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

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 [1] 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)

  To clarify my !vote in light of comments below - In "axe to grind" I was referring to this being coverage related to the gun debate in the US. The NYT, is, of course considered the gold plate in journalism in the US (and beyond). However, the underlying source of the information (surgeon interviews as opposed to an actual study), the rather inaccurate language (e.g. exponentially which is technically incorrect here), and the sensationalist (as opposed to technical) tone - makes this a far from perfect source for bullet wound dynamics. It is definitely reliable to say that trauma surgeons said so in an interview - so in that sense the NYT is a RS - however per WP:MEDRS (and I do see bullet wounds as "biomedical information" per MEDRS) such a primary statement should be avoided. Finally, there are actually several review studies available for bullet wound characteristics - which would be a much better source.Icewhiz (talk) 10:47, 31 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 no source is not reliable - thank you to Farcaster for bringing my attention back to WP:NEWSORG, having reviewed it and WP:MEDRS again I assess the NYTs is not a reliable source of biomedical content. Changed !vote. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 04:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC).

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)

Your knowledge is wrong. 5.56mm rifles produce massive wounds. They produce massive wounds whether the rifle is a 5.56mm AR-15 or a 5.56mm Ranch Rifle with the same barrel length firing the same ammunition. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• 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)

Arbitrary break to minimize edit conflicts

• 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)

Are you crazy or trying to be funny? If you don't know the difference between quadratic and exponential, go back to primary school. 2$2=4, depending on the operation the $ represents could apply equally well to linear, quadratic, exponential or random. Exponential energy would mean something like 0.5m2^v (which is wrong!). For a constant mass of projectile, by the time we are contemplating quadruple instead of double the velocity, we would have 2^5=32 vs 5^2=25. By the time we are looking at supersonic speeds the slope is huge, so don't come telling us it is all a matter of scientific pickyness. JonRichfield (talk) 05:09, 31 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)

Guy Macon, you wrote the NYT claims that assault rifles such as the AR-15 are somehow unique in the wounds that they inflict. Where in the article does it say that? From what I read, the comparisons to other guns are to handguns, plus a brief mention of shotguns. —DIYeditor , same question to you. Thanks. Waleswatcher (talk) 21:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

NYT: "Perhaps no one knows the devastating wounds inflicted by assault-style rifles better than the trauma surgeons who struggle to repair them."

False by omission or grossly misleading in two ways:

1. This is a characteristic of hunting rifles in .223 as well.
2. This is not necessarily a characteristic of the most common assault rifle round, the 7.62x39, which some AR-15s fire.

The NYT article is trying to make it sound like this is in particular a concern with assault-style rifles or with the AR-15, both of which are false. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? You (Waleswatcher) actually read an article that starts out with "perhaps no one knows the devastating wounds inflicted by assault-style rifles better than the trauma surgeons who struggle to repair them. The doctors say they are haunted by their experiences confronting injuries so dire they struggle to find words to describe them" and somehow came to the conclusion that the source didn't claim that assault rifles such as the AR-15 are somehow unique in the wounds that they inflict? Either you are trolling me, grasping at straws to support your POV, or have a WP:CIR problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

It quite clearly doesn't claim that. It doesn't even imply it. What it does say is that of the gunshot wounds commonly seen by these surgeons, those inflicted by assault-style rifles are by far the worst. Quite possibly if lots of people were getting shot by high-powered hunting rifles instead of handguns, that wouldn't be the case. Waleswatcher (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

So as long as good old "foot wide exit wounds" NYT heard it from some MD, you would be fine with a Wikipedia article claiming that injuries from getting hit by Toyotas cause more damage than injuries from getting hit by bicycles -- with the claim made only on Toyota-related pages? Even if we documented that individual Toyotas and Nissans exist with the exact same weight, top speed, and front-end/bumper design? OK, so how about if we claimed that blue Toyotas cause more damage than bicycles? How about blue Toyotas driven by blacks? How about blue Toyotas driven by blacks who voted for Bernie Sanders? No one doubts that being hit by a 100KPH blue Toyota driven by a black who voted for Sanders will almost always mess you up more than being hit by a bicycle. If the NYT asked a trauma surgeon he would have to agree agree that the statement is technically accurate.

Re your "Either you are trolling me, grasping at straws to support your POV, or have a WP:CIR problem." comment, (Personal attack removed).

BTW, I would love to hear your theory on how it is, exactly, that a trauma surgeon knows that a gunshot victim was shot with one type of rifle instead on another type of rifle that creates identical wounds? Do they include the rile on the gurney? Are there patients bleeding out because the surgeon hasn't received a copy of the police report? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

The source is comparing the weapons which are actually used in mass shootings, not ones that could have been but weren't. (And yes, if a bicycle attack epidemic was replaced by a string of attacks by blacks who voted for Bernie Sanders driving blue Toyotas, reliable sources would surely talk about the deadliness of Toyotas compared to bicycles as well as the reasons for this oddly specific trend, regardless of whether the factors are internal or external to Toyota, blacks or Bernie Sanders. The related Wikipedia articles would be updated to reflect this coverage. Nissans have nothing to do with it.) –dlthewave ☎ 15:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

The attempt by those who wish to ban Toyotas to introduce such a claim into Toyota articles but not Nissan articles when reliable academic sources show no difference between Toyotas and Nissans does have something to do with it. Editors who attempt to drag in the bogus anti-Toyota claims by comparing Toyotas (but not Nissans) with bicycles do have something to do with it.

I don't know if you are aware of this, but science already has an answer to the mass shootings question. See The Effects of Bans on the Sale of Assault Weapons and High-Capacity Magazines also, Before the first assault weapon laws were enacted in the 1990s, assault weapons were used in 1.4% of crimes involving firearms and 0.25% of all crimes that involved injuries to the victim. So if you want to argue percentage of crimes, you should argue for banning handguns. If you want to argue severity of wounds, you should argue for banning shotguns. If you want to argue bullet velocity, you should advocate banning all guns that fire certain cartridges (for example, banning all that fire 7.62x39 NATO while allowing all that fire .22 long rifle) What you don't want to do is to advocate banning certain guns based upon irrelevant characteristics. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:57, 9 June 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)

@Reb1981 Could you please clarify your comment? The proposal is to put this text on (as you said) "the page for that type of rifle". The NYT article and text in question is about assault rifles and specifically mentions the M-16 and AR-15. So you said "No" but your text says "yes."Farcaster (talk) 21:24, 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)

Slatersteven, Re: your claim that the Ruger AR-15 and Ruger Ranch Rifle Ruger do not have the same barrel length, first of all, the fact that (like most rifles) both are available in a variety of barrel lengths and that some of the available barrel lengths match up is easily verifiable. Second, your point is irrelevant unless you are prepared to make the dubious claim that all 5.56×45mm NATO assault rifles have significantly longer/shorter barrel lengths than all conventional 5.56×45mm wooden-stock rifles. It's as if I had pointed out the stupidity of some ER doctor claiming that (based of a tiny sample) Fords cause worse wounds than Chevrolets and you responded by saying that the Ford Mustang and the Chevrolet Bolt have different vehicle weights and different top speeds. That's true, but has zero relevance to the question of whether Fords cause worse wounds than Chevrolets, and it is certainly possible to pick a Ford and a Chevrolet that weight roughly the same. If a Ford and a Chevy are the same weight, go the same speed, and have essentially the same front end, then the wounds they make when hitting a pedestrian are the same. This is true even if there exists an organized political movement to demonize Fords and not Chevrolets. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:12, 31 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)

Um, yes, it it anecdotal. No matter what their experience is or where they got it, when they are answering based on their experience, that is exactly what anecdotal evidence is. Can you explain how basing it on personal experience is NOT anecdotal? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Um, no, it's called "expert opinion". K.e.coffman (talk) 20:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

They are experts in medicine. No dispute there. But when their opinion is based on their own experiences, not through actual study, it's anecdotal. Do you even know what the word means? "based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation" They are reporting their own observations. It's the very definition of it. Or you just know more than the dictionary? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Nah, it's expert opinion. Do you even know what these words mean? And please stop badgering other editors; I've submitted my iVote and I'm not changing it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The old classic: "Don't confuse me with facts, I've already made up my mind"... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

please stop badgering other editors; I've submitted my iVote and I'm not changing it. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Thomas.W and Niteshift36, I might point out that C.J. Chivers (one of the two authors of the article) is a former Army captain who served in the first Gulf War, and is the author of a book called "The Gun", about the AK-47. Waleswatcher (talk) 21:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Waleswatcher: What has being a former military officer got to do with anything?. This is about being an expert on the characteristics of wounds caused by being hit by a bullet from a certain type of firearms, not about being an expert on how to pull the trigger. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC) (If being a former military officer automatically made someone an expert on wound characteristics I'd be an expert on this too...)

• No. The source is unreliable, whether NY Times or Captain Marvel comics or self-styled "expert opinion". The reporter either is quoting unreliable sources without comprehension, or has mutilated a reliable source by lack of comprehension of technical terms. For example, the effect of a bullet's velocity on the wound is not exponential in any useful sense, except perhaps "lots and lots and lots". WP is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not Ripley's Believe it or not. The effect of the relative velocity of a bullet, on the form and scale of the wound it causes, is related to many variables apart from energy, and besides, the energy in a moving projectile is kinetic, which rises quadratically with velocity, not exponentially. Is that the sort of garbage we are to be retailing? I hope' not! 04:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC) JonRichfield (talk) 05:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@JonRichfield Please look up the definition of exponential, then update your comment.Farcaster (talk) 14:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Farcaster OK, I looked it up, just to please you, please note, so don' t say I never do anything for you. Now what part of my comment did you think needed updating? What did you think it meant? JonRichfield (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, for starters exponentially includes "quadratically" and other powers. The source doesn't say energy is the only factor, simply that it's a key factor. Just thought you should know your premise is almost entirely disconnected from your conclusion.Farcaster (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Qualified support the NYT is an acceptable source for these interviews, but better context is needed than what is provided in the quote and consensus would be needed at a particular article to include such an extensive quote. As noted by various other editors, the cosmetic and rate-of-fire characteristics of a semi-auto rifle do not affect the terminal ballistics of each bullet. This is an easily sourced observation, and any claims to the contrary need to meet WP:REDFLAG. Further, the article is comparing the terminal ballistics of intermediate cartridges to the affects of (relatively common) pistol rounds - full-power rifle rounds do not appear to be considered at all. Finally, this is RSN - we can assess reliability, but not whether specific content should be included at a particular article. That should be determined, considering other policies and guidelines as well, at the article talk page. For example, here the content was contested on the grounds of editorial consensus and relevance, neither of which are going to be reversed by a discussion here. VQuakr (talk) 15:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
• Weak support - I would prefer the experts be cited directly, but if those sources aren't available, this is acceptable. The phrase "exponentially greater" is being used in a lay sense of simply meaning "a lot larger"; a scientific assessment (that a 3x velocity means a 9x increase in energy) would be better than directly quoting that sentence. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

A 3x increase in velocity meaning a 9x increase in energy is technically true, but if you're comparing two different types of weapon it's true only if the bullets weigh the same (½x bullet weight x velocity squared), which they don't if you compare an AR-15 to a handgun, since handgun bullets are much heavier than bullets used in 5.56x45mm ammo (twice the weight if it's the most common 9mm ammo, 4x the weight if it's the most common .45ACP ammo...). If you compare with a 9x19mm handgun it's also not 3x the velocity since a typical muzzle velocity for that caliber is ~1,200ft/s with a 124 gr bullet... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support within limits - from my reading, the source is saying that wounds from rifles like the AR-15 and M16 are more severe than more common (for civilians) handguns and shotgun wounds, which seems fine and isn't contradicted by anything I can find. It's true that some conventional rifles might cause even more severe wounds than an AR-15, but the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America so it gets more coverage. By the same token: SUVs pose more danger to pedestrians compared to a standard sized sedan. Ceteris paribus, getting run over by a tank is worse than either, but it's also far more rare so it receives less comment. Nblund ^talk 19:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• So you would be fine with an article claiming that injuries from getting hit by Fords cause more damage than injuries from getting hit by bicycles -- with the claim made only on Ford pages? Even if we documented that individual Fords and Chevrolets exist with the exact same weight, top speed, and front-end/bumper design? OK, so how about if we claimed that white Fords cause more damage than bicycles? How about white Fords driven by women? How about white Fords driven by women who voted for Hillary? No one doubts that being hit by a 100MPH white Ford driven by a women who voted for Hillary will almost always mess you up more than being hit by a bicycle. If I asked a trauma surgeon he would agree that the statement is technically accurate. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, that depends on the scenario - did white Ford trucks become the most popular trucks in America after previously being banned? And have they become the preferred truck for people committing large scale vehicular homicide? If either is true, then yes, it would probably make sense to comment on how their relative size and weight makes them deadlier than smaller sedans and bicycles that were previously more common. Nblund ^talk 15:54, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - Of course this isn't a reliable source because the NYT has openly taken a political position on gun control in general and assault rifles specifically. As such the information contained within these articles, which was written by two reporters, has to be considered a POV given by somebody who is not an authority on the subject. Since the article is POV by nature and written by somebody who isn't an authority on the issue, how can it be utilized in Wikipedia without making the article POV? Syr74 (talk) 04:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

First of all, taking a position doesn't make a source unreliable. For example, the Congressional Budget Office takes the position that tax cuts increase deficits relative to a baseline without those tax cuts, and their information is considered unbiased and definitive on the subject. Second, in terms of NPOV, from the Wikipedia NPOV page: "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage."Farcaster (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

This is a discussion about whether the NYT article is a reliable source for the proposed text or not (which is why this is called the "Reliable Sources Noticeboard"...). Whether the addition violates WP:NPOV (including WP:UNDUE) or not, and should be balanced by addition of other material or not included at all, is the next step, but such discussions take place on each article. Either after a discussion at RSN is over or, as in this case (since those discussions are already taking place there), in parallel with this discussion. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia states that a relevant source can be a biased source, but goes on to suggest that such a source would contain reliable and pertinent information. The New York Times has been embroiled in several scandals within just the 21st century that have damaged the reputation of the paper, many of which have led to retractions and omissions including the New York Times citing that, at one point, their reporting was factually biased due to 'institutional issues'. That is literally an admission that lying to push a viewpoint had become an accepted tactic of leadership. This included the termination of a prominent reporter at the paper who, according to the paper, distorted facts over the course of several years and an admission that the paper had been less than honest during reporting up to and during the Global War on Terror/Iraq War. The issue isn't just that they are biased but, rather, that they have a relatively recent track record of allowing that bias to lead them to go so far as to be dishonest to push a political view point. As such, reliability ought to be questioned. Syr74 (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I would direct you to Wikipedia:NEWSORG which states: "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact."Farcaster (talk) 04:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Direct away, but you aren't addressing the issue I brought up. My problem here isn't one of opinion vs fact, rather my issue is with the fact that the New York Times itself has, on multiple occasions, stated that items published in their paper have been untrue and this in relatively recent history. A lie is not an opinion, and absolutely speaks to reliability. If the paper can't police their own reporters and editors reliability then they cannot be considered reliable. Syr74 (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• No, none -

"Is the New York Times a reliable source for bullet wound characteristics?" - No That's a bit mis-stated and a mis-quoted bit here but being literal no, NYT is not an expert in medicine or ballistics. They have some WP:NEWSORG ability to be RS for statements OF others, but they cannot judge among statements and the text in question did not attribute the words as being those solely of Dr. Schreiber. The two journalists seem to have relevant background, and the Doctor apparently has some battlefield wound experience -- but none apparent regarding AR-15, and obviously not expert in ballistics which is what the article context is making statements about. As others noted, incorrect statements. This text is talking speed which is a factor from cartridge and barrel length and not what 'style' the barrel is mounted in. So you'd see non-'military' rifles better than some models of AR-15 with identical cartridges, and some handguns over 2000fps but not as lethal as 'slow' but big impact of a 44 magnum or 50 S&W.

"Which article(s), if any, should this be included in?" None. Even if restated to just military and noting just Dr. Schreiber -- there is no particular reason to put his particular words filtered thru NYT and then WP as something authritative or famous.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• No. Newspapers are RS for news. Technical detail filtered thru journalists often turns into nonsense. If it were an direct interview with a recognized expert, whose words were a direct unedited non-cherry-picked speech, we could have attributed some technical info the expert, but never to the NYT. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per Guy Macon and practically every oppose !vote so far that makes the case for inaccuracy and anecdotal rather than facts. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:27, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
• On the narrow point of RS: NYT is of course reliable for claiming to interview people, for accurately reporting those interviews, and selecting reasonably qualified experts. As for the expert quotes, if we cut through the wikilawyering and POV-wars, the quotes in isolation shouldn't be particularly controversial. They are doctors (half military doctors) describing cases they have treated, they basically say heavy weapons can and often do create more severe wounds than handguns, and they explain why. However that does not mean this is an appropriate way to write these articles. I would not be surprised to see individuals on either or both sides of this battle heading towards a topic ban. Alsee (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@Alsee: "However that does not mean this is an appropriate way to write these articles" Could you clarify what you mean by this? –dlthewave ☎ 20:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

dlthewave on one side some pro-gun editors are battling it with bogus arguments, and on the other side the content itself is screams anti-gun motives. Strong partisan views tends to lead to both poor arguments and poor content. The content is practically all quotation, from a piece who's entire theme is how "ghastly" shootings are. If anyone wants to present an emotive case on either side of gun-control/gun-rights, take it to an article gun on the controversy. The content could fit there. Alsee (talk) 07:37, 11 June 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. [2], [3] (yes a presentation, but their paper is probably interesting and they have results in a nice chart), [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9].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)

Icewhiz, the deadliness of assault rifles vs. other types of guns has already been established. The answer is "identical if the cartridge and barrel length are the same". BTW, at the range at which most shootings occur, a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with #4 Buckshot (twenty four 1/4-inch lead balls traveling at about 1,200 feet per second) is far more deadly than any assault rifle. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment whether NYT is generally regarded as RS is irrelevant. If a particular source publishes patently illiterate or innumerate garbage, it certainly is not a reliable source in that context at least. The quote's source is nonsensical in terms of school physics, never mind real-world wound ballistic technicalities, so it is not merely unreliable but wrong. No matter how reliably the report uncritically quotes nonsense, that does not make it reliable. If it is not reliable for this article, that does not make it reliable in any other article whatsoever, politically slanted or not, unless perhaps as a horrible example in an article on lousy reporting. JonRichfield (talk) 05:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

To date, 18 no 10 yes and 2 maybes. -72bikers (talk) 22:21, 9 June 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)

At the time of this count, it's 14 to "exclude" the content, 12 to "include", and 2 participants (MastCell and Thewellman) with no conclusion offered. However, dropping invalid arguments (e.g., votes to "exclude" due to Anecdotal, Not RS, MEDRS, and "I know better than the NYT"), at least 12 of the 14 "exclude" votes would carry no weight. This puts us at +10 (12-2) in favor of adding.Farcaster (talk) 23:14, 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 draw 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)

Just one tiny problem: your opening comment contains a claim about what is and is not in the NYT source that is factual incorrect. You wrote (quoting a RS) " '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...' " That's comparing high velocity rifle bullets with (lower velocity) handgun bullets, and is entirely correct. Alas, you went on the claim "...which is a fancier way of saying exactly what the quoted trauma surgeons said in the Times article." Wrong, Wrong, Wrong. The trauma surgeons compared assault rifles with the handguns. Not rifles. Assault rifles. No scholarly source makes such a claim. The two claims are not the same. I am shocked that an experienced editor such as yourself would misrepresent the source in this way. The NYT made a claim about assault rifles. Editors wishing to cite the NYT article want to do so on pages about assault rifles. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment The source quoted was wrong and ignorantly wrong at that, never mind RS. Schluss. At that point it falls off the bus. The quote is not acceptable in this article or any other article, irrespective of other considerations. Whatever the bullet, the firearm, the clothing, the time of the year, the intentions of the victim or the politics of the assailant might have been, nonsense is nonsense, and we need another source, not walls of text on what might have been or why every opposing editor is a dickhead. JonRichfield (talk) 05:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Both could be true. I could be 100% correct in my claim that "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." and I could also be a dickhead. It is a factual claim. easily verified in multiple reliable sources. Whether the claim is true of false has nothing to do with who makes the claim. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:11, 7 June 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 Research Service
• Isak Svensson published 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)

WTF? I am asking for a perfectly routine thing: for the editor seeking to include disputed content (and it is disputed: it's been removed several times by different people and he's tried a series of sources of differing but mainly marginal reliability) to gain consensus before including it. This is a bold claim and it needs robust sourcing and it also needs consensus to add it. We are saying that a terrorist group is the main opposition in Iran. Can you see how that is a problematic statement? Guy (Help!) 22:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Overlooking the fact that (a) the original disputed sentence has been remodulated to take in concerns (b) three new quality sources have been added to buttres the new formulation (c) we don't state 'a terrorist group is the main opposition in Iran': we state

Many commentators consider the National Council of Resistance of Iran and MEK, its paramilitary arm, variously as the most important or most active Iranian opposition group to the current Government of Islamic Republic of Iran.

And then immediately afterwards document that it generally considered to be a terrorist group. The whole passage has been thoroughly revised, and you are reverting as if there had been no progress or responsiveness to fair criticism of the original edit. Move on.Nishidani (talk) 07:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. The sentence mentioned above is not right. First of all, MEK is not the political wing of the NCRI, but vice versa. MEK is a political–militant organization, NCRI and NLAI are the political and the armed wings respectively. The organization tends to showcase itself as the "Iranian Resistance" or the "main opposition", however this is not a only rejected by other elements of Iranian opposition, but also from scholars. You can find a source or two that call them as such (mostly politically-motivated like Fox News), but that is not a even a strong minority view (RAND's policy conundrum on the group is quite a good secondary source pointing to this). MEK (=NCRI) is pretty unpopular in its home country. Pahlevun (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Take a look at this edit, which says: Many commentators consider the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (and the National Council of Resistance of Iran, its political wing) as the most important or most active Iranian opposition group to the current Government of Islamic Republic of Iran.

Citation overkill is used to synthesize and support the given sentence:

1. Varasteh (2013) is quoting a 2005 annual report from the German Office for the Protection of Constitution that describes it as "the most important opposition group".
2. Svensson (2012) is quoting from Abrahamian (1989), 'largest, most disciplined and heavily armed opposition group to the regime', talking about the early years after the revolution. It is not supporting this certain sentence in anyway.
3. Katzman (2001) says it is 'Iran's most active opposition group'.
4. Footnote from Con Coughlin (2009): "Marian Rajavi, the wife of Masud Rajavi, the leader of National Council of Resistance of Iran, the main opposition to the mullahs, is based in Paris while her husband's Mujaheedin organization is based in Iraq." I find this footnote to be wrong, firstly it wrongly writes Maryam Rajavi as "Marian Rajavi". Secondly, MEK was not "her husband's", the husband and wife were both "co-equal leaders" of the MEK since 1985 and Masoud Rajavi was dissapeared in 2003 during Iraq War, so leadership of the group has practically passed to Maryam. After all, Masoud is considered dead. Note that the book is published in 2009. Con Coughlin is a journalist rather than a scholar and I think his views should only be attributed to himself.

Consequently, I think these are not proper to support such a questionable claim in the lead. I suggest Stefka Bulgaria, who is the only user in favor of inclusion, to develop People's Mujahedin of Iran#Status among Iranian opposition. I think then we can come to a consensus over putting a proper sentence in the lead. Pahlevun (talk) 13:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Taking a look at this fringe viewpoint added to the lead by Stefka Bulgaria, I just took a look at Manshour Varasteh's book, Understanding Iran's National Security Doctrine, is published by Troubador Publishing Ltd, which is

an independent UK publisher offering a range of publishing options to authors, from assisting independent authors with specific requirements (Indie-Go), through full service self-publishing (Matador), to partnership and mainstream publishing (The Book Guild Ltd). We also organize a range of events for authors, including the annual Self-Publishing Conference. We enjoy helping authors publish, and using our 25 years’ experience we strive to create quality books and to market and distribute them as widely as possible.

So, it is a self-publishing company and the book is not subject to scholarly peer review. Secondly, Varasteh is not a renowned scholar. I found that Varasteh is himself a member of the MEK, who pays tribute to the "martyrs of the resistance and PMOI (MEK)" and one of his books has been published by "Bonyad Rezaiha Association", which is an organ of the MEK (see p. 2). I find the source questionable. Last but not the least, this is a WP:FRINGE view that no reliable source supports. I have compiled a handful of the whole sack of sources that say exactly the opposite. Pahlevun (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@JzG, Kmhkmh, and Nishidani: I would appreciate it if you take a look at the comment I made above? Pahlevun (talk) 22:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I am convinced that this is a case of quote mining to support what an editor "knows" to be true, rather than a proper review of the sources holistically. We've seen an endless succession of crappy sources paraded. Nishidani thinks Katzman is reliable, I have no reason to disagree but if this is genuinely Katzman's view I would expect to see sources other than Benliot. We should not use the Benliot book, he has no evident reputation and Nova Publishing has a long history of publishing bollocks, and that was at its worst about when this book came out. The more you lok at the sources the more they come down to opinion by individuals. Coughlin, for example: an experienced journalist but a conservative. A claim this bold should be supported by sources like the NYT, WaPo and such, but it's not. It's quote-mined from sundry right wing journalists. Guy (Help!) 08:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

"It was the first Iranian organization to develop systematically a modern revolutionary interpretation of Islam. The Mojahedin played an important role in fighting the Pahlavi regime. The Mojahedin grew rapidly after the Islamic Revolution to become a major force in Iranian politics. Many foreign diplomats considered it to be by far the largest, the best disciplined, and the most heavily armed of all the opposition organizations." (a source thoroughly used throughout the article). I only keep providing these because you've objected the initial sources, not because I'm "quote mining". Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

References

I only quickly browsed the discussion after my post. My personal take is, that the sources together or rather the better ones among them (without the self published and fox) are sufficient to call them an "important" or "prominent" opposition group. That info should be in the article in doubt with a specific intext attribution ("according to .."). I'm kinda neutral whether is needs to be in the lead as well or just in the article's body.

So drop self published sources and fox, keep the rest probably with a more conservative/cautious formulation (import or prominent instead of most important) and an explicit intext attribution in doubt.

And of course consider better (scholarly) sources if available and use their description of the group instead or in addition.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• Also pinging Blueboar, Shrike, and Simon Dodd, who have contributed to this discussion and may want to add something else. Thank you :-) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

There is no substance to Guy's objections, save the query, confirmed with Pahlevun's note on about Manshour Varasteh's book being self-published. That by compromise can be removed. For the rest Isak Svensson, Kenneth Katzman (once in a book, the other in a book by Bentiot which Guy insistently says in invalid because the editor is invalid, - which is a stupid argument, not worth rebutting), Con Coughlin - again a source I dislike, but it qualifies whatever one's likes or dislikes being reputably published, and the journalist does cover that area. Pahlevun. It is quite immaterial to reliability that the page quoted for a view, has also other material on it. We quote it for a very straightforward statement supported by other sources, and this statement is not diminished by saying the context says other things as well. This started out questioning, rightly The Hill and Fox news. So we got rid of them. It said some other sources introduced, such as Manshour Varasteh, were self-published, so it is agreed to eliminate that too. I.e. one group of editors is negotiating a compromise, while another is insisting, by challenging a Congressional Research services scholar on the area, Katzman, and Svensson, that they get it all their way. This is not how we operate. We get consensus by compromise not by repetitive bludgeoning till one's POV is completely acknowledged as the only acceptable edit.Nishidani (talk) 09:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Virtually all academic specialists in the area will tell you that the MeK is a dishonest cult reviled in its home country for siding with Saddam Hussein during the Iran–Iraq War. As Pahlevun and JzG note, with this disputed edit Stefka Bulgaria is scraping the bottom of the barrel using self-published sources affiliated with the MeK and opinion pieces by tabloid journalists to force controversial content through via citekill. Of special interest is Coughlin's history of promoting false claims and conspiracy theories about the Middle East, most notably about Saddam's involvement in 9/11; relying on Coughlin for contentious "facts" stated in wikivoice is a nonstarter. Absent consensus, Stefka Bulgaria and Nishidani should really cool it with the edit warring. The only RS cited by Stefka Bulgaria is Abrahamian 1989 (although I note that he does not cite Abrahamian directly), but using a 1989 source to discuss the contemporary political situation in Iran three decades later is quite deceptive. Simply put, there should be no doubt about Wikipedia's preference for academic sources over tabloid and self-published sources.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

That (a) the NCRI is a family concern, and has a dubious record, is well-known. This is not incompatible with (b) the observation by analysts that it has engaged in intense media and lobbying efforts to get its name down as the fundamental Iranian diaspora opposition group. We only go by sources, and if multiple RS state (b) that does not cancel out (a) which is now mentioned in the lead and developed in the body of the text. As usual, editors are picking a POV fight to get their version in, when the obligation of NPOV is to get both versions in. Nishidani (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Stefka Bulgaria continues to edit war at National Council of Resistance of Iran despite a clear lack of consensus for his proposed change.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• Absolutely no substance to TheTimesAreAChanging's arguement, which seems WP:NOTTHERE. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Stefka rightly reverted you, TheTimesAreAChanging, because you ignored the negotiations here, and just stepped in to revert not what Stefka wrote, but what was written as discussions here developed, taking into consideration new materials and proposals. Don't walk into articles to revert war when you are absent from the page, and show no knowledge of the record.Nishidani (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

All one need do, is not squabble endlessly over a few words, but rather, read closely at least the Rand corporation paper. It only takes an hour, and has masses of detail which could be used for either POV. I see a huge concentration on POV hunting over a line or two, and near zero work on actually using sources to fleshen out an article whose volume could be doubled in a day's work, if any number of RS were read, digested and deployed here. As usual, people enjoy bickering, rather than rolling their sleeves up to do some fucking reading on the topic.Nishidani (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

You are arm-waving. I have provided detailed critiques of the sources, to which you apparently have no answer. Guy (Help!) 18:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. Without looking too much into context, the sources seem to qualify as WP:RS per policy. The disputed edit by SB seem to be OK in terms of content and sufficiently sourced. MeK is not a "cult", but a communist/Marxist organization, but this is not relevant. My very best wishes (talk) 00:27, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• There is a problem with the content, namely "current". Nothing is "current" in WP per WP:RELTIME. This is also vague. What does "important" mean? High quality sources that are aiming to describe history and not give news or opinion, would permit content that was anchored in time. Starting when did they become important? In what way are they "important"? (they get the most foreign funding, or some specific government (Russia or the US perhaps) is supporting them? They have the most followers inside Iran as far as anybody can tell? The content is problematic. Will comment on sources in a bit... Jytdog (talk) 00:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Nishidani: I'm not personally objecting reliability of Katzman, but I do insist that he only described MEK as the "most active". Svensson (2012), himself, does not state that the MEK is "the most important" nor "the most active" opposition. Svensson is quoting from Abrahamian (1989) that "[Many foreign diplomats considered it to be] by far the largest, the best disciplined, and the most heavily armed of all the opposition organizations". I still don't see the words "important" or "active". This is not right to pick cherries out of this sentence. Plus, the source is talking about the 1980s, I think this is fine to add the sentence to article in a section about the 1980s, but it does not belong to the lead per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. I did not really challenge that Coughlin is a journalist who covers that area, but I insist that what he wrote is a fringe view and you don't put such a substantial claim in the lead, using the term Many commentators. So, these are not enough for the lead. Pahlevun (talk) 20:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Angelopedia

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 have searched the archives and not found any discussion of this website. It is used in en-wp around 700 times. The ownership is hidden by proxy but it was first registered in 2013. There is no information about who owns or runs the website, or even what country it is in. If you look at the <link redacted> signed news pieces they are bylined to "Irina Silva", "Camilla Suarez", or "Angelique Reyes". There is no information about those (supposed?) people on their website.

Some of the content appears to be WP:USERGENERATED. At <link redacted> at their Contact page they invite people to submit information, but there is nothing about their editorial process.

Their <link redacted> Terms of Use say "All information, data, text, software, music, sound, photographs, graphics, video, messages or other materials ("Content"), whether publicly or privately transmitted / posted, is the sole responsibility of the person from where such content is originated (the Originator).... The Company accepts no responsibility for the said Content / Images. However, you understand that all Content / Images posted by you becomes the property of the Company and you agree to grant/assign to the Company and its affiliates, a non-exclusive, royalty free, perpetual, irrevocable and sub-licensable right to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such Content / Images (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed throughout the world." (bolding added - they take no responsibility, but they own it).

The site covers beauty pageants, and is used, for example, in Miss Universe 2018, to support content in a table of contestants, excerpted here:

Country/Territory	Delegate	Age	Height	Hometown
Cambodia	Rern Sinat	22	5 ft 7 in (170 cm)	Kampong Cham
Kyrgyzstan	Begimay Karybekova	20	5 ft 7 in (170 cm)	Naryn

References

It is also used in pages about contestants for example at Sofía del Prado like this:

In 2017, del Prado again entered Miss Spain for a second attempt at being crowned. She succeeded and then represented Spain at Miss Universe 2017 in Las Vegas.

References

My attention was called to this RS question by a thread at ANI where it was raised. I asked a question about it at the talk page, here, and the answer led me to bring this here.

Is Angelopedia an RS as it is used above? Jytdog (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Since it's a user generated site, NO. I have seen that site on countless articles about beauty pageants and pageant contestants, and have tried to remove it, nominate articles for deletion for lack of reliable sources confirming notability, etc, etc. But there's a whole army of editors here who add the material back again and !vote keep at AfD, and another army of throw-away accounts who create new articles using Angelopedia and sites that are even less reliable than that as "sources". Over and over again if needed (such as the umpteen incarnations of Miss Grand International, under multiple names). So the only way to get rid of them is by creating an edit filter that automatically removes all links to the site. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• It's about as "reliable" a source in the Wiki sense as my own pageant site i.e. not at all. I try to remove references on sight but they are so prevalent that it's hard to catch up and I shudder at the Universe articles which are a mess all on their own level. ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  00:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
• This user generated site is totally NOT a RS but the army of pageant fans and paid promoters sure love it. It's hard to get rid of a pageant winner page because they think sources MUST exist even though no one pays much attention to these girls that fail WP:NMODEL by a mile and a pageant win hardly meets WP:ANYBIO #1 Legacypac (talk) 00:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• If this is not RS but it keeps getting spammed in, then we can blacklist it. Nobody here has said this is RS yet. I will wait a good while longer and see if things change, and if they don't, I will nominate it over there. That will take care of it. Jytdog (talk) 06:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Reliable source for basic information. According to its profile at Owler.com, Angelopedia is a corporation employing more than a dozen people and having annual revenues of more than $500,000. Whether or not that revenue estimate is precisely accurate, the Owler report does put to rest the notion that this might be someone's personal blog. The website also is the host of live streaming of various national-level pageants, something which (I presume) can not be done by your average personal blogger.

  But the reason we are here at this noticeboard is concern that the site's content is user-generated, the evidence for which is nothing more than a section of the site's Terms of Service that addresses such content. But the site allows people to sign up as "Members", whereupon they can create their own member profiles, add comments to articles and engage in discussions with other members. The quoted section of the Terms of Service certainly apply to this "Member" content. But no one here has presented any evidence that the user-generated content extends to anything other than that. In particular, there is no evidence whatsoever that "user-generated content" extends to the by-lined articles that are being used as sources here on Wikipedia.

  But is the mere fact that the site hosts some user-generated content enough to cause the entire site to be unreliable? Perhaps so. But I think that would surprise a whole lot of Wikipedians. If the argument presented here is truly persuasive, then we'll need to stop using the New York Times website as a reliable source, as well. The Times website also has a Terms of Service document, section 3 of which addresses user-generated content. And the Times also declares ownership rights over that content (section 3.4) and disavows any responsibility for the accuracy of that content (section 3.5). And how about the Washington Post? Its submission guidelines have similar provisions. Are both of these news organizations to be deemed unreliable simply because they have user-generated content that is subject to the same Terms of Service as used by Angelopedia? Are they both to be labeled "spam" and placed on a blacklist?

  Of course not. The user-content provisions of their Terms of Service do not impinge on the organisations' reliability and it is faulty logic to suggest otherwise in the instant case. Angelopedia is a reliable specialist news source that provides an English-language clearinghouse for information that gets reported in non-English and non-Roman-script media. As such, it is useful to Wikipedians who create content in this area. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

What has the number of employees got to do with being usergenerated or not? Wikipedia and IMDB, just to name two, each have many more employees than Angelopedia, but are still usergenerated, and not WP:RS... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Jeez, I guess we gotta bless the Daily Mail, and they have even more employees and revenue.... And I can think of even worse examples (at times, what sells, is far from reliable - no shortage of conspiracy sites with employees and revenue).Icewhiz (talk) 07:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both for your comments. And you are quite right, Thomas -- the number of employees has nothing to do with the question of whether the site's articles are user-generated. I mentioned those facts in response to the original poster's suggestion that the site's by-lined authors might not be real people. Instead, I think it reasonable to assume that a corporation in the business of creating web content has staff writers who do indeed exist. If the original poster has evidence that contradicts this assumption, they certainly haven't presented it here.

But the bulk of my response (starting with the paragraph "But the reason we are here at this noticeboard ...") addresses the silliness of the original poster's main argument. Having Terms of Service that address user-generated content doesn't prove that all of the site's content is user-generated. No one thinks that about the New York Times or the Washington Post, even though their websites also have Terms of Service with similar provisions. Again, if the original poster has evidence that all of Angelopedia's news reports are user-generated, they certainly haven't presented it here.

The reference to the Daily Mail is puzzling. The RfC on that paper concluded that the Mail was fabricating stories and quotes and, hence, was not reliable for Wikipedia sourcing. But no one here has even alleged that Angelopedia is fabricating news reports, let alone provide any evidence of it.

I continue to assert that Angelopedia is a reliable specialist news source that provides an English-language clearinghouse for information that gets reported in non-English and non-Roman-script media. If anyone has evidence that contradicts this, please let us see it. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• No, and blacklist of links keep being added. There si no credible evidence that this meets RS, and often all it's being used for is to add referenciness to articles with no real sources. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I support blacklisting it. Comparing this fansite with no known editorial oversight to The New York Times is strange. Legacypac (talk) 22:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• I just replaced a 100 with cn tags. If six people do the same, they are all gone! Jytdog (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

But can I stand to have that many pageant pages on my watchlist? I'd be tempted to load up AfD with the pages. Legacypac (talk) 23:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Non RS & not suitable for establishing notability. Appears to be user-generated / self-published. Articles containing it should probably be evaluated for notability or for being sock created. Socks seem to be especially prevalent in the pageantry articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• Not RS. Blacklist the site has no indication of editorial control or oversight. Their disclaimer about content pretty much says it all. The continual removal/re-insertion mentioned above supports adding it to the blacklist and running a bot to remove it from existing articles.
  The issue of beauty pageant winner notability is an issue which needs to be hashed out via RfC at some point. Identifying and removing broadly used inappropriate sources like this via consensus of uninvolved editors will help remove the noise of repeated arguments about source validity at each article. Jbh ^Talk 00:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

picking one of the bylines and searching "Angelique Reyes journalist" gives zero hits (just a bunch of Filipina female social media profiles. Same with "Camilla Suarez journaist" which only leads to Angelpedia and the same kind of social media profiles. These are either journalists no one has heard of that don't even have thier own webpages or pennames. This gives me no confidence this is a journalistic organization. Legacypac (talk) 00:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• And still not a single shred of evidence that the site's user-generated content extends to anything other than the material clearly labeled as user-generated content. In the hopes of steering this discussion along the lines of evidence-based arguments, I'll note that Angelopedia has often been used as a source by the Times News Network, the news agency of the Times of India (the country's oldest and largest-circulating English-language newspaper). A listing of the many times it has done so is here. And as pointed out at WP:RS, "use by others" is an indicia of reliability. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Addressing the "user-generated" concern specifically: I signed up for a user account and was unable to find a way to generate, submit or edit content beyond the clearly-delineated user comment section. –dlthewave ☎ 03:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Not a reliable source After looking over this website, it seems to me that it indiscriminately publishes anything submitted about any beauty pageant or contestant that comes its way. Reliable sources have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". This site publishes mangled sentences such as "But, her dreams of representing Kyrgyzstan at an ainternational pageant came crashing down when the CGhinese officials refused her a visa for the Miss World 2017 competitions in Sanya, China." That article wraps up its coverage with this creepy sentence: "With proper grooming and training, Begimay might succeed in bringing good placement for the country at the Miss Universe pageant." Policy tells us that "common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process." My common sense and my editorial judgment leads me to the conclusion that this is a glorified fan site that should be removed from articles and blacklisted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Angelopedia – even the very name says "creepy and stupid". EEng 06:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Note after close: I have nominated this for the spam blacklist and it has been accepted. In this diff i have redacted the links to the site so the archiving doesn't choke. Jytdog (talk) 05:37, 7 June 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.

Independent Journal Review

Is the Independent Journal Review considered a reliable source? I wouldn't think so as it has always appeared biased to me. I looked in the archives but was unsuccessful in finding anything regarding the website. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Nobody can answer unless you tell us reliable for what. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, since it's a very one-sided online publication, I'd think it's unreliable for just about anything. Daily Caller isn't considered a reliable source and is constantly being removed from article, and I would think this source would be even more unreliable (on the unreliable scale). I see no real journalistic oversight, kind of like Media Matters. At any rate, it's currently being used as a source at the National Rifle Association in various places, if that helps. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I also think it is a questionable source, having reported a conspiracy theory that was also reported by Breitbart and InfoWars. [10] wumbolo ^^^ 09:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

It meets standards of reliability. Basically that means that what it publishes is true. (The fact that staff were fired for publishing questionable information shows that they endeavor to maintain accuracy.) However, it's criteria for choosing stories is whether it embarrasses the other side or supports right-wing Republicans. That's where weight comes in. Most of what it publishes lacks weight for inclusion in articles. Also, we should use the best possible sources, which this obviously is not. TFD (talk) 01:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

As a general rule, I would say it is, as it meets WP:IRS. Also it is biased, sure, but so is CNN, but that doesn't stop it (CNN) from being a reliable source (unfortunate really, cause CNN use to be rather neutral and more fact based reporting than opinion driven). Thus see WP:BIASEDSOURCES.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• WP:QS - looks to be questionable, as a news aggregator & a blogging platform, along with being a "news & opinion website". For news that appears there, better sources are surely available, while opinions are a dime a dozen. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Being a WP:BIASEDSOURCE doesn't mean something is not a reliable source. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Cointelegraph source

The source cointelegraph.com is overused in the article Dash (cryptocurrency). This source offers a press release distribution for a fee 1BTC, in USD about $8000. An upgraded distribution can be bought here [11] for 2BTC, or about $16,000USD. That is a large amount of money. Is this really a press release distribution or is this paid submission? Thus I propose that this source be purged from cryptocurrency articles. Note for some reason in this edit [12] Spintendo (talk · contribs) seems to remove two RS to replace those with cointelegraph.com sources. All looks dubious to me. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

As it is (in effect) a vanity publisher no it should not be RS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

It seems that not all articles are paid press releases. Any articles that are paid press releases are tagged with '#Press release' at the bottom of the article. Technoir2 (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Care to proved the link to the page that says this?Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

It isn't stated explicitly, however all press releases are listed on the https://cointelegraph.com/press-releases page, and each of those articles shows '#Press release' at the bottom. I've been careful not to use any of those paid press releases in the Dash (cryptocurrency) article. Cointelegraph seems to be a mixture of paid press releases and edited articles, their 'about' page lists an editorial team https://cointelegraph.com/about Technoir2 (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I cannot help bit note that not only is this not called an editorial team, but there is no mention of any editorial policy. Hell they even refer to themselves as an information market. I see nothing on that page that contradicts the idea they will just publish any old tosh as long as (in some way) it makes them money.Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Is a public editorial policy required for RS? I can't find editorial policies even for several mainstream newspapers that would definitely qualify as RS. Many media outlets publish paid content alongside their regular content, or make money from advertising, it shouldn't invalidate the unpaid content imo. I accept that Cointelegraph is not a top tier source, however I feel it is sufficiently reliable for the types of edit I am requesting, which are mostly uncontroversial technical statements Technoir2 (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

[13][14][15][16][17], no they are not always called editorial polices but most (so far all) reputable media have polices on quality and standards.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

That's fine, but some news organisations do not publish their editorial policies. Cointelegraph has three editors working for it and as far as I can tell has a good reputation - it is referenced twice in a peer reviewed journal article from Yale (http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1417&context=yjreg). Whether a specific article is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis - I assert that cointelegraph is sufficiently reliable for the statements I am attributing to it. Technoir2 (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Non RS - seems to be borderline a vanity publication / blog; not suitable for establishing notability nor for claims that "up and coming" companies would want to get into Wikipedia to justify an article. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
• Unreliable. Basically a fanzine. Guy (Help!) 00:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
• Not reliable Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Bernard Lewis

Bernard Lewis contains the following sentence

Lewis has been described as the "dean of Middle East scholars"

, sourced to the following -

Falk, Avner. Islamic Terror: Conscious and Unconscious Motives. ABC-CLIO. p. 77.

Which reads

Bernard Lewis, "the dean of Middle East scholars", studied the "roots of Muslim rage..."

ABC-CLIO is an academic publisher - "a publishing company for academic reference works and periodicals primarily on topics such as history and social sciences", and Avner Falk is an academic , a clinical psychologist who "has written psychoanalytic studies of Jewish and Israeli leaders, Jewish history, the Arab–Israeli conflict, antisemitism and Islamic terrorism."

I'd like to hear opinions on the reliability of the source for the statement (form involved editors, of course). Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The question was weight, does the view of this clinical psychologist on a Middle Eastern historian merit quoting in the lead of an encyclopedia article. nableezy - 21:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Outright lie. The grounds for twice removing this material by the above editor was "unreliable source" see:

1. "unreliable source for such a sweeping claim"
2. "still an unreliable source for the claim" - Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 21:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I was relying on your edit summary here where you claimed to be undoing my edit. I noticed after that your edit summary was dishonest, that it was not an undo, but that you changed the source. My objection to that source remains. The first edit of mine is not from the same source. The first edit was sourced to a YouTube video with the dsecription calling Lewis that. Is it your position that this is a reliable source? Please do not be so dishonest about the edits, thank you. nableezy - 22:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, this obviously cannot be used. It would be like if I said XX was the "dean of rocket science"....since I am not a rocket scientist, it has virtually zero value. That some outside the group Middle East scholars thinks/thought Lewis was "the dean of Middle East scholars" doesnt make him so. Huldra (talk) 22:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

A clinical psychologist is not reliable for such a judgement. I suspect Falk is just quoting (without citation) an article of conservative editor, music critic and one-time speech writer for GW Bush Jay Nordlinger. It isn't unclear that the content it passes WEIGHT anyway. These biggest, fastest, best this or best that types of labels are useless for understanding. Zero^talk 23:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments: The above quote "Lewis has been described as the "dean of Middle East scholars", by one source and apparently puff words, would beg the question; "described by ". Falk is not the originator (would this be primary?) and is presenting something from someone else so it would seem those sources would need to be used. Otr500 (talk) 01:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

From my BEFORE on this, it seems this "nickname" has been floating around a while. National Review seems to mention this in multiple articles. And it appears elsewhere. I'm not sure where it originates from - but it does seem that in some of the more, umm, popular discourse that this had been used for a while. I'll further note that I think the original was "the dean of Western scholars of Islam" - e.g. [18][19][20][21]. And this dates back to 2005 at least - [22]. In terms of sourcing - this is a question of WP:RSOPINION really - it is quite obvious we can say that some have held this opinion. Inlcusion in the article is not a question of RS - as this does pass WP:V, but rather whether this is DUE, which is not a RSN issue.Icewhiz (talk) 07:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Widely used descriptor of Lewis. I searched: Bernard lewis "dean of Middle east"; ~36,000 hists. Note that "dean of Middle east historians" appears to be more widely used than "dean of Middle East scholars", and that the phrase is used by such authoritative voices as Elliott Abrams [23]; Here's a gBooks search [24]. Certainly it is a phrase that can and should be included on the page; sourced to 2 or 3 WP:RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Gosh, and I searched "Bill Gates" is Satan and got ~ 705,000 hits.... we must include that in the Bill Gates article, then? Huldra (talk) 20:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

No, "Bill Gates is Satan" gets less than 2000 hits. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Nope, I searched for it the same way Gregory search for Bernard lewis "dean of Middle east", that is, not enclosed in "". Huldra (talk) 22:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

No my dear, you did the opposite of what Gregory did - putting "Bill Gates in quotes, not the descriptor.Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 03:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh dearest FFF, of course I can put the descriptor in quotes; Bill Gates is "Satan" gets about 4,920,000 results... Now, happy? Huldra (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

But it shouldn't be presented as an universally held or uncontested view as it very obviously is not. The Economist's obituary does a good job of covering this issue [25], calling him the "doyen of Orientalists" with all the positives and negatives that entails. It concludes with "Mr Lewis’s historical research will be revered for generations. His policy assessments will probably not. " Nick-D (talk) 11:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. It is an RS, and such quote can be used. Should this particular quote or another quote be used is a different question, and not for this noticeboard. My very best wishes (talk) 00:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
• Exclude, it's entirely unnecessary and rather weakly supported. Guy (Help!) 23:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Vietnamese Government document on Vietnam War casualties

This Vietnamese language document [26] purportedly published by the Vietnamese Government here: [27] is proposed for inclusion on several pages, notably Vietnam War, Vietnam War casualties and Body count#Vietnam War as WP:RS that the total North Vietnamese Army and Vietcong killed in the Vietnam War (1954-75) were 849,018 dead. I have a number of concerns with this document as follows: (1) it is WP:PRIMARY; (2) it has no official watermark, heading, date, etc., anything that marks it as an official document; (3) this document apparently contradicts an earlier statement by the official Vietnam News Agency that 1.1m died during the Vietnam War as reported in this AP story from 4 April 1995: [28]; and (4) the document does not appear to address the 300,000+ North Vietnamese Army and Vietcong soldiers still missing in the war: [29] and [30].

If this document is accepted as WP:RS, how should it be presented? The Vietnam War casualties page contains a wide range of North Vietnamese Army and Vietcong killed, with estimates ranging from 444,000 to 1,489,000. The 1995 AP story noted that "During the war, North Vietnam played down its losses to boost morale at home and discourage South Vietnam and the United States". Vietnam has among the lowest press freedom in the world with all media controlled by the state and I have previously identified a number of pages previously where Vietnamese Government sources have been unreliable/completely false, see:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Hoa Da – Song Mao based on this story: [31]
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Pat To based on this story [32]
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Chà Là based on this story: [33]
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Đồng Dương based on these stories: [34] and [35]
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Hà Vy from this site: [36].

Accordingly I believe that on the topic of the Vietnam War, Vietnamese Government sources and state media are at best WP:BIASED and so this document and the 849,018 figure should only be presented as the official Vietnamese Government figure within the range of casualties from other WP:RS, so the Vietnam War infobox should state a range 849,018 (ref:Vietnamese Government figure)-1,489,000. kind regards Mztourist (talk) 05:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

A number of links are broken. The suggested document is not reliable for historical claims. The chief reason being that it is not a secondary source produced and published through a scholarly or equivalently rigorous peer review system capable of generating "historical knowledge". Branches of the Vietnamese government have previously published such material (or at least material with such pretentions), and made it available for scholarly review—such works are a far better location to seek official publications than web portal content, or "in house" newsletters. The quality of the Vietnamese contemporary press is not a concern: newspapers shouldn't be used for history articles. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The alternative cited article that Mztourist gives is an AP Article, and descriptions by Mark Woodruff, a non-scholar with arguably shady, POV points of view. The document that is linked is in reference to a nationally conducted survey, and has been standardly used prior to revisions by MZTOURIST, which instead cites a 1995 article about an alleged "news release" by Hanoi. This would be a much worse source to use than a document from the military department of the government of Vietnam, which describes an internal law. A bicyclette (talk) 12:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

AP is equally an unreliable source, for exactly the same reason: newspapers are not the way scholarly, or equally critical, attention is applied to accounting for death tolls. Woodruff's non-scholarly qualities, much like the Vietnamese press' freedom, is irrelevant. Newspapers aren't up to the task. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. These numbers can be cited, but they can not be trusted, just like similar numbers and "documents" produced by the Soviet KGB. One should also check (in publications) if the Vietnamese authorities have been engaged in intentional destruction of documents in their archives, so that no one could prove their fabrications. This is something KGB and their successor organizations did on a regular basis, even today as we speak [37]. My very best wishes (talk) 00:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

The figures that are cited and established were meant for internal usage, not meant for "public relations" or whatever as MZTOURIST continues to believe. The figures from the document, found here [38], specifically here [39], were meant for an internal law searching for war dead from the periods 1945 to 1990. The breakdown is based on which component and sector, and the numbers are generally reliable given that these are compiled from internal sources and official record-keeping from the government of Vietnam. These are far more reliable than third-hand knowledge citing or speculating about what a vietnamese newspaper said as per the AP article. A bicyclette (talk) 07:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Lee Hsien Loong

My edit, quoted below, is being reverted by an Admin for being non-RS:

“ ===Singapore-India CECA ===

1) On 1 June 2018, Lee concluded the second review of the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) with India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

2)The CECA includes a mutual recognition agreement on nursing where Singapore agreed to expand coverage of Indian nursing institutions by recognising seven of them.

3) Concerns were raised regarding bogus nurses with fake nursing degrees from India ending up working in Singapore's hospitals and polyclinics that might put the quality of Singapore's healthcare at stake.

4) The CECA deal also facilitates intra-corporate transfer of Professionals, Managers, Executives and Technicians (PMETs) from India to Singapore, by-passing the Fair Consideration Framework to allow Indian PMETs to compete directly with local PMETs.

”

1) and 2) are factual statements verifiable from multiple sources. 3) and 4) are sourced from opinion pieces. Concerns in 3) is not new and has been raised years ago in here. 4) is factual and can be verified directly from MOM website and CECA annex

Concerns that have been raised regarding the controversial CECA deal could be found in links below. Of course, such unfavourable news would not be reported on the tightly controlled mainstream media. https://www.reddit.com/r/singapore/comments/3jrosq/127_ceca_listed_jobs_for_foreigners_to_work_in/?utm_source=amp&utm_medium=comment_list https://www.facebook.com/TAVSingapore/posts/1848075635253760 https://thehearttruths.com/2013/11/11/this-is-why-singaporeans-will-not-be-protected-in-our-jobs-by-the-government/ http://theindependent.sg/was-pm-lee-completely-outsmarted-by-the-indians/ https://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/govt-decries-ceca-violation-by-singapore-113021700123_1.html

Please help review if the sources within the quote are RS with respect to the proposed content. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jane Dawson (talk • contribs)

@Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington: You may wish to comment here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

There is not a lot to say here, Emir. The Online Citizen and REDWIRE do not pass the muster to be considered as reliable sources. The emphasis on the CECA deal on LHL's biographical article is WP:UNDUE. Based on a cursory examination of this user's talk page and their contributions, it appears that they have a rather curiously familiar penchant for using non-RS sources and original synthesis on Singapore related articles. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 14:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

References

1) I have read the policy on reliability and explained in detail why I believe it is RS based on verifiability.

2) Whether it is due or undue is a matter to be discussed separately on the BLP talk page itself after clearing RS.

3) I try to use multiple sources as far as possible, if you are familiar with issues pertaining to Singapore, you would be able to understand why good sources are hard to find. Nevertheless, I only use bits where they can be verified. Jane Dawson (talk) 03:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Backlink promotion hidden as reference link

Hello,

I've found a possible SEO backlink promotion issue on the following page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_show_display

Almost every reference at the bottom is actually an edit done by a business so they can get a backlink to their e-com sites to sell product. I was under the impression this wasn't permitted on Wikipedia. IE: linking to your business page with certain key words on Wiki to get SEO promotion. I don't think any of these "references" are actual authority sites. Rather, they are all trying to sell product.

Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:1600:c740:6d55:4c61:74fa:92de (talk • contribs) 18:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC) Jytdog (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I think that is run of the mill spam accretion. I will clean it up. Thanks for calling attention to it. Jytdog (talk) 22:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

TVmaze.com

Is Tvmaze.com a reliable source for episode titles?
I could not find any archives on here about Tvmaze.com. I thought Tvmaze.com is a questionable source to be used for episode titles because the website is contributed by users. — Lbtocth^talk 01:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

BA CityFlyer - Edinburgh Base

1) Sources:

Main One: http://mediacentre.britishairways.com/pressrelease/details/86/News-1/8340 Which says: "the two main crew bases are at London City and Edinburgh airports."

These also back it up: http://www.airlineportal.org/ba-city.htm https://www.aviationjobsearch.com/job/first-officers-e-jet-series-1/2838978 https://www.jobapplications.co.uk/ba-cityflyer-application/

2) Article in Question BA CityFlyer

3) I tried editing this page to include Edinburgh Airport as a base. However an editor reverted my edits saying my references weren't good enough. Can I have some advice on this please?

Flyingmaneasy (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Sentence in Jordan Peterson and its sourcing

In this diff the following was removed with edit note ext not supported by "The Globe". The NY Times cite is opinion from their "Style" section and cannot be used for statements of fact per WP:NEWSORG)

The videos also made Peterson a hero within the men's rights movement and among the alt-right.

References

First please note that this doesn't say that Peterson is on the alt-right or part of MR movement. It says that he has become a hero to people from those groups. Which is a very different thing.

So the Globe Source says:

• "his fans include a strange fringe movement associated with the far-right and a semi-satirical belief in an ancient Egyptian god of chaos called Kek. "Kekistanis" conduct their conversations on the message board 4chan, and particularly its /"pol"/ space, where the movement was born...." That is a description of alt right. It is correct that this ref doesn't support MRA

The NYT ref says:

• "Mr. Peterson is a celebrity in the men’s rights community, a loose collection of activists who feel men have been subjugated or betrayed by social progress."
• "Jordan’s exposed something that’s been festering for a long time,” says Justin Trottier, 35, the co-founder of the men’s rights organizations Canadian Association for Equality and Canadian Centre for Men and Families. “Jordan’s forced people to pay attention.”"

Other refs already used here support this as well:

• Time
  • "I have irrefutable evidence that I’ve pulled thousands of young men away from the attractions of the “alt-right.” "
• a guardian piece:
  • "He has gained a large following on the American “alt-right”, leading some, he says, to label him wrongly as sympathetic to its views."
• another guardian piece:
  • "His YouTube gospel resonates with young white men who feel alienated by the jargon of social-justice discourse and crave an empowering theory of the world in which they are not the designated oppressors." (that = MRA)
  • "He is also adored by figures on the so-called alt-light (basically the “alt-right” without the sieg heils and the white ethnostate),"
• The telegraph
  • He says: "A lot of the people who write to me say they were desperate, angry, attracted by the alt-right, they’ve been watching my lectures and have moved back into the middle. Because I’m talking about personal responsibility as an antidote to the temptations of ideological possession."
• Callagahan, Greg (19 April 2018). "Right-winger? Not me, says alt-right darling Jordan Peterson". The Sunday Morning Herald. Retrieved 22 May 2018.
  • "He describes himself as a classic liberal, but he's the darling of conservatives, hyper-conservatives and the alt-right. He's opposed to social justice warriors, but warns inequality in Western societies can endanger their stability, and supports aspects of social welfare."

I am not married to the exact language. Is the sentence supported by the sources, and are the sources reliable for this? If you think it needs tweaking, very open to hearing that. Jytdog (talk) 14:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC) (added a source already in the article. See headline and quote from body of the article Jytdog (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2018 (UTC))

First off, the NY Times piece is opinion and in their "Style" section. Jytdog's using it as a source for statements of fact (as they were trying to do) is in violation of WP:NEWSORG: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."

The "Time" source quotes Peterson as saying he "pulled thousands of young men away" from the alt-rihgt. That would support him being classified as alt-right repellant, not support him as being a "hero".

The second Guardian citations is likewise an opinion pieces. Opinion pieces cannot be used for statement of fact per WP:NEWSORG because they, by definition , put forth a point of view. In both those cases, they focus on aspects of his career which is biased towards the point that they are making. Their assertion that people on the alt-right like to watch Peterson videos is cherry-picking descriptions of Peterson's audience. That any number of other demographics watch Peterson receives no mention because those pieces are not news articles and it would not further the point of view they are trying to get across.

Furthermore, Jytdog's second Guardian cite does not even say alt-right types like him... it says alt-light types like him. And how to they describe 'alt-light'? "...basically the 'alt-right' without the sieg heils and the white ethnostate". This is an appropriate source for Wikipedia to use as statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice? Cut me a break. Marteau (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The Observer, likewise, is opinion. It is from the 'Lifestyle' section and presents a view of Peterson and his audience not for the purpose of objective truth, but to support the author's opinion.

Going beyond just this one sentence, though... Jytdog actually went further than just this one sentence, though, they added an entirely new subsection devoted to linking Peterson with the alt-right based on opinion pieces. This is all highly inflammatory of course, because Peterson is not "alt-right" and adding a subsection heading associating Peterson with the alt-right based solely on opinion pieces is astonishingly inappropriate.

Jytdog's rationale for linking Peterson with the "mens rights movement" is equally as flimsy... he performs original research above when he quotes a sentence saying nothing about the men's rights movement and then goes: "that = MRA". Jytdog's OR and assertion that "that = MRA" is insufficient for using such a thing as a statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice. Marteau (talk) 15:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I would partly oppose the Marteau's rationale only on NEWSORG according to the recent extensive discussions at the Talk:Cathy Newman which resulted with, for now, quoting of an opinion source with an attribution, based also on other editing principles.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Opinion can be used in our articles, with proper attribution. Jytdog offered absolutely no attribution and is insisting we use opinion pieces as statements of fact in Wikipedia's voice. I would have no objection to having a respected opinion writer's words in the article... with proper in-line attribution. Due weight would then warrant inclusion of quotes from opinion pieces claiming such linkages are smear tactics and are part of a trend by foes of Peterson to assassinate his character by unfairly associating him with the alt-right. Marteau (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies. As I noted, this says nothing about him, but rather about his audience. Two different things. Your reactions are not surprising based on what you have said at the article talk page. I look forward to comments from uninvolved people, which is what this board is for. Jytdog (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

And yet Marteau doesn't want the statement that he is a "public intellectual" attributed. Doug Weller talk 17:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't need attribution because it is sourced to a scholarly organization with a reputation for intellectual integrity. It is a non-controversial categorization to everyone except those who think he's despicable. Marteau (talk) 17:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

It should still have attribution. I don't understand why that's being argued. What I do get from your comment is that you are failing to offer good faith to editors, presumably including me, who disagree with you over this. Doug Weller talk 08:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• Calling him a "hero" to the alt-right may be a little bit loaded, but multiple sources mention that he has a following on the alt-right. It seems like the best way to deal with this is to dedicate a subsection to discussing it, hitting the key points in the debate: He has followers on the far right, but he's been critical of the alt-right and doesn't apply to label to himself. While many of his critics acknowledge that he isn't a white supremacist, they've argued that he traffics in alt-right themes such as "Cultural Marxism". Nblund ^talk 18:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

If such a section, where is mentioned he has a following among from conservatives to ring wingers and alt-right, would be made then it is related to the already proposed broad section perhaps titled like "public image and popularity" where could be described his phenomenon of a sudden popularity. I don't think the information on alt-right following is enough notable for a stand-alone section. Such a section, with all its criticism and so on, should be discussed at the talk page to see if there's a consensus, for example see previous Talk:Jordan Peterson#No Chapter on Criticism of Jordan Peterson. However, in the "Personal life" there's already a short note saying "Politically, Peterson has described himself as a classic British liberal,[106][18] and has stated that he is commonly mistaken to be right wing.[44]".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Miki Filigranski It seems like he should really have a whole section dedicated to discussing his views in general, and a paragraph or subsection could be dedicated to discussing his relationship with the far right. Regardless of the placement: multiple reliable sources mention that he has a following on the alt-right, and simply not mentioning that fact seems like a non-starter and creating a paragraph/subsection dedicated to the topic will ensure that his defense is included alongside the criticism. Nblund ^talk 15:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

The original version should definitely not be included. It makes it look like both sources are supporting the claims for both the MRA and alt-right. Sourcing by The Globe and Mail is fine. Better wording that a hero should be or at least some explanation. Mens rights movement is clearly synonymous with MRA. There is no reason to completely censor the article and fail to mention the support of Peterson by certain groups, but we should not violate WP:NPOV and hide other comments that reliable sources have said about him in regards to those groups. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Emir of Wikipedia would you please comment on the claim that the NYT piece is not reliable for content about support for Peterson within the MRM? As I said very open to tweaking the wording. Jytdog (talk) 15:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

The NYT piece is fine for the the claim about the MRM with attribution to Nellie Bowles. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't agree that this needs attribution. It is reporting from the NYT which is entirely reliable. Jytdog (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• Added another source re alt-right above. Jytdog (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Include both sources with no attribution. There seems to be consensus amongst the sources. A better word than hero might be darling which sources seem to use. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Cision

Currently an image from Cision is being used on Cryptid whale to support the statement "A two-finned Burrunan dolphin named "Snooky" has been seen in Port Phillip." Especially odd is the page attached to the images, New images of UK dolphin astound Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, where Mark Simmonds is quoted as describing it as an example of Lamarckian inheritance. I can't find anything related on the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society site, or anywhere in fact, except for a reprint of the Cision piece on Business Wire. Should this be considered a reliable source for that assertion in this context, and is new.cision ever a reliable source given that it appears to essentially be a public relations company? --tronvillain (talk) 19:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

It may constitute original research, but I contacted the WDC and the image was released for April Fools Day. You can see that the date it was released was March 31.*chuckle* --tronvillain (talk) 04:27, 9 June 2018 (UTC); edited 19:06, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

References

WP:VG Sources

Hi there is currently an AfD going on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tinker Island (video game)

The dispute is based off the sources given not being reliable - specifically because they aren't given on either WP:VG and Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Search engine lists.

However they aren't given as negatives either - they simply aren't listed on way or another.

Certain sources seem agreed either way in the AfD, leaving much of the dispute focusing on the following two:

Infogame (Needs Google Translate)

Player.One

Thoughts from those not involved in the AfD would be appreciated Nosebagbear (talk) 22:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

On purpose or not, this looks like an attempt to WP:CANVASS. The closing Admin can determine whether or not their stances appropriately address the sourcing or lack there of. For what it's worth, three or so obscure sources for a video game is a pretty weak argument. It's enough for some, but commonly not all that convincing to there too. Sergecross73 msg me 17:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm aware of the threat of falling into accidental canvassing in this fashion, but the system otherwise leaves anyone with a source dispute trapped - you can't progress on the source discussion until the discussion is closed. If you can suggest an alternate means to resolve identical or similar cases without brushing Canvass then I'd be delighted. Other than stating at the top of any request "if you read this, please don't leave any comments in the AfD [or whatever]" I don't know what I could do differently. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• State your case for notability.
• State your case for source reliability.
• Ask/answer any questions as needed, and let the discuss run its course.

There's no resolution necessary. State your case and hope people align with your stance over their stance. Sergecross73 msg me 18:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Oxfam

At Battle of Gaza (2007), a number of users have claimed that Oxfam is not a reliable source for material related to the Israeli withholding of taxes and the effect that has had on poverty in the Gaza Strip. The source is this brief. They have argued that Oxfam is a reliable source only for the opinions of Oxfam. So here the question I have is if Oxfam is a reliable source for such material or not? nableezy - 19:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

The above misrepresents what this was being used to source, which is this diff - which is not about poverty but rather calling this illegal, and saying this violated international agreements. While Oxfam might have expertise regarding poverty (but still would not be a RS), its expertise does not cover international relations.Icewhiz (talk) 21:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Um Icewhiz, you are incorrect. The talk page makes that clear. Please dont purposely misrepresent the issue, I am not challenging the removal of the statement to the UN that was used for "illegal". nableezy - 23:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree that calling this "illegal" in Wikipedia's voice is problematic. I'm not sure whether the legality of the withholding really matters for that particular spot in the entry anyway. It would be accurate (and maybe more relevant) to say that the PA was reportedly on the brink of financial collapse because of the revenue and aid being withheld. This might give some insight in to why the PA was so desperate to strike a deal. Nblund ^talk 23:52, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

The talk page makes nothing clear. In fact - "poverty" does not appear on the talk page.Icewhiz (talk) 05:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

You mean besides the part where I say Im fine with the wording right now and Oxfam wasnt used for illegal? Please do not purposely misrepresent my position, it is incredibly dishonest. nableezy - 05:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

You indeed said something along those lines on the talk-page,diff without using "poverty". Prior to that, you reverted the illegal language. A different user on the talk-page, after your post, posted a long post in support of use of this for "illegal".[40] Icewhiz (talk) 06:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Not reliable source in this case: I think we can use Oxfam as a source for Oxfam's positions on an issue, but not for making a general claim unrelated to Oxfam. In general, press releases are not good reliable sources for this sort of thing – news items would be better. However, Oxfam itself is a political actor when it comes to Oxfam#Israeli–Palestinian_conflict, as demonstrated by the Scarlett Johansson controversy. Oxfam's claim should be treated like similar opinion pieces in newspapers – not entirely banned as reliable sources, but usable only for the opinions of an organization. OtterAM (talk) 00:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

In this case it a primary source and its reliable only for opinions of those organisations.If it views were notable that would be reported by WP:RS--Shrike (talk) 05:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

In what world is Oxfam an involved party to Israel withholding tax receipts from the Palestinians and the health effects that has caused? nableezy - 05:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

What is have to do with "involved"?Their views are just not notable on this matter--Shrike (talk) 05:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

You called them a "primary" source. Do you know what a primary source is? nableezy - 05:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• It should be considered reliable, but attributed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oxfam are an extremely well-respected charity who specialise in poverty. If they say act X has caused consequence Y based on their own long years of experience and feet on the ground in the affected area, it is almost certainly going to be true. However it does technically fall foul of our requirements for secondary sourcing, so it should be attributed, their reputation is such that even their *opinion* is noteworthy on the causes of poverty in a given area. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
• Not reliable source of the legality of a government’s actions. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 03:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC).

That isnt what it is being sourced for. nableezy - 05:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• Reliable. Oxfam is a highly-respected and highly-professional organization. It is hard to think of any better third-party source that has direct knowledge of the facts. Zero^talk 09:01, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

David Cesarani at Psychology Press (Taylor & Francis Group) and Christopher Browning (W. W. Norton & Company)

The article in question is Jewish partisans, the content is this diff, and the sources in question are:

1. Holocaust: Responses to the persecution and mass murder of the Jews, edited by David Cesarani & Sarah Kavanaugh, Psychology Press, 2004, page 66 quote: to the Home Army, the Jews were not part of "our nation", and that action to defend them was not to be taken if it endangered its other objectives. Certainly the Home Army was not willing to absorb the Jewish partisan groups..... (... there was one exception, in Volhynia .... ) The Home Army was also not very willing to accept Jews as individuals, though here too there were exceptions
2. Remembering Survival: Inside a Nazi Slave-Labor Camp, Christopher Browning, W. W. Norton & Company, page 252, ISBN 978-0-393-33887-4, quote:While a few partisan groups ... would accept Jews, those associated with the AK (the conservative nationalist underground Home Army) usually rejected them. More dangerously, some AK units and especially extremist units associated with the notorious National Armed Forces (NSZ) would either rob Jews or simply kill them outright

Christopher Browning is a historian specializing in the Holocaust, Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, formerly (retired 2014) Distinguished Professor at Pacific Lutheran University and chaired at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. David Cesarani (deceased 2015, aged 58) was a research professor at Royal Holloway, University of London specializing in the Holocaust. Sarah Kavanaugh is a history PHD (2003) and has held a number of academic positions since 2004.Icewhiz (talk) 05:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC) Correction/Addition - the book chapter in the work edited by Cesarani is by Antony Polonsky - whose credentials in Polish Jewish history are quite established.Icewhiz (talk) 11:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, these are reliable (despite the fact that Browning does write some grade-A nonsense) but the question isn't over the reliability of these sources, it's over UNDUE. And your attempts to remove other reliable sources. Also, you're suppose to notify others who are involved in the discussion about these postings of yours.Volunteer Marek (talk)

VM seems to be notified. I will note that VM hasn't raised UNDUE as an objection (which is an odd objection here) in his reverts or on the talk page, but has rather challenged this as "dubious, as discussed elsewhere. Several Jewish individuals were part of AK's leadership", and has called Christopher Browning "garbage". The "other reliable source" is a document in Polish which doesn't seem to say what is sourced to it (though factually it is correct there were a few Jews in some parts of the Home Army despite its overall antisemitic outlook, and that there was limited Jewish-AK cooperation in some areas - despite fighting and persecution of Jews in others), that was published by an anti-communist lustration agency with various reputation issues - it is controversial, "is engaged not in protection of national memory but rather in activities that ‘destroy this memory’",, having a political role,, "a government agency and not a recognized Holocaust center" - with "worry due to its orientation" "the institute overall is influenced by the Polish right wing and operates in a nationalist framework that glorifies Polish resistance and non-complicity" "These incidents suggest IPN serves not merely as a historical repository but an institute that responds to slanders against the Polish nation and engages in Polish apologetics".. However regardless of all the doubts and reservations (in the academic literature) on the IPN as an institution - we have higher quality English sources which should be preferred per WP:NOENG.Icewhiz (talk) 07:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I don’t believe anyone disputes these are reliable sources.

However they offer very general and stereotypical sweeping statements. The Polish sources have more in depth analysis of the subject and more detailed information. We have in fact one dedicated source and two very general ones. Therefore sources aren’t of equal weight, as one is more detailed scholarly study of the subject. This is in fact a content dispute as Icewhiz wants to delete a more detailed information and present a very general pov statement based on cherry picked sources, which in fact is incorrect-for example Home Army and Jewish partisants cooperated in other areas than Volhyn--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:42, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Both English books are detailed works on the subject by experts on the field . The section from Browning is from the chapter on escapees. The chapter from Holocaust: Responses to the persecution and mass murder of the Jews is by Antony Polonsky, an eminent expert in the field, and is titled Beyond condemnation, apologetics and apologies: on the complexity of Polish behavior toward the Jews during the Second World War. Denying and dismissing the murderous antisemitism by the Home Army, as "stereotypical", when it is present in most serious unbiased sources is highly offensive. I'll note that the Polish language source from a government agency (which as per sourcing above "the institute overall is influenced by the Polish right wing and operates in a nationalist framework that glorifies Polish resistance and non-complicity") by a researcher not particularly known (though he has been in the press lately after the Polish government agency decided to remove him from research and bar publication of his habilitation thesis -[41][42] - demonstrating IPN's bias) - does not seem to support the text it was sourcing in the article per my reading - however such a source from a highly biased government agency and in a language other than English is not appropriate when we have several high quality sources in English which we prefer per WP:NOENG.Icewhiz (talk) 11:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

"books are detailed works on the subject by experts on the field" - the second one certainly isn't and the first one is "detailed" about a different topic. So false.

And statements such as "Denying and dismissing the murderous antisemitism by the Home Army..." merely serve to show your extremist bias, and illustrate why you should have no business editing this topic area.

And one more time, drop the nonsense about IPN ("government agency"). It's reliable. It's academic. It's scholarly. It's reliable. You haven't been able to convince a single person otherwise. Live with it. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

And just because YOU haven't heard of a particular researcher, doesn't mean he's "not particularly known". On top of everything else, your persistent BLP violations and attacks on any historian who might disagree with your extremist POV are getting too much.

Finally, you try to bring up WP:NOENG again. Why weren't you bringing that up when you were trying to use Polish anti-semitic far-right sources in other articles (to commit BLP violations)??? This argument is just pure cynical hypocrisy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:01, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Sources from Islamic websites

Hello,

I have been trying to edit the article Hadith of Najd by removing content from websites that clearly fail WP:RS. I would like confirmation that the sites are unreliable for Wikipedia. The sites in question are:

• ayha.org
• danielpipes.org
• en.islamtoday.net
• systemoflife.com
• ahlalhdeeth.com
• islamhouse.com

Most of the material for the article has been taken word for word from this page [43] and seems to be a clear violation of WP:COPYRIGHT and also seems completely unreliable. Also, the author seems spurious (who on earth is Abu Rumaysah - hopefully not this guy). Thank you.2A01:4B00:88BB:E000:DCC7:6D14:2026:586D (talk) 09:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)