six replies to me, without answering the basic question of why any editorial line is not compatible with factual reporting on any subject. By policy, these are two distinct considerations, but I suspect that WP policy is not really your thang. Newimpartial (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This dispute starts to look ugly for my taste (and it is there for at least a day). Please cool down and don't escalate. Also, as @Darouet has rightly noticed, the place for such arguments should be in the Discussion section; please do not move your argument there now, at least not until the heat of the discussion goes down at least somewhat. Leave the survey section for just one or two sentences of justification. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Darouet appears to be misreading the China Institute at the University of Alberta source. There is nothing in that source to suggest that the Globe & Mail is anything other than reliable for factual reporting, which is the RSN question. A shift in tone of coverage over time, or in the terms prominently used in news stories, is not evidence of "factual inaccuracy" or even that additional considerations apply in the use of a source. Newimpartial (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * By no means: Newimpartial you are misreading my comment. I stated nothing about "factual inaccuracy," and the report specifically states, We refrain from commenting on the accuracy of the coverage. -Darouet (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Your !vote was for Option 2-3 with regards to some aspects of China coverage, where Option 2 is "additional considerations apply" and Option 3 is "unreliable for factual reporting". If you didn't intend your reference to the U. of A. piece to support your !vote, then why did you make it in this section? Newimpartial (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As I've stated repeatedly in the past, these categories are poorly fitted to real world decisions about how to use sources. For that reason I often write that options 1-2, or 2-3, should be considered for sources in order to take into account the possibility of bias. The Globe and Mail is an important source, but we should expect it to be biased in some cases (as TFD notes, that would be normal for all newspapers). In this specific case, editors should be aware that The Globe and Mail tends to have a particular editorial view with regards to China, and it's unclear if or to what extent their reporting on the Id Kah mosque is neutral or accurate. If you don't think that bias on the part of The Globe and Mail could impact the reliability of their reporting, I disagree; the U Albert report explicitly declines to comment on that question. -Darouet (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * A source that declines to comment on X can scarcely be used as evidence for or against X. And whether a source is biased or not is entirely tangential - that is, irrelevant - to whether or not it is generally reliable, so any evidence you give that the G & M may or not be biased is strictly irrelevant to this RfC. As a point of comparison, Fox News is not considered unreliable for factual reporting because it is biased; it is considered unreliable for factual reporting because its factual reporting is unreliable. Newimpartial (talk) 18:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Your commentary is deviating so far from the quotes I provided from the report on Canadian media that to answer you will take us in circles. I'd urge you to read the comments being made in the "discussion" section of this RfC. -Darouet (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Option 1 Szmenderowiecki stated it well. I do not read it, but it is Canada's newspaper of record. Suggest a snow close. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 1 Canada's newspaper of record. No source is perfect. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 17:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 1. The Globe and Mail is a well-established newspaper of record. Concerns about the use of this source relative to a specific article are not sufficient cause to discredit the use of this source in general. DaysonZhang (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (RfC: The Globe and Mail)

 * This RfC was inspired by a disagreement over the reliability of the source that occurred in a discussion on the talk page of Id Kah Mosque. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If I read that discussion correctly, I believe Darouet is saying that the Globe and Mail is WP:BIASED on that subject and therefore requires attribution (and is possibly WP:UNDUE for the lead), not that it is generally unreliable.  clarification? Seeing people leap straight to a broad RFC about an entire source when there's no indication someone is outright stating the source is unreliable always makes me uneasy - there sometimes reasons to be cautious about using a source for a specific claim that can be applicable even if it is generally the most reliable source in the world. More generally these sorts of broad RFCs are for when a source is repeatedly challenged - they're not the correct way to resolve an individual specific dispute over whether the source can be used in a specific situation.  Especially when you're plainly seeking a positive answer - there are sources that are so unreliable as to be effectively useless in any place we're likely to use them, outside of a few exceptions like WP:ABOUTSELF; but there are no sources so reliable as to be completely, automatically usable in every possible context, or which are completely guaranteed to be utterly free from bias in all circumstances.  In other words, a "generally reliable" result here isn't going to resolve your specific dispute. --Aquillion (talk) 06:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As for alleged China bias, if anything, it has been criticized by its opponent, Toronto Star, of directly copypasting state Chinese media in the "China Watch section", which is sort of incompatible with the claim it is being too harsh towards China.
 * But even if so, perceived hawkishness on China may be a bias, but unless The Globe and Mail has produced falsehoods about the issue of China and it has been established by, let's say, fact-checkers, we should not deprecate it. Unlike RFA, it doesn't have a government mission, so there should be no controversy about possible pressure from the government. It has been known that the West has soured on China and has made even more coverage about it, so it's predictable more negative content will appear.
 * The Globe and Mail has reported on visitors' testimony (who for obvious reasons cannot be identified) and there has been no misconduct or fabrication proven in creating the story other than the govt of China does not agree with stances different than theirs. That is perfectly understandable but means nothing to whether it's true.
 * Xinhua may be OK if that's a statement of government, but is otherwise notoriously unreliable. I have no belief whatsoever in the independence of that imam's opinions (I don't care who his father was). It is totally unbelievable that one of top religious authorities's statements would not be scripted for the purpose of the interview in a country known for its propaganda and censorship, particularly given he's on government payroll, could be fired immediately if he doesn't please the party (or, in worse cases, face prosecution from authorities) and it is a geopolitically charged area. Simply no way.
 * So if you say the imam, underlining he is a Chinese government employee, said that and that and link it to Xinhua's interview, I'm fine, but otherwise I'd leave it.
 * All of that is not to say his statement is necessarily false actually, but there are reasonable doubts to the story as presented by the Chinese state media.
 * PS. As they used to say in Russia in one of Radio Yerevan jokes: "How do you know if the news is true or just another provocation? - Well, if BBC runs a news story about something, which is then refuted by Pravda, you can easily trust the news".

Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:25, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , it's not The Star, but Rosie DiManno, who is a columnist. TFD (talk) 03:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, you're right. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sourcing the imam's statement to state media is reasonable, but describing him as a government employee is not, unless we're sure that's true. -Darouet (talk) 15:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's actually accurate to describe the imam as a government employee. As for the issue at hand, both the current imam and his late father's views on the issues in Xinjiang are well known (they've criticized the separatist movement and what they see as religious extremism, and advocated co-existence of different ethnic groups). The Globe and Mail related an extraordinary claim made by a US-based Uyghur activist, that the ancient Id Kah mosque is no longer used as a mosque. The imam of the mosque has disputed this assertion. The imam's statement is significant, and should not be simply swept under the rug. We can inform the reader that the imam made his statement in an interview with a Chinese state media outlet. Readers can decide what to make of that for themselves, but to censor the interview entirely would be wrong, and disrespectful to our readers. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's actually accurate to describe the imam as a government employee. Well, I strongly believe he is. His father was appointed by the government, so should be the current imam as the policy towards appointment of religious leaders has not changed since.
 * Their views on cohabitation of different nations, while laudable, are irrelevant. The only thing that is is whether a Xinhua interview is to be trusted (and mentioned) and to which degree we should trust other sources. I don't deny that imam's statement might be significant (as I hope I indicated clearly), but the reader must understand the caveat that he's appointed by the government and therefore has an interest not to speak against it for fear he, at the mildest, loses his job and falls out of favour with the party. That is exactly the reason we don't trust Xinhua - we don't know if the guy speaks as an imam or as a government employee and we don't know if the fact he'd given the interview to Xinhua changed its content significantly. That said, we might mention it but we should cue the reader into exercising caution while reading the passage (and mention imam's ties to govt).
 * The Globe and Mail related an extraordinary claim made by a US-based Uyghur activist There is no reason to believe that The Globe and Mail has not made its own analysis of claims or its own investigation (as it actually indicates in their March 2021 article). It is certainly not a copy-paste or a brief summary of an article from RFA or WUC or whatever. If we had Uyghurs claiming that and the reference reports the claim without deep analysis of their claims, just as with the imam, we should be cautious and indicate the reader should be, too; however, the newspaper is independent of both and we needn't apply such precautions here. Just because the author is critical of China's conduct doesn't mean he deliberately manipulated the facts or is biased (you must prove it) - you can be both critical and impartial in assessing some events. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The government having a role in the imam's appointment and him being a government employee are two different things. The imam's views are relevant, because there are real divisions among Uyghurs in Xinjiang, with the exile groups in Washington, DC not necessarily representing the views of all (or even most) Uyghurs. If we systematically exclude any statements from within China, we will end up with extremely skewed coverage, reflecting solely what exile groups in Washington, DC (many of them funded directly by the US government) say. There is no reason to believe that The Globe and Mail has not made its own analysis of claims: There's also no indication that The Globe and Mail has done any serious independent investigation into the claims either. Given the extraordinary nature of the claims, and the fact that people directly involved are disputing the claims, we cannot present one side alone. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You would have a fair point if the Chinese government hadn’t hounded every reporter who attempted to do on the ground reporting in Xinjiang out of China along with a fair number of their news agencies... Al Jazeera was the first to be kicked out for its coverage of Xinjiang (in 2012) and its gotten so bad now that there are almost no foreign reporters left in China. Its not us "systematically exclude any statements from within China” its the Chinese government. I would also note that if the imam is a government employee and can be demonstrated as such then theres a lot more Chinese sources we can use. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You've been arguing for excluding the imam's statements. To then turn around and justify your attempt at excluding the imam's statements by pointing to Chinese government censorship in other cases is just absurd. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If, as we’ve both agreed, the imam is not a government official then yes we should excluding the imam's statements. But if Szmenderowiecki is right and we’re both wrong that changes the discussion completely, Xinhua is reliable for the statements of government officials. What is absurd is suggesting that the The Globe and Mail could have "done any serious independent investigation into the claims” with the current restrictions in place on reporting in Xinjiang. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 1. I couldn't confirm he's a government employee, so I drop it and urge others to do so, too. That said, given that the state exercises very strong control over religion and religious authorities (as reported by numerous RS) and the appointment procedures (p. 48) are such that any candidate appointed by the government will be as harmless and obedient to the CCP as humanly possible, I can say that he represents the opinion of the government. To corroborate this, his opinions on how the people should coexist in Xinjiang happens to mirror CCP's official policy. It might be a coincidence, but I highly doubt it. I also don't believe he would have said otherwise if the mosque was demolished or converted into a tourist centre. As they say, the difference between the freedom of speech in China and Canada is that China has freedom of speech, but Canada has freedom after speech. With that, I can't trust him to be the voice of the Islamic community, but as a government-affiliated person, sure (in this case, I would say he's just a proxy for government claims).
 * 2. Journalists, as just any other folks, are innocent until proven guilty. You can't assume bad faith on behalf of the journalist unless there are valid reasons to think so (censorship, his boss forcing him to publish a false story, his agenda which is known to preclude impartiality (in this case, Sinophobia), financing from a rival government that substantially influences reporting, or general unreliability of the publication). I see no proof to any of the factors; if you believe otherwise, the onus is on you to prove it.
 * 3. I don't get your accusation of me wanting to strike out the imam's narrative when I repeatedly said we should include it, but only if we indicate appropriate precautions must be made to interpret the statement (he's appointed by the government, China has very strong control over religion).
 * Which leads me to the final point:
 * 4. Let's not engage in false balance. Just because Western media coverage happens to confirm the claims made by Uyghurs, particularly those in exile, most of the time doesn't mean Western media peddle false narratives just because the claims were made by Uyghurs. Also, even if the majority opinion of Uyghurs is that the tactics used by the Chinese officials are non-repressive or non-discriminatory doesn't mean they indeed are not. The encyclopaedia we write does not need to cover each position equally, either. What we do need to report is the evidence as accurately as possible.
 * I think I made my case clear, I've spoken a little too much. Sorry if my texts seem to be on the long side. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Clarification. The sources that were sort of confirming my suspicion he's a government employee are these: 1. Ayup said the Chinese government was giving the imams salaries ranging from 600 to 5000 RMB before its clampdown campaign in Xinjiang. (Voice of America)
 * 2. Monks, priests and imams on the mainland earn an average of only 500 yuan (HK$630) a month, a quarter of them are not medically insured, and 40 per cent have no old-age pension insurance, a study has found. (South China Morning Post, 2015)
 * 3. Some (of Hui imams) live at the mosque or in an affiliated Muslim school, and some are paid salaries, while a smaller number volunteer. (Aramco World)
 * 4. "I haven't had any students since 1996," she says, shaking her head. "Women don't want be imams anymore, because the salaries in the mosques are too low. No one is willing to do it." (NPR-affiliated). The info is also cited here
 * 5. The position of imam carries a good deal of respect and influence, but leading a mosque as a profession garners a very small salary and little actual power. (p. 89, 78 per book) Also from the book: "One of the teaching ahongs at Beiguan Mosque (one of the oldest surviving mosques in downtown Xining) told me that he and most others declined a 500 RMB monthly salary because they taught out of service to the community and had other means of making a living." (p. 111, 100 per book)
 * (Alexander B. Stewart, Chinese Muslims and the Global Ummah: Islamic Revival and Ethnic Identity Among the Hui of Qinghai Province. Routledge Contemporary China: New York, 2016)
 * I could not conclusively say, based on the sources, that he received a government salary and was therefore a government employee; he might have refused it. However, my hunch says that it might be very true in the case with the current imam of Id Kah mosque; it's just I couldn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. You may come to other conclusions. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


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


 * Aquillion and Thucydides411 are right on target: the allegation that the oldest and most venerated mosque in Xinjiang is nothing more, now, than a tourist attraction is an extraordinary claim, particularly since the claim is contested by the mosque's imam. The claim might be printable here with attribution, but it shouldn't be stated in wikivoice. If the claim is put into the article, the imam's response needs to be present as well (also with attribution). As a reader, I would expect an encyclopedia to tell me what the relevant parties had stated, including the Chinese government itself, if it took a position on the matter. -Darouet (talk) 15:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Two problems with that... We don’t know when the imam made his statement and he doesn't directly contest that claim (it not clear that he’s even aware that such a claim has been made). Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * There are only 3 options in this RfC. Did you place your !vote in the wrong discussion section? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have revoked my vote. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I would like to add that this is the second time that a discussion over a specific usage of a source (a claim made in one article from that source) has been inflated into a generic RfC in the line of perennial usage. This happened previously with Coda Story and you were told not to do it again by other editors. I would seriously ask you to please not do it a third time if such a situation comes up again, especially when other editors tell you it's not the proper usage of RS discussions. Paragon Deku (talk) 22:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This isn't about the particular use of the source. If you read the talk page, you will notice that an editor questioned the general reliability of the paper, writing that The Independent is a great paper (The Globe and Mail far less so). The question for this RfC was framed in light of its ability to cover international news generally, and indeed there are editors (including yourself) who were party to that talk page discussion who do not believe that The Globe and Mail is WP:GREL for its international news coverage. The point of making an RfC on WP:RSN is to bring in the community to see if the source is reliable in general (within a broad context). The WP:NPOVN noticeboard is the appropriate location for questions about the use of a generally reliable source in a particular article. Since there was disagreement over the source's general reliability (not just the specific use of the source in a single article), I believe that this RfC has been placed on this board appropriately. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:13, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's abundantly clear that the questions raised were mainly about the Id Kah Mosque specific sources. This is corroborated by multiple editors in this RfC, including ones participating in discussion below. This is, as I have said, the second time you have done this, and it feels like WP:BLUDGEONING to stop individual interpretation of sources. Paragon Deku (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If you read WP:BLUDGEONING, you will note that it says that Bludgeoning the process is where someone attempts to force their point of view by the sheer volume of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own. If you believe that I am spamming the discussion with my own comments, then I won't be able to change your mind on it, but I really don't think it's reasonable to conclude that I'm doing that here. Would you please point to where I am spamming my comments in this conversation?
 * It's perfectly acceptable to call an RfC where there is a dispute over a source's general reliability in a context. Again, I agree that questions concerning the use of sources that would generally be considered reliable, for specific content, probably belong at WP:NPOVN. But, this particular dispute (as evidenced by your !vote and that of another involved editor) is not one in which there was agreement over the general reliability of the source; the dispute includes whether the source would generally be considered reliable in its coverage of China, broadly construed. As such, I believe it to be appropriate on this board.
 * — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Key word here is "like," it creates a situation where you're obfuscating the actual discussion to overwhelm the original questioner with a slew of uninvolved editors who have been robbed of context. It's an outsourced torrential downpour of new content to sort and reply to.
 * This is blatant RfC spam and others have already called this into question besides me. This is not some sort of unique argument on my part.
 * - Paragon Deku (talk) 07:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not bludgeoning (which is when an editor comments excessively in a thread, perhaps replying to every single comment), but it is an inappropriate use of WP:RSN. If one has a question about a particular source for a particular claim in a particular article, one does not launch an RfC about the source in general. There was a dispute about whether an extraordinary claim (that a famous mosque is a now a "former mosque") could be made in Wikivoice, based on a particular article in the Globe and Mail. then launched this RfC about the Globe and Mail in general, knowing that the overall response would be positive. I believe the idea was then to go back to the original dispute and argue that since the Globe and Mail now has the green stamp of approval, it must be acceptable to make this particular extraordinary claim in Wikivoice using one particular article from the newspaper. But Mikehawk10 did not just come to RSN and ask the original question directly. The whole exercise is a roundabout way of trying to get some sort of stamp of approval from RSN, without actually discussing the sourcing issue at hand. I think this is a misuse of the RfC process. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The reason I compare it to bludgeoning is that the massive positive response that comes in from uninolved editors who are not given the entire context becomes a burden to bear by the editors originally raising claims of reliability. It's not the same in methods, but it's the same in effect: the original questioner becomes overwhelmed by a large number of responses and can't correct the record and keep up. Paragon Deku (talk) 08:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * To respond to, I don't see an issue with involving the community more broadly where the individuals on the talk page cannot reach a consensus. At the end of the day, this is about building consensus, rather than seeking a pre-determined outcome that goes one way or the other. I don't understand why a large number of uninvolved editors being drawn into these sorts of discussions is a bad thing, especially when it helps to achieve consensus. When discussions fail, it is good practice to use established processes to attract outside editors to offer opinions. This is often useful to break simple, good-faith deadlocks, because uninvolved editors can bring in fresh perspectives, and can help involved editors see middle ground that they cannot see for themselves. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that anyone is objecting to "involving the community more broadly where the individuals on the talk page cannot reach a consensus." What I object to - and I think that many others do, too - is filing an RfC instead of first engaging in a more informal process. It's fantastic when editors (responsibly) ask others for input and advice but we don't need editors jumping straight from "a few editors in the Talk page of one article can't come to consensus" to "we need to fire a red flair to summon as many editors as we possibly can (through an RfC)." There are intermediate steps that can resolve many of these discussions and disagreements and editors should be encouraged to try them first. ElKevbo (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem with a RfC such as this one is that an answer of "Yes - reliable" here doesn't necessarily mean "Yes - reliable for the specific case in question". This RfC can't provide an affirmative answer the question that prompted the RfC.  Only an answer of "unreliable" would impact that specific question.  Springee (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * To respond to, this is as I have said the second time you have been asked not to do this exact thing and any attempts to dodge that observable fact with the guise of involving the community does not seem genuine. Paragon Deku (talk) 01:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem with a RfC such as this one is that an answer of "Yes - reliable" here doesn't necessarily mean "Yes - reliable for the specific case in question". This RfC can't provide an affirmative answer the question that prompted the RfC.  Only an answer of "unreliable" would impact that specific question.  Springee (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * To respond to, this is as I have said the second time you have been asked not to do this exact thing and any attempts to dodge that observable fact with the guise of involving the community does not seem genuine. Paragon Deku (talk) 01:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I think this RFC is completely misguided in that the problem is not with reliability in general, it is with the use of information from a reliable source. Just because a source is thought to be a generally high-quality reliable source does not mean that citations from that source can be used however we want in Wikipedia without any restrictions or guidance or whatever.  Sometimes, information from a reliable source needs direct attribution, or explanation, or clarification based on what other reliable sources may say (which may be in conflict with the first source).  If that is the case, we have a number of ways to deal with the first source, but none of that means that the source in question is unreliable, generally.  Reliability is not perfection, and if it can be demonstrated that an otherwise reliable source was incorrect (or in conflict with what other reliable sources say) that doesn't mean we are required to use the incorrect information.  Being cited to a source doesn't mean we must use it, especially if it is demonstrably wrong.  Furthermore, even if it is not wrong but merely in dispute (that is, it is unclear which of two conflicting sources is correct) then perhaps we should directly attribute each source to let the reader know that the is not widespread agreement.  That's okay too.  What's not okay is finding a single mistake, or conflicting viewpoint, or whatever, and then trying to elevate that singular situation to question the entire reputation of the source as a means to affect the use of that one citation.  Deal with the citation on its own terms.  The result of this discussion will do nothing to resolve the conflict in question, and is a distraction and a waste of time.  There are other, more productive, ways to resolve this conflict.  -- Jayron 32 16:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I wish more editors understood this fundamental issue. Unfortunately, while helpful in principle, the framework of WP:RSP is being misused to eliminate critical thinking and subtlety from the evaluation of sources. -Darouet (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


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


 * I oppose the continuing volume and structure of these RFCs on principle. Most if not all news sources that provide information about the previous days news are not unbiased on all subjects.  I generally trust the BBC, but would not go to them for neutral coverage of the British Monarchy.  I generally trust al-Jazeera, but would not go to them for neutral coverage of Saudi Arabia.  I generally trust the Washington Post, but would not go to them for neutral coverage of Amazon.com .  This insistence among a large part of the community that we can do a simple "reliable/not reliable" assessment of news sources is simply incorrect; hopefully through time and persuasion more editors will see this. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 17:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't have the time or energy to draft one, but I would support someone else's RFC imposing a (6 month?) moratorium on RfCs specifically about adding sources to WP:RSP. All the truly "perennial" sources should be there already, perhaps we can figure out a better way forward. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 19:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know if that's exactly the right solution, even though I pretty much agree with you. I think the question is "we know users are using perennial RfCs as a smokescreen for discussions that are actually about specific articles and pieces, so how do we prevent this without limiting actual perennial discussions?" Overall it's a very messy situation. Paragon Deku (talk) 19:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * So long as we are complaining about RSP, I am concerned that some of the additions seem to be rather subjective interpretations of a few RSN discussions. We may have a few RSN discussions that ask, "is source X good for this claim".  The answer is yes, then the source gets added as a "Green" source.  Did we really have a wide ranging consensus that source X was generally reliable?  Now a question that comes to RSN asking, "is X a good source for this controversial claim" may not be considered on the merits of the claim, rather on the color of the RSP entry. Springee (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * power~enwiki: An RfC re a moratorium in 2019 failed. Springee: you're right again. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Agree with those who think these RfC are not helpful. RSN shouldn't be continuously blessing/condemning sources as reliable/not reliable.  Instead we should be answering questions about using a specific source for a specific claim.  This is an important distinction because many times the underlying issue is a generally reliable source being used in a way where say an opinion is treated as fact or the more relevant question should be DUE rather than WP:V.  I certainly see no reason to see the Globe as anything other than generally reliable but that should never be treated as cart blanche for ignoring things like attribution of opinions/commentary, RECENT, UDE etc.  Springee (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well put. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Voicing my support that we need to stop RFCs seeking deprecation of sources due to one or two incidents and/or claims of bias. A well-formed RFC on the matter, showing a record of problems over multiple areas and many years, is what needs to be presented (of which, for example, we have had with Daily Mail, RT, and Fox News). But we have editors that seem to want to use RS/P as a means to win content conflicts by declaring a source bad. I think that if we add clear wording to the top of this page and RSP about what serious RSP RFC requests should be constructed around, admins should have the freedom to immediately shut down RFCs that clearly are not of a proper type so that we aren't dragging too many editors into a content issue at RSN. (eg here, there is a fair question of whther the given Globe and Mail article can be used for the claim about this site become a tourist attraction, but that absolutely did not need to drag in the overall reliability of G&M into question). --M asem (t) 20:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree 100% with Springee and Masem. This noticeboard absolutely needs to get back to discussing sources in specific context (what the source is being cited FOR)... and WP:RSP needs to be reserved for sources that keep coming up (the “P” stands for PERENNIAL after all). Blueboar (talk) 20:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreeing with this 100 % myself, can I also add that we need to develop more realistic categories for news organizations. Humans are extraordinarily susceptible to us vs. them thinking, and the these RSP discussions have devolved into mob-like environments with people voting for 1 or 4 depending on their political views. That's not the way the world works, and Wikipedia can do better. -Darouet (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Blueboar, Darouet - 100% agree. We took a massive wrong turn with the DM Ban and it's time to bring things back onto the right track. This doesn't mean it's suddenly "OK" to use generally low quality sources like the DM, but context really is key here and we shouldn't discuss reliability in a vacuum. FOARP (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Turkish News Sites
News websites İnternethaber (286 links), Aydınlık (44 links) and Yeniçağ (158 links) are sources that are used in Wikipedia especially about subjects related to Turkey. But their on early May they published news regarding the article Turkish War of Independence in which they claim that Wikipedia is carrying out a smear campaign which was not true. This creates questioning about their reliability. What are your opinions?--V. E. (talk) 17:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't read Turkish, so I cannot comment on the specific incident. Did they publish someone's opinion or was it a regular reporting? Other than this, have there been issues with their reliability? When it comes to press freedom, Turkey is currently slightly worse than Russia and slightly better than Belarus, so probably these media outlets should be used carefully, especially for contentious topics. Alaexis¿question? 17:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * They were not publishing someone else's opinion.--V. E. (talk) 19:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * İnternethaber reads very much like a tabloid, for example here; that being at least through the lens of Google Translate. Using clickbait titles on the main page ("Rezalet! Öğrencisiyle tuvalette") and exclamation marks with emotionally loaded words doesn't help their case. Aydınlık and Yeniçağ look even more tabloid-like in the worst sense of the word; particularly the latter with "He shared the scandal from his social media account" sticker on the headline image makes me extremely skeptic to cite it immediately. Also, Aydınlık and Yeniçağ are known to be nationalist newspapers, and Aydınlık is a left-wing party's press organ. I won't comment much on İnternethaber besides not having a good first impression, but better alternatives should be definitely sought for the latter two. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 01:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * They're definitely not reliable sources for the claim that Wikipedia is conducting a campaign against Turkey. Opinion pieces in general are not reliable sources regardless. They probably should be replaced by more reliable sources in articles like Suruç bombing, Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey, or Armenian Genocide recognition. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

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

I have been developing this article, and have added some photographs (uploaded to Commons). Darlington Council have erected a public information board near the bridge, with an account of its history, photographs, and a annotated map. I came to the conclusion that it was an artistic object, and therefore not acceptable to upload a photograph of it to Commons. Am I correct? More importantly, would it count as a Reliable Source? I would understand it as being analogous to a description of an exhibit in a museum (it being hard to place a bridge in a museum, especially when it is still in use), but the previous discussions of museum captions don't seem to have a definitive answer on whether they are a RS.--Verbarson (talk) 09:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * And if it is, how do I reference it?!--Verbarson (talk) 09:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't answer your main question, although it's the sort of thing I'd say would be due for an attributed claim if nothing else, but exists for the how. Thryduulf (talk) 11:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks. I shall take that as an encouraging sign, and boldly go and cite.--Verbarson (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , in terms of copyrighted images there is freedom of panorama in the UK for objects permanently located in public places, so if you take a picture of the board it should be OK to upload (and no doubt useful!) (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , thank you for directing me to that. But I note that under Freedom of panorama, it says "Accordingly, photographs may not freely be taken of artworks such as murals or posters even if they are permanently located in a public place." I think that a free-standing information board, designed to complement and improve a public space, and incorporating extended text, photographs and a map, would be included in such a category. I have therefore cited information from the board in the article, but I have not uploaded a photograph.--Verbarson (talk) 09:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The consensus at Commons is certainly that 2D maps and artworks, etc are not covered by UK freedom of panorama, and even if they were that wouldn't extend to when they were the focus of the image. A text-only board might be acceptable, but that's not how this one is described. Whether the board could be uploaded to Wikipedia as fair use for the purposes of citing it I don't know, that's something to ask at WT:NFC I suspect. Also worth looking to see if the council (or a friends group, etc) have put a photo or text of the board on their website anywhere. Thryduulf (talk) 11:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Everything You Always Wanted to Know about Sexes
I found this article I was wondering if y’all think it’s a reliable source. It was posted to PLOS Biology which is a peer reviewed source, but the article is written by a single science writer and I’m not entirely sure if the source still holds up.CycoMa (talk) 03:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It belongs to popular science, but I think using it for sourcing is OK. That is unless there is a serious scientific review saying something different or there are significant objections by someone supported by stronger sources. My very best wishes (talk) 05:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It is written as if it were a chapter for an undergraduate textbook - a rather good sign, because syntheses tend to be more reliable than primary research articles (see WP:WMEDRS). It's been on a peer-reviewed journal for over 15 years and no one has protested much about the content (which seems to be written more for a textbook rather than a typical scientific article, which is still pretty good), so the only possible problem could be that the info is outdated; reliability at that stage is only a problem to the extent that the info is outdated. To know if that's the case, direct most of your enquiries concerning the reliability of biology articles/information to WP:BIOLOGY folks, in particular to the talk pages of the articles you want to introduce your reference to. They will know much more about intricacies of biology and the current state of knowledge than we do, as this is a general-purpose reliability noticeboard. (I, for example, am an undergrad chemist, not exactly a biologist). From what I can recall from my recent biology course, the information seems not to be outdated, but do ask the folks more connected with biology. I hope you've managed to find the newest edition genetics textbook by Pierce. Cheers. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 05:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The video is by Peter Hadfield, a respectable science journalist who actually worked for News Corp at one point. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah yes a YouTube video from a nobody geologist post a brutal take down of such and such. Only thing missing is a fedora and skeptical somewhere on there to complete the set. Pass, lets wait for real sources. PackMecEng (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * He worked as a science journalist, but has a degree in geology. It's a good example of why the "bioweapon" claims are considered conspiracy theories, and have not been taken seriously in Wikipedia discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I't s a WP:SPS, on Youtube none the less. Honestly, if it is not something we could use as a source in an article I see no reason to use it to inform us about a source or editing policy in general. This is a waste of time. PackMecEng (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree the thread title is not the most descriptive, but it reflects poorly on News.com.au's editorial control that they claimed that a publicly available book was a leaked government document. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well it doesnt reflect poorly. Because that would imply they have a reputation other than as lying gutter-trash to start with. It reflects their methodology. Of course that's not really of interest to anyone who buys into their methodology. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, the above rebuttal is from YouTube, but the story pushed by The Australian genuinely is complete nonsense. It's been debunked by the SCMP and the Guardian. Interestingly, while looking to see what other media outlets had repeated the story from The Australian, I accidentally came across this article published by the Jamestown Foundation in 2003, which pushes the conspiracy theory that SARS (the original one, not SARS-CoV-2) comes from a Chinese bioweapons lab. Just for context, this is the very same Jamestown Foundation that more recently has been making claims that China is carrying out a genocide in Xinjiang. A report published by the Jamestown Foundation, written by Adrian Zenz, made a big splash in the media last year, and underlies a lot of the reporting on Xinjiang. Make of this what you will. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the links, which makes clear that claim has received non-credulous coverage in reliable sources. As for Xinjiang, there's no doubt that the Jamestown Foundation and Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation are dubious and are looking to use the Xinjiang allegations as a cudgel to attack China, and should not be cited directly. However, the claims of the abuse of Uyghurs in Xinjiang are taken much much more seriously by reliable sources such as The Guardian and BBC, which means that they can't just be dismissed as conspiracy theories, and should be treated appropriately. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:41, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The Xinjiang claims should be treated appropriately, but editors should be aware that some highly dubious sources serve as the basis of many of the more extreme claims about Xinjiang discussed of late in the Anglophone media. I've said before that I believe there are WP:SYSTEMICBIAS issues at play here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you give example of what you mean by "more extreme claims about Xinjiang"? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I would like to ask you not to wander too much off topic. We will discuss Xinjiang/Jamestown/Uyghurs/whatever when someone will ask us to do so. Really, there's no reason to start (n+1)st dispute from what starts like a benign topic if not specifically prompted by OP :). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The claim that 80% of "net IUD placements" in China in recent years were made in Xinjiang, for example. The claim originates from the Jamestown Foundation report written by Zenz, and it has made its way into articles in more mainstream outlets. It falls into the category of: technically correct if you go to original report and read how Zenz is defining his terms, but highly misleading and not at all what it appears to mean at first glance - so much so that quoting the statistic without explaining the details could be considered dishonest. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * SARS article from Jamestown is an article that is clearly outside their scope of expertise (that requires good geneticists to establish that, whom Jamestown does not have), and the fact The Australian cited the report (and Jamestown produced it) is only to their detriment (generally a lot of News Corp.'s outlets often haven't been in particularly good terms with the scientific consensus, though The Times (UK), as ProcrastinatingReader rightly notes, is a notable, and very good, exception). On the other hand, other, political coverage and analysis is their area of expertise. Sure, you may believe something is of dubious quality, but that should not be done based on coverage of something in which they do not specialise. If anything, what it only shows is that they are shit outside their area of expertise, which is not news for most of such outlets. But that's really OT, and we shouldn't be going too far into it. We may discuss it later, when the appropriate topic comes again, as it inevitably will. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , you missed the point. An experienced journalist tracked a single striking (and, right now, relevant-for-Wikipedia) claim back to its origin, and found three steps that transformed an old book about foreign actors using SARS as a bioweapon against China, to a "leaked report" purportedly obtained by the US State Department vis Secret Squirrel, revealing a years-old plot by China to create a bioweapon based on SARS.
 * And each of the significant steps along the way happens in a News Corp property which has free access to the original source, who is a News Corp employee, so could easily validate that the claim they are making is bogus.
 * That is worth knowing, IMO. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about News Corp or a specific holding of theirs? Because News Corp also owns The Times & The Sunday Times, arguably one of the best UK news publications. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The Times & Sunday Times are both above our RS bar, but you have to go back a long way to find a time when the Sunday Times had a truly high reputation, and the years since the News Corp acquisition have not been kind on the once-stellar reputation of The Times. But, yes, like the WSJ, these papers have meaningful editorial controls and aren't like most News Corp papers. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 07:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , well done, that was the right question :-)
 * The snswer is that it's washed through different News Corp properties with differing levels of credibility, sometimes using the higher-tier source as a halo to confer an illusion of credibility.
 * Chinese Book --> book by News Corp journo --> same News Corp journo pimps the theory on Sky News --> misrepresented in The Australian --> further misrepresented in news.com.au --> Tucker Carlson (via Steve Bannon, because of course).
 * The Grauniad ties it all together pretty well: . Guy (help! - typo?) 09:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That article doesn't make either News Corp or The Australian look good, but what it says is far worse for Sharri Markson, The Australian's media editor (!), as well as a columnist for the UK Telegraph . We should have something about her Bannon connection and we should look for further RSes backing the claims in the Guardian article. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC) (Correction: she writes for dailytelegraph.com.au, not the UK daily &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 13:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC))
 * And what are you proposing being done here? I mean, News Corp also owns publisher HarperCollins which publishes some great stuff. We can't really mark News Corp and all its properties as GUR. Although, indeed like other properties in Murdoch's empire, I agree that a lot of its holdings are crap. Sky News I think is generally reliable, although there are often better sources, but they often publish things other sources don't. I am not familiar with Australian sources. As for sources spreading conspiracy theories on Wuhan, I think a lot of our RS' also behaved irresponsibly at some point in the pandemic on that front (and others). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Memorable Manitobans
Is Memorable Manitobans, a site maintained by the Manitoba Historical Society, a reliable source for biographical data? My inclination is to say yes, because it's published by a recognized institution and cites its sources. But it looks a little self-published-y, so I wasn't completely sure. (For background: I was updating Hugh Robson (politician) and wondered if was usable as a source). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Basically if you say it's published by a recognised institution (and not by authors themselves), it's not self-published. Also, in case you were wondering, at the bottom of the article, you have a detailed description on that person's credentials, articles in the Manitoba Historical Society etc. Definitely a good source. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

daily-beat.com
Is https://daily-beat.com a reliable or unreliable source for music articles like Wave music? talk &#64; TRANSviada 03:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Site contains no "about us" page, no information about editorial control or fact checking, AFAICT all by-lines indicate articles are written by about 3 people, all of whom use pseudonyms. Probably not.  -- Jayron 32 11:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

daily.bandcamp.com
Is https://daily.bandcamp.com a reliable or unreliable source for music articles like Wave music? talk &#64; TRANSviada
 * Probably reliable enough. The article on Bandcamp indicates that the site has a well-regarded editor, and has articles from well-regarded music journalists.  -- Jayron 32 11:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd be careful with this one. It's true that everyone involved has a strong background in music journalism, but they're still a music screaming service and, as far as I can tell, they exclusively cover artists on their site. I'd trust them for basic music history, elements of genres, things like that. But I wouldn't use them for, say, examples of bands within a genre because they'll all be bands on Bandcamp and that's inherently self-serving. I also wouldn't use them to establish notability. Woodroar (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd also say it depends on what content is used. Many articles already refer to Bandcamp-Daily when it comes to cultural background description or historical overview of the genre (like Vaporwave). Solidest (talk) 13:45, 14 May 2021 (UTC)


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

beatportal.com
Is https://beatportal.com a reliable or unreliable source for music articles like Wave music? talk &#64; TRANSviada
 * Probably not. I can find no information on the editors of the site, or on the authors of articles on it.  Looks like a well-designed personal website, but I can't even figure out who runs it.  -- Jayron 32 11:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It is run by Beatport. I had referenced on Wave music which was written by Jordan Mafi, a curation manager at Beatport and a freelance writer. In Talk:Wave music there was a discussion about the independence and thus the reliableness of beatportal.com for using it in that article.
 * talk &#64;TRANSviada  20:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing a discussion where another editor provided multiple policy-based reasons why Beatportal isn't a reliable source and you ignored all of them. Beatport and Beatportal have an inherent conflict of interest in this area, much like Bandcamp Daily. Woodroar (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * nah I didn't ignore them; I actually thanked the user for detailing all that. I just want multiple opinions on this and that user wrote "take it to the boards" in an edit. Simple as that. Wikipedia is a community and it's based on consensus. About Bandcamp Daily, it is used in good and featured articles such as Vaporwave and Heavy metal music.
 * talk &#64;TRANSviada  10:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

datatransmission.co
Is https://datatransmission.co a reliable or unreliable source for music articles like Wave music? talk &#64; TRANSviada 03:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Borderline. Could go either way.  Site has a small staff, but they are named and a google search for the EIC Grahame Farmer shows just enough presence in reliable sources that other reliable sources consider him to be a reliable music journalist in dance and electronic music; website appears to have the advantage of age.  -- Jayron 32 11:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

electronicbeats.net
Is https://electronicbeats.net a reliable or unreliable source for music articles like Wave music? talk &#64; TRANSviada 03:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Not really a journalism site. It appears to be an entertainment wing of Deutsche Telekom, aka T-Mobile, and the website seems to mostly be about promoting music festivals and other events that they sponsor, as well as for artists that might appear at those events.  Perhaps marginally useful as a primary source for simple statements of who performed where at what music festivals, but I wouldn't use them for anything else.  -- Jayron 32 12:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

futuremagmusic.org
Is https://futuremagmusic.org a reliable or unreliable source for music articles like Wave music? talk &#64; TRANSviada 03:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * About us page says they are an "Artist Services agency", and not independent journalists. Red flag.  Probably more explicitly promotional than I would be comfortable with.  Not an independent source; possibly useful as a primary source for uncontroversial statements about artists they promote such as release dates and tour dates, but they can't be used to establish notability and have limited use otherwise.  -- Jayron 32 12:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

hypebeast.com
Is https://hypebeast.com reliable or unreliable source for music articles like Wave music? talk &#64; TRANSviada 03:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Possibly reliablish. Gets some citations in other sources; founder and EIC Kevin Ma shows some recognition as well.  Several of the authors of articles show that they are well-respected journalists, i.e. a former editor at Complex: .  -- Jayron 32 12:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


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

insightmusic.co.uk
Is https://insightmusic.co.uk a reliable or unreliable source for music articles like Wave music? talk &#64; TRANSviada 03:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a promotion/management company. Not journalist.  Not reliable except as a primary source for banal information about artists they may promote.  Cannot be used to establish notability or relevance.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

ninetofiverecords.com
Is https://ninetofiverecords.com a reliable or unreliable source for music articles like Wave music? talk &#64; TRANSviada 03:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Appears to be a promotion & management company. Not journalism.  Possibly useful for basic information about artists they promote, but not to be used for anything establishing notability or relevance.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

plasticmag.co.uk
Is https://plasticmag.co.uk a reliable or unreliable source for music articles like Wave music? talk &#64; TRANSviada 03:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Lots of red flags for this one. Nearly everything seems to have the same byline, Rob Pringle.  Appears to be a one-man show.  Can't find any information about him otherwise.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

secretshoresmusic.com
Is Is https://secretshoresmusic.com a reliable or unreliable source for music articles like Wave music? talk &#64; TRANSviada 03:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Every byline of every article seems to be "Secret Shores". Probably a one-person project.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

thedelimagazine.com
Is http://thedelimagazine.com a reliable or unreliable source for music articles like Wave music? talk &#64; TRANSviada 03:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Marginal. It's been around a while, and has a Wikipedia article, The Deli, but nothing about this screams "reliable source".  Website is amateurish (which does not mean unreliable, but is not a good look).  Shows some citations from other sources, so they're at least a known quantity.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

theelectrichawk.com
Is https://theelectrichawk.com a reliable or unreliable source for music articles like Wave music? talk &#64; TRANSviada 03:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a record label, not journalism. Possible primary source for basic information about artists they promote (release dates, basic bios, etc.) but cannot be used to establish notability or relevance.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

theplayground.co.uk
Is https://theplayground.co.uk a reliable or unreliable source for music articles like Wave music? talk &#64; TRANSviada 03:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Promotion and management agency, possibly could be used for basic, uncontroversial information but not for establishing notability and relevance. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

vinylised.com
Is https://vinylised.com a reliable or unreliable source for music articles like Wave music? talk &#64; TRANSviada 03:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a crowdfunding site; basically kickstarter for garage bands. No.  Not a reliable source.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

youth-time.eu
Is https://youth-time.eu a reliable or unreliable source for music articles like Wave music? talk &#64; TRANSviada 03:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems like a legitimate independent journalism site. It's not The Times or anything like that, but seems to have an independent editorial staff and things like that, gets some recognition from other sources.  Not the best stuff out there, but not horrible.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


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

Origins of SARS-CoV-2
Please help to reconcile the contradictory claims documented at Fringe theories/Noticeboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I propose that anyone who responds "lab", "Wuhan" or "China virus" is banned immediately. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The lab theory has come up again on alternative media. As long as the media refers to it as a "debunked conspiracy theory," then that's how we should report it. It's not our role as Wikipedia editors to question reliable sources although of course we are free to do so elsewhere. I would favor a ban for editors who ignore policy and guidelines in editing. TFD (talk) 04:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , to be fair, in the medical topic area on WP, we don't care what the "media refers to it as". We care what WP:MEDRS say. They don't go quite that far, but it's still considered a non-mainstream view - barely below WP:FRINGE. We've been dealing with this disruption for months - which results because we can't watch every single article that this POV can be pushed on. If people want to help us, and have a good understanding of MEDRS, it'd be appreciated. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "alternative media" is a really nice way of saying "bullshit pseudo-science pushers". YODADICAE👽  05:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't appeal to MEDRS which may or may not apply here. MEDRS was implemented because readers might use Wikipedia articles for medical advice. Where the virus originated is not a matter of medical advice. Readers are not going to change their approach to COVID precautions, immunization or treatment based on whether the first virus came from a lab or an animal. Using scientific papers itself creates MEDRS problems because they may not keep up with an ongoing story and may have incomplete information about the alternative theory. After all, if a theory is not credible, don't expect scientists to spend a lot of time debunking it.
 * The section Herman Cain has no MEDRS sources. After discussing his experience with cancer, it says he attended a rally during a pandemic without wearing a mask, tested positive for COVID and died from the disease. We didn't wait for a peer reviewed article about his illness or the pandemic to appear in a journal before mentioning this. And I accept that the degree of certainty in these sources is not as high, but it is as high as what we expect for BLPs. You might think that using news sources would allow conspiracism to creep in. But reliability and weight if used correctly would prevent that.
 * TFD (talk) 13:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

No. Thank goodness the crowd suggesting a ban (for wrongthink) for anyone who mentions the lab-leak or calls it anything other than a "debunked conspiracy theory" doesn't include any current admins. The Washington Post says here that "The theory, which was once highly speculative and which was downplayed by top medical experts such as Fauci, is suddenly being treated more seriously, though there is no conclusive evidence either way.". There certainly are some conspiracy theories which are about a lab leak, but that doesn't mean that all theories about a lab leak are conspiracy theories. That is logic 101. User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 04:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That particular Washington Post article cites a Washington Post editoral. The papers editoral board has long been a promoter of "lab leak" investigations, including citing the "DRASTIC" twitter lab leak conspiracy theorists, so I wouldn't give it that much weight, given that none of the Washington Post editoral board are scientific experts. It also contradicts what is written in this nytimes article from March. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , well, this is Wikipedia. There are two perspectives on the "lab leak": science and the nutjobosphere.
 * Science says that an accidental leak from a lab cannot be definitively ruled out. That's science-speak for "yeah, it probably wasn't that, but we should probably check, just to be sure, because there might be a lesson for other labs handling biohazards"
 * The nutjobosphere says that because a few scientists agree with the last part of the above, thus it was obviously a Chiese bioweapon, just look at all these scientists agreeing.
 * Wikipedians have a good deal of experience in separating the two.
 * Oh, and for additional shits and giggles? See this piece on how News Corp properties morphed an officially-published Chinese book expressing concern at Taiwan or the US using SARS as a bioweapon against China, into a secret leaked report obtained by the State Department showing that the Chinese planned for over five years to use SARS as a bioweapon against others. Which is why we don't take the "lab leak likely" bullshit as a good-faith contributiojn to understanding the reality of the pandemic-which-is-only-a-deadly-pandemic-when-it's-convenient-to-attack-China. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Just a note there are a lot more perspectives than that... There are at least three different bioweapons conspiracy theories, at least four legitimate lab leak perspectives, and at least one lab leak conspiracy theory that does not involve a bioweapon. If there were just two perspectives we wouldn’t be having a tough time with this. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , oh I'm aware, I was just addressing the specifics of this issue and this publisher. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Is VIAF a primary or self-published source?
I've used Virtual International Authority File for the year of birth on BLPs and want to make sure it's OK to use, for example the year of birth for Ayşe Gül Altınay. I don't really see how it can be considered a primary source, since they get the year of birth from participating institutions, who in turn must get it from some other source, but I just wanted to check. For notable academics, it can be difficult or impossible to find a year of birth outside of similar authority files and bibliographical info (Library of Congress often has the year of birth as well, including for Altınay). (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say primary or self-published, but I'm not sure if it's reliable. I've seen Library of Congress authorities that cite Wikipedia, Wikidata, or Ancestry.com. (Could dig up some examples if needed.) To the extent that VIAF scrapes the underlying data (and I assume it does) it would be only as reliable as the authorities it scrapes. I don't know what, say, BNF's or ISNI's editorial standards are, but if they're as (non-)existent as LoC's, I'd think twice about those as well. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Its neither. However like most other authority control identifiers its not a reliable source. Unless you can actually see where the information came from. And if you can see that, cite that instead. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I will not use this source in future. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Self published books and racial bias
Are books such as this one from CreateSpace and martial arts movies such as Kung Fu Panda reliable sources for Chinese martial arts? It has been suggested that it is racist to say no. More viewpoints would be very welcome at Talk:Chinese_martial_arts. - MrOllie (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Kung Fu Panda is a cartoon, it is not a realistic portrayal of anything.Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, that's not what the person who wrote that said. Whether or not their criticism is true or not, they didn't say that you were racist for not citing Kung Fu Panda.  There's a lot of rhetoric, intentional misrepresentation, veiled personal attacks, and all together unhelpful commentary to go around on all sides there.  If you want a sober discussion of the source material, then you should avoid such mischaracterizations of the comments made by other people.  You may very well be correct that the source material is not appropriate to use, however, if you misrepresent the arguments of others, you are going to have a hard time getting people to reach the correct conclusions about those sources.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , the edit summary literally said "It appears that the person who repeatedly deletes this section has a (racist?) bias against Chinese Culture, and is bent on eliminating valid presentation of its traditional attributes on Wikipedia."
 * The edit summary it replied to said "continued reliance on unreliable sources. Self published books and martial arts movies are not acceptable sources."
 * In short, MrOllie removed the material for the stated reason that the sources were no good, then the IP claimed that MrOllie was biased against Chinese MAs, and suggested that racism would explain that.
 * I don't think it is unfair for MrOllie to have said what he did, here. I've also looked over the discussion at talk, and MrOllie seems to have maintained good composure there, as well. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The OP should definitely not have called MrOllie racist. That was uncalled for.  However, he called Mr. Ollie racist for the removal of text, not because Mr. Ollie refused to specifically accept Kung Fu Panda as a source (which, it wasn't being used as such).  As I said, Mr. Ollie is likely 100% correct, but by mischaracterizing other people and the reasons for their actions, they will end up (unfortunately) losing the argument, and that would be a real shame, because then Wikipedia doesn't get better when it should.  That is why behavioral policies exist and why we should adhere to them, because when people who are correct in their editing misbehave, it ruins their opportunity to make Wikipedia better.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think if you also read the 3 other times racism was brought up on the talk page, then my characterization will make more sense to you. - MrOllie (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Lets not discuss user conduct here, please?Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * To address the original question, I would refer the reader to the words of the hon. Mr. Bender. A self-published book by a chiropractor, and a children's animated movie, are not appropriate sources. Obviously. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The user did not try to use a cartoon as a source. The cartoon was part of a list of cultural depictions of martial arts.  Had the person in question actually done what the OP said that they did, then that would be laughable.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This will make a bit more sense if you look at the IP's latest talk page comment. Perhaps it is just the term 'reference' is causing a bit of a misunderstanding. Either way I don't think the IP is likely to listen to anything appearing above my signature at this point, so other people chiming in to clear up any misunderstandings will be welcome. - MrOllie (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I am of the opinion that animated children's films should not be cited as examples of real-world phenomenon that do not relate to children's stories or animation, except for sections which are explicitly about the portrayal of the real-world phenomenon in fiction. There's no guarantee that the portrayal in the films is an accurate one. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  18:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello everyone and thank you for sharing your viewpoints on the subject matter at hand. I am uncertain as to why people stuck to Kung Fu Panda as the prime example? The section included 12 feature films, and 2 television series, of which 3 are animated. The films and television series were not cited as references, but mentioned as cultural expressions of the subjects discussed in this section - that of discipleship. All other sources aside Kung Fu Panda were ignored in the ensuing discussion here, unfortunately, as were all of my other claims from the talk page. The references included 10 books and 6 articles, all written by experts, of which the minority were self-published. I once more challenge anyone here to refute the claim that any of these sources were not written and published by experts. As such, why are they not relevant, and why is it that people completely ignore them and then focus on "the silliness of Kung Fu Panda" due to the fact that it is a children's film, though it was not a referenced source but a cultural example?... I must ask whether anyone here has ever been a practitioner of traditional Chinese martial arts? Or is your knowledge of them limited to watching Kung Fu Panda? As was explained on the talk page, Discipleship is something as basic to these traditions as wheels to a car. 187.244.113.106 (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I must ask whether anyone here has ever been a practitioner of traditional Chinese martial arts? I have. I studied Wing chun for two years, though my experience lies more with Japanese and modern MAs. I also heartily disagree with you, your sources, and your editing style.
 * I urge you to stop arguing about this for a moment, take a read of WP:FIND, which outlines our guidelines for finding reliable sourcing, and use those guidelines to find sources to support the content.
 * The content you were adding was problematic, but salvageable. However the sources and examples you chose are, frankly, laughable to any experienced Wikipedian.
 * If it will help you to take a step back, I will look through some books I have on the subject when I get home and see what they have to say about discipleship, and try to sus out something that will cover the topic without causing problems like your edit.
 * As a final note: Accusing others of racism is a quick way to get blocked per WP:CRYRACIST, so I would advise you to stop that immediately and entirely. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have. This is irrelevant to the way Wikipedia works. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)


 * This sounds more like a potential WP:No original research issue than a RS issue. Who says these films and movies are cultural examples of “discipleship”. If it is an expert, we should attribute the opinion to that expert. Blueboar (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Focusing on the main issue, Blueboar is 100% correct. The passage is a combination of a novel synthesis of disparate ideas, created by the writer, a few unreliable sources, and original research.  If the article is to contain the information that has been removed, it needs to be cited to an actual reliable source that makes the same basic points.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Salomon Morel
I have been locked out of editing for Salomon Morel, who was a Jewish man whose family was murdered in the Holocaust. The information on his wikipedia page is provided by Polish nationalists, and one of the sources cited is the many citations in that article is from the "Institute of National Remembrance", which is an anti-Semitic organization known to spread anti-Jewish lies and propaganda since inception.
 * Unreliable', I agree with User:Genealogykid82. The Institute of National Remembrance employs facist historians who claim that the Nazi salute was a Roman practice and that its use today is acceptable . Nazi salute and Roman salute describe this as fake. No positive reputation to speak of, it is a dodgy source.VikingDrummer (talk) 01:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * We’ve discussed this before but the Institute of National Remembrance has become sketchy AF (like the Nazi kind of sketchy), I would avoid them like the plague. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Horse Eye's Back comments, use of the Institute of National Remembrance is a No Nazis situation. Poor record and reputation, to be avoided.Nyx86 (talk) 16:23, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

change.org ?
I don't know how the blacklist works exactly, but I wanted to add the change.org link as a primary source to support the secondary source on Railway Hotel, Edgware which I was updating, but it wouldn't let me. Are you really not allowed to use change.org for primary citing? Govvy (talk) 08:49, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Unreliable and undue in almost all circumstances. This would fall under user generated contents much like Vimeo, blogspot, and YouTube. A rare exception would be when it is covered in a reliable media source and it is discussed in the news article and you use it as a supplemental source, but you can not make inference or make your own analysis from what is said in it per our policy against original research. Graywalls (talk) 09:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I only really wanted to use it as a supplement source to support Which I had added in as inline. Govvy (talk) 09:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Unreliable, anyone can post a petition on change.org, no? Some dude posting on the internet is not reliable.VikingDrummer (talk) 01:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Erm, you clearly have no idea what I am talking about, obviously, no one understands how to use a primary source with a secondary source. That's the floor here. Govvy (talk) 10:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Change.org is sufficient to verify that such a petition exists, however it cannot be used to support anything to do with the likelihood of success - because anybody can start a change.org petition about (almost) anything. As there is no requirement for the person or organisation being petitioned to even acknowledge the existence of the petition, I would be extremely surprised if a petition that had no coverage in secondary sources merited any mention in an article (per WP:DUE). If you have a secondary source that mentions the petition then you don't need to use the primary source to verify its existence. Thryduulf (talk) 14:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

So, secondary sources supporting primary sources and vice-vesa, change.org can be used as a primary source however, but you say sparingly. So why blacklist a whole website on an unreliable technicality. That really stops it's use, you can't even link to the primary source. Feels somewhat at odds to me. Govvy (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Unreliable. It's basically a self-published source as anyone can start a petition about anything, more or less. I wouldn't even consider it a good source for verifying the petition exists; to give a reducto ad absurdum example : "In 2016, a petition was filed to legally change Donald Trump's name to Donald Stupid". Where a change.org petition has become worthy of note, other sources have reported it. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * For the simple fact of verifying the petition's existence it's as good a source as any other. Considerations about whether we should or should not mention the petition's existence are a matter of WP:N and WP:DUE not reliability. Thryduulf (talk) 16:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with everything you say here, and it's one of my biggest bugbear about people calling a source "unreliable" when they mean "unsuitable" (admittedly I've just done it here too) ... nevertheless I still would not consider change.org to be an appropriate enough source to justify writing about it in an article. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't cite petitions as evidence of their own existence, for obvious reasons. We also don't link to open petitions, for equally obvious reasons. If the petition is significant we can cite reliable third party source coverage of it, if you're looking to support a fact within the text of the petition then it's WP:UGC. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not a technicality, change.org is literally user generated content. Anyone can set one up, about anything. But this doesn't give it any more notability, reliability etc about the topic it is discussing any more than a reddit forum does. Koncorde (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I can see how this would be a problem if it were unblacklisted - especially in the COVID-19 topic area and political areas. The use cases for legitimate citations or links to change.org are so few and far between, and the potential disruption by allowing any editor to add links, favor blacklisting. If I'm not mistaken, a legitimate use case can be whitelisted following some process, especially if requested by an established user with good reasoning. Yes, it's an onerous process, but it's necessary because the amount of work that would be needed to prevent bad links if not blacklisted is thousands of times more than the amount of work for each one good link to get whitelisted. My 2c. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


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

Criterion Channel
Would film descriptions on The Criterion Collection be considered reliable for plot summary details? Specifically, this description of The Hot Rock (film) uses the term "Afghanistan banana stand" as opposed to "afghanistan bananastan" apparently heard in this clip. I hear "afghanistan banana stand" but appreciate this is a subtle difference hence the need for RS—blindlynx (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONSENSE is above policy. "Afghanistan bananastan" (a play on banana republic) makes common sense while "Afghanistan banana stand" is nonsense. -- Green  C  18:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The original book uses "banana stand" as well so common sense would be it's the same in the moive no?—blindlynx (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sheesh a mess.. ok so the book says "banana stand" and the movie sounds like "bananastan" or "banana stand" and there are secondary sources that could provide for both also. For Wikipedia purposes, I would state "banana stand" with a Note some sources report it as "bananastan" but the original book is "banana stand". A version of the movie script online says "banana stand" if you consider it reliable. --  Green  C  20:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No kidding, i have half a mind to just leave it out entierly. But thanks!—blindlynx (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes! We Have No Bananas -- Green  C  01:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Reliability of Somoy News
There's a cable television channel in Bangladesh named Somoy TV. They have their news websites in two languages, En and Bn. I've noticed two of these websites being used as a source in numerous articles. I do understand the basics of Bn language, and I found some pretty laughable and poorly fact-checked news on their websites. Also, some of their articles are pure asinine and undisclosed promotion/advert, let alone the click baits. I'm requesting other users to take a look at these two websites and come to a consensus about their reliability. --Tame (talk) 10:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , it would be helpful if you could give examples. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 10:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I could give you a list of thousands of such examples, that are biased, poorly fact-checked, thin content written by school students (as described in author box) with the minimum words, click bait titles and thumbnails, baseless information, poor & extremely ambiguous sourcing... the total infrastructure of this media is total asinine!
 * Tho it would take some time for me to provide a comprehensive list. Here are some examples I could find from recent dates at this very moment (even if you have a minimum sense of the Bn language or you could use G translate, you would find that these articles do not make sense and definitely are not worthy of being used as source in Wikipedia. I mean the titles are enough to give you an idea about the whole site.)
 * 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
 * -- Tame (talk) 11:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Not RS: The English version of the site, suspiciously, uses poor English, eg. "Anushka died for using foreign body during perverted sex: CID", "Death toll from spurious liquor consumption jumps to 14 in Bogura", "Decision to scrap FF gallantry awards of Zia, four others" (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @Tayi Arajakate, That's what I was talking about. Thanks, @Buidhe for pointing out. The whole media is cringe. You would find 'literally' thousands of such instances. Like if you check out the [2] that I previously provided, the title reads in English "Half discount if you take your girlfriend with you [sic] while having your wife." -- Tame (talk) 09:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Wondering how I can use these PDFs in a published Google Drive folder
So I know about WP:PUBLISHED and how editors need to use sources that are directly available to the public. But I would like to use PDFs without linking to a Google Drive folder that can be taken down at any time. I'm specifically talking about these for the article I've started here. The page that points to this link is here. How can I do this properly? Do I upload them to Commons or something? Buffaboy talk 05:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Consider the copyright issue, as it seems the book was written after 1948: odds are it's still copyrighted in the US and Europe (normally 70 years after death of the author). Generally though, no problem if you have the right to post it on Wikimedia Commons. PS. I wonder why you ask the question here - there's a Village Pump at the Wikimedia Commons if you want to ask questions related to uploading files to the project. This is not the venue :). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 05:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes I was lost on where to go, but I think I'll approach them as well and see if they have any ideas as well. Thanks for the info. Buffaboy  talk 07:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) In this era of Photoshop, we don't consider clipping files and scans like this to be reliable sources. 2) These appear to be scans of some mimeoed self-published history compilation. Again, not a RS: WP:SPS. 3) These may be copyright violations as well. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  13:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, these are likely not to be copyright violations -- according to Google Books, this history was published in 1948. Given that the West Side Rowing Club is in Buffalo, NY, this is likely originally pubilshed in the US. Checking the copyright registrations for 1948 and 1949, I don't find this book registered. Under US copyright law at the time, if you published a book without registering the copyright, it went right in the public domain. (Even if they had registered copyright, they would've had to have renewed the copyright in 1976 for it to stay in effect.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * West Side Oars appears to be unpublished archival material held by the Buffalo History Museum: . It's probably not suitable as a source, unfortunately, absent evidence that it's been vetted or used in other sources. To answer your original question, I believe copyright in unpublished material is life of the author plus 70 years, or 120 years from date of creation if the death date is unknown. Mackensen (talk) 11:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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


 * In the absence of evidence of peered-reviewed publication, I'd say not. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Google Scholar query negative for peer-reviewed publications; so far he participated in some scientific conferences on linguistics and distributed handouts, but it's odd that no peer-reviewed publications are available, and citation of his materials has been minimal or absent. On the other hand, it might also reflect the fact there is next to no linguistic paper that would accept a source on such a niche topic, so he's left to present his findings on conferences only (to which he is accepted). Too hard to say. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

WhatDoTheyKnow.com and freedom of information requests
An editor has recently added a large amount of information to the Gatwick Airport drone incident article, citing WhatDoTheyKnow, a website that publishes British responses to Freedom of information requests. Lots of the writing/presentation of the information here is dubious imo, but that aside, is this OK to use as a source? Popcornfud (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)and I
 * For easy reference, here's a diff covering the edits I think Popcornfud is referring to. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think a site like that might be okay for sourcing noncontroversial factual details, but it's not going to prove those details are noteworthy enough for inclusion in the article. It's basically original research. Not necessarily incorrect, but we should be reporting what reliable sources are saying, not doing our own research.  —valereee (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , the information is technically correct - the best kind of correct! - but as you say, without third party sources, it seems WP:UNDUE, especially given the number of third party sources that cover the subject matter. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The FoI requests are reputably published in that I can be sure they are not altered, and the info presented there can be sourced for facts, as presented in point 3 of WP:PRIMARY, and they are properly attributed, which is good. For publishing answers to FoI requests, I'd trust WhatDoTheyKnow.
 * The problem is not with reliability but with the fact the section added is too heavily reliant of FoI requests. I'd personally incorporate some of the information into the "Events" section (the timing of first and last sightings, their frequency and the fact DfT has no idea how the drone looks like), but instructions on how police were to treat media are not relevant here. EDIT: Fixed - most of the edits from the user either concerned insignificant information or were WP:OR of FoI requests or even tweets (!). The discussion seems to be largely moot, as there was only one salvageable reference to an FoI request; other info was largely covered in the Events section (see diff) Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As others have said, the problem with WDTK isn't the reliability, it's the due weight of the information. FOIA requests themselves (regardless of name around the world) are generally not reliable for anything other than an attributed opinion to the organization/person filing the request. The response, assuming it's reputably published (i.e. can be virtually certain it wasn't altered/forged) is reliable for information that meets the requirements of primary sourcing to a government agency for factual information (or attributed opinion, when the released information is agency opinion/analysis) from the government in question. I agree with Szmenderowiecki that everything after the timeline appears undue. The timeline, as referenced, appears like it may be due weight to include (at least as a government-accepted timeline, and possibly as factual), and the fact the government admits to not having a description of the drone in question is likely due, but needs phrased more NPOV. The material regarding airport capabilities, and "should they have done more" is not due because at this point it's nothing more than "we don't know". The BBC reference is likely due weight as well, but does not support the cited material - other material may be included based on it that may be beneficial (specifically the specifics of geofencing and how it works) - but that's outside the scope of this noticeboard as the BBC is widely regarded as reliable and this is about the FOI requests/responses. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks all - I agree with the assessment of the WP:UNDUE situation etc, but wanted to make sure the FOI thing was legit first at all before I set about tackling it. I see another editor has already sorted it out on the page. Thanks again. Popcornfud (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)


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