Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

List of archives

, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455

Additional notes:

• RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
• While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
• This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.

Start a new discussion

What criteria are used to judge newspapers as being RS?

A thread above on the Daily Mail has led to discussions about RS much broader than that single newspaper. What criteria/rules of thumb should editors use to judge whether a newspaper is RS for the edit they wish to make?DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

If only we had a policy on reliable sources that editors could consult, and some sort of noticeboard where they could discuss the specific application of those rules to more difficult, specific, or nuanced questions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

ermmmm...is this sarcasm, perhaps?DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Does the publication have a reputation for fact checking, accuracy and editorial oversight? Is its reputation in the area of discussion for these particular facts? Which other sources are reporting these facts? Which other sources are reporting contradictory facts? Is the question a matter of WP:BLP? Is the question a matter of WP:MEDRES? How old is the publication? Are there newer sources that have more up to date analysis? Does it have a reputation for scandal and rumor mongoring? Is there a conflict of interest in this particular story that weighs against other criteria? When it makes mistakes, what corrective actions does it take? When it makes mistakes do other reliable sources cover the mistake? Are they covering it because it is a rare event or because mistakes are the stock in trade of the publication?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Which ones have this reputation, which ones don't. It feels a bit like we are asking everyone to reinvent the wheel each time. --ℕ ℱ 20:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks TRPoD. Now we have something we can work with. Do you think the country in which the newspaper is published is relevant - for example, might British newspapers be considered more RS for British matters?DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Locality could be a factor into expertise, which is one of many considerations when it comes to reliability. Locality can also be a source of bias, which does not affect reliability but can affect how an article should frame any claims. I've written an essay at Wikipedia:Applying Reliability Guidelines that goes into more detail. Rhoark (talk) 01:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Could the draft table below be used to summarize consensus on the "general" suitability of newspapers as RS compliant?

Newspaper	Country	Age (years)	Does the source have a good or bad reputation for -										Do other sources		Another column
			Checking facts	Accuracy	Editorial oversight	Reporting on this subject	Correcting its mistakes	Preferentially reporting scandal or rumours	Preferentially reporting rare events	Conflict of interest	9	10	Report contradictory facts	Report mistakes by the source	Category 1	Category 2
Daily Mail	UK	65	bad	bad	gooda	bad	good	bad	good	bad	?	?	Yes	Yes	?	?
Daily Express	UK	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.
Daily Telegraph	UK	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.
The Guardian	UK	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.
Notes here aThere is editorial oversight, but the editor is clearly biased against feminist issues

DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you are trying to find a formulaic approach to something that simply does not lend itself to formulas. Blueboar (talk) 14:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Should I call a RfC for this?DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that would be to anyone's benefit, including yours. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris I'm not sure I understand your point - why would calling an RfC not be to my benefit?DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris. I am close to calling an RfC on this but I would like to be aware of the possible consequences. So, I am repeating my question to you - why would calling an RfC not be to my benefit?DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

This is the RS noticeboard. YOur post is actually a 'de-facto' RFC. Several people replied already. And going bureaucratic dose not change the fact that we cannot cast in stone what you want. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

You ar forgetting the fact that a "source" has three components, each of which can be questioned independently: (publisher, author, text). If the reliability of a reference is questioned, this must be based on specific arguments. A policy cannot simply declare "LLanvabon Monday News" reliable to unconditionally trump any doubts. Yes, each WP:RS discussion is reinventing a wheel, because each time the wheel is different. Of course, we can reject triangular wheels right away, but even a quite round wheel may be wobbly. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment People seem to think there is a hidden agenda here - to set things in stone so that there is no point to this Noticeboard. There is no hidden agenda. What I am trying to achieve is some sort of general consensus which can be published as a reference guide so that editors can quickly see that a source might be challenged. Even if this is something like "Tabloid newspapers are generally considered as poor sources and better sources are almost always preferred". I don't understand the reluctance to do something like this.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@User:DrChrissy Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like you are trying to give individual newspapers a general "grade" without regard to the content and context of a particular reference in a specific article. I'm afraid such a contextless "carte blanche" grade is basically meaningless. To make statements like "The Anyburgh Daily Blah is hereby declared to be a Reliable Source, for any and all purposes and for all time" is an excercise in futility. Each individual reference is evaluated within its specific context. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I am actually more concerned about identifying non-RS. Some editors are already "carte blanche" dismissing sources by leaving edit summaries like "completely unacceptable particularly as a validation of other rumors. no no no no no", "the Daily Mail is a tabloid rarely suitable four [sic] sourcing but certainly not on an issue like this." and "Probably need something better than a HuffPo blog post for this." If these generalist concerns were available, especially to new editors, they would save editors much time and frustration, and lead to better sourced articles.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem with such proposed 'blacklists' is that they lead to arguments to the effect that anything not on the list can be used as a source for anything. That isn't the way it works, and we don't want to give credence to such simplistic thinking. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

If they are identifying the Daily Mail as unreliable, they are most likely right. It is sometimes right, because even they can't be wrong all the time, but they are very frequently wrong, and deliberately so. Guy (Help!) 08:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

We really need a FAQ on this topic as it comes up again and again. The answer to "Is the Daily Mail as a reliable source?" is always "a reliable source for what"? I don't go out of my way to use it, and its hyperbole and ability to not worry about facts getting in the way of a good story is well known. [1] In that respect, it's actually worse than The Sun which at least is obviously a tabloid and makes no effort to pretend otherwise. However, it is the only British newspaper read more by women than men, and I am convinced it produces articles about fashion and shopping that are covered in more depth compared to other papers. In that respect, it is an important source when used with care to counteract our systemic bias. It is not surprising to me that a white, male 23-year old would find little of interest in the Mail. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It is exactly that sort of information that we need to encapsulate in something like "The Daily Mail is rarely considered to be a reliable source, however, it has a more acceptable reputation when reporting on womens' fashion and shopping".DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

No. That violates WP:BEANS. The salient fact is that the Daily Mail is usually only reliable on things that are not worth including in Wikipedia. And if we do use them as a source for some trivia, we are attracting clicks to adjacent content which is usually either grossly unreliable or simply creepy (the phrase "all grown up" for example is a hallmark of their obsessive sexualisation of very young women). Guy (Help!) 17:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Can we really "violate" what is just an essay?DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the point is that you shouldn't have hard and fast rules about whether 'x' is a reliable source, because somebody will use it in an argument in an edit war or AfD discussion : "Of course it's a reliable source, it's 'x'". Guy, if you look at my user page, you'll see I keep tabs on BLPs cited to the Sun, the Mail and the Daily Star, which incredibly (as I write this) appears as a citation in no less than 13 BLPs. Please help reduce the backlog. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I really do see the points that are being made here and I am listening. Maybe this is an issue more about editor's behaviour. I came to this issue because I wanted to write about the numbers of dogs eaten at an annual festival in China. I found several blogs which stated 10,000 (but obviously non-RS) and then found the Daily Mail article which also stated 10,000. So, I edited the entry only to be told that The Daily Mail was not a suitable source, So, I then researched further and found The Independent also reported 10,000. So where exactly did the Daily Mail gain such a poor reputation for reporting on the numbers of dogs killed at an annual festival in China? This is the context in which the source was used but I believe a much broader brush is being used in these decisions. I really don't care whether the Daily Mail or whatever newspaper is perceived in this way, but I do care that editors should be informed somewhere of how broad this brush is.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The Daily Mail didn't get a poor reputation for reporting on the number of dogs killed at an annual festival, if has a poor reputation on everything, especially anything relating to a regime which does not match its ideal (which is somewhat more libertarian than either Thatcher or Reagan). It probably didn't fact-check the number. The Indie might have, but also is quite likely not to have done. That kind of number has a tendency to be speculative and to originate with a group with an agenda. Guy (Help!) 08:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I think a sort of report card, while not definitive, could be a valuable resource for editors. Rhoark (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I strongly agree this would be a valuable resource and I have never understood why it doesn't exist. While we should make clear that there is no definitive list and RSes are judged on a case-by-case basis, the specific questions "Does the publication have a reputation for fact checking, accuracy and editorial oversight?" can and should be answered in a table like this. It would be an especially valuable resource to people who just stumble on a paper they are unfamiliar with, which happens all the time. How are you supposed to know if the Weekly So-and-so has a reputation for fact checking? Well, maybe someone else knows. I don't think there's a reasonable objection to making public and accessible the community's consensus on how specific newspapers generally measure up in terms of these standards. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't exist because it would encourage a rules-based approach that lost sight of the actual content, so unreliable content could be supported because it's in a place that's usually reliable and vice-versa. It's not as if anybody will be unaware that 90% of what the Daily Mail writes is dross, after all. Guy (Help!) 16:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure where you get your statistics from, but it would be interesting to know the demographics of the survey. Are 15-yr-olds aware of this reputation - especially the ones that are directed to edit on WP as a school exercise? How many US, Chinese, French (enter any non-UK country) citizens are aware of this reputation? We need to let them know.DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, when I'm dealing with foreign papers, especially Indian ones, it's rarely clear what's dreck and what isn't. Even with American and British sources, there are simply so many different ones, and I never know how to find out if they fact check. Does the average person know that The Daily Beast is a quality paper? We see the Huffington Post cited all the time, and it's clear most people don't know anything about its editorial practices. What about The New York Post - it's a tabloid, but does that mean it doesn't fact-check? The answer is only obvious if you hang out at RSN. Again, there needs to be a disclaimer, and it needs to be made clear that consulting the table is not a substitute for judging whether the specific information cited is reliable in context, but information about the editorial practices of newspapers should not be kept secret. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is almost certainly canny enough to stay on the right side of libel laws, which in the UK are largely the privilege of the rich and powerful, it being very expensive to fight a libel case. To that extent they may be reliable, the problem with them (and even more other tabloids), is the simplistic coverage. I don't see how WP could have a 'star' rating, as others have said, the context matters. A generally reliable paper like the Grauniad, consciously prints comments which are not mainstream and which are not the papers own analysis, to that extent such pieces are the opinions of the writer ONLY, as I'm sure do other notable papers. The Daily Mail would be as good a place as any for the opinion of Citizen X if that is the claim we are trying to support.Pincrete (talk) 21:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

You are a year or so out of date. See Defamation Act, 2013. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Guy, you're quite right I was out of date (ex-pat!).Pincrete (talk) 11:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

User DrChrissy - Circulation is all that counts ... as far as I can see. The mentioned "reputation for fact checking, accuracy and editorial oversight" simply isn't obtainable by objective measure or readily findable, and List of newspapers in the United States by circulation is clear. When we also get into the deal of is it an editorial or a column or reprinting outside material or was there good fact check on this one or is it misstating reality -- I think a bit moot, since the publisher (List of newspapers in the United States by circulation) printed it, it then is factually a relatively large distributed item and functionally for reference citeable in sense of available to for long time. Just sayin that no RS is "right", they're just a RS and useful more for WP:UNDUE context. Markbassett (talk) 23:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

That interpretation of WP:RS is not correct—science does not count circulation to decide what works, and neither does this noticeboard. Johnuniq (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a great question, DrChrissy. I would like to expand this question to two parts. What makes a newspaper a reliable source for:

• sourcing a claim's truthiness
• establishing a claim's weight or importance?

I've been lambasted in the past for citing newspaper articles to include a report on a lawsuit against Monsanto, in which my critics said that a particular newspaper has a history of critical reporting against Monsanto. On the other hand, i think there are biases that most people don't see because they're like the water to the fish, such as that the Wall Street Journal has a strong pro-business and pro-capitalism bias, and therefore their reporting would lend more than due weight to anything that promotes this political agenda. But their brand has the appearance of gravity and establishment acceptance, so they're rarely questioned on that basis. I think there is a danger that the "establishment" positions get strongly biased because they are establishment. Establishment does not mean consensus, but rather that which favors the status quo power structure.

As to the original question, i tend to have a profile of many news sources in my memory bank, and to update them as i learn more from experience with that news source. Some sources i just don't even go to, given their abysmal track record in regard to bias and distortion. Others, i take on a case-by-case basis. SageRad (talk) 13:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Gerontology Research Group (GRG) tables

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.

---

The reliability of GRG tables for articles on supercentenarians in project World's Oldest People has been discussed here several times in the past but none of the discussions have been closed with a reliability determination.[2][3][4][5] The articles are in need of work but before that can begin, we need to determine whether the GRG tables are reliable sources to support birth/death dates and age claims for articles on supercentenarians, particularly for the "List of" articles such as List of Belgian supercentenarians, List of oldest people by nation, List of supercentenarians from the United States, List of oldest living people, and List of supercentenarians who died in 2014.

There are several tables on the GRG site and the ones most commonly used as sources on Wikipedia are Table E (verified or validated supercentenarians), Table EE (supercentenarians pending validation), and Table I (verified supercentenarians organized by death date). There are also tables listing deaths in each year that are used as sources here. I can't find the validation process on the grg.org site but I think it involves the supercentenarian (or their next of kin) providing three pieces of documentation with the person's birth date which are then researched and validated by GRG researchers. My understanding is that claims may be pending validation because either they not have provided the three pieces of documentation or the documentation has been provided but has not yet been researched or validated. I don't know how much verification goes into verifying death dates.

GRG researchers consider all GRG tables to be reliable but I'm not sure whether they are. I think Table E is probably a reliable source for birth/death dates and age because entries have been fact-checked, whereas Table EE is probably not a reliable source for the same because the entries aren't fully fact-checked and there's no way to know how far along in the process they are. I'm also concerned that the tables are constantly updated and previous versions are not available so it isn't always possible to verify that a name appeared in a previous version of a table, but I don't know whether that affects reliability.

Apologies for the length of this post, and thank you for your help. Ca2james (talk) 16:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

No institution is perfect, and we have no insight into the exact ins-and-outs of how every fact printed by the GRG was obtained and checked-- any more than you do for the Washington Post. But the same is true of everything printed in any "reliable source." If you don't like the GRG as a source of reliable age-of-death information, what in the world would you replace it with? The major newspapers use GRG. Robert Young, who has done the fact-checking for GRG since 1999, is also the current Senior Consultant for Gerontology for Guinness World Records since 2005, so that's where THEY get their info also. So who are you going to use, if not Young? I challenge anybody who disagrees to carefully read the GRG process, which is the background here: [6] That process is described in Young's chapter in the peer reviewed Springer publication H. Maier et al. (eds.), Supercentenarians, Demographic Research Monographs, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-11520-2_15, © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010. SBHarris 00:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for posting a link to the verification procedure. Do news organisations use GRG tables or other information from the GRG? If they use tables, which ones do they use? Note that news organisations referring to the GRG does not automatically make the GRG tables reliable according to Wikipedia guidelines. If uninvolved editors determine that some number of the GRG tables are not reliable sources, and a replacement reliable source cannot be found, the content currently supported by those GRG tables would have to be removed. But let's not get ahead of ourselves: first we need to know what uninvolved editors think about whether these tables are WP:RS. Ca2james (talk) 04:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Just going to point out: The GRG has several thousand citations in Google News at the moment. Do a quick search for articles on supercentenarians such as Susannah Mushatt Jones, Sakari Momoi, Jeralean Talley, etc., and you will see that most articles reference the GRG (i.e. "according to the Gerontology Research Group"). This, this, and this are but a few examples. The GRG is the scientific organisation which does the initial work to verify people's ages. Why the debate about whether it is reliable or not is still going on I don't know.

Regarding the debate about which tables are reliable: If a list article includes pending cases, and the pending cases table is cited, what's the issue? Unverified claims are listed at List of oldest living people with news articles cited. Should they not be included? As long as it's made clear that they are not verified, what's the problem? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 14:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The debate is going on because a reliable source on Wikipedia may be different than what the news considers to be reliable. Moreover, news articles are referring to the GRG, not its tables, and we're looking at the reliability of its tables here. That the GRG is considered an authority (although holding up the Daily Mail as proof of that somewhat undermines your point) does not mean that the tables the GRG generates are reliable sources according to Wikipedia. And again, if a table is found not reliable for birth/death date and age information, it can't be used as a source. If other supporting reliable sources don't exist, then that information must excluded. I wish someone other than WP:WOP members would comment on this issue; please could an uninvolved editor comment? Ca2james (talk) 00:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• I've unarchived this section as we really need some help on this issue. Please, could editors comment on whether the GRG tables - specifically, Table E (where entries are fact-checked by the GRG) and Table EE (where entries are not completely fact-checked) - are reliable sources for birth/death dates in articles on supercentenarians? Thank you. Ca2james (talk) 15:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The major problem I have with this entire area is that it is dominated by cranks. Their assessment of evidence comes with a baggage of belief in things that were largely abandoned by the reality-based community decades ago. It reads like a Robert Heinlein novel (and not one of his better ones, either). Guy (Help!) 10:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused. Guy, would you mind clarifying which part of the GRG or its tables reads like a Robert Heinlein novel? Thanks! Ca2james (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

• Please does anyone have insight into the question of whether GRG tables E and EE are reliable sources for birth/death dates of supercentenarians in "List of" articles on them? Thank you. Ca2james (talk) 00:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• I wouldn't consider them to be reliable to the standards need for BLP. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Er, why not? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• It's time to end this discussion. Newspapers,journalists from all around the world: American, Brazilian, European etc.; all consider the GRG as the reliable source. Not to mention scientific circles...

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/wauwatosa-woman-among-oldest-in-the-us-at-112-b99544087z1-318543041.html

http://ndonline.com.br/joinville/noticias/273114-jaraguaense-alida-grubba-tem-112-anos-e-foi-reconhecida-como-a-pessoa-mais-idosa-do-brasil.html

http://wtkr.com/2015/07/24/virginias-oldest-resident-dies-at-age-112/ "Lela Burden was the 8th oldest person in the United States and the 35th oldest in the world, according to the Gerontology Research Group, a recognized authority on supercentenarians,[...]" Waenceslaus (talk) 08:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you, Stuartyeates. I'd appreciate opinions from other editors on whether the GRG tables (particularly E and EE) are reliable sources for birth/death dates for supercentenarians on Wikipedia. I realize that this is a difficult question so any insight is appreciated. Thank you. Ca2james (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

He gave NO REASON for his opinion. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

On their own? No. They have a vested interest in promoting agecruft. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

What the hell does that mean? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 22:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Cruft usually means that something is overly detailed and unnecessarily complex so agecruft in this case would mean too many unnecessary supercentenarian articles. GRG supporters seem to think that the information in the tables should be included in encyclopaedia articles because the tables exist and the GRG thinks the tables are important; moreover, the GRG seems to think that no other sourcing is required because the GRG considers itself to be a reliable source. A similar situation would be using the PAPA - the recognized governing body for its own tables and information - circuit standings tables to develop a series of articles on pinball player rankings. Those articles would be pinballcruft. Ca2james (talk) 15:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

No, no, no. Firstly, the GRG is a non-profit scientific organisation. The only thing that is being "promoted" is education of the general public about how long people really live. But this can only be achieved if emphasis is placed on AGE VERIFICATION. What you don't seem to understand or appreciate is that the GRG verifies the ages of supercentenarians. I mean there couldn't possible be a more reliable source for birth and death dates than an organisation which aims to determine the true age of a longevity claimant. GRG "supporters" only want accurate and reliable information to be included in Wikipedia. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Just like there couldn't be a more reliable source for pinball standings on PAPA-sanctioned events than PAPA. We wouldn't include articles for which only PAPA is being primarily referenced, or used to highlight entries on articles because that's treating Wikipedia as a webhost which it is not.

I do understand that the GRG tracks supercentenarians and verifies age and that they're seen as an authority on the subject. I need you and other GRG supporters to understand that those facts don't give the GRG a free pass to write whatever articles you all want using only or primarily GRG tables as a source (especially table ee). Ca2james (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• More opinions from uninvolved editors are welcome; or, if someone uninvolved wants to formally close this with a decision, that would be fine, too. Thank you. Ca2james (talk) 15:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi folks. This is S. Jay Olshansky, Ph.D., professor of public health at the University of Illinois at Chicago -- my expertise is on aging and longevity, and my colleague Dr. Bruce Carnes and I are responsible for having contributed to the development of the modern field of biodemography. I have known the researchers at the Gerontology Research Group since their origins, and I knew Dr. Coles very well. His reputation was/is as a meticulous scientist who was a well established researcher in the field. He conducted more autopsies on centenarians than anyone else on the planet and is/was an internationally recognized expert on aging science -- his reputation is impeccable. It was a terrible loss when he passed away, but some of his work is ongoing by those involved with the GRG. The folks at the GRG involved with verifying the ages of centenarians and super-centenarians are extremely careful in their assessments, and they are recognized by scientists in the field as having provided the most reliable list of verified long-lived people in the world. There is a reason why the media turns their attention to them whenever the oldest person in the world dies -- they maintain the only international database on supercentenarians and near supers in the world that can be trusted to be accurate. I'm happy to provide more details, but for those of us who have been working in the field for more than a quarter of a century, and we've seen just about every ridiculous claim there is, there is something quite refreshing about the trust that can be placed in the people at the GRG to just get it right. I would encourage those at Wikipedia to trust the GRG, and I also encourage people making comments to sign their names. Sjayo (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjayo (talk • contribs) 18:03, 4 August 2015‎(UTC)

I am sorry but the representation you make based on your personal authority is worth absolutely nothing in WP. Part of that (but only part) is because your claim that you are Jay Olshansky is worth nothing. (see Essjay controversy for part of the reason why that is) And you should sign your own name. Jytdog (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Interesting story on Essjay controversy. I signed in under my name, sjayo, so I don't know any other way to verify who I am. I'm happy to include any evidence required for personal verification.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjayo (talk • contribs) 18:32, 4 August 2015‎ (UTC)

And this is why Wikipedia has such an awful reputation. We're trying to determine if the GRG is a reliable source. So far, we've had a couple of people just say "no" or make some accusations about the GRG trying to "promote agecruft", and one who is an expert in the subject and has put forward a well reasoned argument. Wikipedia logic says that every opinion should be given equal weight, but common sense says otherwise. Smh. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Ollie231213 if you are so sloppy that you accept the word of some random person on the internet who says "I am the Great Garbanzo and I declare this source to be faaaabulous" then you do not understand Wikipedia nor even what semi-rigorous scholarship is. (No insult intended to Sjayo - it is just that for important decisions like this, claims based on personal authority are really meaningless as we could get all kinds of crappy sources deemed reliable based on people showing up here making claims just like that - WP cannot work that way) Jytdog (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I guess I'm not quite sure exactly how Wikipedia operates. You've asked for advice on whether the tables produced by the GRG are reliable. They are. The people most able to make this determination are not Wikipedia editors with no expertise in aging science; it would be scientists with a long history and track record of working in the very field for which you are seeking advice. If someone doesn't believe that I have expertise in this area, they need only go to my website: sjayolshansky.com and look at my vita. There's plenty of third party affirmation there as well. I've even published on the prospects of becoming a centenarian -- the very topic of this discussion (Olshansky, Carnes, Hayflick, 2012; Journal of Gerontology: Biological Sciences "Can human biology allow most of us to become centenarians?" doi:10.1093/gerona/gls142). If Wikipedia operates based on the opinions of people with no expertise in the very area for which they are seeking advice, over the very scientists working in the area of interest, then Wikipedia actually has far less value than I thought. Sjayo (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Sjayo You should should have stopped writing after the first sentence. No one asked you in particular about the reliability of the source. The OP asked the community. The community considers the question in light of WP:VERIFY and WP:RS and the community's traditions of interpreting that policy and guideline. We don't just make up reasons out of thin air here - there is a foundation of policies and guidelines by which WP operates. Academics often have a hard time wrapping their heads around that when they first come to Wikipedia. There is rigor here - it is just not based on personal authority. Nobody is anybody here. Jytdog (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• My take. The NYT cites GRG quite often, with attribution (NYT search string doesn't work here, you can do it yourself) as does the WSJ (see here) for people's verified ages. So it seems to me that Table E, used with attribution, would be a reliable source for WP content that hews closely to whatever is in that table. Table EE is just unverified applications so is worth nothing. Jytdog (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
• My view is that verified GRG data can be treated as information from a reliable source that is worth including. When we have other reliable sources that disagree with the GRG, (that's rare from what I can tell), we should include it anyways and not delete it just because the GRG disagrees. If the GRG hasn't verified a listing, I say we should remove it entirely (because there's zero reliable sources for it). The problems tend towards the two later situations, not the first. I really hate how every list has colored (inappropriate under MOS:COLOR) lines for those where the GRG hasn't verified it but fixing that just leads to fights and edit warring with WP:SPAs. We need an RFC on the unverified listings, one that doesn't delve into a series of arguments about whether the GRG itself is reliable (which isn't really in dispute) because there's nothing gained if we're just existing as a way to host the GRG's data for it (which is what Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians and Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians/Incomplete cases becomes at times). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

We could do an RfC onunverified listings but because they're based on table EE, I thought it would be useful to first know whether or not the broader community considers it a reliable source. Thanks. Ca2james (talk) 18:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

In my view there is no reason to consider Table EE reliable - it says it is not verified by them so there are no grounds that I can see to consider it reliable. Jytdog (talk) 19:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes that's my view as well but I defer to members of the community who are more experienced than I am. Thank you both for your considered opinion. Ca2james (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

comment It appears that GRG is a very reliable source, and this argument is more about notability. 78.144.214.250 (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Parts of it, not all. Table EE is not reliable; Table E appears to be. Jytdog (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Any other opinions? Or would someone like to assess consensus and close this? Thanks! Ca2james (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2015 (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.

LewdGamer

Hi, I was wondering if LewdGamer is a reliable source NSFW Link. I noticed it was cited in Momiji (Ninja Gaiden), Kasumi (Dead or Alive), and Kasumi (Dead or Alive), but I did not see it listed on the lists here. I just want to make sure if it qualifies as RS or not, so I came here to get consensus from other editors. The content being sourced in the aforementioned articles is as follows (order respective of articles mentioned):

Momiji also appears in Studio FOW's unofficial CGI-animated pornographic film Kunoichi - Broken Princess.[16]

and

Despite warnings from Team Ninja to not do it or no more Dead or Alive games will be released for the PC, modders quickly released a topless version of Momiji in Last Round.[84]

;

...and one fan-made mod for DOA5 modified her training suit to remove most of the clothing.[58]

and

It is a CG-animated production and its full title is KUNOICHI - Broken Princess.[129]

;

Despite a warning from Team Ninja that no more DOA games would be released for the PC if the modding community released DOA5 mods that are not designed for "good and moral" play, nude models of Ayane were quickly created by members of the forum Lustful Illumination.[172]

--DSA510 Pls No Level Up 00:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Although the site was newly formed, the About Us page looks promising: "a dedication to accuracy, a pursuit towards objectivity..." They don't appear to have any overt editorial agenda. The items it's being used as a citation for look mundane enough. I think I might lean towards it being acceptable, so long as it's not used to make an article about a video game focus unreasonably on the sexual aspects. CorporateM (Talk) 23:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for the answer! --DSA510 Pls No Level Up 02:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• No, this is not reliable. There is no evidence of credible editorial oversight, the site is clearly aimed at tittllation and anything which is only on that site and not in some more reliable source almost certainly has no place on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 16:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
• Not reliable, per Guy.Pincrete (talk) 12:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with CorporateM. Its being used as a source for information that is easily verifiable (although that would be original research or end up primary sourcing). The only worry would be using it to wedge in undue sexual content on videogam articles. I dont think this is an issue with DOA as anyone who has played it can see why its so popular... There was an interesting article awhile ago on the manhours the physics team devoted to 'bounce'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by the board of the AAAS

In 2012, the board of the American Association for the Advancement of Science put out a statement on the genetically modified food. We are working on developing a statement about the relative safety of currently marketed food from GMOs. This is a bit complicated, as the content and its full sourcing are each under development and this is one source among several being proposed for use

The currently proposed content and the source are as follows. Other sources are being brought as well - the question here is just whether this one source - the AAAS board statement - is reliable for this, or if we should not give a lot of authority to it. Not looking for definitive affirmation of the content at this point - just what weight we should give this source. I hope that makes sense. The statement of the scientific consensus appears in several articles; the current discussion is on the talk page of Genetically modified food.

• "The scientific consensus holds that eating currently marketed GM food poses no greater health risk than does eating conventional food."

References

Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC) (added relevant article, per request below Jytdog (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)) (note - added ref to actual board statement Jytdog (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC))

• initial comment: For those who don't know it, the AAAS is the most important non-governmental scientific society in the US and the publisher of Science, one of the most important scientific journals in the world. This statement - this source - is being questioned as just being a mouthpiece of Monsanto, or as the statement of an "advocacy group" on par with say ENSSER (external link), a small group of scientists who advocate for the view that GM food is dangerous. In my view, the AAAS source is very authoritative and we can use it to support the proposed content. It is also useful because it summarizes what other major scientific bodies say. Jytdog (talk) 12:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I broadly agree but I have a question: Was this statement produced solely by the board of directors or was it an item put to a vote by the entire membership or a representative body of the organization? I honestly don't even know if AAAS produces material - ethical guidelines, policy statements, etc. - that are purported to represent the entire organization or at least a broad consensus of its members but if so then it would carry even more weight. ElKevbo (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• Where is it for? - need to see the article context to determine if it's WP:RS for it. Otherwise all I can say is that this would be better described as citing a 'community' statement, not a 'consensus' statement, as it's showing Board of Directors speaking rather than showing a process of reaching decision. (In particular it is not showing a process of jointly arriving at this which included the scientists who advocate for the view that GM food is dangerous.) I also echo that Board of Directors position is not the same as Members vote count -- AMA having more pointed examples of such dichotomy. Markbassett (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

It was a statement produced by the board. There was a subsequent Pew Survey of AAAS scientist members found that 88% of them agreed.Jytdog (talk) 17:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog (insert) wrong and wrong - cite is to a press release by an author paraphrasing an AAAS board advocating a legislation move, which in part stated what European science says. AAAS board statement is useful as 'community' and 'position', but should then be cited directly. PEW survey is useful as 'majority' view of scientists but not 'consensus' much less 'scientific consensus'. To get a label of 'scientific consensus' then the actual science papers out of Europe might do or might not -- but 'PR guys thinking' is inappropriate and so is 'majority in opinion poll'. Markbassett (talk) 23:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

As was pointed out several times in the RfC that preceded this, the PEW survey, "Public and Scientists’ Views on Science and Society," released three years after the AAAS statement, is a general interest comparison of opinions of the US adult population to those of US scientists (the sample, from all disciplines, including astronomers, social scientists, computer scientists, etc,^{Appendix B: About the AAAS Scientists Survey} was taken from AAAS members). A variety of questions were posed on "a range of science, engineering and technology issues." The scientists were not a group with collective expertise in biotechnology, let alone GM food specifically. A claim of scientific consensus in an area of genetic engineering does not follow from this source. --Tsavage (talk) 03:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

It is a statement from a few members of the Board in an anti-GMO labeling position paper. So if it is used, this should be made clear. Wording such as Tsavage suggested would be good: "in a statement opposing mandatory GMO labeling, the AAS concluded..." We just had an extensive RfC about this and other sources, please see Tsavage's breakdown of the AAAS source and why it cannot be considered independent (see third comment down - numbered points).

There are further problems with the paper, however. GRIST does a fabulous job so I won't attempt reproduce their work here, you can read it. Two points I will highlight: in their position paper, the AAAS misrepresents the WHO, which doesn't actually claim eating GM foods is safe, but rather, GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods. GRIST also notes that the AAAS misrepresents the EU study as well. Michael Hansen is quoted in GRIST as saying "If you actually look at the “study” it’s just a review of all the EU-funded biotech work for a ten year period. Most of the studies were about developing test methodologies to use in investigating genetic engineering (GE), not GE safety studies themselves. In fact, only three of the studies could be considered GE feeding trials and they all did find effects."

WP:MEDRS is required for statements concerning human health, and this source doesn't meet that standard. It is not a scientific paper, is not peer reviewed, is not neutral. As Groupuscule noted in the RfC, "A press release from the American Association for the Advancement of Science—with exactly two footnotes!—does not begin to fulfill the requirements for a reliable source in this case." petrarchan47คุก 17:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• AAAS is one of the most prestigious scientific institutions in the US, and is certainly a reliable source for contextual discussion of whether there is a consensus on a scientific issue. That a survey of AAAS members found 88% of members in agreement appears to be icing on that cake. Yobol (talk) 17:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a statement made by the board with the weight of the AAAS. The claims of lack of independence have the same root as recent manoeuvring by the Senate to exclude credentialled scientists but allow those funded by industry. This is science: the best-informed scientists will of course have worked in the field, that is how it works. You have raised the same baseless objection before, and had the same response. In second-guessing the AAAS you are engaging in textbook synthesis, and if you carry on in this vein I think you will see yourself topic-banned in short order. Guy (Help!) 20:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we should be willing to give significant weight to this statement, and we should give short shrift to objections of the sort raised above. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about accidental reversion of your last edit. Fat fingers on smartphone. - Nick Thorne ^talk 21:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

It is not a statement by any scientists, it is not peer reviewed, is not presenting any new science, and is not presented as a neutral view but rather admittedly in favor of anti-GMO labeling to promote that goal. The AAAS would be good to hear from, and likely wouldn't literally misrepresent the WHO in their statement as the members of the board have done. I am sure a MEDRS compliant, non-advocacy statement can be found to use instead of this. But again, if it is used, there should be clear indication of the nature of the statement, and the problems contained should be noted as well. Why not just stick with science and leave advocacy out? petrarchan47คุก 17:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The board of the AAAS is the elected representative board of the largest association of scientists in the USA. This is an official statement with the full authority of the Society. That is how it works. I understand that some people dislike the idea of GMOs but the AAAS board have no dog in the fight, they are not engaged in the motivated reasoning that dominates anti-GMO rhetoric, they are stating the facts as they read them from the science. Guy (Help!) 16:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• consensus here seems clear. The source is reliable for WP content about the scientific consensus on GM food. Jytdog (talk) 13:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Where on earth did you get that idea? Is this MEDRS? We just had a well attended RfC on this and other sources where there was no consensus that the claim of scientific consensus on GMO food safety was supported by any/all of your sources. A handful of editors here has not in fact trumped the monthlong discussion held by upwards of 30 people. I can't believe you're serious. We need to have another formal RfC on this source alone, and invite everyone to weigh in just as we did before. However, the introduction to the AAAS paper in this thread is in my mind quite disingenuous by omitting the facts behind this position paper. Let's not make that omission again if an RfC is opened. I hope that in general, editors are more interested in properly representing sources (especially when it comes to human health) than expressing a certain POV. petrarchan47คุก 01:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

"consensus here seems clear". What??? I find it troubling that such a determination would come from someone who has wielded such extraordinary editing control over the GMO articles. The disagreement over the AAAS statement here and in this RfC (where a non-involved admin. (RockMagnetist) found no consensus for action or with regard to reliability of the sources) demonstrates there is no consensus that the AAAS statement is WP:RS. My objections and others by numerous other editors to the AAAS statement can all be found there, but I am happy to reassert them here if they are difficult to find. Petrarchan47 and Tsavage have already asserted a good portion of those problems. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't wield "control" - I have helped forge a science-based consensus that has lasted a few years now. That's all. Yes there are a bunch of GMO-activists being especially vocal and voluble at the GM Food talk page; this is true. Jytdog (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• MEDRS and SCIRS are clear that we pull content of this sort from respected academic organizations in the field. The insistence that content like this comes only from review articles, must be peer-reviewed, etc. is somewhat odd considering review articles usually don't take the time to spell out consensus in such specific words. You usually find statements of consensus from organizations like this instead. There shouldn't be any question that this source is reliable for the content outside of those trying to consistently push against the scientific consensus statement. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

You appear to consider a statement on policy from the BoD as synonymous with the organization itself. Is that correct? petrarchan47คุก 01:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The cite seems to have a few issues in question

• This TALK is quoting the PR release written by Ginger Pinholster ... his/her PR writing is not the words of AAAS Board
• The written at Ginger or at the board statement does not support the article content; content is taking liberties.
• The AAAS board statement is a position on legislation; as indirect part of that it characterizes European and WHO data
• The AAAS board supports article wording of 'community' not 'consensus'

I'll suggest no this is not RS for the article. TTFN Markbassett (talk) 23:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Whooey. So you didn't click through the link in the press release to the actual board statement. My apologies for not pushing that ref through all the way. I've added the extra link in the ref. And for you, the actual board statement is here. Jytdog (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog That is what made it clear to me this cite is Ginger Pinholster's writing and not the item to cite as AAAS board position. If they want to do that, then the cite should BE the AAAS Board documnet, not Ginger Pinholster's writing about it. WP Article is paraphrasing a PR release about AAAS Board characterizing European research annnnd Ginger is just not good cite practice nor RS for 'scientific consensus'. Markbassett (talk) 12:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

So, still no comment on the actual source - nobody else here had a hard time getting to the board statement. Your stance is clear. Jytdog (talk) 13:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing about a "scientific consensus" in this anti-GMO labeling position paper. Are you extrapolating for our readers? petrarchan47คุก 01:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

There are only two opposers, one of whom responded to the press release instead of the actual statement. everybody else is thumbs up. Jytdog (talk) 01:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Despite the confusing framing of this RSN question, we cannot give blanket qualification of a source as "high quality" or "reliable" for any and everything it says, obviously, the specific content it is intended to verify must be considered. The primary objection to this source for the proposed statement of scientific consensus in Wikipedia's voice, is that the source content is not equivalent to the consensus statement. There are two parts.

First, the consensus:

AAAS source: "The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion"

article paraphrase: "The scientific consensus holds"

Is this sufficient for restatement as "scientific consensus"? The AAAS release clearly wishes to convey that there is widespread, if not unanimous, agreement. Is their non-specific, all-inclusive list - "and every other respected organization" - sufficient? Or, is the WHO, AMA, NAS and BRS, specifically mentioned, sufficient when taken alone?

This is also where the nature of the document should be considered for independence. It is a one-page public position paper vigorously supporting no GMO labeling (to the point of stating that labeling supporters are motivated by "the desire to gain competitive advantage by legislating attachment of a label meant to alarm"), which suggests that, at the very least, the wording be closely examined.

Second, and most important, the safety statement:

AAAS source: "consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques"

article paraphrase: "eating currently marketed GM food poses no greater health risk than does eating conventional food."

The AAAS release gives the impression of, but does not actually make, a broad claim of safety for all GM food. It has carefully reworded a finding that is widely supported, that genetic engineering is not inherently a riskier method of food modification than conventional breeding. In fact, it is the AAAS restatement of an EU report comment to that effect, which it has quoted in the sentence immediately prior: "biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies."^{full AAAS statement}. In other words, if you create a food by GE, and the same food by conventional breeding methods, the GE method will not have introduced additional risk, the products would be same, as would the risk. This is all that is stated, not that "currently available GM food is no riskier."

WP:RS/AC is abundantly clear on the requirements for a statement of academic consensus in Wikipedia's voice. Regardless of how prestigious the AAAS may be, THIS document does not appear to support the desired consensus statement. --Tsavage (talk) 02:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

That reading is almost as bad as the press release reading; in this case, it is the most wikilawyering reading of policy and the source possible. If citing the most important scientific and medical bodies in the world doesn't add up to "consensus" I don't know what does. And the hair-splitting emphasis on the difference between "no riskier than" and "no greater risk than" is especially ... silly. And likewise, I am not saying "this source alone" - I specifically said I was not doing that in the opening. Again, your response reads directly against the grain of the clear intention. Jytdog (talk) 04:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The source does not say what you want it to about GM food safety. Whether it supports a consensus statement for what it does say is secondary.

"I am not saying "this source alone" - I specifically said I was not doing that in the opening." Say what you like, this is not the Provisionally reliable sources noticeboard. Either the source supports the content, or it doesn't. If you need to combine more than one source for a statement of scientific consensus, then it is synthesis (particularly per WP:RS/AC).

There are many other ways to present the information in this and the 17 other sources you've lined up, so it's not a matter of obscuring information, it is you insisting on this one "scientific consensus" phrasing, without a proper source. --Tsavage (talk) 06:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Nope. Not what I am doing. I am just taking baby steps. And for the bazillionth time, you are very welcome to propose some content and sourcing on this issue for discussion, which you have never done. No one has any idea what you will support. I am curious - I would like to read a proposal from you instead of another wall-of-text saying "no" to something Jytdog (talk) 07:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what the baby step is here (or why this is here), since you once again broke away from an ongoing discussion at the article Talk page that couldn't be more detailed and incremental, to open this RSN discussion, just as you broke away from a previous discussion to start an RfC involving over 30 editors, all essentially based around this AAAS source as the strongest of 18 sources. Creating alternate wording was suggested by the RfC closer, discussed before and after that close, and I have supported versions. Please stop trying to turn the discussion to me, I'm only following your argument. --Tsavage (talk) 11:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

You have proposed nothing. it would be useful to finally getting consensus if you would do. Jytdog (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog and Tsavage - this is the wrong place for that discussion, this is RSN thread on whether this one specific cite is RS, not the place for discussing article content proposals. Markbassett (talk) 13:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. (But don't include me with Jytdog, he should remain on point and not editorialize about other editors, who are expected not to respond.) --Tsavage (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

As the position paper for one of the most respected bodies in science, it should certainly be given a lot of weight. I am not sure why this is on WP:RSN. I suggest that it not be used by itself, but it be used together with review articles directly discussing GMOs. Kingsindian ♝♚ 05:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

It is here because people have strong feelings about GMOs and we need reasoned, community discussion. Yes, sometimes to affirm that the sky is blue. Jytdog (talk) 07:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

No. This is another assumption of bad faith. People like myself have objected for numerous legitimate WP:PAG grounds. If you are motivated by feelings you can say so, but I have seen none of the editors saying they are basing their opposition to AAAS on their feelings, so please stop assuming bad faith and focus on content, not the motivation of editors. David Tornheim (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

claiming that AAAS is equivalent to ENNSER is not a rational statement based on PAG. Jytdog (talk) 21:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Kingsindian The cite is to Ginger Pinholster's PR release about the AAAS board position on legislation, so ... it isn't the actual AAAS board words, nor the actual AAAS body. Not to fault Ginger, just being clear that the cite has mischaracterized the source. A PR release is different from the Board position, and a Board position stated for legislation is different than a Body consensus. RSN gets similar debates over whether HYPost is RS for x and whether it was an opinion piece or editorial comes up. Markbassett (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Markbassett: I am not sure what your point is. The statement says at the bottom: "Approved by the AAAS Board of Directors on 20 October 2012". How is this "not the AAAS board's words"? Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: -- You are not looking at what was actually proposed as the cite. What is cited ends with a link "Read the full statement by the AAAS Board of Directors on labeling of genetically modified foods." The actual AAAS Board statement is two clicks further. What you are looking at sounds like the actual board statement. What is cited is not. Ginger's press release is close, but not quite it and the question (in part) WAS whether the press release is the the right source. Markbassett (talk) 19:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Good grief. Jytdog (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

@Markbassett: I have no idea what you're talking about, sorry. The quote that is cited in the original question posed at WP:RSN comes from the full statement. That is good enough for me. Kingsindian ♝♚ 20:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Why are folks so badly not wanting to cite the actual AAAS Board statement ? The point being that RSN was asked (in part) if the press release was the right thing to cite and that it chose to embed a quote from AAAS Board item two clicks away is just adding to the oddity, it does not change the content of the press release or somehow make a oddformed cite better. Markbassett (talk) 13:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Mark you are putting an enormous amount of energy into something silly. For all these years, folks have clicked through to the actual statement. I have gone ahead and added the link to the actual board statement above, and updated the citations in all the articles as well. You are raising a nonissue. And no the point of the RSN was never about whether the press release was anything - it was always about the board statement. Jytdog (talk) 13:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Markbassett's concerns are certainly valid. I suggest this back and forth about what source Jytdog actually meant be resolved by opening a new section/question for this NB using the correct source (rather than a press release about the source intended) and making sure to follow the proposed rules of this noticeboard which include stating what article language is proposed to be supported by that source, which Tsavage correctly noted was absent from the original post here. Then refer back to this section for those who may have missed it. Starting down below seems to make things more complicated for new readers, than starting afresh and stating what is actually meant than expecting us to figure it out from the mess that is here. David Tornheim (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

<od> Jytdog Then why not just cite the actual statement ????

• "The scientific community position is that eating food from GM crops poses no greater health risk."

References

I'm open to something like that, sure. Would be better to finish the comparative - "...no greater health risk than foods from conventional crops" ... but sure. I am not married to the "consensus" word. Jytdog (talk) 21:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

As I stated immediately above, I strongly prefer that an entirely new post/section be created on this noticeboard than the confusing situation of having the original flawed source and lack of intended language coming first. I would prefer we start de novo, but refer back to this discussion. David Tornheim (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I second that: resetting with a straightforward new question that presents article content and supporting source, with no conditionals, would be more usable for RSN (and more respectful of uninvolved editors' time and energy, mine, for one). Why reset?

• Changing the source and what it supports during discussion hopelessly confuses the discussion - see just above.
• This is not the place to discuss content development (as is the case throughout).
• This is not the place to establish the authority of a source independent of a concrete content statement: "Not looking for definitive affirmation of the content at this point - just what weight we should give this source.").

Evidence or weight based on authority alone - "because They say so" - is almost worthless in evidence-based considerations, verify the content first. --Tsavage (talk) 15:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Box office collections for Bajrangi Bhaijaan

I've noticed BoxOfficeIndia is the quoted source for box office collections for a number of hindi movies(including PK). Why are their numbers for Bajrangi Bhaijaan not being considered authentic then ? http://www.boxofficeindia.com/Details/art_detail/bajrangibhaijaanclosinginon500croreworldwide#.VbsXEROqr_i Is there an exhaustive list of trusted sources for box office collections for Indian movies ? Sbhowmik89 (talk) 14:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed once before, so that discussion might come in handy now. —SpacemanSpiff 14:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd say none of the issues put forth then have been resolved. The consensus there seems like it was not a reliable source but either "include it because it's the best we got" or "don't because it's not." In this case, we have an actual (somewhat) reliable source so I don't think we should replace a reliable source with one we know is not reliable under the basis that it's "better". I'll make a mention of this at the Indian cinema taskforce and hopefully we get some more insight from them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to flesh this out quite a bit. The current discussion is about its use at Bajrangi Bhaijaan. Currently that page refers to this source for a 400 crore box office draw (probably a week or more behind). As discussed back in 2008, and still true today, we have zero information about the background of who is behind Box Office India nor any information about their methodology or how they calculate their box office results or any of their general reporting (other than their FAQ statement that they have "sources" which are allegedly more true to actual figures that other alleged "producer figures"). The Box Office India article still has zero information (and little other than crazy inflated numbers about their revenues from terrible sources). Even halfway regular blogs would have some name somewhere attached to them.

The discussion in 2008 was first, whether we should assume that it is reliable and is an expert in the relevant field because it is being used as a source (of box office returns) by various newspapers and other reliable sources or does Wikipedia need something more to determine that a source is considered an expert in the relevant field than its use as a reference. I disagree on the first premise and believe that without some evidence of reliability independently ascertainable, we cannot presume that a source is a reliable source.

Second, the past discussion had numerous individuals who acknowledged that the source does not qualify under our WP:RS guidelines but argued that it should be used because it was being extensively used and/or under the belief that nothing reliable existed and this was the best option. I'd say that the use of a source incorrectly (like we did with IMDb) does not grandfather that source from the RS requirements. Further, in this particular case, we have a current RS (namely the article citing 400 crore) which is probably outdated and not totally reliable but it is a better source than a three-paragraph posting from "Box Office India Trade Network" with no evidence of who that is. I say we wait a few more days until one of the newspapers and more reliable sources provide box office results rather than go around with the daily figures of alleged box offices returns. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• • • Support Ricky81682 and the analysis. We need to use only sources that have actually demonstrated a reputation for reliability, accuracy, fact checking and editorial oversight. particularly in the area of Indian box office where one of the top national news agencies gave up attempting to maintain a regular box office column because they could not sustain an accurate representation.[7]. these fly by night websites surely need more to be posted on the web to be considered reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Further comment: as to the "reliable sources" quoted in the prior RSN discussion by User:Relata refero, the links are largely dead but not one of them are relevant to the discussion of whether boxofficeindia.com is a reliable source. This link is citing www.bosnetwork.com and ibossnetwork.com on page 30. This link cites the IBOS network and OBS on page 49. This page cites IBOSnetwork on page 9. I suspect User:Relata refero was arguing that the information was important therefore we can bypass the usual RS criteria due to the importance of said information (which I don't think is in line with policy and odd since it was evidence that there are reliable source that are in use but those haven't been used for whatever reason). It's particularly irrelevant in this case when we do have reliable sources (even if they are a few days or hours or whatever behind which is natural). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

As discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Box Office India (2nd nomination), there is a boxofficeindia.co.in, which is a legitimate trade magazine, so it may just be intentional confusion here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:04, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• I am of the opinion that we need to strictly limit the sources used in Indian film articles particularly for box office values. Some of the better sites, and seemingly more reliable ones, say explicitly that the values are estimates, but that doesn't stop the continuous editing to surpass the last value. BOI writes at their about page: "The figures on the website are not taken from producers or distributors of the respective films but independent estimates from our sources and then cross checked through cinema collections." So, still estimates. With no clear indication of how they work, or what specific fact-checking they do, and without the benefit of being a newspaper (you know how journalists are trained to adhere to ethics and whatnot) I'm not feeling that this is a great reference. What else does that leave us with? Is there any reference that we like? (Rhetorical, this discussion should take place elsewhere.) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Atheist, agnostics, and freethinkers

articles affected:

• Demographics of atheism
• List of Christian thinkers in science
• Relationship between religion and science
• List of Jewish Nobel laureates
• Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine
• Religiosity and education
• List of Muslim Nobel laureates
• Christian
• Christianity
• Lists of Christians
• Role of the Christian Church in civilization
• Protestant culture

This is more for entertainment than action, but I have to record a wonderful abuse of reliable sources (diff): From 1901–2000, atheists, agnostics, and freethinkers won 7.1% of the Nobel prizes in chemistry, 8.9% in medicine, and 4.7% in physics. Christians won 72.5% of the prizes in chemistry, 65.3% in physics, 62% in medicine and Jews won 17.3% in chemistry, 26.2% in medicine, and 25.9% in physics. I'm sure the statistics are impecable, but the conclusion is obvious nonsense. Here are the numbers again:

Group	Chemistry	Medicine	Physics
Atheists, agnostics, and freethinkers	7.1%	8.9%	4.7%
Christians and Jews	89.8%	88.2%	91.2%

Johnuniq (talk) 07:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Johnuniq. Not sure what the issue would be since the numbers are from the source directly. Where is the abuse? The source has a table on p. 60 and these numbers were extracted from there or added up since Christianity has many categories (split by many denominations), "Jewish" was one category, and there was an "atheist and agnostic" category and a separate "freethinker" category. Here is a direct extract of the table part of the table from the source p.60 for the years 1901-2000  :

Group	Chemistry	Medicine	Physics
Atheist & Agnostic	6.3%	8.3%	2.0%
Freethinkers	0.8%	0.6%	2.7%
Jewish	17.3%	26.2%	25.9%

By the way,even other studies have shown similar numbers too for Christians and Jews so the numbers are corroborated in other resources. For example, according to a study that was done by University of Nebraska–Lincoln in 1998, 60% of from 1901 to 1990 had a Christian background. Nobel prize winners in physics from 1901 to 1990 and for Jews, we have many sources saying they make up about 20% on average of the Nobel prizes in the sciences [8], [9], and of course others are in the Jewish Nobel prize page.Mayan1990 (talk) 08:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I await with interest attempts to compare skirt lengths to the price of gold. -Roxy the dog™ (Talk to the dog who doesn't know when her owner is coming home) 07:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The source in question is Baruch Aba Shalev's 100 Years of Nobel Prizes. I think it's a totally unreliable source. It has no information about the author's information-gathering; it contains kooky stuff like analysis of Nobel winners' astrological signs; it underwent no peer review-- etc, etc. PepperBeast (talk) 08:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The book of course has a bibliography at the end. It helps to read the actual source (there is an updated 4th edition now) as it is a statistical analysis and all the info and data is there for anyone to see. The author is a well established geneticist with +200 research publications, and his study even has endorsements from two Nobel laureates such as Henry Kissinger and Shimon Peres. On top of that the numbers in the book do reflect similar findings to other sources already cited above. Looks like WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Mayan1990 (talk) 08:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

All your hand waving doesn't elevate this book to the level of a reliable source. Does it tell us how many of the alleged christian winners were male, circumcised and of the gemini persuasion? Enquiring minds want to know? -Roxy the dog™ (Talk to the dog who doesn't know when her owner is coming home) 08:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Roxy, as amusing as I find that, you're not exactly helping.

Mayan: the fact that he's a respected geneticist might mean something if this were a book on genetics; it isn't. The fact that he does statistical analysis doesn't mean much without any explanation on how he got his data. Endorsements don't mean anything. PepperBeast (talk) 08:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Appreciate that Pepperbeast. Anyways, the details are in the book of course. Where else would it be? His analysis is his analysis. All that is needed is attribution. We as editors can only reflect what the sources bring to us. We are not given the task of being detectives beyond what the sources provide us. Statistical analysis is not hard to do especially with readily available biographies and such. You can check it out yourself. It is of course interesting that his findings are consistent with other findings already above. Also looking at the original publisher: Atlantic Publishers, they write "Atlantic Publishers and Distributors Pvt Ltd, established in 1977, is known for quality academic, professional and general publishing. It is also India’s leading distributor of books from across the globe, partnering world's leading publishers in Science & Technology, Management, Humanities and Social Sciences." Good enough for me. Mayan1990 (talk) 09:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Why isn't it helping. I'm just pointing out the absurdity of Ramos' source, you know, the one Ramos is edit-warring to keep in the article. See? -Roxy the dog™ (Talk to the dog who doesn't know when her owner is coming home) 09:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I want a nobel prize, so I'm going to move north, to the Faroe Islands. Does anybody else not know the difference between correlation and causation? -Roxy the dog™ (Talk to the dog who doesn't know when her owner is coming home) 11:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

One question... are these categories really mutually exclusive? Can't someone be an agnostic Christian, or an agnostic Jew? Blueboar (talk) 13:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Agnostic Jew certainly. Agnostic Christian if you include cultural Christians like Richard Dawkins in that category. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

...or Nontheist Quakers and others who practice Christian atheism. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• Ramos1990 is edit warring this source and content from it into several articles; I've listed them above. Ramos1990 I strongly suggest you back off the edit warring until this discussion is finished and you have consensus to use this source. Right now you do not. Jytdog (talk) 13:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Something else that would add context to the statistics would be to normalize them according to what percent of people self-identified as each religion (or no religion) at the time the awards were given. Nobel prizes have been given out since around the turn of the 20th century, when it was much less common for people to self-identify as not belonging to a religion. For example, Gallup surveys about religious identification only go back to 1948, but at that point the number that answered that they had no religious affiliation was 2% (vs. 16% in 2014). I'm not saying we should use Gallup for these purposes, especially because I think it only surveyed people in the US, but it further questions just how meaningful the data is. Normalized, it may be that the proportionality (which seems like the likely motivation for including the data in the first place) is significantly different. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, I am not edit warring. Originally, Pepperbeast deleted the source without proper justification. Since he was removing it and I had told him to discuss first since it was a reliable source, the correct procedure was to leave the source in all the articles and discuss it like we have over here and then make a decision. Now, no one here has provided a correct justification for removal of the source. The source provides actual numbers and the original publisher Atlantic Publisher and Distributors is not an issue. On their site they say: Atlantic Publishers and Distributors Pvt Ltd, established in 1977, is known for quality academic, professional and general publishing. It is also India’s leading distributor of books from across the globe, partnering world's leading publishers in Science & Technology, Management, Humanities and Social Sciences. At any point of time, Atlantic has more than 50,000 titles on its shelves in varying subjects. It has a strong network of channel partners consisting of sub-distributors, booksellers and library vendors spread across the country. Atlantic is a regular supplier of books to libraries of leading universities, IITs, NITs and institutions in India." Just like any study, attribution should be given. There is every reason to keep the book since the author on top of it is a well stablished scientiist too and even 2 Nobel Laureates endorsed the study. Simply put there is no basis for removal.Mayan1990 (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

It took me a second to figure out that you are Ramos1990. You are the only one arguing that this source is OK. If you think you are not edit warring, please continue, and you will end up at 3RR and very likely blocked. You will do as you will. Jytdog (talk) 18:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Appreciate you concern, but everyone was already calmed down and following the correct procedure since me and Pepperbeast were already en route to resolving the issue while leaving the articles as they were before changing them. In any case, there is not basis for the removal, I am afraid. Most of the issue here has been WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but this is not really a good reason for removing it. The issue looks resolved already. If no one provides a solid reason for objecting, then will re-add the source eventually. Mayan1990 (talk) 18:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

No one here finds this a reasonable reference to use, in the way you have been using. Can you not see that? The correlation is ridiculous and adding content about it is UNDUE. Jytdog (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

?? Ok fair enough, then since you said in the way I have been using it, how would you use it? The book clearly mentions numbers like any other statistical study and the way is was cited was in those numbers only. What is the issue? In none of those articles was anyone saying that Nobel Prizes cause people to be Christians or Jews, it merely showed the distribution according to the source and was pretty straight forward and flat. Now Rhododendrites has mentioned the Gallup study. A general way of using any statistical study is to merely put in the numbers in terms of demographic distribution as found in the sources. Probably the safest approach to these things. The ref was used in a straight forward and neutral fashion as far as I can see. Your issue and others as well, is WP:IDONTLIKEIT but this is not a good reason. Attribution should resolve any issue you think about "UNDUE", considering that there is no issue involving a violation of wikipedia policy in terms of WP:RS. The only complaints here have been what some people supposedly don't like and this if course is unreasonable. Mayan1990 (talk) 18:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Srsly, Ramos? We were not en route to resolving the issue because you won't address the quality of the source. You keep calling other people's objections WP:IDONTLIKEIT without adding any reasons why this should be considered WP:RELIABLE. So I'm happy to have it discussed here, where at least there's some chance of consensus. And my name isn't ‘Pepperblast‘. PepperBeast (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ramos1990: Statistics are added to a Wikipedia article in order to explain a subject that the statistics help to quantify. In other words, the only reason to add statistics to an article like relationship between religion and science is if they help to explain the relationship between religion and science. Incorporating these statistics thus communicates a connection between religion and receiving a Nobel prize. The point people are making (or at least the point I'm taking away from this thread -- and which I agree with) is that while the book itself may be a reliable source for lots of things, these statistics are not sufficient to support the conclusion we're meant to draw from them. It sounds like you're saying this is a well-known and respected book/author (multiple editions, lots of publications), so maybe a good next step would be to search for other reliable sources which provide explanation/interpretation of these statistics in such a way that more explicitly sheds light on the relationship between e.g. religion and science beyond simply correlation (and thus WP:DUE to include). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Rhododendrites for your excellent post. I have already argued for the book from many angles already (author is an established researcher, publisher is academic and has co-publishing deals with many other academic publishers) and I agree with you quite a bit, but the thing I am noticing is that some people here are making more conclusions than what the source merely says and certainly more than what was written from the stuff in the articles and by these extrapolations they are making their objections. The raw numbers merely show the demographic distribution based on a particular sample and if you think about it most people are interested in the % of stuff on anything (your example above from Gallup on % of US non-religious affiliation or anything like how many scientists believe in God, how many women are in science, etc). Even when one reads demographical data form Pew or Gallup, usually the % are the most important and often cited thing in newspapers, books, social commentaries, etc. In general the raw % are as neutral as one can get and by merely providing the numbers people can get a glimpse of those under the context of the study. The % are usually solid, but the explanations are variable people will come up with their own. and of course the explanations are quote speculative in most cases. When it comes to people's beliefs, they are quite complicated. But Shalev does make some suggestions on possible explanations on p.57-58 so it is not necessarily missing from his analysis. Does this help?Mayan1990 (talk) 21:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Ramos, how would I use it? I wouldn't use it. What is point of the table? (also a real question) Jytdog (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not in favor of using a table on any article, the first person on this thread introduced so I merely summarized a bit from the source using the same format. I am only advocating the simple % being mentioned in any article.Mayan1990 (talk) 01:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Meh. What is the point of mentioning the percentage? Jytdog (talk) 02:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

First, it's important to point out that simply because the author is an established academic doesn't make everything he publishes usable as a source. Published material gets its reputability from the reputation of the publisher in the field; a paper published in a physics journal isn't automatically a useful source for sociological statements like this. Second, the core problem isn't the numbers themselves, it's the implicit assertion of significance to this specific measure (ie. a non-normalized nose-counting percentage check based on this specific timeframe, in these specific religious categories, for these specific Nobel prizes in these specific fields.) This source is not enough to justify the assertion that these numbers are relevant, quite apart from whether they are accurate or not. What do they mean? What are they trying to say? We need a usable secondary source that can analyze them and answer those questions if they're going to be included; and I'm not seeing that here. A secondary concern I'd have, looking over that fairly long list of articles, is that it feels like this one source is being given WP:UNDUE weight by inserting it into as many articles as possible; even if we were to cover the author's opinions on the statistics in one article, many of the articles listed aren't really places where it makes sense. None of these are even physics-related articles -- why was this put in Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine? Likewise, just because he mentioned Muslims in passing as part of his numbers, say, doesn't really make this an appropriate thing to include in List of Muslim Nobel laureates. --Aquillion (talk) 05:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The major problem here is that the implication of being a religious believer in science has changed beyond recognition over the last century. In 1901 the default was for most people in the West to have a religion of some kind, and Americans and Britons (two leading sources of Nobelists) were almost exclusively either Christian or (a minority) Jewish, even if they were not observant - and there were considerable social consequences to declaring oneself as non-religious. These days a significant minority of the population of both countries identify as atheist. On the whole this looks like an attempt to shoehorn religion into a place where it is not relevant other than as a possible stalking horse for creationism. Guy (Help!) 07:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

As far as i see the book is a reliable source, some of the participants here say there is no need to add the numbers, and it not necessarily to mention the percentage, but it's been mentioned in these articles the percentage of Jews among Nobel Prize winners and has been mentioned figures and ratios and data (note that determine of who is a Jewish it's harder and more complicated than the identification of Christians), in each of the article as Religiosity and education and Relationship between religion and science has been mentioned percentage from primary sources about the non-believers scientists (it's been mentioned in several article that: "Science academies in the United States and the United Kingdom have found that 7 percent of members of the National Academy of Science in the U.S. had a belief in God or higher power and only 5.3 percent of Fellows of the Royal Society of London believed in a personal God.") so what all this problem to mentions the percentage of christians or Atheist, agnostics, and freethinker among the Nobel prize winneres (it's only show percentage)? Beyond that many of the scientists and Nobel Prize winners in years before 1950 they announced that they are atheists, such as Maria Skłodowska-Curie, So I can not find a single problem of mention that percentage, why then mention the percentage of Jews among Nobel Prize winners or the percent athiest among the members of the National Academy of Science is relelvent while the percentage of christians or Atheist, agnostics, and freethinkers among Nobel Prize winners is irrelevant?.--Jobas (talk) 08:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's take one of the factoids: Christians won 72.5% of the prizes in chemistry. What does that mean? Three quarters of the Nobel prize winners for chemistry had a Christian belief, or were declared Christian in childhood, or were raised in a "Christian" country, or regularly attended a Christian church for worship, or what? I just arbitrarily clicked ten names at Template:Nobel Prize in Chemistry for 1901–2000 and searched each article for "Christian". There were no hits (apart from the use of that word as a name). Are our articles missing important information regarding the prize winners, or is the source claiming that 72.5% of them are Christian bogus? What other source verifies the claim? If no other source discusses the matter, why should we? Christian tells us that a "Christian is a person who adheres to Christianity, an Abrahamic, monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth." Is it likely that 72.5% of chemistry prize winners satisfied that definition, and if it is true, why do our articles not mention it? Johnuniq (talk) 10:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Many of the the prizes in chemistry were christian many were jewish and many were atheist, Some of these christians were nominally christians (but they did not cliams to be an atheist- they consider themselves as christians) some were religous one. but both declered as christians, just becouse some of wikipeida articles dosen't mention that dosent that mean at all they are not christians, it's not really hard to find more information about these winners you will find many of them many at least were nominal christians.

What about the percentage of Jews among Nobel Prize winners? Some of them they convert to Christianity some were totally atheist and non-religious some even were of Jewish descent (even they or their parent's didn't even raised as Jewish) and still these percentage of jewish nobel prize winneres show in many articles in wikipedia. And now we have percentage from a source that you call it "reliable source" and percentages that you said about it "statistics are impecable". And the book it self gave references In the end (Many of the information are documented and in the end, these ratios is a collection of data for the Nobel Prize biography), if there was a Nobel Prize was noted that he was a Christian and there are references and sources. I do not think that our work is also to see and to chick if he was a ture Christian believer or nominally Christian or the degree of his faith in Jesus (example: many soruces show mention that Brian Kobilka is a catholic so he is catholic i don't think it our work to discuss how catholic he is or if he is only nominal or church regular attender) the same go here there been statistics about Nobel prize winners show also percentage of christians (include nominal and religious one, with references) so This is not our work to discusses who is a "ture believer" and who is not a "ture" Christian. and by the way this not the only soruce that give infortmation about the "Nobel laureates by religion ", there been different studies as the study Nobel prize winners in physics from 1901 to 1990 that done by the University of Nebraska–Lincoln in 1998, or books as Scientific Elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States by Harriet Zuckerman or the reviews of these books as the article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and nearlly all gives similar percentages, So this not the Only source. So in the end i think it should be mentioned christian background or that this group it's inclued (nominal and relgious chrisitan winners).--Jobas (talk) 10:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The author is an established academic, he is book is about different information about Nobel prize winners. there nationalities, the years, the females who got the nobel prize, birth of dates, the university affiliation of the nobel prize winners and religions of these winners, and these informations are documented, and the author is not trying to say anything it's only a book gave different infortmation about nobel prize winners and the author is not even a Christian.--Jobas (talk) 11:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The author is an established academic in the wrong field. He's a geneticist, published here in a physics journal; that doesn't make him a reliable source for statements about statistics or sociology. But more importantly, your argument that he's "not trying to say anything" is actually part of the problem. If he were a sociologist, historian, or other expert in the field providing some meaningful statement with these numbers, then we could rely on that interpretation; but as it stands, it feels like users are posting these statistics in an attempt to make their own personal arguments by proxy. This is original research; in order to include statistics in an article, we need to be able to say what they mean and why they're there (why these specific years, how the data is or isn't normalized, who is judging who falls into what category and why, what the overarching numbers mean in light of these decisions, etc.) Absent that sort of analysis, it's not usable as a source, even before you get to the fact that it's geneticist publishing in a physics journal and therefore not someone we could really rely on to begin with. A primary source who is "not trying to say anything" is actually not very useful as a source -- if the numbers say nothing meaningful at all, why include them? If you feel that they do say something you personally think is worth covering (but the author isn't explicitly stating that), then isn't that original research on your part? --Aquillion (talk) 22:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The author still an established academic, and his book been reviews postivily by two Nobel Laureates. My point when i said he "not trying to say anything" mean he is not trying to pass a propaganda since he himself is not a Christian (since some users try to say that). and it's worth to covering, and the author analysis also supported form different refference, and in the end this kind of analysis and statistics that been mention in the book as the university affiliation of the nobel prize winners or the Jewish or women who won nobel prize is show in several article here in wikipeida even there is article about that issue using this kind of book no one call not useful or asked what the reason of analysis and statistics of women who won Nobel prize, or why we should include statisitics about university affiliation of the nobel prize winners.--Jobas (talk) 00:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, "established academic" doesn't mean anything. Reliability is contextual; an academic is a reliable source in their field, but not generally reliable outside it (this is a major issue in our articles on evolution and climate change, say, where people sometimes try to insert the opinions of academics in other fields.) If these statistics are genuinely noteworthy, it should be easy to find a source in a relevant field who discusses them, published in an appropriate journal; relying on something a geneticist published in a physics journal doesn't make sense. And, for what it's worth, I'll point out that the author is Jewish and that the only analysis the book does is about Jewish exceptionalism; now, this is isn't actually the problem (even if we assumed he was WP:BIASED, biased sources can still be used; and it's not necessarily fair to assume that he's biased just because he's talking about his own religion -- if he were a Jewish historian, or a Christian historian, or an Atheist historian or whatever, we might be able to use him as a source.) The problems are that his qualifications don't actually relate to this topic, so the paper is ultimately just someone's personal opinions rather than a reliable source; and that, without a qualified source to give context or meaning to these numbers, including them risks amounting to original research or synthesis on the part of editors, who are implicitly stating that eg. these numbers mean Christians are "good at science" (for some personal, arbitrary definition of what a Christian is and what being good at science means.) You seem to be saying "but the author isn't using these numbers to say that Christians are good at science!" as though that makes everything all right -- but in fact, that's the problem; it would be better for you if the author was saying that. If we had eg. a respected historian saying, explicitly, "I am a Christian, and here are some numbers that mean that Christians like me are good at science", we could totally put that in the article! What we can't do is subtly imply that conclusion without a source clearly making the connection. --Aquillion (talk) 00:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I downloaded the wikitext for the 135 articles of the Nobel Prize winners in Chemistry for 1901–2000. The only articles containing the word "Christian" in the wikitext or categories (other than as a name) are:

• Adolf von Baeyer Mother converted to Christianity
• Henri Moissan religion = Christian
• Fritz Haber Haber converted from Judaism to Lutheranism
• Elias James Corey Corey was born to Christian Lebanese immigrants
• Robert Curl Curl was the son of a Methodist minister
• Richard Smalley Smalley became a Christian shortly before his death

Six of 135 articles (4.4%) connect a Nobel prize winner for chemistry with Christianity. This is the reliable sources noticeboard where editors are encouraged to think about whether a source is reliable for its claims, and the source says that 72.5% of the 135 winners (97 people) were Christian. Who were the other 91 Christian prize winners? Johnuniq (talk) 11:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I did not understand your standard that Christian and non-Christian nobel winner are based on articles which connect a Nobel prize winner for chemistry with Christianity? this standard is a non-academic. If wikipeida didn't mention every thing that mean Nothing. so according to you if there no mention about about their religion so these winners are not christians? oh and how many these article of nobel prize of chemistry connected with atheisim also 4? 5? 10?. let's see some names of Nobel prize winner for chemistry that many sources mention they are christian (nomanilly or religous) but in wikipeida dosen't mention that: Ernest Rutherford, Gerhard Ertl Translated from German: Oh, yes, I believe in God. (...) I am a Christian and I try to live as a Christian (...) I read the Bible very often and I try to understand it, Peter Agre, Robert Bruce Merrifield "Nobel Laureate R. Bruce Merrifield Dies At 84", Harold Urey, Otto Hahn, John Cornforth, Brian Kobilka, Derek Barton etc.. these Nobel winners wikipedia dose not mention anything about their religion but it not really hard to find that they were christians by different sources. So wikipeida the connect of Nobel prize winner articles with Christianity is not the standard here about the Statistics.--Jobas (talk) 11:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I was afraid you would take Johnuniq's angle of criticism to open a whole set of down-the-rabbit-hole discussions and maybe even start to add religion to all their bios. argh. the point being made in this thread is that the correlation between Nobels and religion is as relevant as a correlation between Nobels and whether winners wore brief, boxers, or went commando. Including the percentage is just pointy. Jytdog (talk) 23:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

And i started to add that in some atricles maybe you didn't notice. i gave several names of Nobel prize winners who been christians. Johnuniq criticism was since no mention in wikipdia about religions of Nobel winners it's mean these are not Christians. And i gave at least 5 names of Nobel prize winners who been christian but their article in wikipedia dosen't mention that (and i think by this i cleared my point). Oh and what about the correlation bweteen Scientists and atheism (there are aticles show some percentage) or the correlation bweteen Nobel and women (wikipdia articles mention percentages) or with black or with the university affiliation of the nobel prize winners (wikipeida article give here also some percentage) or what about the correlation between Nobels and their nationality (wikipedia articles mention some percentage about that), you didn't make deal about that even it's the same idea of mention religions of Nobel prize winners. So if including these percentage is just pointy, So also the percentage of women and Jewish and blacks and nationality and university affiliation is just pointy. Also, the comparison that you made it is unfair try to made this comparison with other ratios as the nationality and jewish and university affiliation and women that wikipeida articles mention it.--Jobas (talk) 00:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

i did see that you started to add that content to articles with dismay - that is part of what prompted my posting. You seem to be saying that every interest group should get its absurd "bragging rights". That is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Jytdog (talk) 02:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Really why i can't add if a Nobel prize winner is a Christian and there is sources supporrt that, but we can add if a Nobel prize winner is an atheist?, The different of you'r comparison that there been books and reachers about the religions of Nobel prize winners as the study Nobel prize winners in physics from 1901 to 1990 that done by the University of Nebraska–Lincoln in 1998, or books as Scientific Elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States by Harriet Zuckerman or the reviews of these books, But for sure you will not find a study about the brief or boxers that Nobel prize winners wrote, That's the different. I didn't said every group should get its absurd "bragging rights", But if this group been different studies and statistics about it, so there is no reason no to include it.--Jobas (talk) 10:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Jobas above, I had asked Ramos what the point of adding this information is. Neither they nor you have answered. Jytdog (talk) 13:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I already answer that, Becouse there been books and studies about it, i already mention that.--Jobas (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

And it's excally the same point mention the proportion of non-believers in the existence of God among scientists in articles as Relationship between religion and science and Religiosity and education, And the same poin adding information about the women or black or jewish who won Nobel prize. the numbers that the book of 100 years of Nobel prize gave more less the same numbers of other books and studeis the study Nobel prize winners in physics from 1901 to 1990 that done by the University of Nebraska–Lincoln in 1998, or books as Scientific Elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States by Harriet Zuckerman. So there been differen studies about the religion of Nobel prize winners. And some here in clear way the don't want adding this information that which supported by sources (beside the book of 100 years of Nobel prize) maybe becouse they don't like the results maybe if it gave different numbers they will not hesitate to put it.--Jobas (talk) 17:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

that is not an answer. There is an infinite amount of trivia we could add to articles. Why are you selecting this detail? Please answer the question. This is the same question that Ramos ducked. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I've read a bit through the book now and it certainly seems to draw some non-scientific conclusions for a book about statistics. I'm unfamiliar with the publisher, so I don't know their history. The book was written by an Jew and seems to have the purpose of promoting Jewish exceptionalism rather than statistical analysis. For example on page 58 "In other words, pograoms and the Holocaust forced a genetic selection for the better fit, which was much more drastic than for any other faith.". Note this is not an argument against Jews, it's an statement about the non-scientific nature of this book. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

It is the statistics that are given in the article. If they are well-researched, the source is reliable regardless of the interpretation put on them in the book. There is a very strong whiff of WP:IDONTLIKEIT here. The information is clearly of relevance to several of the articles listed at the top, and on a topic where there is a lot of general interest (more usually from the Jewish or Muslim angle than the Christian one). I don't see the case that it is unencyclopedic being made at all. I do see that collecting accurate figures would be very difficult, more so for those who are in any meaningful sense Christian than for those who are Jewish or Muslim, which are effectively treated as racial categories in such excercises. Johnbod (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

CJAD Radio

Is CJAD Radio a reliable source? I cannot find any information about editorial oversight on their website. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Anyone? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Please present your question in the recommended format, in general this noticeboard doesn't do yes/no on a source not knowing what exact webpage (the Radio website has hundreds, including a blog section, weather forecasts etc.) the info for inclusion in the encyclopedia is derived from, what article it is to be included in, and what content derived from the source your question is about. Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Is CJAD Radio (specifically this article) a reliable source for discussing the attempts prevent Roosh V from giving a speech in Montreal? The source contain a few controversial, potentially libelous, statements about Roosh V. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Le Devoir, a newspaper with editorial oversight ([10]), writes about the same ([11]), as does the tabloid Journal de Montreal ([12]) – for this info I couldn't make a distinction between the independent newpaper (Le Devoir) and the tabloid (Journal de Montreal), so couldn't say whether the radio station reporting is rather akin to serious journalism or to tabloidism. For playing safe I'd source the info to Le Devoir in Wikipedia, but don't see a problem to add a ref to the radio station page for those who don't read French. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply! I'll wait a day before reporting back to Roosh V in case anyone else wants to chime in. Thanks for finding the ledevoir source. Much appreciated. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd still like to hear if people think the source reliable at all. Again, I see no editorial oversight. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I think this particular citation is fine - it's a local news-and-talk radio station, so while I would be cautious about using any of their talk radio shows/sources to establish or reference facts, I see no reason why their news content shouldn't be treated the same way as any other broadcaster. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Probably you misunderstood: "any other broadcaster" is neither by definition reliable, nor by definition unreliable. "Any other broadcaster" is by definition a source of unknown reliability. So there's nothing in your comment that shows the radio station as either reliable or unreliable. All what's left is an "I like" without even attempting to give a WP:RS or WP:V-founded argumentation.

The nature of this noticeboard is to try determine reliability of sources (in context) based on the parameters which by the applicable guidance are deemed suitable for such determination. "Being a broadcaster" is not among the parameters that says anything about reliability. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey @Francis Schonken: give me some credit - I do understand the purpose of this noticeboard and WP:RS. What I meant to write above was "any other reliable broadcaster." I confess, I kind of assumed that the reliability of CJAD's news coverage was self-evident - but my opinion there might be colored by the fact that I live in Montreal and have more than a passing familiarity with the station. Anyways: the station is owned by Bell Media, the same parent company that owns other, unquestionably reliable news sources in Canada like the Globe and Mail and CTV. It's a member of the Canadian Broadcasting Standards Council, and complies with its various codes for journalistic ethics, including its accuracy and neutrality in news requirements. It has won awards from the Radio and Television News Association of Canada (which also has it’s own code for accuracy and fairness in reporting) for its news coverage in the past. In my personal experience, some of their talk show hosts have a political bent, but their news coverage is much the same as what you'd get from CTV. Then, there’s the fact that there’s really not much difference between the report we’re discussing here and how the CBC (Canada's national public broadcaster) covered the same story. So unless anyone can present evidence of clear bias in CJAD's news coverage, I see no reason why this would not be a reliable source. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Just noticed that the Toronto Star has the same story now, we can probably just cite that instead and avoid the need to debate this further. As far as I can tell, it verifies pretty much everything the CJAD story was being cited for, and more. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Tx, I had refrained from answering EvergreenFir's general question "...if people think the source reliable at all", while thoroughly unfamiliar with CJAD (never was in Canada, leave alone ever having heard of the radio station). Such general question is difficult to answer when all one can do is comparing hundreds of webpages in the hope of finding some clues.

With Fyddlestix' additions I should think there's no reason to qualify CJAD as generally unreliable.

As for the content of the Roosh V article, I think my suggestions here (and at BLPN) prove to be workable: when not sure whether material of a particular source can be used, look for other sources with the same content: if the information is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia there are bound to be other sources whose reliablity can be assumed that carry the same information.

As for Roosh V's alleged anti-semitism (the topic of the BLPN thread I closed), I don't see this having been picked up in mainstream media like what has been said in those media about his attitude towards women. All in all the latter seems to be the main thrust of the criticism, with the anti-semitism related criticism, despite extended discussion in the blogosphere, thus far apparently lacking the notability and reliable source coverage to warrant its inclusion in Wikipedia. But maybe others would be more successful in tracking useable sources on that? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Users citing their own thesis

Are users allowed to cite their own thesis? Two people seem to be promoting their own research by opening accounts just for the purpose of performing drive-by edits in Myopia. Motion sickness is also affected. I'm questioning this matter because one of the users has a history of referencing some research presented on Blogger, possibly for the purpose of increasing search rankings. Latios (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

See WP:SELFCITE Jytdog (talk) 17:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

As above, and WP:PRIMARY. Citing your own thesis is a whole world of No. Guy (Help!) 17:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

There is a template to cite thesis at WP:CITET or Template:Cite thesis. I'm not finding guidance on when to do so, but DeFacto seems that using a thesis is rarely done, and it is done either as part of a biographical mention of that persons thesis or as a source about a language. Markbassett (talk) 13:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Gamma ray burst clustering claims

We have two articles based on claimed detection of an unexpected spatial clustering in gamma ray burst locations. The sourcing goes back entirely to claims by one research group. The article Hercules-Corona Borealis Great Wall is entirely based on a set of papers by Horvath et al., plus press release style coverage, and Giant GRB Ring is based on a single article in MNRAS by the same group. The papers have few or no citations, and it's not at all clear that the proposed structures are likely to exist in reality. In the absence of solid secondary sources to show that we should believe the papers, should these articles exist? --Amble (talk) 22:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I can see that one article is a definite candidate for the bitbucket, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giant GRB Ring. Guy (Help!) 21:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Those seem reputable professional journals to cite for the topic so seem RS in general. Perhaps you should try working the article TALK over the level of certainty that the article wording uses. Markbassett (talk) 13:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Primary sources shouldn't be used to present controversial information. An article built entirely on primary sources shouldn't exist at all. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Nürburgring lap times sources

Over at Talk:List of Nürburgring Nordschleife lap times, there is an editor repeatedly insisting that a listed lap time is referenced to an unreliable source. I've now thrice declined a request to remove the time, so now I'm bringing it here for an evaluation.

For background: it has been reported that the 2015 (some sources say 2016) Shelby GT350R supposedly set a lap time of 7:32.19 at this track. According to BlueEyedSuicide, this time was reported by HorsepowerKings, and then repeated in a large number of automotive publications (many are blogs) based on the HorsepowerKings article. HorsepowerKings is widely viewed as unreliable due to a rumoured lap time for another car they published which was officially refuted by GM some time last year.

However, the HorsepowerKings article on the GT350R specifically cites Evo, a British automotive publication which is widely viewed as authoritative, and which itself is used as a source for many other lap times in this article. Evo's article is here. While EVO stresses that there is no video confirmation and Ford has not confirmed the time, there are many other vehicles in the list lacking video confirmation, Evo has not retracted their article as far as I can tell, and it appears that Ford does not normally confirm this sort of information (as GM and some other manufacturers normally do).

Another source, Jalopnik, has this to say about it: "It's from an unnamed source to HorsepowerKings, which, let's be honest, isn't exactly as reputable a source of information as Evo or Road & Track or what have you." However, as I noted above, Evo is the source, not HorsepowerKings.

Can the GT350R lap time be included? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• In the List of Nürburgring Nordschleife lap times article the GT350R lap time is however referenced to the Official Nürburgring website – so why should we discuss either horsepowerkings or EVO in this context? --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Whoever added it to the article included "(official website)" beside the link, however there's nothing official about this website; as BlueEyedSuicide has pointed out, it's a fan site, and it's not used as a source for any of the other times that we list. It shouldn't be used for this one, either. The actual official website is [13], and it does not host lap times. So my question is whether the Evo source in this case can be considered reliable (thus replacing the unreliable one); if not then the information should be removed. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• OK, thanks, sorry for the misunderstanding. I've changed the ref to the EVO webpage for the time being, seems the most preferable source among the available ones, but whether it's enough I couldn't say (not familar with the field). --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

It would make more sense logically to remove it entirely until said "undisclosed" source proves credible or hard evidence comes afloat to prove said claim. Even the writer of the Evo article is still waiting for video evidence to support the claim, it has been almost eight months since the article was written, and over a year since the GT350R saw its test runs at Nordschleife. It is safe to say that there is never going to be any evidence of this alleged lap time.BlueEyedSuicide (talk) 22:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

P.S- I apologize for my ignorance on how to sort and edit my replies!

Formatting of replies: no problems. I added a question mark in the list entry to mark its unconfirmed status. As said, whether that is enough I don't know, and I defer to whatever consensus would be reached on inclusion or non-inclusion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The following statement is taken directly from the page, none of which the given criteria for this entry has yet been met. "...New entries require an original, uncut on-board video, showing the lap and the timing from start to finish. A statement that OEM tires have been used is required." BlueEyedSuicide (talk) 22:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Your list is more reputable than said "source," which has provided nothing in terms of what would be considered hard evidence or "proof," that this run had ever happened. There is no said date this event happened, no eye witnesses, no named driver and no corporate confirmation by any of Ford or SVT's head executives or chief engineers.

In theory what you are stating is that one could host a blog site, and a fan-made collections of lap times (your source...), claim that a 1981 AMC Gremlin ran a 7:32.4 time around the Nordschleife, and that would be enough for you guys to put on your list. No evidence, no confirmation; and you do not see an issue with this? On what grounds is that at all deemed logical? BlueEyedSuicide (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of the overall tone of the Evo article the fine print of what they say is that the time comes from an undisclosed source and lacks confirmation. It could be presented as a preliminary claim but unqualified mention would be inaccurate. Personally it's about time Wikipedia stopped being the news and refused to repeat this sort of thing until it had been confirmed. Mangoe (talk) 21:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Ok, thanks everyone for your input. I'm also leaning towards not including it, but I have one more question. Evo (a reliable source) is not reporting this as a rumour, the language in their article is clearly stating the lap time as fact (they don't give their source); they only qualify that there's no video evidence in the last paragraph. This isn't my usual area of editing either so I don't really know what conventions are here, I'm just evaluating the sources, but it appears to me that there are many times included in the list where there is no video evidence. If in a different topic area, say the New York Times (a reliable source) reports something generally unbelievable but presents it as fact, we would typically include it regardless of its implausibility. Is Evo any different in this topic area? If not, does the verifiability policy require us to include the difficult-to-believe but reliably-sourced info? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

In most cases Evo magazine concludes their own testing to provide results, in this case Evo is merely stating what they had only heard. The article in its own contradicts itself at the end by saying, "No video evidence of the laptime has been released as of yet. We’ll update here as soon as it has." Which after almost eight months since publication, will more than likely not happen. Several of cars on this list were run before on-board video was the norm, yet they are still backed up by either eyewitness accounts or manufacturer confirmation. Everyone, including Ford has remained mum on the subject. The page itself even declares: "...For new entries, this list requires an official manufacturer’s press release for manufacturer-conducted tests. If the test has been conducted by an independent publication, an article in that publication is required. New entries require an original, uncut on-board video, showing the lap and the timing from start to finish. A statement that OEM tires have been used is required." -To which none of yet been supplied on any basis of confirmation.BlueEyedSuicide (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, then reliable source or not, the lap time doesn't meet the stated selection criteria, and it merits removal on that basis. Sorry that I didn't see that before. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

msn & ibtimes

Are these two sources meet the RS criteria to be used here? Thanks Mhhossein (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• "Ali Khamenei". Canada Business Online. MSN Money. 21 October 2011. Retrieved 4 May 2014.
• Gohsh, Palash (3 May 2013). "Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei… A Multi-Billionaire And BMW Car Dealer?". International Business Times. Retrieved 4 May 2014.

The International Business Times URL is good, but the MSN link is a bad URL and when I search there it leads to here. Markbassett (talk) 13:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The Ibtimes has been determined to be a reliable source in the past - and is used in a number of articles. As I read it, the article does not make the claim as such but attributes the claim of wealth to the "Iran Channel" (possibly National Council of Resistance of Iran?) which does not meet WP:RS . Collect (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The IBtimes article is merely reporting on a scandal in Iran based on some interviews to the Fararu news website. The Daily Telegraph article linked there is talking about the same thing. This is not generally a WP:RS for the information in the article. Though, it is hard to find accurate estimates in these matters generally. Kingsindian ♝♚ 09:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

WaPo Style Blog for BLP statement

Is an article on WaPo's Style Blog considered a reliable source for the following statement on Roosh V?

In 2014, The Washington Post named Roosh the "most-hated man on the Internet", writing: "Valizadeh owns the website ReturnofKings.com, which bans 'women and homosexuals' from commenting. Recent articles include the charming '5 Reasons to Date a Girl With an Eating Disorder,' 'Don’t Work for a Female Boss' and 'Biology Says People on Welfare Should Die.'" EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

According to WP:BLP, "Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." I don't know if the WashPo's "Style Blog" is under the newspaper's "full editorial control," but Dewey is a reporter for the WashPo and is described as their "digital culture critic." At least you would need to attribute.

Note that the post states that Hunter Moore, and not Roosh V, has been named the "most hated man on the internet;" Roosh V is named as a candidate. I think that if others here believed the material should be kept, it should also be rephrased: "Washington Post digital culture critic Caitlin Dewey named Roosh V alongside other writers considered misogynist for their internet posts, noting his recent articles “5 Reasons to Date a Girl With an Eating Disorder,” “Don’t Work for a Female Boss” and “Biology Says People on Welfare Should Die.”" Roosh V's own oeuvre seems to speak well enough for his… unfortunate political and social views. -Darouet (talk) 17:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Opinions must be cited as opinions and ascribed to the specific person or group holding the opinion. That said, it is a matter of consensus as to whether that opinion is sufficiently notable for inclusion in any article subject to WP:BLP. "Misogynist", AFAICT, is an "opinion" and not a statement of fact per se. Collect (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Caitlin Dewey is a "digital culture critic" and thus absolutely an "opinion writer" ... as such her opinions do not get "fact checked" in any event. Collect (talk) 13:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I should also point out that the columnist is associated with "GamerGate" and should likely be used with some caution per ArbCom decisions thereon, noting that all edits regarding that topic fall under discretionary sanctions, and noting the especially strong statements from that decision regarding WP:BLP. Collect (talk) 13:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Journalistic hyperbole is not worth mentioning, no matter where it appeared. – Smyth\^talk 19:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: There are a lot of unlikable people who might have wikipedia articles, and it's important to exercise particular restraint and conservative (not in the left-right sense) judgement when adding or reviewing content for them. I see that you here added the controversial content you asked about on this page. Contrary to Collect's comment you didn't attribute the opinion to Dewey, and contrary to my suggestion, you also didn't correct the text to note that the blog post actually named someone else the most hated man on the internet.

Lastly, per Smyth's comment, ask yourself what this really adds to the Roosh V article. This isn't a technical description of the man's views, rather a subjective assessment of how hated he is. I don't see it as helpful, and this is a BLP. If anything, naming the articles he penned is more useful to readers, since this is a factual and not a subjective issue, and gives readers the opportunity to assess his writings on their own. -Darouet (talk) 20:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Statewide opinion polling for the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016

I had a question about how WP:Reliable sources applies to the map. Is a poll reliable enough to use on a map if it was taken one or two days before the most recent poll? Is the most recent poll the only poll that can be considered reliable and the only one that should be used when coloring a state? Is it WP:OR to conclude that the most recent poll taken in a state isn't the only reliable source and that polls taken a day or two before are also reliable? At what point does a poll become outdated and unreliable when compared to polls that are more recent? Btw, this issue is also being discussed at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Prcc27 (talk) 03:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Tributes.com

1. Source. http://www.tributes.com/, specifically http://www.tributes.com/obituary/show/Louie-Steven-Witt-101899572
2. Article. Umbrella Man (JFK assassination)
3. Content. Referring to Louie Steven Witt: "Witt died on November 17, 2014."

Looking for additional opinions. I believe this to be one of those sources that is likely accurate, but still unreliable for our purposes. I found a related discussion in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 129#Tributes.com. Thanks! - Location (talk) 18:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, there doesn't seem to be anything identifying the Louie Steven Witt in the tributes.com obituary with the person of the same name in the Umbrella Man article, which makes the question as to whether tributes.com is a reliable source a moot point. We can't simply assume that it is the same person. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I just did some original research and found a primary source document that links the same name to the same DOB, so my assumption is that it is the same person. Not sure that factoid is warranted in the article anyway. - Location (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Digital Fix

I'm interested in using this film review [14] from a website called The Digital Fix, in the article By the Bluest of Seas. The website has already been discussed once before on the noticeboard (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 123#The Digital Fix), although in that case, only a tentative decision was made. The website was deemed reliable for the specific piece of information that was being cited, largely due to the Terms and Conditions [15] giving a sense of professionalism. However, since those are only applicable to the site's message board, it was taken as conjecture that similarly high standards are applied to the site's articles. Something was also said about the website's editor being "listed in other media capacities when searched for (in google)", though I'm not really sure what was meant by that.

Not discussed was this page [16], which is arguably more relevant. Here, the The Digital Fix describes itself as a "hobbiest site that only just covers the bills" and cannot pay its writers. However, it also specifies that freelance work is, on rare occasions, financially compensated. The website appears to have editorial positions, and its film reviewers are granted access to press screenings.

I'd love to be able to use this review as a source, as it's one of the only ones online for By the Bluest of Seas and is actually quite a bit more in depth than those linked to by Rotten Tomatoes. But I'm on the fence as to whether it meets reliability criteria. If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|Jpcase}} to your message, and signing it. --Jpcase (talk) 19:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@MichaelQSchmidt: FYI. - Location (talk) 21:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Location: - Who's MichaelQSchmidt? --Jpcase (talk) 00:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• To Jpcase & Location: The question is asking for eyes on an authored review in a non-contentious site that has editorial oversight. The discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 123#The Digital Fix is convincing. Use it. . Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Primary source, but is it acceptable to discuss basic information on a band?

This http://bonavox.nl/2015/08/heavy-metal-band-mad-max-from-germany-still-going-on-strong has been removed several times. This is the most recent. I'm trying to use it to support the band's date, nothing else. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

It would help if the other guy would explain why he thinks the information in that interview is wrong. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Based on the editor's revert comments, the editor, who I believe is female, not male, believes that, as one summary puts it, "reference points to an interview, which is an advertisement. It contains wrong and incomplete information." The article's history has more examples. The issue is that only the start date of 1982 was being referenced. Oddly, the new source, which has been confirmed as user-edited and not a RS, states they started in 1981 and so does not support the content. However, if the band released music before 1982, then the answer seems obvious for that fact. Now, we just need a RS to support. The problem is, the band is barely notable and I was researching it as part of WP:BEFORE as I was preparing to nominate for deletion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The classic Verifability not truth argument. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Misused quote?

I hope a chose an appropriate noticeboard for this message. My concern is that source no. 12 from Greater Romania#Ideology is not correcly cited (the phrase is not about "The Romanian ideology"). The quote exists in the source text [17], but I think it is misued (it does not refer to the ideology of Greater Romania, as a general concept).

The article is not a frequently edited one, so I think that there are big chances to clarify this aspect here than on the article talk page. 79.117.135.199 (talk) 06:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the article misused the source cited. The article line joined parts of two sentences and improperly confused the line about the early sipritual diversity. The "cocktail of ancient post-colonial apprehension, of apocalyptic fears and recent historical vulnerabilities together with traditionalist arrogance and youthful, snobbish or revengeful provocation" seems what the source was saying about diversity. The "typical example of ethnocentric nationalism" is a separate remark about one particular author, so that part is not appropriate. Markbassett (talk) 14:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Markbassett. The source says that mixture (rendered as "cocktail" in the article, which seems okay to me) was "the main ingredient in concocting the diverse variants of nationalist discourses". So the source would support saying the cocktail gave rise to nationalist discourses, or something to similar effect. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 07:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers. I thought the same, but I did not feel confortable to make an unilateral text removal. 86.127.5.62 (talk) 08:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't agree. The idea of Greater Romania owes its existence to a nationalistic ideology. We somehow need to describe this phenomena. So, in fact, Kesslers's opinion about Romanian (ethnocentric) nationalism is not misused at all. Anyway, who is this IP? I am just hoping that my suspicion is incorrect.... Fakirbakir (talk) 11:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I am afraid that what you are doing is original research. I can't find in Kessler's text the phrase "ethnocentric nationalism" from your new version of the article.

I'd like to ask User:Dailycare, User:Markbassett and User:Fakirbakir to continue the discussion and gain a consensus at Talk:Greater_Romania#Misused_quote_from_Kessler. 86.126.63.196 (talk) 15:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

"The fatal mixture of ancient post-colonial apprehension, of apocalyptic fears and recent historical vulnerabilities, together with traditionalist arrogance and youthful, snobbish or revengeful provocation was the main ingredient in concocting the diverse variants of nationalist discourses. Their local sources remained unchanged since the early decades of the 20th century. A classical example of xenophobic nationalism, of the European reactionary sort, with all its pathos and pseudo-scientific pretensions, is furnished in the selection from A. C. Cuza’s writings. Nonetheless, until late in the 20th century, the same mixture was promoted by the last remnants of the interwar generation; an example is provided in the selection from the influential oral foreman Ţuţea, whose apothegms of the genre “any great intelligence is bound to oscillate between philosophy and theology” made epoch as late as the early 1990s." (Kessler) [18] Fakirbakir (talk) 16:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

So A. C. Cuza is described as xenophobic nationalist. I don't understand how is this related to the concept of "Greater Romania". 86.126.63.196 (talk) 16:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

No, Kessler says that through Cuza's writings we are able to better understand the Romanian "psyche".Fakirbakir (talk) 17:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm generally concerned when I see so much quoting going on that a particular point of view is being represented rather than an encyclopedic tone. The source says what it says, but it does seem to rather engage in some hyperbole. That coupled with being what looks like an opinion piece in a magazine doesn't quite seem to meet the level of academic reliability I'd be looking for to present the ideas found in the current content in the article, even as a quote.

If we're just neutrally describing the ideology over time (not good or bad neutral, but WP:NPOV), I'd be looking for a source that just lays out what the "post-colonial apprehension", "historical vulnerabilities", etc. actually were about rather than flowery non-descriptive language like "traditionalist arrogance and youthful, snobbish or revengeful provocation". I'd say raise the bar and find a better source if someone wants to include these general ideas. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Are {{dubious }} and {{opinion }} tags appropriate for these quotes by reliable sources?

I'm referring to Kingdom of Sine and this edit. Dennis Galvan seems to be clearly a reliable source, see[19], as is the late Étienne Van de Walle[20]. There's old background to this tagging but I don't think we need to stray from the issue here. Doug Weller (talk) 09:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any obvious reason to tag this as dubious, nor has the person who made the edit provided any, except his opinion. Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I really don't know this subject area at all, but as an independent editor, the text is certainly verifiable and the sources appear to be reliable. The tags appear to have been added in a somewhat "aggressive" way and disrupt the article. The tags should be removed and discussion started on the Talk page regarding the material.DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Journals of university faculties

It's being claimed at Gregorian calendar by a notorious troll (check Special:Contributions/JoeSperrazza for verification) that these journals are not reliable sources because they are "collections of self - published sources". I fail to see how content published by reputable universities all of which has been peer - reviewed by an editorial board can fall within this category. This is trolling as far as I can see, but I'd be glad for other editors' comments before I denounce it as such. 78.146.213.18 (talk) 17:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

You haven't even made any contributions other than this post. Try discussing it on the article talk page, preferably without calling other editors trolls.- MrX 18:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

There's an editor at the article talk page (I won't call him a troll) who stifles discussion on this topic [21]. My purpose in posting here was to make contact with sane human beings who don't have their own twisted agenda. 78.146.213.18 (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's the apparent talk page conversation [22] and edit. While not a journal in technical terms, university vetted publications for basic information tend to be considered very reliable and useful. I'm not sure if that's the case or not here. Is there an online version so we can view the source? I really can't judge reliability at all just seeing a bare reference without information on how to track down the source. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

You can browse issues of the journal at [23]. 78.146.213.18 (talk) 19:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

an apparently undergrad student publication with no peer review. not reliable - self-published crap. "Advice to authors We welcome contributions to M500 on virtually anything related to mathematics and at any level from trivia to serious research. Please send material for publication to the Editor, above. We prefer an informal style and we usually edit articles for clarity and mathematical presentation." If you have to reach to a source like that to get content into WP, the content probably is not worth including. Articles are meant to contain "accepted knowledge" that has some encyclopedic value. Jytdog (talk) 19:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Have you looked at a sample issue? They are full of mathematical equations carefully worked through. The editorial board peer - reviews the content so no mistake is going to slip through. If it did then there are hundreds of degree qualified mathematicians reading who will notice and report back. This system seems to give far more reliability than the normal one where papers are sent to one peer reviewer who says yea or nay. 78.146.213.18 (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)