Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 348

Should the opinion of a Wuhan University professor be stated as fact in an article about the Chinese government's persecution of Falun Gong?
For those unfamiliar with the Falun Gong topic area, please read the Freedom House report [here], for a comprehensive overview.

This discussion is concerning a dispute that took place here. In short, an editor inserted the opinions of James R. Lewis (professor at Wuhan University) and another pro-Chinese government scholar into the background section of article Persecution of Falun Gong, which seek to justify the Chinese government's persecution by saying that "Falun Gong practitioners are told to lie in their teachings". However, this is in direct conflict with findings by scholars such as professor David Ownby, who say that Falun Gong's core moral principles are truthfulness, compassion, and tolerance (included in the Freedom house report) and that Falun Gong's teachings over and over again come back to the notion of being good.

Additionally, Wuhan University is under the leadership of Chinese Communist Party committee secretaries, and that there is no academic freedom in China under the communist government. Therefore, one cannot rely on such sources. Further, expressed concern that the Wuhan U professor once showed support Aleph (Japanese cult), which makes him more unreliable.

I'm proposing that we delete the pro-Chinese government scholar's opinions cited in Persecution of Falun Gong due to the above reasons. Thomas Meng (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Should be attributed as opinion and sourced to a WP:RS.


 * What matters here is three-fold:
 * A) should we put this in wiki-voice? definitely not.
 * B) Should we include it at all? Only if it can be sourced to a WP:RS which demonstrates Lewis' opinion is WP:DUE inclusion
 * C) How should we include it? Only as an attributed opinion, because of the disputed nature of these concepts.
 * Otherwise, the inclusion breaks WP:NPOV for sure.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 22:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Can "an opinion ... be stated as a fact?" This is a loaded question, and a wrong one for this noticeboard. Yes, his views can be reliably sourced, and he reasonably qualify as an expert. Only that matters on the RSNB. Should it be included to the page? This is a very different question, and it should be decided on the article talk page. I would be very careful because of his coverage of Aum Shinrikyo, but perhaps his other work was better? I have no idea. My very best wishes (talk) 22:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , Right, I think the remaining questions that need to be answered here (or more appropriately on the article talk page or NPOV noticeboard) are:
 * 1) "Is this person's opinion covered by many other independent sources which cover the persecution of the Falun Gong? Or does it constitute a WP:FRINGE perspective?"
 * 2) "Is this a perspective that is already well represented in the article? And thus adding his opinion on top is creating a POV COATRACK that is undue?"
 * -- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 23:28, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I am sure that James R. Lewis is a mainstream scholar and not a fringe author. At the page Persecution of Falun Gong his book was used to source only one statement: Falun Gong founder Li Hongzhi instructs his followers to deflect from fact when talking to outsiders, contradictory to his teachings about "Truthfulness". Yes, I guess something like that could be said about many cults or religious groups. But I am not an expert, sorry. My very best wishes (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think that could very easily be reworked to be in attribution and therefore more NPOV:
 * Religious studies scholar James R. Lewis has criticized Falun Gong founder Li Hongzhi as providing contradictory teachings, on one hand instructing his followers to deflect from fact when talking to outsiders, and on the other emphasizing "Truthfulness".
 * Just my first pass as a total outsider to this topic.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 01:21, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, but Thomas Meng argued that views by James R. Lewis should not be at all included for the reasons he explained at talk page . After loosing the argument on article talk page (I think), he appears here to re-argue this again. I would rather stay away of this subject. Happy editing. My very best wishes (talk) 01:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with MVBW, the question is loaded. Professor Lewis is an expert in his field, his articles would normally be considered rs. This is really a matter of weight. You need to determine what the general view of Falon Gong is. David Ownby in fact gives some indication of this: "In my reading of what other people have said about Li Hongzhi [Founder of Falun Gong] they are very quick to single out strange remarks that he has made and to make fun of him." TFD (talk) 01:50, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, he may be an expert, it is still only his opinion, thus would need attribution.Slatersteven (talk) 09:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * When it comes to the presentation of academic/expert opinions we essentially have three scenarios:
 * 1) If the source’s opinion is in line with a clear academic/expert consensus, we can phrase it as being fact (in WP’s voice) - no need for in-text attribution.
 * 2) If the source’s opinion is in line with the views of a significant portion of academics/experts, we should phrase it as being an opinion - with in-text attribution.
 * 3) If the source’s opinion is a fringe viewpoint, we should not mention it at all.
 * I will leave it to others to determine which scenario applies in this case. Blueboar (talk) 11:27, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ,, , , Thank you all for opining here. Before I present some academic sources countering Lewis's view, I want to explain that my primary reason to reject Lewis's credibility was because of his alignment (and employment) with the Chinese Communist Party to brutally suppress a peaceful spiritual group, which has resulted in countless human rights atrocities including severe torture, extrajudicial killings, and state-sanctioned forced organ harvesting from Falun Gong believers. With this in mind, any attempt to justify the widely condemned persecution should be given particular scrunity (see this U.S. House resolution condemning the persecution).
 * This leads to my second point, which is that Lewis's research conflicts with that of Western scholars. Below are some academic sources elaborating on Falun Gong's teachings regarding truthfulness-compassion-tolerance as well as how they are persecuted by the CCP because of this:
 * 3) If the source’s opinion is a fringe viewpoint, we should not mention it at all.
 * I will leave it to others to determine which scenario applies in this case. Blueboar (talk) 11:27, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ,, , , Thank you all for opining here. Before I present some academic sources countering Lewis's view, I want to explain that my primary reason to reject Lewis's credibility was because of his alignment (and employment) with the Chinese Communist Party to brutally suppress a peaceful spiritual group, which has resulted in countless human rights atrocities including severe torture, extrajudicial killings, and state-sanctioned forced organ harvesting from Falun Gong believers. With this in mind, any attempt to justify the widely condemned persecution should be given particular scrunity (see this U.S. House resolution condemning the persecution).
 * This leads to my second point, which is that Lewis's research conflicts with that of Western scholars. Below are some academic sources elaborating on Falun Gong's teachings regarding truthfulness-compassion-tolerance as well as how they are persecuted by the CCP because of this:


 * State and Society in Twenty-first Century China: Crisis, Contention, and Legitimation. (Routledge, 2005)




 * ("Eric Voegelin’s Asian Political Thought," Lee Trepanier Ed. (Lexington Books 2020)




 * Penny, Benjamin. The Religion of Falun Gong. The University of Chicago Press. p.124




 * Ownby, David. Falun Gong and the Future of China. Oxford University Press. p. 93.


 * I think Lewis's research is WP:UNDUE because of the above two reasons. Look forward to your response. Thanks, Thomas Meng (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, a classic propaganda drop. Of course, the reality is rather different than the above snippets would have one believe. 10:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If the source’s opinion is in line with a clear academic/expert consensus, we can phrase it as being fact (in WP’s voice) - no need for in-text attribution. This strikes me as misleading.  That situation essentially requires that a non-opinion source for it exists, which makes the opinion source redundant; nothing controversial or exceptional could be cited that way, and even for uncontroversial and unexceptional things it would be better to find the necessary non-opinion source eventually.  Even if someone is the greatest scholar on a subject in the entire world, when they're posting on their blog it is still just their opinion on their blog, and should not be cited for facts. --Aquillion (talk) 12:15, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I would agree that when an opinion is in line with academic/expert consensus, there will probably be a better (even MORE reliable) source that could (and even should) be cited. But that does not negate how we treat the opinion source. Blueboar (talk) 12:54, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


 * It is probably worth mentioning that Lewis started working at Wuhan University in 2019 and the publication in question was published in 2017, while he was at the University of Tromsø in Norway. - MrOllie (talk) 22:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Beware: Read this first
Ignore the resident Falung Gong-aligned adherents, Lewis is clearly an expert who has written about the Falun Gong's attempts at controlling English Wikipedia's coverage of the group. For those of you fortunate enough to be unaware of the nasty situation over at Falun Gong, Shen Yun, The Epoch Times, and any of English Wikipedia's article's for the many other ultra right-wing, extreme fringe groups associated with the Falun Gong new religious movement, there's long been a concerted efforted by some, shall we say, groups of very concerned resident watchers of those pages to promote Falun Gong talking points and outright scrub all of Wikipedia's coverage of anything they deem to be criticism. I've witnessed it myself dozens of times. Lewis even writes about this—stating outright that "Falun Gong followers or sympathizers de facto control Wikipedia's FLAG-pages" (p. 30)—in the following peer-reviewed source:


 * Lewis, James R. 2018. "Falun Gong: Spiritual Warfare and Martyrdom". Cambridge University Press. (Link)

Here's some fairly recent coverage from The New York Times on the recent activities of this particular new religious movement and its growing media empire. These Falun Gong-aligned resident editors regularly lobby to have anything that does not fall in line with Falun Gong's preferred public-facing image removed from these pages. They're relentless, have been doing it for a decade, and won't stop unless blocked. Lewis is an expert who this group of page-watchers regularly attempts to remove from these pages. And he's not alone—Falun Gong adherents regularly harass scholars, particularly any who may have any kind of connection to China. Don't fall for it. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 07:29, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Baha'u'llah - The King of Glory
Is Baha'u'llah - The King of Glory (1980) by Hasan M. Balyuzi a reliable source on the history of Baha'u'llah?

Hasan M. Balyuzi served as a Hand of the Cause, which was one of the most elite positions in the Baha'i administration and seems to have major conflict of interest with the subject. While Balyuzi had studied diplomatic history in LSE, this book has been published by George Ronald, which is a religious/non-academic publisher. The book's title also does not suggest impartiality.

Denis MacEoin (1983) writes about this book:

"The only full-length biographies of Mīrzā Ḥusayn ʿAlī to date are two emphatically hagiographical works: M. A. Fayḍī Ḥayāt-i Ḥaḍrat-i Bahāʾ Allāh (Tehran, 1969) and the more recent study by Balyuzi referred to above (Bahāʾuʾllāh)."

Because this book was one of the earliest full biographies of Mīrzā Ḥusayn ʿAlī, it has been cited frequently by tertiary sources such as Iranica.

In his review of the book, Peter Smith (2009) writes:

"Mr. Balyuzi makes no secret that his approach to Baha'i history is that of a committed Baha'i for whom the Bab and Baha'u'llah were manifestations of God."

However, he does not consider the book mere hagiography and believes it contains honest account of what actually has happened.

Would you please comment on reliability of this book in Wikipedia? Taha (talk) 03:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I can't comment on the reliability of the work as I have no expertise in the subject. I would say, however, that the status of the author as a believer in Baha'i is irrelevant to reliability, and that sources which follow a particular historiographical perspective are entirely acceptable when cited in the context of conflicting views. There are many citations, for example, to Muslim scholars on relevant pages, and Roman Catholics on those relating to that denomination. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

RenewEconomy
Could RenewEconomy be considered as a reliable source for Australian energy related news — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueButterBeer (talk • contribs) 10:24, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Internetworldstats reliability
In the "Languages used on the internet" article this site is used "https://www.internetworldstats.com", but after browsing it a bit I don't think it's reliable "https://www.internetworldstats.com/apps.htm" --Greatder (talk) 10:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Cape Cod Canal
I'm a total novice at Wikipedia. I just thought I would add a historical reference to the article on the Cape Cod Canal and expand the resources for those interested in the topic. Instead, I got a nasty note from some anonymous reviewer who simply removed the piece of historical information that I added. He insists that I have a conflict of interest and demands I go somewhere else (he won't give a link) to tell somebody else about my big conflict. Yes, I wrote a book on the Cape Cod Canal. Yes, I listed it there. Can anyone help me?

Managing a conflict of interest Information icon Hello, Tim11311. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Cape Cod Canal, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors; propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template); disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI); avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam); do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies. In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Bbb23 (talk) 13:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

OK, so how do we get a third party to decide if the book Images of America: Cape Cod Canal, can be listed on the Wikipedia page for the Cape Cod Canal? Yes, I wrote it. In the real world, that makes me a scholar, not some kind of fraud. Vet this one question and I promise to never edit another Wikipedia entry again.

First, you need to follow the instructions in the notice above to declare your conflict. Second, you can raise the issue on the Talk page of Cape Cod Canal and/or at WP:RSN.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC) Conflict of Interest? Hi! I'm new to editing Wikipedia. I have a Ph.D. and teach history at a university. I wrote a book about the Cape Cod Canal. Yesterday I wanted to quickly check a fact, and noticed that the entry was rather vague and doesn't even list my book, which is a standard reference by Arcadia Press. I didn't change anything in the text. I noticed that a paragraph was missing a lot of detail and was marked as needing a reference. So I added detail to the end of the paragraph, and referenced my book, which I also placed in for further reading. This morning I got a note that an editor had removed all of my content because he thought I had a conflict of interest.

Yes, I have a Ph.D. Yes I spent two years researching the topic and wrote a book published by the country's leading publisher of local history. I wrote the book for Historic New England, so I do not get any royalties from it. So if this is a conflict of interest, then I guess I'm wasting my time trying to help improve Wikipedia?Tim11311 (talk) 15:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Citing one's own work often comes across as spammy. The proper venue would be to bring the source up on the article's talk page or at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and let users without a connexion to the book judge it on its merits. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 15:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC) Hello, Tim11311. Expert editors are very welcome at Wikipedia; but they often find it frustrating because our policy of verifiability means that a non-expert with a reliably published source generally trumps an expert without one. As for citing your own book: that is regarded as a conflict of interest; but that doesn't mean you cannot help at all: what you need to to is to make an edit request to add material cited to your book, so that an uninvolved editor will make the final editorial decision. Please have a look at expert editors. --ColinFine (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2021 (UTC) @Tim11311: Adding your own book to "further reading" will often trigger a closer look at the conflict of interest issue. More generally, if a reference is cited, it is usually not also placed in the "further reading" section. That said, we really do need your help, so please do work through the request edit mechanism whenever another editor raises a COI question. Unfortunately, the anonymous crowdsourced nature of our editorial review process leaves us with no other choice for maintaining a neutral point of view, even in a case like this where we clearly benefit from your expertise. -Arch dude (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2021 (UTC) @Tim11311: For academic research, it is not necessarily prohibited to cite one's own publication in an edit you make. The policy is at WP:SELFCITE. The main point is that the citation must be relevant and conform to Wikipedia's usual content policies (e.g. regarding neutral point of view). If in doubt, then discussion on the article's Talk Page is the best way forward, as others have stated. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim11311 (talk • contribs)
 * Frustrating indeed. I am writing a few minutes after you've posted it, so obviously I haven't gotten a hold of your book and looked through it or anything, but this whole thing seems like it has been a huge pain in the ass. I will take a look at the discussions in question and see what can be done. jp×g 15:14, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have looked at the addition in question. I have no idea what the hell happened here (and have re-added it); the citation was relevant, and moreover was attached to a full paragraph of original writing that was very obviously related to the topic. I assume that the interaction you had was borne of fatigue; I have done thousands of reverts on Special:RecentChanges and, while the vast majority of them have been absolute garbage edits or vandalism or spam, I have done a number things which I later realized were unwise (usually due to the reverted editor leaving me a pissed-off talk page message). is this simply an error, or must the good doctor go through an intermediary every time he wishes to add something about his field of study? If so, I volunteer to serve this role. jp×g 15:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't intend to take any more action in this.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

topinfoguide
https://topinfoguide.com - reliable source, or spam? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Could the articles on Synthesizers.com be considered as a reliable source on modular synths?
I am planning to expand the Moog synthesizer page with information about replicas or clones of the original modular synth.

Today, the format of the said synth is known as Moog Unit and it is an important information regarding replicas/clones as most cloned modules follow this format. However what we mean today by Moog Unit is a bit complicated, as there are differences compared to the original synth that were designed more than 50 years ago. For example, while the panel sizes of the modules are the same, you cannot put newly made modules produced by third party vendors into an old Moog synthesizer because of power supply differences. Technically speaking, the Moog Unit format didn't really exist before about the year 2000, as no other company wanted to make modules adhering to the panel formats of the old Moog modular synths till then.

The problem is that the best source I could find about this topic is the website of the Synthesizers.com company, founded by Roger Arrick. He is the one who defined what Moog Unit is today and his company was the first one to produce modules in this format other than Moog. He wrote articles about this format, how and why he changed things compared to the original and why he wanted to create this format in the first place. Examples of such articles: https://shop.synthesizers.com/pages/moog-compare or https://shop.synthesizers.com/pages/moog-modular. Unfortunately I have been unable to find secondary sources of such detail regarding what the Moog Unit is and how it is relevant to clones. The only secondary sources I could find were more like summaries, such as https://www.attackmagazine.com/technique/technique-modular-synthesis/different-flavors-of-modular-synthesizers/ or https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/sos-guide-choosing-modular-synth

The question is, could the articles written by Roger Arrick on his company's website be considered reliable? I agree that it is a kind of WP:SELFPUBLISH and that he wrote these articles at least partly with the intention of marketing his products. However, as I've stated before, no third party sources I could find went this deep into the topic with such clear explanations.

StingR (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * A company writing about their own products falls under WP:ABOUTSELF—they're clearly experts about their own products, though we have to assume that those articles are inherently self-serving. We could maybe use them to fill in uncontroversial details already covered in some detail by reliable, independent sources, but the third-party sources need to come first. Woodroar (talk) 19:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Woodroar. Just to clear up any potential misunderstandings: Synthesizers.com citations can only be used strictly in combination with third party sources (such as the ones I linked) and on the page, the third party citations must come before the Synthesizers.com citations in the order. In addition, these third party sources also give a decent overview on the topic, which is in this use case, with the aforementioned restrictions, can be supplemented with the Synthesizers.com citations. Is that correct? StingR (talk) 22:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, by "before" I meant that we first need to write the article based on reliable, independent sources. They tell us what's important enough to cover. And then we can add uncontroversial details from sources like synthesizers.com. I'll give an example that may sound silly and/or ignorant—I own a Moogerfooger MF-102 but that pedal is the extent of my Moog knowledge. Let's say there's a popular song that uses a specific Moog waveform filter, as noted by reliable sources. Normally, we might write something like this: The song's distinctive sound comes from a Moog synthesizer's [specific filter]. But perhaps we can add some technical detail from synthesizers.com, like this: The song's distinctive sound comes from a Moog synthesizer's [frequency range and waveform type] [specific filter]. We're letting third-party sources guide the article, but allowing the synthesizers.com source to enhance those sources with minor details. As long as we're not getting into self-serving marketing, that usage should be fine. Does that make sense? Woodroar (talk) 23:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * In addition to Woodroar's advice: We have to be careful with the WP:ABOUTSELF characterization. WP:ABOUTSELF is only applicable to Roger Arrick writing about what he himself did. What he writes about third parties, including Moog, is subject to him being a subject-matter expert who has published about the topic in reliable sources (WP:SPS) and I don't think he fits this criteria (?). The thing is if you can't find good sources about something, then it's probably not as encyclopedic as you initially thought. JBchrch   talk  23:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a great point. Do reliable sources consider Roger Arrick an expert? Is he cited or consulted for claims about synthesizers? We might need to see evidence of that first. Woodroar (talk) 23:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, he is cited by third parties as such, here are some examples: https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/sos-guide-choosing-modular-synth, https://tylerpaper.com/news/local/sound-of-music-tyler-business-making-analog-synthesizers/article_09358fbf-6314-5102-9baa-390c39c9b6aa.html or https://www.synthtopia.com/content/2015/05/16/introduction-to-modular-synthesizers/.


 * Maybe I wasn't clear, but what he writes about Moog synths is only interesting when it comes to differences he made compared to the original synth, when he created the modern Moog Unit format. In practice, everything that I would cite from his page in addition to third parties would be about the modern Moog Unit synths and also his company to some extent, to provide a background history on this modular synth format. This is important because there are a bunch of other vendors who follow Roger's technical specifications to create accurate clones of Moog modules both in sound and behavior in order to maintain compatibility with other Moog Unit vendors' modules and systems. For example, these modern modules are compatible with +-15 V power supplies, originally used in Roger's modular synths, but are incompatible with the original Moog synths' +12V -6V power supplies. As a result, despite the same panel size, you can't put them into a Moog system, unless you use converters of some sorts.


 * As an interesting fact, basically none of the modules made by Roger's company, Synthesizers.com are actual replicas, instead, they are modern designs with the same panel format and feel as the original. So his products are of little interest when it comes to the Moog synthesizer page. The only exception being the Q960 Sequencer module that he produces, because it is a replica of the Moog 960 Sequencer module. I plan to "name-drop" other vendors whose product line includes the actual replicas, but that would be weird without providing the historical and technical context that I mentioned above. For these vendors, I happen to have found good third party sources. StingR (talk) 09:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Carbon Brief revisited
In 2018 we debated Carbon Brief in this archived thread. I participated. I viewed its RS value as ambiguous then and that's still my opinion.

FYI the subject has resurfaced. Per the WP:TPG the centralized discussion can be found at Talk:Tipping_points_in_the_climate_system.

Experienced RSN thinkers are invited to add your own thoughts over there. I'm going to close discussion here so it stays centralized. Thanks for reading. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Newsweek (2021 to Present)
Currently we have a consensus that Newsweek pre-2013 is WP:RS and Newsweek 2013 to present should be used with caution. Is Newsweek 2021 to Present RS? This is not an RfC but I'm hoping it can be a bit more structured than a sentiment check. Chetsford (talk) 05:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Reliable In 2018, IBT Media - which acquired Newsweek in 2013 - divested itself. While there were a smattering of issues post-2018, these generally involved employment disputes (e.g. this issue involving reporter pay structure ) versus editorial issues. Our only standard to evaluate the reliability of media is if other, known RS, consider that media reliable and Wikipedia cannot establish higher standards for reliability than RS themselves have established.
 * Reliable sources don't cite unreliable sources. In just the last 60 days, original reporting by Newsweek has been sourced by nj.com, The Hill , Black Enterprise , KXTV-TV , the Atlanta Journal Constitution , the Jerusalem Post , the Washington Post , the Kaiser Family Foundation , and others.
 * Since the start of the year, it has been subjected to two fact checks (that I've been able to find), from Reuters, which it passed, and from Snopes which it also passed.
 * It also bears noting that the current Editor-in-Chief, Nancy Cooper, is from the pre-IBT days and the Deputy Editor, Dianne Harris, spent 14 years at the helm of Money. They have a gatekeeping process, the personnel capacity to conduct reporting, and a physical presence by which they can be held liable for what they publish. While this is obviously not the Newsweek of 1995, it's also not the Newsweek of 2015. Chetsford (talk) 05:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Not yet. Your Reuters fact check doesn't actually fact-check a Newsweek story; rather it fact checks a falsehood that Newsweek ran a cover that declared Clinton the victor in 2016 (it didn't, though a company it subcontracts for its graphic arts did develop mock-ups of both possible covers well in advance of the election, a common industry practice).  The Snopes fact check is a rather unimportant story about a crashed truck carrying ramen noodles.  Hardly the sort of thing we'd even write about at Wikipedia.  Among your other citations are similarly minor stories about things like viral mukbang videos.  The AJC citation is on the right track, as it is a citation of for a serious (though minor) news story about a diverted plane, I'd still chalk that one up under the "even a broken clock is right twice a day" type of thing.  I don't see where you've presented any convincing evidence that Newsweek's editorial practices have changed since the start of the year.  In August 2020, The New Republic was still calling it a Zombie Magazine, and notes serious issues at the publication which were rampant only a short time before it published its analysis.  Cherry picking a few times that a Newsweek story has been occasionally cited isn't enough.  I see no evidence that its general reputation has improved at all.  -- Jayron 32 19:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

Voting for question 1 (WikiLeaks)

 * Option 2. Avoid using WikiLeaks for ongoing controversies or if there is coverage by RS. All for using WikiLeaks as the only source, particularly when English courts accept them as evidence, if verifiable information (facts) are mentioned in the document; opinions should be evaluated for being WP:DUE. Their selection may exhibit owners' bias, but taken one-by-one, the documents seem to be all right, and no one has shown that any of the documents were forged or doctored, as Alaexis correctly points out. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 04:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 2. I don't think WikiLeaks ought to be cited directly in most circumstances it tends to cover (usually if it's notable enough RS picks up the slack) but for small clerical bits and bobs of foreign policy I don't see an issue. Paragon Deku (talk) 05:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 4. Wikileaks, itself, performs no fact-checking or verification.  Therefore, things there do not pass the definition of "published" in WP:RS or WP:OR and cannot be cited directly under any circumstances, fullstop.  I would consider Wikileaks (when used alone) a remove-on-sight source and I'm baffled that anyone would argue otherwise - it is no different from self-publishing in this context. If a secondary source covers it, we can rely on what they say, but only for the parts they specifically mention, since only those parts have been published; the argument, which some people are trying to make in the linked thread, that we could say "well, this trove of documents is validated in this source, therefore we can go through it and pull out anything we please even if it has no other coverage" is straightforward WP:OR. --Aquillion (talk) 06:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * WikiLeaks does, in fact, verify the authenticity of documents before it publishes them. The most famous leaks published by WikiLeaks are all widely acknowledged to be genuine: the Camp Delta Standard Operating Procedures, the US diplomatic cables, the Afghan War Diary, the Iraq War Logs, the Guantánamo Files and the Syria Files. Several of these publications were carried out in collaboration with major international newspapers, including Le Monde, The Guardian, Der Spiegel, the New York Times and El País. I don't believe any document published by WikiLeaks has ever been shown to be fake. If you have seen evidence to the contrary, then please post it. Otherwise, it looks like WikiLeaks has a very strong track record of authenticating documents before publication. Whether those documents are usable is a completely different matter, because they may be primary sources, they may express opinions, etc. But they are genuine documents. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Option 2. Generally reliable per WP:USEBYOTHERS and no evidence of tampering. Probably should not be used as the only source for controversial statements or in BLP context and in general should be treated as a primary source. Alaexis¿question? 06:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 4. I completely agree with Aquillion's rationale above. ElKevbo (talk) 06:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 2. I agree it fits WP:USEBYOTHERS. There are some cases when it is used to supplement or reinforce claims made elsewhere in investigative journalism and whatnot. In that case, you should probably refer to the sources doing that though I suppose it might not be necessary to also link to Wikileaks in that case. FelipeFritschF (talk) 07:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 4. Wikileaks is an indiscriminate collection of communications and internal files leaked by a website with a very specific political agenda. The documents themselves are not official in any sense of the word: they have only been drafted by government employees, often with very little oversight and—obviously—no peer-review or editorial standards. Moreover, they have been covered by many, many press articles from highly-reliable source: if editors cannot find a press article covering the leak in question, this should be an indication that it is dubious. The WP:USEBYOTHERS argument is not applicable here, because Wikileaks is, functionally, documentation center: it would be like citing files from historic archives, directly, on the grounds that professional historians use them. JBchrch (talk) 10:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Unless I am misunderstanding your use of the phrase "historic archives", such files are used quite frequently as references in all sorts of articles about old stuff. jp×g 20:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I am mostly addressing the USEDBYOTHERS argument made above. The fact that experienced journalists are using leaked emails as the basis of their reporting does not make it acceptable (in my view) for editors to use such materials as sources on the basis of USEDBYOTHERS. On your point about archive documents: yes, you sometimes see them, but (as I understand) the real standard (i.e. the one used at WP:FA) is that it's not the recommended way to source articles. JBchrch (talk) 00:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Never trust anything you read from unreliable sources, such as Wikipedia. According to the Wikipedia article you are citing, Wikileaks has promoted a conspiracy theory "that Hillary Clinton wanted to drone strike Assange". On its face, it looks like this content was added by some POV pusher who did not consider the context.If one actually reads the source, it is a Snopes fact-check about a Tweet by Wikileaks. The tweet actually promotes a claim in a report by True Pundit, which attributes the droning claim to "State Department sources". Snopes considered the claim questionable, but was unable to disprove it, rating the claim "Unproven". Clinton did not categorically deny the claim; according to Snopes, Clinton did not "recall any joke ... [reference to targeting Assange with a drone] would have been a joke". Moreover, Snopes based its analysis on some governmental documents published by Wikileaks without questioning their authenticity, which undercuts your argument that Wikileaks is unreliable. Politrukki (talk) 12:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 2. We should treat Wikileaks closer to how we treat a publisher of user-generated content (e.g. YouTube) than how we treat a publisher of in-house journalistic works (e.g. a Newspaper). Content on Wikileaks is a mix of verified and unverified, notable and non-notable, works by a massive range of authors some of whom are subject-matter experts, some of whom are random people on the internet. In most cases the copy of Wikileaks can be regarded as an accurate copy of the primary source documents, without guarantee (in most cases) that every document that is part of a set is present, but the reliability of the documents themselves must be evaluated individually. Thryduulf (talk) 10:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 2 I agree with everything Thryduulf says above. It would be taken on a case by case basis and attributed appropriately. Spudlace (talk) 10:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 2 Should ONLY be used in conjunction with reliable secondary sources that have vetted the specific information being cited. Basically, if someone like the New York Times has written an article about something in Wikileaks, then it may be OK to also cite Wikileaks alongside it to cite a specific quote or paraphrase, HOWEVER, it should be treated like a primary source otherwise, and should also never be used to cite something that has not already been vetted in reliable sources which are also cited in Wikipedia.  I am very leery of using results of random data scrapes from Wikileaks and accepting the results of that as sufficient to cite some statement at Wikipedia, no matter how banal.  If it only exists in Wikileaks, and no other reliable source has vetted it, it's a hard no from me.  -- Jayron 32 12:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 3 or 4 In principle, I think there might be cases where a document posted to Wikileaks is useable, but in practice, such situations are very difficult, perhaps even impossible to find or even formulate as hypotheticals.
 * With respect to the claim about documents on WL being primary: in many cases, they're quite clearly not primary. A recent example I saw was a cable purporting to be from a US embassy describing the membership of a Laotian political committee. It's clearly not a primary source with regards to that, as it doesn't purport to be from the Laotian government, nor any member of it, but from a US embassy; undoubtedly a third party.
 * However, the reliability of documents on WL is highly debatable. There's no system of checks and balances, no chain of custody, and usually no way for a WP editor to verify the accuracy or provenance of the documents. They might and indeed probably are what they purport to be, but we have nothing but WL's rabid anti-secrecy stance to evince that. But we also know that WL has a right-wing, or at least conspiratorial bias, and numerous connections to Russian anti-democratic cyberwarfare actors. We even know that they don't always support their own principles, as WL and Assange were notoriously critical of the Panama Papers. We also know that they claimed that the Clinton email leak did not come from a Russian source, when virtually every cybersecurity expert out there was in agreement that it did.
 * Even though I generally believe that the documents on WL are what they purport to believe, I cannot dismiss the possibility that WL would allow or even engage in the forging of leaked documents, and they provide no mechanism to assure us that they haven't.
 * So in any case in which a document leaked to WL is to be cited, I would instead seek to cite coverage of that document in reliable sources, instead. At the very least, I would cite both the document on WL, and the RS that vetted the document. If no RS has vetted any particular document, then I would not cite it at all, absent a compelling (and hitherto unimagined by me) argument. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Option 1 (WikiLeaks has a strong record of validating documents) and Option 2 (additional considerations apply when using these documents). Option 2 is the obvious answer. WikiLeaks hosts various types of leaked documents. It's impossible to give one single rating to all the documents, because they're so different from one another. If ever there was a case of "additional considerations apply", this is it. WikiLeaks has a very strong record of verifying the authenticity of the documents it publishes, and I don't think there is any known case of WikiLeaks having published fake documents (contrary to the evidence-free speculation by some editors above). Some of WikiLeaks' publications are extremely well known and have been vetted by numerous other organizations: the US diplomatic cables, the Afghan War Diary, the Iraq War Logs and the Syria Files come to mind. The reliability of the claims made in any of these documents would have be be determined on a case-by-case basis, taking into account who wrote the document, the claim being sourced, etc. Most of the documents are also primary sources, which would obviously affect how they can be used. As I said, additional considerations apply. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC) (Updated based on 's clarification of what the options mean. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC))
 * Option 4, per Aquillion. --JBL (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 2. I don't see any evidence that WikiLeaks has falsified information. I see the claim that they are "rabid", but not that they are unreliable; the political opinions of the people who run a website do not magically make the content on it unusable. Sure, it is great to back it up with a second reference to another RS, but that's true of basically anything. The claim that "well, I think the New York Times is trash because they're a bunch of libs" doesn't cast substantial doubt on the fact that, generally, the NYT is a reliable source for factual statements; I don't see why it is any different for WL. jp×g 20:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 2 (with overlap in opinion on the question to Thucydides411). And I'm just spitballing here, but — I would recommend looking at potentially some sort of time divider similar to Newsweek here, because I think they had a much better reputation for integrity pre-2016 (or so). --Chillabit (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 4. I have had enough of this bullshit. This is not actually a RS quesiton, it's an attempt by the Assangites to crowbar Wikileaks into the project in defiance of a blindingly obvious WP:UNDUE failure, but their determination makes it necessary to be unambiguous. No. We absolutely do not include stolen copies of primary sources published on a site that has been a Russian intelligence asset for at least five years, because of course we fucking don't. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 1. Wikileaks has a process for verifying documents prior to publication. It has published an enormous number of documents and, while there have been general claims that Wikileaks has published fake documents, I haven't seen a case where a specific fake document was identified. It is clear why some people or organisations would like to claim Wikileaks is unreliable. The documents themselves should be treated as primary sources. Any statements or claims made within the documents published by Wikileaks may be erroneous but that is a separate matter. Burrobert (talk) 22:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 1 per Burrobert Tyrone Madera (talk) 23:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * , sure, we know: as far as you are concerned, being on Wikileaks means that something is true, and of unambiguous significance. Only issue is, one in eight of your 4,000 edits is to, or Talk, and 100% of them are Assangite boosterism. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "being on Wikileaks means that something is true, and of unambiguous significance": I said that a document being on Wikileaks means we can trust that it is genuine. The claims made within the document are a separate issue. I didn't comment on the significance of any document and the RfC is not asking us to address that issue. The significance of any particular document on Wikileaks should be determined in accordance with existing procedures for treating primary documents. Burrobert (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The source cited here for its fact-checking process (which is from 2009 and so possibly out of date for more recent material anyway) does not inspire confidence: The number of people involved in the verification process, as with the rest of Wikileaks, is unclear. But Wikileaks claims to have published 1.2 million documents in three years. This means its - presumably extensive - team of volunteers receives, verifies and publishes over 1,000 documents every day... There is fake content on Wikileaks. A whistleblower, who asked to remain anonymous, admitted to submitting fabricated documents to Wikileaks to see what it would do. The documents were flagged as potential fakes, but the whistleblower felt that the decision to publish the documents had "an impact on their credibility"... most of the members of the advisory board to whom Wired spoke admitted that they had little involvement with Wikileaks, and have not done much "advising". "I'm not really sure what the advisory board means," says Ben Laurie, a computer- security expert and member of the board "since before the beginning". "It's as mysterious as the rest of Wikileaks."... Phillip Adams, an Australian journalist, is listed as an advisor. But he told Wired that he had "resigned early on because of workload and health issues". BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * An anonymous person claims that they submitted fake documents, which WikiLeaks correctly flagged as fake. Meanwhile, all of WikiLeaks' major publications are widely considered to be genuine. These include the Camp Delta Standard Operating Procedures, the US diplomatic cables, the Afghan War Diary, the Iraq War Logs, the Guantánamo Files and the Syria Files. For many of these, WikiLeaks worked with major newspapers, such as Le Monde, El País and the New York Times. Look, if you want to argue that WikiLeaks cannot be trusted to validate documents, then you'll have to address the fact that its major publications are widely considered genuine, and you'll have to provide some actual evidence that WikiLeaks is unreliable. I haven't seen anyone in this thread do so yet, which makes the "Option 4" votes quite puzzling. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Option 4 Per Aquillion and others. Wikileaks has never been a reliable source, and has only gotten less reliable as Assange's infatuation with Trump grew. Security experts have repeatedly cautioned about accepting Wikileaks dumps at face value, and given Wikileaks intentional obfuscation, and outright lies, about its sources, which it weaponizes to achieve its political goals as in the Seth Rich case, it should be abundantly clear that they cannot be trusted. Any outlet that intentionally weaponizes disinformation should not even be considered as a source for Wikipedia.NonReproBlue (talk) 01:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 4. This is a questionable source, a disorderly collection of WP:PRIMARY claims some of which may be outright wrong of very difficult to properly interpret. In any event, one needs other secondary RS that provide proper context. But if there are such RS, then the claim can be cited with a reference to the secondary RS, not Wikileaks themselves. My very best wishes (talk) 03:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 2 - it is generally concluded by reliable sources that WikiLeaks is accurately portraying the documents as they are there. However, care should be taken as to which documents are used, and they are all in any case primary sources for subject matter talked about, unless they are finished copies of documents that summarize other sources - and even then, they're less usable than other secondary sources. Their obvious bias doesn't matter - we don't require sources to be unbiased at all - and in fact there are multiple obviously biased sources that are perfectly reliable sources (looking at CNN, as an obviously biased but still reliable source, as an example). Note that the "published" argument does not apply either - because "published" doesn't mean that it's accessible to the public - and completed government documents are not unreliable simply because they are or were classified and thus never published in a public source. As a primary source, documents from WikiLeaks can be used - but I echo the concerns of many here who have said that it would be preferable to find coverage of the documents and cite that instead - if only for the added encyclopedic information such coverage may provide. In a case where no other coverage exists but a document on WikiLeaks expresses a significant and encyclopedic view, it can be cited as reliable. No evidence has been provided that WikiLeaks is systematically altering documents or forging information, and in fact reliable sources don't believe they do so. TLDR: see jzg's !vote. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 4 Per Guy & MVBW, its potentially a useful research tool, but it should at no point be cited as a source in an article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 2 - Seems fairly straightforward option. Basically treat it as a primary source with all the considerations that go with that. RS seem to treat them as reliable for authentic documents. Lacking any substantial reasoning beyond "Assange/Trump BAD!" I see no reason to black list them or treat them as unreliable for what they are. On the contrary, as brought up by others above, their repeated use by other RS is a strong indication that they would be acceptable. Just have to keep in mind the primary nature and careful of UNDUE. PackMecEng (talk) 11:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 3 They seem to (or have least been heavily accused) of just info-dumping. They may well all be true, in that they are real documents, but not that what is contained within those documents is true (after all they published the Xenu bad SF story).Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * WikiLeaks is not reliable. If there's something interesting there, let journalists do their job and then cite them - First, the question is bizarre. This is formatted like a typical source RfC but the question isn't about reliability for Wikipeda, but whether it's "reliable for publication of genuine government documents". That's why I didn't just choose an option. Look, WikiLeaks is at best just a host for documents/uploads like Scribd or Etherpad or Dropbox or whatever. Add to that questions over authenticity (no, we don't need to come to a decision about whether or not they're genuine to know that there have been a lot of questions raised in reliable sources) and of course we shouldn't cite it. If it has something useful, let someone else vet it and link to it. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 14:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * RFC choices aren't a good fit in this case. I agree with Rhododendrites above.  This RfC is not a good fit since Wikileaks is not so much a publisher as a repository or primary source.  A document on Wikileaks may be cited but only if a RS has discussed it.  If the WSJ discusses contents of a document on Wikileaks then it may be appropriate to also link to the document.  We might do something similar with a statement from the SEC.  "The SEC released a statement saying they opened an investigation [cite RS, cite SEC statement on SEC page]".  An edit like this is OK "According to the NYT documents released by Wikileaks showed the State Department issued a request to... [cite NYT, cite specific wikileak document <- must be clear from RS this is the correct document]"  In this case the wikileaks document is a supplement to the RS's statements.  It isn't a requirement.  It would never be OK to cite the Wikileaks document absent a RS. For this reason I can see why editors have picked both option 2 and option 4.  Springee (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 1-2, depending on what the question is, exactly. Yes, Wikileaks documents are genuine government documents (or sometimes documents from banks or other institutions). Those documents themselves may contain unreliable or inaccurate information. So in general, information on Wikipedia that's sourced to Wikileaks documents should be attributed to Wikileaks and the government document. The only case where attribution may be dropped is when the information has been verified elsewhere (e.g. by a reliable secondary or tertiary source). In that case however we may still want to attribute to the government document, particularly if its publication was the reason the information came to be more widely known. -Darouet (talk) 15:08, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 2 - First: Wikileaks is not a source, but a host site for primary documents. Wikileaks is more like publisher than an author.  That said - Since the possibility exists that a document uploaded to Wikileaks may have been edited or changed from the original, we can not rely on the version hosted on Wikileaks for information. We can ONLY rely on the original, or copies that have been verified to be “true and accurate copies” of the original (example, copies that have been submitted as evidence in a court case).  Now... if the version on Wikileaks HAS been compared to the original, and can be verified to be “true and accurate”, THEN we can cite the original and use the version on Wikileaks as a courtesy link.
 * There is one exception to this. IF a document appearing on Wikileaks is itself the subject of discussion by independent sources (say in a news story about was leaked), the version on Wikileaks can be cited as a primary source for itself (ie the text that appears on Wikileaks).  The key is that it must NOT be cited as if it were the original document. Instead, it should be cited as a separate document on its own - with appropriate attribution (example: “Text of document downloaded to Wikileaks, purporting to be document XYZ” not “Text of document XYZ”). Blueboar (talk) 15:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, if a Wikileaks document was cited and discussed in other sources, then the claim can be cited with a reference to other sources (+ the courtesy link), but I do not see this as "option 2" when the source (Wikileaks) is regarded as an RS by itself. My very best wishes (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Option 4 seems to be the best fit out of the possibilities given, but I'll concur with the sentiments above that it's kind of a weird question to ask. Like said, it's like holding an RfC for the reliability of Scribd. Let the journalists do their job, after which we can do ours. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 4 - WikiLeaks would seem to be the quintessential case of an unreliable source. The documents it hosts are admittedly stolen, and we have no confirmed information as to what, if any, steps have been taken to ensure that they are authentically sourced and unaltered.  Indeed, WikiLeaks itself accepts anonymous submissions.  The face of WikiLeaks is Julian Assange, who has been on the run from the law for years.  The mere fact that, in some cases, reliable sources have used particular WikiLeaks documents that they believe they have been able to authenticate seems like weak justification indeed for treating WikiLeaks as reliable.  If there are particular documents that it is appropriate to cite, they should be cited to the reliable sources discussing them, not to WikiLeaks.  (In such a case, I would not object to a link to the document discussed, but the document itself should not be cited for anything not in the reliable source.)  John M Baker (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Leaning to option 3 or 4. Not totally sure yet which option is best, but two comments: 1) WP:USEBYOTHERS does not apply, for the same reason that we would not say that Donald Trump is a reliable source because he has been quoted by reliable news sources. Wikileaks material has certainly often been reported on, but (with the exception of collaborations where e.g. NYT and Guardian were able to themselves verify particular dumps) the reporting typically adds caveats. 2) This is probably too obvious to be worth saying, but the editorial material by Wikileaks itself 9as opposed to leaked material in their archives) should be treated with particular caution. For instance, its recent dumps of small batchs of highly redacted and by themselves confusing OPCW documents about the Douma chemical attack was accompanied by long editorial introductions explaining them which actually contained several errors as well as a very slanted interpretation. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * To point 2): question (1) was not asking about the editorials that accompany the documents, only the documents themselves. What Assange says they might mean and the conclusions he says we can draw, given his strong political views, is WP:UNDUE, or, for some tastes, even WP:FRINGE. You can reformulate question 1 thus: Can we trust what WikiLeaks says are government documents to be genuine? As to point 1), I address it in the discussion. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's cler that the question as posed here was about the documents, but when this RfC is closed, if Wikileaks is deemed reliable in any way it will be vital for the closing statement to be very clear that that decision refers to the documents in the archive and that what Wikileaks says in its own voice should not necessarily therefore be deemed reliable but treated as opinion generally is. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I just wanted to make sure that you separate the documents themselves from their interpretations by Assange/WikiLeaks staff while making summary judgment on reliability of the website (which you do), and also to warn other commenters that we shouldn't conflate these. Have a good day. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Option 4 Wikileaks is essentially Project Veritas on a global scale...private individuals with no methods of fact-checking, accuracy, or verification, claiming to be The Ones Who Show You The Truth. IF actual reliable sourced have vetted a piece of info originating at Wikileaks and voice for its accuracy, then it is fine. But at that point, the question of citing Wikileaks itself is moot. Zaathras (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Bellingcat can also be characterised as private individuals who claim to know the truth. Now they are considered reliable as they were extensively cited by other reliable sources. The traditional media don't have a monopoly on reliability. Alaexis¿question? 14:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This assessment is inapt and grossly unfair to Wikileaks. Broadly speaking, if Project Veritas publishes something then you can be confident that it is false and intentionally misleading; the same is not true for WL.  (I say this as a person who agrees about the conclusion.) --JBL (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 2 WP:PRIMARY. There is some editorial control on WikiLeaks' end and more by various newspapers that collaborate with it. Obviously, not all documents have been verified by WikiLeaks or journalists, so WP:USEBYOTHERS is not absolute. But the bottom line is that editorial control exists to the degree it is possible in this type of publishing. As argued above, WikiLeaks has never been shown to publish false documents, so this editorial control has been effective. To wit, reliable but WP:PRIMARY. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Bad RFC - The RFC as presently constituted is not directed to a specific content issue. It is therefore impossible to give a decent answer. Wikileaks consists of a collection of primary sources of varying charactersitics and so the idea of rendering any kind of general view on its reliability is simply for the birds. FOARP (talk) 11:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 4 Wiki leaks does no independent verifying or factchecking, so they really should not be used at all.Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have any evidence for that? Other people in the discussion have cited evidence to the contrary. Thryduulf (talk) 22:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 2, WikiLeaks is a collection of primary sources, and it should be treated as such. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 2 There should be an evaluation of each Wikileaks document and be treated as a primary source. Sea Ane (talk) 12:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 1 Wikileaks verifies the authenticity of documents before releasing them, which accounts for sometimes lengthy delays between receiving and publishing them. There are no verified cases of any of the documents released being fraudulent. That is a higher standard than most reliable sources. That of course does not mean that that the information in the documents is necessarily accurate, since that depends on the original authors. TFD (talk) 12:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 3 or 4 per Aquillion, JBchrch, and MjolnirPants. Wikileaks itself is a collection of raw primary source documents (raising serious WP:OR issues when used directly), and the organization itself has questionable reliability and processes.  Any information from them should be cited though reliable journalistic sources (i.e. not-Wikileaks), which could be counted on to do their own fact checking. - GretLomborg (talk) 06:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 1-2 Wikileaks is a reliable repository of authentic leaked government and business documents. Wikileaks has an extensive partnership with the best journalists in the world. The United States diplomatic cables leak for instance are genuine US government embassy reports. The usage of the different stored documents needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis based on policies concerning the usage of government and business sources. --Guest2625 (talk) 10:25, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 2. Wikileaks does verify the authenticity of documents it publishes and many documents it has published has since been acknoweldged as authentic.. However I personally feel that Wikileaks in itself should only be used in the absence of another, more mainstream and widely accepted source on the same matter and statements by Wikileaks should be attributed otherwise.RedAlert 007 (talk) 12:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 1 and 2 - Generally, they are reliable. I think that if the information can be verified using a different more reliable source it should. But unless there is reason to doubt the document I would take it as accurate. Not the policy for here but I tend to apply WP:AGF to new outlets as well. Also, I would ask Wikipedia to consider a policy on using documents gathered using FOIA requests. DoctorTexan (talk) 06:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC) (Moved to this section from discussion by Alaexis¿question? 09:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC))
 * Option 2 I can't think of a single case where a document released by wikileaks has been fabricated which rules out 3 and 4 for me, however due to the sensitive nature of the material they often release editors should be extra judicious in their use of the source and use RS analyzing the releases if possible. Additionally, attribution should always be required. BSMRD (talk) 03:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 2 It might be reliable on some cases, but it acts as an primary source, and therefore it should be cited with related reliable news sources if necessary. Ahmetlii (talk) 20:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 4 Julian Assange's controversial remarks about the Murder of Seth Rich should disqualify Wikileaks from being used as a source for anything. It's unclear whether WL has any independent editorial control outside of Assange. Geogene (talk) 01:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 1-2 I'm unware of Wikileaks of ever fabricating government documents and does its best to verify the authenticity of documents before it releases them, hence 1. But I can understand how it would be treated as a WP:PRIMARY where then I'd lean towards 2. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 2 or basically fine as long as used with attribution. I'm especially not seeing much justification for Option 4, which is presumably near-deprecation, as Nils Melzer of the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture etc. (often cited as an expert/significant opinion) considered Assange to have 'never hacked, stolen or published false information, nor caused reputational harm through any personal misconduct'. The debates on reliability look politicised, as in most of the criticism comes from the countries that have something to lose from the leaks. And even then, there are still US outlets that would vouch for its authenticity. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 10:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 1; qualified that Wikileaks is a publisher of information and "reliability" means that Wikileaks doesn't lie about or alter the contents of what they distribute and that they generally publish stolen primary sources. The fact a document has been stolen doesn't mean it's unreliable, but it means we should use extra care when citing it. Likewise when the documents they publish are primary sources. When Wikileaks doxxes people we shouldn't use it as a source. We shouldn't be giving it WP:UNDUE weight above other primary sources either. And the fact Wikileaks is reliable does not mean the documents they publish are actually reliable. If Wikileaks publishes a Chinese govt source talking about how the Uyghurs are all super dangerous terrorists, that's not going to be a reliable source for the claim that the Uyghurs are all super dangerous terrorists as the Chinese govt is unreliable there. I'd also qualify that stuff from the really early days of Wikileaks when they were actually a Wiki isn't reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chess (talk • contribs) 04:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Options 1, there have been numerous claims made here that Wikileaks do not have any "fact-checking", yet no backing up of this notion has been provided. Other people are raising issues about WP:UNDUE, which I do not believe are relevant because we are talking about the reliability of the source, not due weight. As for my take on the issue, I believe that Wikileaks is generally reliable. Wikileaks, their publisher and their journalists have won multiple journalistic awards and claim a "perfect in document authentication", which no one here has been able to disprove so far, despite many claims. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 12:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 3 If something in Wikileaks is good enough it would be reported in RS. Treating a repository of allegedly authentic stolen documents will only feed the rightgreatwrongers and conspiracy theorists. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 1 or 2, the Italian first class RS treat Wikileaks with great respect. I am not aware of any glaring cases of data falsification or anything of this kind.--Mhorg (talk) 13:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 2 or 3 maybe even Option 4, this isn't a question of whether Wikileaks is itself a reliable source. It's not a source to begin with but a repository of primary sources. Regardless of whether the material it publicises are authentic or not, on its own it's not usable. News organisations with a reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight might use them as a source but that does not mean we should too. They could be used as an additional citation alongside a news report which discusses its material although that might be pretty redundant. If they publicise something that isn't covered by any reputable news organisation then that material lacks both due weight for inclusion or an adequate filtering process. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 15:22, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 2. Wikileaks is reliable as a repository or republisher of primary sources. Whether those primary sources are themselves accurate is a different question, and needs to be assessed by individual case. It is very well established that Wikileaks is highly reliable as a source for the content of the primary source documents it republishes. In many cases, it would be used with attribution ("According to an internal US state department cable..."). Cambial foliage❧ 15:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 4 for the purposes of selecting one of these options, but I'm in full agreement with comments by Rhododendrites, Aquillion, JBchrch et al. that this is a misdirected RfC. We're asking whether Dropbox-with-an-agenda is reliable, which on face should be answered no. We should be waiting for these primary sources to be used by other independent news orgs with better resources for fact-checking, etc. The well-known concerns about Wikileaks being compromised only add to this. Alyo  (chat·edits) 16:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * None Wikileaks should be considered a primary source, so our usual 4 categories do not apply. I personally like citing some primary sources as complementary information for the reader. That is, right after a reliable secondary source discussing the document is cited. Otherwise, citing random Wikileaks document is generally not appropriate. MarioGom (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Voting (question 2) (Wikileaks)

 * Yes, but not outside Option 2 I would be even more careful when citing opinions on subjects few people have idea about (that may significantly influence perception of the article and we will probably not hear the other side if the issue is contentious but local in nature). The source should be used, but particular caution must be exercised while citing it, except for non-controversial facts which can be cited as they are presented in the document. Better this kind of source than no source at all. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 04:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It depends. Where coverage exists in a clearly reliable secondary source, this is obviously preferred, but where it doesn't (and mention is still WP:DUE) then the circumstances need to be evaluated individually - why is there no secondary source coverage? Is the material plausible? Is there any evidence the material is incorrect? These questions need to be evaluated based on the original source, the reliability or otherwise of Wikileaks will in most cases be irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 10:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, in most cases There is a strong preference with Wikileaks for additional sources to establish weight and firmly anchor the article content in the published literature, and a must for anything controversial, but in some areas where English language sources are lacking (such as the domestic politics of Laos) it's not a violation of sourcing guidelines to use Wikileaks to fill in non-controversial facts. Spudlace (talk) 10:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Obviously not. The question is self-defeating: by definition, if the information cannot be found in a reliable source, it should not be included on Wikipedia at all. Using unreliable sources is not an effective strategy to globalise wikipedia. In fact, it's even worse than having biases. JBchrch (talk) 12:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure I understand where Question 2 is going, but basically I said what I think is the same thing in my original vote above: Wikileaks should ONLY be when vetted by actual reliable sources, should never be the first or only source for anything. -- Jayron 32 12:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The intent and context of the question was that Lao domestic politics (and their Kremlinology in particular) is a topic very scarcely, if at all, covered by RS, and Western RS in particular, so corroboration by RS would be not possible because the outlets simply don't cover the region, even when for Laos, the event (Party Congress) is important. Access to Lao media is also limited, as the Internet in the country is very poorly developed and this is a Communist country with few civil liberties. The question goes: should we make an exception in this case and cite WikiLeaks under some special conditions that differ from the answer in question 1 (which is a general answer) because of an objective lack of RS coverage which is caused by an event happening in an isolated country with little interest in its news? (This is the reason I have inserted the WP:BIAS link)
 * This question should not be interpreted as whether to grant a waiver to cite any claim or fact asserted in a WikiLeaks cable and for which coverage in RS would be likely ample were the fact significant enough. This is what you answer in question 1, where you choose your default option to treat WikiLeaks; question 2 concerns a very specific situation. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Systemic bias does not lay out a “reasonable editor” standard in this regard, what do you mean by that? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Treating this as a kind of a court deliberation where each editor (and voter) is a judge of sorts, it's something that would be called reasonable person in common law court proceedings. In this particular case, anyone with some knowledge of Laos as well as the way Communist parties, diplomacy and media function qualifies as a reasonable editor (which I assume everybody writing here is); in general, a person with a reasonable knowledge of subject matter discussed is one. I didn't want to write "consensus" because I can't write "consensus" if we are about to establish it here. Also, WP:BIAS is only meant to indicate here that the fact is significant but coverage by RS is scarce, because it's Laos after all, not USA, Western Europe, Russia, Middle East, China or even North Korea, which is rather frequently mentioned in the media. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The non-existence of any reliable sources on a topic is not a reason to fall back on unreliable sources. It just means that Wikipedia doesn't cover it.  WP:BIAS is not fixed by lowering our standards.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not. Claims that are not covered in RSes are not suitable for inclusion in this project. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with JBchrch, Jayron32, and ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants. Incidentally, "does your answer change" is a terrible question since the same answer has different substantive meanings depending on the person answering it. --JBL (talk) 18:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Echoing Thryduulf. As for the "Is there any evidence the material is incorrect?" question — if RS say Wikileaks is boosting untruth in some way then would certainly weigh their view heavier than WL. --Chillabit (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. Stop it. Just stop it. See also WP:TRUTH and WP:UNDUE. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If "a reasonable editor may conclude that the coverage from RS is likely to be minimal or absent on the subject" then we should be even less inclined to use them as a source. If this question is implying that RS ignoring it should grant some kind of exception to allow us to use it, I wholeheartedly disagree. If there are no good sources covering something, we should not accept bad sources as a substitute to allow us to cover it, we should not cover it. NonReproBlue (talk) 01:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. My vote for Option 2 clearly states that I believe this should be taken into account, but they can still be cited in circumstances where an official government document/view on something is acceptable with a primary source. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sigh No as per MP. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No, if more information cannot be found, the information from the Wikileaks document still needs to be attributed to the document in question, and Wikileaks would need to be mentioned as well, as the publisher. Contrary to some editors above, I do think that Wikileaks could be cited, even in a case where a journalist hasn't covered the document in question. In that case however, in-text attribution of the information both to Wikileaks and the document in question would be absolutely essential, since we're dealing with a primary source. -Darouet (talk) 15:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Trivially, tautologically no. NPOV means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. No RS, no coverage. That might leave us "biased" in various ways, but as said, lowering our standards doesn't fix anything. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No. It seems kind of weird that we are even talking about this.  We go to considerable lengths to rely only upon reliable sources and to limit use of primary and tertiary sources.  Then it's suggested that, specifically because we don't have any information as to reliability, we're going to turn to an unreliable repository of primary sources as citable information?  That seems twisted.  John M Baker (talk) 20:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. WP:DUE issues are a separate matter from the initial question. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No It will be a form of bias. Sea Ane (talk) 12:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No Lack of coverage in secondary sources merely means that the information in the documents was not noteworthy. TFD (talk) 13:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. Wikileaks documents about events not covered by RS are the ones most likely to be unreliable, and the use of Wikileaks in this case would be unambiguously unacceptable WP:OR. - GretLomborg (talk) 06:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What?, an RS, any RS is better than the conclusions of a "reasonable editor". They don't all have the same biases. This just verges on asking whether we should allow original research on Wikipedia. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 15:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This question is self defeating and irrelevant, I voted for option 2 in the first question, however if consensus finds that Wikileaks is not an RS then Wikipeadia policy is clear on this, no RS, no coverage on Wikipedia, no exceptions. If it fails WP:V then should not be on Wikipedia at all, period. RedAlert 007 (talk) 03:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (WikiLeaks RfC)
This is far too complex an RFC to be useful, FWIW. --M asem (t) 04:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, actually I thought of making it as useful as possible by having the first four questions considered in order to answer the fifth. Question 5 is the most important of those - comments for the first four are auxiliary and I did not intend them to carry as much weight as for the fifth (which is the reason voting for question 5 appears first). Moreover, all of these questions surfaced at least once in that discussion alone, not to mention previous dozen or so in the archives. Some seemed to assert that WikiLeaks have 100% legit documents; there have been questions about verifiability, potential weaknesses and usage in particular contexts. Alone these questions would be pretty useless and an RfC on these would be odd. Besides, my understanding of the RfC process is that every participant is sort of a juror, and IRL they are asked several questions at once for them to evaluate evidence and arguments on each of them (1-4) to deliver a verdict (question 5); what I only wanted is to separate each discussion so that it could be easier to parse through it and sum it up when an uninvolved user closes the RfC.
 * I don't deny this is a difficult topic, but we would have to discuss it sooner or later. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 05:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the purpose of the auxiliary questions; they make me a bit uneasy in that they read like they're trying to dictate acceptable lines of argument or reasonings for the primary question. I would suggest removing them (and also sharply trimming the RFC just to ask what is currently question 5, with no further details beyond a link to the discussion that prompted this) - the primary question is what matters; allowing users to come up with and state their own reasoning for that is the entire purpose of an RFC. I don't think you intended to write a non-neutral RFC, but in general it's safest (and best) to stick to one easy, straightforward question.  I would also omit the word "genuine" (it is begging the question), and just say something like "Is WikiLeaks reliable for publication of government documents? This was prompted by this discussion." --Aquillion (talk) 06:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Question 2 is important. The RSP entry for Wikileaks mentions tampering and it gets hoisted as an argument every time there is a discussion on Wikileaks. Alaexis¿question? 06:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * After some evaluation of the arguments, I think that yes, I'll change it as Aquillion (in most points) proposed, I admit it was too clumsy. I also post the last diff of the expanded RfC for reference, as I believe considering all of these questions is important so that they could sort of guide your decision; but of course I did not mean to suggest to vote one particular way - you are free to express and argue your opinions whichever way you wish to.
 * I will retain question 4, though, because that seems to be the question coming from that particular dispute. I believe answers to all the other questions may be incorporated into your justification, either in vote or discussion.
 * you may want to change the content of your vote and your vote, now that the auxiliary questions have gone, and only two are here in place. I, for instance, incorporated some arguments from these into my vote. You didn't vote for the second question (which was question 4), so I did not include your answer. I have copied your comment under questions 3-4 under question 2 after reformulation - the comment itself has not been altered.
 * Sorry for the false start and all the mess it caused - I'll do better next time. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There is enough precedent to believe it's trustworthy, but there is no hard proof for it and is mostly circumstantial, so it doesn't fit the rules strictly. This is generally how leaks go unless the originator of the leaks (I don't mean the leaker) admits to its veracity and of course that is never going to happen. You need to take into account too that diplomatic cables are essentially correspondence and might have mistakes themselves, so if information contained there is later proven to be false or inaccurate, that doesn't need to be because of any tampering on WikiLeaks' part, as the creators of these can be responsible for such innacuracies on their own. WP:NOR applies, of course. FelipeFritschF (talk) 07:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * For Question 1, Options 1 and 2 are also not mutually exclusive. WikiLeaks has a very strong record of verifying that documents are genuine, but additional considerations do apply (the documents themselves, while genuine, may express opinions, may be WP:PRIMARY, etc.). -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Option 1 is meant to give full endorsement to the resource, on or close to the level of NYT, WSJ, WaPo, Associated Press, AFP etc., that you would cite without much reservations and doubts. Option 2 may be not mutually exclusive if you believe that the resource is generally reliable (option 1) but you'd still not use it because of some issues concerning bias (for example, just as we don't give full endorsement for political coverage on HuffPost but we consider it generally reliable otherwise); option 2 also encompasses cases when you believe that we should only cite WikiLeaks for some types of coverage and not others (e.g. reliable for uncontroversial statements of fact, unreliable for the rest). That we should handle opinions and primary sources according to current Wikipedia policies is self-evident, so I don't believe it should be a factor in voting. That is at least the meaning I intended to put into the options. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * What does "genuine government documents” mean in question 1? I’m assuming that means published by wikipedia but authenticated by an independent reliable source which is not wikileaks like BBC, NYT, etc? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that for Question 1, Option 1 is supposed to mean that documents published by WikiLeaks can be assumed to be genuine. However, this is not how I (or it seems anyone else) has interpreted the question. The problem is that even if WikiLeaks does a good job of validating documents (as I believe they do, based on their apparently spotless track record), additional considerations apply, because the documents themselves may be WP:PRIMARY, may contain opinions, etc. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I wasn't precise enough, but that is what I meant here. Option 1 would mean that if you say this is a diplomatic cable and it was published on Wikileaks, you know it's genuine by virtue of being published on WikiLeaks, and thus WikiLeaks is (generally) reliable for publishing these documents word-for-word. Additional considerations apply should not refer to standard Wikipedia policy arguments, because everyone should follow the guidelines by default - this RfC is not about whether to follow guidelines or to change them (at most we can discuss which in this particular case have priority). Generally it is meant to restrict the usage of the resource to specific areas (which you mention in your vote, e.g. not in BLP or in uncontroversial settings only). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess I don’t understand why the question has “genuine” in it then, no matter which option you pick you are assuming that the document is genuine based on the question asked. Option 4 would still be under the presumption that the document is in fact genuine. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The word "genuine" was included because there was (and is) a substantial share of editors who argued these documents are not genuine and/or impossible to verify whether they are genuine and therefore reasonable doubts could be raised on their authenticity, which is one of the main concerns raised in discussions on the topic. Contrary to your suggestion, the word "genuine" does not presuppose my attitude to these documents. Yes, you can believe the documents to be authentic but vote to declare the resource generally unreliable or deprecate it nevertheless, which seems what ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants did; you can just as well believe the documents are not genuine and vote for option 3 or 4 based on that (and, if I were to vote for Option 4, odds are that I would mean exactly that). It's up to you to decide whether these arguments are convincing enough for you and argue them in the voting section and here.
 * You are right, however, when saying that I assume the documents to be genuine until proven forgeries or at least when there is reasonable doubt as to whether they are indeed authentic. This is a matter of principle for me - just as I assume all editors do their job in good faith, so I do with journalists, writers, and scientists, just until I stumble upon glaring errors, logical fallacies or blatant lies. It is also my belief that so far the concerns about integrity of WikiLeaks mentioned in the relevant Wikipedia article as well as here are yet to materialise, so I don't think there should be reasonable doubts, at least for now. But again, if WikiLeaks is going to be caught for forging documents or being a conduit for forgeries on a massive scale, I will revise my opinion.
 * Hope this helps. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The “you” there is general not a reference to you Szmenderowiecki. Specifically I’m the one trying to figure out how to vote on this. The question itself presumes the documents are genuine, we are asked to consider a theoretical situation in which wikileaks publishes a genuine government document not a theoretical situation in which wikileaks publishes a document which may or may not be genuine. It seems like it builds on a prerequisite, which if I look at the original format of the question appears to be because it did. It seems that as is we have at best a leading question. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If you struggle with your answer, you can remove the word "genuine". I did not write the question(s) to presuppose authenticity of the documents, because this is contentious in the first place. While it was indeed one of the leading questions in the previous version of RfC, after reformulation, I tried to strip it from its previous role (given two users have at once suggested the RfC needs rewriting) and tried to construe it as broadly as possible. In other words, do not automatically assume authenticity, just imagine you are presented with a reference which directs to a WikiLeaks cable, that's it. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem is that removing the word genuine completely changes my answer, those are not comparable questions. In other words, what you’re saying here and the question that was originally asked don’t line up, they’re not the same question. “Genuine” does in fact require us to "automatically assume authenticity.” The current question does in fact presuppose the authenticity of the documents. Theres no way around that without re-writing the question, I’m sorry if you didn’t ask the question you meant to but we can’t really change that now. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:08, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , actually, I think it is rather simple. You may well disagree, but for me, the fact that this debate exists because editors were unable, or refused, to find any unambiguously reliable source that include the information, says it all. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Masem was commenting on an earlier version of the RFC that asked multiple questions (ie. it was too complex structurally, not too complex in terms of the core underlying issue.) --Aquillion (talk) 21:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, this was the state of the RFC my comment was directed to. --M asem (t) 22:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , Ah, ok. Well, WP:FUCKTHATNOISE covers the core issue, for me ,so. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * @NonReproBlue, @Guy: Just to make sure - we are not evaluating reliability of Julian Assange and whether his views are WP:DUE and admissible (which may belong to the article about him but certainly not to this discussion), so any comments about what he thought of the documents and the conclusions he has drawn from the documents are not relevant. The fact that third-party bad-faith actors (and Assange himself) used the documents in an ugliest way possible, i.e. to create conspiracy theories, fake news and make unsubstantiated allegations doesn't mean that the documents themselves have been manipulated or doctored; even the fact Assange publicly lied about the source of the document does not mean the documents were not verified beforehand or not published unaltered. Actually, your statements that Assange was driven by his agenda and conclusions from the Mueller investigation (Assange must have known that Rich could not have been the source of the leak, because he received the mails when Rich was already dead and continued to confer with the Russian hackers to coordinate the release of the material., quoted from Julian Assange ), prove the opposite - he knew the true source of the documents, he cooperated with Russian hackers, so there must have been at least some review before the documents were published, in this case by Assange himself. Now that the documents have been verified, the question stays whether they were altered, and by all indications they weren't, because nobody credibly suggested the documents themselves were fake.
 * I agree that multiple security experts warned against using the documents at face value, but I again heard no such expert saying that this particular document was fabricated or altered (and they should be the ones who are closer to the tools to verify the information), so in my opinion, this is so far a theoretical possibility, which should be taken into account when citing the resource (if allowed to use) but should not serve as an excuse to blanket ban the documents, whatever their content.Szmenderowiecki (talk) 03:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , no, we are discussing whether stolen primary documents can be crowbarred into Wikipedia despite the general unreliability of Wikileaks. And the answer is: no. Sources need to be reliable, independent, and secondary. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * On what policy is this assertion based? It seems to contradict WP:PRIMARY which says that primary sources can be used in certain cases. Regarding the independence, biased sources are expressly allowed. Alaexis¿question? 07:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's your way to frame it. I don't want to "crowbar" documents despite consensus (which does not exist so far, otherwise there would be no RfC), I only politely ask if they are admissible, and if the consensus emerges the documents should not be cited, so be it. Contrary to your assertions that users supportive of using WikiLeaks are necessarily "Assangites" and insinuations they are acting in bad faith, they (we) are neither. I understand your opinion on WikiLeaks is that it is unreliable; the purpose of that comment, however, was to show that at least some parts of your argument are, in my opinion, flawed, and probably turn your attention to them. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 07:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This might be a good time to remind people that the New York Times also publishes "stolen primary documents" (more commonly known as "leaked documents"). In fact, one of the most famous episodes in the paper's history was the publication of a "stolen primary document", the Pentagon Papers. As far as Wikipedia WP:RS policy goes, whether or not a document was leaked is irrelevant. What we're discussing here is whether WikiLeaks validates the documents it publishes, and it appears that WikiLeaks has a very strong track record of doing so. Its major publications are widely considered genuine, and nobody here has yet provided any examples of WikiLeaks publishing fake documents. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Intentionally lying about your sources in order to push a conspiracy theory is the kind of behaviour that is absolutely disqualifying as an RS. They are not a reliable source. At very best they are a collection of possibly genuine, selectively released primary source documents. If reliable sources cover something they leak, we can cover what they say about it. Otherwise we shouldn't cover it at all, just like any other document of unknown provenance or authenticity. Without RS covering a document contained in a leak, it absolutely fails the standard of due weight. We cover things in proportion to their coverage in reliable sources. If reliable sources give it zero coverage, then that is the same proportion we give it. No information is "important" enough to justify including it when reliable sources don't cover it.NonReproBlue (talk) 08:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe that undermines the credibility of Assange but not the authenticity of documents. No one says we can't correct the source if RS unanimously say the source is different. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)


 * BTW, I believe editors participating in the discussion may find this table useful:
 * Sources: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


 * Special Tribunal for Lebanon: In deciding whether to admit the WikiLeaks documents into evidence, the Trial Chamber must consider whether they contain adequate indicia of reliability. This includes authenticity and accuracy. Ruling: overturned on appeal, ruled inadmissible into evidence because of dubious reliability. (apparently lower court ruled admissible and relevant). Summary judgment for the case issued without WikiLeaks admitted to evidence.
 * International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia: ruled inadmissible into evidence; reason unknown. Prosecutor v Slobodan Milosevic ICTY-02-54-Misc.5 & ICTY-02-54-Misc.6; Prosecutor v Radovan Karadzic MICT-13-55-R90.1; Prosecutor v Slobodan Milosevic MICT-13-58-R90.1
 * Court of Justice of the European Union: has expressly allowed the admission of WikiLeaks cables into evidence while emphasising the clean hands of the party relying on such evidence. and The Court confirmed that the ‘sole criterion relevant in that evaluation is the reliability of the evidence’. See: Persia International Bank v. Council, Fahed Mohamed Sakher Al Matri case (Al Matri v. Council).
 * European Court of Human Rights: no particular opinion - not excluded, not ruled inadmissible, but they did not mention the source in their ruling in Al-Nashiri v. Poland, nor El Masri v. Macedonia.
 * International Arbitration Investment Tribunal: Yukos v. Russia: Interestingly, even though it is beyond doubt that WikiLeaks’ disclosure of the cables was illegal under US law, the Tribunal relied on such evidence to reach conclusions on the facts of Yukos’s demise, but offered no view on the issue of admissibility of the cables or treatment as illegally obtained evidence.; there was a strong dissent written in one of the cases that explicitly advocated for admission.
 * ConocoPhillips v. Venezuela: documents ignored, as Venezuela could not present enough witnesses and other documents to corroborate the allegation made in the cable.
 * Caratube International Oil Company LLC v. Kazakhstan: Thus, the tribunal found that the balance tipped in favor of admitting the documents,[33] placing special emphasis on the fact that they were “lawfully available to the public.”; previously ruled that evidence that became public but was protected by legal professional privilege is inadmissible.
 * Opic Karimum Corporation v Venezuela - ruling partially relied upon evidence provided by Wikileaks - admissibility or legality issue not addressed.
 * Kılıç v. Turkmenistan - ditto.


 * Supreme Court of the United Kingdom: ruled admissible (see R (Bancoult) v. the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs).
 * International Criminal Court: 1. Sydney Morning Herald suggests the documents submitted to WikiLeaks are verified before being published.
 * 2. Court case: The Prosecutor v. William Samoei Ruto and Joshua Arap Sang - both Prosecutor of Kenya and defence relied on WikiLeaks, case terminated without prejudice (=may be prosecuted again), so far acquitted; now again being decided. No WikiLeaks ruling. WikiLeaks has been used in other cases, too, but they are in too early a stage.


 * Special Court of Sierra Leone: ruled admissible (Prosecutor v. Charles Ghankay Taylor) - as described here, contributed to an overturning of a procedural verdict, even as he was ultimately found guilty of war crimes.
 * Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia: ruled inadmissible - was not satisfied with authenticity and/or relevance: Case 002, Decision on the Co-Prosecutors' and Khieu Samphan's Internal Rule 87 (4) Requests concerning US Diplomatic Cables (E282 and E282/l; E290 and E290/l)
 * US Department of Justice: lawyers for inmates of Guantanamo Bay may use WikiLeaks cables in their defense, but may not copy, share or print it. US neither denies nor confirms authenticity.

I conclude that a majority of courts makes at least some use of WikiLeaks in their rulings, but few explicitly allow such evidence to be entered. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 07:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's also worth noting that the courts would be considering the reliability and/or admissibility of the specific documents relevant to the case at hand, not the reliability and/or admissibility of documents from Wikileaks as a whole. It is possible for different documents made available by Wikileaks to be differently reliable. Thryduulf (talk) 11:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, some did. Special Tribunal of Lebanon and Court of Justice of the European Union have addressed the issue directly (whether it is admissible in general). And while indeed most of these rulings concerned particular applications and particular documents, the fact that a majority of the courts drew from the WikiLeaks cables while providing their reasoning to the judgment suggests that majority believes them to be authentic, and WikiLeaks reliable. Citing shoddy documents undermines the credibility of the court and is a very good case for appeal/rehearing, which the judges understand, so they must have evaluated their reliability, authenticity as well as conformance with current laws and bylaws concerning the procedure of admission of previously illegally obtained evidence before citing it or at least relying on it to issue the verdict.
 * Of course, quality of material dumped on WikiLeaks may be variable, so it might be that other courts, given the same documents, could reach other conclusions, but that's the current picture. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * And so what? Courts also use unpublished oral testimonies as their main sources to decide cases. So can I use an unpublished oral testimony as a source on Wikipedia now? Obviously not. The judicial process and wikipedia are completely different processes, with diametrically different aims and methods. JBchrch (talk) 12:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * My point was not to equate Wikipedia to a judicial procedure. That said, just as the judiciary, we have to evaluate whether the evidence is reliable enough, verifiable and authentic to be admissible. In this way, Wikipedia and the courts are fairly similar. And anyway, if I can file a lawsuit and win it based on cables obtained on WikiLeaks, it speaks volumes about the quality of the resource; conversely, if the courts consistently declined to view my claims based on WikiLeaks revelations or if plaintiffs/defendants who relied on these consistently lost their lawsuits for non-technical reasons, it would be a good indicator not to use it on Wikipedia. Here, the record is slightly in favour of WikiLeaks - I could not find more papers or news concerning WikiLeaks admissibility, so I think that's the full picture as we have it now. Szmenderowiecki (talk)
 * It's actually hard to provide a full answer to this comment because the reality is so much more complex then you try to portray it. So here are just two high level comments. First: As a matter of principle, courts accept everything into evidence: handwritten notes, UN reports, blood stained shirts, press releases by the US Department of State, used condoms, text messages, bags of trash... The fact that something was accepted into evidence indicates nothing about its reliability. Second: Most often, the question of admissibility is not related to the material reliability of the piece of evidence in question but to the question of whether it was illegally obtained. And often, you find yourself in the possession of a highly reliable piece of evidence, which was unfortunately illegally obtained (classic example: a hidden camera footage of a private meeting). So I reiterate my point: admissibility in court and WP:RS are completely unrelated. JBchrch (talk) 14:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * To the first point: I can't agree with you, because I have explicitly cited cases from Cambodia and Lebanon which did not allow the documents to be introduced into evidence because they had doubts over their integrity and reliability; on the other hand, CJEU and UK Supreme Court endorsed WikiLeaks, so no, it's not automatic and it's not everything.
 * To the second point: All of the courts mentioned dealt with documents that were previously obtained against the law, and none of them dismissed the documents because they were illegally obtained some time before plaintiffs/defendants used them. Citing cases where Wikileaks documents were dismissed because they were illegal in the first place would be useless, because in these cases, reliability, veracity, authenticity etc. are not considered at all. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * First point: this is why I said as a matter of principle, i.e. there are exceptions.
 * Second point: All admissibility decisions are useless, because the standards they apply—may they be illegality or patent unreliability (which is, for the record, a way lower standard than the one we apply here)—has nothing in common with the standards we are supposed to apply. JBchrch (talk) 14:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * To the first point: sorry, haven't noticed these words. To the second, actually, if not in all, in most of the cases, the ruling itself was not specifically over whether to admit WikiLeaks but they mentioned it in a few paragraphs. Moreover, it seems that the outcome of most of the litigations mentioned hinged on whether WikiLeaks documents were admitted or not. In the UK case, it actually meant Chagos Islanders won against UK (because basically that was the main evidence of malfeasance and intent of the UK and US officials), so they must have investigated the document thoroughly. The reliance was not that large in Yukos v. Russia, Caratube Int'l Oil Company v. Kazakhstan and CJEU cases, but was still pretty substantial. The same can be said of cases where the WikiLeaks documents were dismissed as unreliable/impossible to verify their authenticity. I believe all of these cases are relevant; and your conclusions may be different based on the table - my, sort of, duty as OP of the RfC was to provide available evidence for community evaluation to make a better decision. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I still fail to see how any of this translates to Wikipedia-reliability. Courts have the tools, the time and the ressources to analyse documents of questionable origins and any other dubious stuff the parties usually throw at them. We don't have that. In fact, Wikipedia is specifically built around the idea that editors should not do that. If you need citations regarding these affairs, then you can cite the court case or, better yet, a secondary source about the ruling. JBchrch (talk) 18:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't say we should be engaging in WP:OR, as the policy says we shouldn't. What I say is that, from the resources I've dug out from Google on the subject on WL reliability/admissibility as evidence in courts, the majority either explicitly says it is or that it uses the documents to draft their opinions (and they must be impartial while doing it). Had the courts been unanimous in their rulings concerning reliability or at least unanimously used the resource to draft their rulings, I'd vote for option 1, but since it's only a majority, I opt for Option 2, and I specified that we should avoid drawing statements from WikiLeaks to Wikipedia if the matter is a subject of controversy, but for documents that are not (and are rather unlikely to cause it), i.e. for the category of documents that don't need OR to be determined faithful and authentic, I see no obstacles doing so.
 * The court cases are cited for reference in the table, you may check the details for each court case if you want; I added some names so that people could search them. Also, you have seven secondary sources that interpret them (and other original cases); I believe it will be fine for your analysis should you need it.
 * As an aside, I should note that international courts (and, apart from UK Supreme Courts, all of these are international), apply much stricter standards of admissibility than your local court you will normally sue anyone in, common law or civil law. Which is one of the reasons international courts have pre-trials and trials lasting several years. EU courts are largely civil-law ones, and they too seem to have a higher bar for admission of evidence than EU member state courts (unlike in US, where a lot of states copy federal guidance on admitting evidence) Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I really want to WP:AGF here, but you make it harder and harder, honestly. Regarding the length of international procedures, I assume that you are confusing admissibility as a question of jurisdiction (i.e. is the court competent to rule on this matter?) and admissibility of evidence? I am not aware that admissibility of evidence takes this much energy at international courts. However, I know that admissibility as a matter of competence is always heavily challenged by the parties, and it is in fact the topic of the first big decision in international criminal law. Regarding admissibility of evidence by international criminal law, the relevant literature says the following, which completely contradicts what you said:
 * JBchrch (talk) 12:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, these were more of my impressions from reading separate decisions about whether to admit documents into evidence or not, of which I'm not very much aware in common-law procedures and probably just a little in civil law; if scholars say admissibility is indeed a rather liberal procedure, I'm not here to dispute it :); though the fact the documents are frequently contested and the courts have separate decisions on each batch of evidence compensates somewhat for the laxity. My bad, it wasn't intentional. I am sure though that I don't mention admissibility as a matter of jurisdiction, because, from my reading, no court said it would not admit the documents into evidence because it couldn't rule on it, all that did rule did so on the merits. I wouldn't want cases on lack of jurisdiction anyway to be mentioned here because they don't rule on the contents of the resources.
 * OK, let's even suppose we don't take admissibility too seriously. My point is that if the judges use the reasoning provided in cables in their rulings, and by your admission, the judges have the tools and time to verify if the evidence is reliable and authentic, that means they established that the source is good enough to be relied upon, even if they don't rule explicitly on admissiblity or reliability. The corollary also holds true that if a court explicitly dismisses WikiLeaks or has a long practice of not mentioning the (alleged) facts presented from the evidence in WikiLeaks (which can't be said from here because no court has a long enough history of deciding on WikiLeaks), it should make us suspicious to use it. I still find the balance favorable for WikiLeaks, even when excluding strictly admissibility questions: Supreme Court UK, SCSL, 3 rulings of international arbitration decision, CJEU (2 cases) vs. STL, ICTY, (probably) 1 international arbitration decision and ECCC. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * More than just authenticity of the documents comes into play when deciding whether evidence is admissible in court. There are additional considerations that have nothing to do with authenticity that may prevent documents published by WikiLeaks from being admitted as evidence. In the Chagos Islanders case in the UK, for example, the UK Supreme Court had to consider the argument that admitting the cables into evidence would breach the Vienna Convention of 1961, which establishes the inviolability of diplomatic correspondence. The UK Supreme Court eventually ruled the cables to be admissible, but this at least shows that considerations beyond authenticity can prevent documents from being admitted as evidence. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What you say is true, but I'll repeat again, cases where WikiLeaks has been dismissed on procedural/technical grounds are not mentioned here, and in particular no court has ordered the evidence dismissed/admitted while applying the Vienna Convention; I did mention some cases where they just ruled them admissible but nothing beyond that, which JBchrch suggests we should also not take into consideration, and he might have a point if the evidence was admitted and no one made any specific remarks on the resource's quality.
 * Btw, the resource you cite is mentioned as number 2 above the table. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What you say is true, but I'll repeat again, cases where WikiLeaks has been dismissed on procedural/technical grounds are not mentioned here, and in particular no court has ordered the evidence dismissed/admitted while applying the Vienna Convention; I did mention some cases where they just ruled them admissible but nothing beyond that, which JBchrch suggests we should also not take into consideration, and he might have a point if the evidence was admitted and no one made any specific remarks on the resource's quality.
 * Btw, the resource you cite is mentioned as number 2 above the table. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The problem is that we have no way of knowing whether the version of a document hosted on Wikileaks is a “true and accurate copy” of the original - or whether it has been tampered with.
 * Eventually, the government will release the original document to the public, and at THAT point we can compare it to what is hosted on Wikileaks.  IF there are no discrepancies, THEN we can cite the original and link to the version hosted on Wikileaks (as a “convenience link”).  Until then, no. Blueboar (talk) 11:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a selective application of an impossible standard of accuracy, in spite of no evidence of actual tampering. Also, they do have a verification process, as noted by Burrobert earlier . Alaexis¿question? 12:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Not an impossible standard, just severely limited. The original document will (eventually) be released and thus citable... and (in most cases) Wikileaks can then be used to view it. Just not YET. Blueboar (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * , no, the list of cases is not particularly helpful. Wikipedia is not a court. The question for Wikipedia is whether we should cite stolen copies of primary documents hosted on a website with a clear political agenda and considered, in our terms, of questionable reliability at best.
 * As Wikipedia policy questions go, that's about as simple as you can get: No. Sources are supposed to meet the trifecta of reliable, independent and secondary, and we must not give undue weight to things.
 * If the fact is true and not contained in other sources, it is not significant.
 * If it is true and contained in other sources, we use them instead. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 1. I hope you read the explanation as to why I listed the court cases. I know Wikipedia is not a court, but it does share some principles with the court system, one of which is to exclude evidence that is likely to be unreliable, forged, or both. And the courts dealt with evidence that was clearly obtained against the US and other laws, and argued in favour of those using the documents and/or used the documents themselves in a majority of cases. Please stop arguing that the document is not admissible because it was stolen X years ago - it's now on public domain and only Wikipedia policies may bar us from using it, which we are to determine here.
 * 2. No policy on Wikipedia says the source must be all of three (and yes, even if you author an otherwise brilliant essay, policy guidelines are more important than essays). It must be reliable, agreed, no exceptions (that's to be decided). WikiLeaks, unlike regular outlets like NYT, does not produce news themselves and is only a repository of documents, as JBChrch rightly noted, so independence principle does not apply here, and even if it did, bias is not something that disqualifies the resource, whatever your opinion on Trump is. Verifiability, on the other hand, does, which I believe can be inferred from a clean record when it comes to documents per se (not how others interpret them). It needn't be secondary, otherwise WP:PRIMARY would be redundant. WP:PRIMARY expressly says primary sources may be cited, but we should be cautious. On the other hand, there's almost unanimous consent that, faced with the choice to cite WL or secondary RS, we should cite the latter. We don't always have that luxury, however, which was the case in the disputed description of a Lao politician. It does not follow automatically that the fact is not significant. Most Europeans or Americans would say "whatever" if the Chinese built another dam on the Mekong, but for Laos that's important, and that should be our vantage point. That attitude is the reason we can't find the news, not because Laos itself is insignificant (even if it is small and poor). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

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


 * Can we please have an extended confirmed requirement for opening one of these RfCs? There are lots of them, and it's not always worth settling on which shade of lousy a source is. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 14:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * : To comment 1): There are four prongs of WP:USEBYOTHERS: 1. How accepted and high-quality reliable sources use a given source, 2. whether they are used often. 3. whether the coverage is positive or negative, and 4/3a. whether RS release information "as is" or heavily comment on it and its veracity. Even if we assumed Donald Trump is a source (even though WP:USEBYOTHERS concerns other media outlets in general, not person's opinions, but so be it for the purposes of the argument), we just say he's largely unreliable, because while he is covered by RS extensively, the coverage about him personally is negative in the majority of RS (particularly since late 2020) and the majority also comments extensively on his claims to rectify them. In general, though, what Trump says has much more to do with WP:OPINION, or, as in the case of 2020 election, WP:FRINGE.
 * : I don't believe the comparison is correct. Project Veritas is known to repeatedly manipulate their videos which they purport are how it looks like IRL so that the impression from the dialogue is different from what you'd hear in full dialogue - there is no known instance the same happened with WikiLeaks's documents (redaction of which does not preclude authenticity). Then, unlike WikiLeaks, Project Veritas settled a libel lawsuit against an ACORN employee, in which the defendant admitted having created deceitful coverage, and that's only because common law allows settlements that they weren't indicted; WikiLeaks AFAIK was not subject to any. You also say they are not known to be fact-checking or verifying the documents, but sources submitted here so far indicate to the contrary. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Your fevered opinions supporting Wikileaks are of no interest to me, thanks. Zaathras (talk) 01:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Option 1 and 2 - Generally, they are reliable. I think that if the information can be verified using a different more reliable source it should. But unless there is reason to doubt the document I would take it as accurate. Not the policy for here but I tend to apply WP:AGF to new outlets as well. Also, I would ask Wikipedia to consider a policy on using documents gathered using FOIA requests. DoctorTexan (talk) 06:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You may want to move your comment to the "Voting for question 1 (WikiLeaks)" section above. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I would ask Wikipedia to consider a policy on using documents gathered using FOIA requests. Here you go. --JBL (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I've copied your vote to the survey section. If this wasn't your intention, please remove it from there or let me know and I'll revert myself. Alaexis¿question? 09:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


 * There has not been any question of the reliability of Wikileaks' documents from reputable observers. While some of the targets of Wikileaks have questioned the accuracy of the documents, none of them have provided any evidence.
 * I would caution against using any primary source that has no coverage in secondary sources, since it raises problems with original research and weight. It requires original research to interpret primary sources and if information does not appear in secondary sources, it lacks weight.
 * There was a similar RfC after Wikileaks released documents relating to the War in Iraq. You should provide a link.
 * TFD (talk) 13:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes definitely agree with that view. The question of the reliability of the Wikileaks documents needs to be separated from the issue of when it is appropriate to use them. As with any primary document, we should not be introducing a Wikileaks document into an article without some good reason, e.g. when it has been covered by secondary sources. The process of choosing a particular document to cite, even if the document is presented without any interpretation, would generally involve original research. Burrobert (talk) 13:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

RFC — TheBlot
What do you think of the reliability of TheBlot? --DrIlyaTsyrlov (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

TheBlot website (launched in 2013 by the businessman Benjamin Wey is a tabloid magazine based in the US. https://www.theblot.com https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Wey

(Website link)

I submit that theBlot should not be considered a reliable source for the following reasons:

1) According to the above Wikipedia page about Benjamin Way (in Summary and Career Sections):

“Since 2016 he has been facing a defamation suit stemming from statements in his website The Blot,[12][13] which he has used to attack journalists.”

The links: *https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/07/12/court-orders-online-tabloid-not-to-post-any-articles-about-former-obama-nominee-to-the-federal-cftc/ * https://www.reuters.com/article/lawprof-defamation-case/judge-lets-georgetown-law-professors-defamation-case-against-online-magazine-proceed-idUSL2N16B2BR * https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-benjamin-wey/

2) The website is proved to be used by Benjamin Wey as his personal retaliation and defamation tool (see the above sources from The Washington Post, Reuters and Bloomberg) and there cannot be considered as “reliable source” of information.

Here is the list of the people attacked by theBlot (journalist and politicians)


 * Chris Brummer, a banking expert and Obama nominee for a governmental position

(See Reuters and Washington Post above)


 * Here is one about Roddy Boyd, a former journalist for The New York Post. The journalist exposed Wey’s dubious activity and was attacked by theBlot tabloid https://web.archive.org/web/20160620135300/https://www.cjr.org/analysis/shadowy_war.php

Source: Columbia Journalism Review


 * John Carnes and Francine McKenna https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Carney_(politician) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francine_McKenna

https://www.sequenceinc.com/fraudfiles/2014/04/benjamin-wey-threatens-investigative-reporter-francine-mckenna/


 * Here is more information from the Wikipedia article about Benjamin Wey with all the sources verified in his Career Section:

Wey also publishes and writes extensively for the digital publication TheBlot (launched in 2013), where he describes himself as an "investigative reporter."[31][32] In 2015, he was named as defendant in a defamation suit stemming from his attacks on a FINRA regulator and Georgetown University law professor Christopher Brummer in the magazine. An injunction was issued preventing The Blot from writing about Brummer while the suit was pending.[33][34] In September 2017, the Electronic Frontier Foundation called on New York Court to vacate unconstitutional injunction against offensive speech.[35] On November 15, 2018, the New York Court of Appeals, First Division ruled in favor of The Blot magazine against Brummer “on the law and the facts.”[36][37] In 2016, Bloomberg Businessweek and the Columbia Journalism Review, reported that Wey used The Blot magazine to defame and threaten investigative journalists Dune Lawrence (Bloomberg Businessweek) and Roddy Boyd, who used to work for The New York Post and later founded the Southern Investigative Reporting Foundation. Wey falsely accused Boyd of ties to organized crime


 * Hanna Bouveng (won defamation and sexual harrassment lawsuit). She is a former employee of Wey and was personally attacked by his tabloid (later the post was removed by the court’s order) after filing a lawsuit for sexual harassment: https://nypost.com/2016/04/08/intern-accepts-reduced-5-6m-payout-from-horndog-ceo/ https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/east/2016/04/01/403993.htm https://www.cosmopolitan.com/career/a44618/hanna-bouveng/

The case of Hanna Bouveng is in particular worrying, to tell the least.

3) Furthermore, the source is a yellow press tabloid in character, similar to Daily Mail or The Sun but much worse as it covers the topics related to spam websites border-lining with indecent topics and sensationalism just to catch any reader’s attention.

I'd be glad to hear any opinion from the experienced editors here. --DrIlyaTsyrlov (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * , can you provide a link to the article or articles which are using The Blot as a source, in a way you object to? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , sorry for the delayed respnse. Here are the Wikipedia articles where TheBlot has been used:

1)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Walken

2)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cozy_mystery

3)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dikran_Tulaine

4)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Da_Costa

5)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_City_of_America

6)https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_%26_Mercy_(film)

7)https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diona_Reasonover

8)https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Israel

9)https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cozy_mystery

I believe there are more.--DrIlyaTsyrlov (talk) 23:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC)


 * What is your brief and neutral statement? At over 4000 bytes, this RfC is far too big for Legobot to handle; the resulting entry at Requests for comment/Wikipedia proposals consists of a heading only and the RfC will not be publicized via WP:FRS. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Good point, but because it was already there, just not signed. I normally only post messages like that when no brief statement can be discerned at all - such as if that nine-word sentence had not been present. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 07:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Not Reliable' TheBlot is an obvious mouthpiece for Wey dressed up with some churnalistic content. It is not used in many articles (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3Atheblot.com&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go&ns0=1) and sometimes it is not used poorly (example play review) but it is not a reliable source and anything where it is the only possible source is probably not NPOV. Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 18:14, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Not reliable. Just another political "influencer" personal opinion vector, with a clear agenda of going after mainstream journalists. It's part of the "the mainstream media are a leftist conspiracy" theory. So also WP:FRINGE.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Not reliable Most of the post are not from a reliable source and are poorly written. Sea Ane (talk) 21:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Deprecate. The about page notes that The feature that sets us apart from other online publications is that you the readers can have your own voices heard, in any way or style that you would like. We welcome sensational and opinionated articles from you – the readers. You write, we publish, as long as the articles are in compliance with our Terms of Use. The Terms of Use notes that TheBlot does not edit their [user-submitted] content, therefore is protected under the Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. All of this indicates that it is no more reliable than an WP:SPS and it reflects poorly upon the site's editorial standards, as there are zero editorial standards. The terms of use seem to imply that the site doesn't issue retractions under legal threats, and will keep content—even false or fabricated content—on its website, stating that for any reason if anyone is threatened with legal actions, you should know TheBlot Magazine does not settle any claims, we fight them, expose them till you the bully types drop dead. This sort of material appears to be never due, and indicative of worse editorial standards than The Daily Mail. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 16:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably not reliable, but given the limited usage and apparent lack of previous disputes in Wikipedia, I see no reason to deprecate it or list it at WP:RSP ([WP:RSP] is a non-exhaustive list of sources whose reliability and use on Wikipedia are frequently discussed.). MarioGom (talk) 10:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * While I would usually agree, I should point out that the specific issue with this source is highly BLP-sensitive, and at a glance, while it is only used in 14 places, several of those are BLPs. That is a problem; for a plainly-unusable source whose issues touch so directly on BLP, it's probably better to just depreciate and decrease the risk that it will cause problems in the future. --Aquillion (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Open Medicine Journal
https://openmedicinejournal.com/index.php

Is this a reliable source? I came accross some bizzare articles. 46.154.192.231 (talk) 17:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * It is or was a Bentham predatory open access journal, and is on this spam list for what it's worth. I can't find a lot about it. But this suggests it's the opposite of an RS, and if it's being used in Wikipedia should probably go on WP:CITEWATCH. edit: yeah, it's on WP:CITEWATCH under Bentham already, so don't use it! - David Gerard (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

International Judo Federation
Hello, this was our discussion from the Administrators' noticeboard about an article (I was sent here) - I do think the material must be removed:

"Not sure what's going on here, but an IP has added this International Judo Federation. The full Controversies section belongs to it. The question is if this material is worthy of an encyclopedia? Please read everything! I am not going to remove anything because I don't know what action I should take. I feel this should not be on Wikipedia. Regards, Karel .karellian-24 (talk) 23:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @.karellian-24: The IP is clearly on a mission but the issue needs to be discussed at Talk:International Judo Federation. It looks like the "Controversies" section was inserted a long time ago and a January 2018 edit removed it, with the IP reverting that removal on 24 July 2021. You might get assistance from a noticeboard such as WP:NPOVN. WP:DUE and WP:COATRACK apply. Try WP:RSN for assistance with whether ref 5 supports the "controversies" idea (it doesn't—the addition is original research). Johnuniq (talk) 03:24, 25 July 2021 (UTC)"

.karellian-24 (talk) 07:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I've trimmed away the whole of the section (some of the controversies are not about any actions by the IJF, but just happen to involve international judo athletes). Johnuniq's concerns seem to be correct, and spending nearly the whole of an article on controversies is just a very, very bad idea... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I appreciate! I felt it wasn't right but I was looking for another opinion. .karellian-24 (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Tomasz Greniuch
Some time ago I found this news on Italian first-class RS where this man is labeled as "Neo-Nazi", an important member of the Polish Institute of National Remembrance, who had been dismissed after photos had circulated of him giving the Nazi salute. Other sources in English have also talked about this case, like Jspost, Seattle Times, Times of Israel, Telegraph and Haaretz (DW in Polish). So, I promptly searched in Wikipedia for any sources of this historian, and having found them I removed them. A few days ago a user suggested that my edit summary (while removing the source of Greniuch) was a BLP vio, and at this point I am wondering if my removal is also legitimate or not. Can I have your opinion?--Mhorg (talk) 10:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm not sure that removing the sources was the correct course of action. I know nothing about this person, or how his scholarship has been received in academic circles. Those articles (or the ones I reviewed at least) do not label him a neo-Nazi, they say that he used to be involved in a far-right group, and they show photographs of him in his youth giving a fascist salute. I guess it's possible that he did some really stupid stuff in his youth, and reformed: the question we should be asking is whether his more recent scholarship has been reviewed favorably by his peers. That's where we should be looking to establish whether we can use him as a source. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  16:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll add that labelling him a neo-Nazi now probably is a BLP violation, unless there are sources that say he is one, not that he once was one. The ones I looked at were very decidely writing in the past tense, none of them were saying, or even insinuating, that he still holds those views. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  16:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your opinion. Our first-class newspapers in Italy label him in this way "Poland, the reverse of the neo-Nazi: the director of the Institute of Memory resigns",[] so I took it for granted that he could be called neo-Nazis. But, as other colleagues have pointed out to me, maybe that's not the position of all RS. About his political positions, it is said here: "[Zaryn] He also reviewed Tomasz Greniuch's doctoral thesis, which demonstrates just how close relations are between nationalist circles and state institutions in Poland, and how blurred the line separating them." "The nationalist Greniuch is to be promoted thanks to the protection of prof. Jan Żaryn." And again: "One of the reviewers of Tomasz Greniuch's work was prof. Jan Żaryn, former PiS senator, today director of the newly established Institute of National Remembrance [...] In his extremely positive review, Żaryn wrote: “The author is a young historian, but already recognizable among researchers who have been dealing with the national movement for years. His interest in this - mainly due to ideological reasons - a once neglected research area is combined with the simultaneous passion of a regional historian, publicist and social activist ”. This belies the alleged unawareness of the political involvement of Greniuch, who was one of the main ideologists of the ONR (National Radical Camp) during his doctoral thesis." Based on what I read, the person would appear to be identified by several sources as a right-wing nationalist in the present day. If so, I am convinced that any work by him should be excluded from Wikipedia.--Mhorg (talk) 10:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , have you read WP:BIASED? We don't generally blanket-prohibit the use of sources because the author is biased, instead we use them with caution, careful to differentiate between assertions of fact and opinion, considering due weight, and making attribution where necessary. Just removing him as a source on sight does not seem like the right way forward, no matter what we think of his politics. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  06:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

It is worth looking at the publication where the cited article by Greniuch was published, „Niezależna Gazeta Obywatelska”. Its about page says something like this: "We inform about local matters, present our own comments and opinions, often going against the tide of common courts. We write about what is important for our city, region, Poland and the Church. We support and initiate social and patriotic initiatives as well as all actions promoting the protection of life, we care for the preservation of national memory and identity, we are not ashamed of Jesus and we say stop corruption. We have a clearly declared conservative-liberal, national-Catholic and independence profile." That doesn't feel like a reliable source so much as as a biased group blog, but I'm not sure. I think questions about the author and the publication combined would justify at least adding a "better source" tag. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:23, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Not reliable. Dubious publication. Greniuch is known as a "fascist sympathiser" and has defended his Nazi salute saying "it is still considered to be a Roman salute that has purely national roots" which is 100% false. Many other far-right connections documented in . NONAZI applies.--Astral Leap (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC) sock puppet Icewhiz

 Volunteer Marek  18:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) That source is not reliable.
 * 2) That was a BLP violation in the edit summary.


 * @Volunteer Marek - Why is he not reliable? Because of his possible far-right past in his young years or lack of credentials? He apologized for the Nazi salut and declares that he was never a Nazi. see - - "I've never been a Nazi." The hailing director of the Institute of National Remembrance apologizes and refers to his ancestors. ... I have never been a Nazi, I apologize once again for the irresponsible gesture from several years ago and I consider it a mistake - emphasizes Tomasz Greniuch in a release published by the Institute of National Remembrance.  -   GizzyCatBella  🍁  22:05, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , The problem is the publication. Greniuch is a historian, albeit controversial. If he published something in a peer-reviewed outlet, I'd say it is probably reliable. But a piece in a niche magazine that almost certainly has no editorial oversight, not to mention peer review? Much less so. Now, the interesting aspect is the content of the article ; it actually seems like an interesting piece of research about some local history, and it was used in our article for a non-controversial claim about it. But seriously, such research should be written up in scholarly, peer-reviewed sources, not niche/fringe local newspapers. Also, setting reliability aside, it seems that the claim in question (about the existence of the local anti-communist resistance group called "Podziemny Orzeł Wolności") has not been confirmed by anyone else outside Greniuch in this publication, so it seems such a niche finding that it may simply be undue to even mention it. Bottom line, a minor and somewhat controversial historian found out something about local history and wrote about in a niche website of dubious reliability. We need better sources. Once he or someone else publishes about this in a peer-review outlet I'd support restoring this fact, for now - I am not objecting to removal, due to a combination of RS and UNDUE.
 * That said, this edit summary is an obvious BLP vio, needs oversight and Mhorg should be warned not to violate BLP. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think you are right.. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  02:41, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think you are right.. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  02:41, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I think its reliable also but use them with caution per -  GizzyCatBella  🍁  22:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC) This person is mostly known for scandal on Neo-fascism in government. All of the clowns employed by The Institute of National Remembrance are not reliable, they just broadcast what their political masters from government tell them.--157.158.137.123 (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Unreliable. Described as "pro-fascist". Was active in far-right until at least 2018 according to this report. His work in history was to glorify Nazi collaborator Léon Degrelle in a book he wrote in 2013 . He then went on to work in Institute of National Remembrance (IPN), a state propaganda institute that glorifies war criminals who killed Ukrainian and other minorities in Poland. The IPN and anyone it employs is not reliable.JoeZ451 (talk) 18:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC) sock puppet Icewhiz
 * Not reliable. The association with the unreliable IPN casts a shadow here, as does their work on Degrelle. Searching for the name only shows controversy, In this source (page 153), predating the 2021 controversy, his previous 2019 appointment is given as an example of an appointment of a right wing extremist. Vici Vidi (talk) 07:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This particular source is unreliable but please don’t try to hijack the discussion account with three edits.  Volunteer Marek   18:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Use with caution. As I wrote above, it depends mostly on where he published. The fact that in his youth he said something stupid shouldn't reflect on what he wrote as a scholar later (but in this time and age, it sadly does for some, for better or worse). Anyway, his articles in peer-reviewed journals or academic books should be ok. For his works in less academic media, this needs to be discussed on case by case basis. And of course, any of his works from before he became an academic is likely to be problematic. PS. Also, involvement of socks in this topic area is worrisome; werene't the last few RSNs on Polish topics started by an sock of indef banned editor? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The IPN is all about a chauvinist version of history, people employed by it are not reliable. T. Greniuch was a National Radical Camp leader, he was pictured making a Nazi salute in the past, but this is not just past. In 2021 he defended this saying "it is still considered to be a Roman salute that has purely national roots". In his published book about Degrelle he "used similar rhetoric to defend the so-called "Roman salute"" and also "nationalism is the guardian of Christian tradition and the sole defender of God's natural law", this from. A review by expert Dr. Przemysław Witkowski is here:. 211.27.76.176 (talk) 06:50, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with the arguments above. Greniuch who is known for the Nazi salute and trying to justify it as an ancient Roman practice is not reliable. The Institute of National Remembrance who employs him is questionable and not reliable.--HQGG (talk) 14:58, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Two things are true. The Greniuch source mentioned above is NOT reliable. And this thread has been hijacked by SPA accounts with few edits. There's really nothing to discuss here left.  Volunteer Marek  17:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Global Times article can't be used even if it's critical of Chinese govt?
WP:GLOBALTIMES was deprecated in 2020, OK, reasonable, it publishes pro-Chinese government propaganda. But, is it bizarre that a Global Times article that appears to be critical of Chinese government's Internet commentator (aka. 50 Cent Party) system and reveals many things and (dark) history about "50 Cent Party", was also removed? Before its removing, the Global Times article was cited five times as source to support the article. Even the editor who tagged the GT article as deprecated, wrote in the edit summary: "Not sure if it should be removed, but the source is deprecated. The article needs a hefty rewrite if the deprecated source stays, since a LOT of its content is sourced to it." To me the GT article is a good / acceptable one, apparently not propaganda, and it was written in 2010, today they may not be able to publish such criticism. Is it funny, unreasonable and bureaucratic to remove such sources? I think WP:GLOBALTIMES and other similar entries should clarify that even they are deprecated, the old articles from these media outlets that are clearly not propaganda and even look critial of the entity they are said to support, can still be used. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 22:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I am not familiar enough with Global Times to have a sense of how reliable it used to be, but will note that this is not without precedent, e.g. Newsweek. -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 22:23, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Just on a technical note, everything they publish is propaganda of some kind and always has been. There is no such thing as “clearly not propaganda” piece published by GT regardless of time period. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 23:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


 * OK, Mikehawk10 who I mentioned just added the deprecated source tags. Horse Eye&#39;s Back is the one who ultimately removed the GT article references and all the sentences sourced to it. The diff shows many information that looks informative was removed, including:
 * Things revealed by a former Internet commentator and now dissident living oversea, Wen Yunchao (温云超, pen named Beifeng 北风) (Global Times interviewing a dissident is unthinkable today),
 * comment made by Peking University professor Hu Yong (胡泳, Google Scholar), a known liberal media scholar who appeared to be attacked online in 2020 by pro-CCP users (Global Times wouldn't interview him today either),
 * and, perhaps the most informative one, the origin of the term "50 Cent Party" - the GT journalist believed the term could be traced back to the Internet commentators in Changsha who were paid 0.5 yuan per post (I quote GT article: "An official document revealed that in 2004, the CPC Changsha Municipal Committee began to hire a group of Internet commentators who were paid a basic salary of 600 yuan ($88) a month, plus 50 cents ($7 cents) for each post. Many believe that's where the "5 mao" came from."). And in today's 50 Cent Party Wikipedia article, this important information, the origin of the term, is lost. Those commentators were paid so little per post, this effectively made them a laughing stock, I think the GT article is de facto critial of the government's Internet commentator system. While I may use "propaganda" to describe many other pieces by GT, I wouldn't say so for this single article in 2010.
 * The thing is, it's not easy to source these China-related article that the Chinese government does not like, the 50 Cent Party article appears to be full of primary sources. We used to have a seemingly good secondary source - the GT article in 2010 - which feels so precious you know, but now it's gone. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 00:37, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel your pain, but we can’t just go with our gut in determining what is and is not propaganda. If the article is that important a reliable source (most likely academic) will undoubtably talk about it and if one hasn’t now then one is in the future. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:35, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Use of BoxRec for fight information and biographical information
Hi. Although a number of editors here have indicated that it is not reliable, especially for biographical information, specifically in 2011 and in 2015, I've recently learned that BoxRec is used by editors on WikiProject Boxing as a source. At WikiProject Boxing/MOSGuidelines, it states, "BoxRec is usually a sufficient source, but a tale of the tape from recent fights (always specify the network) may be better." And on WikiProject Boxing, one user, PollShark, said that they use it as a source.

I recently had a conflict with an editor who persistently kept adding entire tables of statistics to the Joe Jeanette article without any citation, as well as biographical information to the Infobox. I don't generally edit boxing articles, but do edit articles pertaining to Union City, New Jersey, where Joe Jeanette lived, so being unfamiliar with BoxRec, which he insisted was his source, I asked if it was a wiki, which at first glance it appeared to be. He replied, "No. Boxrec is not a 'wiki'." He eventually placed citations in the article, but today, looking through that site, I found this General disclaimer: "This is an extremely dynamic Wiki-based website--meaning that any BoxRec Boxing Encyclopedia page can be edited at any time."

I didn't understand why the Project would use such a site under these circumstances, so I began a discussion on that Project's talk page. I wasn't sure if I should linke that here, or start the discussion here and link it back there, so I apologize if I didn't follow the right etiquette. Could editors here interested in restricting Wikipedia to reliable sources please participate, and let me know if the discussion needs to be moved somewhere? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that this conversation is most appropriately held here at RSN, if a local wiki project consensus is potentially going to overturned by a larger community consensus (which seems highly likely in this case) the discussion should happen in the broadest appropriate forum. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Menabytes
I was looking for a source for an article and came across [Menabytes], covering the Middle East and Northern Africa. It looks like it's only used in about 20 articles, but the ones I read seem reasonably journalistic. . Anyone come across any instances where it's been unreliable? <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  22:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I could be mistaken and only looked at the about page and a few articles, but my first impression is that it's by one person and that they aren't hiring journalists or using an editorial team. Is there a particular use on WP that you've noticed and appears controversial?  — Paleo  Neonate  – 18:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Nothing that’s currently on Wikipedia. <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  23:16, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Listing a current parent company as the "publisher" of an old newspaper article?
See this edit. Halfway through the edit I was trying to make, I noticed (by reading our Financial Times article) that it's apparently slightly anachronistic to list Nikkei as the publisher of the article in question. I guess they own the website now, and we link said website, but... How do we normally deal with this? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I concur that it may not be a useful thing to list at all if it's blatantly ahistorical. It's like the Evening Standard when it was owned by the Daily Mail and shared articles with them, as compared to when it wasn't and didn't - David Gerard (talk) 09:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, it's not very useful to list this. I don't see why listing the publisher is ever useful for newspapers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree. We list the publishers for books, because the publishers have editorial oversight. Even then we use the imprint instead when there is one. The Times and The Sun share the same publisher, but are at opposite ends of the spectrum in Wikipedia reliability ratings. TFD (talk) 11:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think news org conglomerates operate on the imprint model, like some book publishers -- they operate on the limited liability corporation model, which suggests The Times, and The Sun would not have the same publisher. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Also, you might want to check whether the parent company is (or ever was) the publisher -- in news conglomerates it is, I think, regular that the publisher is in the subsidiary (not in the parent), so that suggests the publisher is Financial Times Ltd, not the parent (which would make sense because the parent wants to keep liability limited to one property, to take advantage of limited liability corporate ownership). Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


 * It depends, if we’re talking about a corporate acquisition that leaves the organization largely intact I would say no... But if we’re talking for example about X regional paper which went our of business and whose archives are now maintained by Y regional paper I would say for our purposes that Y is the publisher even though the material originated with X. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 14:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Research is not an opinion and double standards

 * Virtually every single pro-argument for debt trap diplomacy is an opinion piece WITHOUT hard research and yet none of them are deleted or disputed. (There are no shortage of sources that actually outright contradict them with hard research). I have given sources that are different and have actual hard research written by a reputed scholar that do contradict them.

Yet one guy @Amigao keeps making arbitrary rules to delete such hard facts and research findings and calling them as opinions. And he tells me to go to the talk page to discuss why the info should be added or removed. So I gave a full resaasoning but he replied back with a superifical reply. He does't even address the topic at all but uses the same pretexts phrase to delete info that he doesn't like. (He can't even expalin why that info is wrong just implying them as non-facts or fake news)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Debt-trap_diplomacy#Add_in_the_full_proper_counterargument_by_Moore

Can you tell me if the source below is actually reliable or lying and fake news??

In a study conducted by scholars at Boston University and Johns Hopkins University. They found that China had lent at least $95.5 billion to African countries between 2000 and 2015

They noted that a continent where over 600 million Africans have no access to electricity. About 40 percent of the Chinese loans were used to pay for power generation and transmission. Another 30 percent went to "modernizing Africa’s crumbling transport infrastructure".

The study was by Deborah Bräutigam. the Bernard L. Schwartz Professor of International Political Economy and director of the China Africa Research Initiative at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. She is a real expert in these matters and her research was not opinion but professionally conducted and objective study that found those facts. And now for editors to call the study as an unrelaible source despite how absurd that reasoning is. That is going too far with arbitrary excuses to remove info. Can you please help tell me whether or not the source is unreliable or not, to back the info above?

Nvtuil (talk) 23:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


 * 1. Every piece of research is opinion, which may or may not be based on data and observations. In the case of peer-reviewed studies, we assume it is.
 * 2. Any opinion piece should be attributed, and in the case of research, it's better to link to the research rather than to an opinion piece that discusses it (acknowledging the authorship, of course). So if the research paper says the thing she wrote in the opinion piece for WaPo, you may introduce it, BUT
 * 3. Ms Bräutigam is already sufficiently represented in the text. It would be better to summarise the main points of her research so as not to give excessive weight to her arguments. So, answering strictly your question, yes, she is an established researcher and that paper, if peer-reviewed, is OK for the text, but it doesn't really warrant making her paragraph larger than others. We shouldn't rely on opinions of one researcher too much.
 * Which leads to the following concern about the article: IMHO there seems to be POV-pushing (which is seen by the edit-warring in the article) in the article to show the debt-trap theory as debunked. A cursory look at Google Scholar yields me i.a. the following articles:
 * Pádraig Carmody, Ian Taylor, Tim Zajontz. (2021) China’s spatial fix and ‘debt diplomacy’ in Africa: constraining belt or road to economic transformation?. Canadian Journal of African Studies / Revue canadienne des études africaines.
 * Zajontz, T. (2020). The Chinese infrastructural fix in Africa: lessons from the sino-zambian “road bonanza.” Oxford Development Studies, 1–16. doi:10.1080/13600818.2020.1861230
 * Addis, A. K., Asongu, S., Zuping, Z., Addis, H. K., & Shifaw, E. (2020). Chinese and Indian investment in Ethiopia: infrastructure for “debt-trap diplomacy” exchange and the land grabbing approach. International Journal of Emerging Markets
 * Ashok K. Behuria (2018) How Sri Lanka Walked into a Debt Trap, and the Way Out, Strategic Analysis
 * Anzetse Were (2019). Debt Trap? Chinese Loans and Africa's Development Options. S. Afr. Institute of Int'l Affairs.
 * Steven Rolf (2021). China’s Uneven and Combined Development. Palgrave Macmillan p. 244-6
 * which substantiate or at least partially confirm the notion (the articles are either accessible as open-access or via shadow libraries); even if some of them say that "debt-trap" is not an appropriate metaphor or an exaggeration, they seem to agree that the mechanism is to some extent present there.
 * To be clear, the sources dismissing that theory are not used to the full, either, but the article is obviously unbalanced at this moment as overrepresenting the counterarguments. Editors' attention (particularly if someone is an economist or an armchair expert in geopolitics) to the article is badly needed. For now, an NPOV template seems warranted. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 04:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


 * It seems like the topic brings alot of denial. There is a real difference between opinion and hard facts. The hard facts is where it's either correct or false. If someone analysed all the debts from China to Africa and found there was not a single case of asset seizure. That is not an opinion. It seems more like an excuse to remove info by calling it an opinion.

If for example someone claimed that Sri Lanka deafulted after being overwhelmed by chinese loans. And then gave up control of the port to the chinese. That's an opinion from Chellaney and is also VERIFIED misinformation without dispute. Because researchers like Chatham House and Deborah was able to find out that Sir lanka debt crisis was more due to IMF loans rather than chinese loans (which makes up a small percent). And that Sri Lanka never even defaulted on any loans as claimed. Those are not OPINIONS but experts being able to fact check chellaneys claims and say which facts are wrong or right.(WHICH many western scholars were able to say it's 100 percent wrong without any ambuigity about it)

https://gjia.georgetown.edu/2021/06/05/questioning-the-debt-trap-diplomacy-rhetoric-surrounding-hambantota-port/

And even if they were opinions for argument sake. Why is Chellany allowed to loudly make claims in the article that China gave Sri Lanka tremendous amount of debt to overwhelm the country. And providing zero evidence? By that logic, every single claim he made, needs to be removed from the article as he is proven to be both a discredited liar who claimed false facts. A liar is someone who claimed that sri lank debt distress was caused by china when research shows that is not even true at all. Hence why is his opinions still allowed on wiki. The correct policy would be to give precedence to research and not to discredited liars. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2021/02/china-debt-trap-diplomacy/617953

And back to the topic, if someone like deborah does research and finds that there is not a single asset seizure in africa from Chinese loans. And most of the loans addressed Africa's infrastructure gap. Calling it an opinion is just bs. Because by that logic, you can call every single research in the world as just opinion simply becasue you don't like the conclusion. Nvtuil (talk) 04:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, did you come here to ask for help or to assert that the other scholars/fellow editors are wrong? If the latter is the case, I'm of no use here.
 * Re: Those are not OPINIONS but experts being able to fact check chellaneys claims and say which facts are wrong or right and Because by that logic, you can call every single research in the world as just opinion simply becasue you don't like the conclusion. Let's start with one observation. We are not here on Wikipedia to promote The Truth©, as presented by a few sources supporting the notion (unless the support is near-unanimous or the other side promotes obviously bad research/pseudoscience, which is not the case here). We are here to summarise sources. Every scholar tries to assemble facts and make interpretations based on them - these interpretations are opinions, but we give preference to their findings. Now there is a variety of scholars publishing in a variety of outlets and having a variety of opinions, Ms Bräutigam is one of them (and that was the one you explicitly asked for, not Chatham House (which I'd allow), not any other source).
 * The Atlantic piece is written by Ms Bräutigam, whose opinion is already well-represented and well-heard. That one paragraph can summarise her opinions published everywhere (including WaPo, The Atlantic etc.) as well as research papers on the topic. But we should not give more weight than is WP:DUE to her.
 * Exactly the same concern applies to the Georgetown piece, which is OK as it is an academic article in a university press publication. However, the problem is that overall, the balance of opinions must reflect the predominance of views on the subject, which the article fails to do.
 * If you have any specific questions concerning reliability of specific sources used, you can ask them here; otherwise I suggest that the discussion be moved to WP:NPOVN
 * PS. Please indent every paragraph of your answer, not just the first one. You may also want to turn on Enable quick replying in your preferences ("Editing" section) Szmenderowiecki (talk) 06:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I think the title of the source says it all: "U.S. Politicians get China in Africa all wrong". We are not "U.S. Politicians" and neither do we treat them as reliable sources. Why are we being lumbered with all this WP:SOAPBOXing? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I’ve seen Amigao make a lot of edits (sometimes ones I didn’t agree with), I’ve never seen them invent an arbitrary rule and that doesn’t appear to have happened here either... OP would appear to be engaging in a pattern of making mountains out of mole hills and straw men out of dust bunnies. Other than that I don’t have much to add to what has already said. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

help
I recenty encountered this book Community Warriors: State, Peasants and Caste Armies in Bihar wrriten by Kumar, Ashwani (2008) in the reference list of bhumihar and has some controversial things without any reference and these things have been called rumors by other authors of raj era so my question is would it be considered ?? because there is no book which has these things Gaurav 3894 (talk) 03:57, 27 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Its Amazon listing is sparse and does not give much indication that it is a notable publication. Zaathras (talk) 04:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC)


 * It's published by Anthem Press which is a good sign, and has been reviewed in the bulletin of the Indian Sociological Society which is a also good sign, though unfortunately I can only see the first page of this review at the moment. It is a republished and revised form of Kumar's doctoral thesis.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 07:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I have access to JSTOR, the full review seems positive. The final paragraph starts: "The book makes significant contribution [sic] in terms of conceptualising operational aspects of caste-class dynamics within the broader framework of democratic institutions". Jr8825  •  Talk  10:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

The @Suriyak Twitter account for occupation of various locations on the Syrian Civil War situation map
1. Source: The anonymous Twitter account @Suriyak

2. Article: Syrian civil war

3. Content: The Civil War situation map used in the above article, which is hosted on commons. This map is generated using the module Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map. Roughly 2/3rds of the edits to this map appear to be based on Twitter accounts (see here), most anonymous, of which @Suriyak is the most common. FOARP (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)


 * This is definitely not a reliable source. Even if everything on it is 100% accurate, it gives no account of its sources or methodology and is just an anonymous Twitter account. Our Syria war articles already rely too much on sources like this. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Completely unreliable. I'm already tracking direct cites to the Twitter account responsible, to prevent things like this. FDW777 (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Responding
Hoping to get a second opinion here regarding the acceptability of using GitHub, a forum post, several blogs, etc. for an “Issues” section. Any input is appreciated. Alisafetic (talk) 16:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

US Government Website (FCC)
There is an ongoing discussion on Talk:LTE frequency bands as to whether the Federal Communications Commission's website (fcc.gov) is a reliable source when it comes to the naming of wireless frequency bands. The FCC describes band 26 as "800MHz SMR", but other editors disagree that the FCC is a reliable source. The FCC is the government agency responsible for licensing this wireless spectrum to the wireless providers. Is the FCC's website considered a reliable source? Dv42202 (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, are we talking about the *name* of the band, or the frequencies it covers? Because the name does not necessarily indicate the latter (as on a practical basis, bands can cover a range that is not strictly listed by the name). There should be no issue with the FCC as a source for the name/description, but the actual specification would need a source that explicitly covers the technical aspects. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The name of the band is the disagreement. Currently, the article lists band 26 as "850MHz Extended CLR", but no source or citation was provided for that name. Another user provided sources (including from the FCC), which lists this band as "800MHz SMR", but 3 other editors feel that the FCC is not a reliable source. Dv42202 (talk) 17:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The FCC is perfectly fine to source the name. Since the eCFR also legally defines what the ESMR is I dont have any problem with the FCC as a source. I've done a brief search and I cant find anything reliable for extended cellular - which sounds more like a branding thing than an actual technical name. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. No one has been able to find a reliable source for Extended CLR. If the FCC is considered a reliable source, my feeling is the name should be changed unless a reliable source for E-CLR can be found. So far, none can be found. It appears that the person who originally created the article made up that name, since there are no citations for it anywhere. Dv42202 (talk) 17:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , The FCC is a reliable source for what they might name something, but they are not a source for the idea that no one else uses a given name. For example, 'Extended CLR' appears as a name for that band in "The LTE-Advanced Deployment Handbook: The Planning Guidelines for the Fourth Generation Networks", ISBN 9781118484807, page 115. MrOllie (talk) 17:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , On what basis is that book a reliable source? I've seen websites that got their information from the incorrect Wikipedia article. It wouldn't surprise me if books were also sourcing that information from the Wikipedia chart. No one has been able to find any reference to "E-CLR" from the FCC, or any wireless carrier. Nor do any of them refer to the band as "850MHz". Dv42202 (talk) 18:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , It is published by Wiley, who are a fairly well respected publisher so far as I know. If you aren't familiar with what makes for a reliable source, you can read Reliable sources, or given the noticeboard we're on I'm sure someone will be along to explain it to you soon. MrOllie (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , No, I fully understand it. You don't appear to understand that we have already determined that the FCC is a reliable source. Dv42202 (talk) 21:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , So? It is certainly possible for more than one reliable source to exist. MrOllie (talk) 21:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * - And they contradict each other, so which is actually correct? You alone get to decide that? Dv42202 (talk) 21:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , No, you get to go back to the article talk page and work it out with other editors to form a consensus. (P.S., don't write things like 'the name should be changed unless a reliable source for E-CLR can be found' if you don't really want somebody to go look for a source). MrOllie (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * - I am actually not able to read the source you provided without purchasing the book. Maybe it's a reliable source. But no one here will be able to determine that unless they own the book. Dv42202 (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:PAYWALL is applicable here. - MrOllie (talk) 21:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * - You purchased the book? I doubt it. Dv42202 (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I happen to have access to a good library. At this moment I am looking at table 5.1 'FDD frequency bands for LTE', which lists '26 Extended CLR (850)' MrOllie (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * - What you're telling me is that the FCC, Sprint, Dish, and all media organizations who refer to this spectrum as 800MHz ESMR are all incorrect? Sprint has been incorrectly referring to their own spectrum for decades? You don't see why that's incredulous? Dv42202 (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think we can stop duplicating comments from the article talk page here, don't you? MrOllie (talk) 21:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The Conservative Woman


I've come across this publication several times, it seems to be a fringe British right-wing opinion publiciation/glorified group blog that promotes anti-vaxx and anti-lockdown rhetoric. Checking the duses we have about 20 citations to it, mostly in BLPs. Does anybody object to me removing all of them? Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd say it's definitely a source worth deprecation (for the news, facts etc.), but the refs generally lead to opinion pieces published by the subjects of these articles, so I believe you shouldn't delete these; there is one mention in the article which mentions the publication's endorsement for Brexit - I'd have it stay, as the editor-in-chief was apparently among BBC's 100 Women so seemingly notable. For all other uses, I'd delete on sight. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, having a look again most of these look ok under WP:ABOUTSELF, I've gone ahead and removed those where I think it were undue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I would strongly support deprecation as this is a totally fringe conspiracy theory group blog masquerading as a mainstream Tory site, but it shows up in Google News so might be used as a source inadvertently. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's had a number of opinion pieces from some quite prominent Tory politicans, at least historically, but I agree that its editorial direction has gone off the deep end since COVID, including classy comparsions of vaccine passports to "apartheid". Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Support deprecation. Yikes, just had a look at the website – vaccines are poison, on the front page. Existing refs should be scrutinised at the very least, although I fully support complete deprecation and removal of the small number of existing uses. While some look acceptable under WP:ABOUTSELF, I'm aware that has already removed the worst uses and yet I can still quickly see problematic uses, such as MigrationWatch UK, where it's used to report non-notable, non peer-reviewed politicised research without, presumably, any kind of editorial scrutiny: e.g. "the group has claimed that current migration rates require the construction of one new house every six minutes,[66]".  Jr8825  •  Talk  19:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I also support its deprecation, or at least add the unreliable assertion here for archives if it doesn't pass. I've seen this before and ensured that extant usage was only for ABOUTSELF.  Still, the latter only allows minimal uncontroversial use.  It's unfortunate that once again conservative must mean ridiculous and unreliable, and that these happen to be women, but this definitely is it.  The last possible use would be if a very notable person writes in it and that for some reason that is considered a due attributed opinion somewhere.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 20:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * How may uses did you end up removing? If there were a large number of uses for factual information then there is likely a serious case for deprecation. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If I recall correctly it was mostly used for ABOUTSELF already, — Paleo Neonate  – 17:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is trash. Deprecate for dangerous conspiracy crankery. We used to have an article on it, but it thankfully died at AFD. (Though if its crankery achieves note, it might get an article again for that.) There is no reason to treat this as any more reliable than a Facebook post by a subject, and it's absolutely unusable for factual claims in general; even under WP:ABOUTSELF, it should be avoided - David Gerard (talk) 21:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m just not seeing it as at all usable, they don’t appear to be taken seriously at all by even conservative media in the UK and I’m not seeing any of the other hallmarks of a reliable source. It also appears that they cross the line from punditry to misinformation hence deprecation may be in order. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Not a source we should be touching. Deprecate. Doug Weller  talk 14:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Why use deprecation, RfCs, and waste a row on RSP for small sources like this? Can't it just be added to the spam blacklist along with other similar sources? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Jewish Virtual Library
Is Jewish Virtual Library a reliable source? https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/155.246.151.38 (talk) 06:50, 1 August 2021 (UTC)


 * From a quick look, it isn't really a 'source' at all, any more than libraries in general are. It's contents seem to consist of articles etc already published elsewhere, which would have to be assessed individually, in the context of what they were being cited for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Per this RFC, no. It has an entry at WP:RSP. Selfstudier (talk) 07:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Is this article reliable? I read in the rfc that some articles are reliable sources. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/hasidim-and-mitnagdim155.246.151.38 (talk) 07:12, 1 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Idk. It also says if the article cites sources, those should be used instead. At any rate, I think you need to make the case that it is reliable, most people are just going to assume it isn't unless it is backed up by third party rs.Selfstudier (talk) 07:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, Thanks!155.246.151.38 (talk) 07:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

MEDRS required for amount of grant money received?
sighs. Questions about these edits:
 * diff: Don't see why this is particularly noteworthy. We shouldn't be citing a conspiracy-theory article here anyways.
 * diff: Vanity Fair is not a reliable source for scientific information, and we should not be linking to popular magazine articles by non-experts that push fringe scientific views. As for when popular magazines started promoting fringe scientific ideas, this has happened often during the pandemic. Don't add again without consensus.

WP:RSP says: Vanity Fair is considered generally reliable, including for popular culture topics. This RSN discussion established that it's generally reliable for news in general, not just popular culture.

Questions: ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:39, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Since when is a respected investigative journalist of Vanity Fair writing a long investigative piece (which academics find no issue with) a "conspiracy theory article"? Is it a BLP issue to say someone is writing conspiracy theory articles with zero evidence and zero reliable sources cited to support such a statement?
 * 2) Since when is MEDRS required for saying how much funding a person receives from grant-making organisations?
 * 3) Since when is it a bad thing to receive NIH funding? I'd be pretty proud if I had millions in grants from NIH. In fact, the subject lists it in their CV, according to the source: Shi Zhengli herself listed U.S. government grant support of more than $1.2 million on her curriculum vitae. It's not presented as a negative thing in the source at all, because it isn't a negative thing...
 * I would agree you do not need MEDRS sources for the amount of grant money received by a person or group. But you also need to have care what you infer. The source says "Shi Zhengli herself listed U.S. government grant support of more than $1.2 million on her curriculum vitae: $665,000 from the NIH between 2014 and 2019; and $559,500 over the same period from USAID.", it does not say what it was for.Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Does it matter what it's for? In our article someone just added it to the career section, and in the full context all it said was: Shi is the director of the Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), located in Jiangxia District, Wuhan. In support of her research there, she has received grant funding from U.S. government sources totaling more than US$1.2 million, including $665,000 from the National Institutes of Health from 2014 to 2019, as well as US$559,500 over the same period from USAID. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, if we say it was used to fund her research at X (or into X) the source must support that (see wp:v).Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, that's true. If we remove the In support of her research there then it should be okay? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:08, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It would be reliable for the fact she received the money, its inclusion is not a matter for this forum.Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Grant information is nothing close to biomedical, and as long as its stating details limited to when, how much, and the broad purpose of that funding, any RS can be used for it. (There are multiple ways to identify grants given out by the US gov't available to the public, it is not like interpretation of biomedical information.
 * That said, while the facet of receiving grants from gov't sources for funding is its fair to include, looooots of people get grants, and at least how that statement is written does feel a bit promo-ish, given that's its not specifically talking about what those grants were being used for. At least to me, that's a tone issue. But you could write the statement that is in debate "Zhengli's research has included backing from NIH and USAID.", still using VF for the source, without any problem. --M asem (t) 13:59, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And separately, just to add on to this, here's a Nature source that is more description to this point  and points out a few things are missing in addition: her grants need to be tied to the EcoHealth Alliance as WIV was a subrecipient to them (it comes up later but needs to be mentioned there), and it should be pointed out how these grants were pulled by Trump when the connection was made. So let's put it this way: its not true she received grants *directly* from NIH/USAID, but through EcoHealth Alliance (which I would understand as a researcher on a CV to assert receiving the subaward grants as appearing as direct funding).  And the mess around Nov 2020 appears to have more that can be pulled in about Zhengli and her research that may appear in RSes due to the political mess around the funding. --M asem  (t) 14:20, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Funding and politics would not be covered by MEDRS, thats a good use for that source although we should be careful to use a wide variety of sources. Whoever told you that was mistaken, the characterization of it as a "conspiracy-theory article” also appears to be without merit. I think we may have more of an editor conduct issue here than a reliability one. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Using a Decider.com interview
Hey everyone, I've found some sources that I would like to use to improve the article Abed's Uncontrollable Christmas. One of these is an interview with several crew members by Decider, which is run by the New York Post (link to article). I understand that the Post is considered generally unreliable by WP:RSP, but I've haven't been able to find any indication of the reliability of Decider specifically. Normally, I would just assume I should stay away, but since this is an interview with the involved parties about an uncontroversial topic (the production of the episode), it seems like this article might be reliable enough to warrant inclusion so long as the Wikipedia article only cites information from the interviewees. Thoughts? RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:07, 31 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I would say decider.com falls under WP:TABLOID, I wouldn't use it, it's not listed at WP:RSP. I would of thought it should be listed know, under it's own listing or NY Post. Govvy (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm confused as to how WP:TABLOID applies; that policy discusses how "Wikipedia is not a newspaper", which pertains more to notability. The topic is notable even without this source. My question pertains to the source's reliability since it quotes the crew members without offering much commentary of its own. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I am saying that I feel decider.com runs rather like a tabloid newspaper. Govvy (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Is hipinpakistan a reliable source?
I was checking one page then I found out that IP 59.103.96.130 (now blocked) was adding hipinpakistan.com as a ref to several pages. Is it considered reliable source? Thanks Hasan (talk) 04:17, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

They certainly claimed so that they are one of the most reliable sources at the minute but that was more of a POV blog. Wait out for more responses.DBigUVrays (talk) 02:58, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 * It depends on how it's being used. Because their 'about' page says they're a source of (among other things) gossip, then I'd like to see corroboration in other sources before using it. Or make sure that the Wikipedia article citing it attributes the claim properly, so it isn't Wikipedia's voice making the claim. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:13, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

nashpia.co.il
Is this a reliable source? I tried the link it did not work.155.246.151.38 (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * When I try to go there, my browser gives me a message that the site cannot be reached. There isn't anything there. So the answer is: no it isn't a reliable source, at least the way you spelled the domain name. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I found it spelled that way and it was used as a source in wikipedia. I removed it.155.246.151.38 (talk) 20:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Idlebrain.com
There is a long term doubt over whether this qualifies as RS. I feel it does. This has been discussed before here and here. and, you are welcome to share your opinion. <b style="color: black;">Kailash29792</b> (talk)  03:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd start by saying that Idlebrain is a farily comprehensive source when it comes to Telugu cinema, espcially for the films that released between 1999 and 2010, where no other comparative source is available online. It is repository of uncontroversial information related to release dates, runtimes, cast and credits, awards and nominations, exclusive interviews etc. that would satisfy our requirements. -- Ab207 (talk) 05:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I truly don't know enough about the source to provide an informed opinion. From what I've seen, the source was discussed first here, citing it an SPS, which does seem to line up with what is written on the website's Wiki article. It was then listed here as a potentially unreliable source but with no justification or discussion. I think the concern is that since the website is basically run by a single person, it does not have editorial oversight and thus no one is determining whether or not the content is accurate or independent from promotion. Per this source, he was informed that his content sway box office figures, making it a major source, but not necessarily reliable. BOVINEBOY 2008 11:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Idlebrain is good source for the information which I've listed above which is more or less WP:PRIMARY and I don't think there are any instances of the website publishing fake information in over two decades of its operation. Because every film review is a statement of opinion, I believe Idlebrain can be mentioned per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Test performed according to cheap electric guitars.
I recently added info to this Wikipedia page: Electric guitar. There's a section about construction and there's a statement ''Cheaper guitars are often made of cheaper woods, such as plywood, pine, or agathis—not true hardwoods—which can affect durability and tone. '' That statement is absolutely true. No question about it. But electronics are the heart of electric guitars, so I wanted to add a bit of info about the electronics of cheap electric guitars.

I wrote the following to share what I have found out during my 12 years playing the guitar: Electronics of cheap electric guitars are usually durable and solderings are done correctly, but the material and tone quality is lower than with more expensive models.

I backed that info up with a test I made: I bought 5 cheap electric guitars and tested them for a month. I linked to the content I wrote about that test, on the part where electronics are torn down.

Source: https://guitaristnextdoor.com/best-electric-guitar-under-200/#quality-of-the-electronics

I wanted to back up my statement.

All this content has been fact-checked by Tommy Tompkins, an experienced guitar player who has been working with me.

I'm an electrician by vocation and performed test measurements with my professional FLUKE-multimeter. I also checked solderings and took photos to prove that everything is fine. I thought that this would work as a source for Wikipedia too.

And yes, I know that Wikipedia links are Nofollow and don't affect the SEO rankings at all. But that Wikipedia article lacked crucial info, that's why I added it.

Reasons why I think this kind of source is valid and why I added the link to my content in the first place.

1. I checked references for that page (Electric guitar): those included sites like: musicradar.com (self-published blog with ads and affiliate links), lespaulforum.com (well it's a forum), StewMac (content there is self-published by SteweMac which's main goal is to sell guitars and gear). I personally have nothing against these sources (well the forum source is a bit unreliable, but the link is broken anyway). But after looking at these I thought that maybe I'll add something based on my heavy focus on cheap electric guitar this year.

2. I have really performed a test, using legitimate methods. Measuring resistance gives us valuable info about how much copper wire is around magnetic pole pieces. More resistance there is, hotter tones the pickup provides. I checked solderings to see if everything is well-attached and that there are no cold solderings.

But to my amazement, not only the link was removed, but also the statement too. At the same time, the tonewood statement remained(without proof).

I chatted with a moderator of yours. He first stated that all self-published sources are forbidden. I didn't found anything stating that and the actual Electric guitar Wikipedia page and its References speak against this.

After letting him know all this he stated that my site and page has Affiliate links to the products I test. I didn't know that's forbidden. And because you are linking to musicradar.com, I assumed it to be OK.

I performed a legitimate test. I can send a photo of my graduation diploma as an electrician. I know how to use a multimeter. I know how to measure resistance. I know how to check solderings. My content was fact-checked by others. Any book Wikipedia articles refer can be way more inaccurate.

So is there a rule (that's broken a lot) that a blog while it's a legitimate business is not a valid source?

Or is it the affiliate links on the page? I can make a new page without those links to act as a source for my statement.

Or is it the fact that I have affiliate links on my site overall? MusicRadar has these. SteveMaw actually sells guitars. There is a disconnection here.

And I didn't feel that my addition was spam. I did it once on to a page that I have gone through carefully. I'm professional about that subject. I'm professional when it comes to electronics too.

Hopefully, you can clarify the matter.

I want to thank you for your time and for the work you are doing! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GnD2020 (talk • contribs)
 * We need RS to say it, this site does not look like an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

but can't clarify why you think that similar sites that don't even buy and test guitars and forums are? or why my statement was removed?
 * Without knowing what sites you refer to I can't say. What I can say is wp:sps is clear blogs can only be used if they are by acknowledged experts in that field. I am unsure whoever Tommy Tompkins is counts as such an acknowledgment. Nor does the use of bad sources justify the use of another bad source, it just means we should remove the other bad sources.Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Read the message above...well I can make things easier for you :) here's a quote about those other sources: musicradar.com (self-published blog with ads and affiliate links), lespaulforum.com (well it's a forum). Here's a definition of expert for you (webster): one with the special skill or knowledge representing mastery of a particular subject'' I'm the expert. I open up electric guitars. I measure resistances and check electronics based on the knowledge I've gained when I studied my vocation and during my 12 years with guitars. My site has combined 82 years of guitar experience behind it. https://guitaristnextdoor.com/should-you-even-trust-us-guitaristnextdoor-com-testimonials/

1 of those experts is David Slavkovic, he mainly works as senior editor at https://www.ultimate-guitar.com/ a page that gets over 50million visits each month. He also works with me because experts hangs out with experts. He performs with his own name because he trusts my site. Another expert has taught guitar since high School: DL Shepherd. I have spent this year studying budget electric guitars. And you say that this is not enough? We have the special skill or knowledge representing mastery of a particular subject, in this case about guitars and all gear related to guitars.
 * We need RS saying they are an expert, and treating them as such.Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Now I doubt musicradar.com is an RS either. lespaulforum.com might be, it would depend on who posts on it (for example if Eric Clapton posts there that would be an RS).Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , MusicRadar may or may not be reliable, but at least it is not self published, it is a product of magazine publisher Future plc. The specific cite that GnD2020 appears to be concerned about looks to be a repost from sister publication/print magazine Total Guitar. - MrOllie (talk) 13:30, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Ahh, I see. Well (OP) there is your answer, it's not an SPS. It's more of a wp:newsblog, which can be RS.Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Note that I have over 25 years of experience playing, maintaining, repairing and even building guitars, though I'd never consider myself an expert on the subject. I find the OP's claim of 12 years of experience qualifying them as an expert to be rather dubious, and am rather surprised that no-one has yet mentioned that the WP:OR which they have self-published will never be acceptable without being picked up and vetted by an authoritative re-publisher. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Artnet news
Over at Christian Rosa, a SPA is repeatedly removing an artnet news article which alleges that the artist partially forged a painting by another artist, saying that it is "defamatory" and "libellous". ArtNet news has always seemed fine to me for art-world related news, but I would like a second opinion. There is also a follow up story in the same publication. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ArtNet is pretty respected in the space. Absolutely an RS in its area - David Gerard (talk) 19:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. With a paid staff of editors and reporters to ensure journalistic integrity, this isn't just some self-published vanity-press source. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty explosive story, of course, but on the face of it it looks like what a well-backed story they wrote with caution would look like - David Gerard (talk) 20:45, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Artnet, despite the silly name, is highly respected and their reporting standards are rigorous. Niche source but generally reliable within that niche. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 03:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

citypopulation.de and worldpopulationreview.com
Are citypopulation.de and worldpopulationreview.com reliable sources? Catchpoke (talk) 03:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Glamour Magazine as a Reliable Source in the Fashion Industry
Could Glamour be considered a reliable source in this industry?


 * I would hope so, but fashion magazines live their lives on a lack of space between editorial and advertising - David Gerard (talk) 20:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It should be. Glamour is one of the oldest fashion magazines in the US, and it's backed by a reputable publisher (Condé Nast). And it has strong editorial control too. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 13:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Otokonoko (again)
Previously mentioned at: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_339 and Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_283.

At Talk:Otokonoko, it is suggested that the inclusion of 男の娘 (Otokonoko) in the results when searching for "trap" at Jisho.org, an online Japanese to English dictionary, is supportive of inclusion of article text Otokonoko characters are commonly referred to by English-speaking anime and manga fans as "traps". Jisho sources definitions from "JMdict".

A review of all used sources at Otokonoko would be appreciated; particularly the Vice source (text & video), which is referenced for the article text Otokonoko (男の娘, "male daughter" or "male girl", also pronounced as otoko no musume) is a Japanese term for men who adopt a culturally feminine gender expression, (one of 3 sources here) and The term <Otokonoko> originated in Japanese manga.

Thanks. - Ryk72 talk 11:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with the other user in the past linked Otokonoko post. "The appellation 'trap' is WP:BLUE in the anime pop culture sphere and does not require a citation." As any citation is going to be user generated because translation of slang terms is just that. None of the links actually hold up to reliability standard of Wikipedia. This is not a historical event. This is translation of a slang term in another language. SlySneakyFox (talk) 04:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Slang terms are often documented in reliable sources (See: Fuck). But, in cases where no reliable sources can be found for a topic, we don't then use non-reliable sources. And we don't use sources for content which they don't directly support. If no sources used in the article are reliable, and none can be found, the article should not exist & should be sent to AfD.
 * Editors are welcome to challenge the other sources used; or to nominate the article for deletion; but not to include poorly sourced content.
 * BLUE is a nice essay; with the contrasting viewpoint at WP:NOTBLUE. But, while BLUE outlines a rationale for unsourced content, it is not an excuse to use non-reliable sources.
 * At the policy level, WP:V requires that content which has been challenged be verified with reliable sources; the material has been challenged, and therefore requires sources. WP:NPOV requires that the article include aspects of the topic which appear in reliable sources; if this aspect does not appear in reliable sources, it should not appear in the article.
 * Neither of those policies are optional. But sometimes the sky is grey. - Ryk72 talk 07:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Longer list of proposed sources:

Most were previously listed at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_339; there was only one response on the sources, which did not consider them reliable.

Are any of these reliable? If so, do they verify the proposed article content - Otokonoko characters are commonly referred to by English-speaking anime and manga fans as "traps"? - Ryk72 talk 14:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * They're as reliable as the rest of the sources in the article. Also, "Fuck" is listed as a profane English word. Reminder that slang at least in the way for trap is the informal version of a formal word. Fuck is not formal to begin with. SlySneakyFox (talk) 23:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The rest of the sources:

These included. Let's have others get a chance to speak shell we. SlySneakyFox (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Of the first five proposed sources, the first, "Japanese with Anime" is a user-generated content blog, and therefore unreliable. The third, fourth, and fifth are all listicles - #3 sources itself from goo.ne.jp (user votes; unreliable), #4 is a very fancy Wordpess site (blog; unreliable), and #5 is explicitly "My Otaku World is one of the best anime blog for the anime fans Build by an anime fan lets have fun together & lets build the best Anime blog on the internet" (blog; unreliable). #2 is trickier as my Japanese is very rusty, but I don't see any sourcing information for their definitions, and can confirm that some of them are just plain incorrect. Reviewing the rest of the site, I wouldn't call it a reliable source.
 * Regarding the remaining four sources, #1 is Kotaku, "quite a reputable gaming media source" - this isn't about gaming, but I see no reason not to include it, so long as the content is backed up by other, more reliable sources. #2, SoraNews, is a blog (unreliable). #3, Vice, currently has no consensus as to its reliability (per the perennial sources listing on Wiki). #4 states that it's an excerpt from a Weekly Asahi article, which is itself tied to Asahi Shimbun, which I would call reliable - certainly the most reliable of the bunch thus far.
 * With the proposed text in mind (Otokonoko characters are commonly referred to by English-speaking anime and manga fans as "traps"), there are no reliable sources given here that link "otokonoko" and "trap", and especially nothing that supports the "commonly referred to" detail. I would also add that "trap" is considered a pejorative, the implication being that a person presenting as one gender 'traps' an unsuspecting other party into sex with them, and we should be very careful of using it in Wikipedia's voice or normalizing it in any way. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 15:54, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

ScienceDaily
Is ScienceDaily a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Averroes 22 (talk • contribs)
 * It's a press release aggregator, so no. Press releases are self-published and tend to exaggerate the claims made in papers and are designed to promote the work. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hemiauchenia just said what I was about to. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)