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. 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

Past Life Regression Article

I added “Medical doctors in Brazil, India, Portugal, Singapore and Germany have written about using past life stories to help in resolving emotional issues and medical conditions” The book quoted (Dr Peter Mack, isbn = 878 0 9567887 8 8 Inner Healing Journey: A Medical Perspective 2014) is edited by a medical doctor and contains chapters written by other medical doctors. It is not claiming past life stories resolve a specific condition but they give their personal experiences and views of using it and the healing that resulted. The objection is that "WP:MEDRS applies to this update because its an article about a subject people will have an interest in". My point is WP:MEDRS does not apply because no medical information on resolving any medical condition is given.

A sentence was removed “The technique is not taught as part of any medical internships” this is part of the rambling from an internet site from a critic with no evidence to support it. I added “The technique is included in a textbook (U. James, isbn = 978 1 910272 45 9, Clinical Hypnosis Textbook: A Guide for Practical Intervention, Radcliffe Publishing, 2015, Ch 21} for 10 UK medical schools and for medical doctors doing a MSc in Clinical hypnosis at the Robert Gordon University”. The author of the book is professor Ursula James of Robert Gordon University. She is one of the leaders in her field and the text book used as a reference book widely. It is mandatory reading for medical doctors on the MSC course. It has chapters written by psychologists and therapists and chapter devoted to past life regression and its use. It is a secondary source book about past life regression. see http://www.amazon.com/Clinical-Hypnosis-Textbook-Practical-Intervention-ebook/dp/B013K8JP8Q/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1454379922&sr=1-1&keywords=ursula+james+hypnosis

This request is to overturn the deletion by KateWishing (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy Tomlinson (talk • contribs)

Textbooks are sometimes tertiary sources, not secondary, but it's still good for use. Radcliffe Publishing is not a vanity press, and the observation that this technique is indeed taught as part of at least one medical program is appropriate. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The wording of the statement seems to give the impression that a substantial number of medical doctors have actually endorsed it, and that does probably run the risk of running afoul of MEDRS. It might rectify the issue if the statement was attributed to those specific doctors in-text.

The claim that the text book is "used by 10 UK Medical schools and for medical doctors doing a MSc in Clinical hypnosis at the Robert Gordon University.", needs better sourcing. It looks like it comes from the publisher's blurb on Amazon. I don't know that a statement like that is really subjected to rigorous fact checking, and it probably isn't kept up to date. It also doesn't really seem like a great way of assessing the quality of medical information. Nblund (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The major problem here is that past life regression is pseudoscientific nonsense, and we have to be careful not to imply that it has any objective merit. Guy (Help!) 14:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I wonder what the article is called, Past Life Regression redirects to Orbs (band)...

(Don't think MEDRS applies to anything mentioned above, there's no statement that could reasonably be preceded by "A Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials found that ..".) Prevalence 16:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for all your views so perhaps this can be used “Medical doctors in Brazil, India, Portugal, Singapore and Germany have written about their personal views of using past life regression to help in resolving emotional issues and medical conditions” and "The technique is in a chapter in a textbook used in at least one medical school in the UK and for medical doctors doing a MSc in Clinical hypnosis at the Robert Gordon University”— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy Tomlinson (talk • contribs)

Not directly related to the RS issue, but: although you haven't signed your statements, it appears based on your account name that you wrote the forward for this book, and that you have a close affiliation with the organization that produced it. (edit: it also appears that you wrote the chapter in the textbook) That connection might present a conflict of interest, and it's probably better to let another editor decide whether or not this particular source is noteworthy enough to warrant mention.

The book is subtitled "a medical perspective", and it seems to emphasize the medical credentials of the individuals involved. The statement that they used the technique for "resolving emotional issues and medical conditions" also seems like it suggests that this book is offering medical advise. The wording you are proposing seems like it gives the impression that a large number of doctors in multiple countries have written about using this practice, but it actually seems like a pretty small number.

Also, to reiterate: the second statement still appears to be coming from the publisher's blurb. I think it's a primary source in that respect, and is potentially dubious. Both of these statements seem like they might suggest that this is widely practiced or accepted among physicians, and that poses a big problem that may go beyond and RS issue into a problem of promoting a fringe viewpoint. Nblund (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I wonder what it is about the subject of Past Life Regression that causes new information on the subject to be dismissed so easily? A simple google search on the author of the Clinical Hypnosis book “Professor Ursula James at Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen” would have found on the university website http://www.rgu.ac.uk/news/clinical-hypnosis-introduced-to-support-students/

'Clinical Hypnosis is an exciting area of medical practice and we are delighted Professor James has joined our team. We look forward to working with her to develop new courses for the university as well as innovative ways of alleviating stress and improving student performance. Professor James currently heads a team which teaches clinical hypnosis at 11 medical schools in the UK including Oxford and Cambridge. As well as authoring a number of books including The Clinical Hypnosis Textbook'

Her book has been written specifically for training medical doctors in hypnotherapy at university and I would have thought this counted as a suitable reference book to quote from. Also considering the previous quote that it replaced which had been used for a few years was “The technique is not taught as part of any medical internships” and was from an internet site called the Skeptic Dictionary and was part of a critics rambling with no evidence to support it.

Turning to the other book used as a reference “Inner Healing Journey: A Medical Perspective.” Its got 11 patient case studies by 6 medical doctors( two are psychiatrists) of how they have found past life regression assisted in healing when the traditional medical approach was unhelp. An internet search on the author of the book “Dr Peter Mack, singapore” would have found that he is a practicing general surgeon trained in regression therapy which uses past life regression and he explains how it works in great detail in his books and website see http://www.petermack.sg/articles With a little more diligence and internet searches they would have found the book was sponsored by “Society for Medical Advance and Research with Regression Therapy” which has 11 medical doctors from around the world and two psychologists all who have been trained in using past life regression. see http://www.smar-rt.com/members.htm They may done more searches and found a link to the EARTh Association of Regression Therapy http://www.earth-association.org/recognized-training-programs-recognized-trainers/ and found it creates a worldwide standard and has recognised 11 schools programs and has over 200 members from around the world.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy Tomlinson (talk • contribs)

So is all this “psudo science” or something that needs to be taken seriously and included to a balanced views in the article on Past Life Regression. As I have a vested interest its best I withdraw but ask for an editor to pick it up and update the article. While the books mentioned and Dr Peter Mack’s website may be a useful starting point I’m willing to help if asked. Andy Tomlinson (talk) 11:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's pseudoscience. The lack of references in credible sources speaks volumes: the websites you list are all basically selling it. The appeal to anecdote (aka "case studies") used in place of robustly designed trials is also a dead giveaway. That's how chiropractors claim to cure colic and homeopaths claim to cure... well, anything. Guy (Help!) 11:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Professor Ursula James, the author of the Clinical Hypnosis textbook, also claims to have been taught healing magic by the spirit of a 16th-century prophetess.[1] She is not a credible source for medical information. KateWishing (talk) 17:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

This is a book of fiction that she wrote and as the universities she teaches in are not interested in her personal activities why should Wikipedia. Andy Tomlinson (talk) 17:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The following article was written by Mário Simões, Professor of Psychiatry and of Consciousness Sciences, Faculty of Medicine of Lisbon, Portugal. He is the Director of the Post-Graduation Course in Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis and of the Laboratory for Mind-Matter Interaction with Therapeutic Intention. The article was published in a peer reviewed ‘The International Journal of Transpersonal Studies’

‘Being symbolic in nature, imagination permits representations of things that do not exist or which are approximations of reality. It is a capacity that allows elaboration of concepts or precognitions which would be impossible to realize in any other way.  The idea of exploring reincarnation is close to the concept that a patient must re-experience the primeval drama to exhaust the emotions from it. It does not matter if the experiences are true or not, what is important is an event is experienced in a personized way.’

Simoes, M. Altered States of Consciousness and Psychotherapy, The International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 2002, v 21 p150 [2]

So now can we start to have a balanced article on Past Life Regression. If not perhaps a controversial subject like this is to much for Wikipedia and it may be best for the whole article to be removed.Andy Tomlinson (talk) 12:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

If by "balanced" you mean balancing the reality based view that it is bullshit, with the views of some wacky folks who believe in it, then: no. That's not because it's controversial, it's because of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. And this is by design. Guy (Help!) 12:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I've located a link to the book on google books. The actual discussion of past life regression is not a chapter, it is a paragraph from what I can tell (on page 45), and the paragraph actually seems to discourage the use of PLR as part of hypnosis. Saying "this book discusses PLR" and "this book is used by many programs" seems like an unworkable synthesis that rather contradicts what the book actually says.

The Skeptic's Dictionary seems like a more-than-adequate parity source to include on the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

A balanced view means talking peer reviewed secondary source information that have different views. So we already have a psychologist called Luis Cordón in his published book on psychology saying past life regression may cause delusions. Now we have Professor Ursula James in her book with a chapter saying that past life regression technique is helpful in healing. We also now have Mário Simões, Professor of Psychiatry and of Consciousness Sciences saying in a peer reviewed article that it does not matter if past lives are real or not because they clear emotions in a personal way.

The Skeptics Dictionary is not peer reviewed and was written by Robert Todd who is qualified in philosophy. This is a totally different subject from psychology or psychiatry which Luis Cordon, Ulusa James and Mário Simões are all experts in. As this part of the article is about the use of the techniques of past life regression the views of Robert Todd are simply not relevant.

We also have it stated on the University of Aberdeen website that Professor Ursula James will be using her book in several universities to teach medical doctors including Oxford and Cambridge. So I think it is safe to remove a skeptics personal comment ‘The technique is not taught as part of any medical internships.’

Guy - if you looked at the index of the Clinical Hypnosis Textbook version 3 (the lastest one) past life regression has a whole chapter (ch 21 pages 283 to 294). About your comment ‘some wacky folks who believe in it’. Did you know the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life 2009 survey [3], found 51% of the world believe in reincarnation as do 25% of American Christians.

As I said before lets get this article balanced with peer reviewed secondary courses by experts in their field.Andy Tomlinson (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Andy Tomlinson. Clearly reasoned and elegantly stated. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Andy Tomlinson: Have you ever heard of an Argumentum ad populum? You may successfully claim that many people believe in reincarnation, but that does not make it true. Now, I'm willing to accept that there might be some benefit to past-life regression therapy, but no-one has ever demonstrated that this is due to reincarnation being true. A balanced article might (I haven't done the research for myself, so I don't know) validly claim that this form of therapy is widely used, or is even effective, but it may not under any circumstances claim that reincarnation is true, or that the past lives being 'remembered' are factual. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The distinction here is a fine but important one. This Wikipedia article takes no position on past lives, angels, or whether pigs have wings. And in fact, it needs no official position. The article is about a form of therapy. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia does have an 'official' position, which is that the hypothesis that reincarnation is true has no empirical evidence. This is because this is the only position which is verifiable. With this in mind, statements in wiki voice which implicitly discount the possibility of reincarnation would be permitted, whereas statements which implicitly or explicitly confirm it would not. The only limitation on this is that WP doesn't exist to debunk false claims (but rather to explain and promote verifiable true claims), so verbiage which explicitly denies the possibility of reincarnation would be unnecessary and a waste of space, so it could be removed as readily as statements which explicitly or implicitly confirmed it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

That about sums it up. Iechyd da! Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The therapeutic perspective as explained by professor Marion Simone is that it does not matter if past life stories are real or not, it’s the power the stories to assist in healing that is important.

On the question of proof that reincarnation is real you can start with looking at consciousness surviving physical death. Research by Dr Pim van Lommel and his colleagues from Rijnstate Hospital in Arnhem, Holland, over 13 years investigated the experiences of 344 heart patients resuscitated after cardiac arrest. All had been clinically dead at some point during their treatment. Of these 62 patients reported a near-death experience. During this period many had no electrical activity of the brain. This meant that their memory recall of the experience could not be explained by traditional scientific explanations. This was published in the peer medical journal Lancet. (Van Lommel et al, Near-death Experience in Survivors of Cardiac Arrest; a prospective study in the Netherlands, The Lancet, 15 Dec 2001.) Another area supporting consciousness surviving death and reincarnating is the work of Dr Ian Stevenson, the former head of the department of parapsychology at the University of Virginia. He has specialized in collecting the past life stories from young children around the world by interviewing them and all the witnesses to their experience. This includes looking for inconsistency or fraud by doing follow-up visits later to check for signs of any personal gains that could account for deception. In all, Ian Stevenson and his colleagues have painstakingly collected over 2,000 cases from a wide range of cultures and religions around the world.

Whilst this may suggest reincarnation may be possible, the other side of the coin is what evidence is there that reincarnation does not exist? A Wikipedia balanced view surely should be neutral and present evidence for and against.Andy Tomlinson (talk) 21:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Whilst this may suggest reincarnation may be possible, the other side of the coin is what evidence is there that reincarnation does not exist? I have it in my files. I will upload it to wikipedia 24 hours after you provide proof that I am not God. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The Turtle told me. Conversely, turtles are notorious pranksters, so the issue is not settled. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Never trust a turtle. That's what gramps always told me. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

That's bull. Turtle is the most trusted one: the Earth stands on it, right? (OR was it elephants?) Staszek Lem (talk) 22:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I thought it was four pillars... MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

It's been updated to five. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Damnit Larry... I told him four. You'd think it's such a small number it would be a simple thing... MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

MjolnirPants you may be God or you may not, all I'm asking is that if you have peer reviewed secondary source evidence and not an individual's view that reincarnation does not exists share it, because it may need to go into the article too.Andy Tomlinson (talk) 13:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

So you'd be fine with editing God to show that he edits wikipedia under the user name MjolnirPants then? Or at least editing it so as to suggest he may be editing WP under that name? Because that is what you are suggesting here. I would have expected anyone with a degree in medicine (or psychology) to understand one of the most fundamental principles of science: Falsifiability. Of course, if you can find peer-reviewed secondary sources published in a reputable journal (which haven't been subject to extensive criticism in other peer-reviewed articles published in reputable journals) which show that reincarnation is a legitimate phenomenon, then by all means, add them. Until then, Wikipedia will continue to take the Null hypothesis as correct. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Because of all that "likely" and "not likely" language, the "null hypothesis" on religious subjects defaults to the cultural presumption, or the individual's presumption. In other words, whatever you thought in the first place, keep on thinking. Universal truths cannot be subjected to computations of probability. Universal truth is a special case of particularity, and no one can compute the "likelihood" that an event in the past did or did not take place. TLDR: Every poker hand is as likely -- and as unlikely -- as every other poker hand. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Where those religious views do not intersect with reality (in that their impact is limited to the adherent's behavior), I agree. For instance WP doesn't need to say that God doesn't exist, even though there's no evidence that God exists. But this is because one can construct a version of God which is unfalsifiable (the standard deist view is of a god that does not involve itself in reality, but is rather the 'remote creator' of it), yet still meaningful (in the case of deism, that the penultimate result of all of science and philosophy would be to confirm this sort of god's existence). With a subject like reincarnation, that is not possible. If reincarnation works in a way that is unfalsifiable, then it by definition is not meaningful (note that this may have meaning to a person in that it serves as a sort of afterlife, but this matters only to the individual), and if it is meaningful (if past lives affect our current lives), then it is, by definition, falsifiable. Since this falsifiable version has been the subject of much testing which has shown that it is either false or that its effects are better explained by much simpler and better understood phenomenon, we must assume that it is false and write from that perspective. Of course, this is bearing in mind what I said earlier about WP not existing to debunk, because the unfalsifiable version may, in fact be true, and WP cannot state a position on this. If someone were to write something like "Since reincarnation is known not to be true, this therapy is of dubious use." I would be the first to revert it.

Regarding your tl;dr version, I might point out that this isn't true. A royal flush is far less likely than one pair. This aspect of the analogy extends to reality, as well. For example, the Hindu creation myth as an explanation for humanity is far less likely than evolution. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

(Back on safe ground with the discussion of Poker!) You are not reading what I wrote as I wrote it. The probability you cite is a factor of semantic generalization and nothing more. A hand containing 2s, 2c, 5d, 9h, 10c is no more or less likely than one of 10s, Js, Qs, Ks, As. Only by giving the latter a special meaning (You WIN!) and a special name does it seem so rare and special. Thus it is with science and philosophy. The "demons" of ancient medicine were invisible hostile entities that infect the infirm and the idea was terribly unscientific because it was "an unfalsifiable hypothesis". But that unfalsifiability was a product of extant technology and nothing more. Positivists hoot and howl in derision at demonology, and then point with triumph to Pasteur with his discovery that disease is caused by "invisible hostile entities that infect the infirm". And so it goes. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

No, I think you're demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of probability and falsifiability here. I'm not criticizing you, because they're not simple subjects and it's not everyone schtick to really grok them.

• Regarding probability: In any given hand of cards, it is far more likely that it will contain a single pair (or even more likely, that it will contain no poker hand) than it contain a royal flush. The reason for this is that (with a 5 card hand) there are only a 4 possible ways to achieve this, out of 2,598,960 possible hands. Conversely, there are 1,098,240 ways of putting together a single pair out of a five car hand. Think of it this way: There are only 4 suits, so you could only conceivably have 4 types of royal flushes, as it takes subsequent cards in the same suit, starting at 10 to make this. This takes the odds of getting 5 subsequent cards, the odds of getting 5 cards in the same suit, and the odds of getting all cards with values of 10 and higher and multiplies them together. However, there are 4 suits and 13 values, and all it takes is for one of them to be the same value as another in your hand. So while the odds of getting any specific card are the same, the odds of getting different combinations of cards are quite different.
  • Regarding the probability of past events: The probability that an event that did happen actually happened is always only 1. That is to say, there is a 100% possibility that it happened. The probability of a past even that did not happen is always only 0, meaning a 0% probability. With my reference to the Hindu creation myth above, I was using the term more loosely (apologies for any confusion), to refer to the fit between the hypothesis and the evidence. Now, it is possible to construe the Hindu creation myth in such a way as that it would leave the exact evidence we have seen for the existence of man, but this is extremely unlikely, because it requires an astronomically specific interpretation (which, itself requires ignoring certain parts of it as having been incorrectly interpreted over time) which doesn't seem to follow any natural laws. Conversely, evolution quite neatly explains it all, starting only with the presumption that simple self-replicating proteins once existed. Also, there is the issue of a theory's ability to make predictions. A theory which makes no predictions is not falsifiable, because one would have to prove it wrong to demonstrate its failings, and we all know, one can't prove a negative outside of mathematics. A theory which makes predictions however, can be shown to be wrong if it's predictions are wrong.
• Regarding beliefs about demons as a cause for illness: No, it wasn't only technology that made those beliefs unfalsifiable. For instance, it takes little to no technology to see that if a person drinks water from a specific pool that they get sick every time. It only takes observation. This would then inform a hypothetical primitive shaman that there is something about that water which makes people sick. Now, that person could then presume that there is a spirit in the water, but that beliefs is not as wrong as you might think. This shaman could then try exorcism rituals to cure the sick people, and see that it does no good, whereas people who stop drinking from that pool, drink plenty of clean water, and get plenty of rest would get better. If we were to then go back in a time machine with a microscope and show the shaman the micro-organisms in the pool that were making people sick, he wouldn't be thinking "Oh, I was wrong about the evil spirits!" but rather "Oh, so that's what those evil spirits look like!" and he wouldn't be wrong. At that point, it's just a semantic difference. He calls them evil spirits and we call them micro-organisms, but neither of us is wrong, and the reason he's not wrong is that he has an accurate picture of what micro-organisms are and how they work in mind whenever he thinks 'evil spirits'.

Now, nothing in that last point is to say that advancing technology doesn't allow us to test more predictions and hypotheses. They absolutely do. But what they don't change is whether or not something is fundamentally unfalsifiable. Getting back to the evil spirits 'hypothesis', the problem for much of human history wasn't that it wasn't falsifiable, it was that no-one made the effort to do so. Even after the discovery of the scientific method (which came about at different times in different cultures, but we're in the west, so I'm referring to the beginnings of the Enlightenment), there was much confusion about the cause of disease. The evil spirits explanation was still put forth, even by serious scientists (though the miasma theory of disease was more widely held). But -and of course, there's a but- it wasn't technology that saved us. The germ theory of disease was put forth initially in the mid sixteenth century, about a century before the discovery of the cell. It didn't take knowledge of micro-organisms, which weren't discovered until a few decades after the discovery of the cell.

I hope this helps. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is surely about presenting information in a balanced way, and with controversial topics like this definitely not with a cultural bias as GrammarsLittleHelper points out. So in the examples above I've shown there is some scientifically gathered evidence suggesting that reincarnation may exist. But so far no one has resented any evidence that reincarnation does not exists. Andy Tomlinson (talk) 18:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

First off, no, there is no scientific evidence that reincarnation exists. Second, as already explained, asking for evidence of it's non-existence is fallacious. Please read Philosophic burden of proof (a concept which, given your claimed background, you should already be familiar with). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

To return to the subject at hand, therapists have discovered that some patients benefit from "past life regression" therapy. Those benefits are not contradicted by other therapists, and the argument that those patients are "just plane wrong" is not to the point. The issue is not whether past_lives are verifiable in the lab, but whether past_life_regression_therapy is verifiable in the lab. (Surely Wikipedia is not so nervous about its cosmology that it must rush to denial with every mention of "past lives.") Do we have RS that document that PLRT didn't work when properly conducted by those who claim they know how to make it work? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 19:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

You are missing my point. I have said quite clearly that I don't think WP needs to debunk anything, but Andy is saying WP needs to give undue weight to the idea that reincarnation is real, which will not fly. I've said before; text that explicitly denies reincarnation should be removed as unnecessary, but text that explicitly or implicitly affirms reincarnation should be removed as well because there are no RS's for such claims. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Good. And the answer to my question? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea. There almost certainly are documented cases of it not working, but I'm only participating in the discussion here. And again, I don't have any burden to disprove anything. It's on the editor who wishes to insert content to prove that content. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Clinical Hypnosis Textbook: A Guide for Practical Intervention is WP:SPS and therefore not reliable. Also of note, psychology is a branch of medicine, and any claim that past life regression "helps some people" is inherently a medical claim, subject to the usual standards. It would be no different from saying that "eating prunes cured some patients of cancer" and MEDRS applies. Geogene (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you offer a source on the proposition that "psychology is a branch of medicine"? Psychiatry, yes, but I cannot confirm psychology. Though one branch of psych is termed "medical psychology", it is only one branch of psychology, and the distinction seems to be significant. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Apologies, but I think you should be the one to cite a source because you appear to be making the positive assertion: that mental illnesses aren't health issues. For example, would you see a difference between a claim of using homeopathy to cure either (1) arthritis or (2) depression? I don't see the difference, except that the mishandling one of those illnesses is more likely to be fatal than the other, which is why I think that MEDRS should apply here. There's a threat of causing harm to the readership in using poorly sourced medical information. Also, diluting a claim by making it vague doesn't make the essential, medical nature of the claim go away, or the potential for harm, it only makes it harder to dispute the accuracy of the claim itself. Geogene (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I expect that proving the negative in this case (as in many others) is a difficult issue. We might note, however, that medical practitioners (nurses and orderlies excepted) attend medical school and get an MD. Psychologists do not. All medical practices in the US are licensed by the AMA. Psychology is not. Conversely, you might have to search a very long time to discover a statement by the AMA or a peer-reviewed medical journal denying that patients have past lives. It might be in the realm of psychology, but Medicine does not officially venture an opinion on the subject because the subject is not within the field of Medicine. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe this distinction will help.

I'm not sure what that has to do with MEDRS, but since you mention it, in the US not all doctors have MDs, some, mostly primary care physicians, attended osteopathic medical schools and earned DO degrees. That undermines your point somewhat, because the DO curriculum unabashedly includes extensive training in pseudoscience/quackery, many of those doctors are currently practicing the same, and are able to do so primarily because of laws and tradition, not science. Not all regulation is science-based, and just because the AMA doesn't license psychologists doesn't mean it's a good idea to give bad advice on how to treat mental illness. It's a bad enough idea to fall under MEDRS. Geogene (talk) 01:10, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• Psychology as a whole is not a medical field, but an applied science on it's own. However, PSRT falls under the aegis of clinical psychology, and as such, absolutely requires MEDRS sources. I never even noticed the publication details of this book, but Geogene is right. This fails MEDRS, and cannot be used for medical claims. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:10, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
• This is not really an issue of reliability, but of neutrality. Any mention of reincarnation needs to contextualize it properly as being the obvious fringe nonsense it is, per policy, if omitting that context would unduly legitimize it. Wikipedia must not state or imply that reincarnation happens. Alexbrn (talk) 05:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that the process of writing balanced articles on a controversial subject like this in Wikipedia are just not working. Evidence from experts in their field is dismissed yet information from a skeptic dictionary by a non expert included. Does anyone know how issues like this can get flagged up to those in charge of Wikipedia, or even the creator of Wikipedia? Andy Tomlinson (talk) 15:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Source does not include Mike Singletary

[4]

Warren Sapp

At the time of his retirement, Sapp was one of only six defensive players in NFL history to make the Pro Bowl, be named Defensive Player of the Year and win a Super Bowl or pre-Super-Bowl NFL title. The others are Mean Joe Greene, Jack Lambert, Lester Hayes, Lawrence Taylor, Bob Sanders, Reggie White, Ed Reed, Ray Lewis and Sapp's former teammate, Derrick Brooks.

Rise.global

In the article David McWilliams (economist) a link to rise.global is used to support the claim that the subject is "Irelands' most influential Twitter user". A quick search showed no mention of the source in previous discussions. It isn't clear what methodology is used by the site - does it meet WP:RS? Autarch (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I do not think leaderboarded.com is RS, especially as much is self-identified as "blogs." The actual source is described as "City A.M." whose first link https://www.cityamcasino.com/lobby/cityam/ appears to be utterly commercial in nature, and not in the sense that most actual reliable sources fit. The "casino" appears to be operated from Gibraltar, as a commercial enterprise. Might it be RS in the future? Maybe. Now? No. Collect (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!Autarch (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the above user. Not a reliable source. Blogs are self-published, and are not fact checked or edited by a third party. Good luck looking for other sources. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 04:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

YourStory.com book review

YourStory.com is a self-publishing website. Most of its content is poor. As with any of these websites, they also publish content by subject matter experts. I would like an opinion about whether a particular book review published on that website meets RS. I would like to use that review as a reference for 1 sentence in a Wikipedia article about a book. The author of the review professes to be a research director and book editor, and my perspective is that the book review here is a thoughtful critique.

• http:// yourstory.com/2014/02/open-data-now/

Wikipedia blacklists that entire website, so I cannot link to the source here. Remove the space after http:// to make the link work. There is a whitelisting discussion at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#yourstory.com.2F2014.2F02.2Fopen-data-now.2F were the direction was to get another opinion about whether this book review meets RS. If it does, then the page would be whitelisted and used for a citation.

Could I have any opinion about whether this publication is a reliable source as a review of the book? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

It really depends on what you want to source to that review, but in general; no, that wouldn't be considered reliable. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Safety of Nicotine

In our article about Nicotine, the lead and body originally said (for example in this version:

• (lead) "It is widely held that nicotine itself poses little health risks, except among certain vulnerable groups. Nicotine is associated with potential birth defects and at high enough-doses, poisonings.

• (body) According to a 2013 report by Cancer Research UK, "The accepted medical position is that while nicotine is highly addictive and comparable to drugs such as heroin or cocaine, it poses little health risks except in certain vulnerable groups". A large number of randomized controlled trials show that nicotine replacement products do not cause serious adverse events among smokers, even in patients with established cardiovascular disease. The 2014 US Surgeon General Report concluded that nicotine negatively affects pregnancy outcomes and fetal brain development, and that experimental research suggests that adolescent nicotine use may harm brain development. It noted that evidence is inadequate to infer whether nicotine plays any role in causing cancer, but "clearly the risk, if any, is less than continued smoking".

I was uncomfortable with the un-nuanced statement in the lead, making broad claims that nicotine is "safe", as they did not reflect the very next sentence nor the body and its emphasis on the safety of nicotine in regulated drug products, which is what the sources discuss. So in these difs without changing the sourcing, i corrected the content to

• (lead) "It is widely held that nicotinedelivered as a drug in regulated nicotine replacement therapy devices at recommended doses, itself poses little health risks, except among certain vulnerable groups.

• According to a 2013 report by Cancer Research UK, in a discussion of nicotine when delivered as a drug in regulated nicotine replacement therapy devices at recommended doses: "The accepted medical position is that while nicotine is highly addictive and comparable to drugs such as heroin or cocaine, it poses little health risks except in certain vulnerable groups".

These changes were reverted with a claim that they are not supported by the sources. I believe they are, and obviously so - see page 8 in the numbers printed in the CRUK pdf. Please note that the sources used there in the CRUK report itself are [http://www.sfata.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Harm-Reduction-in-Nicotine-Addiction.pdf this, called Harm reduction in nicotine addiction: Helping people who can't quit] and this, which each discuss the safety of nicotine in nicotine replacement products, which are regulated medical products with clear dosing and use instructions.

Again in my view the content in the lead was (and is, since the change was reverted) misleading and inaccurate. It is not something like water which only becomes toxic at crazy big doses delivered in the wrong way (like into your lungs) It is actually an insecticide and has been used to commit murder and suicide.

References

--Anyway I look forward to thoughts on this - basically a support or oppose for the proposed change, based on the sources. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• support [5] for nicotine article per reasons given by Jytdog ([6])--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
• Is it actually "widely held that nicotine itself", the cause of some quite nasty pesticide-based poisonings and a key plot element in dozens of murder mysteries, "poses little health risks, except among certain vulnerable groups"? Does "certain vulnerable groups" include "pretty much all animals"?
  Also, I think that the cardiac claims might not hit the right balance.
  • PMID 26788573 says "nicotine replacement therapy was associated with an increased risk of cardiac disorders, particularly palpitations, which are a known adverse effect of smoking....Nonetheless, the cardiac effects of nicotine call for prudent use of nicotine replacement therapy: the minimum effective dose should be sought, and the goal should be total nicotine withdrawal."
  • PMID 25731134 reports on "Some acute effects of e-cigarettes on heart rate, blood pressure, and airway resistance", which doesn't sound like "posing little health risks".
  • PMID 25156991 says "The main health concern for nicotine in cigarette smokers is maintenance of addiction. Most of the adverse health effects of smoking are caused by tobacco combustion products, but there are some health concerns that are related to nicotine per se. Many of these concerns are related to the ability of nicotine to release catecholamines, including hemodynamic effects (increase in heart rate, a transient increase in blood pressure, vasoconstriction of coronary and other vascular beds), adverse effects on lipids, and induction of insulin resistance. Nicotine has also been reported to produce endothelial dysfunction and to cause fetal teratogenicity, operating by different mechanisms. Nicotine in vitro and in animals can inhibit apoptosis and enhance angiogenesis, effects that raise concerns about a role of nicotine in promoting the development and spread of cancer and in the acceleration of atherosclerotic disease." – In plain English, that's higher blood pressure, harder arteries, worse cholesterol, more diabetes, and maybe even more cancer, none of which are "little health risks" to anyone who's ever looked at a top-ten list of causes of death.
  • PMID 25083263, which makes the case for "little health risks", agrees that pure nicotine promotes atherosclerotic disease. Unlike the other three I looked at, this one doesn't really care whether you quit nicotine, so long as you quit smoking tobacco.
    What all of these sources agree upon is that pure nicotine, in the amounts consumed through smoking, is importantly less dangerous than the same amount of nicotine contaminated with all kinds of nasty smoke. That's not quite the same thing as "little health risks". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog:While I don't doubt your intended statement is correct, I was not able to identify where on p.8 of the CRUK source that the statement is supported. Could you please recheck, clarify the source citation, and, as it is a large source, quote the specific bit of text you are using? Also, please clarify if you are intending "regulated" to mean the control of dosage by the device, or control of the market by an administrative or legislative organization? LeadSongDog come howl! 17:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

While orignal research is not the focus of this board, I echo your request, because after reading the source I can find nothing that supports the additions. AlbinoFerret 15:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

If the sources cited by the CRUK source support your statement, then by implication, the CRUK source supports it. If you are getting flak because the CRUK source doesn't mention the delivery mechanism, then change the citations to the root sources. If there are further reversions, then WP policy puts you firmly in the right. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The source cited by CRUK to support their claim regarding the the safety of nicotine discusses nicotine harm reduction in all its forms, both NRT and smokeless tobaco. It states

Furthermore, the CRUK statement 1) is entirely in context of (preceded & followed by) unregulated e-cigarettes 2) asserts that nicotine is addictive as cocaine & heroine, which is not the case with the regulated doses of NRT.Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 14:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

That quote does not evince your claim. Only by engaging in synthesis can one get from "We demonstrate that smokers smoke predominantly for nicotine, that nicotine itself is not especially hazardous" to "our studies and conclusions are not exclusive to one specific form of ingestion." If you are correct, you'll need to find a better quote from the source to establish it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)'

The quote was not essential to my point. I will address the points made by WhatamIdoing when I get a chance. Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 14:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 14:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, here we have a problem. A big problem. Zvi Zig, you provided a quote from the article to demonstrate that the article only references the safety of nicotine acquired through smoking. I pointed out that the quote you provided requires one to synthesize the two statements together in a specific way in order to support your claim. I was generally open to the possibility you may be right. Then, in reading the source, I found your quote. I found the entire statement, and it shows that you either deliberately quote mined it or are so biased against Jytdog's assertion that you missed what was -quite literally- right in front of your face. Here's the entire quote:

We demonstrate that smokers smoke predominantly for nicotine, that nicotine itself is not especially hazardous, and that if nicotine could be provided in a form that is acceptable and effective as a cigarette substitute, millions of lives could be saved. — John Britton "Harm Reduction in Nicotine Addition" preface (emphasis added)

That full quote very strongly implies that you are wrong, and Jytdog is right. It does not prove it, but Jytdog's proposed would work on the basis of this statement just as well as on the basis of any statement that the studies were done with a non-smoking method of nicotine ingestion. I have yet to finish reading the source, but I will soon enough, and will post here when I do. However, thanks you your comment, you've made it quite clear that your arguments cannot be trusted. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, please read the entire source which refers to smokeless tobacco. Let's not get bogged down by minutia, but the statement quoted implies that nicotine is not the major source of tobacco-related harm. The end of the statement -- and that if nicotine could be provided in a form that is acceptable and effective as a cigarette substitute, millions of lives could be saved -- is referring to acceptability by smokers and effectiveness to replace tobacco. synthesis is irrelevant; I'm just trying to explain why Jytdog is not justified in his heroic reinterpretation of CRUK's report (which is not justified even assuming RCP report is context of medicinal nicotine)Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 15:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem I'm seeing here is that the source is making pronouncements about the molecule on the basis of harm reduction. This is comparing nicotine plus other deadly chemicals to nicotine alone, and concluding that nicotine is much, much, much better than nicotine plus deadly chemicals. As Zvi put it, "nicotine is not the major source of tobacco-related harm". (I agree with this.)

But to make an unlimited statement like "Nicotine has few health risks", you need to compare nicotine against no nicotine, not nicotine vs nicotine plus the rest of tobacco. So for context, owning a dog is something that I think we could all agree to describe as having "few health risks". You might get diarrhea or parasites if you're not careful about sanitation, and there's a chance of a dog bite, but overall it's likely to be fine. I'm not getting the impression from these sources that nicotine is in the same category as owning a dog. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

True. Note that despite some in vitro, in vivo and minor acute cardiovascular effects you've cited, there is quite solid epidemiological evidence that nicotine does not substantially cause heart attacks PMID 22722951 or cancer PMID 19638245 (BTW, you've misquoted PMID 25083263)Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 15:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Below is a response to WhatamIdoing.

1. "PMID 26788573 says 'nicotine replacement therapy was associated with an increased risk of cardiac disorders, particularly palpitations, which are a known adverse effect of smoking....Nonetheless, the cardiac effects of nicotine call for prudent use of nicotine replacement therapy: the minimum effective dose should be sought, and the goal should be total nicotine withdrawal.' "
   • Response: Source continues "Nicotine replacement therapy exposes patients to a risk of palpitations but rarely to serious cardiac disorders, even in individuals with a cardiovascular history."
2. "PMID 25731134 reports on 'Some acute effects of e-cigarettes on heart rate, blood pressure, and airway resistance", which doesn't sound like "posing little health risks' "
   • Response: Acute effects cardiovascular effects don't indicate long term harm, as coffee demonstrates PMID 20125186. Despite acute blood pressure increases, even smoking is not associated with hypertension PMID 20550499. The reference to increased (peripheral) airway resistance (sensitive measure) relates to e-cigs, not nicotine, and PMID 25078252 reports even this isn't considered clinically significant.
3. "PMID 25156991 says 'The main health concern for nicotine in cigarette smokers is maintenance of addiction. Most of the adverse health effects of smoking are caused by tobacco combustion products, but there are some health concerns that are related to nicotine per se. Many of these concerns are related to the ability of nicotine to release catecholamines, including hemodynamic effects (increase in heart rate, a transient increase in blood pressure, vasoconstriction of coronary and other vascular beds), adverse effects on lipids, and induction of insulin resistance. Nicotine has also been reported to produce endothelial dysfunction and to cause fetal teratogenicity, operating by different mechanisms. Nicotine in vitro and in animals can inhibit apoptosis and enhance angiogenesis, effects that raise concerns about a role of nicotine in promoting the development and spread of cancer and in the acceleration of atherosclerotic disease.' – In plain English, that's higher blood pressure, harder arteries, worse cholesterol, more diabetes, and maybe even more cancer, none of which are "little health risks" to anyone who's ever looked at a top-ten list of causes of death."
   • Response: The source starts out noting concerns (mainly arising from theoretical or laboratory research). Then, it goes on to assess the actual epidemiology:

     Because most people use nicotine in the form of tobacco products, there are relatively few data on the health effects of prolonged exposure to pure nicotine. There are some studies of prolonged NRT in smokers who have quit smoking. In these studies, no adverse effects have been found when nicotine medication was administered for months to several years. Other studies indicate that patients with known cardiovascular disease tolerate NRT well for periods up to 12 weeks.
     Because most of the toxicity from cigarette smoking derives from combustion products, the health effects of smokeless tobacco could be examined to assess potential long-term adverse effects of nicotine without exposure to combustion products. Smokeless tobacco users take in as much nicotine as cigarette smokers, although not by the pulmonary route. The most extensive and rigorous epidemiological studies on smokeless tobacco use come from Scandinavia, where a large percentage of men use snus, a smokeless tobacco product that contains nicotine but relatively low levels of carcinogens and other toxins. These studies report only a very small cardiovascular disease risk in snus users compared with tobacco smokers. However, discontinuation of snus use after MI has been found to be associated with nearly halved mortality risk, which is similar in magnitude to the benefit associated with smoking cessation. Thus, although the adverse health effects of e-cigarettes are not known, they are likely to be much less than those of cigarette smoking, but could be significant in individuals with heart disease.

4. "PMID 25083263, which makes the case for "little health risks", agrees that pure nicotine promotes atherosclerotic disease. Unlike the other three I looked at, this one doesn't really care whether you quit nicotine, so long as you quit smoking tobacco."
   • Response: The source says, "it has been established that nicotine itself has minimal effect in initiating and promoting atherosclerotic heart disease".

Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 02:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Your arguments seem to be focused on the relative safety/low-toxicity of various NRTs (regulated and unregulated) compared with smoking. Nobody disputes that smoking is super bad for you. That is a different conversation. This conversation is about toxicities of nicotine per se (in other words, nicotine exposure compared to no nicotine). Jytdog (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

At doses related to acute poisonings, nicotine is obviously more dangerous than smoking. But at common consumption doses, there is no evidence against Cancer Research UK's statement that nicotine "poses little health risks except in certain vulnerable groups".

Meta-analyses show that Scandinavian snuff, which delivers nicotine at doses similar to cigarettes, is not related to cancer PMID 19638245 heart attack PMID 22722951 or stroke PMID 24548296, despite the low levels of toxins it contains. Though, a small increase in mortality after the onset of cardiovascular diseases, patients would classify as "vulnerable groups", and confounding was considered a plausible explanation by the studies.

Similarly, a new review by Benowitz just published, "Cardiovascular Toxicity of Nicotine: Implications for Electronic Cigarette Use", has concluded, "Based on current knowledge, we believe that the cardiovascular risks of nicotine from e-cigarette use in people without CVD are quite low. We have concerns that nicotine from e-cigarettes could pose some risk for users with CVD. . . .For patients with cardiovascular disease in particular, we recommend that when they are confident that they no longer need to use e-cigarettes to keep from smoking, that they discontinue e-cigarette use."Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 02:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

So this is kind of what I mean about the advocacy thing, Zvi. Everything you are writing here is about e-cigs vs smoking. The article we are talking about is Nicotine which is about the substance, nicotine. Not about e-cigs. Not even about smoking, really. A flat statement about the substance "nicotine" that "It is widely held that nicotine itself poses little health risks, except among certain vulnerable groups" is batshit crazy, and that is what my edits were originally trying to fix. Jytdog (talk) 06:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

My points above relate to nicotine's absolute hazard profile not relative to any other product. Please stick to the science.

When talking about the health profile of any substance, decide if you want to discuss it at the levels relating to common consumption, or its effects in pure form. When discussing the health affects of vitamin D, is the weight on acute toxicity in pure form, its use as rat poison, or the levels relating to human consumption (in >99.999% of cases)? Zvi Zig (talk • contribs 09:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The Game Crafter

Are these reliable sources: [7], [8]? They're being used to support this text, which if not supported by a reliable source would be libelous. 32.218.37.89 (talk) 14:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Both of those link to the same youtube video, which purports to show harassing messages, apparently either exchanged between or directed at employees of LiveOps, a contract call center/social media management firm. I have absolutely no idea how the purported subject of the video relates to the article in question, absolutely no idea whether or not the youtube channel which posted the video is actually associated with the firm, and absolutely no idea whether the claims made in the description (as vague as they are) have any basis in fact. So to answer your question clearly: That is some of the worst sourcing I've ever seen and I'll be wiping that whole section and watching the page just as soon as I finish this comment. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I deleted that section. As a followup, there are more concerns. The section could be construed as libelous, given the dubious sourcing. There was nothing in there to indicate that, even if true, the incident passed WP:GNG. Furthermore, the section was written in highly suspect terms, stating that "...[she] was found to have..." without stating by whom or in what way she was found to have done anything, and the paragraph concluded by speculating that this incident may have been criminal. Furthermore, there was no background to the incident and no coverage of it beyond "she said bad things". In short, there were no redeeming qualities to that section whatsoever. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

There are even more concerns than that, but I didn't initially bring them up because they don't relate to WP:RS. Someone seems to be on a vendetta because editor(s) have been inserting that text repeatedly for almost a year: [9], [10], [11]. Sockpuppetry? 32.218.37.89 (talk) 15:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

It certainly seems plausible, though I don't have time to look into it now. You may want to open a case at WP:SPI, but be aware that the filing party is expected to do research and gather evidence beforehand. If you have the diffs to prove a series (I've seen the SP templates you've added to their user talk pages) of single purpose accounts all making the same exact edit, you're probably off to a good start. Also, on an unrelated note, you may want to register an account. If you edit regularly enough to know what you're doing (and you seem to), an account will make a lot of things easier for you. If privacy is a concern, know that registered accounts are more private, so long as they're not linked to prior edits you made as an IP editor. Feel free to hit me up on my talk page if you have any questions about getting started with an account, I'm always happy to help. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I won't be registering an account, for reasons I don't care to explain. I also won't be opening a case at WP:SPI because no one listens to IPs. More often than not when I've posted on a noticeboard, I've been attacked, rather than listened to, this being one rare exception. (Thank you!) 32.218.37.89 (talk) 15:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

YouTube videos are exceedingly rarely usable as sources. The claim has allegations of specific criminal acts, and, as such, should be burned :) . Rumours do not belong in BLPs as a strong general rule, and this is not an exception. Collect (talk) 13:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Alleged war crimes by Russians in Syria

Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

According to Tobby72, Amnesty International uses what he alleges an "unreliable" source, Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Volunteer Marek says otherwise. My very best wishes seems mixed. Hammer5000... I don't know. I was just promoting a latest story about the Russian intervention in Syria for In the News. Perhaps more involvement is needed from non-involved people. George Ho (talk) 09:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, the source here is Amnesty International. One editor thinks that a reliable source is not reliable because ... not clear on that exactly.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

AFAIU, the source cited is AI, however the original source of information if SOHR. I believe it is known that SOHR is basically a one-man shop with dubious verifiability despite a pompous name. Further, here: Amnesty the source is not Amnesty, but a hearsay from Amnesty's words. The direct Amnesty source is here We have to use direct words whenever possible, because journalists spin the news in most dramatic ways. That's their job, to make people read a newspaper. Please compare the style of Amnesty's words and newspapers'. Amnesty gives lots of detail, but uses cautious wordings. Nespapers cited don't give details, just tremendous noise about these bad Ruskies (we know they are bad already; encyclopedia needs facts, not just shouts). Staszek Lem (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

What material in the actual article is being disputed? It's been widely reported that Russia's air campaign may have violated various laws covering warfare. Amnesty International is a reliable source on such topics, and accusations of war crimes raised by the group should be considered significant enough to note in relevant articles, especially when they're reported in major reliable news sources such as Sky News and The Independent. Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Amnesty International press releases are a reliable source for its own opinions, stated and sourced as opinions. It tends to use other sources for "facts" (it is not a news organization it itself, and does not many any claims that it is a news organization, or publisher of news, but an opinion organization, whose press releases tend to not make claims of direct fact per se, but of its opinions regarding alleged acts). One will note it parses claims of fact very carefully, indeed. Thus it is not usable as a source for "claims of fact" which derive from outside sources. Collect (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Amnesty International and other similar reputable organizations do their own research. Their conclusions are a lot more reliable than a typical publication in newspaper. Yes, this can be disputed, as any other research, but it was not disputed by other research sources in this particular case. My very best wishes (talk) 13:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

shiksha.com

A user has been adding that site as a reference to a great many articles. I am wondering if it is reliable or spammy or what. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to the source you are referring to? What you linked was a user's edit history. Meatsgains (talk) 16:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Here; used a shiksa article. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Meatsgains. Yes, pretty much all of the above user's contribs are adding that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

We have "Shiksha.com". It has over 120 ext links on wikipedia. Some of them are of pretty spammy gist. For example this one in National Institute of Design merely says that NID posted results at their website ... bla-bla. So I am strongly inclined to weed them all out. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I must agree, Staszek Lem. So, not a RS? Are we in agreement here? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Spammy commercial site at best - fails WP:RS for multiple reasons including SPS for its clients, not fact checked, and not a usable source for claims of fact. Collect (talk) 13:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Here are all 79 (nearly) that I can find used as refs and maybe ext links. I've divided them into three parts in case anyone wants to chip in and do some removals. If nobody does, I will probably get to them all.

Extended content

Part 1 of 3: (Y Done.) All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, (in edit mode) (Y Done.) Amity University, Gwalior, (in edit mode) (Y Done.) Amity University, Jaipur, (in edit mode) (Y Done.) APIIT, (in edit mode) (Y Done.) ARCH Academy of Design, (in edit mode) (Y Done.) Asian Workers Development Institute, Rourkela, (in edit mode) (Y Done.) AWH Engineering College, (in edit mode) (Y Done.) Babasaheb Naik College of Engineering, Pusad, (in edit mode) (Y Done.) Balaji Institute of International Business, (in edit mode) (Y Done.) College of Defence Management, (in edit mode) (Y Done.) College of Engineering Roorkee, (in edit mode) (Y Done.) College of Engineering, Pune, (in edit mode) (Y Done.) Department of Management Sciences (PUMBA), (in edit mode) (Y Done.) DIT University, (in edit mode) (Y Done.) Dr. B. R. Ambedkar National Institute of Technology Jalandhar, (in edit mode) (Y Done.) Draft:Department of Industrial and Management Engineering (IME), IIT Kanpur, (in edit mode) (Y Done.) Draft:NIMT Group of Institutions, (in edit mode) (Y Done.) Draft:Sankara Institute of Management Science, (in edit mode) (Y Done.) Dwarkadas J. Sanghvi College of Engineering, (in edit mode) (Y Done.) Engineering Agricultural and Medical Common Entrance Test, (in edit mode) (Y Done.) Entrepreneurship Development Institute of India, (in edit mode) (Y Done.) Galgotias University, (in edit mode) Part 2 of 3: (Y Done.) Girish Mistry, (in edit mode) (Y Done.) Government Law College, Mumbai, (in edit mode) (Y Done.) Guru Nanak Dev University, (in edit mode) (Y Done.) Indian Diamond Institute, (in edit mode) (Y Done.) Indian Institute of Ecology and Environment, (in edit mode) (Y Done.) Indian Institute of Foreign Trade, (in edit mode) (Y Done.) Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, (in edit mode) (Y Done.) Indian Institute of Management Kozhikode, (in edit mode) (Y Done.) Indian Institutes of Management, (in edit mode) (Y Done.) International Management Institute, New Delhi, (in edit mode) (Y Done.) Jabalpur Engineering College, (in edit mode) (Y Done.) Jaipur Engineering College, (in edit mode) (Y Done.) Jammu and Kashmir, (in edit mode) (Y Done.) KEAM, (in edit mode) (Y Done.) Kendriya Vidyalaya Barrackpore (Army), (in edit mode) (Y Done.) Kendriya Vidyalaya Bolarum, (in edit mode) (Y Done.) Kendriya Vidyalaya Hebbal, Bangalore, (in edit mode) (Y Done.) Kendriya Vidyalaya Tirumalagiri, (in edit mode) (Y Done.) KIIT University, (in edit mode) Part 3 of 3: (Y Done.) Kohinoor-IMI School of Hospitality Management, (in edit mode) (Y Done.) Lal Bahadur Shastri Institute of Management & Technology, (in edit mode) (Y Done.) List of institutions granting degrees in cognitive science, (in edit mode) (Y Done.) Lyallpur Khalsa College, (in edit mode) (Y Done.) Maharana Pratap Engineering College, (in edit mode) (Y Done.) Management Development Institute, (in edit mode) (Y Done.) Manav Rachna University - formerly MRCE, (in edit mode) (Y Done.) Max M. Fisher College of Business, (in edit mode) (Y Done.) National Institute of Ayurveda, (in edit mode) (Y Done.) National Institute of Fashion Technology, (in edit mode) (Y Done.) National Institute of Management & Technology, (in edit mode) (Y Done.) New Delhi Institute of Management, (in edit mode) (Y Done.) PES University, (in edit mode) (Y Done.) Sant Gadge Baba Amravati University, (in edit mode) (Y Done.) Sardar Patel College of Engineering, (in edit mode) (Y Done.) St. Joseph's College, Bangalore, (in edit mode) (Y Done.) Testfunda.com, (in edit mode) (Y Done.) The Glocal University, (in edit mode) (Y Done.) The ITA School of Performing Arts, (in edit mode) (Y Done.) Thiagarajar School of Management, (in edit mode) (Y Done.) Tula’s Institute, (in edit mode) (Y Done.) Uday Salunkhe, (in edit mode) (Y Done.) Villa Marie Degree College, (in edit mode) (Y Done.) Virgen Milagrosa University Foundation, (in edit mode) (Y Done.) VIT University, (in edit mode) (Y Done.) West Bengal Joint Entrance Examination, (in edit mode) (Y Done.) World College of Technology and Management (Gurgaon), (in edit mode)

Thanks again for the feedback. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't even notice this until now. The behavioral evidence seems pretty compelling that this is refspamming, so I was going through and removing them on my own. The most common pattern has been that the link was added, and then immediately after that a second link from a more superficially reliable domain was added to shore-up the claim. This set of edits is repeated enough that it seems like it might be a deliberate attempt to 'bury' the link among others to make it seem more legit and make it slightly harder to remove. As mentioned, many of the claims are totally trivial or unimportant, along the lines of "test results for 2015 have been announced". Grayfell (talk) 02:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

You're right, Grayfell. I'm seeing plenty of cases by user Smith_zara where a shiksha ref is added then immediately buried by a good ref. Way too many to be a coincidence, if you ask me. I'll post at Smith_zara about this and warn of blacklisting and then begin removing the refs. Thank you! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Followup:

All removed from articles. Reappearance checking link here. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

High Ability Studies

Hey y'all--do any of you know anything about High Ability Studies? I'm asking because it seems legit, but this abstract looks more appropriate for a trade publication. Drmies (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Book reviews of a brand new book are primary sources?

An editor is claiming that book reviews of a new book are primary sources at The Battle for Sanskrit. My understanding is that primary sources are historical documents and things of that nature.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• A book review is a secondary source in the context of a discussion/article on the book. If you were writing a study about book reviews, it would be a primary source--but I imagine no one is writing a study about book reviews here. Drmies (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

This are not book reviews, but endorsements by supporters:

R Jagannathan of Swarajya writes,

The Battle For Sanskrit is an important book, even a disturbing one, for Indians who love this country and take pride in its Hindu and Sanskrit traditions even while cherishing diversity and acknowledging our many faults and negative practices.It is our bounden duty to join Malhotra in his Battle For Sanskrit. It is our battle. And it is a battle we cannot afford to lose. Malhotra’s is the most important critique of the new form of Orientalism that has taken root in American academia, now the European academia is no longer calling the shots on Indic studies. The reason why American Orientalism is dangerous for Indic culture is because of the sheer sophistication it brings to the idea of hollowing out Indic culture and studying Sanskrit by decapitating the head from the body. It is about studying a carcass, not a living tradition or idea.

Rajeev Srinivasan writes,

This is an important book; for any Indian, and particularly any Hindu who is concerned about the Indian Grand Narrative, the possible loss of control over Sanskrit is a tragedy. At the moment it is an avoidable tragedy, but only if there is a concerted effort on our part. It is nothing short of an act of terrorism, if you believe the UNESCO director-general, and this book is an attempt at preventive action.

Aditi Banerjee, who has co-authored a book with Malhotra praises the book

Malhotra explains clearly and simply the key ideas in this body of scholarship and what is at stake for Hindus and India as these ideas are being carefully fed into the mainstream culture and media. Malhotra has distilled the arcane complexities of enormous tracts of Sanskrit scholarship into a clear narrative, has explained the stakes of the debate between these scholars and a traditional view of Hinduism and has offered a compelling rebuttal to their main arguments... We must learn and experience for ourselves the great treasures of spirituality, philosophy, ethics and literary masterpieces bestowed upon us by our ancestors. The battle for Sanskrit is on, and it is a battle we cannot afford to lose.

References

I've moved them into notes now; they made up a large part of the article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 22:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Whatever you want to call them, they are not primary sources.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

They're not reviews either; they are 'calls to arms'. Too close to the subject. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Advertisements, reviews, or any other work written about other books are not primary sources.

Whether something is a primary, secondary, or tertiary source is irrelevant to whether it is reliable. Primary sources are open to original research problems, and so need to be used carefully (if at all).

Whether the sources are reliable or relevant, they are not primary sources. Glancing over them, I'm not seeing any immediate reason to doubt reliability (though I've not investigated the editorial standards of each site). Now, I could begin to see the argument that the authors are really just citing Malhotra as their main source in their own argument instead of reviewing him, but whether that's a problem is a matter for that article's talk page. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed that WP:PRIMARY isn't necessarily the big concern here. They should also be independent of the subject and reliable sources in other ways. (1) Swarajya (magazine) does not look to be a neutral source (based on an admittedly quick glance), so any use of it should be for the opinions it presents only. (2) Rajeev Srinivasan's website (presuming it's the same person) he describes himself as "A Hindu Nationalist". I don't have any background knowledge of this dispute, but depending on the subject and the quality of the publication (I don't know it), that might affect the extent to which he is reliable for this purpose (it's always contextual, after all). (3) If Aditi Banerjee co-authored a book with the author of the subject, she is not independent of the subject. Doesn't mean she can't be used, but it certainly shouldn't be used as though it's a neutral book review. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, yeah, those are definitely problematic and should not be treated as neutral book reviews. The current version comes pretty close to resolving those issues by reducing quotes to one line of "found support from...". Ian.thomson (talk) 09:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

angelfire.com

angelfire.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Hello Wikipedians, I found a list of 1000+ links from angelfire.com which been used as reference. Can we accept it as reliable source? am asking because Angelfire offers paid space for Websites and when we click on a link (e.g. this) it will take you to a totally different page which making me think whether it's an SEO matter or something else. Thank You – GSS (talk) 08:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

The issue is whether the material can be reasonably expected to be accurate per WP:RS - the example you give is clearly done by a single person, and thus does not meet the criteria for "reliable source" as such. This does not mean, however, that no Angelfire source is reliable, but clearly sites which use that host are not automatically reliable, though some might be - but not on the basis of the webhost being a reliable source at all. Collect (talk) 12:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Angelfire is just a web host. Like Geocities, Tripod, Blogspot, WordPress.com, etc. by default it hosts content on an angelfire domain. In practice it's going to be pretty rare for these to be considered reliable sources if contested, but there are exceptions as with and WP:SPS. In particular, it was less common for everybody to have their own domain name in its earlier days, so there were some respected sites that hosted their content with that sort of site. Granted, most of them since migrated, but every once in a while I come across a good resource still there. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic (season 6) and Equestria Daily

I would like to ask other editors whether they think Equestria Daily (specifically, this article) is a reliable source for My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic (season 6), where it is currently reference 3. Everymorning (talk) 01:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Disputed interpretation of review article in Psychiatric Quarterly

This discussion has been moved to the original-research noticeboard. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 16:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

TonyOrtega.org

The article Mark Bunker cites tonyortega.org for a statement about a film release date, representing that the essay is a personal interview with Bunker. I deleted the statement and the source on the reasoning that it violates WP:SPS. @Grayfell: reverted it, adding a gofund entry from Bunker. Seeing that including tonyortega.org in a BLP article still violated the WP policy, I deleted the tonyortega.org footnote. Grayfell restored it, saying something to the effect that I am being WP:BURO. Please see the discussion.Talk:Mark_Bunker#Self published sources Neither editor is changing positions and the discussion is going nowhere. Here is the question: Can we break the rules just this once over the support of article detail so trivial, or should we sacrifice this this trivial statement in favor of sustaining the policy in all its well-considered wisdom? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 05:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Oh please, that's laying it on awfully thick, isn't it?

My point is that Tony Ortega's interview with Bunker included the anticipated release date of his project. This is a valid use of a SPS, as it's Bunker's own claim about his project, and since the other source is a rolling post to a crowd-funding site it seemed prudent to include a second source for if that one gets pushed-off the site. Nobody is contesting that Ortega did, in fact interview Bunker, or has given any reason to believe he would misrepresent this minor but useful detail. Grayfell (talk) 06:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Rather than repeat all that was said on the talk page, including the definitions of "self", "third-party", and "self-published", I ask other editors considering this question to read the arguments on that Talk:Mark_Bunker#Self published sources page as though they were copied in full here. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 06:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Tony Ortega is a notable (respectable) journalist. As he is an acknowledged expert in the field of journalism, any questions about his journalism are not for us to decide. In that context, and for the simple fact that the projected release date of a film is not a controversial statement, the questions about this source seem very spurious. @Sfarney:, I don't understand your point, unless you're trying to be a wikilawyer and hone your argumentation skills. Your argument, both here and at the talk page seems predicated upon interpreting WP policy and guidelines in a very specific and very strict way, for the purpose of this particular issue. If you have a different, non-policy-based reason for not wanting to include it, you should make that clear here, as it may be that your strict, specific interpretation is desirable. But if you're just arguing from policy, then I think it's time to give up. Remember Ignore All Rules is a WP policy, too. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

In evaluating the respectability and notability of Tony Ortega, include the fact that he was dismissed from the Village Voice. Use of WP:SPS in biographies of living persons is impermissible "...even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.", which seems to be your argument. In other words, your argument has already been directly addressed and rebutted by the consensus of many others. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Ahem, I don't think you noticed, but I pointed out that WP:IAR is a policy, not a guideline. For a guideline that addresses this, see WP:HARM#TEST. Unless you can make the argument that this information somehow damages the subject (or the article), you're just Wikilawyering. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I think I get what you are saying. This documentary is so notable and important, Bunker can't get funding from regular backers to finish it. And the news of the film's pending (but troubled) release is so important and notable that Wikipedia is vastly improved by its inclusion. But despite the billions of words produced monthly in reliable sources, the only source that has printed notice of the release date of this notable and important film is a hobby blog, so Wikipedia should make exceptions to its own rules and cite that. Have I got it right? Can you explain for us the difference between this inclusion and WP:PROMO? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 00:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Investopedia

Is Investopedia a reliable source for this content?

• Source: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/blockchain.asp
• Article: Block_chain_(database)#Alternative_block_chains
• Content: Alternate block chains (altchains) are based on bitcoin technology in concept and/or code.

Thanks for the outside opinion. N2e (talk) 19:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Release year for film

There is a page for a film (Stateline Motel) with false release dates that have consequentially been copied all over the internet, perpetuating the wrong information. I have made the correct changes twice, but the creator of that page continues to revert. This last time, the user who is reverting the correct edits has used a 2013 book, which was published after this user started a Wiki page for the film using the wrong date (and wrong year), and no one seems to care enough to make the obvious corrections. We're talking about a two-year difference, not a small discrepancy between months or dates. I just started on here to fix information I happened to know is incorrect, and this page is one of them. The user is being rude, unreasonable, even hostile.

Here is a copy and paste job of an exchange he started on my talk page:

Also, if you are claiming the book Italian Crime Filmography, 1968-1980 is unreliable and copied a false date from the article, go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and makes your case. Removing sourced contents and replacing them with original research is considered disruptive, and could lead you to be blocked, let alone edit warring and accusing other editors of "hijacking". Side note, the book is a McFarland publication (a publisher well-known for its reliability and authoritativeness), and the article never indicated the specific date 14 September 1973 which is included in the book. --Cavarrone 21:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I have seen examples of books copying the wrong information from the internet before. If the article never indicated the specific date 14 September 1973, then maybe IMDB did. I am looking at the film's IMDB page on the Wayback Machine. The earliest version archived is from 2004, which had the correct year (1975). But the second-earliest version archived isn't until three years later, from 2007, by which point the page had obviously been hacked. At present, it appears the correct information has been restored. My belief is that you were ignorant of this fact when you created the page, copying the wrong year of release from IMDB when its dates had been hacked (apparently anyone can edit that site, just like Wiki). I'm not interested in starting an edit war with you, just composing this message is a hassle. I'm interested in correcting false information being displayed on the pages for subjects I happen to have correct knowledge of, and your reverting it back to false information makes that difficult. Iistal (talk) 21:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

iHorror.com for movie reviews in filmmaker's article

Is this iHorror.com's movie review reliable enough to include when mentioning the films of Jack Thomas Smith in Smith's article? Nightscream (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

From the closest thing to a staff page: "I founded iHorror.com to be a place where people could share their love of the Horror genre. I wanted to create a site where writers had full control and freedom to express their passion for everything Horror." That does not lend me to believe that there is any editorial control over this content at all. If the writers have "full control", it would seem to fail WP:RS. There are lots of prominent horror film review websites that are known for a fact to have editorial control. Many of them are listed at WP:FILM/R. I'd use one of them instead. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Need help distinguishing if something is usable or not

I need some help seeing which sources are usable for the article for Jérémie Pauzié. This was created by a paid editor and it's pretty unambiguously promotional. What I'm running into are issues with sources that seem like they should be usable, but then end up coming up as dead links in one way or another, like a link to the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs that just goes to the main page.

Now this wouldn't be an issue except that the editor in question (who is now blocked) has had some issues with sourcing on this and other articles. For example, he tried using this source to back up the assertion that he inspired many notable jewelers/designers like "Louis-David Duval, Krag, J-P Ador and later that of Birbaum, Louis Cartier and Carl Faberge". Pauzie's mention in the source is very brief and while it's possible that he may have had this impact, it doesn't actually explicitly state this anywhere. This was an issue with one of the editor's other articles where he tried to make some fairly large claims of notability based on primary sources that couldn't/shouldn't be used to back up such major assertions.

I'm stubbifying the article and I'm mildly surprised that it made it through AfC in this state, given that the sourcing is incredibly poor in many places and the puffery is insanely strong. They even used a Christie's auction to try to back up claims. Examples of the puffery/promotional content include pieces like "The pieces created by Jérémie Pauzié formed the extraordinary Imperial collections, with their unrivalled magnificence standing as an emblem for the formidable might of the Russian Empire and its rulers".

You can see the original format of the article here and what I need is help finding out which of these sources, if any, can be considered usable. The dodgiest ones are ones like this one that doesn't appear to have anything that could confirm that it'd be anything other than a SPS. I'm going to ask at WP:RUSSIA for help as well since I imagine that most of the coverage will likely be in Russian, but I thought that this would be a good place to start. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• FWIW, I do think that this guy is notable - I just think that this was something that shouldn't have made it through AfC based on the puffery and potentially poor sourcing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Primary vs. Third-party source conflict: Team (Iggy Azalea song)

"Team" is a new single released by Iggy Azalea. According to the writing credits on Tidal where the single was released: 12 writers wrote the song (See here for a third-party source). However, Azalea herself has said on Twitter that this is not accurate, specifically referring to the Wikipedia article of the song (See her tweet here). According to her, only 7 writers were involved.

It is likely that the 5 people she claims did not write the song, did not write the song's lyrics. But they have been credited as writers for other reasons which Azalea has most likely overlooked; 3 of them are credited for the sample of "Back that Azz Up" the song uses, while the other two are producers most likely credited for composing a melody (this is common practice in pop music). My view is that that I highly doubt her record label would release the single accompanied by incorrect writing credits. She has most likely overlooked that the writers of "Back that Azz Up" are credited because "Team" samples the song, and the other two producers most likely credited as composers of a melody not a lyric.

In such a situation which is the best source to use?

I can see this potentially causing an edit war at the article page especially with Azalea's tweet referring to it. Instagram Camera (talk)

Date of birth of Jesus of Nazareth

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Date of birth of Jesus of Nazareth. In this edit the article creator acknowledges the article was compiled by cutting and pasting from other Wikipedia articles without reading the citations. Other than the references to the bible which are rather well known, and a few paper sources which I possess, I view the article as unreferenced and therefore subject to deletion. In my view, the citations that were cut and pasted without being read don't count. Please discuss at the article deletion page. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

A Word to the World

It looks like a personal website to me. Is it reliable source? --Tito Dutta (talk) 15:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

It is a personal website/blog thus, not a reliable source. This quote is taken straight from the website: "Disclaimer: If the readers are in search of strategies and steps taken by companies in the corporate world by which they feel that they can be motivated and fuel their desire to understand the business world, then this blog is for you." It calls the site a blog. See here. Meatsgains (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Psychotherapeutic postural integration#Validation

I started a discussion at Talk:Psychotherapeutic postural integration about using this website as a source for this statement, "Body psychotherapy has been scientifically validated by the European Association for Psychotherapy (E.A.P.) as have a number of the various modalities within this mainstream branch of Psychotherapy. One of these approaches or “modalities” within Body-Psychotherapy includes Psychotherapeutic Postural Integration which has been recognised as scientifically valid by the EAP." A few days ago I removed that statement on the grounds that the source wasn't WP:MEDRS, but it was reverted this morning with this edit summary, "this is a reliable referenced second source validation." I'm looking for some outside input before reverting it again. Thank you. PermStrump(talk) 17:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

David Orrell on chromosomes

Previously on the argument from authority page, David Orrell's book The Future of Everything, page 184-185, which can be found online here, was being used as a source for the statements "Painter's 'influence was so great that many scientists preferred to believe his count over the actual evidence'", and "'textbooks from the time carried photographs showing twenty-three pairs of chromosomes, and yet the caption would say there were twenty-four'".

This section was removed because the source was allegedly questionable due to the fact that it cited a newspaper article as its source. The book cites it here and the citation can be seen here. There is currently a dispute on the Talk page about whether it passes WP:V and WP:RS.

I feel that as Dr. Orrell is a reliable source and an expert in biology that he is a reliable source for these facts, and as such the deletion should be reversed. However as there is a dispute on the Talk, outside opinions would be helpful. FL or Atlanta (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)