Talk:Australian Strategic Policy Institute

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

More information This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:, Associated task forces: ...

Australia: Military history Mid‑importance

	Australia portal Australian Strategic Policy Institute is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Military history: South Pacific

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

203.173.10.92 (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. (IP reverse DNS points to aspi-dc1.aspi.org.au (as of 16 September 2019) )
ASPI org (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Marcus Reubenstein (August 21, 2021). "Wikipedia v ASPI: on sock-puppets and Wiki-sneaks". MichaelWestMedia. Retrieved August 21, 2021. For ASPI there is no greater crisis than criticism and, it appears, a level playing field can always be titled in its favour. One need go no further than the ASPI Wikipedia page to see that someone is looking very kindly on ASPI and the way it crafts its image.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Australian Strategic Policy Institute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Allegations of an agenda

In the last few months there have been several stories in the media, most significantly the story in the Australian Financial Review, reporting that some experts/senior figures believe that ASPI is now advancing an agenda (in short, encouraging a hawkish attitude towards China). Others argue against this (also per the AFR story). As such, I don't think it's in line with WP:NPOV to describe ASPI as being "non-partisan" or similar, given that there is a serious viewpoint that it is now partisan. It's best to use neutral language, and let readers reach their own view on the basis of the coverage of this issue in the article. Nick-D (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

First, the “story” in the AFR is a column not a story. Second having an “agenda” is not the same as being non-partisan in a domestic sense, a national security think tank like ASPI is expected to be biased towards its home nation but not to favor any domestic political party. Unless you have an assertion that ASPI is favoring a particular political party in Australia then there are no grounds to remove it. You also specifically claimed that the organization was called partisan by multiple politicians and former politicians but none appear to have actually used that word making your jump to "given that there is a serious viewpoint that it is now partisan" OR. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Can you please provide any recent independent sources which describe ASPI as being independent? Nick-D (talk) 22:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

The word independent was removed from the lead by this edit back in November . It does not currently feature in the lead nor do I know of anyone who has proposed that it be returned. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

"Non-partisan" implies that the organisation is independent and free of political agendas, which is now disputed by some experts. Nick-D (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

non-partisan implies non-partisan, independent implies independent... Non-partisan means free of *domestic* political agenda btw, it loses all meaning if internationalized (especially for a national security think tank). I see allegation of them being anti-China but they can be anti-China and still not favor a domestic political party which is what non-partisan means in this context. Am I wrong that in Australia opinions on China do not line up neatly along traditional political lines? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

See the wikipedia entry for Nonpartisanism which notes “in most cases, nonpartisan refers specifically to political party connections rather than being the strict antonym of "partisan”.” Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Meriam-Webster states that the term means "free from party affiliation, bias, or designation", which is broader. The governing Coalition parties in Australia are generally, though not exclusively, more hawkish towards China than the Australian Labor Party and some other political parties, and it's notable that some senior ALP figures are criticising ASPI for their view that it's now biased. Former foreign minister Bob Carr argues that it's aligned with the US government (). Given the debate, I don't think that the term is appropriate. Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Cambridge "not a member of or connected with a group or political party,” macmillan "not supporting any political party,” and dictionary.com "not supporting or controlled by a political party, special interest group, or the like.” I think you’re misreading the MW definition too, it means free from party affiliation, (party) bias, or (party) designation. The terms bias and designation aren’t independent of party. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok, so all we need is a direct assertion that the Australian Strategic Policy Institute is supporting a specific political party, not sure an allegation of supporting (or opposing) a foreign government qualifies. The source you provided is paywalled, does it say anything specific about domestic political parties? It should also be noted that being described as anti-China or hawkish on China doesn’t make an organization non-partisan, for example Amnesty International is often described as extremely anti-China but is widely regarded as non-partisan and RAND is hawkish on China but is also widely regarded as non-partisan. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Policy think tanks exist to advance political agendas, not necessarily partisan. So adding that there are allegations of "having an agenda" is bit "the sky is blue". --MarioGom (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Politically partisan does not imply a bias towards a political party- being in favour of any cause or party is sufficient. I think we have to be shrewd about how we describe this organization because they were originally tied to Australia's defence apparatus- but now strangely seem to be a gun for hire accepting external funding. Many question marks here- we really don't know what these guys do.--Willthewanderer (talk) 01:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe there is an issue here. A naive person would think that that think tanks exist to do analysis, not pursue an influencing campaign to further a set agenda. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:E101:4F00:8714:1DFE (talk) 03:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Funding

Stop removing referenced content that details funding outside the Australian government. This is highly relevant and proven, and any attempts to remove can only be assumed to be in bad faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:6D01:2701:3998:23A6:1950:5DE0 (talk) 02:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Come on... Its not even from an article, its a column. Also you’re new here but always WP:AGF and abide by WP:NPA. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

It would be good to go into more detail on this: I'll add material from ASPI's annual report. Nick-D (talk) 04:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Removed and rewrote some stuff

In this edit of mine, I attempted to address some glaring issues: Article had clear POV-inserts -- Lede immediately goes into how it's received partly funded by the Australian Department of Defence, foreign governments and military contractors. This is true, but it's heavily cherrypicked. I tried to solve this by instituting a pre-2019 version which is when these POV-inserts seem to have started. The stuff added to the lede was repeated in the funding section, but with the same undue weight and cherrypicking. I addressed this by keeping the mention of that funding, but mentioning the actual, current sponsors, not just government/military and defence contractors. There was a pdf cited, allegedly from the organisation itself, but it too did this cherrypicking thing and was being used in the same way. Eik Corell (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

That text resulted from the discussion above, as well as some to-and-fro editing, so I've restored it. Could you please explain why you consider this cherry picking and POV? The issue of ASPI's funding has been discussed in the AFR and elsewhere (for instance, and a bunch of Chinese news reports), so is noteworthy, and the material is referenced to that story and ASPI's corporate documents (I'm not sure why you claim that these references are "allegedly from the organisation itself" - they are its website and annual reports!) so should be accurate. I think that the material here is factual and 'flat', and contributes to an understanding of the organisation. ASPI is quite transparent about its sources of funding through its corporate documents and website, and has also reported multiple sources of funding from foreign governments through the Australian Government's mandatory reporting scheme for this , so it is not disputed or POV for the article to note this. Nick-D (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

"Titled" is a misspelling from the original text. Should be "tilted". It needs a (sic). Burrobert (talk) 09:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Blog under Press coverage

NO CONSENSUS

There is neither a consensus for inclusion, nor a consensus that confirms the source's adherence to the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Colonestarrice (talk) 12:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

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

@Nick-D: blogs have their own thing (Wikipedia:Wikipedia in blogs), that section is only for Wikipedia:Press coverage. Besides being a blog post and not press coverage its riddled with factual errors some such as "Two other users who have edited the ASPI page, Festerhauer and Telsho, have also been identified as sockpuppets of the Waskerton account.” User:Telsho is an ineedtostopforgetting sock not a Waskerton sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back What's the issue with the source? The same piece has been published in two sources, once in the journalist's own publication, and once in a more reputable independent media source. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: Its an opinion piece... In the more reputable of the two sources (which probably doesn't meet our WP:RS standards) its clearly labeled as commentary. Even if it did meet our reliability requirements we would not have WP:DUEWEIGHT with just an opinion piece. Also note that if this wasn’t labelled as commentary its so error riddled that it would sink the reliability of whoever published it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:37, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with it being an opinion piece, although I cannot see evidence that it is. Nowhere in WP:DUEWEIGHT does it state opinion pieces can't have due weight, it only says opinions should not be portrayed as facts. Horse Eye's Back, please state how opinion articles, or the relevant source itself, violates DUEWEIGHT. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Look at the top of the article, its published as “Comment.” In regard to due weight its very simple "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.” we don’t currently have have any reliable sources which express this viewpoint. See WP:RSOPINION, again the opinion piece would have to be published in a reliable source for us to even consider using it and this one has not been. Are you really not worried that the core argument of the piece is based on mistaken attributions made by the author? You appear to be operating as if its reliable and well written. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

If you have evidence that the information in the news article is wrong, you should explain that here. Michael West Media is clearly reliable enough for such an article and its criticisms to be noted here, and particularly as written by an established Australia journalist, Marcus Reubenstein. This is clearly a significant viewpoint that we do not need to characterise as objectively correct or good, so the contention is simply in how we write about the news article here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I already did... You can easily verify yourself that User:Telsho is a suspected ineedtostopforgetting sock not a Waskerton sock. Michael West Media appears to be a fringe blog, I’m not seeing any indication of reliability. I would also note that the author is clearly new to wikipedia as they make some rather glaring errors in regard to our article rating system and how discussions work... Did you not notice any of those? They’re hard to miss if you read it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

MichaelWestMedia is an established news website and certainly not a fringe source. It has a very clear perspective, which should be accounted when we use MichaelWestMedia or West himself as a source. It's clearly not a blog, but we also don't ban blogs from being used as sources as long as they meet our standards, same as opinion articles. The news article seems to be referring to the wrong ASPI sockpuppet when describing the user Telsho. This is a relatively minor inaccuracy, and does not affect the Wikipedia article as we do not go into that level of detail. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

What ASPI sockpuppet? The article never establishes that the ASPI used sockpuppets, they just say that the ASPI has edited the page and that sockpuppets have and heavily imply that theres a connection there but there isn’t any evidence of one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

The User:Waskerton sockpuppet. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Waskerton has never been connected to ASPI, either formally or informally. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

The Waskerton sockpuppets have edited the ASPI article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'd suggest that any discussion of sockpuppets be limited to WP:SPI. Re: the Michael West media article, I agree that it's probably not suitable for inclusion as the source of a notable opinion in the article, but the discussion of this article on it seems worth noting on this talk page. It is a fairly prominent website and is operated by the professional journalist Michael West (journalist). The author of the article in question here, Marcus Rubenstein, is also a professional journalist . Nick-D (talk) 02:53, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

The article by Marcus Reubenstein makes some good points:

The large number of references on the page that come directly from the ASPI.
This paragraph has been in and out of the article a few times:
"The former diplomat and commentator Bruce Haigh wrote in May 2021 that ASPI is the “preferred source of advice on China” for the Liberal–National Coalition, ahead of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Department of Defence. He also argued that ASPI is exaggerating the threat China poses to Australia and its advice has resulted in China freezing Australia out of “significant bilateral trade, economic and diplomatic relationships"."

It is sourced to an Opinion article by Bruce Haigh in the Canberra Times. Other opinions are included in the Reception section. For example, The Corner has been used for two opinions in the Reception section. It is described as an "Up-to-the-minute news blog featuring conservative commentary & debate on politics, culture, current events, and breaking news". The Strategist, which is the ASPI Blog, is also used as a source in the Reception section.

Reubenstein suggests we include reference to an AFR article which says: “A report from influential think tank the Australian Strategic Policy Institute that criticised government departments for giving too much business to a dominant provider of cloud computing capacity was paid for by a lobbying firm engaged by three of the market leader’s rivals”.^[1]

Burrobert (talk) 03:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Both the articles from the Canberra Times and the Financial Review should be included here, but especially the Canberra Times piece. The AFR's article is a narrow criticism of the ASPI, while the Canberra Times' article is a substantive analysis of ASPI which contains criticism. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Cheers legends, I believe reception is about how the subject is received in public light? Criticism should be included in that. Further, Marcus does provide evidence to highlight the editorialization of this Wikipedia article. --Ultranova1337 (talk) 05:24, 22 August 2021 (UTC) — Ultranova1337 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Mikehawk10 what are you on about champion? This isn't a single purpose account. In fact, I'm considering authoring my first article soon. Ultranova1337 (talk) 01:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

References

[1]
"Revealed: Data centre rivals funded ASPI report into market giant". Australian Financial Review. 4 March 2021. Retrieved 22 August 2021.

Just to be clear: Marcus Reubenstein is not an established journalist. His opinion is not notable. He is most notable for being repeatedly accused of being linked to the Communist Party of China. If you agree with Marcus' blog that this Wikipedia page isn't balanced, great, edit it for balance. Adding the criticism of a Wikipedia article in a blog of a non-notable, likely bad faith actor is definitely not it. Cjhard (talk) 23:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

There are many instances of mainstream media sources describing Marcus Reubenstein as a journalist. Any cursory search of him finds that he is established. What makes the opinion notable is that it has been published in a prominent news website, Michael West Media. If Reubenstein has been accused of being "linked" to the Communist Party of China, that would make him even more notable, as that's a very significant accusation. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

And importantly, there is clear consensus for inclusion. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:44, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: in your edit summary you say "Talk page consensus supports inclusion” but I see no such consensus on this talk page, is there another talk page that you’re referring to? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
@Onetwothreeip: this edit summary says “Source reliability has been satisfied” but I don’t see that being true anywhere, what are you talking about? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:50, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
- On the basis of the RSN discussion and my own checks (especially finding that The Guardian often references stories first reported on the Michael West website), I think that this warrants inclusion. Nick-D (talk) 01:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
1. This article's talk page. 2. The source reliability has been satisfied by being a notable and prominent website, which is accepted as such by other reliable sources. This has established on this article's talk page, this article's edit summaries and the reliable sources noticeboard. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

1. Be specific, as far as I can see there isn’t a consensus here. The discussion is still open and very much split. 2. There is no consensus to that effect so its never been “satisfied” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

The source satisfies reliability and suitability on its qualities. Can you explain what you mean by "failed verification"? Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

We don’t have a consensus on that yet. Failed verification means that the information can’t be found in the source provided, you will note that the source doesn’t actually say what we’re saying they say... It only implies it. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Which information in particular fails verification? Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:40, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Why am I beginning to get the feeling that you’ve never actually read the article? If you had you might have noticed that "for censorship of ASPI's own Wikipedia article using "sock puppet” accounts” is not in there... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

While the APAC News source describes it as censorship, the Michael News Media source only heavily implies it, so I will change that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The articles appear to be identical to me, where are you seeing a difference? Also it still fails verification, the source does not say that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it's literally the same article. It doesn't bode well that that participants didn't notice that, and are using both as different references within the Wikipedia article. --Cjhard (talk) 02:04, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

From APAC News: ASPI's censorship sneaks. This does not appear on the Michael News Media article, despite being almost identical in content. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

It's the same article with a different title - are you being serious here? Cjhard (talk) 05:30, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

The difference is in the title. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

We don’t use titles at all, you must have become aware of that at some point given how long you’ve been editing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

You should probably be aware that I am advocating we do not use the title here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Then what exactly are you advocating? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

You would have to be more specific, but please make sure you follow the thread. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

If you aren’t advocating that we use the title to support the information then what are you suggesting we use to support the information? As you said "From APAC News: ASPI's censorship sneaks” and "The difference is in the title” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

The article, of course. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:23, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

You were previously asked which part of the article and you responded the title... Which part of the article are you referring to now? Please be specific and use direct quotes. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

You were asking which part of the article describes censorship. The part of the article that describes censorship is the title, which I have quoted and you have quoted me quoting. What is the point of this? Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

But you just said "You should probably be aware that I am advocating we do not use the title here” and yet here you are saying that your argument is entirely based on the title. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

What argument? Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

That the source supports the text you added to the page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:46, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I've only rewritten the text, but the entire sentence currently is supported by the sources. Because "censorship" was not supported by the Michael West Media source, I removed that claim from the article. I've made several edits so you would have to be specific, but it would be better to look at the current version. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Actually restoring it gives you full responsibility for it as well as authorship, surprised you aren’t aware of that. The part which is unsupported by the text is "In August 2021, ASPI was criticised by Michael West Media contributor Marcus Reubenstein for removing criticism from its Wikipedia article by using "sockpuppet" accounts.” as Reubenstein does not actually make the contention that ASPI used sockpuppet accounts remove criticism from its wikipedia article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't actually have authorship, no. I've updated the text to separate the use of sockpuppet accounts from ASPI directly. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

While I appreciate you acknowledging that it failed verification "In August 2021, ASPI was criticised by Michael West Media contributor Marcus Reubenstein for removing criticism from its Wikipedia article, and the use of "sockpuppet" accounts.” doesn’t work any better, Reubenstein doesn’t say that ASPI used sockpupper accounts. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: The source also doesn’t say "for the use of "sockpuppet" accounts on its Wikipedia article.” That isn’t any better. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Please stop lying, I've not once acknowledged anything about "failed verification". The source does criticise the use of sockpuppet accounts. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

No it doesn’t, the source doesn't say that ASPI used sock puppets. If you disagree then we need to see some diffs. Also note that this is a WP:BLP because you invoke the author. I’m sorry if I misinterpreted you but WP:PA are not welcome. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

The text doesn't say ASPI used sockpuppets. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:25, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

So which of us has been lying then? Because you’ve been inserting text which says that ASPI used sockpuppets since the 22nd of August . Thats a long time to edit war over something you apparently know isn’t true? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

That's not the current text. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

We aren’t talking about the current text... We’re talking about the text you spent more than two weeks edit warring back onto the page... The text which had to be replaced by the current text because it failed WP:V aka it failed verification. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm talking about the current text, because that is what the talk page is for. I have progressively changed the current text and have reverted attempts to remove parts of the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

So we are in agreement that the current text is (reliability concerns aside) verifiable and the text which you repeatedly reverted and edited onto the page was not? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I have no intention of changing the article text for now. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

This seems pretty undue, given that this accusation has received no coverage of comment from other outlets. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Given that the source is a reliable source, I don't see why that matters. Out of interest, what brought you to this discussion? Nick-D (talk) 07:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

We don’t appear to have a consensus on reliability so you would appear to be begging the question. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: removing this material yet again on the grounds that you now reckon that it's a BLP violation is absurd and well and truly disruptive editing. No people are named or even vaguely identified in the article and the content that was added to this article reflected the source accurately - including by noting that it was criticism from a journalist rather than an undisputed fact, so there are no BLP issues. This kind of bad faith editing is really unhelpful - accusations of BLP violations should not be thrown around like this. Nick-D (talk) 00:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Actually, on closer reading I see your point - the text does go beyond the source. Please accept my apologies for the above, which I've struck (I think that this is a WP:V issue rather than a BLP issue though). I think that this can be resolved by re-wording the material, which I'll do now. I'd also posted notifications at WT:AUSTRALIA and WT:MILHIST (as the two most relevant projects) seeking extra input per WP:DR. Nick-D (talk) 01:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much... I was starting to think I was going crazy or missing something massive in the article... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:19, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

It has no broader coverage, the source is not of sufficient quality to give notability to any claim it posts, and the particular person concerned has zero notability of their own. This sort of thing reeks of promotionalism by wannabe internet personalities. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

The source is reliable so this should have a minimal mention in the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: you failed to get consensus on reliability at RSN and you’ve failed to get consensus for inclusion on this talk page, its over. Stop edit warring the content back onto the page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I didn't start any discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard, that is what you did. If consensus for your proposal wasn't reached there, whatever that may be, I have little to do with it other than being one of the participants. The text for the Michael West Media news article has evolved and has been altered many times, and has settled on strong wording which hasn't been contested. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Dude... If you don’t have consensus thats is a reliable source and you don’t have consensus on this talk page to include it then it can’t be included... The entire inclusion has been challenged, not just the wording... And you have no consensus for inclusion.Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

There has been extensive discussion which has resulted in consensus to include the text, and there has been extensive scrutiny on the text which I welcome. Your claims that the source is unreliable are unfounded, and there is certainly no consensus for that claim. Michael West Media has a prominent readership, and has been relied upon by The New Daily and The Guardian. If you want to challenge the inclusion of the text, you need to start with a reason other than you don't like it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:16, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Where are you seeing a consensus to include the text? I also don’t dislike the source, it just isn’t reliable. Also just FYI I don’t need a consensus not to include or thats its unreliable... Its you who needs to get consensus per WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS. If no consensus is achieved then the disputed text is not included. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

This talk page and the article history. No other source used in this article has been established to be reliable, so it's blatantly incorrect that anybody has to show a source is reliable before it can be used. Nonetheless, it has been shown thoroughly here and elsewhere that the source is reliable. If you wish to dispute the text based on what is written, then you should do so. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

You’re talking WP:IDHT to new levels... You can’t point to a consensus of reliability and you must know that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

The consensus is very apparent with even a brief reading of this talk page. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

After reading the article, having never heard of MichaelWestMedia before encountering them in the context of their piece ASPI, I'm not sure that I trust them to do accurate reporting on Wikipedia. They seem to have misreported the suspected sockmaster of Telsho, described the talk page as an open forum page, and engages in some spinning that would have a reader believe that C-class articles are the worst articles that have been established on Wikipedia. While journalists get details wrong at times, these are basic things that are used in the MWM article that probably should have been caught before it went to print. (The misreporting of the sockmaster of Telsho is particularly egregious, as it's really easy to click on their user page and see whom their sockmaster is suspected by the community to be, and you don't need all that much knowledge of Wikipedia policy to be able to do that. And, the company should probably issue a correction when a basic mistake-of-fact is discovered, which does not appear to have yet been done in this case.) Additionally, while past journalistic experience certainly does provide some reason to believe that a newer source may be reliable, it's also the case that journalists going their own way sometimes doesn't quite work out as far as reliability is concerned—The Grayzone (RSP entry) is one such case. And, when the MWM article itself was brought up at WP:RSN, it seems that editors were split between considering whether the article was opinion content, the reliability of MichaelWestMedia itself, and/or the implications of the publisher's reliability for inclusion in the article in light of WP:WEIGHT. It may be worthwhile to start an RfC on the content's inclusion, so as to bring a more formal method of determining where community consensus lies. It seems like there's still fundamental disagreement as to the reliability of the source, so an RfC on RSN might also help in resolving that. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

As this material has been stable for weeks, I've just restored it per WP:BRD. Endless slow paced edit wars are tedious. Nick-D (talk) 06:33, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that a reading of the page history would result in this content being deemed "stable"; it's been contested on this talk page the whole time, while no consensus was ever achieved to insert it. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

You have repeatedly referred to there being multiple errors in the Michael West Media article by Marcus Reubenstein, but you have only specified that an error was made in reporting a sockpuppet account user. This would be a problem if we were using the MWM article to identify the sockpuppet account user in this Wikipedia article, but we are not. You are entitled to think that Reubenstein should have made changes to the article he wrote, but that is simply irrelevant to this discussion, which is about content in the Wikipedia article. The issues you have with the MWM article are irrelevant here as they have nothing to do with what is written in this Wikipedia article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: I've opened up an RfC regarding this on the Neutral Point-of-View noticeboard regarding this, which you can find here.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

"ASPI has also been criticised by John Menadue, Geoff Raby and Jordan Shanks.[3][19]" You're fighting an uphill battle here, Mike. This article needs a lot more attention or it will end up looking like it was co-authored by Paul Keating and Wang Xining. Cjhard (talk) 04:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Failed verification

You have made a claim in an edit summary that an edit of mine "failed verification". I assume you mean that a source was removed. Please describe which source or sources you are referring to, and the content this was supporting. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

"one of Australia's most influential national security policy think tanks.” per the The Diplomat fails verification, they say most influential without any qualification. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

We are not referring to The Diplomat alone, we are referring to a few news sources who combined say ASPI is one of the most influential think tanks in Australia, of which one source is The Diplomat. We are not required to quote each one directly, as a source stating that ASPI is the most influential is included in a sentence saying that sources describe it as one of the most, in the same way that 1 is included in the numbers between 1 and 5. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

That is the definition of WP:SYNTH. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Please see WP:SYNTHNOT. Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. All of the three sources say that ASPI is one of Australia's most influential policy think tanks. A source saying that it is the most influential is therefore saying it is one of the most influential, because 'the most influential' is one of 'one of the most influential'. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:04, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

The Diplomat describes them as the most influential think tank, it does not say qualify that with "national security” or “policy" like ITNews does. If The Diplomat never said they they were "one of Australia's most influential national security policy think tanks” then that is clearly synth... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that we should say "ASPI has been described in the Australian Financial Review and iTnews as being one of Australia's most influential national security policy think tanks. ASPI has been described in the The Diplomat as Australia's most influential national security policy think tank". It's a bit long-winded for the point it is making. The current version is more succinct and, while it is not exact, is not inaccurate. Burrobert (talk) 04:44, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

That version still fails WP:V, please actually read the articles. "ASPI has been described in the Australian Financial Review and iTnews as being one of Australia's most influential national security policy think tanks. ASPI has been described in the The Diplomat as Australia's most influential think tank.” would work. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I would be grateful if Horse Eye's Back would propose alternative wording to what is in the article, and I am more than willing to collaborate on wording that can most satisfy being succinct and accurate. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

It just needs to pass WP:V which the current version technically doesnt do. The longer version does satisfy WP:V, I would go with that. If we want to separate each one out for DUE we can, they’re all major publications. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

The current version adheres to all policies, but what exactly are you proposing we change it to? Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:20, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree the current wording on AFR, ITNews and Diplomat makes the most sense, is still accurate and does not give undue weight to the Diplomat reference. Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Might I point out the the AFR piece is an opinion column? We probably shouldn’t be using it at all... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Why do you describe the AFR article as an opinion piece? We have used the article as a source four times on the page. Three of those references are for factual statements. The fourth reference was for the opinion that the ASPI is "one of Australia's most influential national security policy think tanks". I can't actually see where that appears in the AFR article so perhaps someone could explain how we reached that conclusion. Burrobert (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

The piece is labeled as a “column” which in most other sources denotes an opinion piece by a columnist. The author’s profile describes her as a columnist, now the AFR is a notable and respectable enough newspaper that a columnist might actually be a usable source as a subject matter expert, but in that case the attribution would be "Myriam Robin writing in the AFR” rather than the AFR directly. Either way I would approach it with a little bit more caution than we currently do. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

We are using the AFR article for statements about the funding of ASPI and for statements by Kim Carr, Bob Carr, John Menadue and Geoff Raby. I don't see that it is necessary to say something like "According to Myriam Robin writing in the AFR, Bob Carr said the ASPI provides a "one-sided, pro-American view of the world", for example.
It does make sense to say something like "Myriam Robin writing in the AFR described the ASPI as one of Australia's most influential national security policy think tanks". However, I still can't see where Myriam Robin says that in the article.

Burrobert (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Concur with Burrobert here. AFR source is being used to report on what others say or facts. AFR as a large publication will have a large fact checking dept and would avoid publishing untrue or potentially libellous material even in a column. We could probably just use the primary sources for these facts/quotes but I think using secondary sources is better because we know fact checking should have occurred. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:45, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I think the solution here is to point out the difference in how sources respond to ASPI's influence over Australian defence strategy. While news sources are fine for this sort of thing, they're also limited to one particular time period (both sources above seem to be written in the present tense). I think that academic sources might be better for describing this sort of thing over the long run, which probably more encyclopedic. My initial impression is that there are several journal articles that might be better for this sort of fact than The Diplomat or AFR; I feel like I've encountered them in previous discussions, but I'd have to look a bit deeper to find them and post them here. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:29, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

AFR article an an opinion column??

An editor recently wrote that "The Myr AFR piece is an opinion column... We can't use it". The editor was referring to this article.^[1] Does anyone know why it would be described as an opinion piece? It was being used to support the following sentences:

At the time it was 100% funded by the Australian Department of Defence, but this had fallen to 43% in the 2018-19 financial year. In 2020, the Australian Financial Review identified three sources of funding, in addition to the Department of Defence. ASPI receives funding from defence contractors such as Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems, Northrop Grumman, Thales Group and Raytheon Technologies. It also receives funding from technology companies such as Microsoft, Oracle Australia, Telstra, and Google. Finally, it receives funding from foreign governments including Japan and Taiwan.
ASPI has been described in the Australian Financial Review, iTnews and The Diplomat as being one of Australia's most influential national security policy think tanks.
In February 2020, Australian Labor Party Senator Kim Carr described the ASPI as "hawks intent on fighting a new cold war" and criticised it for accepting nearly $450,000 from the US State Department to track Chinese government research collaborations with Australian universities.
Former Foreign Minister and former Premier of New South Wales Bob Carr has said the ASPI provides a "one-sided, pro-American view of the world".
ASPI has also been criticised by John Menadue, Geoff Raby and Jordan Shanks.

Afaict, only one of these statements is opinion. The others are factual reporting and, even though AFR is not listed at Perennial Sources, it is a notable newspaper which is presumably considered reliable for facts. Burrobert (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

The article is labeled "Perspective" (the AFR's term for opinion) and the author is labeled "columnist" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it is an opinion column but I'm unsure of the blanket removal. Per WP:RSEDITORIAL, there is no reason to throw out the source entirely just because it is a column. It doesn't make sense to remove the reference where we give in-text attribution like the following: ASPI has been described in the Australian Financial Review, iTnews and The Diplomat as being one of Australia's most influential national security policy think tanks. I'm reverting this edit and suggest a more targeted removal of the source is done for where it is used to support statements of fact without attribution. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

"Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." the problem here is that the author is not a recognized subject matter expert so we can only use this piece on *their* wikipedia page, assuming one exists. Also the attribution would have to be to the author, attributing to the publication is highly inappropriate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Completely agree. I just don't think removing the ref completely, adding a cn tag and not looking at the text left behind is the most useful approach. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The other appropriate approach would be to remove the text as well, is that preferable to you? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Is nuanced editing not an option? I've started to attribute to the author and remove where not appropriate. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

We can't use them here at all even attributed. That *is* the nuanced view. Any use of that source on this page is inappropriate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I think the best approach is to ask at the Reliable Source noticeboard whether the AFR is a reliable source for the 4 factual statements for which the source is being used. The fifth reference is opinion but has been suitably attributed. In fact, one of the factual statements has also been attributed. Some other comments:

-- "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact".

-- The reference has been on the page for around two years.

-- The facts about funding are not in doubt and can be independently verified from the ASPI's annual report. We already use one of these annual reports for factual information, even though it is a primary source.

-- Bob Carr's statement is verified by a second reference.

-- Kim Carr's statement is verified by a second reference and is also mentioned in a third reference.

Burrobert (talk) 04:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

But the AFR *isn't* the source, thats not how we treat opinion pieces. This isn't news reporting. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

??? Burrobert (talk) 02:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

What don't you get? This isn't news reporting and on wikipedia we attribute opinion pieces to their authors not the publications which carry them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

We attribute opinion to the author, but we don't attribute facts to the author. Are you suggesting we say something like:

According to Myriam Robin writing in the Australian Financial Review, Australian Labor Party Senator Kim Carr described the ASPI as "hawks intent on fighting a new cold war" and criticised it for accepting nearly $450,000 from the US State Department to track Chinese government research collaborations with Australian universities. etc?

Burrobert (talk) 04:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

But we can't use this opinion piece for facts here... "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that any use of the source needs to be prefixed by something like "According to Myriam Robin writing in the Australian Financial Review ... ". Burrobert (talk) 04:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

No I'm saying that when it comes to facts we can't use the source at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

It is an odd argument, keeeping in mind that these are facts which are not in dispute. I think the Reliable Sources noticeboard is the best place to discuss this. Burrobert (talk) 04:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to open a noticeboard discussion, will it be about this opinion piece in particular or about the use of opinion pieces for facts in general? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

See . Burrobert (talk) 05:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

It seems a bit odd that some editors are constantly looking for excuses to remove any commentary on ASPI from this article. Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The "Rear Window" articles () are labelled clearly on the articles and in the URL (). They also show up with the "Opinion" tab highlighted.

The article () is not an opinion article even though its author usually writes "Rear Window" opinion articles. The article is categorized under "Policy", "Foreign Affairs & Security", and "Perspective". You can even see that the highlighted tab for this article is "Policy" instead of "Opinion".

Only some "Perspective" articles are opinion articles. See where they are labelled. The author also wrote other normal news articles outside of "Rear Window" ( ). MGetudiant (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

References

[1]
Robin, Myr (15 February 2020). "The think tank behind Australia's changing view of China". Australian Financial Review. Archived from the original on 17 February 2020. Retrieved 17 February 2020.

A carefully curated repository for Western anti-China propaganda

I made an edit regarding a detailed analysis of ASPI’s 2020 report “Uyghurs for sale”. My post was a statement of fact. Co-West-Pro Consultancy did subject ASPI’s report to a detailed analysis from a legal perspective and they did come to the conclusion I stated.

My post had been removed in less than one hour, under the pretext that the source was not reliable. No explanation was given as to why the source was considered unreliable. The almost instant removal of my post adds to the impression that Wikipedia is rapidly becoming a carefully curated repository for Western anti-China propaganda. If you wish to reference a credible rebuttal of Co-West-Pro’s analysis, by all means do so. I will not interfere with it. But please do not remove the factual information I posted simply because it does not conform to your anti-China propaganda narrative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forsey (talk • contribs) 19:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

"Co-West-Pro Consultancy" is not a WP:RS. Wikipedia is not a collection of facts, if the report gets coverage in reliable sources then you are more than welcome to add info about it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I invited you to provide a credible rebuttal of Co-West-Pro’s analysis. You failed to do so. If you simply define credible sources as those which conform to your anti-China propaganda narrative, then Wikipedia is doomed as a source of reliable information. Is that really what you want? Either provide a credible rebuttal, or leave my edit alone. Forsey (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The WP:RS policy is at wikipedia's core. It doesn't matter what viewpoint the source has, what matters is if its reliable and nothing about Co-West-Pro Consultancy suggests that they are a reliable source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Co-West-Pro Consultancy provided a very detailed, referenced analysis. You have failed, repeatedly, to provide any rebuttal of that analysis. You simply keep repeating, without reason, that it is not reliable. You continue to insist that Wikipedia should be a totally one-sided repository for Western anti-China propaganda. No wonder many people are turning away from Wikipedia as a source of reliable information. Forsey (talk) 20:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

So do most university students, but we don't use something just because its a "very detailed, referenced analysis" they actually have to be a WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I can see from the version history that you are one of the worst offenders for preserving anti-China propaganda on this site. I’m not going to waste any more time. Congratulations, I hope you are satisfied. You are making Wikipedia a laughing stock, but as long as you can bully alternative views off the site, I guess you don’t care about that. Forsey (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand what that means. Is it a coded threat of physical violence? Forsey (talk) 15:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Right, a warning to a person to avoid injury, under circumstances in which there is no earthly reason why that person would get injured, is definitely not a threat. That’s very credible. 213.31.131.63 (talk) 21:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Speaking of credibility, I looked at the list of your activity on Wikipedia. Since the start of February you have made an astonishing 1220 ‘contributions’, many of them from an anti-Chinese perspective. Are you a professional propagandist? Maybe you get a nice little income from one of the vested interests who sponsor all those ‘think-tanks’ and ‘foundations’ that produce an endless stream of anti-China propaganda. Those spurious institutions then constantly reference each other so they can claim to be credible sources. Anyone who challenges this charade on Wikipedia has their contribution erased within minutes. I’ve really learned a lot about Wikipedia these past couple of days. 213.31.131.63 (talk) 21:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Please pay attention to WP:ASPERSIONS.--CRau080 (talk) 00:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Australian Strategic Policy Institute

External links modified

Allegations of an agenda

Funding

Removed and rewrote some stuff

Blog under Press coverage

Failed verification

AFR article an an opinion column??

A carefully curated repository for Western anti-China propaganda

Ridiculous omissions

Strategic Analysis Australia

Nonpartisan in the infobox

Related Articles