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

WikiData source

I don't know where to raise this question, whether this is a VPP issue or here (or even an RfC question (feel free to move/convert if that would be warranted)). Here goes:

IMDB is an external database with a lot of information. We have roughly decided that iMDB is NOT to be used as a reference, as it is generally unreliable information. People can use iMDB to get data, but they are to supply an independent reference according to our referencing rules. iMDB cannot be used as a reference for the material that we source from iMDB.

Similar goes for any external wiki that we use. We may be able to find material that we do not have on, say, es.wikipedia.org, and we can incorporate that information in an article on en.wikipedia, but we cannot say that es.wikipedia is the source. es.wikipedia cannot be used as a reference for the material that we source from es.wikipedia

Even if the specific bit of information that we take from iMDB or es.wikipedia is locally referenced, we should use the information from that reference, not from iMDB or es.wikipedia at face value.

We incorporate data from WikiData (by transclusion, by substituted transclusion, or by copying) in the same way as we could copy material from iMDB and es.wikipedia, which means we incorporate material from an unreliable source. Now my question is: how do we see that with respect to WikiData? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

People can use iMDB to get data, but they are to supply an independent reference according to our referencing rules. So what is the problem with "People can use Wikidata to get data, but they are to supply an independent reference according to our referencing rules"? If we apply the same rules as we do for other Wikipedias, Commons, iMDB, etc. why should the results be any different for Wikidata? --RexxS (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Because, when transcluded, the material is sourced from WikiData, referenced (where needed) to an source which meets our sourcing standards. That reference could be local, or on WikiData. When we take something from es.wikipedia, it is not transcluded but copied, properly reference to the reliable source. Es.wikipedia is not visible in that scenario, and it shouldn’t because it is not a suitable source giving credibility to the correctness of the source. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Nor is Wikidata visible in the scenario of information imported into an infobox, for example. The information is not transcluded, because it's filtered when imported. Checking that the reference meets our sourcing standards is precisely the same operation whether one is checking on es-wiki or on Wikidata. --RexxS (talk) 13:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

No, the information is transcluded, altering it on WikiData changes the value on en.wikipedia, which is not the case when taking the data from es.wikipedia. The data is sourced from WikiData, referenced, with WikiData referenced. If the data is imported it is the same, I am talking about transcluded data. I hope now that other editors will start chiming in, because between the two of uswe are not getting anywhere. Our arguments apparently do not arrive at the other side and we are running in circles. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

No, the information is not transcluded. "Transclusion is generally the inclusion of the content of a document into another document by reference." - mw:Transclusion. There are no documents on Wikidata to transclude. The values are imported from Wikidata and filtered, not passed by reference. When a sourced fact is updated on es-wiki manually or by bot, that update will eventually be made on en-wiki manually or by bot. The difference is merely timescale. If a source is removed from Wikidata as unreliable or inaccurate, the fact it used to support no longer appears in our infobox. That process is very different from transclusion. You are asking others to answer questions based on your faulty understanding of the mechanics of importing sourced content from Wikidata to Wikipedia. We won't get any informed opinions from others while you persist in biasing the questions. --RexxS (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

we both have bias here, RexxS. Our main point of disagreement is whether WikiData is a source in this context. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• We shouldn't be using WikiData at all IMO, because of the doubtful origin of the information presented there and the frequent inaccuracies. Reyk _YO! 07:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion: WP:CHALLENGE

The above discussion seems confusing: e.g. "source from" vs. "reference to" – I suppose there is some difference between the two but it seems all but clear from the discussion above:

1. Wikidata is (like iMDB) WP:USERGENERATED content. The WP:RS guideline (whereto WP:USERGENERATED redirects) has some exceptions. Afaics, however, the listed exceptions do not apply to Wikidata nor to iMDB. In sum:
   1. Wikidata can not be used as a source
   2. Wikidata can not be used as a reference
2. Wikidata however also (like other Wikimedia projects) often "mirrors Wikipedia content" or "relies on material from Wikipedia as source", for which the WP:CIRCULAR part of the WP:V policy has: "... do not use websites that mirror Wikipedia content or publications that rely on material from Wikipedia as sources", which means that
   1. content residing at Wikidata which was previously merged there from Wikipedia should not be used as a source
   2. content residing at Wikidata which was previously merged there from Wikipedia should not be used as a reference
3. Copying references from an unreliable source to Wikipedia without confirming that these references are reliable and support the content is equally a breach of policy, e.g. from WP:CIRCULAR: "Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources. Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly.", which means,
   1. the external reliable source (not Wikidata) should be used as a source
   2. the external reliable source (not Wikidata) should be used as a reference

... otherwise (if not complying to these policy requirements) the content can be WP:CHALLENGED...

Probably we should see more of that, WP:CHALLENGE-ing that type of content I mean. The abstract discussion above is unlikely to lead to an (abstract) solution, and even less likely to change policy. So, if you see mainspace content that is likely sourced from and/or referenced to Wikidata, and that is not WP:BLUE content, remove it. If a discussion ensues, that can not be resolved on the article's talk page, then bring it here in the Source/Article/Content format recommended for this noticeboard, and we'd maybe have something less abstract to discuss about here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Here's a first example of such a WP:CHALLENGE:

• [1]:
  • Source – Wikidata
  • Article – Malpelo Island
  • Content – removed content, based on the unreliable Wikidata source, does not distinguish between the name of the island ("Malpelo Island") and the name of the WHS protected area ("Malpelo Fauna and Flora Sanctuary"), notwithstanding that the external reliable source (1216) & reference (identical to external reliable source, i.e. 1216) are clear that that is the name of the WHS protected area.

The above has not been discussed on the article's talk page yet (and was, for clarity, operated under Template talk:Infobox World Heritage Site#Implementation of RfC) – just trying to illustrate what such WP:CHALLENGEs could look like.

Further, this example illustrates what goes wrong when not *checking* (i.e. per WP:CIRCULAR's "Confirm that these [external reliable] sources support the content, then use them directly") whether the content of the external reliable source matches the content imported from Wikidata... --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Fracis, that is true for any information, and besides the point. My question here basically is: when we transclude data from WikiData, are we getting that data from an external source. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

External to what? Wikidata is a Wikimedia project owned by the WMF so, like English Wikipedia, it's internal to that group of projects; Wikidata is a project different from English Wikipedia, so it is as external to English Wikipedia as, say, French Wikipedia or Commons. Could you explain why that question is relevant? For me the main distinction is: reliable or not reliable, that is: in WP:RS/WP:V sense – and the kind of distinctions that are sorted out on this noticeboard, which is called "Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard". So, for example, French Wikipedia is not a reliable source in that sense. For Commons, the answer to the reliability question falls in two parts: it is partially reliable, and partially unreliable. Probably for Wikidata that would be the case too: partially reliable, partially unreliable. I propose to proceed with case studies triggered by WP:CHALLENGEs as described above, which would make the question at least tangible. Maybe the abstract external-or-internal question is "besides the point". At least it seems to be so on this noticeboard which is about reliability of sources. So please explain why you think your question relevant, maybe we can find a better venue for it (if it is, as you seem to indicate, unrelated to the reliable-or-unreliable question). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:25, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

So, we are transcluding material from an unreliable source. There is correct information on it, but in basis, since material on WD can be a) reliably sourced, b) unreliably sourced, c) unsourced), d) reliably sourced but changed without changing the reference. So we are getting to the point. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:13, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

As to my question: if we are transcuding data from WikiData, are we sourcing information, and therefore is that information source subject to WP:RS? That is besides the question whether the material carries a reference here or there. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Tacking on references without checking whether the reference represents a reliable source nor whether the source supports the content would be meaningless in any Wikimedia context. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Scenario: I include a chembox, where the synonym field is empty, and the box is set up to transclude if the data is referenced on WikiData. However, WikiData is empty for the synonym as well. I check all transcluded fields, noting that there are no synonyms, and see all are NOW reliably sourced. I save and walk away. You come to WikiData the next day to the same item, fill in a synonym, referenced to what En.wikipedia considers an unreliable source (but since WikiData is not that strict, you have not done anything ‘wrong’). Because it is THENa referenced item and the chembox is set up to transclude referenced items, it is transcluded. YOU have just added unreliable material through MY edit. But from the en.wikipedia point of view, you have tacked on a reference to data wihout checking whether after transclusion it is representing a reliable source or whether the source supports the content. Meaningless? —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Is it your responsibility that if you edit WikiData and add data that is going to be transcluded to make sure that it follows en.wikipedia sourcing rules? And if you, on WikiData, continue to add such data, will any admin on WikiData block you (after warnings) for consistently failing en.wikipedia’s sourcing requirements? —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

It seems extremely unlikely I would have added a synonym for a chemical (with or without reference) to Wikidata. Hence my proposal to switch to real examples instead of using hypothetical ones – would at least avoid to seemingly make me responsible for things I would never do.

In your hypothetical example, did the Lua code which imported the synonym (and its reference) check whether the source indicated by the reference is reliable for en.wikipedia's purposes? And whether that source covered the content of the imported material? I don't think so, not on either account. Thus, the software (and/or whoever set it up in that way) seems to be the culprit for evading the WP:V policy. But whatever: if something along these lines happens, simply WP:CHALLENGE the material by removing it (which is an acceptable method to counter material that does not comply to WP:V). If that doesn't lead to acceptable results, bring the example back to this noticeboard for analysis. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Are you really expecting a LUA code being able to detect if something is a reliable source for information or not? This noticeboard can be closd. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

No, the Lua code cannot perform what is needed for full WP:V compliance, hence the unresolved problem. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. Unless WikiData is a reliable source, we have no way to distinguish whether their material is reliable. We should therefor not source material from WikiData. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

That's nonsense. Wikidata is not a source, reliable or otherwise. Material cannot be reliable or unreliable, only sources have that property. The way we distinguish whether the source is reliable is the always the same and we have WP:RS to explain how to do it.

Here's a concrete example: William P. Murphy received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. Is that reliable or unreliable? Neither, it's a statement. Here's the award that Wikidata states William P. Murphy received: Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine . Is that reliable or unreliable? Neither. Follow the pen-icon link and you'll find this reference https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1934/ - is that reliable or unreliable? I would have thought 'reliable'. Anybody disagree? If you want to challenge something, why not look at William P. Murphy? You can legitimately remove the first four paragraphs because they are unsourced. The infobox, however, has good sourcing in place for each of its facts. Using Dirk's reasoning, we should not have any content at all because it's all sourced from Wikipedia. --RexxS (talk) 01:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I just WP:CHALLENGEd the Wikidata source at William P. Murphy ([2]). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

And also here, we are running in the same circle. Guess we’ll see at the next RfC. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you are running in circles, I'm not. The challenging at the Murphy article worked afaics: the infobox is now Wikidata-free. Next non-hypothetical example please. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

((rto|Francis Schonken}} No, WE are running in circles- I say WikiData is a source, and an unreliable one, you(pl) say, just challenge, I say that there is nothing to challenge as it is unreliable and should not be a source, you challenge .. on the other hand I say we transclude, then people say, we import only data we filter .. i say we then transclude what we filter but no, we don’t transclude. Perfect circles. Over and over. Now, go import and challenge what you want, we’ll meet at either ArbCom or another RfC, because this is a recipe for continuous fights, WE are not going to solve this, we need the community to decide on these terms. I already said I will wait for others to comment, but it is continuous the same four or five people. I want other editors to explain to me it is NOT a source and why, and I want other editors to explain to me we are NOT transcluding. Now, close the circle again. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not running in circles, please speak for yourself.

WP:CHALLENGEs can be applied to material that is unsourced and to material that is poorly sourced (please familiarize yourself with the policy instead of basing yourself on circular reasoning). So, whether Wikidata is a "poor" (e.g., WP:USERGENERATED, WP:CIRCULAR,...) source, or "not a source at all", WP:CHALLENGE can be applied either way. I'm hoping that through discussion of concrete examples (instead of endless theoretical discussions) we may establish what is the case. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

That is the point, Francis, my argument is 'it is a source'. If WikiData is the source, then there is no point in challenging - WikiData is not a reliable source and they are, by definition challenged. You guys state 'WikiData is not a source', in which case the data can be challenged. WikiData is the website that carries the information that we use on en.wikipedia, that is a 'body of work', 'a database', an 'information carrier' .. it is a source, it is our source. And it is unreliable. I have not seen yet a convincing argument why WikiData is NOT a source, and until then we are running in circles.

Until now it is two against two (roughly) where two say it is a source and that therefore the whole of WikiData is subject to WP:RS, and two who say that it is not a source, and that therefore the data is subject to WP:CHALLENGE. WE are running in circles, not me alone. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

"Poorly sourced" material (which includes "sourced to an unreliable source") can be WP:CHALLENGEd. That is policy. As I said above. Multiple times. Please snap out of your circular reasoning, and maybe start with getting acquainted with the policy. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

OK. By this I challenge: ALL material sourced from WikiData is challenged, please remove all information that we transclude, import, or whatever you name it (all, literally all material that is stored on WikiData and that is, filtered or unfultered, through LUA code and templates, and directly transcluded) from En.wikipedia, as that is all sourced from an unreliable source: WikiData. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

To clarify the word ‘Berlin’ in here: “Berlin“ is sourced from WikiData. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: If you challenge something as it's unreferenced, you should remove it completely from the article (or add the references), it's not an excuse to substitute Wikidata-provided information (particularly when that information has references on Wikidata!). Otherwise, by the logic that seems to be used here, you're referencing it to the Wikipedia article. Mike Peel (talk) 21:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Re. "... (or add the references), ..." – which I did, e.g. here. If you think that can be useful, I'm prepared to discuss that example, or any other similar example, in detail. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure... Maybe try adding the references in the normal way, and stop ignoring the references to that exact same source that are on Wikidata? Or, please just stop harassing me by pinging me so often with your 'revert's, and stop the POINTy edit summaries. Mike Peel (talk) 15:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Re. "Sure..." – Chitwan National Park example:

• This edit removed referenced, valid content from Wikipedia, replacing it with a highly unorthodox reference, i.e. a reference that is neither "normal", nor conforming to WP:V/WP:RS.
• This edit restored the deleted material, while at the same time "Confirm[ing] that [3] support[ed] the content, then us[ing that source] directly", per the recommendations at WP:CIRCULAR.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 09:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

No, the WHS URL is used consistently as a reference in that case - it's both on Wikidata and the number+URL is shown in the infobox consistently. It seems to be you that's going round in circles, not the reference. Mike Peel (talk) 12:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Except that in this other case the WHS URL was removed. Took me some time to figure out how come that in that case the WHS external reference was removed: as it happens, by an operation that was completely legit at Wikidata. Anyhow fails WP:V 1.0 "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source...". In that case no such reliable source was indicated in the box. The fickleness of Wikidata shows that it is unreliable for en.Wikipedia's verifiability purposes. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Another CHALLENGE: Before the CHALLENGE the World Heritage Site (WHS) supposedly had an area of 245.13 km² (2.6386×10⁹ sq ft) [sic], while according to the reference that should have been 0.0031 km² (0.31 ha). Again, nothing wrong at Wikidata (the original km² is more or less correct for the topic of the article, 242 km² (93 sq mi) according to its {{infobox Italian comune}}), but completely unreliable for transclusion in the WHS infobox. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• I WP:CHALLENGEd the ridiculous area values, supplied by Wikidata, in this infobox. Note that the challenged data completely fail WP:V's "verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source". --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Related question

One issue that has not been discussed is how WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT applies when transcluding from Wikidata. My understanding of SAYWHERE is that, if we use Wikidata as an intermediary host site for information, then Wikidata becomes OUR source, regardless of where Wikidata got its info. Wikidata is what we should cite. Comments? Blueboar (talk) 11:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Now that is exactly as I see it: regardless of whether the data is locally and/or on WikiData referenced to a reliable source and whether either reference (still) represents what we originally transcluded (knowing that material may not be on WikiData when the transclusion was set up and that the data can be changed on WikiData after transclusion), WikiData is the source of information, that is where we got the information. And WikiData is by all definitions of our sources unreliable (if we consider ourselves, en.wikipedia, to be an unreliable source ...). To me, ALL data that is transcluded from WikiData should carry a <ref> tag stating that WikiData is the source of the information. It stretches my AGF that all editors who transclude data from WikiData have checked whether all data is reliably sourced (knowing that e.g. an template can now be added to a page where one field is both locally and on WikiData empty, and that later data can be added to WikiData for said field with an, for en.wikipedia, unreliable source). —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Re. "... ALL data that is transcluded from WikiData should carry a <ref> tag stating that WikiData is the source of the information" – of course not. Wikidata is a WP:USERGENERATED source (see above), and it is thus not allowed to use it as a reference. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

So we are not allowed to transclude from Wikidata? Blueboar (talk) 13:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

If you source data from WikiData you have to reference your source. If you are not allowed to use an unreliable source as a reference, you are not allowed to use the source. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

...thus what I wrote in the #Suggestion: WP:CHALLENGE subsection seems entirely relevant after all. The exception would be WP:BLUE type of content (as I indicated above). Thus, I'd proceed with WP:CHALLENGEs, as described above, so that we can figure out together where the WP:BLUE border falls for content imported from Wikidata. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

No, because WikiData is unreliable, there is no unchallengable info - all information that you transclude from WikiData is unreliable, and therefore it should simply not be used. And we are NOT talking about imported data, we are talking about transcluded data - i.e. data that, when changed on WikiData, changes data here. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

About the semantics: "transcluding" is definitely a (specific) form of "importing". I'd say "importing-with-a-live-connection" or "importing-by-software" or some such. So, if there's guidance relating to "importing" it certainly also applies to "transcluding".

There's definitely also WP:BLUE type of content in a Wikidata item: at least the sitelinks (called interwiki links at English Wikipedia) are. Whether these fall under the "exception" of the second paragraph of WP:CIRCULAR, or are completely outside the WP:V/WP:RS realm is unclear: the thing is, they're unproblematic as far as this WP:RSN board is concerned. I'd be sympathetic towards the idea that authority control numbers might be to some degree WP:BLUE, or at least unproblematic, too. I'd like to find out whether there's a consensus about that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Although it can have impact, I indeed think that the interwikis are completely exempt from WP:V/WP:RS. All other, though, do not. I do think that linking the wrong persondata on a person could be BLP-sensitive (as that does relate to being able to confirm whether we are talking about a certain subject). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I can't see a problem with how the {{authority control}} box currently operates. Since all authority control numbers in that box (whether or not transcluded from Wikidata) are presented as external links, and are by the design of the box not used as references/sources in the WP:V/WP:RS sense, this would equally fall outside WP:RSN board I suppose. Afaics also "unchallengable" in the WP:CHALLENGE sense. Applicable guidance would be Wikipedia:External links, and if there are issues to be resolved w.r.t. external links in that template, rather to be taken to WP:ELN than to this WP:RSN. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

IMHO, anything in a Wikipedia article should be correct, and in this case the created external link is by itself a (primary) reference. But also for external links, one needs to be able to show that it is correct, and there are (albeit rare) cases where there are references in the external link section to verify that a certain external link is indeed the one that it is supposed to be (ever changing external links are sometimes referenced as to show that that is currently the correct one). I would not really go as far as that external links are completely exempt from WP:V/WP:RS. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: There is such a discussion currently at ELN here. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Challenging MusicBrainz info in authority control box

See WP:ELN#Examples of problematic linking via the authority control box (first example), please discuss that example there, in order to keep the discussion in one place. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

European Aviation Safety Agency‎

I think I know the answer to this question, but would appreciate other views: at European Aviation Safety Agency‎, is this website an independent reliable source for a mass of detail about its rules and regulations? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I think you are expecting a "no" :) That is what i say, anyway. Jytdog (talk) 03:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Is it important whether it's independent? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Cautionary note on Simon and Schuster who I've discovered also publish woowoo material

I've usually assumed they're ok. But Michael Tellinger, the discoverer of Adam's Calendar, most of whose books are self-published by Zulu Planet that seems to be owned by Tellinger.[4] has managed to get "Slave Species of the Gods:The Secret History of the Anunnaki and Their Mission on Earth" published by them.[5] The book on Adam's Calendar is published by Zulu Planet that seems to be owned by Tellinger.[6] Same publisher for "Temples of the African Gods" and "Ubuntu contributism". Doug Weller talk 13:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

bummer. Thanks for the information. Jytdog (talk) 03:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Interestingly a source that was formerly used on Emela-ntouka, discussed below, is:

Loren Coleman & Jerome Clark (1999). Cryptozoology A-Z. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 9780684856025.

Pinging User:Bloodofox who posted the section below.Jytdog (talk) 00:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

How topical! Definitely another example. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Statements of Fact Based on One Report from One Media Outlet, Sourced to Anonymous Sources

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

---

I was recently reverted here by DrFleischman. Originally They speak so often that one Trump adviser has said that Hannity "basically has a desk in the place.", I tacked on , according to a Washington Post story.. as it's a sensational claim that the article writers claim was claimed by an anonymous "presidential adviser," and the claim hasn't been verified by other news orgs (to my knowledge).

Fleischman performed a similar act here, arguing that Cristiano Lima's assertion that Hannity "echoes Trump's anti-media rhetoric and his attacks on the Russia inquiry." should be treated as a fact, and stated as such in Wikipedia's voice. Since the source provides no proof or even evidence of this claim, I felt a "Cristiano Lima argues that" attribution is necessary, especially since Lima's claim is dubious to say the least and can be readily debunked.

Can we have some clarity to really nail down when it's acceptable to skip attribution and go ahead and allow journalists to be the final arbiters of facts on Wikipedia, please? Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 22:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Is this a content dispute or a conduct dispute? This board is for evaluating the reliability of sources. The sources in question are news articles from The Washington Post and Politico. Mr. Plainview has already acknowledged that these are reliable sources. However at least in the case of the Politico story, he wants in-text attribution in part because he contends that Politico is "leftist." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

this revert, is to a change in the title in the citation. For pete's sake, look at what you both are actually doing. The revert was fine (but for the wrong reason) and the edit that was reverted, was idiotic and very obviously tendentious. That person is heading to a TBAN. Jytdog (talk) 03:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

as to this revert, i find generally that when you have a quote in the content, it should be attributed in the content. I also generally find that quotes are shitty writing and are often intended to be colorful. WP content should be neutral and should summarize the content, simply and neutrally (negative content can be summarized neutrally) Simply writing "Hannity often attacks mainstream media and attacks the Mueller investigation in ways similar to Trump." sourced to Politico, would be fine. Jytdog (talk) 03:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

::So to answer DrFleischman first, this is of course a content post. I have no serious issues with your conduct so far, although I am growing a bit peeved that you continue to blatantly misrepresent my concerns with the content despite being corrected at least twice, now. Both sources are reliable in general, yes, with the exception of the occasional false report and heavy reliance on what they claim to be "high level White House officials who wish to remain anonymous" and such. As I explained to you yesterday here and here, I did not say anything remotely resembling "I want in-text attribution because Politico has leftist leanings". This is a content post, but if you continue to intentionally repeat this falsehood, we may have to explore remedies to throw a wrench in this pattern. The material should be attributed appropriately if you only have one source that makes the claim, which happens to be demonstrably false. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC) :::In response to Jytdog, that edit was actually in the wrong place. I had meant to add the attribution to the content, not the reference (I would think that is fairly obvious). I am not exactly what you would call a "seasoned editor," but I would be astonished if editors get banned for trivial mistakes like that. Your revision proposal is POV ("attack" is much less neutral than "criticize"), and doesn't properly attribute the source of that argument. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

It should be attributed it is an opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Which? If you're talking about the "basically has a desk in the place" quote, that's already attributed in-text to its speaker, which is a Trump staffer, not the Washington Post. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe I am being blind, I see no attribution except for the economist. It reads to me as if we are saying this in Wikipedias voice, and that if off.Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I'm confused, which sentence are you talking about? The "basically has a desk" sentence, or the "echoes Trump's rhetoric" sentence? The former is properly attributed in-text to its speaker, while the latter is a factual conclusion, not an opinion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• I still don't understand why we're here. Mr. Plainview has repeatedly acknowledged that the sources in question are reliable. I think this discussion should be closed. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

::The reason why we're here is because you think this claim should be stated in Wikipedia's voice, and I think you're wrong and policy says otherwise. But once again, that's not you're missing the issue. The issue is that the alleged claim by this anonymous source that Lima claims to have is not attributed to the publication that chose to print it. If we don't attribute stuff written in a single article on the Internet, where do we draw the line? Look at former Politico writer Glenn Thrush's article: "A leaked email released in October 2016 by "Wikileaks", which the U.S. intelligence concluded was executed by the Russian government, showed Thrush sending John Podesta portions of a draft article that dealt with Podesta, asking that he fact-check the statements, and writing: "No worries Because I have become a hack I will send u the whole section that pertains to u. Please don't share or tell anyone I did this Tell me if I fucked up anything." Not only is Thrush's email attributed to the source, but Wikipedia's voice pins the whole thing on the Russkies. We attribute the source of the email (twice), and Thrush admits he sent the email.[7] But somehow, the sensational and preposterous "Hannity basically has a desk in the place" gossip from a phantom source written in Politico gets to be stated in Wikivoice with no attribution whatsoever. Something's not adding up here. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Asking the subject of draft articles for comment and/or to verify facts is how journalism works. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Mr Plainview is correct to take it here, the question is not just whether a source is often reliable (and it may not be if it in turn depends on something unverifiable see WP:RSCONTEXT), but whether with an opinionated source we must state that source, and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV says yes. Of course even attribution might not be enough for this BLP. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

You've just re-confirmed that this doesn't belong here, as this board is about whether certain sources are reliable, not about how we handle in-text attribution. If this is a BLP issue then it can be taken to BLPN. I'm not going to respond here to comments that a Politico news article is "leftist" or "opinionated." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Your statement "this board is about whether certain sources are reliable" is an error, as the top of this page says "This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context". I believe that Mr Plainview has valid RS concerns, but if I've hurt his argument by adding that there are violations of other policies too, then I apologize to him. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

::::::Thanks for clarifying that Peter Gulutzan. The only thing I'm confused about now is how do these postings conclude, normally? Does an administrator come in and make the final call as to whether Lima's claim should be attributed? Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

You could look at WP:CLOSE but look also at the WP:BLPN archives and you'll see that these threads rarely end with formal administrator close. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

* as i noted above, the content is a quote. Everybody learns in grade school that if you are quoting, you attribute that. X said: "Blah blah blah." The content as it stands is just bad writing. This remains a goofy argument. It would be an interesting discussion if the content were paraphrased. Jytdog (talk) 00:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Pardon me but honestly I'm having trouble discerning which version you are siding with here! You insinuated that editors should be banned for making an edit in the wrong place so I got ab it lost. So for 1), you are in agreement with me that the ", according to an anonymous source quoted in a Washington Post story." is needed? And for 2), you said the Politico article with Lima's argument that "Hannity echoes Trump's anti-media rhetoric" should be attributed to Politico? Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Both of you are making bad arguments. I didn't insinuate anything btw. What I said was that the first specific edit cited "was idiotic and very obviously tendentious. That person is heading to a TBAN." When I say "tendentious" I am referring to the larger pattern of behavior. With respect to the 2nd edit, I said that if it is quoted it should be attributed. I said that the content would be better if the source were paraphrased. Jytdog (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Which quote needs to be attributed? The "basically has a desk" quote? That quote is already attributed to a Trump staffer per the source, yes? I don't think that particular quote is paraphraseable. FWIW I agree that quotes should be paraphrased when possible, and when quoted directly they should always be attributed in-text. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you are talking about 2 different things. The first quotation says "one Trump advisor says" and the quotation is referenced. I don't see anything else has to be said, if the reference supports this. In the case of the second quotation I agree that Christiano LIma should be mentioned in the article since it is his opinion that is being written, not a fact. If a physics paper says e=mc^2 we can use the article as a source but if it also says "Einstein was the most studly physicist ever" we would legitimately wonder how the author knew that.Richardson mcphillips (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment - OP has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a community banned user. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• Hidden Tempo, to be exact. I've struck his edits. Doug Weller talk 16:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

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

can an image of an object/printed card be a valid source?

Hope this is the right place to ask this question (newbie)...Can an image be a source/reference for information about an article topic? I have a number of scans provided by institutional archives of postcards announcing an artist collective's exhibitions. the facts of the shows (when/where/who) are on the cards. if they give permission to upload to wikipedia can an image of the postcard be the reference? The info in the images can be verified in NY times listings for the same exhibitions. Or are the postcards considered like press releases and not valid references? Or is this original research and disqualifying for that reason alone? The way i see it, there is no possible misinterpretation of the image because it is a scan of published words (scan of the physical object in an archives' collection) rather than an image of people or a situation which can be interpreted in different ways. some of this is touched on here Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_175#Using_jpeg_files_as_inline_citations but I am not clear on how to deal with this particular situation, as I am totally new to this. Thanks!Jenuphoto (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Then why not use the NYT?Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, even press releases can be valid references for some content (there's a Template:Cite press release) as primary sources potentially subject to WP:ABOUTSELF. And if they're from archives, there's always Template:Cite archive - sources aren't required to be available online, though clearly it's great if they are to allow verification. Do you want to use them for information that isn't in the NYT listings?--tronvillain (talk) 18:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I think that should be okay. There is no problem with OR as the information on something like that was clearly for the purpose. You should acknowledge the archives as the sources. Dmcq (talk) 22:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• I have a couple of thoughts about this.

First, like all scholarly projects, content that is added must be sourced in such a way that other people can go look at the source too. It would be OK in theory to cite something like "Postcard #442, Box 5, in Artist Collective XX Archives in the New York Public Library" -- it needs to be well-defined enough that somebody could actually go there.

But I would be dubious of postcards that were scanned and uploaded being used as sources. That is too easy to monkey with, in my view.

Second, there is the additional issue, of each of these post cards being a primary source (essentially a press release). And building up big sections of content based on primary sources is generally a bad idea here in WP. Because:

a) we summarize secondary sources here. WP should not be the first place where something like a history of exhibitions by the collective is published - this is reallydoing history' here which is a form of WP:OR and not OK.

b) the issue of WP:UNDUE comes up as well, for sections built entirely from primary sources.

Those are my thoughts, fwiw. Jytdog (talk) 23:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I should have added, btw, that the scans would be nice illustrations for the articles, probably! And you have the NYT listings which are much better. Jytdog (talk) 00:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

It's a weight thing. A postcard is not a very substantive document but I see no issue if it supports some smaller assertions perhaps about the advertising on the card or what have you. Legacypac (talk) 00:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

everytime i read your comment i keep laughing. :) Jytdog (talk) 04:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Eric Zorn

I have a 2-part question regarding the same source. I need advice on if the journalist Eric Zorn can be cited as a source for facts, or just for his personal opinion, or not at all.

Part 1: Does the news blog at the Chicago Tribune qualify as a reliable source under WP:NEWSBLOG?

Part 2: Does the journalist, Eric Zorn, having written more than 36 articles over the past 30 years about Rob Sherman, qualify as a "specialists and recognized experts" and "authoratative" on the specific topic (Sherman) as described under WP:NEWSORG? Is he a citable reliable source for facts, or would information from Zorn about Sherman still need to be attributed to Zorn?

As you can see, the "Change of Subject" news blog is operated as a feature of the Chicago Tribune by op-ed columnist Eric Zorn and edited by the coordinator of the Tribune editorial staff, Jessica Reynolds [8]. WP:NEWSORG also says, "One signal that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy is the publication of corrections." Zorn's news blog does issue corrections [9], [10], to maintain factual accuracy. Holbach Girl (talk) 03:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I found this about the Zorn news column by the Tribune, regarding editorial oversight: "It's previewed by editors. I appreciate the second and third sets of eyes" [11] and "We've more or less adopted the SacBee model in which I can and do post directly to the site, but I do so shortly after emailing a short roster of editors, some of whom are on duty at any given time, so they can give it a quick look." [12] Holbach Girl (talk) 03:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Boing Boing

Hi folks, How are Boing Boing for a reliable source, specifically Johannes Grenzfurthner Thanks scope_creep (talk) 10:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Primary source, so what is it being used as a source for?Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

You may be interested to read West_Bromwich_Albion_F.C.#Supporters. But then again, you may not. Boing boing. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Johannes Grenzfurthner. So it is genuine. I wasnt sure about the site. The author Thomas Kaestle has only two articles, and both seem to be about the Monochrom artist group that Grenzfurthner is part of, suggesting it is self generated. scope_creep (talk) 10:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

As I said, without knowing what it is being used for hard to say if it is RS (not genuine, just not RS). But no it does not sound RS to me (as a general rule). It would (I think) be RS for his opinions, but not their veracity.Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Excellent. Slatersteven. Then I would say, it is reporting a film he is working on, so I would be looking for factual source, not his opinion on it, in this particular case. Thanks scope_creep (talk) 12:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Then I would say as long as we say he has claimed this it would just about be RS.Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can tell it's not user-generated, but a translation. (Scroll down to the end of the interview.) But I agree that there are probably better factual sources. Interstellarpoliceman (talk) 11:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

SFlist

Is SFlist (and it's affiliates RS)?

Specifically this [[13]] for the claim that a given person set up a museum (and for the other "facts" it contains)?Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

My position, as in edit summary: SFist and LAist are/were clickbait churnalism. In this case LAist was obviously cannibalising original reporting from elsewhere (in this case Pasadena Star News); so go with the original. NPalgan2 (talk) 13:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC) Issue is moot. NPalgan2 (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Not really as LAlist is used in at least one article as well. Thus the question about general RS status stands.Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• this was part of the Gothamist that provided really invaluable local news coverage in the cities where it operated. In NYC the WNYC (the main public radio station) acquired the local iteration and has it up and running again. So I would say yes, reliable for basic facts about the museum. Jytdog (talk) 17:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

German

Is the following a reliable source: https://www.lvstprinzip.de ? 92.10.238.53 (talk) 14:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Using Google Translate, this page and this page seems to indicate that the site is a blog of Theresa Lachner with guest authors. This page seems to confirm that it's largely Lachner's site. It would fall under WP:SELFPUBLISH, which really only allows self-published sources by noted and recognized authorities in a given field. I'm not immediately spotting anything on Lachner, though the Portfolio page links to materials that could result in an article (which would help one argue Lachner is an authority in the field and save one a lot of future trouble in maintaining a citation).

Even if that was resolved, there's still the following issues: What article on Lvstprinzip are you citing? What article on this site is being Lvstprinzip cited for, and for what content? Ian.thomson (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• The question as posted is not answerable. Please read the instructions at the top of this page. Jytdog (talk) 15:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson Okay, to be more specific, is this source permissible for usage on wikipedia? 92.10.238.53 (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Once again, you would need to establish that the author is a recognized authority in whatever field you're citing them for. That's a guest article, so Lachner's potential authority may not carry over.

You have still not yet specified what article on our site you would be citing that Lvstprinzip piece for. I'm not sure that it matters, because there's not really any objective claims about any subject we have an article on at any rate -- just the author's subjective feelings about their own personal experiences.

Wikipedia is not censored, but we're not a diary or an art exhibit, we're an encyclopedia. What is your exact purpose in asking us about this site? Ian.thomson (talk) 15:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

What Ian said. IP editor, read the instructions at the top of this page. If you post again without providing the additional information, I will just close this. Jytdog (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, let's make it simple: For (almost) all practical purposes that that website is not a reliable source and should not be used for Wikipedia.

Even if you would show that an individual article was written by a highly reputable author (and hence theoretically might be considered as a source), he most likely has published somewhere else. More importantly the self published exceptions usually only apply for content that is more or less undisputed. For disputed or controversial topics (which probably includes most sexual topics), that exception usually doesn't apply and you need a repputable publisher and (peer) reviewed publication as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Richard Rohr

Greetings! Richard Rohr has been tagged five years for chronic WP:COI and WP:NPOV issues. My attempt to add a critical review of a book is met with resistance and the claim that it violates WP:WEIGHT. We could use some more opinions. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 20:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm on the other side of this dispute, and I agree we need more opinions. 173.209.178.244 (talk) 20:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Holy crud, that was civil. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

RfC on use of a master's thesis

See Talk:1946 British Embassy bombing#RfC about Bagoon Source which may interest this board.Icewhiz (talk) 06:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Isaaq genocide

What is the appropriate form of action if someone promotes an article title that has zero sources? Thylacoop5 (talk) 12:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

BTW, the same editor also violates MOS:LEADSENTENCE in this edit. Thylacoop5 (talk) 12:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Is it okay to use the Daily Mail as a source for a benign, non-political article?

Just sayin'. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 15:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Why would yo not use a better source? What does it say that is not said somewhere better?Slatersteven (talk) 15:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

^^Agree. And the Mail is rarely benign - it can make a malignant mess out of any subject you care to name and often does. - Sitush (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Also also its the only source I can see even talking about this puzzle type, making me speculate its legitimacy. --Masem (t) 15:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

No. Unreliable means we cannot assume that anything it publishes is accurate. TFD (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, there is a high likelihood that anything published in The Daily Mail is plagiarism.[14][15][16][17][18][][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] Never use The Daily Mail for a source on anything, ever. No exceptions. If it isn't in any other source they made it up. If it is in another source use that other source instead. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

We don't have a never ever policy for the Daily Mail but an avoidance policy (which allows for occasional exceptions).--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

So has anyone found any other source for this?Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Amartya Sen book review

Economist Amartya Sen, in a New York Times review of Mike Davis' Late Victorian Holocausts, notes that India, China, and other countries which were formally or informally part of the British Empire suffered massive man-made famine in the 19th century. These countries were run under free trade systems, yet the outcomes were remarkably similar to the great Communist famines, leading writer Tariq Ali to call Davis' book a veritable Black Book of liberal capitalism. Sen concluded that man-made famines don't arise specifically from communism or capitalism, but from any government subjecting people to an "absence of economic power combined with a lack of political leverage..."

References

Is used to aver that China was "(informally) part of the British Empire" in the 19th century. The review itself makes no such claim, nor does the review compare "communism" and "capitalism" other than to say Tariq Ali calls this a "Black Book of liberal capitalism." In addition, the lengthy quote seems aimed at presenting opinion as direct fact, and to verge on excessive length of a copyright article. Is the review a "reliable source" for the claims made, ought the review be noted as editorial in nature, should Tariq Ali be described here as a supporter of the Bolivarian Revolution etc., and is the entire topic covered in a fully neutral manner using his review. Mass killings under Communist regimes Thanks. Collect (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

That's ridiculous on a bunch of levels. Not OK. And on the narrow question, no, this source is not reliable for the content, as it doesn't support it. Jytdog (talk) 19:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• I am not sure I completely understand the point (I mean was the question about Davis or Sen's interpretation), but here is a quote from a review on Davis's book (Geoff Mann (2003) Late Victorian Holocausts: El Niño Famines and the Making of the Third World, by Mike Davis New York: Verso, 2001, Rethinking Marxism, 15:2, 295-297, DOI: 10.1080/0893569032000113587):

"For Davis, colonial famine in the late nineteenth century was the result not of the failure of political systems,but of their effectiveness: “drought was consciously made into famine by thedecisions taken in palaces of rajas and viceroys”. The contemporary “Third World” is the miraculously standing remnant of regions that were meticulously devastated by a London-centered program of imperial economic order and colonial disempowerment that “aggressively exploited” environmental calamity. The argument is extremely convincing. Late Victorian Holocaustsis a “political ecology of famine”, an examination of the human/environment dialectic that generates mass starvation. It presents two integrated histories. The first is an analysis of a series of catastrophic environmental disturbances (drought and flood) in the non-Western world that were the context for between 31 and 60 million deaths in India, China, and Brazil alone between 1876 and 1902. The second is a detailed narrative of the history and state of scientific knowledge of the source of these environmental disturbances: the large-scale climate events known as El Niño/Southern Oscillation, or ENSO. Recent earth science research has demonstrated that the environmental instability that contributed to these famines was associated with ENSO. Davis’s argument is thus conjunctural: planned international market penetration and the deliberate disassembly of systems of local and national economic autonomy, in combination with ENSO-driven drought and flood, created what we now know as the “third world.” For example, in India, perhaps the central case in the book, he chronicles the terrible toll of severe droughts-made-famines by British policies of export orientation, free-market “price famines,” and a battery of regressive imperial taxes on peasant producers. Extended examinations of Brazil and China reveal similar stories. It is this “sinister combination” that makes this quarter century a “radical point of division in the experience of humanity”.

"The political environmental nexus with which he is concerned is only recently receiving the attention it merits, and an understanding of the interpenetration of nature and political economy that constitutes the “secret history” of famine is a crucial contribution to the analysis of the global spread of capitalism."

In addition, the book was cited almost two thousands times according to google scholar.

My conclusion is that if the Geoff Mann's review is a reliable source for Davis, then Davis is a reliable source for the claim that Britain was responsible for late 19 century famines, including the famine in China.

Hope it was helpful. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Great - China was part of the British Empire, and the UK was responsible for its famines. Find a real source for that claim - please. Collect (talk) 22:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for providing a long quote (I did that to avoid taking the statement out of context). However, just in case if you have difficulty with reading and understanding long texts, I reproduce a small piece specially for you (emphasis is mine):

"For example, in India, perhaps the central case in the book, he chronicles the terrible toll of severe droughts-made-famines by British policies of export orientation, free-market “price famines,” and a battery of regressive imperial taxes on peasant producers. Extended examinations of Brazil and China reveal similar stories."

In other words, the source says that British policy caused severe famine in India, and the same story reproduced in Brazil and China.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

This is bizarre. In high school most of us learned that the opium wars led to British imperial influence and colonization of the major Chinese ports. If nothing else, you're educated enough to know the meaning of the words informal and economic. -GPRamirez5 (talk) 07:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• Whatever this is, it does not belong to the page Mass killings under Communist regimes, and especially to the section about origin of communist terror. Hence I excluded it. This can be included back if we will reach consensus here to include. My very best wishes (talk) 21:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• I see that the citations do support the content, except for one catch. The informal empire (or informal colonialism) is mentioned in Davis's book. The colonial empires did indeed practise "liberal capitalism", but I don't know if book covers it specifically in the context of China. Amartya Sen is certainly discussing "liberal capitalism" and "formal socialism" (which presumably means communism). Sen is not denying that liberal capitalism was a cause of famines (says, "that it certainly is"), but he is saying that economic disempowerment was perhaps the more important factor. There is a quotebox in the review that shows that the colonial state did intervene to ameliorate famine, but it was half-hearted and inefficient.
  • Now the catch: Sen is drawing a parallel from communism to liberal capitalism, i.e., not only liberal capitalism but communism also can also cause famines. But the text of the article is drawing a parallel the other way: not only communism but liberal capitalism can also cause famines. That is mild WP:SYNTHESIS and should not appear in an attributed paragraph.
  • A better solution is to first mention that Davis's book talks about famines under colonial empires practising "liberal capitalism". Having said that, you can add that Sen says the true cause was economic disempowerment.
  • The attribute "liberal" in "liberal capitalism" is important. It is in fact called classical liberalism, which prohibits welfare state or any form of state intervention in the economic activity. "Capitalism" by itself doesn't involve such ideology.
  • As an aside, I might add that India had no famines after independence. They put their mind to it and got rid of them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

    And Bangladesh had, so what?--Ymblanter (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

    One more famine you can't blame on Communism.GPRamirez5 (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

    • Uh... in 1974 Bangladesh had a planned economy, five year plans and all (though to be fair this particular famine was probably due to other causes).Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Kautilya3—WP:SYNTH is often interpreted overly broadly. Bear in mind the information on this explanatory supplement: SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition, SYNTH is not summary, and SYNTH is not explanation. - GPRamirez5 (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the point is not that both Communism ad liberal captitalism can cause famines, but that in both cases the cause is imperialism, i.e., the elites of one country controlling other countries against the interests of those countries. That provides an alternative to the thesis of the article that Communism alone was responsible for the famine in Ukraine. TFD (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

GPRamirez5 I know WP:SYNTHNOT quite well. (I would, woulnd't I, if I am giving feedback on this noticeboard?) I stand by my assessment that the current paraphrase involves SYNTH. But it is easy enough to fix it, as I indicated.

Well I can tweak it, but I'm still not clear on where the deviation is. The order of a comparison (in this case between communism and capitalism) doesn't effect its value: 4+1=5 means the same thing as 5=4+1.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 04:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, you seem mathematically minded. So it should be easy enough to see that Sen is making a comment on liberal capitalism whereas the text here is making a comment on communism/socialism. So they are different. The substance is similar, but when you attribute it to Sen, you can't say something different from what he said. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, I don't see Amartya Sen talking about imperialism. Rather, his position is that the checks and balances of an open democracy are necessary to force the state to deal with famines effectively. In principle, an imperial regime could have promoted such checks and balances. Conversely, a home-grown dictatorship could quash them equally. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, there is some good debate here on why democracy failed in Bangladesh in 1974. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Kautilya3, is this what you mean?

Economist Amartya Sen argues that economic ideologies in themselves do not cause famines, including the major communist ones. To Sen, man-made famines don't arise specifically from communism or capitalism, but from any government subjecting people to an "absence of economic power combined with a lack of political leverage..." In his New York Times review of Mike Davis' Late Victorian Holocausts, Sen noted that India, China, and other countries which were formally or informally part of the British Empire suffered massive man-made famine in the 19th century even though these countries were run under free trade systems. The outcome of the policies were nonetheless remarkably similar to the great Communist famines, leading writer Tariq Ali to call Late Victorian Holocausts a "Black Book of liberal capitalism."

GPRamirez5 (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

References

No, I am afraid this is even worse than the original in some ways, because it is mixing up Davis (who talked about "imperial famines") and Sen (who is talking about 20th century famines). Stuff like "formally or informally part of the British empire" is not Sen's language at all, but you are putting it in the attributed text. Also, phrases like "free trade systems", "policies" and "remarkably similar" are not his language. We don't know whether these famines have occurred because of "policies" or because of the failure of policies. It is also not a good idea to bring in Tariq Ali, who might not have talked about communist famines at all. (I haven't seen his review.) The best you can say in the second part is:

Sen noted that famines of similar magnitude to the imperial famines have occurred in 20th century communist economies.

That is all he said, as far as ideologies go. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I see. Or rather I don't. I'm perplexed that "informal empires" can't be mentioned because the language isn't in the Sen article (this to me is exempted through SYNTH is not explanation), but Tariq Ali shouldn't be mentioned even though he is explicitly mentioned in the Sen article, and "Black Book of liberal capitalism" is a clear cut comparison to The Black Book of Communism which was a hot topic in the press at the time this review was written. Actually, interweaving insights from a notable book review by a Nobel laureate with observations from the book which it is favorably reviewing seems on the whole like a case of reasonable synthesis covered by SYNTH is not just any synthesis. But I could be wrong.

Kautilya3 , would you consider re-writing the edit? I think that might satisfy everyone. Alternately, I could just add the page numbers from Davis that mention free trade, informal empire, etc.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, would it be correct to summarise the discussion as:

Davis and Sen can be good sources to support the claim that large scale and devastating famine was a widespread phenomenon in 19th century in colonies and the countries that were dominated economically by Briatin; the scale of these events was comparable with later famines that occurred in the same countries under Communist rule. These sources may not directly support the claim that China was an informal part of British Empire, because this is a loosely defined category.

Please, let me know if anybody disagrees.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, yes, that is a good summary of the discussion here. From the context of the article in question, the more important relevance of the Sen review is that he says the real cause was economic disempowerment. The fact that such disempowerment happened under colonial regimes is no surprise, but that it happened under communism is. This is perhaps the "perspective" that Sen brings to the article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that is in agreement with what O'Grada says, and he argues that the Great Leap famine was not the only, and not the most devastating famine in Chinese history (in relative numbers), but it was the last famine.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Question for the rest of us who, didn't come from where ever you all have. Am I correct that this is content under debate for the Mass killings under Communist regimes article? Jytdog (talk) 02:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes. TFD (talk) 02:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Boing Boing

I linked to an interview on Boing Boing, but it was removed as a non-reliable source. True? Boing Boing Interstellarpoliceman (talk) 11:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Seems it has already been discussed. Will comment there Interstellarpoliceman (talk) 11:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Blogs discussing Ranked Choice Voting

Seeking others' input regarding two blogs being held out as RS

• leastevil blog
• bolson blog

This dispute arose at Burlington mayoral election, 2009 as follows -

• Bold edit .... I don't know when these two blogs were added to the article
• Revert 1 ..... I reverted them as self-published non-RS blogs
• Non-discussed re-Revert (Non-AGF Edit summary "revert blanking of references")

Attempts at other discussion

• I started this Thread at talk page for Omegatron (talk · contribs), citing our policy on edit warring, but more particularly for this board's purposes, I also cited our poilicy on self-published sources. I suggested the other ed undo their re-revert to seek consensus on the use of these self-published sources.
• In reply the other user tosses a link to WP:TENDENTIOUS at me.

Does the board believe the cited sources are WP:RS in this context? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

There are a bunch of strong sources there; there is no need for these blogs. weird. Jytdog (talk) 01:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking time to look Jytdog, that's what I thought also. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Wound characteristics of military-style rifles

Is the New York Times a reliable source for bullet wound characteristics? Which article(s), if any, should this be included in? –dlthewave ☎ 20:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposed text

Wound characteristics The New York Times interviewed several trauma surgeons with military experience, who described the wounds created by assault rifles, both military and civilian variants: “What makes injuries from these rifles so deadly…is that the bullets travel so fast. Those from an M-16 or AR-15 can depart the muzzle at a velocity of more than 3,000 feet per second, while bullets from many common handguns move at less than half or a third that speed. The result: The energy imparted to a human body by a high velocity weapon is exponentially greater than that from a handgun.” The bullets in an M-16 or AR-15 also turn sideways (yaw) or "tumble" when they hit a person. The surgeons also explained "the weapons produce the same sort of horrific injuries seen on battlefields…You will see multiple organs shattered. The exit wounds can be a foot wide.” As the blast wave travels through the body, it pushes tissues and organs aside in a temporary cavity larger than the bullet itself. They bounce back once the bullet passes. Organs are damaged, blood vessels rip and many victims bleed to death before they reach a hospital.”

References

Background

The text has been proposed or added to Assault rifle, Assault weapon and AR-15 style rifle.

Survey questions

1. Is the New York Times article a reliable source for this statement?

2. If the statement is found to be reliably sourced, which article (if any) should it be added to? If the source is found to be reliable, which article(s) (if any) is it a reliable source for? (Assault rifle, Assault weapon, AR-15 style rifle, specific cartridge type, or something else) Wording changed per discussion below. –dlthewave ☎ 03:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Straw poll

• OPPOSE INCLUSION FOR ALL ARTICLES...by definition, anecdotal evidence, as such not reliable.--RAF910 (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

RAF910, "interviews with trauma surgeons with military experience" on this topic is not anecdotal evidence by any definition, much less a news article based on them among other sources. If that's what your opposition is based on, you might want to rethink it. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The NYT article is filled with hyperbole. For example "The exit wounds can be a foot wide." Really? Someone please tell me where I can get 5.56mm ammo that will produce an exit hole larger than a basketball. Maybe you should rethink your support.--RAF910 (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• No, the NYT is not a RS for medical information and has an axe to grind on this issue. This is not MEDRS compliant AFAIK. And it is also filled with hyperbole due to the gun debate in the US. The reality is a tad more nuanced - there are high velocity handguns on the one hand, and the M-16/AR-15 small caliber has actually led it to be ineffective against body armor - with the army looking at 6.8mm [26] and 7.62. Interviewed surgeons invariably (in any conflict) bemoan the damage caused by bullets (whether they stay in or zip out). We should stick to a solid medical (or cadaver/dummy) studies, of which I am sure there are several, which are not linked to the gun control debate.Icewhiz (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
• Not usable for anything here. I get a feeling that the journalist has done some heavy editing on what the trauma specialists said, without knowing what he/she was doing, because I doubt they said what the article says. The energy does not depend entirely on bullet velocity, as the article seems to claim when mentioning the lower velocity of handgun bullets, but on velocity when entering the target and bullet weight (½ x bullet weight x velocity squared), which since handguns usually have heavy bullets (ranging from ~125 grain for a 9mm to ~230 grain for a .45ACP) while the 5.56x45mm NATO (which is the caliber they were talking about, since that's what the M-16 and most AR-15s are chambered for) usually have bullets in the 55-70 grain range, and handguns are used at short range while rifles are used at longer range, means that a handgun bullet can very well have the same energy when hitting the target as a 5.56mm rifle bullet has. Which a surgeon with military experience of course would know. The material has been repeatedly added to Assault rifle and Assault weapon, i.e. articles about weapons, where it most definitely does not belong, for these reasons (copied from a post of mine at Talk:Assault rifle):

"They (i.e. wound characteristics) are totally irrelevant in this article since it isn't the rifle as such that causes the wound, but the ammunition/bullet. How severe a wound is, i.e. penetration, size of wound cavity etc etc, depends entirely on the cartridge (bullet diameter, bullet length, bullet weight, bullet type, velocity when entering the target etc), not on what type of weapon that was used. The barrel length matters, since a longer barrel usually results in a higher muzzle velocity, but what type of action the weapon has, what it looks like, whether it has a removable magazine or not, etc, is totally irrelevant. Which is why wound characteristics belong in articles about specific cartridges (and many articles about military cartridges already have such information), not in articles about different types of weapons."

So, as I wrote there, the only article that kind of material might belong in is 5.56x45mm, but that article already has that kind of information (scroll down a bit and you'll find illustrations and all...), much more professional information to boot, so I see no use at all for the kind of unprofessional sensationalist information the NYT article provides. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• Yes the New York Times is a reliable source for reporting the assessments of experts in this or any other field. Dismissing such as merely "anecdotal evidence" strikes me as a bit odd. I'll pass on the question of which article(s) are appropriate for this information. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

"Anecdotal evidence is evidence from anecdotes, i.e., evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony."--RAF910 (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment This is a difficult set of questions as phrased. It depends greatly on what context. The NYT source suffers from being politically motivated and lacking some requisite technical details but that alone doesn't exclude it. It is a poor quality source on this topic which already has good, technical sources in 5.56x45 NATO. Which article it is fit for raises questions of NPOV and DUE weight which cannot be decided here. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
• YES INCLUDE for all the articles. Of course the NYT is a credible source of information and the damage caused by AR-15 is specifically described. Several respondents above act as if their own expertise matters, when it does not. Wikpedia is about including facts from credible sources. They are welcome to add other articles that further cover the subject that may disagree with the statements of the trauma surgeons cited in the NYT article. But to exclude such content is wholly inappropriate. "You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts" as the saying goes. It's factual, it's from a credible source, include it. Then decide how to balance it if you have other credible factual sources that disagree.Farcaster (talk) 21:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • All what articles? All the articles on Wikipedia? This is RSN, being a reliable source doesn't make something fit for inclusion in any given article. It could be an entirely reliable and factual source but you can't just pop it into the Opossum article. Which articles in particular are you saying this is a RS for? And that still doesn't answer whether it is DUE. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
    • The articles are listed above. Please read what you are commenting on.Farcaster (talk) 23:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Sorry, my apologies, I didn't see that line. Not listed is the most relevant article which I could see it going in and the one I had suggested: 5.56x45 NATO. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• Inadequate It isn't a very good source when more academic works on the subject may be found. Concerning two of the doctors cited in the article, they mention the rarity with which they operate on someone having these wounds and that doesn't go well with describing them as experts. "Now, though the wounds are still rare on the streets of Birmingham, he operates on occasional victims..." concerning Dr. Kerby. Concerning Dr. Gupta, "Attacks using AR-15-style weapons are still rare, he emphasized. He sees mostly handgun wounds and some from shotguns." Better sourcing with more collated data from actual experts en masse is needed and available. Try books about ballistic wounds. Trying to use a NYT article for this subject is a hack job.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
• Yes for the first question per Shock Brigade Harvester Boris. As for the second question, that's beyond the scope of this noticeboard. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Actually, after reading the NYT article more closely, I don't think the proposed text is completely accurate in capturing the what the source is saying. First, while it does say that 3 of the doctors served in the military, but does not say how they served. Perhaps they were surgeons. Perhaps they were infantry. We don't know because the article doesn't say. Second, unless I missed it, I don't think it supports the text "both military and civilian variants". Therefore, I would propose the following:

Wound characteristics The New York Times interviewed several trauma surgeons with military experience, who described the wounds created by assault rifles, both military and civilian variants: “What makes injuries from these rifles so deadly…is that the bullets travel so fast. Those from an M-16 or AR-15 can depart the muzzle at a velocity of more than 3,000 feet per second, while bullets from many common handguns move at less than half or a third that speed. The result: The energy imparted to a human body by a high velocity weapon is exponentially greater than that from a handgun.” The bullets in an M-16 or AR-15 also turn sideways (yaw) or "tumble" when they hit a person. The surgeons also explained "the weapons produce the same sort of horrific injuries seen on battlefields…You will see multiple organs shattered. The exit wounds can be a foot wide.” As the blast wave travels through the body, it pushes tissues and organs aside in a temporary cavity larger than the bullet itself. They bounce back once the bullet passes. Organs are damaged, blood vessels rip and many victims bleed to death before they reach a hospital.”

References

• Source has serious issues, these wounds are not inflicted because they are from a military style rifle, but instead because they are from a rifle firing a certain cartridge, the type of rifle is incidental. This is equivalent to saying being hit by a MAN truck is in some way worse than being hit by a Mercedes truck, despite the two travelling at identical speeds and having identical fronts. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 23:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC).
  • Logic needs work; the cartridge by itself does nothing; throwing it does little damage.Farcaster (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I think you should read what I wrote, "they are from a rifle firing a certain cartridge", who said anything about throwing? Rather than simply making snide comments about those who hold opposing views from your own, can I suggest you familiarise yourself with WP:CIVIL and WP:EQ. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 23:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• To clarify:

Q1 - yes source is reliable by definition.

Q2 - none of the above - it lacks the specificity to be included in any of the above pages, nor any others that I am aware of. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 00:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC).

Surely it could be included on the AR-15 or M-16 pages, which are specifically mentioned in the source? –dlthewave ☎ 01:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

No I do not believe it can. The AR-15 action in its various guises comes in various chamberings and these are not specified, whilst the M16 is only mentioned in passing. If the article specified a cartridge it would be a different argument. My criticism of the article above stands. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 05:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC).

• Hm.

PMID 25724396 is a review from 2015, PMID 20565804/PMC 2898680 is a review from 2010, and PMID 19644779 is a review from 2009; they are the most on-point MEDRS reviews and both say the same thing -- that tissue damage from a bullet is a function of the kinetic energy of the bullet; the kinetic energy = one-half the mass times velocity squared. So velocity is by far the most important aspect. The velocity is dependent on the weapon, with handguns providing far less than rifles, with shotguns in between but depending on the range, causing more damage due to the multiple projectiles. Both articles walk through that and talk about the resulting injuries. The shape of the bullet also matters, and whether it tumbles or fragments. They also make it clear that the temporary cavitation when a high velocity bullet passes through tissue is much larger than with a low velocity bullet, and that inelastic organs like the brain, liver, and spleen are devastated by large temporary cavitation from high velocity bullets. This is what the surgeons in the NYT article talked about the most.

The Hartford Consensus from 2015 also talks about this; it is a high quality MEDRS source -- a clinical guideline. It doesn't go into the same deal but see example page 30, left column, where the stuff I just wrote is reviewed.

This document from the military about kinds of wounds, and wound management, says the same thing as well. It also names kinds of weapons, so will be more useful with respect to adding content to specific articles.

All four of those are MEDRS and say the same thing as the NYT.

In my view the content should absolutely come in in the relevant articles about guns and rifles and shotguns, with these sources. The NYT ref can be used to a) provide as a "lay summary" and b) connect the generic types of weapons discussed in these pages to the specific models, if that is needed. Jytdog (talk) 00:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

btw PMID 26958801 is a primary source, reviewing autopsy reports of civilian mass casualty shootings, and comparing those to battlefield wounds. It notes that there is a much higher mortality rate with civilians because a) civilians aren't wearing protection so head and chest "hits" are devastating; b) civilian shootings tend to be close range. That is addressing comments above bringing in issues of range, with respect to velocity.

An aside -- in the course of looking for sources, I came across this article from the UK about care of wounded soldiers, which has some history and some horrific pictures that were hard to see. It is Memorial Day tomorrow in the US. Jytdog (talk) 00:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Jytdog, these sources from how you have described them seem quite useful and appropriate. The discussion of different rounds and weapons in the military document would make this appropriate for the Assault rifle article and could be used to expand the individual weapon and round articles (at least one of which already has this discussion in technical detail). The military document does on the other hand list among common misconceptions velocity being the most important factor. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

glad you are pleased. Please be careful not to cherry-pick. :) Jytdog (talk) 01:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I personally have no concern with how lethal or devastating any round or weapon is described to be as long as it is well sourced and accurate. From my knowledge 5.56mm AR-15s do produce massive wounds. I was brought to this discussion by concern over the manner in which a secondary dictionary definition was added to the Assault rifle article, not any interest in hiding discussion on the lethality of these weapons. I should mention that you are right, it is good to remember Memorial Day in this discussion. —DIYeditor (talk)

• Source is reliable, but lack of specificity limits applicability to a few articles The source in question makes some generalized statements about bullet wound characteristics without specifying the cartridge(s) from which the bullets creating the observed wounds were fired, although it may be inferred the cartridge would have been the 5.56×45mm NATO which was the primary cartridge used in the M4 and M16 rifles. Although AR-15 style rifles are mentioned by the source, many AR-15 style rifles use other cartridges. The 5.56×45mm NATO cartridge is also used in many other firearms, and many bullets used by civilians are of distinctly different design than the bullets used in military loads and may be loaded to significantly lower velocities. The material might be useful in articles like Stopping power or Hydrostatic shock (firearms) focusing on description of bullet injuries. Its usefulness for the 5.56×45mm NATO article would be conditioned upon positive identification of that cartridge to the described injuries. It would not be appropriate for articles describing firearms suitable for multiple cartridges because of the erroneous implication the firearm rather than the cartridge is a primary determinant of injury characteristics. Thewellman (talk) 02:57, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• Yes The NYT is a reliable source, but it may need to be attributed if any RS challenges any of this.Slatersteven (talk) 08:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• Yes Yes, obviously a RS and should be included. Contrary to some assertions above, the muzzle velocity and damage caused is certainly not a function of the cartridge only. It also depends on the barrel, and is generally greater for longer barrel lengths. Waleswatcher (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• Of course it's an obvious RS, regardless of whatever original research or fantasies people concoct to try and change that fact. Maybe should be attributed at most. Some of the comments here are frankly ridiculous ("I know better than the writer therefore it's not RS!") Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, obviously. A reliable source. Objections seem to be special pleading here. Neutrality^talk 15:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• I think that question #1 kind of misses the point. Why do we care about whether a source is "reliable"? It's so we know whether we can "rely" on it, in our quest to get our facts straight in the article. Are these claims accurate? Well, looking at some even more obviously reliable sources, the answer is "yes". Can you rely on this source? Yes. Is it possible to substitute in a gold-plated academic source? Yes. Is using the "best" source necessary? Well, it's not required by any policy, but as a matter of practical politics, people who don't like the content will have a much harder time saying "You didn't say Mother, May I? when you added that content, because that's only an acceptable source rather than the best possible kind!" (I find it hard to believe that people who know anything about firearms would even pretend that a class of rifles that was originally designed for the US military would be no more dangerous to its targets, or even any different from, any other firearm that can shoot any of the same cartridges. Muzzle velocity is significantly affected by the barrel, not just the cartridge. To put it another way, everything in this list uses the same cartridge, but they do not have identical effects.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• Yes Reliable Source can be used wherever it is relevant. Journalist conveying qualified expert knowledge. That's what journalists do. SPECIFICO talk 16:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• No, Misleading. The removed content stated "assault rifles, both military and civilian variants:" This would incorrectly lead readers to believe all AR's are assault rifles. The content also attempted to mislead readers by asserting that simply being shot one time from this caliber is so deadly that a instant death is assured.

I do not believe comparing a rifle with a hand gun is relavent to the proposed articles. It is common knowledge that most rifles are more powerful than a hand gun. The removed content also stated "“What makes injuries from these rifles so deadly…is that the bullets travel so fast" compared to a hand gun. The content is making a very specific claims with velocity, it is just on the high end of this caliber with a very specific barrel length, twist rate and bullet weight. Most rifle calibers have this speed and beyond (with a much bigger bullet). This caliber makes this speed because of it very light and small varmit size bullet. Because mass times speed equals energy, this caliber on the high end has about the same energy as a 44 Magnum, 50 AE, .454 Casull, and about half of .500 S&W Magnum. Most rifles far surpass this. You are also making a distinction with just one caliber in a general article of weapons.

It would appear that some editor here have just a very basic understanding of firearms, by there comments. And therefor basing there views on this lack of knowledge.

In most states it is illegal to hunt deer or anything larger with this caliber ammunition, it doesn't offer much stopping power for anything other than small game.

The WP:BALASP policy states "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms , or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial , but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news ." -72bikers (talk) 23:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• No Since this fits the definition of WP:Biomedical information, WP:MEDRS sources are necessary. The New York Times is not a valid source for biomedical information, as per WP:MEDPOP. As Icewhiz has pointed out, there appear to be several decent MEDRS-compliant sources on the topic, those should just be used instead. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that gunshot effects are MEDRS. But even if they are, this is at the bottom of that advisory page: "If WP:MEDRS can be found to support the information, and it is relevant and encyclopedic, then ideally provide a better source yourself. If you cannot find an appropriate source but the material seems accurate, consider adding a tag." My interpretation would be to include that citation at the end, if we confirm it's MEDRS, and then have the pros layer in the sources listed above by Jytdog, replacing it.Farcaster (talk) 01:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• No...but The question is reliable for what? A number of other editors have hit on many of the issues here. When it comes to the actual study of the trauma we have actual medical sources we can draw on. When it comes to the opinions of the surgeons who were questioned, yes, the article should reliably convey their opinions. How and where this source would makes sense in use? That's a big question. It's not specific or methodical. The opinions are of medical professionals but it's not clear they have the background information or expertise needed to make the assessments (this projectile fired from this barrel does this harm). As was previously mentioned the reported information was anecdotal and was packaged in a way that was advocating a position. So it may be reliable in some cases but not in general. Springee (talk) 01:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

*Yes Reliable Source and *Yes is should be included The NYT may bit be the best source, but wounding capabilities are (at least in part) are a reason these weapons have been chosen by the military (indeed have often been a marketing ploy, as in their ability to stop elephants, if the manufacturers consider to ability to inflict injuries notable why should we not?).Slatersteven (talk) 08:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• • Was it Groundhog Day, Slatersteven? :) Deja vu.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• Pedantic No. The way "exponentially" is used in the cited passage shows that its author was not a scientist. Maproom (talk) 08:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Whether the author is a scientist or not is irrelevant. Further, the formula for kinetic energy is 1/2mv^2 (one-half mass x square of the velocity). So if the bullet travels twice as fast, other things equal, it imparts four times as much energy. That is exponential.Farcaster (talk) 14:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• No: for two reasons.

[1] WP:MEDRS is our policy for biomedical information, and The New York Times is not a MEDRS-compliant source. See WP:MEDPOP.

[2] The conclusion that the NYT author came to is obviously wrong. The Ruger Ranch Rifle and the Ruger's version of the AR-15, each chambered for 5.56×45mm NATO ammunition and each with the same barrel length, have the same muzzle velocity and ballistics when shooting the same ammunition. Yet the NYT claims that assault rifles such as the AR-15 are somehow unique in the wounds that they inflict.

Ruger's version of the AR-15

Ruger Ranch Rifle

--Guy Macon (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• No per Guy Macon above, simply and clearly explained. I was on the fence but I think he sums it up. This type of information (from a RS) belongs in 5.56x45 NATO where there is already a section about it, and probably in articles about weapons which are chambered for that round. This NYT article is not a reliable source for this topic and is anecdotal rather than scientific. It is misleading as well in characterizing this as a quality of the AR-15 when other rifles, even bolt-action hunting rifles, are chambered for the same round.

Bolt action hunting rifle in same caliber that inflicts the same type of wounds

Sorry for equivocating. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• No per prior. Also, where the user is trying to put this source is not the right place. This article is about a specific type of firearm/bullet. If anything, at the very least that would be something to put on the page for that type of rifle. Reb1981 (talk) 03:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• Yes the New York Times is reliable for the proposed text. The material is properly attributed to medical professionals interviewed by a highly-reliable source. The claims are not extraordinary, although the word "exponentially" is somewhat vague. The first paragraph of WP:MEDRS explains why the guideline is being improperly cited by those in the 'No" camp: It's implausible that Assault rifle, Assault weapon, or AR-15 style rifle would ever be used as a source for health information by any non-insane person. Also, the unqualified original research by some of the opposers who are attempting to refute what is in a reliable source should have no bearing on the outcome of this poll. I would support A Quest For Knowledge's version also.- MrX 🖋 13:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

It's a good thing it's not up to you to evaluate the outcome of this, pointing out obvious factual errors isn't "unqualified original research"... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Opinions from anonymous people on the internet are not facts. There is a reason why we cite sources, and not what editors think they know.- MrX 🖋 14:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The claims that wounds depend on the ammunition and that assault rifles, AR-15 style rifles and assault weapons can be had in many different calibers are of course easily sourced, so no, it's not original research. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Ruger AR-556 40.9 cm Ranch Rifle 46.99, so no they do not have the same barrel length.Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: You're wrong, the Ruger Ranch Rifle can be had with barrel lengths from 13" to 22" (even though 16" is minimum legal barrel length for civilians AFAIK), so yes, both of those rifles can be had with the exact same barrel length. You have double-!voted here, BTW, so when are you going to strike your extra vote? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but the fact they come if different barrel lengths means we would need to see what the comparable MV are. So can we have the MV's of the 16.12 inch barrels for both guns (sourced of course)?Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

AR-556 16.10", Mini-14 (i.e. Ranch Rifle), 16.12". - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I know they both exist, I want to know what the MV is?Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

If both use the same ammunition from the same manufacturing batch the muzzle velocity is of course identical. Manufacturers can't give a "fixed" muzzle velocity since it depends on which ammunition is being used (bullet weight, propellant type, propellant quantity etc). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

So then neither can eds on Wikipedia, which I think was my point.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Que? Think again, but do it right this time. If two firearms are chambered for the same cartridge, have the same barrel length and fire the same ammunition their muzzle velocity will be identical, but what that muzzle velocity will be depends on which ammunition they use (bulletweight, propellant type, propellant quantity). There's a wide range of ammunition available for 5.56x45mm, with different muzzle velocity for a given barrel length for each of them, which is why muzzle velocity is given by ammunition manufacturers, not rifle manufacturers... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Editor Slatersteven no disrespect meant. Are you sure you understand what you are replying to? Editor Tom is saying (what is common knowledge) gun manufacturers do not give velocities for there guns. Ammo manufacturers do give velocities and will state barrel length they tested for this velocity. The speed is determined by the ammo and barrel, not the gun as a whole or type of gun. Velocities can vary significantly from manufacturer to manufacturer and the same exact ammo can vary from box to box. These issues are why I made the statement that perhaps editors were not fully understanding this content fully. Not trying to be mean or basing my vote by, just some constructive criticism trying to resolve this issue -72bikers (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. The NYT may be a RS, but that doesn't make everything they print correct or usable (Jayson Blair anyone?). In this case, some doctors gave anecdotal information, not presenting the results of actual studies. If this was all as correct as it is presented, I wonder why the US military is looking at going to a larger caliber rifle? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose The NYT article for the specific text listed. In general the NYT is a reliable sources but in this situation they are not. As cited all over better sources are available for this information, so purpose those instead. No comment on the text in general since that is not he purpose of this board. PackMecEng (talk) 15:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support inclusion for the three articles listed, per WP:DUE. Interviews with trauma surgeons with military experience is not anecdotal evidence. In any case, other sources listed in this discussion support these conclusions. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Question #2 is off topic for this noticeboard as phrased and should be stricken. It combines consideration of DUE weight and NPOV with reliable sourcing. If it were to remain here it should ask whether it is a RS for particular articles, instead it begs for an extended discussion on a number of topics. Also not phrased in a simple manner per RfC instructions because it fails to provide any background - totally open discussion would be instigated. Since the RfC has already started and there are responses, the malformed question #2 should simply be removed from consideration here. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The two main concerns are "The NY Times article is not a reliable source, period" and "The source isn't talking about the topic of this article, but you might try adding it somewhere else." In fact you've admitted to using the latter argument to make Farcaster someone else's problem by sending them to another article where you believe their edit will be rejected, when you actually believed it would be more relevant to a third article. I'm hoping to "kill two birds with one stone" and avoid sending Farcaster on another Fool's errand. My intent was to determine which article the source is about, since it mentions several different models and we don't have a Military-style rifle article.

I agree that ...whether it is a RS for particular articles is a better way to phrase it. Perhaps If the statement source is found to be reliably sourced reliable, which article(s) (if any) should it be added to is it a reliable source for? would be a better question. –dlthewave ☎ 00:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes I think that would be the right way to handle it. And maybe list it as "which of the following articles" and list them with the RFC question because I originally missed the line below the text which listed the articles. Maybe it's just my problem but it seems like the formatting was a little confusing. My main point was to clarify that a finding of "reliable source" here is not a definitive answer on whether to include it. As a note, I did not think I was sending Farcaster on a fool's errand in the sense that the NYT article was not fit for the AR-15 article, I think it probably is, I only meant that the discussion is more appropriate there. I do think he would run into the same degree of reaction against it there but I don't at this point agree with that reaction. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Let me further say, I was confused a bit by the "proposed text" being included when the survey questions were not about the proposed text. I don't think we can address the proposed text here except as far as to say if it is based on the RS correctly - and that would be a question #3. I focused mainly on the two questions as they were worded, which is really what an RfC is supposed to be, and I think we have been somewhat talking at cross purposes because of this. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• Why NYT (yes, a gold-standard for journalism, but this is not a journalism issue) - and not actual journals and serious publications? e.g. [27], [28] (yes a presentation, but their paper is probably interesting and they have results in a nice chart), [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34].Icewhiz (talk) 11:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I believe that's not really the source of the dispute. The editors who want to include this kind of information would be happy having better sources (they just used what they found available); the editors who don't want to include this kind of information will not be happy no matter how "perfect" the source is. People who don't see it as a political issue may be a little confused about why this isn't standard information for all articles about firearms. What happens to the target is relevant even if your context is purely subsistence hunting. You can't eat pink mist (a bullet that shreds isn't so handy if you want to eat squirrel meat), but you do need a bullet that hits with enough force to kill your next meal. But here, I think that the complaints about the source quality are just the first step in complaining about whether the information belongs in the article at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: You seem to have missed the point entirely. Those who object to adding it to the articles it was added to do so because it, for the reasons given in multiple posts above, simply doesn't belong in those articles, but in articles about the cartridges (in this case the 5.56x45mm). Where there's no need for the NYT article since that information in many/most cases already exists in those articles... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm looking at this from a WP:MEDRS perspective as well as from a non-US-centric perspective. I think it would be interesting if we quantified the "deadliness" of assault rifles (which, BTW, in what I skimmed through some of the links above regarding the M-16/AR-15 has actually more to do with the bullet breaking up/fragmenting in the body and less with velocity) vs. other types of guns - but I really do not think that the motivation of the really RECNETISM (in terms of how "hot" a topic this is) of gun control vs. assault-like guns due to school shootings should be the motivating factor.Icewhiz (talk) 15:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, Tom, if the problem is "doesn't belong in those articles", then I'm correct: The actual problem is not about whether the source is reliable for the claims being made. The actual problem is that some editors don't want this information in these articles at all. If you personally believe that it belongs in another article, then of course please feel free to copy it there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

You hit the nail on the head WhatamIdoing; I think that is the real issue here. The NRA caucus doesn't want this sort of graphic description of what these rifles actually do seeing the light of day.Farcaster (talk) 04:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I am uncomfortable assigning political views to any editor. I agree with you that this dispute really belongs at WP:NPOVN instead of RSN. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Next steps

So editor Thomas.W has made it clear on my talk page this content will never see the light of day on these articles, and that the straw poll is not binding. What are the next steps? The most reasonable action based on the discussion thus far is either: 1) Include as is with a medical tag, perhaps with some copy edits; 2) Include the academic sources mentioned by Jytdog either along with it or instead of it.Farcaster (talk) 14:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

That is of course not what I wrote, just Farcaster's usual deliberate misrepresentation of things. What I wrote was that it is up to editors on each of the articles that Farcaster wants to get the material into to decide whether their very POV own interpretation (see discussion above) of the NYT story should be included in the article or not, based on WP:NPOV/WP:UNDUE and other policies... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Whether or not a straw poll is binding (if the consensus from the straw poll is clear and someone wishes to ignore that consensus, I will be happy to post an RfC, which is binding), WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDPOP are already binding. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the above is an RfC. However, as is always the case, consensus can change and RfCs are never truly binding. Springee (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Stupid mistake. I saw "straw poll" and had a brain fart. (Note to self: next time, smoke crack after editing Wikipedia.)

I believe that you are incorrect about RfCs not being binding. According to WP:CCC, they are not binding forever, and you can re-ask the same question in a new RfC, but not immediately after the old RfC closed. Until you can demonstrate the the consensus has changed (or that one of the exceptions in WP:CONEXCEPT applies), the result of an RfC is binding. And of course you can challenge the result if you believe that the closing summary got it wrong. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

RfCs are binding, but AFAIK RSN only decides on whether a particular source is reliable or not, not on whether a certain personal interpretation of what that source source says (which the proposed text is, see the long discussion above) can be included in specific articles or not, that should be decided through consensus on the articles, taking all other relevant policies into consideration. As can be seen in the discussion above the NYT article in question is also not seen as MEDRS-compliant. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context (emphasis mine). The RSN instructions state that the specific statement in question is to be included in the initial post.

In other words, we discuss whether or not the source reliably supports a specific statement in a certain context, not just the overall reliability of the source itself. In this case we're discussing whether the source supports the proposed text in the context of a certain category of weapon, type of ammunition or model of rifle. –dlthewave ☎ 17:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

No RfCs are NOT binding which is why other forms of DR may continue even after an RfC.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC))

• Some people seem to think that the discussion has been "won" by those who want to include the material, but a quick count seems to indicate that those who oppose inclusion are at least equal in number to those who support inclusion, those who oppose also bring up serious questions about using the NYT as a source for something that would normally require a MEDRS-compliant source. So this aint over yet... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

First of all, there's a lot of confusion about WP:MEDRS here. That guideline doesn't forbid using the popular press; instead, it encourages us to "seek out the scholarly research behind the news story" and to "cite a higher-quality source along with a more-accessible popular source". So editors should be looking deeper, for other sources, rather than using MEDRS as a roadblock. Jytdog has shown, above, that there are numerous scholarly sources supporting the content of the Times article and the quoted trauma surgeons. Here's another one: PMID 19644779 states, among other things:

Sellier and Kneubuehl state that the temporary cavity is the most important factor in wound ballistics of high velocity rifle bullets, and that almost all biological phenomena can be explained by it... The temporary cavity also has little or no wounding potential with handgun bullets because the amount of kinetic energy deposited in the tissue is insufficient to cause remote injuries. The size of the temporary cavity is approximately proportional to the kinetic energy of the striking bullet and also the amount of resistance the tissue has to stress...

... which is a fancier way of saying exactly what the quoted trauma surgeons said in the Times article. The review goes on to talk about yaw etc. There are a number of other scholarly sources saying, in essence, exactly what the Times piece says, but I'd like some of the involved editors from this thread, who feel that the Times is an unreliable source, to do the work of finding them.

Putting on my administrative hat, I'm concerned to see a number of frankly bizarre and off-base comments in this extended thread; people are arguing that the Times is unreliable because it contains "anecdotal evidence, as such not reliable", because it "has an axe to grind", because the Times has intentionally misrepresented the quoted trauma surgeons (no evidence is presented for this rather startling accusation), because the quoted trauma surgeons apparently don't have enough case volume to qualify as experts (according to a random Wikipedian), because of some gunsplaining nonsense ("It would appear that some editor here have just a very basic understanding of firearms, by there comments. And therefor basing there views on this lack of knowledge" [sic]), and so on. It should go without saying that not only are these invalid objections, but they are well outside the realm of reasonable policy-based discussion. Moreover, as WhatamIdoing has noted, the dynamic at play in this thread is concerning: "The editors who want to include this kind of information would be happy having better sources (they just used what they found available); the editors who don't want to include this kind of information will not be happy no matter how 'perfect' the source is."

If these sorts of arguments are relied upon to exclude content, or to attempt to disqualify obviously reliable sources, that may constitute tendentious and disruptive editing and may become an issue for administrative attention. I guess this is as good a place as any to notify, or remind, thread participants that gun-control-related articles remain under standard discretionary sanctions. MastCell ^Talk 19:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@MastCell: It's worth noting that how severe a wound is depends entirely on the properties of the bullet, it's velocity and where it hits, not on which type of firearm it was fired from. No one objects to adding the material to articles about cartridges, in fact many such articles already have that kind of information, the objections are to adding the material to articles about types of weapons, with very wide variation within each type when it comes to calibers and potential wounds (Assault rifle, AR-15 style rifle and Assault weapon), even though the information is valid for only a subset of each type, without telling readers that the information isn't valid for all weapons of each type. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks MastCell, a helpful explanation of the invalid arguments on the "No/Exclude" side.Farcaster (talk) 21:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

There appears to be a attempt to cheery-pick issues and not address legitimate concerns. The WP:BALASP policy states "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms , or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial , but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news ."-72bikers (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

So an administrator spoke and explained in detail why most of the "No/exclude" votes are invalid. So who is going to include the text? Or do we need another administrator?Farcaster (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

It's almost unbelievable how little you know about how things work here, considering your account was created ten years ago. The words/opinions of administrators carry no extra weight in discussions, but are equal to those of peon editors. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

By my count it is 8 to include and 14 to not. That is almost a 2 to 1 for no inclusion in the proposed articles. -72bikers (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Bikers, this RFC only opened a few days ago. It is way too soon to be counting up !votes, and declaring a “winner”. The ratio may well change as the RFC continues (not predicting that it will, just warning that it might... I have seen it happen in the past). Have some patience. Blueboar (talk) 16:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Blueboar: Biker's comment was probably a reply to Farcaster's comment yesterday morning (US time), declaring "victory" for the include-side... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

obviously that was too soon as well. Blueboar (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for any misunderstanding. I was not trying to drawn any conclusion. As editor Tom explained just a response to Farcaster-72bikers (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Most of the "No" votes have been dismissed. Some argued the NYT was not a reliable source, those count as zero. Some argued MEDRS, that was dismissed, those count as zero. Some argued their own expertise in place of the NYT, those count as zero. Not even close. Again, what's the next step?Farcaster (talk) 17:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Farcaster: No, there are no !votes that have been dismissed. People expressing personal opinions about the !votes of others does not automatically lead to those !votes being dismissed, regardless of if the person who expresses that opinion is an admin or not. It's up to whoever closes this discussion (which should be an uninvolved admin since this is a discussion about contentious edits on articles that are under discretionary sanctions) to evaluate the consensus based on Wikipedia policy. Making it highly unlikely that there will be any mass dismissal of !votes here. And please note that there are admins on both the no-side and the yes-side here... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Evidently I need to clarify my role here. It is not my place to "dismiss" specific comments, and I am not going to close this thread with any sort of verdict. My opinion on the content question itself carries no more weight than anyone else's. If this thread is formally closed by an admin, then the closing admin will make a determination about whether to disregard specific !votes. My point is pretty simple: if editors are relying on flagrantly absurd or inappropriate rationales to stonewall or exclude material, anywhere in this topic area, then I will handle that as tendentious/disruptive editing. The questions raised in this thread should be answered by discussion, but that discussion needs to take place within the parameters of site policy. A small group of editors ignorant of site policy cannot hijack or derail the discussion. Right now, I don't see any reason to act administratively, but the content of some commentary here was concerning enough—in terms of being utterly contradictory to site policy—that I felt compelled to say something. MastCell ^Talk 18:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The Hill, Fox News, and Daily Caller reliable sources?

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

---

Would publications on the following outlets be considered reliable sources?:

• The Hill (newspaper)
• The Daily Caller
• Fox News

I've come across some info I'd like to include in the National Council of Resistance of Iran article and just want to make sure these are valid sources. Thanks. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The Daily Caller, probably not, except for documenting what certain right-wing figures say. I would use Fox and The Hill with inline attribution, as they are biased, but rarely deceptive, sources in their news reporting. "According to a 2017 Fox News report..." And note that opinion pieces are never sufficient to establish facts, unless they are written by a scholar in the area being addressed.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@GPRamirez5: The Daily Caller was judged reliable at the most recent discussion. wumbolo ^^^ 18:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

wumbolo, reading through that thread, I don't see any consensus about Daily Caller, just one random editor trying to declare an authoritative judgement, but not many people agreeing with him.GPRamirez5 (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

That's a blatant lie. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I didn't checked others but FOX is reliable as major WP:NEWSORG as we don't do usually inline attribution for BBC the same goes for FOX.--Shrike (talk) 18:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The Daily Caller has an ongoing association with known fabricator James O'Keefe.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The Daily Caller is not reliable at all. DC regularly publishes false, misleading and poorly research stories. It does not have a reputation for fact-checking, and should not be cited for factual statements. The stories it reports are no indication of due weight. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• I haven't formed a clear enough opinion of The Hill to opine. Fox News is ok for some things, sure. I don't think anybody would give a blanket "yes it's reliable" to any of the major news outlets, though; context matters. Daily Caller, however, is unreliable for statements of facts. The Daily Caller was judged reliable at the most recent discussion is inaccurate. Daily Caller comes up regularly here. A thread from 2013 is not the most recent discussion. That's also the most favorable outcome I've seen regarding the Daily Caller of all the times it has come up. Finally, even in that most favorable outcome, it doesn't say "judged reliable". The summary at the top says "At best, it's reliable but should be avoided in favor of more neutral media whenever possible". That's pretty far from "judged reliable" full stop. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• Generally speaking, The Hill and Fox News are considered reliable. I'm not sure about the Daily Caller. Also, as Rhododendrites points out, reliability depends on context. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• The Daily Caller is certainly not reliable or usable for statements of fact. Fox and the Hill are usually usable for straight-news reporting, but note that the Hill's various "contributor blogs" are opinions and are not usable except with in-text attribution (much like Forbes's contributor blogs). Neutrality^talk
• In the case of Fox News... a lot depends on which program we are talking about. Some are traditional news reports (the shows anchored by Shepard Smith, Bret Bair, or Chris Wallace, for example) very reliable (there is some bias in choosing what news they report on... not how they report it. They do neutrally report the news). Then there are the news analysis and commentary shows... Outnumbered, the Five, Sean Hanity. These (like all analysis and commentary, in any news outlet) needs to be presented as being opinion and attributed as such. A few shows blur the line between reporting and analysis - but if you follow a basic “when in doubt, attribute” self-policy you won’t go wrong. The same, of course, goes for CNN, MSNBC, BBC, The Wall Street Jounal, The Times (and the NYT). Basic reporting is reliable... but attribute anything that gets into analysis, commentary and opinion. Blueboar (talk) 21:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• The Daily Caller in imho completely unusable as source for WP aside from the possible rare exception as a primary source to document some text being written in the daily caller. For the other two it depends on the context, i.e. what WP content is being used with what source from Fox or The Hill. With regard to Fox however I disagree a bit with some of the framing above. While it is true that Fox is mainstream news (in the US) and the same general guidelines apply as with other (mainstream) news organizations, Fox is an outlier nevertheless and differs somewhat from other mainstream news organisation like for instance the BBC. In fact I see it much closer to RT than to the BBC. Whereas better mainstream news on average tend to bring on renowned academics or otherwise distinguished experts, Fox often tends to bring on a clown parade of "pundits".--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Living Dinosaur

Major issues with synthesis and pseudoscience over at living dinosaur that could use more eyes. Page seems to be a pile of WP:SYNTH consisting of the usual crackpottery one can expect from cryptozoology circles (in this aligned with Young Earth creationism, as happens frequently with the pseudoscience). See talk page. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The Hill, Fox News - Part II question

Would any of these sources be considered unreliable here? Would this be a proper way of summarizing?:

The National Council of Resistance of Iran, along with its political wing the People's Mujahedin of Iran, have been described as one of the main political oppositions to the current Government of Islamic Republic of Iran.

Thanks again for all the feedback :-) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

References

• It's always context dependent. That said: (1) I would not cite Fox for anything politically contentious, due to the massive evidence of bias. (2) FT is paywalled, I have no idea what this says, but FT is normally RS, its reporting is dry as dust but solid. (3) Opinion pieces in The Hill have gone steadily downhill, descending into little more than propaganda rants, and I would not normally include them in any article now. (4) Coughlin is a reasonable source for journalistic opinion but in a distinctly right of centre context and this book is clearly advancing an agenda so handle with caution. (5) Searching for the author of the book, Albert V. Benliot, does not show any evidence that he is considered a respected authority, this appears to be the only book of his that has been discussed at all, and the publisher, Nova, has a questionable history and was arguably at its worst around the time this book was published. I would exclude this source. So, of the sources you are looking to include, only Coughlin is actually a reliable source for the claim you are trying to make, and given the nature of the claim I would hold out for much more compelling sourcing. If the claim is true then there will be substantially more robust sources. You appear to be quote mining to support what you "know" to be true. That is an exercise in confirmation bias. Guy (Help!) 08:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
• I agree with posting above more or less. Don't use Fox for anything regarding Iran in particular in the current climate that's highly contentious topic subject to a lot of misrepresentation in particular by outlets like Fox. On most Iranian topics it should be possibly to find scholarly sources or at least sources with a good reputation for (investigative) journalism. As a rule of thumb always check the author (is he an reputable academic in a field related to the topic, did he publish in academic peer reviwed journals, did he write positively reviewed books, did he publish with reputable academic publishers, etc.) and the publisher. JzG did appply that already in more details to the 5 sources above and the conclusion imho is that in doubt don't use any of them but look for better ones.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

And why not use Fox regarding Iran?Its like saying don't use BBC or NYPOST regarding Israel.Every newsorg has its own biases.Its no reason not to use it.--Shrike (talk) 09:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

No it's not. The BBC has a statutory obligation to balance and an independent complaints procedure for content. NY Post draws a distinction between editorial and hard news content. Fox was set up because in Ailes' mind the real villain of Watergate was the Washington Post and the "liberal media", and its editorial bias is pervasive throughout the vast majority of its content. Its bias is greater, its fact-checking is worse, and its record for separating fact from opinion is terrible. Guy (Help!) 13:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

°Comment. Shrike, at this discussion, you are challenging as not RS, a MPhil. thesis done under the supervision of a world authority on the Middle East in Oxford, which has been cited in the relevant academic literature (5 books), whose survey of newspaper reportage is not contentious, and which has had significant influence in its field, and yet here you are advocating we use Fox News articles on a contentious issue, known for their tendentiousness, and none written by anyone with Bagon's severe academic background, which requires meticulous source control and fact checking? Nishidani (talk) 09:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Again... when in doubt, attribute. There is a huge difference in reliability between: “The Iranians did such and such” and “according to a report by Fox News correspondent so and so, the Iranians did such and such.” Fox might (or might not) be reliable for the first statement (it depends on who reported it)... but it is absolutely reliable for the second statement.

this all said... I suspect that our WP:NPOV policy is the real issue here, not the reliability of the sources. If you have not read that policy, please do. Blueboar (talk) 12:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

No, Fox News is not a reliable source; if it ever was (arguably it was before 2016), it isn't any more. Maybe it's not WP:DAILYMAIL but it could be the index case for WP:PRAVDA when that gets written. I am alarmed that there are editors who deny it's an obvious fit for WP:QS; that seems like a WP:CIR problem.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• The question is moot because Fox News is not needed, nor are three others. The two book sources by people who either specialize in that field, or who have tertiary credentials in history, are sufficient for the statement (perhaps tweaked with 'most active' per Katzman), and these are (reformatted)

(a)Con Coughlin Khomeini's Ghost: The Iranian Revolution and the Rise of Militant Islam, Ecco Books 2010 p.377 n.21

(b) Kenneth Katzman, ‘Iran: The People’S Mohjahedin Organization of Iran in Albert V. Benliot (ed)., Iran: Outlaw, Outcast Or Normal Country?, Nova Publishers, 2001 pp.97-110 p.97

In short, sources of good quality don't need to be buttressed by newspaper junk.Nishidani (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I addressed Benliot above. That source should also be excluded. So now we have one source by a conservative journalist. I think that rather weakens the case for inclusion of this claim. Guy (Help!) 13:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't like either of those sources, but like has nothing to do with it. I'd have a reservation about Coughlin only if he didn't finish his degree under Simon Schama. But Benliot has nothing to do with this, except as editor of the paper by Kenneth Katzman who is a Congressional Researcher, and, whatever his spin, surely qualifies.Nishidani (talk) 13:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I neither like them nor dislike them. I do know, because it's a particular interest of mine, that Benliot's publisher has a very poor history of publishing badly reviewed and biased content, and Benliot himself has no reputation I can see, so that is a clear exclude. So we are left with a single right-wing journalist, for a rather bold claim. That seems problematic to me, especially since all the other suggestions to date have been differently reliable. I start to wonder if it is a thing that some people wish were true, but actually isn't. The dominant view appears to be that they are a terrorist organisation, a front for MeK. Guy (Help!) 12:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• This is what I've drafted based on Blueboar and Nishidani ’s suggestions:

According to analysts including British journalist Con Coughlin, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (along with its political wing the People's Mujahedin of Iran) constitute one of the most active oppositions to the current Government of Islamic Republic of Iran.

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, 'Iranian opposition' would be necessary. The most powerful and active opposition to Iran comes from the Trumpian US-Netanyahoo-Israel geostrategic coalition. The NCRI is small beer in all of this. There's a problem with defining thePeople's Mujahedin of Iran as the NCRI's political wing: perhaps some source says this, but there are far more sources stating that they are one and the same thing essentially, with the PMOI using the NCRI as its Potemkin village political face, i.e. the other way around. I' m sorry if this is not too helpful, and appreciate your efforts to use this wider forum to iron out a problem. Good luck.Nishidani (talk) 15:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Stefka Bulgaria, can you stop adding this until you have consensus please? You have tried a handful of crappy sources for the same claim, you just included the unreliable Benliot book, and in the end you come across as scratching around for sources for what you "know" to be true, when if it actually is true, it would be trivially easy to reference from much more robust sources. You're trying to say this is one of, if not the, leading opposition group. That is the kind of claim which, if true, would be reflected all over the place, but instead you find only marginal stuff, opinions by a few people. This is a bold claim you seek to make, it's hard to believe it would only appear in books published through crappy publishers, right-wing propaganda sites and journalists' opinions. Guy (Help!) 12:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• Guy this excision is based on a deceptive, obviously false edit summary. Rereading the above, there is only a discussion about Fox and about attribution. You alone contest Couglin and Katzman, and now that I haves offered a compromise with new materials from Katzman, you still remove it because you can't pin down who the editor of the book he published his piece in is. The you removed two fresh RS as well, just to throttle the additions, feigning that they too had been or were under discussion here.
• Your edit removed
• Manshour Varasteh (Troubador Publishing)
• Con Coughlin published by Pan Macmillan an Imprint of HarperCollins
• Kenneth Katzman of the Congressional Office of Research
• Isak Svensson publoished by the University of Queensland Press
• One of the two pieces by Katzman was published by Nova Science Publishers, and you suggest because the criticism page of the wiki article cites some problems and Bentiot is an unknown, it is invalid. If the author is authoritative, we cite him wherever he choses to add his pieces. Bentiot's book in anycase passes the reliable source bar because the work in question is frequently cited in the academic literature (google school) and scholarly monographs or research papers (google it.

If you are in a minority of one on all this, you have no right to remove material thart is the result of a compromise, that has been amplified by further good sourcing, and which contains material not discussed on this board.Nishidani (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Macleans

Per wp:RSOPINION, can the following source be used [35] if I attribute the statement to Therese Shechter? Thylacoop5 (talk) 13:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes and no... If you attribute, then the article is essentially stating: Therese Shechter wrote “X” in an article appearing on the Macleans website). That statement is reliably verified (she did indeed write X in Macleans).

HOWEVER reliability is not the only policy that determines whether a statement is acceptable or appropriate. We also have to look at DUE WEIGHT (a facet of our NPOV policy). Do we, by even mentioning what Schecter says, give her opinion undue weight? That depends on who Schecter is (reputation), and whether her opinion is worth mentioning (relevance).

I don’t know the topic well enough to answer that. My point is that Passing WP:reliability is only the first of many steps in determining if something should appear in an article. Blueboar (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

RfC on use of Mark Paul as source

Please see Talk:Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust#RFC: Inclusion of list of towns and villages sourced to self-published Mark Paul, and placing Mark Paul's documents in the Bibliography regarding a source recently discussed here in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 241#The Holocaust in Poland: Ewa Kurek & Mark Paul - which may interest this board.Icewhiz (talk) 14:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Police reports of false rape prevalence

Are individual police departments reliable sources for statements about the prevalence or causes of false accusations of rape and sexual assault?

• Section: False_accusation_of_rape#Police_on_false_rape

• Talk page: Talk:False_accusation_of_rape#Finnish_police

An editor added statements from police departments in Helsinki and Rostock which claim that the majority (2/3rds and 80%, respectively) of sexual assault or rape allegations in their districts were false. The figure for Helsinki comes from an unofficial review. I don't find any additional information on the origins of the statement for Rostock. The rate reported in the academic literature is between 2 - 10% Nblund ^talk 18:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Not reliable: There appears to be virtually no information on how this information was collected or how police categorized accusations as false, and there are no secondary sources that suggest that police in Helsinki or Rostock were viewed as credible or authoritative. Experts in criminology generally don't view police as good sources for these kinds of statistics. The article several sources that find that police regularly miscategorize accusations as "false" based on personal judgements or on misunderstanding the criteria. Nblund ^talk 19:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
• Both police estimations are quoted in reliable sources (Yle & Ostsee-Zeitung) so yes, they are reliable, but they might be done in a different way and not comparable to other figures in the article. So the question is to discuss whether they are due to be included in the article, not to discuss the sources itself, I think. --Pudeo (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
• If the police estimates are covered by reliable sources, and reliable sources do not dispute the estimates, then yes, they are reliable as a general rule. If both the reports and the RS are in non-English, and the subject is contentious, then I advise editors to thoroughly vet that the reports and the RS actually say what some editor claims they say. Years ago I had to overhaul Immigration and Crime and Immigration because unscrupulous/sloppy editors had filled the articles with text that was not at all supported by the RS that were cited. Much of the text and sources seemed to stem from 4chan/Reddit copypasta that was crowdsourced in communities with clear agendas. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
• Not directly per WP:PRIMARY, but if you mean are they reliable sources when reported by reliable secondary sources, then yes.- MrX 🖋 13:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• In my view, the main issue here is probably going to be making the meaning of the statistics clear. Despite other editors' outlandish claims that feminism leads to women going mad with power and clogging the police departments with false crime reports, it seems improbable to me that Germany and Finland's statistics would be so different from all the other reputable statistics, suggesting that different definitions are being used. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Alternative lending trades

I was referred to this board by another editor in relation to a submission I'm working on. The main topic of debate is what's considered a reliable source in the alternative lending industry. In the interests of full disclosure, I work in financial PR and so am intimately familiar with many of these publications and know for a fact that they are well-read and well-respected within the industry. Part of this has to do with how much the media landscape has shrunk in recent years, which means the best coverage on fairly niche topics is increasingly coming from these sorts of trade publications. I readily admit that I am biased, but I also hope to share some of my experiences and expertise in working with the Wikipedia community here to reach a consensus on what's considered reliable and what's not.

These are, in my view, a few of the most important publications in the alternative lending space that I believe should qualify as reliable sources. I am not implying that these publications should count as reliable sources in 100% of situations, but I don't think it's fair to automatically disqualify them either. Please comment if you agree, disagree or have other questions.

• American Banker - Founded in 1835, American Banker specifically covers the banking industry, which includes traditional lenders (i.e., banks) and alternative lenders. The editorial staff numbers more than 30 strong and they have about 8,000 paid subscribers according to the latest figures, 75% of whom are at the VP level or higher.
• Forbes.com - Although Forbes.com relies on a massive contributor network for much of its content (not unlike The Huffington Post), all contributors are screened for their expertise and all articles are edited to remove promotional or self-serving language. Contributors tend to be experts or leaders in their field and in many cases have been quoted extensively by top-tier media. The fact that these contributors didn't go to journalism school shouldn't detract from the quality of their articles.
• Bank Innovation - Bank Innovation was launched in 2005 to cover innovations in the banking industry. Although they have a small editorial staff, everyone on the team has extensive journalism experience with publications like Politico and American Banker. They get about 600,000 unique monthly visitors so there is clearly a demand for their content.
• ABF Journal - ABF Journal is another trade publication for commercial finance professionals with close to 20,000 monthly subscribers, many of them C-suite. Again, they have a small but well respected editorial team.
• PYMNTS - PYMNTS is an established publication for the payments industry with more than 100,000 unique monthly visitors. The publication has more than 50,000 Twitter followers and regularly interviews leaders in the space.
• deBanked - deBanked has been around since 2010 and is a go-to trade for non-bank finance. The founding editor, Sean Murray, has had his pieces referenced in The New Yorker and The Financial Times, and is a regular at industry conferences.

DI-prosek (talk)

The American Banker is OK. However, Forbes contributor blogs are almost never usable for statements of fact (opinions may be OK, with attribution in-text). There's no evidence that the magazine's professional editorial staff actually edits/reviews these posts, and I haven't seen any indication that all or even most contributions are particularly "expert." I'm not familiar enough with the other sources to weigh in on those. Neutrality^talk 02:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm curious, what evidence are you looking for? I've worked with several Forbes contributors to help them submit articles, and I know for a fact there is a diligent fact-checking process. And as of February 2018, Forbes announced that it will be paying its contributors and culling the bottom 10% each year to improve the quality of the content. Certainly, I would hope you agree that these contributors generally knows more about the topic they're writing about than journalists who may have been covering the topic for only a few months. (Otherwise they never would have been approved as contributors!) And just like Wikipedia, Forbes (and other publications that accept contributed content) have strict guidelines prohibiting the use of any promotional language and requiring all contributors to disclose any conflict of interest. So where do we draw the line between what's considered legitimate or reliable and what's not? Can a Wall Street Journal op-ed by a Harvard Business School professor ever be used as a source for statements of fact? If the answer is yes, then I think that same standard should also be applied to other publications (within reason). If the answer is no, then that creates a fundamental problem as 'citizen journalism' and contributor networks continue to replace traditional journalism. From the perspective of most readers, IMHO, there is practically no difference between what's published by a journalist on staff versus a freelance writer or contributor. It's all just content. This seems to suggest, to me, the need for a new standard on what's considered a reliable source, either separate from or in addition to the existing Wikipedia standard. I'm open to any and all suggestions about how to progress this dialogue. Thank you! DI-prosek (talk)

Those are good steps on Forbes part but that is not the situation now. Apart from staff contributors, there is almost zero editorial oversight. Forbes/sites is essentially a collection of self published opinion pieces. Now many many of the Forbes contributors opinions are valid as opinions depending on their experience and qualifications. Some (the minority to be fair) are useless. It's highly dependant on who it is. It's not something that can be hand-waved with a general rule. Reliability is based on the source and the specific content. So we would use an op-Ed by an expert for statements of fact , and we would probably include their opinion. But we wouldn't treat opinion as fact just because it's their opinion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The Daily Beast as a source for a denial

My impression is that The Daily Beast is not generally reliable source for most BLP material. Our NXIVM article states, correctly, that "[o]ther participants [in the group's programs] were … reported to include Richard Branson" (emphasis added). Setting aside whether The Daily Beast is reliable in general, is it a reliable source for a "however" clause following that sentence, when it reports in an article on Nxivm that Branson representatives contacted the Beast to deny that he had ever taken any Nxivm programs?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

What is the proposed addition? What "however clause" are you referring to? - MrX 🖋 13:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I suppose something like "Other participants were reported to include Richard Branson, Linda Evans, Allison Mack, Kristin Kreuk, Grace Park, Nicki Clyne, and Sarah Edmondson.[6][better source needed] (Spokesmen for Branson later denied having taken the class.[TDB dropcite])" It seems to be simultaneously true (and important) that Branson was reported to have taken the class (important because Edmondson cites that report as a lever used by Nxivm recruiters) and that he has subsequently denied taking it.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Hmmm... BLP is an issue here. My first inclination is to simply remove Branson’s name. However, If the rumors of his participation are an important part of the story, we need to first establish why that is the case. Blueboar (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

East Talpiot

A user at Talk:East Talpiot has said that the following sources are unacceptable for saying that this settlement was built between the Palestinian villages of Sur Baher and Sawaher and that it was built in order to separate Jerusalem from the Palestinian cities of Bethlehem and Beit Jallah. Are these reliable sources for those statements of fact?

• Ira Sharkansky (1996). Governing Jerusalem: Again on the World's Agenda. Wayne State University Press. pp. 80–81. ISBN 0-8143-2592-0. Also prominny in Israeli policy was the enlargement of Jerusalem's boundaries and the extension of Israeli law to areas formerly under Jordanian control. The municipal area was increased from 38,000 to 108,000 dunams... The point was to make Jerusalem more secure with a substantial Jewish majority... Soon after the 1967 war there began the task of rebuilding the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, creating new Jewish neighborhoods and suburbs at all points of the compass ... meant to realize the decision of the national government that Jerusalem be developed as a city with a large Jewish majority and to create physical facts that would discourage any further division ... The next stage put new neighborhoods for Jews in open areas that had been occupied by Jordan to the north, south, and east of the city. Gilo and East Talpiot were built on the city's southwestern and southeastern flanks, positioned between it and the Palestinian locales of Beit Jallah and Bethlehem.
• Rawan Asali Nuseibeh (8 October 2015). Political Conflict and Exclusion in Jerusalem: The Provision of Education and Social Services. Taylor & Francis. p. 43. ISBN 978-1-317-53576-8. According to the Jerusalem Master Plan 1968, the plan consisted of a three-phase policy: First uniting the western and eastern sides of the city by populating the eastern side of the city with Israelis, so as to make re-division impossible in the future. Second, encircling the city, outside its existing periphery, with new Israeli settlements aimed at control over the broader Jerusalem region... the settlement of East Talpiot fell between the Palestinian villages of Sorbaher and Sawhreh... The international community has never recognised this annexation. Under international law East Jerusalem is considered Occupied Palestinian Territory.

Related to this, the Jerusalem Municipal Government page on East Talpiot is repeatedly used as a source for history that is contested to put it mildly. Is a municipal government webpage a reliable source for history?

Thank you, nableezy - 17:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Note this was posted on NPOV/n as well. The first source does not make a stmt on the status of East Talpiot. The second does, but there are other sources who say different things. This location specifically is a special case as prior to 1967 it was neither in West nor East Jerusalem but was rather a buffer zone under UN control. This distinction is present in every map (and maps are acceptable sources), which covers the geopolotical status here, e.g, from OHCA and peace now - not pro-Israeli organizations - mark East Talpiot's very unique situation - as you can see on the map, East Talpiot is located (mostly - there is some very new spillover to the east, and some spill over to the west) - on the diagonally shaded area - marking the no man's land - with the green line "having a width" - or more accurately at this point there are two green lines (or city lines) - on Israeli, one Arab)).Icewhiz (talk) 18:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

No, this was not posted to NPOV/N, this has nothing to do with whether or not this place is an "Israeli village", please do not misrepresent the record. Your copy-pasting remarks from different discussions, complete with typos, notwithstanding, you are clearly wrong here. The first source says Gilo and East Talpiot were built on the city's southwestern and southeastern flanks, positioned between it and the Palestinian locales of Beit Jallah and Bethlehem. Curious you would say that it does not make a stmt on the status of East Talpiot. The question here is are these sources reliable for the statement on its location between the Palestinian cities of Sawaher and Sur Baher and its part of the plan to separate Jerusalem from Palestinian population centers like Beit Jallah and Bethelehem. I honestly have no idea what your statement has to do with that. nableezy - 18:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

This is a no brainer. Icewhiz, don't keep bringing contention into issues like the RS reliability of obvious RS. Ira Sharkansky is self-evidently an excellent source, as is Rawan Asali Nuseibeh, with a Durham University doctorate, a post doctoral research position at Hebrew university, and published by Routledge. No one will even look at this, it is so obviously a POV driven challenge to commonsense.Nishidani (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Re "this was not posted to NPOV/N": Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#East_Talpiot.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)