This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I found this book called The Yamato Dynasty: The Secret History of Japan's Imperial Family.

I wanted to use this book as a source for articles relating to history on the Japanese Imperial family.

It’s written by a historian so it seemed promising. But it had some interesting claims. A claim that was interesting to me was the claim about Himiko founding the Japanese imperial family.

I have done some research on this and I have seen historians make similar arguments, like claiming the imperial family originated from her so it wasn’t unique claim.(Some even argue Himiko may have been Empress Jingu.)

But, what was interesting was the claim she founded it in the first century. That was weird because Himikos Wikipedia page says she lived from 175AD to 248AD. And the first century lasted from 1AD to 100AD.

Yeah that’s a century off.(Or maybe when he was talking about first century he was talking about 100 AD to 200 AD.)

So I’m not entirely sure I can trust this source what do y’all think? CycoMa ( talk) 04:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry misread Himiko Wikipedia page she lived from 170 to 248AD. CycoMa ( talk) 04:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

The Yamato Dynasty: The Secret History of Japan's Imperial Family is, if I recall correctly (I read it, or a reasonable portion of it, in the late 2000s), pop history, and nothing in Seagrave's history implies he has credentials in pre-20th-century Japanese history. There are a number of theories as to the origins and early history of the Japanese imperial family, and it is quite politically controversial in Japan (although it seems to be a rare occurrence for an academic to be sacked or otherwise sanctioned for expressing "politically incorrect" views in post-1945 Japan, meaning that any theory that is uniformly rejected by virtually all of Japanese academia should be treated as WP:FRINGE). That Pimikku (whom modern Japanese pop culture calls Himiko) may be connected to said origins is, AFAIK, seen as reasonably likely, and the association (though not necessarily conflation) of Pimikku with Her Augustness Princess Okinagatarashi (whom Japanese works since the late Nara period call Empress Jingū) is, again AFAIK, also noteworthy enough to be mentioned in both the Nipponica and Britannica Kokusai entries on Empress Jingū. [1] I would say that in general Seagrave should be cited very sparingly, and preferably checked against at least one scholarly/specialist source for any claims; on the specific claim that "Himiko founded the Yamato dynasty" that is WP:EXTRAORDINARY, and if Seagrave gives dates that a century off, without comment, then he definitely cannot be used for such a claim. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 07:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

RE the century thing, its not that it is 'off' its that there is speculation involving the association with a number of people (Not just Jingū) who range from the first to the third centuries. Its essentially two different claims, one involving the founding of the imperial family, the other involving exactly who in Japanese recorded history she was associated with. Both of these, as Hijiri points out, are actually fairly mainstream theories. Because its not a deep dive into at the level of history research cited paper, its glossing over the specifics. I have also read it (probably around a similar time as Hijiri I think), and nothing in the book (as I recall) is controversial or out of line with the more indepth research on the Imperial family (or more generally Japanese history). Its a good primer/overview, but I wouldnt use it directly as a source for an encyclopedia, I would use it to identify something interesting, then go look for more detailed works on that issue. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 07:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Quick search:

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_253#Are_Think_Tanks_considered_reliable_sources_for_politically_controversial_articles?
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_3#Think_Tanks_as_A_Source
• Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Archive_61#Think_tank_or_special_interest_sources

I'm uncomfortable with the use of think tanks in articles. They are pretty much advocacy groups, and my understanding is that they should almost never be cited without WP:INTEXT attribution and should not be used as a source for statements of fact in wikivoice, especially controversial ones. I believe the above discussions confirm this. The context to this discussion is the (at times) extensive use of think tank pieces without attribution on 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis. I'd appreciate some uninvolved opinions on the reliability of think tanks for statements of fact. If my understanding is correct, can we add some wording to this effect in WP:RS? Possibly they should be treated as SPS? ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 01:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Same question for NGOs that focus on advocacy. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 01:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• The problem is that the field is so broad its basically an unanswerable question. There are think tanks/NGOs out there with the very highest reputation and credentials and there are think tanks/NGOs out there which actively spread disinformation and conspiracy theories. Most are somewhere in between, in my experience attribution with an in-text link normally clears up the problem and if thats not possible because the think tank/NGO doesn’t have a wikipedia page then thats a situation in which you’d want to take a good hard look at whether you should be using it at all. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 01:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• ( edit conflict) Think tanks are not always advocacy groups. Many just have a topic focus for research, some focus on research in order to advocate particular political positions, and some mainly just produce propaganda. Compare Pew Research Center to The Heritage Foundation, for example. They're also not clearly defined. Would we consider any research and/or policy-focused organization that isn't part of government or academia a think tank? All of this is to say they can't really be treated as a group. At minimum, the quality of their research and degree to which they're considered authorities on this or that topic varies dramatically. Could you give some examples of controversial use in the 2021 Israel-Palestine context? That's certainly a subject for which there are tons of think tanks operating, and a subject for which there is a massive amount of coverage such that irrespective of reliability there could be a local consensus to only pick up think tank material once it's been covered by a secondary source or whatnot... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  One example: A piece from the NGO Avocats Sans Frontières is used to cast doubt on the legality of the property transfers in the dispute. [2] The think tank Kohelet Policy Forum says nobody seriously questions the legality of those transfers. [3] Another example, slightly less controversial but eh: the entire bulk of the "Historic dispute" section is sourced to a publication by The Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies, another think tank. [4] ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 01:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  Why not mention both views on the legality of the transfers as the New York Times does? VR _talk 08:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  The NYT unfortunately doesn't go into sufficient detail to verify the entire prose afaik. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 11:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  Regarding think tanks are not always advocacy groups, one thing I mentioned further down is that looking at a think tank's mission statement and stated purpose can be a good starting point. Obviously some may have a stated goal that diverges from reality, so we also have to look at their reputation, but it's a good place to start - eg. the Pew Research Center has providing accurate information as its stated purpose. Whereas if a think tank's stated purpose is to advance an ideological goal, we can stop there - those think tanks would never be usable for anything but WP:RSOPINION at best (and I would caution against using them even for that without a secondary source; that falls far short of the RSOPINION gold standard of opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. Publication in an advocacy-oriented think tank doesn't generally mean anything beyond 'the people who pay the think tank believe publishing this will advance their agenda'; people publishing there are essentially "hired guns", which gives what they say no inherent weight. Citing such a think tank directly would be like citing a TV commercial directly - it doesn't matter how many screens they paid to get it on; if the only source you can find for something is someplace where someone had to pay exclusively to push it out there, that's a pretty strong sign that it's not worth covering. -- Aquillion ( talk) 08:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• To add to Horse Eye's Black, it's down to having a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I have used material from the Brookings Institution and the Council on Foreign Relations to source factual statements before, but only when I was not able to find material in high quality press. WP:EXCEPTIONAL, WP:RSOPINION (and WP:DUE) may apply. JBchrch ( talk) 09:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• I assume you're referring to this edit: [5]. Unless Weinberg's quote has received significant secondary coverage (i.e., other articles commenting on his Op-Ed), then I don't think his quote should be mentioned in the article. This is less an issue of think tanks than a question of inclusion all sorts of opinions on quickly evolving news stories. I don't think we should be including opinions from random Op-Eds, unless there's some reason to believe that they're particularly weighty (as evidenced by secondary coverage). - Thucydides411 ( talk) 10:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  That's one of such edits I'm concerned with, yeah, but it was properly attributed so more of a due/undue issue. My feeling is more that 'facts' that can only be found in think tank publications should generally be attributed. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 11:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment This question keeps coming up in one form or another as with Human Rights Watch and B'Tselem recently, blue chip hr orgs but often described (wrongly) as advocacy orgs. In IP area, safest course is to attribute if in doubt, it only leads to disputes else. Selfstudier ( talk) 12:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  Comment. Since PR has requested 3rd party input, I'll keep out of this. But I would note that mentioning Avocats Sans Frontières wasn't meant 'to cast doubt on the legality of the property transfers in the dispute.' It was cited simply to state the fact that the Palestinians involved in the case have repeatedly challenged the authencity of the documentation presented. That is a fact known from several sources. Whether their challenge is valid or note isn't known. Since we do not have independent legal analyses of the court documents. We only know that Israeli laws regarding property owned by Palestinians (there are numerous academic studies on this) make it extremely difficult for the plaintiffs to win a case there. The most famous example is at Susya, where Israel's leading land expert determined that the Palestinian villagers had title and their Ottoman era documents were authentic. The Israeli court has consistently supported their eviction notwithstanding the proof of ownership. Ottoman era documents secure a Jewish right, but are not valid for assertions of a Palestinian claim (which here likewise is armed with Ottoman era documents whose relevance is dismissed). Nishidani ( talk) 13:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

It's difficult to follow what you are talking about without diffs, but I think you're referring to this: [6]. The claim that Palestinians have challenged the authenticity of certain documents in court does not appear in any way WP:EXTRAORDINARY to me, so Avocats Sans Frontières (ASF) should be reliable for this claim. If ASF were claiming that the Palestinian claimants were correct, then that opinion would best be attributed in-text, with a brief description of who ASF is. Whether this material is WP:DUE is another matter - I would look at whether secondary sources covering the issue tend to mention it or not. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 13:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Sheikh Jarrah property dispute is up for DYK, any POV issues will get picked up there I should think. Selfstudier ( talk) 13:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Another claim in the article that's sourced to a think tank is as follows: According to the Jerusalem Institute for Policy Research, this approach to property rights is unacceptable in international law. The source a report from the Jerusalem Institute for Policy Research. I can't actually find this claim in the JIPR's own voice, though the report does note that several different parties (including an Israeli Attorney General and representatives of various countries) have stated that Israel's evictions in Sheikh Jarrah are illegal under international law. JIPR appears to be a fairly pro-Israeli organization, and its report framed from the perspective of advancing Israel's national interests, so I don't think there are pro-Palestinian biases that would make this source particularly unreliable in this context. From a reliability standpoint, it is usable in this case, though the text should clarify that JIPR does not call Israel's actions illegal in its own voice, but rather attributes this opinion to others. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 14:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• I completely agree: we should never cite think-tanks as primary sources. They are a special case of primary sourced opinion, which is a bad idea to start with (see WP:ARSEHOLES) but unlike most opinion sources, they exist solely to advance an agenda through the expenditure of money. If you want to see how pernicious the influence of think-tanks is, look at the Kansas experiment, where a state was nearly bankrupted by believing the writing of right wing think tanks. Or look at the effect of climate change denial, which, as Oreskes does a masterful job of establishing, was built and suystained by think-tanks. Where think-tanks produce research, it is very often policy-based evidence making designed to serve the economic interests of the people who are paying them. Don't use think tanks as sources is an excellent rule for Wikipedia. Guy ( help! - typo?) 15:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I think "be aware of their possible biases" and "when in doubt, attribute" are reasonable rules to go by. But each case needs to be considered: above, we have a somewhat pro-Israeli think tank noting that international observers have called Israel's evictions of Palestinian families in East Jerusalem illegal under international law. The think tank has a bias, but what it's writing in this particular case actually goes against that bias. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 15:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:DUE may still not be established, maybe if the viewpoint is published somewhere as a WP:RSOPINION but quoting a report selectively seems eh. There is lots of material in these 3 reports which favours one side or the other, much of it not reported in independent reliable secondary sources. How are we meant to decide which to include, which to treat reliable, etc? You can take totally different interpretations of what the majority position is depending on which think tank piece you read. The point of think tanks, policy institutes, and many NGOs is often to promote a certain agenda or to produce 'research' to support their position. Their primary goal is not to report facts. Even if some of their statements are true, what might they have omitted? ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 15:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, WP:DUE must still be established - that goes for any source. But given that fairly high-ranking officials from a number of countries (France, UK) and supra-national organizations (UN, EU) have commented on the (international) legality of the evictions, this particular claim seems due to me: [7]. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 15:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Thucydides411, no, you're talking about the content, not the source. The fact of it being arguably illegal under international law is likely significant, but we don't then go out and trawl the internet for any source that makes the statement we want, where a colourable argument for reliability could be made.

If multiple world statespeople are saying it's illegal, there will be non-opinion sources saying so. If this opinion is uniquely insightful, it will be referenced in secondary sources. Guy ( help! - typo?) 18:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Thucydides411, then cite third party sources that establish the significance of that opinion. Guy ( help! - typo?) 18:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Clearly, the WP:BURDEN in this example would be on Thucudides411, if he were to advocate the content. SPECIFICO talk 15:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@ JzG: What is Pew Research Center's political agenda? Who is a better authority on, say, demographics of internet use? If you're only talking about the policy-focused opinions, then fine, but you're talking about all think tanks like they're all the sort that produces research about cigarettes not causing cancer, which isn't true. It's too broad a brush. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, it's usually very easy to find a secondary source for Pew research. Guy ( help! - typo?) 18:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

? But that's not what I asked? If we're talking about an absolute prohibition on primary research, then fine, but this section is just about think tanks. What is Pew's political agenda or poor record of reliability such that it would be subject to different rules from other well respected sources of primary research? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, my response is that it's not for us to judge. Pew genuinely is nonpartisan, but most think-tanks claim to be (largely in order to qualify for 501(c)3). Yes there is a difference between Pew's nonpartisan nonpartisan approach, and the nonpartisan approach of think thanks that support all hard-right pro-corporate positions regardless of party, but in the end it's still a think-tank, and primary-sourced opinion is still primary-sourced opinion. Defer to secondary sources - which, for Pew, normally exist. Guy ( help! - typo?) 21:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

It sounds like you're saying to find a secondary source for Pew not because of a principled primary vs. secondary sources which extends beyond think tanks, and not because there's anything at all wrong with Pew's reliability, but because the reliability of some sources within the category "think tank" is inconvenient to an effort to prohibit use of all of them. I'm just saying it's too lazy to try to write off the entire category because there is clear evidence they're not all propaganda garbage, so they need to be evaluated on a case by case basis like any other primary source. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, actually it's a straightforward question of WP:RS/ WP:UNDUE. Primary opinion sources are a terrible idea. Pew is an edge case because a lot of what they publish is not opinion or advocacy, but factual reporting, accepted as such by reliable sources, but still, if no reliable independent source mentions it, it's likely UNDUE IMO. Guy ( help! - typo?) 14:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I think all this depends entirely on (1) what think tank; (2) what topic; and (3) what kind of piece. The Council on Foreign Relations has a series of excellent, authoritative, up-to-date "backgrounder" documents, and I think it's entirely appropriate to freely use and cite these as sources without in-text attribution. Ditto for things like Pew Research Center. But purely opinion pieces from think tanks, or pieces from think tanks that are partisan, state-controlled, or less well-known, will often require in-text attribution. Neutrality ^talk 15:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• This isn't an easy question in my view. One option is to just treat all think tanks and their related publications as primary sources and then say a secondary source is required to establish weight. I kind of like this since it is at least simple to understand. However, if we pick that path would it stand to reason that we would treat other focused organizations in a similar fashion? What makes a think tank different than the SLPC or many of the climate focused organizations that release reports on climate change (groups we might call climate change watch dogs)? At some level these organizations are all similar. They have made it their mission to discuss/persuade others to adopt their views on issues, to support what they like and condemn what they dislike. If think tanks are considered primary then I'm not sure why we wouldn't treat basically all advocacy organizations in a similar way. It would also open a question like, is a book by a person at a think tank an acceptable resource if published via normal press even if it just says what this person has said through the think tank? I can see another issue with my proposal. Why would I treat a strongly biased news source as acceptable/DUE but not treat a think tank the same way. An organization like CATO might actually have higher publishing standards than a local left leaning alterative news paper. Why would we treat the paper as reliable while CATO isn't? I can see an argument if the types of things being cited (basic facts vs analysis/interpretations) are different. However, if say VOX says the economic impact of a new law is up (not quotes a source, but offer's their own analysis) while CATO says it's down would we only report VOX's opinion (for argument sake these are the only two sources and consensus is the discussion is DUE). The core of this second line of questioning is, what is the difference between activist press vs a think tank? Why would we treat one as secondary source while the other is primary in a case where both are generating original claims/views/opinions? I agree with the view that there are lots of think tanks and many show limited ability to actually think but I think if we justify treating all as primary sources based on their inherent bias, what makes that different than many other sources we use? Springee ( talk) 23:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• I responded to this in more detail below (since I think the comparison is illustrative), but I want to underline that Vox and the Cato Institute are in starkly different categories. Vox is a WP:NEWSORG with a commitment to fact-checking and accuracy and a mission statement based around accurately explaining the news; the Cato Institute's mission is to advance Charles Koch's ideological goals in the form of libertarian principles. They are completely different categories. No news organization is completely free of bias; some may even be biased to the point where it interferes with their accuracy, although I think you'd be hard-pressed to find evidence of that for Vox, whose reputation is generally strong. But the Cato Institute is not even attempting to accurately explain the world - that is not its purpose. It makes no commitment whatsoever to telling anyone the truth or to performing even the most minimal fact-checking on anything it publishes. (Notably, the small number of think tanks that people are mentioning as reliable are different - they are ones that both were founded primarily to provide accurate information and which have sterling reputations at doing so. The Cato Institute not only fails to do so, it is not attempting to do so.) -- Aquillion ( talk) 08:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• I picked Cato and VOX somewhat at random but more on that in a moment. Consider if the comparison were Jacobian, Slate, Snopes (not a traditional news org) or Jezebel? I think a problem is there isn't some sort of unbiased, independent body that certifies "news organizations". To some extent the difference only comes down to funding. A news org has to convince advertisers to buy add space while a think tank with a reporting component, presumably, does not. While I don't think we should ever turn over our source discussions to the Ad Fontes Media team it is interesting to look at their ratings of CATO[ [8]] and VOX [ [9]]. CATO is rated as more reliable (41 vs 39) and less biased (5 vs -11). Don't get me wrong, I understand the choice to treat think tanks as primary and thus only include their views if a secondary RS covers it. What I'm asking is if this would mean we automatically apply the same rule to other purposed organizations (SPLC, various climate change groups) and/or at what point do we ask if a strong POV news source is really any different than a think tank when it comes to things like bias, analysis/commentary etc. Sometimes the difference between a think tank with a reporting component and an activist press source seems little more than how they are funded. This isn't so much an answer/path forward as it is a question that should be asked with respect to any path forward. An alternative might be to move away from treating sources and generally reliable/due or not and towards spending more time asking if particular source articles/reports and reliable/due in context. Springee ( talk) 11:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Regarding the SPLC (the easier question), I mentioned three categories of think-tanks below - the "default" where a think tank isn't really useful for anything; think tanks that are so well-known and widely-cited on a topic that their opinion is almost automatically relevant when that topic comes up (but the threshold for this is usually that we can always find a secondary source when we need one, so it doesn't matter); and a small number of think tanks who actually have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and usually have that as part of their mission statement, which can be cited for facts. The SPLC is in the second category - almost any source that discusses hate groups cites their opinion, which I think means we can consider their opinion significant enough to mention on its own but usually shouldn't have to. I wouldn't cite them without attribution, though - they are respected because their opinions are considered authoritative, not because they are known for accuracy. Regarding newsorgs, again - if a source does have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, bias alone doesn't disqualify it, though we have to take its biases into account and an extreme bias can be a reason to doubt that reputation. But the basic point is that a newsorg is, by definition, something that at least notionally aspires to fact-checking and accuracy; assuming they're not completely unknown, there's a presumption of "they're doing what they say" that has to be overcome by demonstrating otherwise to show they're unreliable. An advocacy-oriented think tank is the reverse - they are not claiming to do any fact-checking, and are specifically saying they have other priorities, so you have to start from zero (or a net negative, even) and show that they are specifically reputable for that before it would become even debatable whether they might be citable for facts. Certainly I agree that there are less-unreliable newsorgs and more-reliable thinktanks, but all else being equal being a newsorg is a positive and being an advocacy-oriented think tank is a net negative (when it comes to citations for facts, being an advocacy-oriented think tank is such a severe net negative that I would say it is nearly impossible to overcome, since it means their core definition as an organization is to be as WP:BIASED as possible; the only situations we might cite them for facts are extremely limited, unexceptional, non-self-serving WP:ABOUTSELF stuff and the other narrow exceptions that let us cite anything.) -- Aquillion ( talk) 16:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Summed up very well by Springee, Neutrality, Rhododendrites, and I particularly commend Springee's analysis, thank you very much. Not all research by think tanks is partisan/unreliable, some is actually very worthy, and I don't believe all think tank research to be primary, too, since they (at least claim to) include other bits of data to (mis)guide policy. While WP:ARSEHOLES makes a point that think tank policy may ruin entire governments, we as editors are not here to determine if they are bound to (unless we were all scholars in the economical domains, which we are not); at most, we could point to some glaring flaws in reasoning as reported in widespread scholarly criticism to make the point made by the think tank look bleak, or to a pattern of factual inaccuracies or outright lies made in the reports. Just as we do with any news outlet. The difference may be that we might want to pay more attention to manipulations or lies by omission they (may) make, but other than that, I'd treat is as any other source. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 04:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with JZG we need a secondary source from WP:NEWSORG or scholarly publication to make their claims notable -- Shrike ( talk) 07:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• Most think tanks are unusable without a secondary source; status as a think-tank (unlike status as a WP:NEWSORG) provides no presumption of reliability in and of itself, and few think-tanks have anything else that would give them a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A few exist that are important enough that we ought to cover what they say (though the threshold for this is generally that we will not need to cite them on their own since anything important they say will have secondary coverage.) A very small number of further exceptions exist that have reputations for fact-checking and accuracy sufficient that they can be cited for facts despite being think tanks; generally these are the few think-tanks whose mission statements are focused on providing accurate information and which have a reputation to affirm that they live up to that. But most think tanks, even very well-funded and well-known think-tanks, are by default not attempting to be reliable source as we understand the term; most of them exist solely to advance the agenda they were founded for and have no commitment to (and make no pretense of committing to) fact-checking or accuracy. At best such think-tanks are usable for opinion, and for opinion they are usually WP:UNDUE because publication in a think tank means nothing beyond "people with the money to fund a think tank wanted to say this." (ie. publication in a source otherwise recognizable as reliable, like the editorial page of a major paper, carries at least some implication of due weight; publication in a think tank carries no such weight because a think tank will by definition publish anything that they think advances their goals.)

The comparison of the Cato Institute, in particular, to Vox is very telling - while people may disagree with Vox in various ways, it is fundamentally a news organization, with a commitment to, and a reputation for, fact-checking and accuracy; no matter how much some people may disagree with its conclusions, it is by all accounts at least attempting to accurately describe the world, and accurately explaining the world is at least notionally its purpose. The Cato institute has no such commitment or reputation and, more importantly, is not intended to perform any sort of fact-checking; it is not intended to explain, only to convince. Its purpose is to advance Charles Koch's political agenda (and the agenda of anyone else who funds it); it can maybe be cited as a WP:PRIMARY source in contexts where that opinion is relevant, ideally with a secondary source to establish this, but cannot be cited for statements of fact ever. As with personal websites, there are a small number of think tanks whose reputation is strong enough to overcome this, but it has to be demonstrated on an individual basis because unlike a WP:NEWSORG there is no commitment to fact-checking or accuracy inherent to defining oneself as a think tank (and in fact, in many cases, a commitment that runs counter to it - again, the Cato Institute vs. Vox comparison in particular is a good example because the Cato Institute's founding mission is explicitly to push a specific agenda, not to report anything accurately. If you want to show that Vox is unreliable, you have to demonstrate that it is failing to live up to its mission of reporting with fact-checking and accuracy. If you want to argue that the Cato Institute is reliable, you have to demonstrate that it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy despite giving no evidence that this is a priority, and despite a mission statement that directly implies that it will say and do anything to achieve its policy goals. -- Aquillion ( talk) 08:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Aquillion, exactly so. In short, Wikipedia is looking for facts, think-tanks almost always exist to promote Truth™. Guy ( help! - typo?) 11:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

JzG, What do you think about starting RFC about this matter here or at WP:RS? Shrike ( talk) 11:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Shrike, in my view it's more of an UNDUE question than an RS question, but regardless, some kind of centralised discussion to firm up guidance would be a good idea. Guy ( help! - typo?) 14:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@ JzG: IMO it's an RS question too. The claims of think tanks are often made in wikivoice, and asserted as fact. On the Israel-Palestine crisis article I would guess, as a matter of fact, the current claims cited to them are factually accurate, but this doesn't itself make it an appropriate usage. After all, the Daily Mail might, in some article, publish something factually correct but that wouldn't be good reason to use DM as a cite. Ultimately the issue becomes whether it can be trusted that the claim is factually correct. When an organisation's purpose/mission, as Aquillion says, is not the reporting of facts, I'd say it's quite dubious to trust indeed. It's also a DUE question in cases where they're actually attributed. ProcSock ( talk) 10:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Are we asking for citations to statements of fact (i.e. events that happened) or are we asking for citations to interpretations of events (i.e. statements of opinion). The first is the realm of WP:RS. The second is the realm of WP:UNDUE. If we are citing someone for their opinion, then the only issue related to reliability is "can we trust this source to accurately represent the opinion of the person or group in question". A self published source is sufficient for that. If we're asking "Is this opinion well-recognized enough to be even worth citing", that's a different issue, but is unrelated to reliability, which is primarily about trusting sources to present reality accurately, and not about how we should feel about reality. -- Jayron 32 12:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I think, as several have argued, that it is dangerous just to use a generic label, 'think tanks' and then judge the RS reliability in terms of that designation. They differ widely and RS must be evaluated case by case. Concretely, to return to the original query.

(a) Avocats sans Frontières financed a team of British lawyers to conduct a fact-finding mission in 2011. The only 'fact' we use is that they register the datum that the claims of Jewish parties based on Ottoman documents, have been challenged. This fact was entered per WP:NPOV. There are 2 sides to the dispute. The Ottoman documents are almost certainly, regarding a purchase, authentic (in my view). Israeli courts that determine this have systematically dismissed Palestinian documentation from the Ottoman period. So, while the court verdict is given most space (Israeli POV), the existence of dissent is required (Palestinian POV).

(b) The second source challenged is this, the most extensive reconstruction of the dispute and its roots available, and written by two major area scholars, one who is considered one of the front-ranking experts on land in East Jerusalem. It vindicates the historicity of the Ottoman documents, (Israeli POV) but concludes after a close examination of the evidence that the settler groups using the Israeli courts to expel Palestinians and reclaim a portion of land there are acting in a way which will have serious consequences for the Israeli government,(p.71) and undermine attempts to reach a peace accommodation with the Palestinians. That is a very middle of the road approach, 'fact rich' all sourced to primary and secondary sources according to rigorous research protocols, and outlining Jewish claims as authentic, while detailing in the text the huge problems this creates for Palestinians in the area (Palestinian POV recognized). It has done its work with reasonable neutrality. And, apart from the aim to put before Israeli policy makers an overview of the history and the potential dangers arising from the purely judicial resolution, rather than a political resolution that mediates between the parties, they also wished to create a neutral record of this obscure incident's travailed history, almost exclusively in Hebrew documents, for the international community. The quality of the study meets exacting academic standards, and is cited as such in the relevant literature. I think therefore we are fussing too much. The two are used sparsely, and for two facts. Nishidani ( talk) 13:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Nishidani, unless I am misreading, the challenged doc is published by The Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies. They would on the face of it have a dog int he fight. Guy ( help! - typo?) 14:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, just as, and I think this is a fair characterization, nearly all news sources from the New York Times down to the Jerusalem Post - use of which is never questioned - have a mongrel in the baiting square. (The NYTs's reportage is notably partisan, customarily omits or 'balances' out anything negative with 'but-on-the-other-hand'-waffling, but if you read its I/P reportage in the elitist New York Review of Books, with a sparse but important circulation, they put the boot on the other foot, and publish overwhelmingly top-ranking but little known Israeli or Jewish scholars of the system whose devastating reviews would never get past the moderation board on their daily version.) Abstract rules cannot resolve all these issues on wiki. At times one needs commonsense, and discretional judgment (always before one's peers here) on a case-by-case basis.

I'm not good on wiki rules, I admit. I just apply the methods I was taught to use by Greek and Japanese scholars at university for writing summaries of the state of the scholarship in an academic field. These at least are comprehensible and virtually universal - tight source control, examine the background of the publishing organ and the writers; ensure that the material used reflects standard analytic protocols. So when I read, say Martin Bernal's 2 volume Black Athena I could see that nearby all of the 800 pages (excluding the historical overview, which most specialists thought made a cogent case for the existence of racism at the historic heart of Greek studies) was unusable, despite my partiality for the idea that, contrary to the standard model, Greek mythology reflected decidedly strong semitic and Asiatic elements. So here, I don't think, with my known 'Pro-Palestinian' POV, 'Ah, The Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies is just another Israeli policy lobby, so I'll exclude it!' I read its 96 pages closely and came away with the impression that it fits the highest standards of the kind of scholarship we regard as optimal. I don't share their optimistic decent faith in high principles, no. But I respect quality from whatever quarter it comes form. Sorry for the length. Nishidani ( talk) 15:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@ Nishidani: For the record, it's obvious you're well read in this topic area, and the publication does look high quality, so I don't doubt you might be right as a matter of fact. But, as I linked above, another think tank report written by a few university professors seems to say the majority opinion is that nobody seriously disputes the legality of the ownership. For the sake of argument let's say this think tank is correct. So our portrayal in the article, which seems a bit like WP:FALSEBALANCE, actually gives the impression the legality is more disputable than it actually is. Let's instead assume your think tank report is accurate, and the legality is indeed dubious, then the current portrayal is accurate. But your think tank report is produced by a source which clearly has a advocacy focus, and I'm assuming Kohelet does too. So which think tank do we trust, and on what fair and consistent grounds do we make this decision? And how can our readers trust it too? Your point about news orgs, as you showed with evidence re. the Irish Times, is taken, but I am not sure falling back to think tank pieces are the solution. ProcSock ( talk) 10:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

You're asking me to put two vastly different types of documents, both from Israeli think tanks, on a par, precisely, a WP:FALSEBALANCE.

• (a) Avi Bell, Understanding the Current Sheikh Jarrah (Jerusalem) Property Dispute Kohelet Policy Forum 9 May 2021
• (b) Yitzhak Reiter,Lior Lehrs 'The Sheikh Jarrah Affair:The Strategic Implications of Jewish Settlement in an Arab Neighborhood in East Jerusalem,' The Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies,

(a) is, excuse the harshness, an opinionized rant, unfootnoteded, undocumented, asserting that international law is being misinterpreted by 'bigots' who deny Jews their property rights solely because they are Jewish. (Subtext: the 'squatters' and their supporters are antisemitic)

(This is embarassing since, as Reiter and Lehrs point out,the descendants of Arabs and Christians who once owned and had title to 45% of West Jerusalem (10,000 of the finest homes), as opposed to the 30% on its outer suburbs owned by Jews, have zero property rights of restitution under Israeli law. Bell complains of ethnic bias in Sheikh Jarrah, and turns a blind eye to the elephant in the room of West Jerusalem (as Reiters and Lehrs don't). In short he has no concept of ethnic-neutral law) It goes on for 5 pages. It ignores what international law states (the basis of Palestinian counterclaims), asserts East Jerusalem is in Israel. No, forget the details: the blatant error-ratio is so high, it would end up in a WP:TLDR tract.

(b) Is coauthored by a top Israeli Islamic studies specialist, and a leading Israeli authority on land in East Jerusalem. It had 96 pages, annexes, 213 footnotes, 19 annexes, with maps, photos of sites, statistical breakdowns etc and detailed coverage of both sides, and of the international legal problems the Israeli court decisions cause.

I don’t think one can make analogies between chalk and cheese, or apples or oranges. One could cite Avi Bell’s paper for Bell’s view. By wiki criteria, one could cite Reiter and Lehrs’ paper for factual details about all aspects of the ongoing legal, sociological, political battle and its historical roots. One paper is an abrupt set of outraged expostulations, many of which patently ignore the legal details and international law. The other is a careful meticulously documented outline and overview of all of the cruxes in the Sheikh Jarrah quagmire, and strives for even-handedness.

Bell's piece is so careless in its language of assertion that it states from the outset (which you quote)

No one seriously disputes the validity of the transactions through which the current owners acquired rights from their predecessors in title.

The meaning is, since Palestinians are asserting International Law endorses their argument, and has a higher legal force than an ethnically-biased Israeli framework of legislation, Palestinians are nobodies. That kind of extraordinary thoughtless gaffe sets the tone for the rest. Nishidani ( talk) 12:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• Along the lines of my previous comments consider the following hypothetical. We have a US state trying to pass a firearms law that would ban and collect all phased plasma rifles with ranges over 1 watt. Slate comes out with an article which has a clear editorial slant towards supporting law and cites things like how dangerous such weapons are when combined with T800s etc. Cato comes out with an article opposing the law noting that these rifles aren't available in stores and even in the 40 watt range these just aren't a factor in firearms crimes in the US. Both articles have a clear editorial bias, both contain gathered facts (crime stats, sales volumes etc), and both have commentary in that they make arguments based on the facts they have gathered. So why would we give one the presumption of WEIGHT (and thus presumed inclusion) while the other is considered a primary source and would thus require mention by a 3rd party before inclusion? If both sources are processing the information and offering their own commentary why would I treat one as fundamentally secondary while the other is fundamentally primary? It would seem in this case both are doing the same thing, a kind of investigative expose. I grant this is a cherry picked hypothetical but it gets to my question/concern, why would we assume a biased news source is fundamentally more reliable than report to come out of a think tank. I think the same is true of questions of weight. If CATO or Inside Climate News decide a story is important why would that have more/less weight than if a low circulation traditional news source decides to cover the same content? Also, if we decide that think tank reports/claims require 2nd party coverage to establish weight, should the same be true of other non-news sources (SPLC, Climate Feedback, Snopes etc)? I personally don't have a good answer because I can see both sides here. I don't think it's a simple answer even if the question seems simple. Springee ( talk) 14:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• To be clear, InsideClimate News is not a think tank. It is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalism outlet. Neutrality ^talk 15:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• I didn't mean to imply ICN was a think tank, rather they are an organization which investigates/reports with an intent to persuade. I believe they are also funded in a way that is not unlike many some think tanks. Like CATO they are a not for profit with a specific focus. They are not a traditional new source but we often treat their reports as such. Springee ( talk) 15:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• I don't really think "intent to persuade" is part of the InsideClimateNews mission. Intent to inform, certainly. I don't understand the analogy to Cato. Non-profit journalism is a thing (InsideClimateNews andProPublica, among others, are both very highly regarded non-profit journalism outlets), and non-profit journalism is very different from think tanks. Neutrality ^talk 16:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• I was with you when you were arguing that "An organization like CATO might actually have higher publishing standards than a local left leaning alterative news paper.” but you then proceeded to pitch CATO against high quality sources like Vox/Slate and not local left leaning alternative newspapers (the Portland Mercury for example). Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 15:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• According to Ad Fontes CATO is more reliable and less biased than either Slate or Vox. However, I'm offering all of these as examples for the sake of argument and I'm picking these only as examples vs just inventing sources to make the same argument. Please don't take these to be absolute statements about any particular source. Springee ( talk) 15:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

We don’t use Ad Fontes. Please stick to reliable sources. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 15:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

We don't use Ad Fontes as a RS for articles. I'm just pointing out that a source rating site that, unlike Media Bias Fact Check, does seem to get respect around here, does say CATO falls in the reasonably respectable camp using their ratings. My intent isn't to force a new rule rather to spark some debate about where we are and where we might go. Springee ( talk) 15:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok, as long as its clear to you that your argument has shifted massively and that Vox/Slate are not local left leaning alternative newspapers. I agree with your original argument but the convoluted and tortured thing that stands before us now is anathema to me. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 15:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I will grant that we can dispute if VOX/Slate are appropriate examples and I absolutely agree that neither are "local left leaning alternative papers". The argument is that some sources that we would consider "news sources" may have lower editorial quality than some think tanks. I would totally allow that the specific example sourced I picked were picked quickly and may not have been the best specific examples. Springee ( talk) 16:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• I'd also like to extend this discussion to academic research projects and papers as well as think tanks - I've seen arguments that all sources without overt editorial structure constitute WP:SPS and should preferably not be used, especially in BLP articles. For example, Georgetown University runs an academic project on Islamophobia staffed by a bevy of area studies experts such as( John Esposito, Farid Hafez, Susan_L._Douglass etc, [10] but this was repeatedly challenged as lacking the qualities of an RS. Similarly, other editors repeatedly challenged a report for a think tank called Data & Society by a professor called Vanessa Tripodi [11] was also repeatedly challenged on the grounds that it was a 'self-published source' and couldn't be used in BLP articles. I think the existing policy needs clarification as to whether think tanks, academic research projects and reports written by academics/experts can be considered RS, especially on BLP pages Noteduck ( talk) 01:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

arbitrary break on NGOs

At Sheikh Jarrah property dispute, I also wonder about sentences like this: In 1970, on the other hand, Israel enacted a law to allow Jews to reclaim property which they owned in East Jerusalem, despite having already been given expropriated Palestinian-owned property in compensation. ^[1]

So a NGO source - and thus having an advocacy mission first-and-firemost - has been used to establish this WP:BALANCE (see from ", despite" onwards). I don't think you can use NGO sources to decide what the WP:BALANCE/ WP:FALSEBALANCE is. The report is paid for by donors to an organisation that explicitly has its purpose as a certain agenda. Obviously their goal, which they're legally obligated to advance, is to promote that agenda. So I don't see how this approach, irrelevant of what is factually true or not in the real world, is sustainable or can lead to consistent results or accurate determinations of correct balance. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 11:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I was wondering when we might come back around to NGOs. The principal claims of NGOs such as the above, or HRW or any other of the top NGOs, are usually rather easy to secondary source (eg for the first one The Associated Press says Israeli law allows Jews to reclaim such lands but bars Palestinians from recovering property they lost in the same war, even if they still reside in areas controlled by Israel. The NY Times says Israeli law allows Jews to reclaim ownership of land they vacated in 1948, but denies Palestinians the right to reclaim the properties they fled from in the same war and there are plenty of others) Nevertheless, the primary material is useful for details that secondaries don't usually concern themselves with and there is no reason to suppose that NGOs of this caliber are misrepresenting the position. This looks like a backdoor attempt to influence a naming/content dispute at the aforementioned page. If the opining editor wants to open an RSN discussion about that specifically, he can of course. I also tend to think that we should not be mixing up NGOs in the same discussion as thinktanks. Selfstudier ( talk) 17:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what this could possibly have to do with the title of the page. I don't even necessarily object to the sentence. The point is that a source with an advocacy agenda is used to source factual statements in wikivoice, and is also being used to determine if the statement is DUE. The cited passage serves as a convenient example, but similar examples can be found from other articles too; it's not a "backdoor" and there's no hidden meaning other than the exact general question and concern posed. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 17:53, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

It is my first post over here and I hope that I am doing this the correct way.

I am requesting my fellow editors to opine whether ValaiTamil is a reliable source.

• No - The ToS of the site notes, You acknowledge that VALAITAMIL.COM cannot and does not pre-screen Content. This means that they do not exercise any meaningful editorial oversight and is largely, a web-host. All the articles over the site are by "users", who had registered over their forum. For all these reasons, it falls under WP:NOTRS.

• They also publish a magazine (aimed at Tamil diaspora) from USA, which features an editorial board with members of unknown qualification. TrangaBellam ( talk) 18:24, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Is elrompehielos.com.ar [The Icebreaker] a news source or blog? Is it reliable? Thanks, Tyrone Madera ( talk) 19:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Best avoided. All coverage is made by anonymous people, which by itself is already a very bad sign. The company behind that only operates for 4 years, which is another warning (though not necessarily that bad). What makes me most wary is this document from the municipality of Ushuaia that more or less says they approved 15 thousand pesos ($400 at the time) for paid advertising and propaganda for February 2019. I wonder what that "propaganda" is for, but I imagine it has to do with the Falklands/Malvinas.

I think there are way better sources than that, even in local Patagonian press, or maybe National Geographic, for the information about a natural UNESCO site. It should be somewhere in the books, and probably you may find some government materials for that, but cite them and not El Rompehielos. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 03:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Szmenderowiecki, Thank you very much for the help! That's, uh, not good. I will avoid it. I was actually looking for coverage of the Carlos J. Gradin Museum of Archaeology in Perito Moreno with this source, so the topic is not quite as resource-rich as with Cueva de las Manos.

While we're on this topic, how about this source?

• McCouat, Philip. "Art and Survival in Patagonia: How Destroyed Patagonian Indian Cultures Live On Through Their Art". Journal of ART in SOCIETY. Retrieved 2021-05-22.{{ cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status ( link)

Thanks again, Tyrone Madera ( talk) 19:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@ Tyrone Madera:Unfortunately, though this is a better source, it still fails Wikipedia's set thresholds. It's not crap, but it's 100% self-published and the guy who posts there is a lawyer and not a historian of art, historian of Patagonia or the sort, therefore you can't use it. However, he provides a trove of resources on which he bases his findings - go and read them, and probably you will get a reliable article by an expert in the field that is going to state more or less the same. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 04:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Szmenderowiecki, Thanks. That's all of the sources I have questions on for now. You've been a great help! Tyrone Madera ( talk) 23:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm interested in what you think about this source as well. The reason I'd like to know is the same one as my post above, and it seems to bear "information" about Morocco that no one else has access to and it is sometimes quoted in reliable sources such as here. Thanks in advance. Nacaru 00:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

According to Le Monde, Jeune Afrique is a reputable outlet (an "institution"), although it has received some criticism for being too friendly with the powers that be [12] [13] [14]. It has recently interviewed French President Emmanuel Macron [15]. All in all reliable, but additional sourcing is welcome. JBchrch talk 00:46, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

The French equivalent of WP:RSP ( Observatoire des sources) considers it generally reliable. See this discussion.

PS. As an aside, from what I read in the discussions in the French RSP, articles that are sponsored (Contenu sponsorisé) are poorly disclosed (that is, they are, but the notice is only mentioned at the very bottom of the page), and I confirm that. Chinese state media are known to be buying media space in the outlet. That said, since Jeune Afrique discloses it, it should be a minor concern for you, and for Morocco coverage, you can easily trust it. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 01:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Jeune Afrique is a solidly above average source which provides detailed coverage of a part of the world which is sorely undercovered by the international media. They have a good reputation as well as a long history of quality journalism. Szmenderowiecki does raise a relevant point about sponsored content and we should be careful of that but it is clearly marked even if its at the end. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 03:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree, this is a good source. Promotional paid content excluded, of course, and care must be taken to avoid those. PrisonerB ( talk) 08:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

It is an excellent source, especially for francophone Africa. It is worth remembering it is likely to take editorial lines that generally support existing regimes in certain cases, so it may require attribution on controversial matters. Boynamedsue ( talk) 16:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

EDIT: Ok, this discussion has gotten a bit out of scope so let me rephrase my original question as the implications of that are a discussion for another talks page...

The law as it is written is obviously a primary source.

We now have a decision by the Bundesverfassungsgericht that didn't change the law or it's meaning but the judges provided a precise interpretation/explanation of said law in justifying their decision.

Is this court's decision a (reliable) secondary source for the law?

In this particular case we're talking about the court decision "BvR 1864/14" and the explanation of TierSchG §3 Satz 1 Nr. 13. contained therein. KuchenHunde ( talk) 10:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

This is in part a discussion about the use of German sources in an English Wikipedia article due to lack of precis English sources. I hope this is the right notice board.

Over on the Legality of bestiality by country or territory Wiki page there has been a "years long discussion". about the Legal situation in Germany, specifically weather or not bestial acts are entirely prohibited or only when the animal is forced.

This is the passage that would be supported by this source:

❌ Illegal if the animal is forced, Legal if the animal is not forced ^[1]

Now I'm a bit unsure as to what constitutes a primary or secondary source in the context of law. Am I correct in my assertion that the relevant law (Here "TierSchG §3 Satz 1 Nr. 13".) as it is writing is the Primary source and any published interpretation of that law would be a secondary source?

In this case the Bundesverfassungsgericht "Published their interpretation". of this law in December 2015 when they rejected a constitutional complaint about it. If I understand this correctly this would be a very reliable secondary source for the meaning of TierSchG §3 Satz 1 Nr. 13. and a primary source for the rejection of said constitutional complaint?

However in the discussion on the talks page there were accusations that using their interpretations would be original research so somewhere there has to be a misunderstanding.

Now as an aside this ruling is already used in the "German Wikipedia article". (as far as I could find uncontested since 2016) as a source for the claim that (roughly translated) "prohibition anchored in the Animal Welfare Act only applies if the animal is forced to behave in a manner that is contrary to species. Accordingly, sexual intercourse with animals is not generally prohibited in Germany" so one of the two articles is wrong. KuchenHunde ( talk) 12:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that the BVerfG doesn't really say "Illegal if the animal is forced" and "Legal if the animal is not forced" explicitly. It examines the criminal offense found at §3 para. 13 TierSchG, explains the technicalities of how it should be interpreted and determines that this provision does not breach the German Constitution. I think you need a better, more explicit source if you want to add these statements to the article. JBchrch ( talk) 19:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying the "legal if the animal is not forced" part is not supported by this source? Because the BVerfG is very clear that this passage of the TierSchG is limited in two ways: "sexual act" and "forcing" to do a “behave contrary to species”. As this seems to be the only law regulating this sort of thing "sexual acts" that don't meet the criteria for "forcing" the animal would be legal, correct? Or would it be better to just write what is illegal an let the reader figure out the rest?

Der Tatbestand des § 3 Satz 1 Nr. 13 TierSchG wird in doppelter Hinsicht durch die Merkmale der „sexuellen Handlung“ und des „Zwingens“ zu einem „artwidrigen Verhalten“ begrenzt

KuchenHunde ( talk) 00:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The court doesn't examine whether bestiality is legal or illegal in Germany. It only examines whether §3 para. 13 TierSchG is constitutional or not. This is why the source is not adequate. To determine whether something is legal or illegal, you need a broader analysis or the legal system as a whole. This type of analysis is generally provided by secondary and tertiary sources (legal articles, government reports, legal textbooks). This is specifically the case when the content you are trying to add is disputed. JBchrch ( talk) 15:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

KuchenHunde ( talk) 18:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC) What the court was examining in BvR 1864/14 is actually irrelevant to this discussion as we're not talking about the result of their decision but rather their explanation concerning the meaning/scope of § 3 Satz 1 Nr. 13 TierSchG ! Given That all sources I've seen so far that make any claim about the legal situation around Bestial acts in Germany are all centered around this sentence from the TierSchG it seems, to me at least, that having a crystal clear interpretation of what exactly it encompasses (in this case by the BVerfG) would provide some clarity. Even reputable news sources seem to have different interpretation. As an example: The BBC has been consistent in being explicit that the fine only applies when the animal is forced while other international news articles (like APNews) seem to rely on questionable translations of the law. (see further down on appropriate translation for "dadurch", specifically "in this way", and how that might change how one would interpret the English translation)

"BBC in 2012".: The German parliament's agriculture committee is considering making it an offence not only to hurt an animal but also to force it into unnatural sex.

And: A fine of up to 25,000 euros (£20,000) is proposed if someone forces an animal to commit "actions alien to the species".

"BBC in 2016".: Germany's animal protection laws set out fines of up to €25,000 ($27,700; £19,000) for forcing animals to participate in what is termed as unnatural behaviour

Now that I'm reading them would those two BBC articles be a better source for this claim? The first one very clearly lays out the legal situation as of 2012 and the upcoming change and the article in 2016 merely serves to confirm that the proposed legislation from the first article made it's way into law. I mean they are also secondary sources and while I would call the BVerfG a more reliable source on this subject matter when it comes to international publications the BBC seems to be very highly regarded.

No because the BBC articles don't use the terminology "illegal if forced" or "legal if not forced". At best, they say that it will become/is illegal to "force an animal" into unnatural behaviour (although this is not the prevalent language in both articles). But if you add the conditional language ("if") yourself, then you are not complying with WP:V. Regarding What the court was examining in BvR 1864/14 is actually irrelevant, please refer to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. JBchrch ( talk) 20:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

They ofc don't use the exact wording but doesn't every Wikipedia article require some rewording for for an article not to be overly long and unnecessarily complicated? Regarding your input concerning WP:CONTEXTMATTERS isn't the relevant context that it is an official statement by the BVerfG that goes into great detail as to what exactly TierSchG §3 Sentence 1 No. 13 means? How does what exactly they were deciding influence the validity of their analysis? KuchenHunde ( talk) 13:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The statute making any sexual contact with an animal illegal is crystal clear. "It is forbidden to use an animal for one's own sexual activities or to train it or make it available for sexual activities of third parties and thereby force it to behave in a manner contrary to the species." Individuals are prohibited from personally engaging in bestiality, and from providing an animal for others to have sex with. And thereby force it (animal) to behave in a manor contrary to the species. The "force" refers to sex with a human is not a "natural" act for any animal. The laws says nothing about "forced sex" or the use of violence. The law was challenged in 2015, the plaintiffs claimed the law as written which prohibited any sexual contact with animals, violated their right under the constitution to sexual self determination. But the complaint was not accepted for admission for decision. Meaning the complaint was dismissed for having no constitutional significance. So to claim the constitutional court interpreted the law as saying that only forced sex with violence is illegal, and that consensual sex was legal. Is a bold assertion. But that assertion just isn't supported by any reliable news sources. Extraordinary claims, requires extraordinary sources. Shiloh6555 ( talk) 04:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

It might seem that way from the English translation of TierSchG § 3 Satz 1 Nr. 13 but keep in mind that this is a law written in German Legal Language and as such it's meaning might not be intuitive to even a native German speaker. You interpreting the translation and deriving a meaning from it would be original research! (Also: Laws usually aren't there to define causality but actions) "Extraordinary claims, requires extraordinary sources" I wouldn't agree that the TierSchG only protecting animals from obvious harm is an extraordinary claim but luckily having an exact explanation of what that particular law means by the BVerfG is an extraordinary source that you don't get for many laws.

"So to claim the constitutional court interpreted the law as saying that only forced sex with violence is illegal" (forced meaning: physical violence or a behavior comparable to the use of physical violence) Literally just read their justification for why the complaint was dismissed. They were very clear on how TierSchG § 3 Satz 1 Nr. 13 is limited in scope, one being the term "force" (see above) KuchenHunde ( talk) 10:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

If you insist on trying to interpret a law written in a language you don't speak let me point out that "in this way". is also a valid (and I'd argue in this context more appropriate) translation of "dadurch". While there isn't an official translation of the German TierSchG that I could find "this". translation by the aaalac uses the following wording:

It is prohibited [...] to exploit an animal for own’s own sexual acts or to train it or make it available for sexual acts by third parties and in this way to force it to behave in a manner which is unnatural for its species.

Suddenly the meaning isn't as crystal clear anymore. KuchenHunde ( talk) 11:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

if your meaning isnt crystal clear it shouldn't be in the article. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS applies here. Delderd ( talk) 15:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Exactly! So if the meaning of TierSchG § 3 Satz 1 Nr. 13 isn't crystal clear on it's own then why are you so insistent on keeping Germany as "Illegal" in the article when that would at least put it as "Unclear/Unknown". Of course the meaning gets to the point of being "crystal clear" when you read BvR 1864/14 which is why I cited it as a source!

as I said back in February last year when these same arguments were being used, " WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS applies here with '[having] to wait until it's been reported in mainstream media or published in books from reputable publishing houses.' That hasn't happened here, all of the mainstream media's reporting on the case, including the associated press, have said that the courts ruled that bestiality was still illegal." You're using your own interptetation of the law, and not what the actual news reports are saying. Delderd ( talk) 19:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Again, the statue is crystal clear. And still in effect, exactly as written as of 2021. "It is forbidden to use an animal for one's own sexual activities" It makes no mentioned of "forced" sexual activities, or the use of violence. The word force is used to describe a behavior that is a result of any sexual contact with a human. "And thereby to force them to behave contrary to the species. "und dadurch zu artwidrigem Verhalten zu zwingen. Shiloh6555 ( talk) 19:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Laws are WP:PRIMARY sources (they are almost textbook examples of primary sources that must be used with extreme caution, since interpreting and understanding them is an entire skillset requiring years of study and often relying on knowing related precedent, otherl laws, etc.) And the claim that German law allows bestiality in any form is patently WP:EXCEPTIONAL. You need a secondary source for this - even if it seems crystal-clear to you, how do you know what the relevant precedent means? Do you know every other possible law that could apply, and the full legal context in which this law is being used? I am skeptical, but if you did you still could not use that to write the article, since it would be WP:OR. Find a secondary source discussing it; otherwise it has to be removed entirely. -- Aquillion ( talk) 21:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Aquillion. The German constitution court's own headline says, "Unsuccessful constitutional complaint against the regulatory offense of sexual activity with animals." Not the offence of "forced" sexual activity. The constitutional complaint was not admitted for decision. Meaning the complaint was essentially dismissed. Which is why mainstream media sources such as AP news, DPA (Germany) and AFP (France) all reported that the challenge to the existing ban had failed. So to claim every one of those news agencies got it wrong. And that the court actually determined that consensual bestiality was still legal in Germany. Is clearly an exceptional claim. Shiloh6555 ( talk) 05:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Aquillion that interpreting laws (especially when written in a language you don't speak natively) meet the criteria of WP:OR. Regarding the need for a secondary source: We have exactly this in the aforementioned decision by the BVerfG (BvR 1864/14)!

While it is a primary source for their decision contained therein is a very detailed explanation as to the exact meaning and scope of TierSchG §3 Satz 1 Nr. 13. This would make it a secondary source for this and, I'd argue, a very reliable one since it's an official release by the supreme constitutional court of Germany. Here is what they have to say about it (highlighting different forms of the German word "Zwingen" -> "to force" in bold since google translate is inconsistent):

BvR 1864/14 Section 6

German original

Google translate

Der Tatbestand des § 3 Satz 1 Nr. 13 TierSchG wird in doppelter Hinsicht durch die Merkmale der „sexuellen Handlung“ und des „Zwingens“ zu einem „artwidrigen Verhalten“ begrenzt. Diese unbestimmten Gesetzesbegriffe sind weder im angegriffenen Tierschutzgesetz noch in der Gesetzesbegründung definiert. Sie sind aber der näheren Deutung im Wege der Auslegung zugänglich (BVerfGE 78, 374 <389>; 75, 329 <341>); ihre Bedeutung ergibt sich aus ihrem Wortsinn (BVerfGE 71, 108 <115>; 82, 236 <269>) und entspricht dem Alltagssprachgebrauch. Zudem handelt es sich um Begrifflichkeiten, die auch in anderen Gesetzen und im Tierschutzgesetz selbst verwendet werden. Es ist davon auszugehen, dass weitgehende Einigkeit über ihren engeren Bedeutungsgehalt besteht (BVerfGE 126, 170 <197>) und sie insofern durch die Gerichte weiter konkretisiert werden können

The offense of Section 3 Sentence 1 No. 13 TierSchG is limited in two respects by the characteristics of “sexual act” and “compelling” to “behave contrary to species”. These indefinite legal terms are not defined either in the challenged Animal Welfare Act or in the explanatory memorandum. However, they are accessible to more detailed interpretation by way of interpretation (BVerfGE 78, 374 <389>; 75, 329 <341>); their meaning results from their sense of the word (BVerfGE 71, 108 <115>; 82, 236 <269>) and corresponds to everyday language usage. In addition, these are terms that are also used in other laws and in the Animal Welfare Act itself. It can be assumed that there is broad agreement on their narrower meaning (BVerfGE 126, 170 <197>) and that they can be further specified by the courts

BvR 1864/14 Section 9

German original

Google translate

Der Begriff des „artwidrigen“ Verhaltens steht zudem in engem Zusammenhang mit dem weiteren Tatbestandsmerkmal des „Zwingens“ zu einem solchen Verhalten, der eine tatbestandsbegrenzende Wirkung entfaltet. Nach der Gesetzesbegründung soll das „Erzwingen“ zwar sowohl durch körperliche Gewalt als auch auf andere Weise möglich sein (vgl. BTDrucks 17/11811, S. 28). Eine Auslegung anhand der Systematik des § 3 TierSchG und im Hinblick auf Sinn und Zweck des Verbots ergibt, dass es sich bei dieser anderen Weise des Zwangs um ein Verhalten handeln muss, welches mit der Anwendung von körperlicher Gewalt vergleichbar ist.

The concept of “inappropriate” behavior is also closely related to the further constituent element of “compelling” to behave in such a way that has a limiting effect. According to the explanatory memorandum for the law, “enforcement” should be possible both through physical violence and in other ways (cf. Bundestag printed paper 17/11811, p. 28). An interpretation based on the system of § 3 TierSchG and with regard to the sense and purpose of the prohibition shows that this other type of coercion must be a behavior that is comparable to the use of physical violence.

BvR 1864/14 Section 12

German original

Google translate

Der Schutz des Wohlbefindens von Tieren durch einen Schutz vor artwidrigen sexuellen Übergriffen ist ein legitimes Ziel. Diesem in § 1 Satz 1 TierSchG zum Ausdruck kommenden Grundprinzip kommt nach Art. 20a GG Verfassungsrang zu. Es liegt im - grundsätzlich weiten - Einschätzungs- und Beurteilungsspielraum des Gesetzgebers (vgl. BVerfGE 102, 197 <218>; 104, 337 <347 f.>), zum Wohlbefinden der Tiere und ihrer artgerechten Haltung auch den Schutz vor erzwungenen sexuellen Übergriffen zu rechnen.

Protecting the well-being of animals by protecting them from inappropriate sexual assault is a legitimate goal. This basic principle expressed in § 1 sentence 1 TierSchG has constitutional status according to Art. 20a GG. In the - fundamentally wide - scope for assessment and assessment of the legislature (cf.BVerfGE 102, 197 <218>; 104, 337 <347 and 347>), the welfare of animals and their species-appropriate keeping also includes protection against forced sexual assault calculate.

So if any news source (which themselves are a secondary sources on this) makes claims about TierSchG §3 Satz 1 Nr. 13. that are inconsistent with the BVerfG's interpretation I'd argue that use of the interpretation found in BvR 1864/14 is warranted given that it was made by an governmental institution of Germany and not a news organization KuchenHunde ( talk) 13:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The BvR 1864/14 decision is a primary source. That source being a legal decision. Its difficult for the average person to fully understand or correctly interpret. Which is why Wikipedia requires reputable news sources to determine what BvR 1864/14 established. News services reported that BvR 1864/14 was an "Unsuccessful constitutional complaint against the regulatory offense of sexual activity with animals." The assertion that BvR 1864/14 instead established that only "physically forced" (rape) was illegal and thus consensual bestiality was legal. Is an interpretation that is clearly contrary to what was widely reported. There is not a single reliable news source that reports that non forced sex with animals is legal in Germany. "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[2] the contribution."[3] So simply using your own interpretation of BvR 1864/14 isn't acceptable. Shiloh6555 ( talk) 16:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just don't see how BvR 1864/14 is a Primary source for the meaning of TierSchG § 3 Satz 1 Nr. 13 as they didn't change the wording or meaning of the law. When reading through their decision in this context it matches the description of WP:SECONDARY pretty well and doesn't match the description of WP:PRIMARY at all. Did you perhaps missunderstand the context in which we are talking about their decision? As WP:SECONDARY established: "Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context" and the court's decision is obviously a primary source for the court's decision...

Regarding reputable news sources: I'm pretty sure wikipedia doesn't require "news sources" just reliable secondary sources regardless of weather or not they were published by a news organization. Regardless of that I haven't found many news sources that said anything about the courts justification of their decision but the few that do are also very clear that this law is limited to forced sexual acts. as an example these two: "heise.de". and "lto.de". KuchenHunde ( talk) 10:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Your first article literally says "Sexual act with animals remains an administrative offense," unless that translation is incorrect?

and why do you keep waiting so long to respond? Delderd ( talk) 14:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

In this case, BvR 1864/14 certainly is a primary source. Its a legal decision which you have been interpreting, and claiming only you understand its true meaning and significance. Wikipedia does not allow original research. In this scenario, you MUST produce independent, reliable news sources that back you interpretation. An interpretation I might add, that isn't accepted by mainstream media sources. I have, and can again. Give a very different interpretation of BvR 1864/14. One which is fully in line with the widely reported mainstream view. But this has already been argued and decided previously. It doesn't matter how right you think your interpretation is. You have to produce some verification other than your own or another's personal interpretations of BvR 1864/14. Shiloh6555 ( talk) 17:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

If KuchenHunde wants to continue discussions concerning the legal meaning of BvR 1864/14 in the main article. That's fine. But I don't believe KuchenHunde has provided any reputable news sources that warrants any change to the existing "Illegal" in Germany status. Shiloh6555 ( talk) 19:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I just provided you two "news sources" (not that tat's required for Wikipedia as the guidelines just require reliable secondary sources) by reputable German publications. Not my fault that there aren't in-depth international articles about the obscure topic of the legal situation around Bestiality in Germany.

Could you perhaps explain to me how a Court decision That didn't change anything about a law or it's meaning is "close to an event" or "written by people who are directly involved" if non of the judges had a hand in the governmental process that lead to the writing and passing of the law ( WP:PRIMARY)? And how The judges analyzing the meaning Of this particular passage by looking at the wording of the law and exploring the meaning of the terms used in the context of the TierSchG isn't "an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources"( WP:SECONDARY)?

Regarding Delderd remark: I won't go into to much detail as that's really out of scope for this Noticeboard but do you ever read anything but the headlines? Because here on Wikipedia the policy about headline is very clear( WP:HEADLINES): "News headlines including subheadlines are not a reliable source if the information in the headline is not explicitly supported in the body of the source"! The whole Article mirrors the courts explanations with this very explicit quote at the end: "weil der Tatbestand nur [dann greift], wenn das Tier zu einem artwidrigen Verhalten gezwungen wird" -> "because the offense only [then applies] if the animal is forced to behave contrary to the species" KuchenHunde ( talk) 15:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

most headlines don't directly contradict their articles like you're suggesting. Its more likely you're misinterpreting what the article says to support your own viewpoint.

and if the topic was so obscure, why did the ap report on it in the first place? Plus it was all over the news when Canada ruled that bestiality was still legal because of a loophole, you really don't think nobody would be talking about Germany making it legal again?

You really need to take a look at Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, you're checking off most of the boxes ( WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH, "Adding citations that are inadequate, ambiguous or not sufficiently explicit," WP:REHASH, "Not accepting independent input," and the aforementioned WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS). Delderd ( talk) 16:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

At this point, with the amount of sources that are not reporting the points made by this source, and the "niche"-ness of it, the notion that bestiality is legal if it's not forced upon the animal is WP:UNDUE anyway. You are not going to WP:GAME the rules by finding the one source that supports your viewpoint, when all the other sources by highly-reliable outlets don't mention it at all. In addition, I have actually spent money on this, and taken a look at what I could find on my professional Beck-Online database. None of the secondary sources I could find—including a Neue Juristische Wochenschrift summary of the decision—mention the idea that bestiality is legal if it's not forced. Driving home the point that we are in WP:UNDUE, if not WP:FRINGE, territory. JBchrch talk 17:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying that the opinion of the BVerfG is WP:UNDUE? I'm sorry, I just wanted to get an outside opinion on weather or not the BVerfG's decision BvR 1864/14 passes as a secondary source for TierSchG §3 Satz 1 Nr. 13. 'cause for my personal life if the BVerfG tells me "Jedoch greift der Tatbestand des § 3 Satz 1 Nr. 13 TierSchG nur, wenn das Tier zu einem artwidrigen Verhalten gezwungen wird." (Google Translate: "However, the offense of § 3 sentence 1 no. 13 TierSchG only applies if the animal is forced to behave in a manner that is contrary to the species.") Then I'm going to take their word for it, especially after their explanation of what the term "zwingen"->"to force" means in the context of the TierSchG. What could that possibly mean other than if there is no use of force then it's not against this law? I mean I've seen this sentence from the BVerfG quoted in a few articles (not sure what's in the Beck-Online database) so it's not just me thinking that this is an important to know part of this law. Only thing I haven't seen a lot is articles that were explicit that things not covered by this law are legal (Why would they?). There were these two, admittedly less reputable, sources: "juragentur.de". and "lawblog". that made it explicit, one credited to a small law news organisation and the other on the private blog of a lawyer. The latter actually got a Grimme Online Award "link". so it's not just some random blog that nobody reads... KuchenHunde ( talk) 09:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

KuchenHunde is not accepting the true meaning of the statute. The statute was passed as a total ban on bestiality. The "force" is a "compulsion" to species inappropriate behavior. The statute makes no recognition whatsoever of "consensual" or even "forced" sex acts. The sex is what "forces" the animal into a inappropriate and unnatural act. This "forcing" of an inappropriate and unnatural behavior, is what triggers the offense. "However, the offense of § 3 sentence 1 no. 13 TierSchG only applies if the animal is forced to behave in a manner that is contrary to the species."Again, having sex with an animal. "Forces" it to behave in a manner contrary to the species. Which is the whole point of the statute. Shiloh6555 ( talk) 19:00, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know who you are or where you live but I'm actually a zoophile living in Germany so I actually have an interest in knowing what the legal situation here is. I'm honestly pretty happy with this law but it sadens me to see how my homecountry is missrepresented internationaly by people who don't even speak the language thinking they know a law better based on a google translat than oure supreme constitutianal court... Like srly we even have the "ZETA-Verein". some of who's members are puplically out as zoophiles and don't exactly make a secret out of the fact that they are sexually active with their non human partners. If this law really said what you claim it does and not what the BVerfG explained it to mean you'd think that, given how many bigots are out there to call the cops on them, they'd be in constant trouble with the local Veterinäramt/Police, but they're not! I'm not entirely sure where I head it (I think it was "this". episode of Zooier than Thou) but iirc one of them told the story of his interaction with the Veterinäramt and it basically boiled down to them asking a few questions, taking a look at his dog and letting them be...

P.s. I still don't understand your claim of BvR 1864/14 being a primary source in regards to TierSchG §3 Satz 1 Nr. 13 given how it doesn't fit the description at all. KuchenHunde ( talk) 16:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Our or anyone eles's "Personal "interpretation" of BvR 1864/14 is considered to be original research. "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. In this case, the widely reported interpretation of BvR 1864/14 was that it upheld TierSchG §3 Satz 1 Nr. 13. According to which "It is forbidden to use an animal for one's own sexual acts or to train or make available for sexual acts of third parties and thereby force it to behave in a manner contrary to the species."

The assertion that BvR 1864/14 reinterpreted ierSchG §3 Satz 1 Nr. 13. As meaning only "forced" sex acts was forbidden, and "consensual" bestiality was still legal in Germany. Is clearly a bold assertion. One that simply isn't evident in the mainstream reporting. If/when you can produce press reports confirming your conclusions. This can be addressed again. Your current, everybody is wrong and I'm right based on a personal interpretations of BvR 1864/14 is not acceptable. Shiloh6555 ( talk) 20:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@kuchenhunde NAMBLA was allowed to operate in the usa, that didnt make child molestation legal.

Malcom J. Brenner is an open zoophile who's talked about molesting his dog, he's still free. The host of your ztt podcast was recently exposed with his real name, nothing's happened to him yet.

It usually takes actual physical evidence for someone to get punished, unfortunately; just talking about can't get you in trouble. Delderd ( talk) 21:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Shiloh6555 I have yet to see anything backing up your assertion that BvR 1864/14 is a primary source. There is no "reinterpretation" of TierSchG §3 Satz 1 Nr. 13. going on in there! As you've pointed out several times: The constitutianal complaint was rejected. Nothing about the law or it's meaning changed! The only thing that is of note for this discussion is that they provided a detailed explanation of this law and it limitations. Now if you can't read it because you don't speak the language please just ask someone who does instead of authoratively asserting that you know what they said better than a native speaker.

P.s. If an article quotes TierSchG §3 Satz 1 Nr. 13. (or in the case of international articles a possibly missrepresentative translation) in their explanation of the BvR 1864/14 decision and you take your interpretation of what is and isn't illegal from that quote then we're back at square one as that would be primary research! KuchenHunde ( talk) 15:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

See WP:RSLAW § Original texts. Please not that I speak the language and am familiar with German law, so I can confirm that this decision is not a reliable source to source what you want to source under WP:V because it doesn't speak about the legality of bestiality, it speaks about the constitutionality of §3 Satz 1 Nr. 13 TierSchG. At this point, please consider WP:STICK. JBchrch talk 15:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you @JBchrch That Identifying_reliable_sources_(law) link was really all I wanted from this notice board as I somehow missed that one. I still won't let this missrepresentation of the country I live in stand but at least now I know that I'll have to find another reliable source that qualifies as secondary for the purposes of Wikipedia editing.

I think that concludes this thread, how does the archiving work? KuchenHunde ( talk) 17:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks KuchenHunde. Achiving takes place automatically 5 days after a section is inactive, your don't have to do anything manually. JBchrch talk 18:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

KuchenHunde I didn't read this whole thread, but this might be of use: "News headlines—including subheadlines—are not a reliable source if the information in the headline is not explicitly supported in the body of the source." News headlines typically aren't written by the authors of the piece, but a different editor, and so sometimes misrepresent the article, to the dissatisfaction of the author. -- Distelfinck ( talk) 20:21, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I've seen and even referenced WP:HEADLINE bevore, the overarching problem here is that there just aren't in debth articles (by credible sources) taking a closer look at the legal situation here in Germany. The articles that are currently cited ( "BBC"., "AP".) Don't make any claims about the overall legal situation here in the body of the article at all and merely quote something that is obviously a translation of TierSchG §3 Satz 1 Nr. 13. (bringing us back to the problem of finding an interpetation of that law) KuchenHunde ( talk) 00:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Its now been 6 years since the widely reported decision of BvR 1864/14. Yet not a single reliable news report can be provided that supports the assertion that consensual bestiality is legal in Germany. Shiloh6555 ( talk) 19:58, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

TheBlot website (launched in 2013 by the businessman Benjamin Wey is a tabloid magazine based in the US.

• https://www.theblot.com /info/en/?search=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 /info/en/?search=John_Carney_(politician) /info/en/?search=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. -- DrIlyaTsyrlov ( talk) 22:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• twitchtracker.com
• twitchtracker.com/criticalrole/subscribers

An IP account just added Lately, Twitch subscriptions are averaging around 29,000 paid subscribers to Critical Role Productions citing the website Twitch Tracker. Previous Twtich & YouTube numbers in the article cited news articles. I can't find much about this analytics site; does anyone know if it is considered reliable? Thanks! Sariel Xilo ( talk) 23:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

This source has been cited for the claim that samurai/bushi/buké/shi status was only "largely" hereditary in pre-modern Japan. As far as I can tell from this edit summary and this talk page comment, the editor who has been adding the word "largely" has not actually read the source in question, so I believe this is a case of WP:CITEWIKI, but the Wikipedia page in question ( Edo society#Samurai) actually says

There were social stratifications within the samurai class: upper-level samurai had direct access to their daimyō and could hold his most trusted positions, with some achieving a level of wealth that allowed them to retain their own samurai vassals. Mid-level samurai held military and bureaucratic positions, and had some interactions with their daimyō if needed. Low-level samurai could be paid as little as a subsistence wage and worked as guards, messengers and clerks. Positions within the samurai class were largely hereditary and talented individuals could not rise above a few social steps beyond their birth.

which I read as not referring to "samurai status" itself but rather specific jobs/ranks within the social class in question.

Input from someone with access to the original source or with knowledge of this topic area (of which I admit I am relatively ignorant—I'm mostly interested in the literature of Nara through Kamakura periods and am just a "casual reader" when it comes to the military aristocracy of Japan in the late medieval / early modern period) would be especially helpful, but any third-party opinions would be appreciated.

The user is also arguing that "samurai status" was not hereditary at all, [16] [17] so any additional sources on that front, one way or the other, would be helpful: everything I've ever read has stated, implied, or "assumed" the hereditary status of the social class in question; I would consider these sources to be generally reliable for the content in question (all are published by either Continuum International Publishing Group or university presses, and the authors include a Japanese literature specialist, a historian on the editorial board of the journal Sino-Japanese Studies, a "Sinologist and East Asian literary scholar who was a professor and administrator at Columbia University for nearly 70 years", and a historian of early modern Japan), but third-party opinions would be most welcome.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 06:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

One clarification is that I never said samurai aren't hereditary at all. Just that the primary dictionary definitions do not reduce them to that, instead describing them as retainers of the Daimyo. natemup ( talk) 16:09, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• In context its referring to positions/rank held by members of the Samurai class. Not the 'class' itself. Which seems to be a pointless distraction anyway from looking at the cause of the dispute, as with many warrior-caste systems, rank within was hereditary, with little movement overall up/down, but individuals of distinction would of course be promoted/demoted. Hence the use of 'largely'. Both the class itself, and positions within the class were largely hereditary, and I am unaware of any serious scholorship that suggests otherwise. (There are of course in Japan some notable regional exceptions where the usual class structure was not so rigid, but AFAIK not at this time and place). Only in death does duty end ( talk) 16:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, my understanding is that, in general, if your father was a samurai, you are a samurai, but this does not preclude people whose fathers were not samurai becoming samurai. (I've read Musashi!) I think the use of "hereditary" is in accordance with this, without the clarifier "largely", hence the large number of reliable sources that do so. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 01:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I propose to add the following to the guidance on RfCs for source reliability.

Before raising an RfC please consider the following:

1. The answer must not be obvious. For example, Reuters is obviously reliable, and the National Inquirer is obviously unreliable, and RfCs on either may be considered disruptive.
2. There must be evidence of ongoing disagreement between good-faith editors over the reliability of the source. If the question is whether a source (e.g. a primary-sourced opinion) may be included, this is not a matter for a source reliability RfC, because it is not a question of reliability it is one of weight. WP:NPOVN is second on the right down the hall, thanks for asking.
3. There must be evidence of a problem rising to the level of an RfC. A source used in three articles can be discussed but probably does not require an RfC; RfCs are needed to establish consensus where reasonable people may differ, or where the reliability of a widely-used source may have changed.

Opinions (Not-An-RfC on RfCs)

1. Support as supporter. Guy ( help! - typo?) 21:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
2. Support, sensible criteria. Schazjmd  (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
3. Object If there is more to be said in WP:RFCBEFORE then the appropriate place is the WP:RFC talk page. If the problem is the flood of bad RfCs from people who want blanket approval/disapproval of sources, I blame the bad advice that was added to the top of this page ("In some cases, it can also be appropriate to start a general discussion about the likelihood that statements from a particular source are reliable or unreliable" etc.). Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 21:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
4. Support Marginally support as is; however, inclusion of more criteria and their clarification and their refinement might be even better. See my proposal for clarification in Discussion. EDIT: After rereading, the first criterion does read as a ban for deprecation for obviously unreliable sources, which was probably unintended by the author of the otherwise brilliant proposal but there is a real risk of introducing conflicting rules to the guidelines/policy. Amend the first point to include such possibility. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 23:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC) Edited 00:47, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
5. Support in principle Perhaps it would be better as a guideline at the top of this page rather than as a strict rule. Springee ( talk) 02:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
6. Support, although I agree with Springee that it is better considered a guideline than a strict rule. Realistically speaking anything that falls under the first point will tend towards WP:SNOW anyway, and most things that fall under the second point will as well (although that can still leave problems when eg. someone is asking a patiently obvious question that they actually intend to use as the answer to a less-obvious question - I feel like it might be more useful to have a separate essay describing that problem, since it's not an issue limited to WP:RSN, even if it comes up a lot here due to people interpreting a specific objection as a general objection to the entire source.) And the third point is already somewhat covered by the existing guideline that reminds people that such sweeping RFCs are generally for things that are widely used in articles. But all three points are common enough issues that it cannot hurt to remind people about them. -- Aquillion ( talk) 04:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
7. Support, and concur with Springee. Also agree with most of Szmenderowiecki's points below, though it would need to be compressed.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
8. Support. These seem like reasonable steps. I would also suggest that the person starting the RFC should explain why they are doing so, either in the opening statement or in the top response in the survey section. Simply asking "is x reliable" is insufficient. -- Calidum 14:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
9. Support in principle. I may think we need to change a word or two, and maybe cut down on some of the snark, but fundamentally I agree with the spirit of this entire thing. -- Jayron 32 15:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
10. Support overdue and badly needed. -- JBL ( talk) 20:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
11. Support with Springee's suggestion being my preferred method of implementation. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:16, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
12. Support with the added parameter that the "obvious" answers are only those which have no significant information change since last discussion (or ever for those which have never been discussed). While Reuters is obviously reliable now, it is improper to attempt to say that things that are "obviously reliable" will not ever become unreliable, and in fact we've seen multiple sources that were "obviously" reliable become unreliable quickly with new information. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 00:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
13. Object to proposed phrasing. In particular, the second bullet is rather snarky and, I believe, shifts some disputes that belong here to WP:NPOV. The notion that it is always the case that [i]f the question is whether a source (e.g. a primary-sourced opinion) may be included, this is not a matter for a source reliability RfC, because it is not a question of reliability it is one of weight is a bit silly; oftentimes many disputes over inclusion (and whether or not something constitutes due weight) intersects strongly with the reliability of the source in that context. This board is appropriate in discussing questions of reliability that may play a role in further discussions surrounding whether or not inclusion is WP:DUE. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 18:43, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
14. I abhor the practice of stripping a dispute of its context and then going to RfC with what purports to be an open, general question about the reliability of a source. I support the general idea behind this not-RfC, but I think it doesn't go far enough and I would like to propose a one-year moratorium on RfCs on this noticeboard, during which time the noticeboard restricts itself purely to evaluating the reliability of a source in the context of a specific dispute. If this noticeboard fails to resolve the question then the escalation should be an RfC on the article talk page for the community to evaluate the source in context. I believe this would improve the quality of our decision-making.— S Marshall  T/ C 09:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
15. Support, and thank you for proposing this. I'd say these criteria should be common sense, but the proliferation of unnecessary RFCs on this page shows that guidance is needed. — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs) 16:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
16. Support - Way, way, way past time that a halt was called to these context-less, WP:FORUM-style discussions that do nothing to actually help editors edit. This is a page for discussing sources not media in general and particularly not a place for deciding which media outlets you think are morally bad (which is typically the real rationale behind condemning a certain outlet). Sources are things that are used to support information in an article, and if the RFC cannot be linked to specific article-content then it just shouldn't happen. FOARP ( talk) 17:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
17. Support I'm rather neutral to the specific details of how to implement these recommendations. In general, we need to stop the use of RSN as a general forum on media, as well as a venue to blanket mass removal of certain media categories, such as the recent attempts to deprecate all national media from many countries. MarioGom ( talk) 23:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
18. Oppose due to condition 1. Telling editors that they cannot bring an RFC for an unreliable source is completely at odds with the deprecation process, and while I know many editors are uncomfortable with or oppose the deprecation process, this guidance is an inappropriate roundabout way to end that process. As for obviously reliable sources, if the other two conditions are met, it may not be clear just how reliable a source is or how best to use it. John M Baker ( talk) 19:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
19. Strong Oppose due to condition one. The reliability of sources changes over time and the meaning of "obvious" is completely subjective. Something cannot be "obvious" if it is not discussed, if something is "obviously" not reliable or "obviously" reliable, the outcome of an RFC will reflect this. I would be willing to support the remainder of this proposal if condition one is completely struck from the proposal. RedAlert 007 ( talk) 08:33, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (Not-An-RfC on RfCs)

• Is condition 1 necessary? If there is an ongoing disagreement between good-faith editors (condition 2) rising to the level of an RfC (condition 3), then surely the answer cannot be deemed obvious. JBchrch ( talk) 23:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
• Additional criteria to be considered and reformulation of what is proposed.

Criterion 1. The answer must not be obvious. Opinion on the general reliability should not be solicited if there is broad consensus the outlet is generally reliable or unreliable, unless there is an event (i.e. change of ownership, amendments to laws regulating freedom of speech and freedom of press in the country where the outlet is based, or a change in staff) that significantly influences the quality of the publication in question.

Criterion 2. is fine as is.

Criterion 3. The outlet in question should have multiple instances of usage. If the source has been used in relatively few articles, it may be discussed, but triggering an RfC is not recommended.

Criterion 4. Check if there were recent RfCs. An RfC should not be solicited if recent RfCs were close to unanimous or unanimous in their conclusions, unless a reasonable editor may conclude that the events that happened in the meantime significantly altered the quality of coverage.

Criterion 5. RfCs and responses to RfCs should not be guided solely on webpages that evaluate reliability and/or bias of the publication (i.e. Media Bias Chart, Media Bias/Fact Check, Newsguard etc.). These pages might be somewhat useful, but they do not have strong methodology. Instead, propose specific examples of what you feel shows (un)reliability of the publication and scholarly articles (if available) that evaluate the source.

Recommendations for those answering RfCs:

1. Presume that the publication is reporting news and investigating properly unless the pattern of reporting flaws is such that a reasonable reader would agree it is unreliable. A single instance of an error (particularly if a correction was issued) is not sufficient to declare that the source is unreliable or such that needs additional considerations. No source is perfect.

2. If citing older articles, do not apply hindsight. Stories should be evaluated on the basis of what was known at the time of their creation.

3. When voting, try to be as short as possible. General discussion on the motives to vote should be presented in the Discussion subsection. Use 2-3 lines at most to justify your answer. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 23:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• I am assuming we're talking about source reliability as to add to RS/P? or is this meant in general? -- Masem ( t) 23:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
• If 1 is retained, I suggest using The New York Times and The Daily Mail as examples instead of Reuters and the National Inquirer. Reuters may be unfamiliar to the reader and some readers may be familiar with one of the famous 7 stories The National Enquirer actually got right. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• The problem is that we did have a huge discussion about the Daily Mail (multiple times, even), so even if it is obvious now it at one point wasn't, we should assume that a small but not insignificant minority of editors will continue to see it as non-obvious. Even if the National Enquirer occasionally gets stories right, I've never seen anyone seriously defend its usability as a source (and the fact that them getting a story right is rare enough to be noteworthy obviously doesn't really recommend them.) -- Aquillion ( talk) 04:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• I would add something to explain when to file an official RFC asking about general reliability vs when to hold an informal discussion about specific context reliability.

Specific context reliability can certainly be discussed at RSN... but if it rises to the point of needing a formal RFC, that RFC should usually take place on the article talk page, not at RSN or RSP.

Also, while a formal RFC on general reliability is appropriate at RSN, I think multiple specific context discussions (to show that the issue is indeed of a of “general” nature) are needed as a prerequisite before posting it. Blueboar ( talk) 01:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't find appealing the idea to discuss the specific context reliability on the talk page of the article. There is a centralised venue for these requests for a reason, and I believe way more Wikipedia editors go on centralised noticeboards to see if they have something wise to say rather than click the "random page" link and go to the talk page to see if there's a dispute. If we were to search these several specific content disputes to escalate into an RfC about general reliability of the source, we'd need to keep them in one place to retrieve them when needed and not scatter them around Wikipedia. The editors, though, must first try to resolve the dispute on the talk page, and only then seek further input from the community if the dispute could not be resolved there.

I don't even see having the RfCs on the pages of relevant news sources at issue. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 02:21, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Question for Peter Gulutzan: in your !vote you state that the appropriate venue for this discussion would be the RFC talk page. Since this is a discussion about RFCs specifically about reliable sources, and not all RFCs community-wide, what benefits would there be to holding the discussion there? Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 01:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Every RfC should be specifically about something, but it doesn't follow that for every talk page that has RfCs there should be different instructions on how to hold an RfC. I'm not sure what "not all RFCs community-wide" means, but if it's acknowledging that WP:RSN RfCs aren't products of any "Wikipedia community", I agree. Bypassing common rules and pretending WP:RSN is special won't help that. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 13:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

What we're all dancing around here is that "general reliability RFCs" are actually a bad thing and simply shouldn't happen any more. They have no positive impact on Wiki. They neither serve as a guide for specific reliability (people can and will always argue that their circumstances are special) nor prevent the use of "bad" sources (because the "bad" sources are not actually bad in every contest). FOARP ( talk) 09:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest this as a guideline at the top of this page. In the interest of keeping things short I would skip #1 based on the idea that such RfCs would be SNOW closes. For #2 I would emphasize that editors should show prior examples of RSN discussions that include discussions related to the source's general reliability (either as a general question or part of the discussion of a specific use). Finally, this shouldn't be applied to RfCs related to specific use examples (is this source reliable for this specific claim). Springee ( talk) 02:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• As this came to mind while replying elsewhere, I wonder if we can point to the Ad Fontes media bais chart [18] and note that we are pretty much never going to question the block of sources that sit at its apex (those it ranks "Fact Reporting" or better and fall within "Middle" on bias - eg the ones that Ad Fontes has outlined as Reliable) those stress that that bias chart does change over time and sources can move in or out of that range. There can be singular article/events with one of these sources (as to be discussed at RS/N but that doesn't impact the reliability of the source overall. -- Masem ( t) 18:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
• The only issue I might see for "obvious" unreliable cases is that it would make it a bit more difficult listing them at RSP, unless we'd be willing to alter the existing procedures there. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 21:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• In condition 1, the National Enquirer is a poor example of an inappropriate RFC. While the Enquirer is obviously not reliable, there was not a strong consensus as to whether it is merely unreliable, or should also be deprecated. (While the weak consensus was deprecation, there was no consensus to create an edit filter.) Indeed, since deprecation requires an RFC, I am not sure that there is any example of a source that would be an inappropriate RFC because of its obvious lack of reliability. Also, while I am completely comfortable with Reuters as a generally reliable source of news, a famous journal such as Nature or the New England Journal of Medicine might be a better example of an inappropriate RFC for an obviously reliable source. John M Baker ( talk) 21:46, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Nature is known to publish sensational claims that then turn out to be unlikely, see the Cerutti Mastodon site for an example, so I wouldn't use it as a "gold standard" for reliability. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 21:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Point taken. But the "gold standard" doesn't have to be a periodical. For example, the Oxford English Dictionary is unquestionably RS. John M Baker ( talk) 15:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Definitely no to the idea that we should use the Daily Mail (which was and remains a controversial decision) as our example of the "perfect" bad source. FOARP ( talk) 17:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, I'll go further: the DM ban was the cause of the problems we're trying grapple with here. The mass-banning of media sources was exactly what people who opposed the ban warned would happen and here we are. FOARP ( talk) 11:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

IDK if it was intended at the time, but, paraphrasing this masterpiece, what I'm saying is that all the problems we have with deprecation are ones we create ourselves. Deprecation isn't broken by default, it is functional, high-performing, and to the point. You make it problematic. You son-of-a-bitch. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 08:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

The year and place of birth of a BLP was added by an IP, cited to https://www.mixedarticle.com/jill-mortimer-wikipedia-hartlepool/ . The article there does not inspire confidence, and shows no source for the year or place of birth. Since this person was elected as an MP various editors have tried to find her date of birth but the only published information is that she was "aged 56" on publication date. I have reverted this edit on the basis that it does not appear to be a Reliable Source, but would welcome other views. Pam D 07:20, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Avoid it. I see no indication of their having strong editorial oversight, and ans-wer (of which "mixedarticle.com" is part of) seems to be some obscure Nepalese website. Particularly for a BLP, don't use it. PS. While I can forgive them making a typo in normal cases, misspelling DMCA as DCMA (and repeating the mistake even as they later post the right acronym) is not something that casts them in good light. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 08:22, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Just like Szmenderowiecki mentioned, it can be avoided. DCMA as important link doesn't match the abbreviation at the bottom of the page that states DMCA. This weakens the credibility of the source itself. HaughtonBrit ( talk) 13:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

There isn't a single thing about that website that inspires any confidence in anything. The fact it goes on about how her Wikipedia article is to be developed is rather odd to say the least as well. Makes me wonder if it isn't a front for a group of paid editors. Canterbury Tail talk 14:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

True. Same thoughts. Can't agree more. HaughtonBrit ( talk) 23:16, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I reviewed a page that cited this newspaper. The link that's cited [19] reads very promotional which made me doubt the reliability of this source. I didn't find any existing discussions on this so I thought to start a new thread (I also have another hidden agenda here - that is to observe and learn how experienced editors determine the reliability and steps they take!). Thank you. Nomadicghumakkad ( talk) 13:10, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

This and this explain why no media outlets based in Malaysia, including The Sun, should be considered reliable sources. Additionally, The Sun is owned and operated by the Berjaya Corporation colossus and its founder Vincent Tan, about whom his reliably-sourced enWiki entry pretty much says it all: Tan's success in the Malaysian business sector has been attributed in part to his close association with prominent Malay political figures. Even The Sun's coverage of relatively innocuous topics like sports should not be considered reliable, as Tan owns several professional football teams around the world. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 18:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@ Nomadicghumakkad: Normally when I get a source like this, I try to go section-by-section to see if they have different reliability. Some papers have sections that are marked advertising, which is obviously not a reliable source, while others are more opinion-y/analysis-heavy in ways that impact its reliability as a news source.

Looking through this particular source, which I have never seen before, it doesn't really look like it does a lot of its own reporting; the majority of the information that I clicked through was syndicated content from Reuters, AFP, or Bernama. The lattermost source isn't editorially independent of Malaysia's government, so I'd expect there to be editorial independence issues regarding at least some the content that it serves. Some of its content seems to be more entertainment than news (its True Crime section ( see here) certainly gives off a tabloid-esque feel. But, I'm not sure if it's just tone (which doesn't impact reliability except inasmuch as we shouldn't use it for extraordinary labels) or if that manifests as a factual problem. Its "supplement" section appears to be entirely advertisements (and I think that it's clearly marked by this section heading, though I'm not sure it's obvious even to all native English speakers that this is the case). The "Gear up!" section appears to be something between advertorial and an opinionated product review section. Its "going viral" section has a heavy human-interest focus, which can create quality concerns, though some pieces just feel like native advertising. Regarding sports coverage, I don't necessarily see Tan's ownership as a problem; the vast majority of the sports stories appear to be syndicated in that space (to the extent that I can't find a sports article written by its staff). If you need to use it to cite Bernama for something related to Malaysian Badminton, it's probably to cite the reprint published in The Sun while noting in the citation that it's from a wire service. If you want to cite The Sun's original reporting original reporting on this sort of stuff, it also seems fine; I don't see a reason to not use them. I can't quite tell if it's reliable to publish its interviews, since punctuation in some of the quotes provided by the paper isn't something that can easily be pulled out of verbal speech.

Overall, it's floating between WP:MREL and WP:GUNREL for me regarding its original reporting. The syndicated content should be evaluated by the reliability of the source of the reporting itself, and it would be preferable to link to that source rather than this newspaper. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 05:36, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

On a separate note, there is a website called " The Malaysia Sun," which is different than the source we are discussing here. The link provided appears to be for a news organization called the " The Sun Daily". The title of this section should probably be revised so as to avoid confusion (and I may want to refactor my comments in light of this). — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 19:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey Mikehawk10, thanks for this. I would consider this particular source cited unreliable then because of the tone it follows. The Sun (Malaysia) provides same website at their wiki page. Logo is also same. So I don't think you need to refactor here. Thank you. Nomadicghumakkad ( talk) 07:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Is IJMMU a reliable source? Its editorial team are academics and it does have an impact factor, at least in 2015. Taha ( talk) 17:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

It is not, and that is a fake impact factor, further proof this is not a reliable journal. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 18:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Based on its fees, it is a reliable source of six to twelve grands (€) per month for the person(s) behind the Global Institute for Multidisciplinary Knowledge and Responsible Future. – Austronesier ( talk) 19:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

LOL. ( t · c) buidhe 15:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

In particular:

• The New Humanitarian (formerly known as IRIN) ( https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/)
• International Crisis Group ( https://www.crisisgroup.org/) (Think tank; I've seen the think tank discussions but I wanted to ask about this particular one here.)

Currently my focus on these websites is to expand the article for Second Congo War, but these have been cited various times before (see here), including in said article:

On 16 January 2001, Laurent-Désiré Kabila was shot and killed by a bodyguard, Rashidi Mizele, at the presidential palace in Kinshasa. The government initially stated that Kabila was wounded but still alive when he was flown to Zimbabwe for intensive care. ^[1]

For reference and completion, here's an excerpt from Foreign fighters in the Syrian civil war citing Crisis Group I found while going through some links:

Of the thousands of Turks who fought for the Islamic State and then returned to Turkey, only a few have been convicted. ^[2]

I would like to know your opinions on whether these are reliable or not.

Note: Some changes were made to this by the user starting this discussion. A change in the excerpt was made.

Caehlla ( talk) 13:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I've been using ICG reports for articles about the conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia in the 90s and the post-war situation there and I found them accurate and relatively unbiased. The criticism section mentions some issues but nothing to render them not reliable. Alaexis _¿question? 15:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• Caehlla Would avoid citing it for Second Congo War, which has tons of high-quality printed sources (academic papers + books). Even though both of these sources you mention above seem to have a decent reputation, similar to quality news organizations, scholarly sources are going to be more authoritative. Try WP:TWL or WP:RX to get access to paywalled sources. ( t · c) buidhe 15:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

  You have a point. I actually would disagree a bit since, as you and others have pointed out, these seem to have a decent reputation. But certainly this is something for me to keep in mind. Thank you. Caehlla ( talk) 16:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Both ICG and IRIN seem reliable. IRIN especially is trusted news source on humanitarian crises. ICG uses field research and also uses High level advocacy as their methodology. HaughtonBrit ( talk) 15:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Alright. So, thank you for answering. Although we may need more answers to truly form a consensus, current opinion seems to indicate that these sources are indeed reliable. Caehlla ( talk) 06:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Can you please take a look at following sources and let me know which can be considered valid? The sources are being considered to be referenced to the article Battle of Saragarhi.

Tribune India [20]. The Vintage News [21] Business Insider [22] The Statesman [23] Times of India [24] Google Book [25] Page 35 Google book [26] Page 48 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.81.206.173 ( talk • contribs) 20:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Myself I would not use newspapers for articles about history (not that these are unreliable, but there are higher quality sources), I have no access to the last two books/articles to judge them. So, these sources may be fine for uncontroversial facts (eg. that statue), but certainly not for disputed informations (eg. causalties). Pavlor ( talk) 20:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

From WP:RSP: The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. It tends to have a bias in favor of the Indian government. I would suggest avoiding it. 2600:8800:1880:68:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 ( talk) 23:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• There are certainly better sources than these for the topic, I would recommend replacing them with peer reviewed academic journals or books. It's usually considered better to avoid newspapers for historical topics even if they are otherwise reliable.

The Tribune is generally reliable as a newspaper and its article is about a performance and memorials for the battle. Since none of this concern the events in the battle itself and are essentially uncontroversial mundane reporting, it appears usable for its content. The Business Insider ( RSP entry) and Vintage News articles appear like blog posts, the former has no byline and I would recommend removing these. The Statesman is a high quality newspaper and might be usable for this topic, although scholarly sources are still preferable over it. The Times of India ( RSP entry) is at best marginally reliable and should not be used for any historical topics.

Regarding the two books, I don't have access to either of them but going by their publishers they are not high quality sources either. The first one is published by Vision Books, a company which generally focuses on financial and business publications and has some editorial oversight but is inadequate for this topic area. The second book is published by the Sikh Cultural Society of Great Britain which is not an academic publisher and is likely to eulogise the Sikh combatants of the battle. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 03:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

News sources are the most reliable sources for news, which is what happened yesterday and today. So if the battle had been fought May 25th 2021, then of course we would use reports by major news correspondents. But a reporter for the entertainment section of the Indian edition of Business Insider lacks the expertise to determine that the Battle of Saragarhi stands alongside Thermopylae as one of "the three greatest last stands ever taken in history." Journalists don't delve into the details of military history and compare the conclusions of their learned papers. Few of them have undergraduate degrees in history. Their employers' factcheckers don't have the expertise of peer reviewers at academic journals. An American journalist might for example have included Custer's last stand in the list. TFD ( talk) 16:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

For the uninitiated, this anon wants to push the idea that 21 defenders killed 600 attackers at the Battle of Saragarhi (a claim often repeated in Facebook posts, blog posts, and even some news articles). The more reliable sources cited in the article suggest that this figure was 180 (although apparently 600 dead bodies were found at the site after another force recaptured the fort from the attackers)

After posting here, the anon created an account impersonating me ( User:AtmaramU), and added a few other sources to the article. Two of these seem to be somewhat decent (although still not reliable IMO, to support the "21 soldiers killed 600 invaders" claim contested by better sources). I've let two of them remain in the article, pending others' opinions. The first source is an article in Sainik Samachar, a journal published by the Ministry of Defence; the second is the The Statesman article linked above -- although someone mentioned that this is a high quality newspaper, I'd like to point out that the author Buddhadev Nandi is not an expert on the topic: he writes general-interest articles and news reports for several publications. utcursch | talk 17:54, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect to everyone, I created an account to avoid editing anonymously. If you look at the conversation on the Battle of Saragarhi and here, I have not been disrespectful but followed "Be Nice" and "Be Respectful" policy here. Why Mr. User:Utcursch is under the impression I am impersonating him is beyond me and nor did I need to have any discussion on such nonsensical claims. Getting back to topic 180 is a very disputed claim and have been contradicted by various sources that also state that the numbers were 450, whereas majority states 600. So I picked the reliable sources after all the deliberation and discussion here, with respect to everyone's opinion, added it to the article. Infact, if you look at the edits, you will see that I made the change from 180 casualties to 180 - 600, keeping the disputed number neutral due to conflicted sources. On the other hand, Mr. User:Utcursch is the one enforcing the number 180. Even the sources that he used, three of them are unreliable, two of them have already been considered unreliable here in the discussion, which are the Vision Books Publisher and the article from The Sikh Courier International Volumes 38-42. And what Mr. User:Utcursch did is, removed all the sources that I added which were considered reliable here in the discussion above such as Tribune India, including Google Book from Lancer International Publisher authored by Military officers and above all the most strongest sources by Dennis Showalter (2013). Imperial Wars 1815–1914. Dennis Showalter is a "Military Historian". And Mr. User:Utcursch removed this source as well. So you can that this user is the one pushing the idea that 21 defenders killed 180 attackers at the Battle of Saragarhi. Whereas I kept the dispute neutral by stating 180-600, keeping all numbers into consideration as per various sources. AtmaramU — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtmaramU ( talk • contribs) 00:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I did remove Tribune (a news article), but I did not remove Dennis Showalter or Lancer. And let's not pretend that your username is not based on my real name: the recent edits on the article make it pretty obvious that you're sock of an existing user. utcursch | talk 02:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Since the casualties appear to be a contested aspect of the battle, I'd recommend against using any news articles altogether. The Tribune and The Statesman are reliable for current events but not necessarily for historical topics, preference should be given to scholarly sources as I have already mentioned in my earlier comment and note TFD's explanation on why this is so. Newspapers on many occasions have a tendency to reproduce popular misconceptions and pop history due to lack of expertise on the topic, sometimes subject matter experts publish editorials which might be usable but that does not appear to be the case here.

Imperial Wars 1815–1914 (2013) by Dennis Showalter states that there were 450 casualties (which includes killed and wounded) on the attacking side. ABC-CLIO published Afghanistan at War: From the 18th-Century Durrani Dynasty to the 21st Century (2017) by Tom Lansford states that an estimate of 180 were killed on the attacking side. These are the only two sources currently used for the casualties in the article which I would consider to be of adequate quality.

The army sources such as 1968 publication in the Sainik Samachar, the 2019 ThePrint editorial authored by a retired officer or the 1987 book authored by two officers and published by Lancer are not scholarly sources either. Officers while educated on military history don't have the same level of expertise as historians or research scholars. Note that these sources are less susceptible to pop history but have other considerations such as promoting recruitments or bolstering morale, etc which might effect their reliability and prevent them from being independent sources, in this case by being too close to the topic (The currently existing Sikh Regiment would consider itself to have been a participant in the battle). Tayi Arajakate _Talk 04:20, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

The Business Insider ( RSP entry), Vintage News and The Times of India ( RSP entry) are highly unreliable sources and I wouldn't recommend using them. The Statesman is a high quality newspaper and might be usable for this topic as well as Tribune India, although scholarly sources are still preferable over it like the ones you included Sainik Samachar, an army Journal which is highly reliable. Imperial Wars 1815–1914 (2013) by Dennis Showalter states that there were 450 casualties, therefore is great source as well. Tom Lansford is a Political Science associate professor and is not a Military historian and his source is less reliable from ABC-CLIO published Afghanistan at War: From the 18th-Century Durrani Dynasty to the 21st Century (2017), especially taking into consideration he doesn't have the same level of expertise as historians or research scholars or Military officers. 1987 book authored by two officers and published by Lancer are OK considering that the officers used available records from the Regimental centre as stated in the beginning of the book.

HaughtonBrit ( talk) 12:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

HaughtonBrit, can I ask why your have pasted copy pasted large parts of sentences from my comments? Some of it looks like a misconstruction of what I had stated while others don't even make sense.

Showalter's book isn't a "great source" because it says there were 450 casualties, it's an usable source because its authored by a subject matter expert. Lansford's book is published by an academic publisher and he is not an associate professor but an academic dean and a tenured professor. Most social science subjects have large overlap with history and scholars working in such fields develop expertise in history related to the concerned area. (see, WP:HISTRS#Who is a historian) In comparison, none of the other sources are academic ones.

There's a reason why I had used the phrase "might be usable" despite calling The Statesman an high quality newspaper, they are not necessarily reliable beyond current events. I had referred to The Tribune in a similar context where I described it as reliable for contemporary memorials and shows dedicated to the battle and not the events in the battle itself. Sainik Samachar is also not a scholarly source, it's a magazine published by the Ministry of Defence. Lancer is an in-house publisher for the armed forces. Military officers are not academics and by no means comparable to historians and research scholar, in this case they are not even an independent source. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Tayi Arajakate I sincerely apologize as I should have referenced you in the comments but I am glad that your clarified because my understanding of what you stated earlier differs completely. Showalter's book is a "great source" the information provided is by a "Military Historian" himself that 450 casualities are inflicted. Tom Lansford is the Academic Dean, Gulf Coast, at the University of Southern Mississippi and a Professor of Political Science. He is also stated as Assistant Dean for the College of Arts and Letters, and Associate Professor of Political Science, at the University of Southern Mississippi in Long Beach, Mississippi, USA. He is not a "Historian" or "Military Historian" nor has provided his source of information. On the other hand, LANCER is the foremost military publishing house in India since 1983. Its also an INDIAN DEFENCE REVIEW, a quarterly journal on military operations and strategic affairs launched in 1986 and remains the "Most Quoted" worldwide. And the two officers who authored the book are Military experts who used the available sources from the Regimental centre. This makes the source credible enough. Statesman and The Tribune, reliable sites, though can be used given the number of casualities it stated, which is what the source presumably is needed for. Definitely not for the overall event of the battlefield. Sainik Samachar has been producing journals since 1909 about the India's Armed Forces. The journals written are based on the evidence and sources available within the regiment and the Digest of services. This is fairly reliable. Just like you gave your opinion to the questionnaire, I provided mine too and so did others. That's all. HaughtonBrit ( talk) 17:25, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Lancer isn't "an Indian Defence Review", it is the publisher of the Indian Defence Review which is irrelevant here. You just copy pasted some promotional text from the Lancer's website. Officers using in-house material and in-house publishers does not make them more credible than academics, if anything since they are talking about their own regiment, it's a conflict of interest. Casualties are a part of the events of the battle, if there's a dispute over the figure, you should not be using news articles and military personnel with an apparent COI as your sources. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 01:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Copying and pasting was to provide the information directly from the publisher Lancer's website to make it clear what the source is about. And I disagree with COI. Indian Defence Review is relevant and like I said earlier and the officers are not using the in-house material but the sources stored in the Regimental centre including Digest of Services of the Indian Army dated back to British colonists period and are highly reliable which even the academic scholars refer to for research. Its OK to use these sources. HaughtonBrit ( talk) 02:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

IDR is not being used as a source so it's irrelevant here. Secondary sources don't become reliable by virtue of using primary sources. Since you don't seem to understand COI and refuse to follow guidelines, I'm not going to bother anymore. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 03:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

We certainly have conflict in opinion and I likewise don't think you are understanding the points I have provided. I don't think that you are understanding the irrelevance of COI but regardless, let's end here because we are just going in a cycle of endless discussion. HaughtonBrit ( talk) 03:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

HaughtonBrit, can explain how army sources talking about their own regiment is not a conflict of interest? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Tayi Arajakate, why are you bothering again? The records, sources and notes were taken during the battle under British colonial period, a British Empire before its decommissioning in 1947. We should end this discussion. Thank you. HaughtonBrit ( talk) 11:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

HaughtonBrit, I'm bothering because I would rather not have poorly sourced articles on Wikipedia. Are you trying to argue that because the sources use primary sources, they do not have a conflict of interest?

Please read what conflict of interest means. "Records, sources and notes taken during the battle" are called primary sources. Secondary sources make use of these primary sources to develop an overview of the event. That does not mean all secondary sources are reliable and independent, this noticeboard is primarily for determining which are and which are not. I would recommend reading WP:PSTS to get a better understanding. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Tayi Arajakate

I have already read the informations provided and maybe you can read it too and like I said many times before that there is no conflict as far as the sources are concerned. I am keeping the quality of sources in consideration keeping the guidelines in perspective. This noticeboard is to provide opinion and not to push it on others. Now we can end this. HaughtonBrit ( talk) 01:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

The Sainik Samachar publication, ThePrint editorial and the Lancer book do have an obvious conflict of interest. They are all associated with the Indian Army, which considers itself to have been the defending side in the Battle of Saragarhi. You assert that they don't have a conflict of interest but haven't provided a reason that makes any sense.

This noticeboard isn't a forum, it's for discussing the reliability of sources based on guidelines. If your assertions contradict guidelines then you would be called out on it, you are always free to stop participating in the discussion. But in the end, if you don't want to understand the guidelines and remain adamant that you are always in the right, then you will not be able to contribute constructively. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:49, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

The Sainik Samachar publication, and the Lancer book do NOT have a conflict of interest and can be considered reliable. All the sources come from the documents/Notes/records from the British Colonists of British Empire. What you are doing is misrepresenting the policies and guidelines and can be called on it. You already decided to stop participating in the discussion but continued to do so regardless. I am not the one being adamant as I have provided my opinion and never did I reply to your opinion that you initially made here nor did I try to push my opinion on you like you have been consistently doing it on me. We all have right to provide our opinion here on this noticeboard. HaughtonBrit ( talk) 15:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

HaughtonBrit, I'll ask again, can you provide a meaningful reason for the assertion that they do not have a conflict of reason? In fact, since you have now accusing me of "misrepresenting the policies and guidelines", I would like you to substantiate that as well, do understand that unsubstantiated accusations of impropriety are a violation of the policy on civility. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 01:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Tayi Arajakate I have already explained enough. We don't need to go in the cycle again. If you fail to understand or comprehend, that's another topic. We can take the discussion to our talk page. Thank you. HaughtonBrit ( talk) 01:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

HaughtonBrit, let me get this clear, is "all the sources come from the documents/Notes/records from the British Colonists of British Empire" your explanation to why the sources do not have a conflict of interest? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 01:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Tayi Arajakate Repeating again since you decided to revert the comments. I have already explained enough. We don't need to go in the cycle again. We can take the discussion to our talk page. Thank you. HaughtonBrit ( talk) 02:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

You shouldn't edit your own comments once they have been replied to, you can strike out the portion you don't want to include. The question is a simple one, just needs an yes or no. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 02:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Like several other Indian newspapers that pick up material from Facebook posts and WhatsApp forwards, both The Statesman and The Tribune have repeated the dubious claim that the Battle of Saragarhi is included among the "eight stories of collective bravery" published by the United Nations / UNESCO (this is a hoax, as pointed out several times on the article's talk page). This alone shows why these news reports are not a reliable source for information about the battle despite the newspapers themselves being generally reliable sources for current events. utcursch | talk 18:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Strongly Disagree. The Statesman and The Tribune are reliable in particular to casualty information they provide and stating that the information is provided by whatsapp and facebook without any source is just a personal opinion enforced to discredit the sources. AtmaramU — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtmaramU ( talk • contribs) 19:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

AtmaramU, if I understand the dispute on the page correctly, you want to include the claim that 600 on the attacking side were killed. I would suggest trying to find scholarly sources which substantiate the claim ( google scholar may be helpful) instead of arguing for the inclusion of news articles. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 01:46, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

TimesofIndia, VintageNews, Business Insider, Print.in are downright unreliable. Others are fine as they carry some weight. People involved here in back and forth discussion should take a break. It’s a pain to scroll through. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1016:b004:23d4:c505:5950:7e41:d275 ( talk • contribs) 20:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• This is a case where the suitability of the source is dependent on the use to be made of the source material - ie, it must be fit for purpose. The answer I give is therefore in respect to the proposed purpose and not the reliability of the sources for other purposes. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history) gives some guidance. Journalistic sources have little if any place as sources for such an article and particularly for statistics. The journalistic sources proposed are not contemporaneous with the event but are recent. Ideally, we should be relying on scholarly sources, which would report the sources of such claims and these, in turn, could be verified. Two sources supporting the number of wounded actually report 450 "dead and wounded". This is clearly inconsistent with a claim of 600 (or more) dead. A claim of 600 dead is referred to in the text of the article but it is qualified - since not all of those dead could be attributed to the battle but to subsequent action. Regards, Cinderella157 ( talk) 06:36, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I can't believe I have to do this but here it is.

On the Irish slaves myth article there is content sourced to a labour historian who is not recognised as an expert in the topics we are covering (Ireland and transatlantic slavery, Irish economic and social history etc). What's even worse is that this labour historian published his work in a Marxist political magazine and none of it has been reviewed by other scholars who do have experience in this area of research. Have a look: http://www.rebelnews.ie/2020/07/13/4961/

He published the same piece again in History Ireland, which is not ipso facto reliable (but may be if credible historians publish there): https://www.academia.edu/44867788/Kelly_Empire_Inequality_and_Irish_Complicity_in_Slavery

The History Ireland piece wasn't reviewed by scholars and has no citations.

He then published the same piece in another political magazine: https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/08/07/ireland-and-slavery-framing-irish-complicity-in-the-slave-trade/

I tried offering suggestions on how to rewrite the section but the entire discussion degenerated into ad hominem attacks (one editor is accusing me of trolling, and claiming that Brian Kelly is more credentialed than I am).

Are essays published in unscholarly political magazines RS for academic history articles? I don't think so. Jonathan f1 ( talk) 00:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

We are talking about this person, right? Brian Kelly (historian). I haven't really delved into the sources yet, but it would seem to me that the topic is squarely within his academic ambit. Is there reason to think this is not so? Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 02:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

There are a multitude of reasons.

Brian Kelly is a labour historian who publishes on labour, racial and ethnic relations in the post-antebellum US. He's never published so much as one scholarly book or article having to do with Ireland, transatlantic slavery, or Irish involvement in transatlantic slavery (which is what this section is focused on). He writes about US history, specifically labour history, and focuses on the post-emancipation period.

Secondly, none of those articles in question were reviewed by other scholars who have formally published on the subject.

Thirdly, no scholar who's been designated as an authority on this subject has responded to any of these articles. This guy is just some obscure labour historian who has no standing in this particular field.

Finally, there is content in his article that is contradicted by the work of several subject matter experts. But I really shouldn't have to review his work myself. The fact that no one has reviewed his work should be enough to disqualify him here.

The standard simply can not be that anyone who mentions the word "slavery" in his/her research and publishes an essay in a magazine that is virtually unheard of can be used to "balance" material published by scholars who are recognised as experts within a particular subspecialty. As it stands right now, there is content on that page sourced to a scholarly book that was published by a scholarly press and reviewed by other historians, sitting next to a magazine essay by Brian Kelly that was never assessed by anyone. Jonathan f1 ( talk) 02:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the tangent, but since this discussion might attract people with interests and knowledge related to the Brian Kelly article: that page needs a lot of attention and would greatly benefit from (among a great many other things) having at least one reliable, independent source. Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 02:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I checked out the article, and I can tell you why there's a 'promotional tone' to it. Viewing the edit history, it appears that the same editor who's using Brian Kelly in the Irish slaves myth article has been editing his bio page. Jonathan f1 ( talk) 02:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

On second glance, there is only one confirmed edit by this particular user on the BK article. But most of the BK edits were made by an IP. Jonathan f1 ( talk) 03:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I've seen the arguments made on the talk page; and a few remarks.

1. I personally found Hesperian Nguyen very disruptive in the discussion, Bastun was pretty OK. On the other hand, Bastun had a point. I also tend to write rather verbose responses, so I perfectly understand it if a person writes a dozen of lines in the answer, but he was absolutely right about WP:TEXTWALL. I have read it whole, but be reminded that excessive verbosity can be interpreted as a sign of disruptiveness and anyway few would read it; see WP:TLDR. This, however, is not to be discussed here.

2. As for Brian Kelly in general. The topic requires both knowledge of the history of Ireland and history of slavery to be able to compare each of these. Most of the researchers quoted were specialised in the history of Ireland and not that of slavery, so it's good if he's a historian of slavery; moreover, he has written on the Irish-Afroamerican relations twice (also here), even if most of his works were about labour relations (and his slavery articles are cited). In any way, I'd not dismiss the person as unqualified to write about Irish attitudes to Blacks (and comparisons of indentured servitude to slavery) and certainly the person did show in these papers to have background knowledge of the history of Ireland. We should certainly not omit him only for being a Marxist/CRT adherent. On the other hand, neither Liam Hogan should be omitted. Just WP:BALANCE contradictory opinions, but don't WP:SYNTH them. You don't know if all the researchers assessing poverty/richness were using the same indicators and the same time frame - but to exclude that opinion because other sources say otherwise is an exercise in WP:OR. The question of slavery and Irish is not settled - we are not to advocate for who is right.

3. As for History Ireland: it is a historical magazine for laymen - some really good researchers publish there, such as here, here, and here. There is strong editorial oversight over the content published, and the editorial board is composed of historians, so I have no doubts that the resource itself is reliable and the works are reviewed. Secondary research papers are more preferable in a lot of contexts, still this is a source I wouldn't hesitate to use at all.

Going to RebelNews.ie (not to be mistaken with Rebel News, which is far-right): it is a radical left organisation (with appropriately radical opinion pieces and no distinction between news and opinion), but at least, IMHO, unlike WSWS (see above), its tone is more in line with WP:RSOPINION, the language they use is less loaded, and I haven't found any dubious assertions of fact, libellous statements etc., after some scrutiny on the resource. I'd generally use it with caution because of very strong bias. The research as presented by Kelly can be cited per this guidance, point 2 at the very least, but caution should be made while doing so. On the plus side, it is rather well resourced. The CounterPunch essay is essentially a copy for RebelNews.ie coverage, so no need to duplicate the citation.

Tl;dr: I see no reason to remove citation of Brian Kelly; definitely use History Ireland; proceed with RebelNews.ie with caution, but you may cite it. Also, I agree with Firefangledfeathers in that the article on him badly needs attention. Sorry for the long post. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 03:33, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps I should provide a little background here before calling it a night. This is going to be incredibly complicated to explain to people who haven't been following this type of scholarship, so try to bear with me please.

The Irish slaves myth is a pseudohistory which asserts that Irish people were the first slaves sent to the Americas, and that they were treated worse than black Africans. This myth is used by both white supremacists in the US for racist purposes as well as Irish nationalists in Ireland as a way to galvanise Irish people into supporting Irish unification (Unite Ireland and Right Great Wrongs). Since both groups are essentially trying to hyper-inflate their victimhood, attempts are made to write Irish people out of the history of the transatlantic slave trade.

One of the problems with the ISM article is that some of the editors there are trying to do exactly that. Every historian who has published professionally on this subject -- scholars widely recognised as experts in this area, such as Nini Rodgers, Liam Hogan, Jane Ohlmeyer, Liam Kennedy, Donald Akenson -- have explicitly argued that Irishmen, both Protestants and Catholics, were involved in the transatlantic slave trade and that Ireland's economy benefited from slavery in a myriad of ways. The current trend in this type of scholarship is transnational historiography, which looks at the history of the Black Atlantic World beyond national borders. In other words, these historians don't confine their focus to Ireland's borders or even the Anglo-Caribbean and Anglo-American colonies.

So where does Brian Kelly come in? It's an interesting question. He's an obscure labour historian who operates strictly within American history rather than British or Irish history. The only reason he decided to publish essays on this subject (in political magazines) is to challenge the claims made by these other historians and deflect all of the blame for slavery onto the British. Here's a social media posting of a Brian Kelly excerpt,

https://www.facebook.com/groups/167806117588/permalink/10160069589647589/

"It is impossible [...] to spend more than an hour digging in to the Irish connections highlighted in the UCL database [detailing compensation to slave holders] without being knocked over the head with the obvious fact that those slaveowners ‘resident’ in Ireland who were compensated by the British government after emancipation represented, overwhelmingly, the cream of the Anglo-Irish elite, drawn from the (Protestant) landed gentry and with a large proportion of them playing prominent roles in overseeing British colonial administration in an Ireland then under fairly intensive military occupation." (emphasis mine)

In other words, those "Irish slaveowners" were really "British" and not "Irish", and we should thus "frame complicity" for slavery around this understanding.

The problem is that his conclusion is false. Had he bothered to look at the records outside of Ireland -- Irishmen working through the empires of France and Spain, or Irish-Americans -- he'd be knocked over the head with the obvious fact that many of these slaveholders weren't in fact the "cream of the Anglo-Irish (British) elite", and many weren't even Protestants.

Historians have already done this. Liam Hogan compiled a list of slaveholding Americans with unique Irish surnames from the 1850 census and found over 8,600 slaveholders who owned almost 100,000 slaves [27]. It's a dubious practice linking surnames to ancestry, but this was Kelly's method.

Historian Nini Rodgers has also cautioned that the Irish were in no sense confined to Anglo-Caribbean and Anglo-American colonies, as many had established commercial relations (and networks that often connected to Ireland) with other European empires, particularly Irish Catholics and their coreligionists in France and Spain. Jane Ohlmeyer has similarly written that, "By 1660 Irish people [Protestant and Catholic], mostly men, were to be found in the French Caribbean, the Portuguese and later Dutch Amazon, Spanish Mexico, and the English colonies in the Atlantic and Asia where they joined colonial settlements, served as soldiers and clergymen, forged commercial networks as they traded calicos, spices, tobacco, sugar, and slaves." (see here [28])

In addition, Nini Rodgers, Liam Hogan, Jane Ohlmeyer et al. have also explored the ways in which slavery benefitted Ireland's national economy, a topic British and American historians have explored extensively for decades (in the context of British and American economic histories). Unfortunately Kelly either downplays or completely ignores this subject, which may have something to do with his Marxist political leanings (not many Marxists are keen on acknowledging the advantages or socioeconomic benefits of free trade). You can read some of Nini Rodgers work in this area here [29].

What I am trying to argue, hopefully convincingly, is that Kelly's credentials as a US labour historian simply aren't good enough to establish him as an authority on transatlantic slavery and Ireland's relationship to the Black Atlantic World. He has an extremely narrow view of this subject, and in many places he's just way off the mark. He also has political motivations that are shared with some of the editors on the ISM article, which is why I'm in this dispute to begin with.

So what do we do here? If this were a hard science the solution would be simple. If an editor were to source content on a quantum mechanics article to the work of a mathematician, who is not recognised as an expert in quantum mechanics, we would not designate him as an expert simply because some of the work overlaps (this is probably not a good example, since quantum mechanics and mathematics overlap way more than Kelly's research and the subjects covered in the ISM article). What we would do is raise the bar for reliability and expect that he at least publish his work through conventional scholarly channels (refereed journals or, if it's a book, through a legitimate academic press) and have his research reviewed by scientists who publish on quantum mechanics. Unreviewed magazine articles wouldn't cut it and they shouldn't suffice here either. Jonathan f1 ( talk) 05:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect, Szmenderowiecki, but it is simply false to say that Brian Kelly publishes on transatlantic slavery and Ireland's interaction with the Black Atlantic World. He mentions slavery because he publishes about labour relations in the Reconstruction era of the US. That's not even remotely close to the topics we're covering. He talks about "Irish" and "black" relations in the context of American social history, which has almost nothing to do with the much broader topic of Ireland and transatlantic slavery.

I just don't know what else to say. I feel like I'm in a rabbit hole where US labour history is Ireland and transatlantic slavery and Ireland and transatlantic slavery is just Ireland.

Every single one of those historians I cited publish directly on this topic. Here's some of Akenson's work: [30]

That's what a scholarly book about Ireland and transatlantic slavery looks like.

Here's some of Nini Rodgers' work: [31]

These are books directly on topic, published through academic presses and reviewed in professional academic journals.

Brian Kelly has published nothing professionally on this subject and that one measly essay in that political rag is in contradiction to work that's been published as serious scholarship and vetted.

This is why editors who don't know how to review academic history shouldn't be editing articles like the ISM. Jonathan f1 ( talk) 06:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Brian Kelly is a reliable source. He may be a controversial scholar but I don't see anything wrong with the attributed use of the source. Consensus to remove this source for reliability is unlikely. Behavioral factors impeding discussion on the talk page should be reported to administrators but it's their call whether they think intervention will be helpful. The only advice I can give you here is to continue the discussion on the talk page. Spudlace ( talk) 06:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

A historian who specialises in US labour history after the Civil War, who has never published one scholarly article or book on Ireland and transatlantic slavery, and wrote an unvetted essay in a magazine, is a reliable source for an article on Ireland and transatlantic slavery? And can be used to challenge content that was sourced to a scholar who, unlike Brian Kelly, is widely recognised as an expert on the subject of the article, published her work through an academic press, and had it reviewed by other historians? If this is the consensus here, I'm done contributing to this project. Good luck. Jonathan f1 ( talk) 06:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

1. I warn about WP:TEXTWALL once again - treatises essentially copying the talk page arguments are unlikely to be read by others and are likely to annoy folks instead.

2. Are you asking for advice or are you using WP:RSN as a WP:SOAPBOX? If the former is the case - you have my answer; you may want to wait for other opinions that might not agree with me. You needn't explain to me what Irish slaves myth is, because trust me, I've done my research before posting, I've analysed the subject matter (which I actually encountered a few times), and I've applied Wikipedia policy to the best of my knowledge, taking into account all variables that I deemed necessary to get to the answer. Also, see WP:VNT. We are not here to determine truth, but we are here to determine reliability, which is why I am here, and I hope you are here too.

2a. The fact you voluntarily decide to apply higher standards (which is fine) does not mean that Wikipedia policy, by which we are bound, does not allow the sources to be cited - it's just you decide not to. Also, voluntary standards should not be imposed on others, as they then stop being voluntary. To be sure, you can always roll back to Wikipedia standards (which were created in a way they were for a reason) and find similar self-published resource written by a professional on the topic, and we will be fine with it.

3. Marxism is not something that automatically disqualifies the editor. And it's not for you to determine if the editor is off the mark or not, as this is WP:OR, which is not allowed. If you believe the other option is correct and he is wrong, the only thing available to you is to trawl through Google Scholar, Google Books and maybe some shadow libraries (which I admit are often helpful), and find more resources that have the viewpoint you contest marginalised to the point it stops being WP:DUE.

I kindly suggest to be WP:COOL while editing. If you can't, take a break. Really, it helps. :) Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 06:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

When editors have almost no understanding of the subject in question it may require a lot of typing to explain a position.

I'll make this short and sweet and then wait for other editors to comment.

The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:

The piece of work itself (the article, book)

The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)

The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)

Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.

Those are the standards I'm applying.

Is Brian Kelly considered authoritative on the subject of Ireland and transatlantic slavery? No, he's a US labour historian whose area of expertise is in labour, racial and ethnic relations after the American Civil War. The scholarship that this article is dealing with is not something that historians casually dabble in. There's a large canon of research in this area and several scholars who are recognised as sources of authority, who have published directly on this subject. Can you show me one article published by Brian Kelly on this subject in a professional academic journal? One book published through a recognised academic press that was reviewed by subject matter experts? Where is Brian Kelly cited in the work of all these other historians who publish here? No one cites Brian Kelly because the full extent of what he knows about this subject could be written on the back of a postage stamp (five words: it's all the Brit's fault.)

Who was the publisher of the work? Harvard University Press? Cambridge University Press? Oxford University Press? Nope, an unscholarly magazine.

Was his essay vetted? Nope.

He challenged the arguments of several scholars who are regarded as experts in this sphere. Did they respond to his magazine essay? No, they didn't. No one even wasted their time.

I'm applying RS criteria as outlined by Wiki and Brian Kelly fails on each count. It's astounding that this wasn't a quick decision. Jonathan f1 ( talk) 07:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

It really is, but not for the reasons you think. Brian Kelly is a published historian and academic, and is therefore absolutely a reliable source; History Ireland is a reliable source; Liam Hogan - although "only" an amateur historian - is also a recognised expert in this field and is a reliable source. Nini Rodgers is a reliable source. You can't exclude the one you don't like because his political ideology disagrees with yours. Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@ Jonathan f1: We have heard your arguments, there's really no need to repeat yourself - actually, not hearing pleas for coolness may make matters worse for you, and that's not a threat, that's actually policy on Wikipedia. I sincerely wish you don't get in trouble. I therefore ask you again to take a break, and revisit the noticeboard in a few hours' time (better in the evening UTC time) to see whether there is any new input made by other editors. I also ask you not to comment below each commenter's remarks, as it may be considered impolite by some editors. Yours, Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 08:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

This is my last edit here and then I'm done. I'm also done editing the ISM article if no competent editors weigh in.

Brian Kelly's unreliability has nothing to do with his political ideology (which I only brought up to explain why he ignores evidence or downplays certain aspects of this history). Liam Hogan shares the same Marxist/socialist ideology with Kelly but I agree he's a reliable source. And it's because he's recognised as an expert on Ireland and transatlantic slavery and Brian Kelly is not.

Here's a description of Brian Kelly's academic background [32].

As I've been saying for a day now, his specialty is in American race, labour and ethnic relations in the post-Civil War South. He only ever writes about slavery in a US context, usually to explore how certain ethnic groups (like the Irish) interacted with slavery politics in the US, or what social relations were like after the US abolished slavery. While this may seem related to you because he writes the word "slavery", this is a completely different area of history beyond what the ISM article is covering.

You (or some other editor) cited Brian Kelly to challenge (or "balance") content from Nini Rodgers who is by all hands considered the foremost expert in this area. Here's some of Rodgers' publications on the subject [33]. I won't waste time citing all the scholarly articles she's published on the topic, although they are easy to find.

Can you show me one scholarly article published by Brian Kelly directly related to Irish involvement in transatlantic slavery? One scholarly book? Don't show me some piece he wrote about how Irish immigrants in Boston were anti-abolitionists, as that's beyond the scope of the article and not related to the material you sourced. Your only argument as to why Kelly's reliable is that he's a historian. Well history is splintered into a million different subspecialties and having expertise in one doesn't mean you're authoritative in another.

Here's an article by Bryan Fanning, who is also recognised as an authority [34]. He mentions virtually every leading expert in this particular area of research and says nothing about Brian Kelly.

There's a serious problem in that article. Every leading expert who was written about the Irish slaves myth has said that it's used to obscure the interaction between Ireland, Irish people and slavery throughout transatlantic history. But in the body of the article you have content sourced to Brian Kelly that does exactly that (claiming that all profits went to the British), which contradicts Nini Rodgers' work. Rodgers never even said anything about which "class" in Ireland was the most complicit in slavery, which you would've known if you actually read her work (see for example this review: [35]). So that whole section is out of context and essentially straw-mans Rodgers.

And finally, if you had any experience reviewing articles published in History Ireland you'd know that the publication isn't by itself an RS. History Ireland is the kind of magazine that tries to make scholarship accessible to consumers, but it doesn't vet its opinion pieces the way academic journals do. It has even published Irish slaves myth content in the past. Here's one historian calling them out for it [36]. Here's a public apology the editor of HI had to issue to Liam Hogan [37]. Jonathan f1 ( talk) 09:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

So a man who is an expert about American history writing about...American history... is not an expert because it also happens to be about the Irish in America? This may violate fringe or undue, but I can't see any reason why he is not an RS. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I am presumably the "you" in your latest wall of text above. Once again, I did not introduce anything by or about Kelly into the article, and your post is again verging on a personal attack (I'd originally written "verging on", but I reread your post before posting, and noticed you're alleging anyone who doesn't agree with you is incompetent). Do not assume what I have read or failed to read, or what experience I have or haven't. Re Fanning: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Re History Ireland: it is the sign of a good, reliable source that it can acknowledge that it sometimes gets things wrong, and when it does, it says so. You now have five editors agreeing Kelly is a reliable source. That still does not take away from the fact Hogan, Rodgers, et al, are also reliable sources used in the article. See WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE - they can all be used, and you can certainly state that Kelly has stated is a minority view or is contradicted by another source. That's how we end up with a neutral article. Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

But steven, this section of the article has nothing to do with American history, not even close. It has to do with Ireland and transatlantic slavery and the ways in which Irish people in and outside of Ireland and the Irish economy benefited from slavery, which necessarily covers exiled Irishmen who operated through other slave empires such as France, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands in addition to England (and later Britain). This is way above Brian Kelly's paygrade.

Look, it's very simple. We have an over-abundance of sources that we all agree are reliable (and are recognised as authoritative by other historians who are reliable) and no reason whatsoever to source content to a US labour historian. This dispute started because the editor Hesperian Nguyen is from Ireland and doesn't want Irish people associated with black chattel slavery. She shares that in common with ISM proponents. Her problem was that none of all these reliable historians say what she wants the article to say (and have matter-of-factly written the opposite) so she dug up Brian Kelly, reduced the section to a few lines and sourced half of them to Kelly (and gave him the last word). I challenged her sourcing, she was completely dismissive of my suggestions, the entire discussion degenerated and here we are.

Bastun, it's my understanding that RS standards for academic history articles are quite high. They want a source that's gone through the typical process scholarship has to go through before and after it's published, or they want a source that may not be a scholarly article or monograph but is published by a historian who's published scholarship and is recognised as an expert in the specific topic we're covering. Obviously if Nini Rodgers or Donald Akenson publish an article in History Ireland we can cite that. And obviously Brian Kelly is reliable for topics having to do with US labour history during Reconstruction and can be cited up and down the page on those particular articles. But when it comes to the topic of Ireland and the Black Atlantic World, Kelly has no scholarship and his HI essay wasn't vetted. Here's an article Nini Rodgers published in HI [38]. Look at the depth, nuance and complexity with which she writes about this subject and compare it to Kelly's essay.

I'll compromise with Hesperian Nguyen right now: If she can find us just one scholarly book or article published by Brian Kelly on the subject of Ireland and transatlantic slavery I'll concede the whole section to her and she can source whatever she wants to that HI essay. Jonathan f1 ( talk) 13:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

My dear, didn’t you just declare that "This is my last edit here and then I'm done.” If you’re going to be overly dramatic, get disruptive, and then rage quit at least keep your word. No need to make a liar of yourself on top of everything else. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 16:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

"Transatlantic" so yes American history. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:00, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Just popping in again to say that while I think I might come down on the side of the text in question being undue, this idea that "a historian of U.S. slavery can't opine on the Irish role in the slave trade" is madness to me. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 14:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

WP does not get edited on the basis of wagers and challenges. You are blowing the Kelly aspect of the article out of all proportion! He merits two sentences, total, in the article! One, in respect of who benefited from the slave trade, where the article says Kelly "cautions against indicting 'the country as a whole' as "overwhelmingly the benefits of Ireland’s involvement in transatlantic slavery went to the same class that presided over the misery that culminated in the horrors of famine and mass starvation." It is not the blanket write-off that you're claiming. And the second sentence criticises O'Callaghan's book. Should we remove that criticism?! My last word on this - you've attacked many people and wasted thousands of words that would have been much more productively spent improving the article. As to standards for article sourcing - read WP:SCHOLARSHIP. That's it. Don't know where you're getting all the other stuff from. Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:11, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I would like to humbly suggest closing this thread and taking things back to the article talk page. Ultimately, I agree with Bastun's assessment above of a tempest in a teapot that is now acting as a time sink. While I see things to contest here, the reliability of an academic in the area really isn't one of them, and I think I see consensus to that effect. Cheers, all, and happy Friday. Dumuzid ( talk) 16:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

While History Ireland is not peer reviewed, it is edited by academics and therefore is reliable in the same sense that a book written by a journalist and published by a non-fiction imprint of a reputable publisher is reliable.

Kelly is clearly an expert on slavery and labor in the United States and therefore a competent authority on the myth of Irish slavery in America. His political views are irrelevant, since reliability is based on factual accuracy rather than opinion.

TFD ( talk) 14:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• I have a headache from reading this entire thread, which is made worse by the fact that I could have just looked this guy on on google scholar to arrive at the same answer.

He is absolutely a reliable source for this use. A American labor historian writing about the transatlantic slave trade and comparing it to earlier American labor institutions in a context in which he is essentially endorsed (via being published in History Ireland) by specialists in the subjects OP is denying Kelly is an expert in (specialization is usually not requisite for expertise, as one generally needs a high-level understanding of related subjects in order to make contributions in one's specialty) is, without a doubt, a reliable source, and the justification and responses from the OP only underscore that. I too, have difficulty believing this needed to be brought here, though for markedly different reasons. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree to the extent that while he may on the surface be a reliable source for his field, this particular area is one where his personal politics colour his factual accuracy. Its a common tactic when dealing with Irish history to attempt to de-Irish sections of the populace. "No true Irishman" etc in order to place all the blame for Ireland's ills on the British/English (who were substantially to blame for quite a few of them). Its not a tactic limited to slavery. Fortunately its always countered by historians who say what the situation actually is, rather than what people want to hear. See Blueboar's comment below. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 07:10, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I would also point out that since the Irish slave myth is a conspiracy theory, not a valid academic theory, that we are unlikely to find many if any peer reviewed articles about it. In comparison, scientific journals might not would run articles debunking the conspiracy theory that the moon landing was faked. So our best source is probably experts writing in serious non-academic journals. TFD ( talk) 23:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• This is daft, it is obvs a reliable source. Depending on what it is being used for it may require attribution or even be undue weight to include. Boynamedsue ( talk) 16:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
• Having read the wall of text, I would say that the issue here ISN’T reliability, but DUE WEIGHT. Kelly qualifies as “reliable”, but he has a distinctly a minority viewpoint. He is contradicted by multiple other sources that are far MORE reliable. So... the question becomes: how much article space should we devote to his minority views? My analysis would be: Perhaps some... but not much. Blueboar ( talk) 17:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes I agree that too much from this source may be WP:UNDUE. It seems we've had a lot of postings recently arguing about weight instead of reliability. Spudlace ( talk) 06:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I would say none to be honest. There is no evidence his views have any wider acceptance, if there were, they would be in more reliable publishing. And there are plenty of much more reliable sources (by our standards) to say on the subject, so just use them. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 07:10, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Matthew Yglesias has an outline on how news media have mishandled reporting of the laboratory incident hypothesis for COVID-19: The media's lab leak fiasco. It's well worth a read as it highlights systemic issues with media reporting in the early days of COVID, especially on misrepresentations of scientific consensus and statements by Tom Cotton. We may want to review any news articles we cited from that era to make sure that we are not repeating their mistakes in Wikipedia voice. feminist (+) 14:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Feminist, that was a good read. There is a long post on this topic above [39]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CutePeach ( talk • contribs) 09:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

This is such an obvious wp:npov breaking stance that it's hard to see how can serious editors still scuff at continuing the status quo. EVERY DAY more articles come out about investigating what you guys keep calling "the misinformation". There are over 20 links of mainstream news articles arguing against the archaic activistic views of wikipedia. I see more energy put into blowing the UCoC story instead of this news-relevant story. 2601:602:9200:1310:9D25:707:D2C5:95C2 ( talk) 08:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

While there are indeed many new articles about it, there is little new evidence, and evidence that exists is circumstantial and sometimes has unclear origin (as in anonymous intelligence reports), so I don't think we shouldn't swing too much in the opposite direction until there are higher quality sources. I'd support redirecting it to Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. Alaexis _¿question? 09:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

The lab theory is an obvious WP:FRINGE theory lacking any evidence whatsoever. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Whether it is fringe (or not) is irrelevant... it is a notable theory. We do have to cover it. So the question is simply HOW to cover it, and WHERE best to do so. Blueboar ( talk) 13:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE is our guideline for handling such topics. Questions about how to cover it should be discussed at the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Origins of SARS-CoV-2 as they have nothing to do with RS. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Part of the issue is that there are (at least) two lab leak theories - a conspiracy theory about an intentional leak that is given essentially no credence at all in reliable sources, and a separate theory of an accidental leak. The second theory is not the mainstream theory but it's more minority than fringe given multiple reliable mainstream sources are saying it is (very) unlikely but more evidence is needed before it can be completely ruled out. You are correct though that this is not an issue for this noticeboard. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)