Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 194

Arkaim and Aryans
The section at Arkaim is sourced only to Anatole Klyosov and not to any peer reviewed scientific journal. It's basically fringe and I can't find any discussion of it in reliable sources. Doug Weller (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The source reliably supports the specific statement made in the article (it reliably verifies that Klyosov says what the article says he does). The question is whether the article should mention what Klyosov says in the first place.  That is an issue for WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. Verifiability (and by extension reliability) does not guarantee inclusion. Blueboar (talk) 14:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, so you are saying even though he's not actually a geneticist it's what he says, even if he's not a reliable source for the claims. Interesting. But I do take your point about possibly being undue weight. Doug Weller (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes... X is always reliable for the attributed statement of opinion: "X says Y is true"... even if X would not be reliable for the unattributed statement of fact: "X is true". Whether to state X's opinion in the first place is governed by other policies and guidelines. Blueboar (talk) 02:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The question is whether it is significant or not. The "journal" has no evident standing - in fact it is hard to find any impact factor for it. In the absence of reliable independent sources establishing the significance of this opinion, it has no place in the article. Guy (Help!) 12:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Kissan support services Private Limited (KSSL)
Kissan Support Services is Private Limited Company, established in 2006 as a subsidiary of Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited (ZTBL), Located in Islamabad Capital of Pakistan. The purpose for establishing this subsidiary was to outsource ZTBL’s non core activities which include:  Sports  Security Services  Provision of man power (Clerical & Non-Clerical Staff)  Janitorial Services &  Canteen Maintenance

The Company Provides Services to Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited (ZTBL)


 * If you want to create an article, I suggest you see Articles_for_creation. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Using Parlamentní listy.cz as a source
An editor is using this source for content in the synopsis section of the documentary The Weight of Chains 2. The author of the piece is 'Radim Panenka' who 'Googles' as being only a contributor to 'user-posted' sites, and who appears to be an activist in the area which the documentary covers.

Parlamentní listy has an entry on Czech WP, which Google translate appears to suggest is a mix of monthly print output and user-posted online output. It is not clear which this article is. Some discussion of the source has taken place here Talk:The_Weight_of_Chains_2.

Whilst I appreciate that sources are not required for non-contentious claims in a documentary synopsis, sources, if used should be RS I believe, otherwise a spurious-legitimacy is being given to the content, is this a correct supposition on my part?

Parlamentní listy is used as a source in a very small number of Eng WP articles.
 * Doesn't seem particularly reliable to me. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Gun show loophole
The portion that has been found objectionable by some editors is in italics. It was added after the section (already in the body) was duplicated in the lead and then moved to the body. While this source doesn't speak to the GSL article's political concept (nor does it mention the term) it has been accepted as a reliable source for certain statistical figures, but denied for the 40% figure. GSL is a complex political concept that deals with more than simply "guns bought at gun shows", it also deals with gun laws involving background checks.
 * 
 * Gun show loophole
 * (already in the body; Additional studies by the Bureau of Justice department of state prison inmates in 1991 and 1997 found that less than one percent of criminals purchased their firearms from gun shows)-(quote in question)"and nearly 40% of State inmates carrying a firearm obtained the weapon without a background check."[24]" Darknipples (talk) 16:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Assuming source 24 is the PDF then it is authoritative and clearly reliable, but where does it contain the quoted fact? Guy (Help!) 17:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "'60% of firearms were bought via retail, hence 40% had no background check necessary (non-retail)'. This statement is blatantly incorrect, since, as the article says, '17 states and Washington, D.C. do require background checks for some or all private firearm sales'"
 * "What you consider 'adding balance', I consider adding possible origanal research. '60% of firearms were bought via retail, hence 40% had no background check necessary (non-retail)' (your statement of sourcing) to turn that into 'and nearly forty percent of state inmates carrying a firearm obtained the weapon without a background check' isn't necessarily true. Even taking that sort of leap, the source lists 13.9% in 91 and 20.8% in 97 (so unless I'm looking in the wrong place though it wouldn't be appropriate to tie the [different statistics] together in that manner if that's the case) the statistic you listed is incorrect. The other half ([which you attempted to add balance to)]) "Additional studies by the Bureau of Justice department of state prison inmates in 1991 and 1997 found that less than one percent of criminals purchased their firearms from gun shows" is explicitly true [from the source]."
 * "'Where is the quote you decided to leave in place for the reference used?' [for Additional studies by the Bureau of Justice department of state prison inmates in 1991 and 1997 found that less than one percent of criminals purchased their firearms from gun shows] While I've already explained where Mudwater's addition came from in the source, I'll do it again: It's on the first page; under the 'Highlights' section (green background and white lettering); under the section 'Source of gun' (bold lettering); It is also reiterated to the right of that in the summary paragraph, combined statitstically with flea markets."
 * Quotes from article's talk page in which the source is used. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 17:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll just refer everyone to pages 1, 6, 8, and 10, of the citation. See the "source of gun" charts, where the "less than one percent" figure comes from, and look right below it. My argument is that excluding this material is setting a double standard on the material used from the source. If the consensus is to reword the quotes used, to better reflect the data, I'm fine with that, but it shouldn't be excluded given it's relevance to the article. Darknipples (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * To clarify, guns obtained by "Family/Friends/Street/Illegal Sources" did/do not require a background check, as per federal law. Darknipples (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "obtained the weapon without a background check" ≠ "'Family/Friends/Street/Illegal Sources' did/do not require a background check". See "This statement is blatantly incorrect, since, as the article says, '17 states and Washington, D.C. do require background checks for some or all private firearm sales'". "Hence it isn't 'via a double standard'". "Whether relevant data lines up with a particular side or not shouldn't really be a factor in its inclusion. If the balance is accurate and sourced, it should of course be added. That isn't the case in this instance." — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 21:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

What "17 states and Washington, D.C. do" ≠ "federal law regarding background checks". Can you list which states these inmates were in when they obtained their weapon, gun show or otherwise, according to this citation? As I stated previously, I'm fine with rewording to reflect the data more accurately, for example "and nearly 40% of State inmates carrying a firearm obtained the weapon without the need for a background check according to federal law". Excluding it simply because certain states do require background checks for private sales is a red herring in my opinion, no offense. Darknipples (talk) 22:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The source in question does not say 40% were purchased without back ground checks. To claim so is WP:OR. Many stats related to firearms are easy to misrepresent and thus great care should be taken.  In this case I believe the stat can not be reliably assumed from the source provided.  Springee (talk) 00:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is a direct quote from page 1 of the citation. "In 1997 among State inmates possessing a gun, fewer than 2% bought their firearm at a flea market or gun show, about 12% from a retail store or pawnshop, and 80% from family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source." Wouldn't it be prudent to at least include the entire context of the quote, rather than excluding or cherry-picking the data used? The relevance is that retail purchases imply background checks, while private purchases do not. Darknipples (talk) 01:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I would question the use of the data in that article as dated. The NICS went into effect in 1998.  The laws governing transfers in the early to mid 90s are different than those of today.  I would generally caution against any use of that data without making it clear that it is old and that many background check laws have changed since that study was conducted.  Consider a study citing use of the internet based on data from 1998.  That said, including the entire context of any of these stats is important.  It would seem that most inmates probably didn't have a personal background check before getting a gun.  I believe the 40% claim is the one referred to in these articles that were critical of the president for using it.[]. This case illustrates the point that stats can be misleading even when you try to give them full context.  Regardless, if the number is at all synthesized it should not be included and given the age of the study and the legal changes since bit's probably misleading to include it at all or at least without a large disclaimer to put the data in historic context. Springee (talk) 02:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The section the cite in question is in, is entitled "Early efforts". The date the report was published is in the quote. I feel a good resolution here is to just include the entire context of the quote, like so..."In 1997 among State inmates possessing a gun, fewer than 2% bought their firearm at a flea market or gun show, about 12% from a retail store or pawnshop, and 80% from family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source." Any objections to this, other than age of the report? Darknipples (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Are Fire.org and New York Post Reliable Sources.
A couple of editors have argued that Fire.org is not a reliable source because it's "an advocacy organization" and/or "biased", and that the New York Post is "a tabloid". The context of the deletions on that basis are here and here. Looking for feedback/guidance.Mattnad (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Just my opinion but : The first part -- NYPost is #6 in the List of newspapers in the United States by circulation.  The second part -- Fire.org is an advocacy group.  The Coastal College part is just harder to find a RS for as a community college is just not going to get the attention that Stanford does.  The policy tied only to it could be self-substantiated by cite to coastal.edu itself.  A third party story about it is also at Washington Examiner story, but that seems a conservative tabloid.  Markbassett (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The story on the Costal College is pretty new, but is there a policy on whether a conservative paper is not a reliable source because it's conservative? I suppose it could matter on the slant, but the same could be said about Salon.com or the NYTimes which tend to be on the left.Mattnad (talk) 00:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Also the Atlantic Covered Stanford's policies, but there's an editor arguing it's an "editorial". My read is it's an article, but even if it were an editorial, is it a reliable source?Mattnad (talk) 02:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * NY Post is certainly a reliable source. But there may be special circumstances for a particular article. This is probably nearly the same for Fire. DaltonCastle (talk) 03:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Other editor" here. I think I should clarify: the question I've raised is really whether FIRE's interpretation of sexual assault standards at Stanford can be presented as fact. The claim originates with that organization, but is repeated in a New York Post opinion piece written by a FIRE affiliate. Its also quoted (again, attributed to FIRE) in an essay by Conor Friedsordorf of The Atlantic. To my mind, all three sources really originate from the same place, and none of them can be called "reliable" sources for that statement of fact because none of them actually attempt to independently verify it. Nblund (talk) 04:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd agreed to offer attribution, but here's a point but Nblund didn't mention. Fire included a copy of the Stanford policy which says basically what they say it did. The other sources had opportunity to read that same policy themselves. It's a bit presumptuous to say that neither the NY Post or the Atlantic didn't check any facts, even when providing credit to Fire. If it's covered in Reliable Sources, are we supposed to second guess them?  I read the same policy included by Fire and so did Nblund.  Here's what it states,, "A person is legally incapable of giving consent if under age 18 years; if intoxicated by drugs and/or alcohol;".  Even though Nblund read it, and the other sources had it easily available, Nblund still claims nobody checked facts.Mattnad (talk) 10:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * FIRE interprets this to mean that the policy "states that students cannot consent to sex—even with a spouse—if “intoxicated” to any degree.". This is an interpretation, and its one that is disputed elsewhere.
 * News sources, even generally reliable ones, do sometimes quote things without providing a fact check. For example: this CNN article quotes Donald Trump's Obama birthplace conspiracy beliefs without directly repudiating them. Those claims don't become reliable just because they were quoted in a reliable source. Nblund (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Nblund - NYPost is a RS choosing to carry the content about FIRE and Stanford -- which was the question here at RS/N.  It seems also carried in RS Atlantic and RS Wall Street Journal (Taranto piece on Drunkeness and Double Standard) and probably other places.  This forum is just for RS/N, wording it is a different matter, more suitable for the article TALK. Markbassett (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have to chuckle at Nblund's use of an opinion piece in a Blog as a source we should consider, when he/she was so firm that opinion pieces are not reliable sources (double standard?), and if we're talking about bias, Amanda Marcott comes strongly from the viewpoint of victim's advocacy. However, I personally think the Slate Blog does qualify as a reliable source, even if Nblund is selective in reliable source interpretation when it suits him/her.  However, I've already stated a willingness to qualify any quotes from Fire.  But Nblund seems to be still arguing that any of the several sources are not permissible as fruits from a poisoned tree.Mattnad (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no double standard, I think you're just misinterpreting me. Opinion sources are acceptable sources for opinions. If you're willing to qualify the quote as coming from FIRE -- clearly indicating that its an opinion from an advocacy organization, then I think we have the basis for a compromise. The other sources aren't "poisoned", but the fact that they quoted someone else's opinion doesn't render it any less of an opinion, and it shouldn't be used as a pretense to obscure the original source of that claim. Nblund (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking about how to word the statement, I'm questioning whether any of these sources can be used to offer FIRE's interpretation as a fact. How do you figure that the NY Post editorial page is an RS here? You mentioned circulation numbers, but I don't see that criteria anywhere in the RS policy. The policy clearly states that these determinations are context-dependent, so I don't entirely understand how you can give a blanket declaration that any of these sources are reliable.
 * "Carrying" content is not the same as verifying it, all three of these sources are opinion pieces which essentially just quote FIRE's interpretation of the policy. Can you explain how this is distinct from the CNN example I listed above? Nblund (talk) 19:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * high circulation does not equal reliabilty. the NYP is a tabloid. If they are the only source covering something, warning bells ringing all over. if other more reliable sources are covering it too, we would use the more reliable sources instead. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * WSJ and Atlantic Magazine qualify?Mattnad (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, both of those are in the higher quality realms of sources for most content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think everyone agrees that the Atlantic and WSJ are generally reliable, but both of the articles in question are opinion pieces and neither one purports to offer independent verification of FIRE's claim -- they just repeat it. Per 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." Nblund (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Nblund  WP:CONTEXTMATTERS applies of the article usage is at 'criticisms of Clery act' so yes I think opinion pieces are OK.   It's still RS of a third-party publisher and verifiable cite meaning WP:V of identified location for publicly available content.  Just be careful wording at the article so the cite actually says what is attributed to it and author saying it not the publishers (Atlantic or FIRE or NYPost or WSJ or whoever).  Whether the cite is supporting that Taranto said it, or that Taranto is summarizing something said elsewhere or that Taranto is quoting a piece elsewhere -- are three different ref formats.  I don't particularly see where the article text itself would need togo into who said it where  as that's not a significant part of the criticism and is part of the ref. Markbassett (talk) 17:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * They could possibly be used to cite opinions, but never for facts; and it would be important to determine that those opinions are noteworthy enough to include. In any case, the section in dispute previously used TheFire and the Post to state clearly-contentious facts, which is definitely not acceptable; at best, we could list those as the opinions of specific people, attributing it directly to them in-text. --Aquillion (talk) 02:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The Atlantic is RS and this is not an opinion piece. Fire looks RS for this ref. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Editorial board of NY Times
I would think the Editorial board of the NY times is a reliable source. But I have some disagreement here. What do you think?VictoriaGraysonTalk 01:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I would say no, at least not as written... See the WP:NEWSORGS section of the Reliable Sources guideline, which states: "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." This is the case for all news sources, not just the NYT. Blueboar (talk) 02:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Not reliable except to describe the editorial board's opinions. They almost always draw their facts from their own news stories. Go find the news story the editorial relied on. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As Blueboar and DrFleischman have said, opinion pieces and editorial board material are not Reliable Source here at wikipedia, regular news articles at he NYTimes or elsewhere would be fine. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Ralf Herrmann and typography.guru
Ralf Herrmann (personal site) (author bio at foot) is well-known amongst typography geeks and has long run a useful and interesting essay site at http://typografie.info/ which is (AFAIK) the major German language site for discussing such matters. Since February he has split the English language content out to a new site at typography.guru

Recently the X-height article used a couple of refs by him. These were removed by JzG as "refspam" and (after prompt restoration by another editor) with "The .guru domain is blogs ans orherr such unreliable sources. feel free to cite him in a reliable source.". When re-added as an EL, JzG has now gone to the extraordinary and I think unprecedented step of blacklisting the entire  TLD and then moments later removing the EL as "rm. not a WP:RS". Firstly, those familiar with typography would certainly consider Ralf Herrmann as RS on such matters (read the EL, it' a good discussion of how X-height affects usability, and far more use than the dogmatic but content-free US government ref that remains). Secondly, the rules for RS are not the applicable rules for EL. Nor is RS even a blanket ban on the use of non-RS.

Your thoughts please. I would appreciate comments on whether this URL simply meets RS, because its author does, and the domain name is just not relevant. Secondly, any comments on the unusually thorough nature of its exclusion here. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This is neither extraordinary nor unprecedented. The .guru domain has been on the blacklist requests pending clearance of mainspace links for a while, I cleaned the last handful today and actioned the request. Business as usual, in fact. Feel free to cite something other than his blog (remember: blogs are not normally usable as sources and are always deprecated when any better alternative exists; where no better alternative exists, consider the possibiklity that the information is not actually significant). Guy (Help!) 15:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not a blog, this is a substantial site. Nor are blogs from recognised authorities in the field considered to be outside RS. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Substantial or not, it is $RANDOMWEBSITE (with forums: do you think them reliable too?) that happens to be attached to a notable source. I don't cite Bad Science, even though Ben Goldacre is an authority in his field, but I would cite him from the BMJ, Guardian or some other website with independent editorial review. You do have a couple of options here, one of which is to find an independent site with editorial oversight with the content you want, the other is to ask at the spam whitelist. Guy (Help!) 17:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not $RANDOMWEBSITE, it's the English language version of a very well established German resource on typography. The publisher and main author is well known and meets WP:RS. Yes there are forums too (as does the BBC and The Times) and although of course I don't consider those RS, nor do I consider them contagious and so "infecting" the rest of the site. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Andy, I recommend that you ask our colleagues to add this site to the whitelist by providing evidence that this site passes WP:SPS as it's written by an expert in the field. Blocking the entire guru tld may be a bit extreme but this isn't a very good venue to argue that and it's probably an uphill battle compared to making an exception for one website. ElKevbo (talk) 01:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It was listed there MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist at the same time as this (see MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist too), but so far there has been no comment. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC update: sourcing of 2012 Koch-organized funding of Americans for Prosperity
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Americans for Prosperity. This is an update setting a time for the discussion to end as per WP:Discussion notices and a request for wider participation. This request for comment will most likely close Thursday 6 August 2015. The RfC proposes a one-sentence addition to the "Funding" section of Americans for Prosperity. The main source for the proposed content is a pair of reports in The Washington Post, supported by FactCheck.org and the National Journal. Issues in the appropriate application of our sourcing policies and guidelines remain in the discussion. Attention from editors with some previous experience the appropriate application of our sourcing policies and guidelines is respectfully requested. Generous excerpts from the sources are provided in the statement of the RfC question for your convenience. Please help with this important request for comment. Thank you in advance for your time and attention. Hugh (talk) 16:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

mensfitness.com
This link is being used in P90X to support the claim that: Actor Chris Pratt used P90X, alongside activities such as CrossFit, to lose 60 lbs in six months for his role in Guardians of the Galaxy. I'm not sure if mensfitness.com satisfies either WP:RS or WP:MEDRS.Autarch (talk) 01:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Men's Fitness is a published magazine in the US. Since it's not making any actual medical claims, I'd probably let it go.  Unrelated to the question of reliability, I'm really not a fan of "in popular culture" sections, and I don't think there's any encyclopedic value in listing every celebrity who has used P90X.  But that's a discussion for the P90X talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as WP:RS it is probably acceptable. But as far as WP:NOTADVERT and WP:UNDUE there are major issues. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  14:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed the section. Celebrity endorsements should be left to the company's marketing campaigns. --Ronz (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Using a court brief to back a claim that same-sex couples shouldn't adopt
At the Alliance Defending Freedom article, a court brief held on the organisation's website is being used for this edit changing "ADF opposes same-sex marriage and civil unions, as well as adoption by same-sex couples based on their belief that children are best raised by a married mother and father." to " ADF opposes same-sex marriage and civil unions, as well as adoption by same-sex couples based on their scientific study-supported belief[4] that children are best raised by a married mother and father." I already reverted a change from "belief" to "knowledge" earlier today. Doug Weller (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No way. A court brief by the organization itself cannot be used to say that it's "scientific study-supported". Especially since all major academic organizations have said otherwise. Moreover, the brief relies heavily on Regnerus' work which has been discredited by the American Sociological Association.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 20:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The ADF court brief cites scientific studies. Should those studies be cited directly instead? Of course, citing those studies would then leave out the fact that ADF cited them. I think it's pretty clear as is, especially with the hedge word "belief", what is being communicated here, but then again, I'm the one who made the most recent edit. Michaelmalak (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, we should cite the third parties who describe what is in the court brief. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed. It's the ADF's claim that these studies support their position, not a fact. That claim would need RS support.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The key omission here is that those studies are themselves highly controversial and have been widely rejected by relevant scientific bodies; at best, such a source could be used to say "based on their belief that children are best raised by a married mother and father. The ADF contends that this belief is supported by scientific evidence; however, these studies have been widely rejected by the scientific community." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with NBSB.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 00:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * That proposed edit is tendentious and does not belong, as pointed out above. This is basically a bit of dumpster-diving being used to support a pre-existing position, it is not an honest scientific inquiry into whether the position is correct or not. Guy (Help!) 10:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ditto as stated by others above. Obviously not a good source. Primary sources hardly ever are. CorporateM (Talk) 07:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * That item is not ADF speaking nor someone speaking about ADF so it does not fit the article. Markbassett (talk) 16:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 'Sci-st-supported' seems the problem here, if the source supports their 'belief', that is not a problem. The proposed edit seems to be wanting to turn a belief into a fact, which it clearly, in this case, is not. Pincrete (talk) 21:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * And it's been reinstated in another part of the article. (with material from the SPLC removed in the next edit, but that's for NPOVN]]. Doug Weller (talk) 15:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church
This article had over 100 references, the vast majority of which were to its own website, uploaded copies of copyright material, the usual stuff.

In some cases primary sources (court documents etc) were used to support the existence fo the documents. In others (e.g. ) primary sources were used in synthesis - "In some ways the victory over sin doctrine is similar to that taught by reformer John Wesley regarding the new birth" referenced to John Wesley's sermon.

Here's a diff with my removals] of what seemt o me to be invalid primary sources, unreliable sources, sources used for synthesis / OR, copyright material hosted off rights owner sites without evidence of permission and so on.

As far as I can tell, this is a tiny, tiny sect that is notable solely for an ongoing dispute with the SDA church over use of the name. I think the article needs more eyes because as far as I can tell the bulk of it is a personal essay drawn from the sect's own publications. I doubt if more than 25% of the content in the article right now can actually be established from reliable independent secondary sources which establish its accuracy, neutrality and significance outside of the sect's own navel-gazing. Guy (Help!) 08:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You are right and I, alas, can do precisely nothing. Collect (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that the doctrinal positions can be legitimately sourced from the Church's official website, on which those positions are displayed. For full disclosure, I am a member of this "tiny, tiny sect," but I do not live in the U.S., so I am not directly involved in the legal dispute over the name. I do note, however, that official websites of religious/political, etc. pages do use their official publications, such as websites, to indicate positions, so I don't see the issue with regard to that specific issue.  ◄  Zahakiel  ►  17:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In addition, if scanned articles from newspapers are unacceptable due to copyright issues, I believe they can be referenced by publication date and retrieval date without scanning their images in violation of copyright. I think that I can clean this up acceptably without violating any rules on several of these points.  The same goes for the legal documents used to substantiate the court motions and responses.  ◄  Zahakiel  ►  17:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * At most a brief summary could be self-sourced, but no more than that. We need reliable independent sources for the bulk of the text, otherwise it's just an indiscriminate colleciton of information. Articles in real newspapers can indeed be cited to issue date, provided the reference is not synthesis (as many of the references clearly were). Guy (Help!) 20:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

World Socialist Web Site
This is a website by International Committee of the Fourth International, a Trotskist organization. Here is an example of publication:. It has been used on a BLP page to discredit work by historian about Trotsky diff. My very best wishes (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I wish we had a special policy about the best citations for politics, like we do for medicine. If we had one, I would imagine it would say to avoid any sources like this that are published by an organization whose purpose is to advocate for a political agenda. I vote no on this one. CorporateM (Talk) 23:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This is an advocacy source. I think such sources might be useful in some cases, however they generally should not be used to discredit their political opponents, especially in BLP context, as in this case. My very best wishes (talk) 23:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. If WP:WEIGHT is considered, a possible exception could be made for the article by David North (socialist). - Location (talk) 21:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Not reliable source for this BLP. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The WSWS is a good source for socialist opinion, or for news on labor activities. They often send reporters to cover strikes or protests in the United States and elsewhere when other media don't.

In this particular case, the historians' letter and aspects of its content appeared in the mainstream Swiss daily Neue Zürcher Zeitung:. It seems like the review by Patenaude would be a place for commentary on Service's bio of Trotsky, if more is needed on his page. -Darouet (talk) 04:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Psychology Tomorrow
psychologytomorrowmagazine.com appears to be a self-published source for Stanley Siegel's articles removed or rejected from Psychology Today magazine -- this indicates serious reliability problems. See http://stanley-siegel.com/2012/03/31/an-online-magazine-that-openly-explores-the-cutting-edge-of-psychology-for-now-and-tomorrow/ for Seigel's explanation. I don't think it's an acceptable source for anything except Seigel's opinions and his articles' rejection/removal from publication.

I'm being reverted on removing this section discussing penis size in Mr. Big (Sex and the City). The sole source is a an article "Stanley Siegel - Penis Envy: How Size Influences Self-Esteem" (archive), currently published on the Psychology Tomorrow, and not mentioning the character Mr. Big. Despite the mention of the TV show, its inclusion here makes no sense to me as placed. However, whether the POV that (I think) is being implied is true or not, Siegel's site does not seem to be a credible source for this analysis (if that is what is intended). In my inappropriately suspious tendency, I would suspect promotion, but Linksearch currently shows only one citation, so guess this usage is intended in good faith. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a primary self-published source, it does not belong in that article, and is in any case redundant because the meaning of the title is blindingly obvious. Guy (Help!) 12:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, I see Seigel has a list of roles and a degree of authority, as shown on the reference page, on the basis of an authority being to some extent self-regulatory with regards to having an objective opinion for example in his expression of (“Sex in the City,”) where attractive women vocalize their preferences for well-endowed men, it is in his (Seigel's) own interests to posit some kind of reasonable opinion, whether or not he is self-promoting.

"Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter"

so WP:SPS is not an all-encompassing directive for the exclusion of Self-published sources, and especially since he has "40 years experience" in field of psychology, and he is a notable individual, having a wikipedia page devoted to him as a subject.

With regards to the allusion to penis size with "Mr Big" being blindingly obvious or otherwise. Well firstly, it isn't, because those not familiar with the show wouldn't know of the aspect of the story-line including those kinds of topics or themes i.e. sexual preference. Someone might navigate via Mr. Big to the page under debate, to find no indication of a concrete proof of the Mr Big factor being in fact a definite reference to penis size, even though Sex is mentioned in the title, because peoples minds don't always function on cue at the time. Someone working in a different field of thought would need to see the actual info, or else they might not make the connection, since thinking is prioritized for different individuals according to their particular life-styles, and the things they routinely think about. Not everyone has the freedom of thought to make the connection, as easy as it might seem, and counter-intuitive, to think someone would not be able to see Sex in the title and Mr Big are related. Furthermore, every individuals world concept i.e. a persons understanding of the reality of the world as it is might exclude any one person from being able to perceive there is a connection between the two factors, Sex and Mr Big. People from or belonging to Islamic Cultures or more Eastern cultures, those individuals would maybe or likely, not make the connection, which otherwise is thought blindingly obvious by those (more atuned to western ways of thinking). Antrangelos (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Antrangelos: issues not related to how reliable a source this is should go on the article's talk page.


 * A problem with self-published sources is that they are not peer-reviewed (as is the standard for scholarly journals). In this particular case, these are articles that were removed from publication. "40 years of experience" and a Wikipedia page does not establish a reliable source, especially for work that is rejected by a reliable publisher. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay having viewed the Psychology Tommorrow sites information about the site, it seems not the most academic of sites, considering the members of the editorial team and no mention of a critical process for submissions, other than through the editorial team there, I contend the source can't be verified as being relaible as is required. Antrangelos (talk) 13:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Aside from the (very considerable) doubts about the reliability of this source, nowhere does it say WHY 'Mr Big' is so-named. The name could well be a triple/quadruple entendre referring to his physical stature, personality and business status as well as his 'natural endowment', (but how do we know that his name is not an ironic reference to his 'wee willie winkie'?). The use of this material is therefore OR and off-topic since no connection to the character is established at all (and the article isn't about dick-size!).Pincrete (talk) 19:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually this is simple. Psychology is a field where the most outrageous bollocks can get published, so if this site genuinely exists only to present that which has been rejected by the mainstream, then it is not acceptable as a source other than on the author's own article, and then only with caution. Guy (Help!) 22:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

How To Teach Physics to Your Dog
Currently this book, written by Chad Orzel, assistant professor in the department of physics & astronomy at Union College, is being used in Homeopathy to support the claim that "The use of quantum entanglement to explain homeopathy's purported effects is "patent nonsense", as entanglement is a delicate state which rarely lasts longer than a fraction of a second." and also "While entanglement may result in certain aspects of individual subatomic particles acquiring linked quantum states, this does not mean the particles will mirror or duplicate each other, nor cause health-improving transformations." I am concerned that this source does not meet MEDRS as it is a popular science book, not a medical textbook, and am seeking further input on whether this source is reliable and if so how much weight it should be given. Everymorning  talk  18:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Anyone wanting to suggest that the latest buzzword (such as quantum entanglement) might be useful in the description of a claimed medical treatment needs a WP:MEDRS. Anyone wanting to point out that the claim is nonsense needs only WP:REDFLAG. Johnuniq (talk) 07:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As always when the righteousness of a potential source is requested, the answer should be "what do you want to say using this source?" -Roxy the dog™ ( Talk to the dog who doesn't know when her owner is coming home ) 07:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The source is reliable for the statement. Serious, scholarly works on quantum theory do not discuss homeopathy, because it is patent nonsense (aside: I particularly like Jim Al-Khalili's tweet: "Let me make this very clear: if you think QM allows for homeopathy, psychic phenomena, ESP etc then you'd better take a proper course in QM"). It's clear that homeopathists do engage in quantum flapdoodle, so it's legitimate to cite a popular science book written fomr a perspective of demonstrable competence in the field, in rebuttal of such claims. Guy (Help!) 20:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The statement is by a physics professor in a popular science book, which is sufficient to address WP:FRINGE claims. These claims are by definition not significantly accepted in the scientific community for someone to bother writing an article in a scientific journal about them. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 11:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wrong.    Everymorning   talk  15:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * please look at the 2nd ref you propose there. I think you will strike it when you actually read it. The 3rd ref is an editorial by a guy who works for a company that sells homeopathic remedies, so not good in that it is an editorial,  and also from the not-independent front.  the first one is indeed a paper in a journal (one focused on alt-med) and presents a model for how quantum theory could apply. this does refute Kingsindian's argument (which he shouldn't have made, since the scientific literature is full of kinds of stuff) but it doesn't make the claim that homeopathy works by quantum entanglement any more sound or accepted.  It remains a FRINGE idea. This is nothing at all like understanding the roles various ion channels play in long QT syndrome which is based on solid science. It is way, way out there. Please recognize that.  I note that a pubmed search for reviews finds 14 reviews - 6 of them are from the same "metaphor" series as your 2nd one. The other 8 are all in homeopathy journals - not main stream ones.  And the most recent one of those (PMID 24439452) says "Other theoretical approaches based on quantum entanglement and on fractal-type self-organization of water clusters are more speculative and hypothetical."  So even in the field, which is itself fringey, QE notions are considered "out there".  this really is just Quantum mysticism - religion and not science...and yes WP:PARITY applies.  Jytdog (talk) 16:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Rodney Stich
1. Source. Rodney Stich, specifically http://www.transoceanairlines.com/ 2. Article. The High and the Mighty (film) 3. Content. "When the exterior and flying sequences were filmed in November, 1953, the airliner was being operated by Oakland, California-based non-scheduled carrier Transocean Airlines..."

Despite the official sounding title of the website, http://www.transoceanairlines.com/ states on the left sidebar: "This site is the effort of Rodney Stich former pilot for Transocean Airlines." In that statement, "Rodney Stich" links to http://www.defraudingamerica.com/stich_bio.html. Four other webpages are linked to at the bottom of the page: http://www.defraudingamerica.com/, http://www.druggingamerica.com/, http://www.unfriendlyskies.com/, and http://www.defraudingamericablog.com/, which disseminate fringe ideas about such things as 9/11 conspiracy theories, Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories, and TWA Flight 800 conspiracy theories.

I believe there are a few points for consideration. First of all, the only reference to The High and the Mighty on the page is this: "Ernie Gann, the writer of numerous books, including Island in the Sky and thee [sic] High and the Mighty, was one of the pilots for Transocean Airlines." In other words, this is a "failed verification". Secondly, Stich's websites are all self-published. Thirdly, per the discussion at Articles for deletion/Rodney Stich, he is a non-notable, but prolific author of fringe works. There are no reliable secondary sources discussing him as an expert in aviation. Finally, there are various other much better sources of a less dubious nature that could be used in place of Stich, including the airline's alumni association. I attempted to place a citation to a reliable secondary source published by a third party (diff), but this was reverted by User:Centpacrr (diff) with the reasoning that Stich has "demonstrated expertise in a subject". Please comment on the reliability of Stich and whether or not it is preferable to use another. Thanks! - Location (talk) 02:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It has been my understanding that the community has long since determined that Stich is not a reliable source. He is a well known (some might say notorious) purveyor of fringe conspiracy theories on a wide range of subjects. I fully support that consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Replacing this with a better source is fine, but that was not reflected in either Location's edit summary nor did he/she explain his/her actions in talk so I was left in the dark as to what he/she meant by "Stitch" being a "fringe" source. Anyway all that the Stitch source seemed to me to be supporting was that Transocean Airlines existed and that Gann had been a pilot for that carrier which I don't see as controversial. I knew nothing about any other issues about him as being unreliable and they were not explained when the ref was removed and replaced with a cite source tag. Centpacrr (talk) 04:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I assumed my edit summary would have prompted you to take a closer look at http://www.defraudingamerica.com/stich_bio.html to see that it is of dubious reliability, especially when compared to the one I provided. I should not have made that assumption, and for doing so I apologize. - Location (talk) 04:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that Stich is NOT a reliable source for anything that needs verification in Wikipedia. I have read several of his books and his bias is rather incredible. While it is true that he writes a lot of "fringe" type of articles, the most important reason why Wiki editors should never use him as a WP:RS, is that he is either incredibly sloppy in his research OR he deliberately alters and/or leaves out highly pertinent information, when he discusses airliner accidents and pilot training.

One example is when he told the story of the takeoff abort accident of a UAL 727-QC freighter at ORD, on March 21, 1968. Anyone reading his book would conclude that plane was not only destroyed by the resulting fire, but that an entire planeload of passengers died as a result. He doesn't say that exactly, but in his usual ravings against United Airlines and their pilot training methods, he fails utterly to mention that there were only 3 on board that FREIGHTER flight, or that two got out with no injury. Only the Captain suffered some injury, as he evacuated. He was treated at the hospital for a short period of time and then released.

I have read many other of Stich's accident summaries and if it serves his purpose to condemn United Airlines pilot training, over and over, he paints a seriously flawed picture of what really happened. He was an FAA on site pilot training inspector at United Airlines for awhile. But, after he continually disrupted UAL's Pilot training schedules, by insisting they employ some of his own special ideas and methods, he was finally removed from that job by the FAA itself. Ever since, he has published as much negative, hateful and distorted diatribes against UAL as he can muster up ("He discovered a practice of hardcore corruption of key people at United Airlines and even worst by people in higher positions within the government agency responsible for aviation safety. People were repeatedly dying—in a horrific manner—because of the continuing corruption." ). Virtually every UAL accident that has happened, including the two on 9-11, was caused by illegal and criminal coverups by officials in UAL's flight training dept, according to Stich. It seems that almost everything that he does not like is motivated by some conspiracy against him and his brilliant ideas. Frankly, I don't think he plays with a full deck. EditorASC (talk) 07:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Not reliable. Jytdog (talk) 19:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Book Review in "Contemporary Sociology" A Journal of Reviews
Is "Back to Weber" (book review) a strong reliable source for the Jeffrey Elman BLP?

This review states
 * "Jeff Elman, the dean of Social Sciences at the University of California, San Diego sent Biernacki a letter in June of 2009 ordering him not to publish his manuscript or present findings from it at professional conferences. The letter also threatened Biernacki with censure, salary reduction, or dismissal if he continued. The controversy has continued after publication"

Alas, I am unsure if this book review is a reliable source for that claim of fact, as it would seem a book reviewer would not have fact-checked, or have reason to ever fact-check that claim.

In short - is this book review a strong reliable source for the claim in the BLP
 * "In 2009 Elman sent a letter to a professor in the UCSD Sociology Department regarding an academic dispute with a colleague; the letter instructed the sociologist not to publish a manuscript criticising the colleague and threatened him with censure, salary reduction or dismissal if he continued the dispute"

Clearly the book review is a reliable source for the opinions of Dylan Riley (sociologist) (Associate Professor Sociology at UC Berkeley), the reviewer, about the book, but I doubt myself that this applies to any contentious claims of fact about a third party. At best, this would be a tertiary source, as Riley is not noted as a reporter. Opinions thereon? Collect (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Peer-reviewed academic journals of this sort are sources of the highest quality. The journal (its editors) are evidently willing to stand behind the statements made in articles there; if the statements in question are incorrect, then the journal should retract that article.  That has not happened, and indeed it's not apparent that Elman has even requested it.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * And it is good for the purposes of the magazine periodical - the discussion of sociology as covered in books. But is it a reliable source for claims of threats by a third party?
 * If it is not a reliable source per WP:RS for claims about a third party, the cavil that the third party has not requested a retraction (Pray tell -- how the heck can we know as Wikipedia editors that someone did not do something?)  is useless.
 * It is certainly a valid source for information about the reviewer's opinions about the book and sociology, but the "threat letter" is not, IMO, in that class -- the claim at issue is not about the content of the book or the opinions of the reviewer as an expert on sociology, but is a contentious claim about a third party entirely, and as such is not something the reviewer is reasonably a "reliable source" for. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Your use of the word "magazine" in this context betrays a lack of understanding of what kind of source this is. I also wonder whether you have read the entire article...  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I grew up in an older time when the old French-derived term (from "storehouse") was sufficient ("journal" was a "record of daily prayers") - I bow to your esteemedness and use "periodical" now as specifically apropos here.  Collect (talk) 00:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If this is the best source we have for this, I have to suggest that it is at least open to question whether it merits inclusion at all, regardless of whether we accept it as RS. If there is a 'controversy', where are the other sources for it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In a separate newspaper article -- as appearing on our article here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Since there is no reference to another source in this part of the review, it is utterly unclear how the author got this information. Therefore this appears to be a primary account of the author of the review (Dylan Riley) and we should use it carefully (WP:PRIMARY). Arnoutf (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I spent a little while looking, these are the best sources I could find (other than the book review linked above): . Fyddlestix (talk) 22:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Of which none are sufficient for stating as a fact that a threat was made. Sorry fellows - this is a contentious claim about a living person and must be absolutely solidly backed. Right now, it looks more like the examples found in User:Collect/BLP than is comfortable.    And before you make claims about sources, read the one you gave: "In a letter, Mr. Elman told Mr. Biernacki he was concerned the manuscript would damage reputations and its publication would be considered “harassment.”"  Which does not appear to be a "threat" or back such a term at all.
 * Another you claim backs "threat" says :"A faculty committee at the University of California at San Diego examined that question in a report this week that finds that a dean responded to a dispute between two professors by telling one not to publish or speak out about the other's research". Which is basically what Elman has said.
 * Your Union-Tribune article says: " . But his concern, according to his letter to Biernacki, was that Biernacki’s research and manuscript "may damage the reputation of a colleague and therefore may be considered harassment."" Which again is in accord with fact.  What is the problem is the claim that in any way  Elman made threats of any sort.
 * Nor do any of the sources rise to a level showing that this is a major issue for a person who wrote the letter as Dean and as being appropriate when there was a dispute between professors. In short - it simply is WP:UNDUE at best, and violative of WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:BLP in all likelihood from the above comments.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)  Collect (talk) 00:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * They're not "my" sources Collect - Andy asked if other were sources were available, so I posted what I'd found as I was looking into this. I have yet to take a position on whether this should be in the article on Elman or not. That said, though, I'm a bit puzzled to see you suggest that there's no evidence of Elman "threatening" Biernacki in the sources:
 * This one says "The order also threatened Biernacki with termination if he were to request data from the National Science Foundation," and
 * This one says "Elman wrote Biernacki a letter ordering him not to publish his work or discuss it at professional meetings. Doing so, Elman wrote, could result in 'written censure, reduction in salary, demotion, suspension or dismissal.'"
 * This one says that Elman's letter "stated that Biernacki could be fired."
 * This one says that Elman told Biernacki "he would face discipline if he sought publication of a manuscript criticizing a departmental colleague and others in his field."
 * As for whether or not Elman's actions were "appropriate when there was a dispute between professors," I'm sorry but for a Dean to order one of his professors not to publish their research is unheard of and very obviously inappropriate. That's why the faculty committee that looked into this concluded that "the dean’s letter contains clear and unacceptable violations of core academic freedom rights." Fyddlestix (talk) 01:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If you wanted to keep this info out of the article, you'd be much better off arguing that these don't meet the criteria for RS, or arguing that there just aren't enough of them to warrant inclusion (I'm still on the fence on that question personally) than trying to argue that the sources don't say something which they very clearly do. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is very well sources. I see no reason to exclude it.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 02:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This is an official journal of the American Sociological Association (the national academic professional organization for the entire discipline of sociology). It's peer reviewed and published by SAGE. It's a mid tier journal in terms of prestige. I cannot think if any reason this is not a reliable source, especially for matters in sociology as a discipline. This is a plenty solid source for a blp claim. If you're worried, attribute the statement to the author. Academics, especially tenure track faculty at high ranked schools, don't make flippant or unchecked statements often, even if it's just a book review.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 01:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Elman here. I think the question should be not simply whether a source is reliable, but also for what information it can serve as a reliable source. For example, an op-ed that harshly criticizes Obamacare would be a valid source for the statement "Obamacare has come under harsh criticism for being ineffective" but not for the statement "Obamacare is ineffective." The journal article in this case expresses an analysis and opinion, but this and the additional sources referred to above all derive from a single UT San Diego article. That article was incomplete, and for example did not include reference to other letters I sent to the professor clarifying that I was not threatening him with sanction, prohibiting him from publication, etc. (I sent these when it seemed that he had misunderstood my initial letter.) And because this was a personnel matter under review, I was told by university counsel that it would be improper at that time for me to make public comments. Kk1892 (talk) 16:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You have asserted (e.g. at ANI) that the SD-UT reporter(s) did not contact you to ask for your perspective ("no attempt to contact me to provide my explanation or a fuller accounting of the facts"). Now it appears (via implication) that the newspaper did contact you.  This is one reason we rely on published sources, not on personal accounts...  What is the basis for your assertion that the article in CS is based on the SD-UT article?  Riley doesn't say that this is where/how he got the information.  As for "opinion", Riley isn't expressing an opinion, he is reporting a fact: "Jeff Elman, the dean of Social Sciences at the University of California, San Diego sent Biernacki a letter in June of 2009 ordering him not to publish his manuscript or present findings from it at professional conferences. The letter also threatened Biernacki with censure, salary reduction, or dismissal if he continued."  It's pretty unambiguous.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure how you are drawing the inference that the SD-UT did contact me. They do not say they did and I say they did not. No one has said otherwise. My assertion that the CS article was based on the U-T article is that to my knowledge they are the only primary source for this claim. Riley's "report" of a fact does not make it a fact (the fact is his assertion). That is, multiple repetitions of a single source do not provide independent evidence. Yes, you should regard my statements with caution and balanced against other evidence; that does not mean they should be disregarded or assumed to necessarily be untruthful! Kk1892 (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * From the article: "Elman did not respond to a request for comment." (link) Your post above indicating that university counsel advised you not to make a public comment would help explain why you did not respond to the newspaper's request -- but it is evidently untrue that they did not contact you.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You are making an inference not supported by the posts above. And saying a person said something "evidently untrue" when it is clear that you misapprehended their clear post is interesting. Lastly, Riley is not a good source for a claim of fact here - he is, at best, a tertiary source. Collect (talk) 19:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Collect, you should stick to things you might hope to understand. Kk1892 has said (at least once and possibly several times) that the SD-UT did not contact him to ask for comment.  The SD-UT article contains the quote I gave just above: "Elman did not respond to a request for comment."  This makes it evidently untrue that "they do not say they did" (as Kk1892 asserts).  It's also interesting that you think Riley is a "tertiary source"... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You show that he disagrees with their claim that they specifically contacted him - but your assertion is that the Riley claim must be true, therefore Elman's claim must be false.  That dichotomy  places a great deal of faith in the absolute truthfulness of the source you wish to use, and a total belief in Elman's  absolute untruthfulness.   As Riley is not a reporter, one might reasonably think his "statement of fact" was quite likely based on one of the published secondary sources - and as I understand it, a source specifically based on secondary sources is, by Wikipedia's definition, a "tertiary source."   Collect (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You are conflating different sources, and so I'm not going to continue to discuss it with you unless you can show you've got a correct understanding of what you're discussing. You're just wasting other editors' time now.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not "conflating different sources" and I find your demeanour here to be quite remarkable, indeed. And I rather think that accusing editors of not understanding that which they most assuredly do understand is not precisely "collegial" on Wikipedia.  Apparently your mileage varies a great deal. Collect (talk) 20:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Collect - I agree with Nomo. You are twisting policy/guidelines here and making this into a battleground. You came here for other opinions. You got them and they disagree with you.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 21:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Reading the discussion and the source cited, it seems fine to me as used in the article. All claims come from somewhere. The fact that this claim was considered credible enough to be published by this respectable source is good enough to be used on WP. While Elman's own statement about what happened is fine for discussion, we have to rely on published sources about the situation. This is also a much different case than the example given: an opinion "Obamacare is ineffective", which is vague and subjective, while this refers to a concrete incident. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 10:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I am concerned that a book review is being touted as if it had the benefit of peer review. As far as I know peer review is used for articles, not for letters, editorials, book reviews, and other ancillary matter.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC).


 * Indeed. In my understanding of how book reviews normally work is that they're more akin to editorials than to news articles and aren't usually subject to review by anyone except one or more editors.  I don't know how this particular journal operates but there is a lot of variance in how book reviews can operate in peer-reviewed journals ranging from invited reviews from well-known scholars to uninvited reviews from relatively unknown scholars hoping to build their CV e.g., graduate students, relatively new assistant professors.  But the general point is that not everything in a peer-reviewed journal has necessarily undergone the same level of scrutiny and is given the same level of importance.  This is not really a comment on the reliability of the review, at least in the way that we use that term in Wikipedia, but on how much weight we should (not) give it. ElKevbo (talk) 01:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Reviews for a journal like this would be by invitation of the publication's editor (or maybe their reviews editor). Only established,  respected scholars with relevant expertise would be asked to write such a review.  It's true that the review might not be peer reviewed,  however it would have gone through a rigorous editorial review by multiple people before it went to press. It's not like book reviews in such publications regularly contain false or misleading statements of fact.  Quite the opposite: journals of this nature are among the most reliable sources that we could hope to use.
 * Also, remember that this is just one source of about 6 that all say pretty much the same thing.  There's no reason (other than Elman's objection) to question the claim that it's being cited to support. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It would be ever so lovely if editors could actually make an attempt to learn something about the matter they wish to comment on. I said earlier that this journal is peer reviewed.  That's because it is in fact peer reviewed .  You could learn this by taking a look at the journal home page: http://csx.sagepub.com, "An official journal of the ASA, peer-reviewed and published bi-monthly."  The entire journal is reviews of books; it's not the more usual journal format where there are peer-reviewed articles and non-reviewed book reviews.  Book reviews in this journal are peer-reviewed.  So, the source we are discussing here is in fact peer reviewed.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 01:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification and apologies for missing that info earlier, Nomoskedasticity and Fyddlestix!
 * Like many requests on this noticeboard, this source passes muster as a reliable source. But the question of due weight must also be addressed and that's probably best done elsewhere e.g., the article's Talk page, an explicit RfC if Talk page discussions are fruitless. I recommend closing this discussion so further discussion, if necessary, can focus more directly on other issues. ElKevbo (talk) 02:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC notice: OR vs RS Policy question at WP:VPP
I started a discussion thread at Village_pump_(policy) and would appreciate if those who are familiar with these 2 policies/guidelines would chime in. Koala Tea Of Mercy ( KTOM's Articulations &amp; Invigilations ) 17:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Can the GT350R lap time be included? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In the List of Nürburgring Nordschleife lap times article the GT350R lap time is however referenced to the Official Nürburgring website – so why should we discuss either horsepowerkings or EVO in this context? --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Whoever added it to the article included "(official website)" beside the link, however there's nothing official about this website; as BlueEyedSuicide has pointed out, it's a fan site, and it's not used as a source for any of the other times that we list. It shouldn't be used for this one, either. The actual official website is, and it does not host lap times. So my question is whether the Evo source in this case can be considered reliable (thus replacing the unreliable one); if not then the information should be removed. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks, sorry for the misunderstanding. I've changed the ref to the EVO webpage for the time being, seems the most preferable source among the available ones, but whether it's enough I couldn't say (not familar with the field). --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

In most cases Evo magazine concludes their own testing to provide results, in this case Evo is merely stating what they had only heard. The article in its own contradicts itself at the end by saying, "No video evidence of the laptime has been released as of yet. We’ll update here as soon as it has." Which after almost eight months since publication, will more than likely not happen. Several of cars on this list were run before on-board video was the norm, yet they are still backed up by either eyewitness accounts or manufacturer confirmation. Everyone, including Ford has remained mum on the subject. The page itself even declares: "...For new entries, this list requires an official manufacturer’s press release for manufacturer-conducted tests.  If the test has been conducted by an independent publication, an article in that publication is required. New entries require an original, uncut on-board video, showing the lap and the timing from start to finish. A statement that OEM tires have been used is required." -To which none of yet been supplied on any basis of confirmation.BlueEyedSuicide (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, then reliable source or not, the lap time doesn't meet the stated selection criteria, and it merits removal on that basis. Sorry that I didn't see that before. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

LewdGamer
Hi, I was wondering if LewdGamer is a reliable source NSFW Link. I noticed it was cited in Momiji (Ninja Gaiden), Kasumi (Dead or Alive), and Kasumi (Dead or Alive), but I did not see it listed on the lists here. I just want to make sure if it qualifies as RS or not, so I came here to get consensus from other editors. The content being sourced in the aforementioned articles is as follows (order respective of articles mentioned): "Momiji also appears in Studio FOW's unofficial CGI-animated pornographic film Kunoichi - Broken Princess.[16]" and "Despite warnings from Team Ninja to not do it or no more Dead or Alive games will be released for the PC, modders quickly released a topless version of Momiji in Last Round.[84]"; "...and one fan-made mod for DOA5 modified her training suit to remove most of the clothing.[58]" and "It is a CG-animated production and its full title is KUNOICHI - Broken Princess.[129]"; "Despite a warning from Team Ninja that no more DOA games would be released for the PC if the modding community released DOA5 mods that are not designed for 'good and moral' play, nude models of Ayane were quickly created by members of the forum Lustful Illumination.[172]" --DSA510   Pls No Level Up 00:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Although the site was newly formed, the About Us page looks promising: "a dedication to accuracy, a pursuit towards objectivity..." They don't appear to have any overt editorial agenda. The items it's being used as a citation for look mundane enough. I think I might lean towards it being acceptable, so long as it's not used to make an article about a video game focus unreasonably on the sexual aspects. CorporateM (Talk) 23:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, thank you for the answer! --DSA510   Pls No Level Up 02:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


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

Box office collections for Bajrangi Bhaijaan
I've noticed BoxOfficeIndia is the quoted source for box office collections for a number of hindi movies(including PK). Why are their numbers for Bajrangi Bhaijaan not being considered authentic then ? http://www.boxofficeindia.com/Details/art_detail/bajrangibhaijaanclosinginon500croreworldwide#.VbsXEROqr_i Is there an exhaustive list of trusted sources for box office collections for Indian movies ? Sbhowmik89 (talk) 14:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed once before, so that discussion might come in handy now. &mdash;Spaceman Spiff  14:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd say none of the issues put forth then have been resolved. The consensus there seems like it was not a reliable source but either "include it because it's the best we got" or "don't because it's not." In this case, we have an actual (somewhat) reliable source so I don't think we should replace a reliable source with one we know is not reliable under the basis that it's "better". I'll make a mention of this at the Indian cinema taskforce and hopefully we get some more insight from them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Second, the past discussion had numerous individuals who acknowledged that the source does not qualify under our WP:RS guidelines but argued that it should be used because it was being extensively used and/or under the belief that nothing reliable existed and this was the best option. I'd say that the use of a source incorrectly (like we did with IMDb) does not grandfather that source from the RS requirements. Further, in this particular case, we have a current RS (namely the article citing 400 crore) which is probably outdated and not totally reliable but it is a better source than a three-paragraph posting from "Box Office India Trade Network" with no evidence of who that is. I say we wait a few more days until one of the newspapers and more reliable sources provide box office results rather than go around with the daily figures of alleged box offices returns. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Ricky81682 and the analysis. We need to use only sources that have actually demonstrated a reputation for reliability, accuracy, fact checking and editorial oversight. particularly in the area of Indian box office where one of the top national news agencies gave up attempting to maintain a regular box office column because they could not sustain an accurate representation.. these fly by night websites surely need more to be posted on the web to be considered reliable sources. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  14:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Further comment: as to the "reliable sources" quoted in the prior RSN discussion by User:Relata refero, the links are largely dead but not one of them are relevant to the discussion of whether boxofficeindia.com is a reliable source. This link is citing www.bosnetwork.com and ibossnetwork.com on page 30. This link cites the IBOS network and OBS on page 49. This page cites IBOSnetwork on page 9. I suspect User:Relata refero was arguing that the information was important therefore we can bypass the usual RS criteria due to the importance of said information (which I don't think is in line with policy and odd since it was evidence that there are reliable source that are in use but those haven't been used for whatever reason). It's particularly irrelevant in this case when we do have reliable sources (even if they are a few days or hours or whatever behind which is natural). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As discussed at Articles for deletion/Box Office India (2nd nomination), there is a boxofficeindia.co.in, which is a legitimate trade magazine, so it may just be intentional confusion here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:04, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


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

Atheist, agnostics, and freethinkers
articles affected:
 * Demographics of atheism
 * List of Christian thinkers in science
 * Relationship between religion and science
 * List of Jewish Nobel laureates
 * Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine
 * Religiosity and education
 * List of Muslim Nobel laureates
 * Christian
 * Christianity
 * Lists of Christians
 * Role of the Christian Church in civilization
 * Protestant culture

This is more for entertainment than action, but I have to record a wonderful abuse of reliable sources (diff): From 1901–2000, atheists, agnostics, and freethinkers won 7.1% of the Nobel prizes in chemistry, 8.9% in medicine, and 4.7% in physics. Christians won 72.5% of the prizes in chemistry, 65.3% in physics, 62% in medicine and Jews won 17.3% in chemistry, 26.2% in medicine, and 25.9% in physics. I'm sure the statistics are impecable, but the conclusion is obvious nonsense. Here are the numbers again: Johnuniq (talk) 07:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


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


 * {| class="wikitable"

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


 * By the way,even other studies have shown similar numbers too for Christians and Jews so the numbers are corroborated in other resources. For example, according to a study that was done by University of Nebraska–Lincoln in 1998, 60% of from 1901 to 1990 had a Christian background. Nobel prize winners in physics from 1901 to 1990 and for Jews, we have many sources saying they make up about 20% on average of the Nobel prizes in the sciences, , and of course others are in the Jewish Nobel prize page.Mayan1990 (talk) 08:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I await with interest attempts to compare skirt lengths to the price of gold. -Roxy the dog™ ( Talk to the dog who doesn't know when her owner is coming home ) 07:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The source in question is Baruch Aba Shalev's 100 Years of Nobel Prizes. I think it's a totally unreliable source. It has no information about the author's information-gathering; it contains kooky stuff like analysis of Nobel winners' astrological signs; it underwent no peer review-- etc, etc.    Pepper Beast    (talk)  08:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The book of course has a bibliography at the end. It helps to read the actual source (there is an updated 4th edition now) as it is a statistical analysis and all the info and data is there for anyone to see. The author is a well established geneticist with +200 research publications, and his study even has endorsements from two Nobel laureates such as Henry Kissinger and Shimon Peres. On top of that the numbers in the book do reflect similar findings to other sources already cited above. Looks like WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Mayan1990 (talk) 08:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * All your hand waving doesn't elevate this book to the level of a reliable source. Does it tell us how many of the alleged christian winners were male, circumcised and of the gemini persuasion? Enquiring minds want to know? -Roxy the dog™ ( Talk to the dog who doesn't know when her owner is coming home ) 08:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Roxy, as amusing as I find that, you're not exactly helping.
 * Mayan: the fact that he's a respected geneticist might mean something if this were a book on genetics; it isn't. The fact that he does statistical analysis doesn't mean much without any explanation on how he got his data.   Endorsements don't mean anything.    Pepper Beast    (talk)  08:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Appreciate that Pepperbeast. Anyways, the details are in the book of course. Where else would it be? His analysis is his analysis. All that is needed is attribution. We as editors can only reflect what the sources bring to us. We are not given the task of being detectives beyond what the sources provide us. Statistical analysis is not hard to do especially with readily available biographies and such. You can check it out yourself. It is of course interesting that his findings are consistent with other findings already above. Also looking at the original publisher: Atlantic Publishers, they write "Atlantic Publishers and Distributors Pvt Ltd, established in 1977, is known for quality academic, professional and general publishing. It is also India’s leading distributor of books from across the globe, partnering world's leading publishers in Science & Technology, Management, Humanities and Social Sciences." Good enough for me. Mayan1990 (talk) 09:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Why isn't it helping. I'm just pointing out the absurdity of Ramos' source, you know, the one Ramos is edit-warring to keep in the article. See? -Roxy the dog™ ( Talk to the dog who doesn't know when her owner is coming home ) 09:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I want a nobel prize, so I'm going to move north, to the Faroe Islands. Does anybody else not know the difference between correlation and causation? -Roxy the dog™ ( Talk to the dog who doesn't know when her owner is coming home ) 11:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

One question... are these categories really mutually exclusive? Can't someone be an agnostic Christian, or an agnostic Jew? Blueboar (talk) 13:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agnostic Jew certainly. Agnostic Christian if you include cultural Christians like Richard Dawkins in that category. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ...or Nontheist Quakers and others who practice Christian atheism. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


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

Something else that would add context to the statistics would be to normalize them according to what percent of people self-identified as each religion (or no religion) at the time the awards were given. Nobel prizes have been given out since around the turn of the 20th century, when it was much less common for people to self-identify as not belonging to a religion. For example, Gallup surveys about religious identification only go back to 1948, but at that point the number that answered that they had no religious affiliation was 2% (vs. 16% in 2014). I'm not saying we should use Gallup for these purposes, especially because I think it only surveyed people in the US, but it further questions just how meaningful the data is. Normalized, it may be that the proportionality (which seems like the likely motivation for including the data in the first place) is significantly different. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk </tt> \\ 15:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , I am not edit warring. Originally, Pepperbeast deleted the source without proper justification. Since he was removing it and I had told him to discuss first since it was a reliable source, the correct procedure was to leave the source in all the articles and discuss it like we have over here and then make a decision. Now, no one here has provided a correct justification for removal of the source. The source provides actual numbers and the original publisher Atlantic Publisher and Distributors is not an issue. On their site they say: Atlantic Publishers and Distributors Pvt Ltd, established in 1977, is known for quality academic, professional and general publishing. It is also India’s leading distributor of books from across the globe, partnering world's leading publishers in Science & Technology, Management, Humanities and Social Sciences. At any point of time, Atlantic has more than 50,000 titles on its shelves in varying subjects. It has a strong network of channel partners consisting of sub-distributors, booksellers and library vendors spread across the country. Atlantic is a regular supplier of books to libraries of leading universities, IITs, NITs and institutions in India." Just like any study, attribution should be given. There is every reason to keep the book since the author on top of it is a well stablished scientiist too and even 2 Nobel Laureates endorsed the study. Simply put there is no basis for removal.Mayan1990 (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It took me a second to figure out that you are Ramos1990. You are the only one arguing that this source is OK.  If you think you are not edit warring, please continue, and you will end up at 3RR and very likely blocked. You will do as you will. Jytdog (talk) 18:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Appreciate you concern, but everyone was already calmed down and following the correct procedure since me and Pepperbeast were already en route to resolving the issue while leaving the articles as they were before changing them. In any case, there is not basis for the removal, I am afraid. Most of the issue here has been WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but this is not really a good reason for removing it. The issue looks resolved already. If no one provides a solid reason for objecting, then will re-add the source eventually. Mayan1990 (talk) 18:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No one here finds this a reasonable reference to use, in the way you have been using. Can you not see that?  The correlation is ridiculous and adding content about it is UNDUE. Jytdog (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ?? Ok fair enough, then since you said in the way I have been using it, how would you use it? The book clearly mentions numbers like any other statistical study and the way is was cited was in those numbers only. What is the issue? In none of those articles was anyone saying that Nobel Prizes cause people to be Christians or Jews, it merely showed the distribution according to the source and was pretty straight forward and flat. Now Rhododendrites has mentioned the Gallup study. A general way of using any statistical study is to merely put in the numbers in terms of demographic distribution as found in the sources. Probably the safest approach to these things. The ref was used in a straight forward and neutral fashion as far as I can see. Your issue and others as well, is WP:IDONTLIKEIT but this is not a good reason. Attribution should resolve any issue you think about "UNDUE", considering that there is no issue involving a violation of wikipedia policy in terms of WP:RS. The only complaints here have been what some people supposedly don't like and this if course is unreasonable. Mayan1990 (talk) 18:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Srsly, Ramos? We were not en route to resolving the issue because you won't address the quality of the source.  You keep calling other people's objections WP:IDONTLIKEIT without adding any reasons why this should be considered  WP:RELIABLE.  So I'm happy to have it discussed here, where at least there's some chance of consensus.  And my name isn't ‘Pepperblast‘.   Pepper Beast    (talk)  19:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Statistics are added to a Wikipedia article in order to explain a subject that the statistics help to quantify. In other words, the only reason to add statistics to an article like relationship between religion and science is if they help to explain the relationship between religion and science. Incorporating these statistics thus communicates a connection between religion and receiving a Nobel prize. The point people are making (or at least the point I'm taking away from this thread -- and which I agree with) is that while the book itself may be a reliable source for lots of things, these statistics are not sufficient to support the conclusion we're meant to draw from them. It sounds like you're saying this is a well-known and respected book/author (multiple editions, lots of publications), so maybe a good next step would be to search for other reliable sources which provide explanation/interpretation of these statistics in such a way that more explicitly sheds light on the relationship between e.g. religion and science beyond simply correlation (and thus WP:DUE to include). &mdash; <tt> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk </tt> \\ 20:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

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


 * Ramos, how would I use it? I wouldn't use it. What is point of the table? (also a real question) Jytdog (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not in favor of using a table on any article, the first person on this thread introduced so I merely summarized a bit from the source using the same format. I am only advocating the simple % being mentioned in any article.Mayan1990 (talk) 01:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Meh. What is the point of mentioning the percentage? Jytdog (talk) 02:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

First, it's important to point out that simply because the author is an established academic doesn't make everything he publishes usable as a source. Published material gets its reputability from the reputation of the publisher in the field; a paper published in a physics journal isn't automatically a useful source for sociological statements like this. Second, the core problem isn't the numbers themselves, it's the implicit assertion of significance to this specific measure (ie. a non-normalized nose-counting percentage check based on this specific timeframe, in these specific religious categories, for these specific Nobel prizes in these specific fields.) This source is not enough to justify the assertion that these numbers are relevant, quite apart from whether they are accurate or not. What do they mean? What are they trying to say? We need a usable secondary source that can analyze them and answer those questions if they're going to be included; and I'm not seeing that here. A secondary concern I'd have, looking over that fairly long list of articles, is that it feels like this one source is being given WP:UNDUE weight by inserting it into as many articles as possible; even if we were to cover the author's opinions on the statistics in one article, many of the articles listed aren't really places where it makes sense. None of these are even physics-related articles -- why was this put in Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine? Likewise, just because he mentioned Muslims in passing as part of his numbers, say, doesn't really make this an appropriate thing to include in List of Muslim Nobel laureates. --Aquillion (talk) 05:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The major problem here is that the implication of being a religious believer in science has changed beyond recognition over the last century. In 1901 the default was for most people in the West to have a religion of some kind, and Americans and Britons (two leading sources of Nobelists) were almost exclusively either Christian or (a minority) Jewish, even if they were not observant - and there were considerable social consequences to declaring oneself as non-religious. These days a significant minority of the population of both countries identify as atheist. On the whole this looks like an attempt to shoehorn religion into a place where it is not relevant other than as a possible stalking horse for creationism. Guy (Help!) 07:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as i see the book is a reliable source, some of the participants here say there is no need to add the numbers, and it not necessarily to mention the percentage, but it's been mentioned in these articles the percentage of Jews among Nobel Prize winners and has been mentioned figures and ratios and data (note that determine of who is a Jewish it's harder and more complicated than the identification of Christians), in each of the article as Religiosity and education and Relationship between religion and science has been mentioned percentage from primary sources about the non-believers scientists (it's been mentioned in several article that: "Science academies in the United States and the United Kingdom have found that 7 percent of members of the National Academy of Science in the U.S. had a belief in God or higher power and only 5.3 percent of Fellows of the Royal Society of London believed in a personal God.") so what all this problem to mentions the percentage of christians or Atheist, agnostics, and freethinker among the Nobel prize winneres (it's only show percentage)? Beyond that many of the scientists and Nobel Prize winners in years before 1950 they announced that they are atheists, such as Maria Skłodowska-Curie, So I can not find a single problem of mention that percentage, why then mention the percentage of Jews among Nobel Prize winners or the percent athiest among the members of the National Academy of Science is relelvent while the percentage of christians or Atheist, agnostics, and freethinkers among Nobel Prize winners is irrelevant?.--Jobas (talk) 08:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's take one of the factoids: Christians won 72.5% of the prizes in chemistry. What does that mean? Three quarters of the Nobel prize winners for chemistry had a Christian belief, or were declared Christian in childhood, or were raised in a "Christian" country, or regularly attended a Christian church for worship, or what? I just arbitrarily clicked ten names at Template:Nobel Prize in Chemistry for 1901–2000 and searched each article for "Christian". There were no hits (apart from the use of that word as a name). Are our articles missing important information regarding the prize winners, or is the source claiming that 72.5% of them are Christian bogus? What other source verifies the claim? If no other source discusses the matter, why should we? Christian tells us that a "Christian is a person who adheres to Christianity, an Abrahamic, monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth." Is it likely that 72.5% of chemistry prize winners satisfied that definition, and if it is true, why do our articles not mention it? Johnuniq (talk) 10:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Many of the the prizes in chemistry were christian many were jewish and many were atheist, Some of these christians were nominally christians (but they did not cliams to be an atheist- they consider themselves as christians) some were religous one. but both declered as christians, just becouse some of wikipeida articles dosen't mention that dosent that mean at all they are not christians, it's not really hard to find more information about these winners you will find many of them many at least were nominal christians.
 * What about the percentage of Jews among Nobel Prize winners? Some of them they convert to Christianity some were totally atheist and non-religious some even were of Jewish descent (even they or their parent's didn't even raised as Jewish) and still these percentage of jewish nobel prize winneres show in many articles in wikipedia. And now we have percentage from a source that you call it "reliable source" and percentages that you said about it "statistics are impecable". And the book it self gave references In the end (Many of the information are documented and in the end, these ratios is a collection of data for the Nobel Prize biography), if there was a Nobel Prize was noted that he was a Christian and there are references and sources. I do not think that our work is also to see and to chick if he was a ture Christian believer or nominally Christian or the degree of his faith in Jesus (example: many soruces show mention that Brian Kobilka is a catholic so he is catholic i don't think it our work to discuss how catholic he is or if he is only nominal or church regular attender) the same go here there been statistics about Nobel prize winners show also percentage of christians (include nominal and religious one, with references) so This is not our work to discusses who is a "ture believer" and who is not a "ture" Christian. and by the way this not the only soruce that give infortmation about the "Nobel laureates by religion ", there been different studies as the study Nobel prize winners in physics from 1901 to 1990 that done by the University of Nebraska–Lincoln in 1998, or books as Scientific Elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States by Harriet Zuckerman or the reviews of these books as the article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and nearlly all gives similar percentages, So this not the  Only source. So in the end i think it should be mentioned christian background or that this group it's inclued (nominal and relgious chrisitan winners).--Jobas (talk) 10:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The author is an established academic, he is book is about different information about Nobel prize winners. there nationalities, the years, the females who got the nobel prize, birth of dates, the university affiliation of the nobel prize winners and religions of these winners, and these informations are documented, and the author is not trying to say anything it's only a book gave different infortmation about nobel prize winners and the author is not even a Christian.--Jobas (talk) 11:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The author is an established academic in the wrong field. He's a geneticist, published here in a physics journal; that doesn't make him a reliable source for statements about statistics or sociology.  But more importantly, your argument that he's "not trying to say anything" is actually part of the problem.  If he were a sociologist, historian, or other expert in the field providing some meaningful statement with these numbers, then we could rely on that interpretation; but as it stands, it feels like users are posting these statistics in an attempt to make their own personal arguments by proxy.  This is original research; in order to include statistics in an article, we need to be able to say what they mean and why they're there (why these specific years, how the data is or isn't normalized, who is judging who falls into what category and why, what the overarching numbers mean in light of these decisions, etc.)  Absent that sort of analysis, it's not usable as a source, even before you get to the fact that it's geneticist publishing in a physics journal and therefore not someone we could really rely on to begin with.  A primary source who is "not trying to say anything" is actually not very useful as a source -- if the numbers say nothing meaningful at all, why include them?  If you feel that they do say something you personally think is worth covering (but the author isn't explicitly stating that), then isn't that original research on your part? --Aquillion (talk) 22:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The author still an established academic, and his book been reviews postivily by two Nobel Laureates. My point when i said he "not trying to say anything" mean he is not trying to pass a propaganda since he himself is not a Christian (since some users try to say that). and it's worth to covering, and the author analysis also supported form different refference, and in the end this kind of analysis and statistics that been mention in the book as the university affiliation of the nobel prize winners or the Jewish or women who won nobel prize is show in several article here in wikipeida even there is article about that issue using this kind of book no one call not useful or asked what the reason of  analysis and statistics of women who won Nobel prize, or why we should include statisitics about  university affiliation of the nobel prize winners.--Jobas (talk) 00:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, "established academic" doesn't mean anything. Reliability is contextual; an academic is a reliable source in their field, but not generally reliable outside it (this is a major issue in our articles on evolution and climate change, say, where people sometimes try to insert the opinions of academics in other fields.)  If these statistics are genuinely noteworthy, it should be easy to find a source in a relevant field who discusses them, published in an appropriate journal; relying on something a geneticist published in a physics journal doesn't make sense.  And, for what it's worth, I'll point out that the author is Jewish and that the only analysis the book does is about Jewish exceptionalism; now, this is isn't actually the problem (even if we assumed he was WP:BIASED, biased sources can still be used; and it's not necessarily fair to assume that he's biased just because he's talking about his own religion -- if he were a Jewish historian, or a Christian historian, or an Atheist historian or whatever, we might be able to use him as a source.)  The problems are that his qualifications don't actually relate to this topic, so the paper is ultimately just someone's personal opinions rather than a reliable source; and that, without a qualified source to give context or meaning to these numbers, including them risks amounting to original research or synthesis on the part of editors, who are implicitly stating that eg. these numbers mean Christians are "good at science" (for some personal, arbitrary definition of what a Christian is and what being good at science means.)  You seem to be saying "but the author isn't using these numbers to say that Christians are good at science!" as though that makes everything all right -- but in fact, that's the problem; it would be better for you if the author was saying that.  If we had eg. a respected historian saying, explicitly, "I am a Christian, and here are some numbers that mean that Christians like me are good at science", we could totally put that in the article!  What we can't do is subtly imply that conclusion without a source clearly making the connection.  --Aquillion (talk) 00:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I downloaded the wikitext for the 135 articles of the Nobel Prize winners in Chemistry for 1901–2000. The only articles containing the word "Christian" in the wikitext or categories (other than as a name) are: Six of 135 articles (4.4%) connect a Nobel prize winner for chemistry with Christianity. This is the reliable sources noticeboard where editors are encouraged to think about whether a source is reliable for its claims, and the source says that 72.5% of the 135 winners (97 people) were Christian. Who were the other 91 Christian prize winners? Johnuniq (talk) 11:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Adolf von Baeyer Mother converted to Christianity
 * Henri Moissan religion = Christian
 * Fritz Haber Haber converted from Judaism to Lutheranism
 * Elias James Corey Corey was born to Christian Lebanese immigrants
 * Robert Curl Curl was the son of a Methodist minister
 * Richard Smalley Smalley became a Christian shortly before his death
 * I did not understand your standard that Christian and non-Christian nobel winner are based on articles which connect a Nobel prize winner for chemistry with Christianity? this standard is a non-academic. If wikipeida didn't mention every thing that mean Nothing. so according to you if there no mention about about their religion so these winners are not christians? oh and how many these article of nobel prize of chemistry connected with atheisim also 4? 5? 10?. let's see some names of Nobel prize winner for chemistry that many sources mention they are christian (nomanilly or religous) but in wikipeida dosen't mention that: Ernest Rutherford, Gerhard Ertl Translated from German: Oh, yes, I believe in God. (...) I am a Christian and I try to live as a Christian (...) I read the Bible very often and I try to understand it, Peter Agre, Robert Bruce Merrifield "Nobel Laureate R. Bruce Merrifield Dies At 84", Harold Urey, Otto Hahn, John Cornforth, Brian Kobilka, Derek Barton etc.. these Nobel winners wikipedia dose not mention anything about their religion but it not really hard to find that they were christians by different sources. So wikipeida the connect of Nobel prize winner articles with Christianity is not the standard here about the Statistics.--Jobas (talk) 11:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I was afraid you would take Johnuniq's angle of criticism to open a whole set of down-the-rabbit-hole discussions and maybe even start to add religion to all their bios. argh. the point being made in this thread is that the correlation between Nobels and religion is as relevant as a correlation between Nobels and whether winners wore brief, boxers, or went commando.  Including the percentage is just pointy. Jytdog (talk) 23:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And i started to add that in some atricles maybe you didn't notice. i gave several names of Nobel prize winners who been christians. Johnuniq criticism was since no mention in wikipdia about religions of Nobel winners it's mean these are not Christians. And i gave at least 5 names of Nobel prize winners who been christian but their article in wikipedia dosen't mention that (and i think by this i cleared my point). Oh and what about the correlation bweteen Scientists and atheism (there are aticles show some percentage) or the  correlation bweteen Nobel and women (wikipdia articles mention percentages) or with black or with the  university affiliation of the nobel prize winners (wikipeida article give here also some percentage) or what about the correlation between Nobels and their nationality (wikipedia articles mention some percentage about that), you didn't make deal about that even it's the same idea of mention religions of Nobel prize winners. So if including these percentage is just pointy, So also the percentage of women and Jewish and blacks and nationality and  university affiliation is just pointy. Also, the comparison that you made it is unfair try to made this comparison with other ratios as the nationality and  jewish and university affiliation and women that wikipeida articles mention it.--Jobas (talk) 00:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * i did see that you started to add that content to articles with dismay - that is part of what prompted my posting. You seem to be saying that every interest group should get its absurd "bragging rights". That is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.   Jytdog (talk) 02:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Really why i can't add if a Nobel prize winner is a Christian and there is sources supporrt that, but we can add if a Nobel prize winner is an atheist?, The different of you'r comparison that there been books and reachers about the religions of Nobel prize winners as the study Nobel prize winners in physics from 1901 to 1990 that done by the University of Nebraska–Lincoln in 1998, or books as Scientific Elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States by Harriet Zuckerman or the reviews of these books, But for sure you will not find a study about the brief or boxers that Nobel prize winners wrote, That's the different. I didn't said every group should get its absurd "bragging rights", But if this group been different studies and statistics about it, so there is no reason no to include it.--Jobas (talk) 10:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * above, I had asked Ramos what the point of adding this information is. Neither they nor you have answered. Jytdog (talk) 13:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I already answer that, Becouse there been books and studies about it, i already mention that.--Jobas (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And it's excally the same point mention the proportion of non-believers in the existence of God among scientists in articles as Relationship between religion and science and Religiosity and education, And the same poin adding information about the women or black or jewish who won Nobel prize. the numbers that the book of 100 years of Nobel prize gave more less the same numbers of other books and studeis the study Nobel prize winners in physics from 1901 to 1990 that done by the University of Nebraska–Lincoln in 1998, or books as Scientific Elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States by Harriet Zuckerman. So there been differen studies about the religion of Nobel prize winners. And some here in clear way the don't want adding this information that which supported by sources (beside the book of 100 years of Nobel prize) maybe becouse they don't like the results maybe if it gave different numbers they will not hesitate to put it.--Jobas (talk) 17:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * that is not an answer. There is an infinite amount of trivia we could add to articles. Why are you selecting this detail? Please answer the question. This is the same question that Ramos ducked. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I've read a bit through the book now and it certainly seems to draw some non-scientific conclusions for a book about statistics. I'm unfamiliar with the publisher, so I don't know their history. The book was written by an Jew and seems to have the purpose of promoting Jewish exceptionalism rather than statistical analysis. For example on page 58 "In other words, pograoms and the Holocaust forced a genetic selection for the better fit, which was much more drastic than for any other faith.". Note this is not an argument against Jews, it's an statement about the non-scientific nature of this book. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It is the statistics that are given in the article. If they are well-researched, the source is reliable regardless of the interpretation put on them in the book. There is a very strong whiff of WP:IDONTLIKEIT here. The information is clearly of relevance to several of the articles listed at the top, and on a topic where there is a lot of general interest (more usually from the Jewish or Muslim angle than the Christian one). I don't see the case that it is unencyclopedic being made at all. I do see that collecting accurate figures would be very difficult, more so for those who are in any meaningful sense Christian than for those who are Jewish or Muslim, which are effectively treated as racial categories in such excercises. Johnbod (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

CJAD Radio
Is CJAD Radio a reliable source? I cannot find any information about editorial oversight on their website.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 16:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Anyone?  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 17:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please present your question in the recommended format, in general this noticeboard doesn't do yes/no on a source not knowing what exact webpage (the Radio website has hundreds, including a blog section, weather forecasts etc.) the info for inclusion in the encyclopedia is derived from, what article it is to be included in, and what content derived from the source your question is about. Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Is CJAD Radio (specifically this article) a reliable source for discussing the attempts prevent Roosh V from giving a speech in Montreal? The source contain a few controversial, potentially libelous, statements about Roosh V.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 19:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Le Devoir, a newspaper with editorial oversight, writes about the same , as does the tabloid Journal de Montreal – for this info I couldn't make a distinction between the independent newpaper (Le Devoir) and the tabloid (Journal de Montreal), so couldn't say whether the radio station reporting is rather akin to serious journalism or to tabloidism. For playing safe I'd source the info to Le Devoir in Wikipedia, but don't see a problem to add a ref to the radio station page for those who don't read French. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply! I'll wait a day before reporting back to Roosh V in case anyone else wants to chime in. Thanks for finding the ledevoir source. Much appreciated.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 20:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd still like to hear if people think the source reliable at all. Again, I see no editorial oversight.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 19:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this particular citation is fine - it's a local news-and-talk radio station, so while I would be cautious about using any of their talk radio shows/sources to establish or reference facts, I see no reason why their news content shouldn't be treated the same way as any other broadcaster. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably you misunderstood: "any other broadcaster" is neither by definition reliable, nor by definition unreliable. "Any other broadcaster" is by definition a source of unknown reliability. So there's nothing in your comment that shows the radio station as either reliable or unreliable. All what's left is an "I like" without even attempting to give a WP:RS or WP:V-founded argumentation.
 * The nature of this noticeboard is to try determine reliability of sources (in context) based on the parameters which by the applicable guidance are deemed suitable for such determination. "Being a broadcaster" is not among the parameters that says anything about reliability. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey give me some credit - I do understand the purpose of this noticeboard and WP:RS. What I meant to write above was "any other reliable broadcaster." I confess, I kind of assumed that the reliability of CJAD's news coverage was self-evident - but my opinion there might be colored by the fact that I live in Montreal and have more than a passing familiarity with the station. Anyways: the station is owned by Bell Media, the same parent company that owns other, unquestionably reliable news sources in Canada like the Globe and Mail and CTV.  It's a member of the Canadian Broadcasting Standards Council, and complies with its various codes for journalistic ethics, including its accuracy and neutrality in news requirements.  It has won awards from the Radio and Television News Association of Canada (which also has it’s own code for accuracy and fairness in reporting) for its news coverage in the past. In my personal experience, some of their talk show hosts have a political bent, but their news coverage is much the same as what you'd get from CTV.  Then, there’s the fact that there’s really not much difference between the report we’re discussing here and how the CBC (Canada's national public broadcaster) covered the same story. So unless anyone can present evidence of clear bias in CJAD's news coverage, I see no reason why this would not be a reliable source. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Just noticed that the Toronto Star has the same story now, we can probably just cite that instead and avoid the need to debate this further. As far as I can tell, it verifies pretty much everything the CJAD story was being cited for, and more. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Tx, I had refrained from answering 's general question "...if people think the source reliable at all", while thoroughly unfamiliar with CJAD (never was in Canada, leave alone ever having heard of the radio station). Such general question is difficult to answer when all one can do is comparing hundreds of webpages in the hope of finding some clues.
 * With Fyddlestix' additions I should think there's no reason to qualify CJAD as generally unreliable.
 * As for the content of the Roosh V article, I think my suggestions here (and at BLPN) prove to be workable: when not sure whether material of a particular source can be used, look for other sources with the same content: if the information is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia there are bound to be other sources whose reliablity can be assumed that carry the same information.
 * As for Roosh V's alleged anti-semitism (the topic of the BLPN thread I closed), I don't see this having been picked up in mainstream media like what has been said in those media about his attitude towards women. All in all the latter seems to be the main thrust of the criticism, with the anti-semitism related criticism, despite extended discussion in the blogosphere, thus far apparently lacking the notability and reliable source coverage to warrant its inclusion in Wikipedia. But maybe others would be more successful in tracking useable sources on that? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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


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


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

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

In 2014, The Washington Post named Roosh the "most-hated man on the Internet", writing: "Valizadeh owns the website ReturnofKings.com, which bans 'women and homosexuals' from commenting. Recent articles include the charming '5 Reasons to Date a Girl With an Eating Disorder,' 'Don’t Work for a Female Boss' and 'Biology Says People on Welfare Should Die.'"  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 16:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * Caitlin Dewey is a "digital culture critic" and thus absolutely an "opinion writer" ... as such her opinions do not get "fact checked" in any event.  Collect (talk) 13:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I should also point out that the columnist is associated with "GamerGate" and should likely be used with some caution per ArbCom decisions thereon, noting that all edits regarding that topic fall under discretionary sanctions, and noting the especially strong statements from that decision regarding WP:BLP. Collect (talk) 13:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Journalistic hyperbole is not worth mentioning, no matter where it appeared. – Smyth\<sup style="color:gray;">talk 19:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


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


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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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


 * It would help if the other guy would explain why he thinks the information in that interview is wrong. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Based on the editor's revert comments, the editor, who I believe is female, not male, believes that, as one summary puts it, "reference points to an interview, which is an advertisement. It contains wrong and incomplete information." The article's history has more examples. The issue is that only the start date of 1982 was being referenced. Oddly, the new source, which has been confirmed as user-edited and not a RS, states they started in 1981 and so does not support the content. However, if the band released music before 1982, then the answer seems obvious for that fact. Now, we just need a RS to support. The problem is, the band is barely notable and I was researching it as part of WP:BEFORE as I was preparing to nominate for deletion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The classic Verifability not truth argument. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Gamma ray burst clustering claims
We have two articles based on claimed detection of an unexpected spatial clustering in gamma ray burst locations. The sourcing goes back entirely to claims by one research group. The article Hercules-Corona Borealis Great Wall is entirely based on a set of papers by Horvath et al., plus press release style coverage, and Giant GRB Ring is based on a single article in MNRAS by the same group. The papers have few or no citations, and it's not at all clear that the proposed structures are likely to exist in reality. In the absence of solid secondary sources to show that we should believe the papers, should these articles exist? --Amble (talk) 22:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I can see that one article is a definite candidate for the bitbucket, see Articles for deletion/Giant GRB Ring. Guy (Help!) 21:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


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


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

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


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


 * The Ibtimes has been determined to be a reliable source in the past - and is used in a number of articles. As I read it, the article does not make the claim as such but attributes the claim of wealth to the "Iran Channel"  (possibly National Council of Resistance of Iran?) which does not meet WP:RS . Collect (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The IBtimes article is merely reporting on a scandal in Iran based on some interviews to the Fararu news website. The Daily Telegraph article linked there is talking about the same thing. This is not generally a WP:RS for the information in the article. Though, it is hard to find accurate estimates in these matters generally. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 09:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


 * No institution is perfect, and we have no insight into the exact ins-and-outs of how every fact printed by the GRG was obtained and checked-- any more than you do for the Washington Post. But the same is true of everything printed in any "reliable source." If you don't like the GRG as a source of reliable age-of-death information, what in the world would you replace it with? The major newspapers use GRG. Robert Young, who has done the fact-checking for GRG since 1999, is also the current Senior Consultant for Gerontology for Guinness World Records since 2005, so that's where THEY get their info also. So who are you going to use, if not Young? I challenge anybody who disagrees to carefully read the GRG process, which is the background here: That process is described in Young's chapter in the peer reviewed Springer publication H. Maier et al. (eds.), Supercentenarians, Demographic Research Monographs, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-11520-2_15, © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010.  S  B Harris 00:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting a link to the verification procedure. Do news organisations use GRG tables or other information from the GRG? If they use tables, which ones do they use? Note that news organisations referring to the GRG does not automatically make the GRG tables reliable according to Wikipedia guidelines. If uninvolved editors determine that some number of the GRG tables are not reliable sources, and a replacement reliable source cannot be found, the content currently supported by those GRG tables would have to be removed. But let's not get ahead of ourselves: first we need to know what uninvolved editors think about whether these tables are WP:RS. Ca2james (talk) 04:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Just going to point out: The GRG has several thousand citations in Google News at the moment. Do a quick search for articles on supercentenarians such as Susannah Mushatt Jones, Sakari Momoi, Jeralean Talley, etc., and you will see that most articles reference the GRG (i.e. "according to the Gerontology Research Group"). This, this, and this are but a few examples. The GRG is the scientific organisation which does the initial work to verify people's ages. Why the debate about whether it is reliable or not is still going on I don't know.
 * Regarding the debate about which tables are reliable: If a list article includes pending cases, and the pending cases table is cited, what's the issue? Unverified claims are listed at List of oldest living people with news articles cited. Should they not be included? As long as it's made clear that they are not verified, what's the problem? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 14:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The debate is going on because a reliable source on Wikipedia may be different than what the news considers to be reliable. Moreover, news articles are referring to the GRG, not its tables, and we're looking at the reliability of its tables here. That the GRG is considered an authority (although holding up the Daily Mail as proof of that somewhat undermines your point) does not mean that the tables the GRG generates are reliable sources according to Wikipedia. And again, if a table is found not reliable for birth/death date and age information, it can't be used as a source. If other supporting reliable sources don't exist, then that information must excluded. I wish someone other than WP:WOP members would comment on this issue; please could an uninvolved editor comment? Ca2james (talk) 00:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * Please does anyone have insight into the question of whether GRG tables E and EE are reliable sources for birth/death dates of supercentenarians in "List of" articles on them? Thank you. Ca2james (talk) 00:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't consider them to be reliable to the standards need for BLP. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Er, why not? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It's time to end this discussion. Newspapers,journalists from all around the world: American, Brazilian, European etc.; all consider the GRG as the reliable source. Not to mention scientific circles...
 * http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/wauwatosa-woman-among-oldest-in-the-us-at-112-b99544087z1-318543041.html
 * http://ndonline.com.br/joinville/noticias/273114-jaraguaense-alida-grubba-tem-112-anos-e-foi-reconhecida-como-a-pessoa-mais-idosa-do-brasil.html
 * http://wtkr.com/2015/07/24/virginias-oldest-resident-dies-at-age-112/ "Lela Burden was the 8th oldest person in the United States and the 35th oldest in the world, according to the Gerontology Research Group, a recognized authority on supercentenarians,[...]" Waenceslaus (talk) 08:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you, . I'd appreciate opinions from other editors on whether the GRG tables (particularly E and EE) are reliable sources for birth/death dates for supercentenarians on Wikipedia. I realize that this is a difficult question so any insight is appreciated. Thank you. Ca2james (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * He gave NO REASON for his opinion. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * On their own? No. They have a vested interest in promoting agecruft. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What the hell does that mean? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 22:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Cruft usually means that something is overly detailed and unnecessarily complex so agecruft in this case would mean too many unnecessary supercentenarian articles. GRG supporters seem to think that the information in the tables should be included in encyclopaedia articles because the tables exist and the GRG thinks the tables are important; moreover, the GRG seems to think that no other sourcing is required because the GRG considers itself to be a reliable source. A similar situation would be using the PAPA - the recognized governing body for its own tables and information - circuit standings tables to develop a series of articles on pinball player rankings. Those articles would be pinballcruft. Ca2james (talk) 15:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No, no, no. Firstly, the GRG is a non-profit scientific organisation. The only thing that is being "promoted" is education of the general public about how long people really live. But this can only be achieved if emphasis is placed on AGE VERIFICATION. What you don't seem to understand or appreciate is that the GRG verifies the ages of supercentenarians. I mean there couldn't possible be a more reliable source for birth and death dates than an organisation which aims to determine the true age of a longevity claimant. GRG "supporters" only want accurate and reliable information to be included in Wikipedia. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Just like there couldn't be a more reliable source for pinball standings on PAPA-sanctioned events than PAPA. We wouldn't include articles for which only PAPA is being primarily referenced, or used to highlight entries on articles because that's treating Wikipedia as a webhost which it is not.
 * I do understand that the GRG tracks supercentenarians and verifies age and that they're seen as an authority on the subject. I need you and other GRG supporters to understand that those facts don't give the GRG a free pass to write whatever articles you all want using only or primarily GRG tables as a source (especially table ee). Ca2james (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


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

Hi folks. This is S. Jay Olshansky, Ph.D., professor of public health at the University of Illinois at Chicago -- my expertise is on aging and longevity, and my colleague Dr. Bruce Carnes and I are responsible for having contributed to the development of the modern field of biodemography. I have known the researchers at the Gerontology Research Group since their origins, and I knew Dr. Coles very well. His reputation was/is as a meticulous scientist who was a well established researcher in the field. He conducted more autopsies on centenarians than anyone else on the planet and is/was an internationally recognized expert on aging science -- his reputation is impeccable. It was a terrible loss when he passed away, but some of his work is ongoing by those involved with the GRG. The folks at the GRG involved with verifying the ages of centenarians and super-centenarians are extremely careful in their assessments, and they are recognized by scientists in the field as having provided the most reliable list of verified long-lived people in the world. There is a reason why the media turns their attention to them whenever the oldest person in the world dies -- they maintain the only international database on supercentenarians and near supers in the world that can be trusted to be accurate. I'm happy to provide more details, but for those of us who have been working in the field for more than a quarter of a century, and we've seen just about every ridiculous claim there is, there is something quite refreshing about the trust that can be placed in the people at the GRG to just get it right. I would encourage those at Wikipedia to trust the GRG, and I also encourage people making comments to sign their names. Sjayo (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjayo (talk • contribs) 18:03, 4 August 2015‎(UTC)
 * I am sorry but the representation you make based on your personal authority is worth absolutely nothing in WP. Part of that (but only part) is because your claim that you are Jay Olshansky is worth nothing. (see Essjay controversy for part of the reason why that is) And you should sign your own name. Jytdog (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting story on Essjay controversy. I signed in under my name, sjayo, so I don't know any other way to verify who I am.  I'm happy to include any evidence required for personal verification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjayo (talk • contribs) 18:32, 4 August 2015‎ (UTC)
 * And this is why Wikipedia has such an awful reputation. We're trying to determine if the GRG is a reliable source. So far, we've had a couple of people just say "no" or make some accusations about the GRG trying to "promote agecruft", and one who is an expert in the subject and has put forward a well reasoned argument. Wikipedia logic says that every opinion should be given equal weight, but common sense says otherwise. Smh. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * if you are so sloppy that you accept the word of some random person on the internet who says "I am the Great Garbanzo and I declare this source to be faaaabulous" then you do not understand Wikipedia nor even what semi-rigorous scholarship is. (No insult intended to Sjayo - it is just that for important decisions like this, claims based on personal authority are really meaningless as we could get all kinds of crappy sources deemed reliable based on people showing up here making claims just like that - WP cannot work that way) Jytdog (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I guess I'm not quite sure exactly how Wikipedia operates. You've asked for advice on whether the tables produced by the GRG are reliable. They are. The people most able to make this determination are not Wikipedia editors with no expertise in aging science; it would be scientists with a long history and track record of working in the very field for which you are seeking advice. If someone doesn't believe that I have expertise in this area, they need only go to my website: sjayolshansky.com and look at my vita. There's plenty of third party affirmation there as well. I've even published on the prospects of becoming a centenarian -- the very topic of this discussion (Olshansky, Carnes, Hayflick, 2012; Journal of Gerontology: Biological Sciences "Can human biology allow most of us to become centenarians?" doi:10.1093/gerona/gls142). If Wikipedia operates based on the opinions of people with no expertise in the very area for which they are seeking advice, over the very scientists working in the area of interest, then Wikipedia actually has far less value than I thought. Sjayo (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You should should have stopped writing after the first sentence. No one asked you in particular about the reliability of the source. The OP asked the community.  The community considers the question in light of WP:VERIFY and WP:RS and the community's traditions of interpreting that policy and guideline. We don't just make up reasons out of thin air here - there is a foundation of policies and guidelines by which WP operates.  Academics often have a hard time wrapping their heads around that when they first come to Wikipedia.  There is rigor here - it is just not based on personal authority.  Nobody is anybody here.  Jytdog (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * My take. The NYT cites GRG quite often, with attribution (NYT search string doesn't work here, you can do it yourself) as does the WSJ (see here)  for people's verified ages.  So it seems to me that Table E, used with attribution, would be a reliable source for WP content that hews closely to whatever is in that table.   Table EE is just unverified applications so is worth nothing. Jytdog (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My view is that verified GRG data can be treated as information from a reliable source that is worth including. When we have other reliable sources that disagree with the GRG, (that's rare from what I can tell), we should include it anyways and not delete it just because the GRG disagrees. If the GRG hasn't verified a listing, I say we should remove it entirely (because there's zero reliable sources for it). The problems tend towards the two later situations, not the first. I really hate how every list has colored (inappropriate under MOS:COLOR) lines for those where the GRG hasn't verified it but fixing that just leads to fights and edit warring with WP:SPAs. We need an RFC on the unverified listings, one that doesn't delve into a series of arguments about whether the GRG itself is reliable (which isn't really in dispute) because there's nothing gained if we're just existing as a way to host the GRG's data for it (which is what WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians and WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians/Incomplete cases becomes at times). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We could do an RfC onunverified listings but because they're based on table EE, I thought it would be useful to first know whether or not the broader community considers it a reliable source. Thanks. Ca2james (talk) 18:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In my view there is no reason to consider Table EE reliable - it says it is not verified by them so there are no grounds that I can see to consider it reliable. Jytdog (talk) 19:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes that's my view as well but I defer to members of the community who are more experienced than I am. Thank you both for your considered opinion. Ca2james (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

comment It appears that GRG is a very reliable source, and this argument is more about notability. 78.144.214.250 (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Parts of it, not all. Table EE is not reliable; Table E appears to be. Jytdog (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


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

Statewide opinion polling for the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016
I had a question about how WP:Reliable sources applies to the map. Is a poll reliable enough to use on a map if it was taken one or two days before the most recent poll? Is the most recent poll the only poll that can be considered reliable and the only one that should be used when coloring a state? Is it WP:OR to conclude that the most recent poll taken in a state isn't the only reliable source and that polls taken a day or two before are also reliable? At what point does a poll become outdated and unreliable when compared to polls that are more recent? Btw, this issue is also being discussed at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Prcc27 (talk) 03:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This doesn't appear to be a reliability issue so much as it could be a WP:NOTNEWS issue. Actual results after a primary would be fine, but I'd be considered about recentism if someone is trying to document polls like this. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

steamlocomotive.com
The site steamlocomotive.com has now been added three times to the articles Puffing Billy (locomotive) and Stephenson's Rocket. "This site is run by a staff of one part-time person (me). I enjoy steam locomotives and collect information about them. This web site is how I choose to make this information available. " The site has no substantive content, merely a list of surviving examples. http://www.steamlocomotive.com/lists/searchdb.php?country=UK

Does this site meet RS? Do we need this site? Steam locomotives are hardly short on sources! We can very obviously do so much better than this, for detail and for robust authorship. The two additions are merely duplicating an existing ref and adding nothing. Also for Rocket, "It was also the first successful steam locomotive to run on  track." which is a dubious statement on two (somewhat technical aspects). Although arguably correct on one, it's highly misleading to non-expert readers: it's just wrong, and a common misapprehension we have to guard against, to see Stephenson's Rocket as "the first" steam locomotive in almost any way. It was better in some ways (read the article), but it wasn't the first.

Neither of these additions represent an improvement, one is worse as it's now misleading and the source isn't RS for anything.

Raised at User_talk:Jackdude101, but the only response was to add them again. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that this same website has been used countless times by many different individuals on several other railway-related Wikipedia articles. Search for "Steamlocomotive.com" on Wikipedia to see for yourself.  Previously, the website was primarily focused on steam locomotives in North America and Australia, but has very recently expanded to include New Zealand, Ireland, and the UK.  To my knowledge, this is the first time that this website has been used as a reference for articles about steam locomotives outside North America and Australia, but previously being unknown to people who monitor these articles does not disqualify it as a valid source.   Jackdude  101  ( Talk )  21:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Looks like spam to me. The site is plastered with ads William M. Connolley (talk) 21:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call "spam" (I use an ad blocker so I haven't seen them anyway), but I'm still not seeing RS.
 * It's possible that this site is better on US locos (which I know little of) than it is on UK locos. For UK stuff, the content is thin and dubious. Mostly simply so thin there's nothing there. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks like spam to me (https://www.flickr.com/photos/belette/20497684505/in/datetaken/) but non-RS will do William M. Connolley (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see any ads either, but it definitely looks not WP:RS. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 22:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look like a reliable source to me. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I see no ads as well. It probably depends on your browser.  Using Google Chrome, there are no ads anywhere.   Jackdude  101  ( Talk )  23:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * 5RR is not the way to proceed on this. Please stop. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Proposed for blacklisting at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * One of the ways to gauge the validity of a source is whether it's ever been mentioned in respected publications. Steamlocomotive.com has been mentioned in the Casper Star-Tribune, the largest printed newspaper in Wyoming, here: .  It's also been mentioned in the The Ann Arbor News in Michigan here: .  Jackdude  101  ( Talk )  00:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Mentions in passing by local news media do little to indicate reliability. If the website was being cited by sources with recognised authority on the subject being covered, it would be a different matter. We don't cite hobbyist's personal websites without very good grounds - and a couple of minor links aren't sufficient. Not RS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * How about Wired (magazine)? They used it as a source, also: .   Jackdude  101  ( Talk )  01:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Do US editors consider it to be RS? Despite the accusations of "British bias" at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist, could the situation here be that a US-RS site is overreaching itself when it goes outside the US? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you implying that websites are not "qualified" to cover things related to Britain if they are based in the US? Because that's exactly what it sounds like.  Jackdude 101  ( Talk )  01:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I'm claiming that this particular site has failed to do a good job of it, up to the standard required for RS. And please stop accusing anyone who disagrees with you of bias. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Beatport
Is Beatport reliable for genre tag? In the Recess (song) article. 115.164.83.139 (talk) 23:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Chicago Monitor
Chicago Monitor is "a website associated with the Chicago chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations" and a front site for CAIR in Chicago, per FrontPage Magazine. The assistant editor at Chicago Monitor is the Communications Coordinator at Cair-Chicago. Having the above in mind, does this source meet RS criteria for adding such a viewpoint in Quds Day aiming to approach NPOV? Mhhossein (talk) 05:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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


 * I think the article misused the source cited. The article line joined parts of two sentences and improperly confused the line about the early sipritual diversity.  The "cocktail of ancient post-colonial apprehension, of apocalyptic fears and recent historical vulnerabilities together with traditionalist arrogance and youthful, snobbish or revengeful provocation" seems what the source was saying about diversity.  The "typical example of ethnocentric nationalism" is a separate remark about one particular author, so that part is not appropriate. Markbassett (talk) 14:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with Markbassett. The source says that mixture (rendered as "cocktail" in the article, which seems okay to me) was "the main ingredient in concocting the diverse variants of nationalist discourses". So the source would support saying the cocktail gave rise to nationalist discourses, or something to similar effect. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 07:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your answers. I thought the same, but I did not feel confortable to make an unilateral text removal. 86.127.5.62 (talk) 08:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I don't agree. The idea of Greater Romania owes its existence to a nationalistic ideology. We somehow need to describe this phenomena. So, in fact, Kesslers's opinion about Romanian (ethnocentric) nationalism is not misused at all. Anyway, who is this IP? I am just hoping that my suspicion is incorrect.... Fakirbakir (talk) 11:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am afraid that what you are doing is original research. I can't find in Kessler's text the phrase "ethnocentric nationalism" from your | new version of the article.
 * I'd like to ask User:Dailycare, User:Markbassett and User:Fakirbakir to continue the discussion and gain a consensus at Talk:Greater_Romania. 86.126.63.196 (talk) 15:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "The fatal mixture of ancient post-colonial apprehension, of apocalyptic fears and recent historical vulnerabilities, together with traditionalist arrogance and youthful, snobbish or revengeful provocation was the main ingredient in concocting the diverse variants of nationalist discourses. Their local sources remained unchanged since the early decades of the 20th century. A classical example of xenophobic nationalism, of the European reactionary sort, with all its pathos and pseudo-scientific pretensions, is furnished in the selection from A. C. Cuza’s writings. Nonetheless, until late in the 20th century, the same mixture was promoted by the last remnants of the interwar generation; an example is provided in the selection from the influential oral foreman Ţuţea, whose apothegms of the genre “any great intelligence is bound to oscillate between philosophy and theology” made epoch as late as the early 1990s." (Kessler) Fakirbakir (talk) 16:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So A. C. Cuza is described as xenophobic nationalist. I don't understand how is this related to the concept of "Greater Romania". 86.126.63.196 (talk) 16:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No, Kessler says that through Cuza's writings we are able to better understand the Romanian "psyche".Fakirbakir (talk) 17:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


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


 * If we're just neutrally describing the ideology over time (not good or bad neutral, but WP:NPOV), I'd be looking for a source that just lays out what the "post-colonial apprehension", "historical vulnerabilities", etc. actually were about rather than flowery non-descriptive language like "traditionalist arrogance and youthful, snobbish or revengeful provocation". I'd say raise the bar and find a better source if someone wants to include these general ideas. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Kessler is a philosopher, his style is out of question. If my understanding is correct a better source needed tag will be enough? Fakirbakir (talk) 19:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I generally prefer better source tags for when there is content in Wikipedia's voice that could be sourced better. We're dealing with quotes in this case, so that wouldn't really work. I'd say it's better just to delete the content and start from scratch with a better source if one comes up. For something as mundane as the ideals of a country/region, there should be a strong enough source out there that quotes aren't needed at all. Kingofaces43 (talk) 12:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Journals of university faculties
It's being claimed at Gregorian calendar by a notorious troll (check Special:Contributions/JoeSperrazza for verification) that these journals are not reliable sources because they are "collections of self - published sources". I fail to see how content published by reputable universities all of which has been peer - reviewed by an editorial board can fall within this category. This is trolling as far as I can see, but I'd be glad for other editors' comments before I denounce it as such. 78.146.213.18 (talk) 17:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You haven't even made any contributions other than this post. Try discussing it on the article talk page, preferably without calling other editors trolls.- MrX 18:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There's an editor at the article talk page (I won't call him a troll) who stifles discussion on this topic .  My purpose in posting here was to make contact with sane human beings who don't have their own twisted agenda. 78.146.213.18 (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's the apparent talk page conversation and edit. While not a journal in technical terms, university vetted publications for basic information tend to be considered very reliable and useful. I'm not sure if that's the case or not here. Is there an online version so we can view the source? I really can't judge reliability at all just seeing a bare reference without information on how to track down the source. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You can browse issues of the journal at . 78.146.213.18 (talk) 19:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * an apparently undergrad student publication with no peer review. not reliable - self-published crap. "Advice to authors We welcome contributions to M500 on virtually anything related to mathematics and at any level from trivia to serious research. Please send material for publication to the Editor, above. We prefer an informal style and we usually edit articles for clarity and mathematical presentation." If you have to reach to a source like that to get content into WP, the content probably is not worth including.  Articles are meant to contain "accepted knowledge" that has some encyclopedic value. Jytdog (talk) 19:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at a sample issue?  They are full of mathematical equations carefully worked through.   The editorial board peer - reviews the content so no mistake is going to slip through.   If it did then there are hundreds of degree qualified mathematicians reading who will notice and report back.   This system seems to give far more reliability than the normal one where papers are sent to one peer reviewer who says yea or nay. 78.146.213.18 (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have to agree that this isn't reliable, mostly because it is self published in-house by students. Also, WP:NOTMANUAL is helpful here. We aren't obligated to show how to do things here. It might be a a fun source for examples, but that's not what we can really use here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not following the argument.  The essence of self - publishing is no editorial control.   The journal uses the University's publishing facility with it's permission.   It has been running for 42 years and has been under the control of an editorial board for all that time.   It publishes everything from trivia to advanced theories.   Material is sourced in the usual way.   Many journals have a letters, news or comments section and that does not disqualify them as reliable sources.   If the presence of recreational mathematics is a disqualifier, then Jan Meeus' More mathematical morsels would not be a reliable source, but we quote it all the time.    The criterion is "Are the facts checked?" and they are, rigorously.   Of the editorial board, Eddie Kent has served for forty years, Jeremy Humphries for 38 years and the Editor, Tony Forbes, for eighteen.   You can view his publishing credentials at, , and statistics.
 * Here is a sample of the recreational content:

Issue 196.5 - Three more friends

I have three friends, Alan, Bert and Curt. I write an integer greater than zero on the forehead of each of them and I tell them that one of the numbers is the sum of the other two. They take it in turns in alphabetical order to attempt to deduce their own number. The conversation goes as follows:
 * Alan: "I cannot deduce my number."
 * Bert: "I cannot deduce my number."
 * Curt: "I cannot deduce my number."
 * Alan: "My number is 50."

What are Bert and Curt's numbers?

If we can't cover such material then most problem - solving articles such as Birthday paradox will have to go. 78.146.213.18 (talk) 12:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The sole objection here is that the content is "self - published by students". However, with an editorial board consisting of three distinguished authors with a combined 96 years in post this clearly is not the case.

Unless anyone has further comments I think we can close this on the basis that the journal is a highly reliable source. 78.146.213.18 (talk) 11:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The issue here isn't whether the material can be covered... but which sources should be used to support the material. Problems such as Birthday paradox are discussed in lots of reliable sources.  If a specific source is deemed unreliable (or at least questionable), it shouldn't be too difficult to find another source that is deemed solidly reliable. 12:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

A student published journal is not an RS. Find another source for what you want to include in the article. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think the problem here is not so much the reliability of the source as the reliability of the material.  A student (presumbly) devised a formula for calculating the number of days in the month.   A computer obviously cannot recite "Thirty days hath September ..." but it can crunch the algorithm.   I would have thought that provided the average Wikipedia reader can work through the calculation and verify that it comes up with the right answer our sourcing requirements are met. 78.146.213.18 (talk) 13:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The Register as a reliable source for quotations
User:Ibt2010 has cut a couple of Register references on the Faceparty article on the grounds that the Reg is a "tech tabloid" and WP:42 says "not tabloids". Archive threads on the Register as a source seems to come down to whether it's printing opinion or fact, and whether it's covering a subject within the tech industry. Since the sources here (1, 2) are both quoting what the Faceparty website said in public statements to its users, and the Wikipedia article isn't doing anything beyond quoting those quotes, this seems okay to me, but I'd appreciate an informed second opinion. --McGeddon (talk) 08:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Utter crap. Restore el Reg. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If you can confirm the quote using any source (a primary source, even a blog that quoted it first) I would say keep it, but if the quote is only found in The Register, they may very well have fabricated it as they have fabricated so many other things. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Faceparty's statement about banning over-36-year-olds can be confirmed by archive.org.
 * I haven't been able to confirm their threat to shut down the site - it's a two-paragraph quote in the Register backed up by a linked screenshot ("We've also saved a copy here for when the admins get back from the zoo") rather than an offhand "person said X". I don't know how trusted the Register should be for that. --McGeddon (talk) 10:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Guy's take on this, but I would also add that 42 is a brief summary of common approaches to notability intended as a teaching tool for new editors who might find Notability somewhat overwhelming. Wikipedia:42 therefore has absolutely no standing in discussions as to what sources are reliable or what content belongs in articles whose notability is not in question (as in this case). Identifying reliable sources is of course the appropriate guideline. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Why not just cite to the archive? Or cite both? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

It's off-topic for RSN, but a quick look at the article made me curious about the obviously staged publicity image: File:Peterandreandjordanfplg.jpg. The file info says the shot is from July 2004 and is the "Own work" of User:Ibt2010. I don't see any official release, so is the claim that a general member of the public just happened to snap that at an optimum position and time? Johnuniq (talk) 10:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The uploader may have an undisclosed COI here. They have stated on their talk page that they are a ex-member of the site who has "interviewed its staff, been to their offices (to do so) and went to two of their events". Looking closer, an IP editor whose edits broadly correspond with those of Ibt2010 said on their talk page last month that they worked for IBT, a company who "provides management services to Faceparty" and which was formed in 2010, suggesting that User:Ibt2010 may have some connection to IBT, and that the image actually originates from this management company. --McGeddon (talk) 11:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

John Earl Haynes on the Venona Cables
This issue arises out of this post at BLPN. Sorry for the long post, this is a complex issue involving multiple articles.

We have a list article here which lists individuals mentioned in the Venona Cables - basically people who are suspected or have been alleged (with some evidence) to have spied for the Soviets during and after WWII. The list article and many of the articles which are linked from it seem to have been based on the work of historian John Early Haynes: Specifically, this book (co-authored with Harvey Klehr) and this website.

For some of the people on the list, this is not that big a problem; many of them were Soviet spies and there is lots of additional documentation to back that up. For others, however, it is not so simple. See Margietta Voge and Rebecca Getzoff, for example. The problem here is that the person's presence on the list article is only referenced to Haynes' personal, unpublished website, and that in many of the articles linked (like Voge and Getzoff's), the only citation is to Haynes and Klehr's book - which I do not believe is a reliable source for the assertions being made in these articles. Take the article on Voge as an example:

The only source for the assertion that Margietta Voge "worked for the KGB San Francisco office" is Haynes and Klehr's book, which does suggest that she did. The relevant passage is: "Voge, Marietta: née Jirku (see Stidsberg, Augustina). An asset of the San Fancisco KGB. Cover name Daughter." Some might look at that, see that the book is published by Yale Uni Press, and say "case closed, she's a spy!" But we're in a pickle here, and it is nowhere near that simple. Here's why:
 * The quoted text appears only in the appendix of the book, not in the body of text. Specifically, it appears in Appendix A, which the authors describe as a "list of 349 names [which] includes US citizens, noncitizen immigrants, and permanent residents of the United States who had a covert relationship with Soviet intelligence that is confirmed in the Venona traffic."  Note that it says "covert relationship," and no more.
 * The book has been very poorly reviewed. Here are some excerpts from academic reviews of the book in the two most reliable American history journals, the JAH and AHR:

Given that, is being listed in the appendix to Haynes and Klehr's book a good enough source to say that someone worked with the Soviets/was a Soviet spy? Is Haynes' site a good enough source to justify listing someone on the list article when no other source can corroborate it? Personally I would argue the answer is no in both cases; that we should nuke any reference to alleged espionage that is based only on Haynes and Klehr's appendix (if they are discussed in the body of the book, or in other sources it's a different story obviously), and AFD articles where that is the person's only potential claim to notability, like Rebecca Getzoff. But this is a complex issue so I am asking for consensus here before making any changes. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've been looking further, it appears some of the articles that are listed in the list article are also copyvio - most or all of the content on some of them is copy-pasted from Haynes and Klehr's book. There is going to be a ton of cleanup to do here even if we end up keeping such articles. I've (just) started a list of articles with problems in my sandbox if anyone wants to take a gander. Fyddlestix (talk) 06:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with your proposal that any claims/articles sourced solely to the appendix of Haynes and Klehr's work be removed. Thanks for the time you're putting into this. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"><font color="#006633">General Ization  <font color="#000666">Talk   11:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that the NSA site contains the translated lists of agents, and are regarded as a reliable source in academic circles (cired many dozens of times, in fact). We could say "according to the Venona project" but the fact is that the NSA sources are reliable per WP:RS, and books published by the Yale University Press are generally accorded RS status as well. Saying "I don't like a source which is absolutely reliable" is a poor basis d=for removing it from any Wikipedia article. Further, that the current use of the Venona documents is now widely accepted - the use of "book reviews" from 2001 and earlier is not supportable here, a lot has been written since. ,  and related documents meet WP:RS. ,   as nauseam. and so on. Note from the NSA site "The translations of messages of Soviet intelligence in Stockholm are particularly rich for their variety and volume: more than 450 messages of the three Soviet services, KGB, GRU, and Naval GRU. Sweden, neutral during World War II, gave the Soviets a valuable listening post concerning German military activities in Norway, Denmark, Finland, and the Baltic. Note the great attention to transborder operations: debriefing refugees from Norway and sending Norwegians back to Norway." " Discussion of important KGB agent and Swedish Communist, covername KLARA, who is completely devoted to us."  Sorry - the evidence is clear and in reliable sources. Collect (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you check your links? Some of them won't load for me. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC) You also seem to have misunderstood what I'm asking here - I'm not arguing that Haynes or the cables aren't reliable sources for some information - I'm asking if simply being mentioned once or twice in the cables is enough to have an article on an otherwise non-notable person, or to implicate them in espionage when other historians (writing in the authoritative journals for the field) have called Haynes out for doing that, and suggested that his use of the source is flawed. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hate to have to duplicate stuff but here it is:
 * Not just from YUP in 2000, but from the NSA "Discussion of important KGB agent and Swedish Communist, covername KLARA, who is completely devoted to us." | Vassiliev notebooks  "DAUGHTER [DOCH'] (cover name in Venona): Marietta Voge. Venona San Francisco KGB, 24, 29, 39, 46, 57, 84; Venona Special Studies, 99.", "DOCH and DOCH' [DAUGHTER] (cover name in Venona): Marietta Voge. Venona San Francisco KGB, 23–24, 29, 38–39, 46, 57, 83–84; Venona Special Studies, 99.",  "Voge, Mariette: Soviet intelligence source/agent. Wife of Noel Voge, née Jirku, daugher of Augustina Striksberg/KLARA. Cover name in Venona: DAUGHTER [DOCH'] and KLARA’s daughter. As Voge: As DAUGHTER [DOCH']; Venona San Francisco KGB, 23–24, 29, 38–39, 46, 57, 83–84; Venona Special Studies, 99. As KLARA’s daughter, 45–46.", " CLARA [KLARA] (cover name in Venona): Augustina Stridsberg or a reference to the town of Santa Clara. Venona San Francisco KGB, 83–84." "KLARA [CLARA] (cover name in Venona): Augustina Stridsberg. Venona New York KGB 1944, 141; Venona San Francisco KGB, 23–24, 38–39, 45–46, 57, 83–84 (unclear if a reference to KLARA or to the town of Santa Clara); Venona Special Studies, 36, 103." These notebooks were only available well after 2001, by the way, and make massive PDF files if you really want to make sure the indices are accurate.  The Wilson Center is part of the Smithsonian.   I suggest this is not "once or twice" mentions in point of fact. Collect (talk) 16:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Reviews are slightly malused above: Theoharis is known primarily for doubting that Vassiliev even had notebooks or that he had access at all to any data from the KGB, and that the US code-breaking was due to use of repeated use of pads intended for single use, and not by any cryptologic efforts by the US.. Her also suggested Haynes avoided mentioning an exculpatory item about Alger Hiss, although Theoharis did not seem to find that item in any sources himself.. Better to look at current works McCarthyism and the Second Red Scare Landon R. Y. Storrs; OUP, Jul 2015. "The tenor of debate shifted again when the end of the Cold War made available new evidence from Soviet archives and U.S. intelligence sources such as the VENONA decrypts. That evidence indicated that scholars had underestimated the success of Soviet espionage in the United States as well as the extent of Soviet control over the American Communist Party. Alger Hiss, contrary to what most liberals had believed, and contrary to what he maintained until his death in 1996, was almost certainly guilty of espionage. A few hundred other Americans were secret Communist Party members and shared information with Soviet agents, chiefly during World War II.34 Some historians interpreted the new evidence to put anticommunism in a more sympathetic light and to criticize scholarship on the positive achievements of American Communists."

Professor Scott Lucas states that Harry Dexter White and Lauchlin Currie were named on inconclusive evidence in the book. Cambridge University Press in 2004 saw no problem with the allegations about Currie and White. I find no basis for using him to assess facts brought out after he wrote in the first place (the Vassiliev corroborating material). Collect (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC).

Using Law Firm Website Articles as Source
Hi, I am new here and working on a draft in my Sandbox on an article about Panama Real Estate which will be the first one for Wikipedia. My question is about using Panama law firms websites where they explain Panama real estate laws to the public. I looked at the archives here and outside of a lawyer's blog where an unknown author posted a blog couldn't be used as a reliable source; I couldn't find past discussions on point.

Here are the text and citations I intend to use:

Many islands, beachfront properties, and special tourism zones real estate such as in Portobelo and Bocas del Toro are owned by the government, which grants rights to possess for specific years. [96]  Pardini Law Firm, “Purchasing Property in Panama”, http://www.pardinilaw.com/news.php?newsid=49&p=1&catid=23

Panama’s Ministry of Economy & Finance accepts applications for concessions and will perform an Environmental impact assessment of the property if it is more than one hectare, and will do a Feasibility study for any commercial activities intended for the property. [98]   Beth Anne Gray, Panama Attorney, “Application for Concession from the Government”, http://www.lawyers-abogados.net/en/Services/Panama-real-estate-transactions.htm

Real Estate Trusts In 2010, Panama created a new law allowing for Real Estate Trusts, which are based on the U.S. Real estate investment trust (REIT) and made changes to the tax laws in 2014 allowing investors to avoid paying a [[Capital Gains Tax] while the Trust avoids paying income taxes. Small investors can join other investors in forming a Real Estate Trust to purchase real estate to develop and lease. [99] Marielena García Maritano, Morgan & Morgan Panama Law Firm, “Real Estate Trusts in Panama: A New Frontier”, April 23, 2015 https://www.morimor.com/real-estate-trusts-in-panama-the-new-frontier/

Panama banks can issue a "Promise to Pay Letter" to sellers assuring that full payment will be made after the seller files the title deed with the Public Registry. [111] ^Rigoberto Coronado, Mossack Fonseca Panama Law Firm, “Guideline on Purchasing Property in Panama”, November 26, 2013 http://www.mossfon.com/news/mossack-fonseca-provides-guidelines-purchasing-property-panama/

There is a Panama law reducing mortgage interest rates for first time homebuyers by 2% off the market rate and in 2012, a new law increased the maximum value of a qualifying home to $120,000. This law applies to foreigners who are legal residents and first time homebuyers in Panama. [112]  Panama Offshore Legal Services, “Panama Preferential Interest Rate for Foreigners”, 2012, http://www.panama-offshore-services.com/panama%e2%80%99s_preferential_interest_rate_law.htm

Lease/Purchase Option Panama laws recognize the right for renters to enter into a Lease with Option to Purchase Contract with their property owners. This is called a Lease With Purchase Option which has benefits including allowing the renter to know the property before purchasing, having partial rental payments used as purchase deposits, and the contract can be registered with the Public Registry which will prevent the owner from selling to other people. [119] Eduardo Achurra M., Pardini & Asociados, “Lease Purchase Contracts”, Pardini Law Firm, http://www.pardinilaw.com/news.php?newsid=202&p=1&catid=23

NOTE: As you can see I am using 6 different Panama law firms who are the leading real estate law firms in Panama. I was not able to find any other reliable sources for these topics.

Please let me know if these can be acceptable reliable sources.

Steven Rich in Panama (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * No - as a general rule "law firms" are considered commercial enterprises, and just about unusable as "reliable sources". They may, however, give you places to use which do meet the Wikipedia policies.  Doesn't the government of Panama itself have a web site covering the usual real estate laws? Collect (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

crimeflare.com
http://www.crimeflare.com/carders.html is or has been used on CloudFlare and Rescator used to cite "The site uses CloudFlare." and "The service protected various carding sites such ashas been used by Rescator." The source does not seem to be reliable for anything on Wikipedia.Jadeslair (talk) 02:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong endorsement from Brian Krebs here. But the only one. I don't mind if it's not used Deku-shrub (talk) 10:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

What is "major media" and is this a good basis for exclusion from Wikipedia?
Is there any kind of definition of what constitutes "major media", and if that can be established that there is, then is lack of coverage of an event in "major media" sufficient to exclude mentioning it in Wikipedia under WP:UNDUE?

In other words, can some event be covered by a few smaller or alternative news outlets and still warrant a mention or inclusion in a Wikipedia article? Let's say an event is covered by Democracy Now, the daily news program.

Or, in other terms, is the fact that this is *not* covered in the New York Times or Washington Post or LA Times sufficient grounds, in itself, to say that this event is *not* of enough weight to include in a Wikipedia article?

Is there a list of news sources that *are* "major media"? Or does this distinction make sense but it's a "I know it when i see it" type of thing? Or does this distinction not make sense?

I understand there may be other concerns like WP:RECENTISM for recent events, as well as other considerations in terms of notability of an event, but is the news source not being seen as "major media" enough, in itself, to exclude a reported event from Wikipedia?

I am trying to understand precedent and weight as determined by news sources. If something is in the New York Times, i bet that few people would dispute that it's significant. However, if there a clear definition of what is "major media" and is that a useful yardstick by which to judge weight of an event that is reported?

Thanks for any advice. I would like to keep this abstract, and not point to any specific actual example. I am seeking to understand Wikipedia practice and policy further. SageRad (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I fear you misapprehend the reasoning. Media which is primarily based on opinions, is generally usable for Wikipedia provided the material is cited and attributed as opinion.  Opinions attributed to anonymous people are generally strongly discouraged.  "Contentious claims about living persons" are also constrained by WP:BLP.  WEIGHT is important when dealing with opinions, as we have absolute policies WP:NPOV and WP:OR also to deal with.   Sources which primarily deal with articles which would be problematic for claims of fact generally can not be used for claims of fact.  So the tendency is to rule that if no other sources support the claim of fact that Wikipedia will not let you use such a source for that claim of fact.  Major events tend to be well-covered by the AP, Reuters, etc. so there is usually no problem. Collect (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The question is about UNDUE. WP:NNPOV is thataway. Jytdog (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There i find this quite relevant section, Jytdog. SageRad (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed here at RSN before in May, again in June, SageRad is talking about this above; it has also been discussed to death at the Glyphosate Talk page and Talk:Monsanto legal cases page. The POV-pushing to get something about this into WP is relentless, no matter how bottom-of-the-barrel scraping the source, regardless of the fact that generally there is no encyclopedic content about a lawsuit until it is finished and the fact that WP is not a newspaper, nor is WP a site for advocacy, nor is it a site for attorneys to gin up interest in class action lawsuits they are trying to get off the ground (which the attorney has been trying to do, as noted at COIN).  This is getting to point of disruption.  Jytdog (talk) 17:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Concur. Multiple editors have given their opinions in discussion. This is a lawsuit against Monsanto we're talking about, strongly pushed by the lawyer (to the extent of editing here!) but not covered by any MSM. A few blogs masquerading as online newspapers have been offered as sources, but reprinting the lawyer's media release doesn't really cut it on the reliable source front. If this ever becomes notable enough for major media outlets to consider it as newsworthy, it might be worth noting in our encyclopaedia. Otherwise, it's just some activists flying a kite, hoping to get their pet gripe covered here.


 * This is not to say that we must use MSM as a source for everything. Of course not. But in this particular article, every other case has been notable, covered by multiple credible outlets. I can't see anything special about this case, apart from one or possibly two editors wanting us to include it something chronic. To the extent of disruption. I also note that SageRad did not follow the clearly indicated procedure for filing enquiries here, including linking to his "reliable source". It is here. I invite editors to make up their own minds. --Pete (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Stop the presses, and others. I am NOT talking about a specific case, so please don't assert that. I also am very much aware of the other discussion on this RSN and i am taking part in that discussion, but that is not the question i am asking. My question is different and not about exactly what is or is not a "reliable source" but whether there is such a distinction as "major media", if so where is the list that shows what's on it and off it, and is that enough to include or exclude an event or claim from Wikipedia? The talk on the Monsanto Legal Issues page is what inspired me to ask the general question, but that is NOT the question and i actually resent you asserting that and bringing it into the discussion here. I would like to be able to talk about principles. So, please strike it and talk about principles if you want. This discussion has just become fairly worthless to me because of the redirection to that specific case. Can i even ask a generalized question and discuss it here, please? SageRad (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC) The same crappy reasoning has just been used here, once again, and that's what i want to elucidate in general terms. There is this assertion that a sources are "blogs masquerading as online newspapers" and continuous reference to "MSM" -- again ,where is that list of what is MSM and what is not? Seriously, i am asking. SageRad (talk) 18:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As the page header makes perfectly clear, this noticeboard is for discussions relating to specific content, citing specific sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah i guess you're right, Andy. Do you think the NPOV dicussion board is what i want to ask a general question? SageRad (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * baloney, SageRad. per your contribs, you wrote this at the Monsanto legal cases article, and your next post in WP was opening this thread, asking the exact same thing with some of the exact same words. And even in your response above, you are clearly trying to gather arguments to PUSH content about the litigation into WP.  Jytdog (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it is NOT baloney. I mean what i say and i was asking in general terms. That is circumstantial evidence. The case of our conflict brought up this generalized question in my mind. I wanted to ask a general question based on the specific case. I guess this is the wrong noticeboard. Case closed. Your assertions to my motivation are wrong and unwelcome. And the word "baloney" -- you remember people accusing me of "personal attacks" for things less than this? Anyway, this discussion is over for me. I'll delete or can it. I think what i want is the NPOV board to talk about questions of weight. Please do NOT assume that you know what a discussion is about, Jytdog, and interrupt and interject your assumption. SageRad (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * At this point, I have reviewed some of the previous discussions initiated here by yourself, following the links supplied above. Discussion goes on and on and on, but there's never any reliable sources offered. Just blogs and similar rubbish and a lot of argument from yourself, SageRad. I think we have reached the point of calling you a vexatious litigant, and if this continues, you will attract sanctions. --Pete (talk) 18:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * For asking questions to try to understand general principles of editing on Wikipedia and what is policy and what is not? For asking a question like "Is there a mainstream media that's defined, or not?" This is absurd. SageRad (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * For wasting our time. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 18:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Whoa, that's kind of insulting. Calling another person's question about general editing practice a waste of time. Thanks. Really friendly folks around here. If it's not your bag, then don't answer it. SageRad (talk) 18:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Spokeo
In regards to an editing dispute on Fred A. Leuchter, is the website Spokeo considered to be a reliable source? See the discusstion at Talk:Fred A. Leuchter for details. BMK (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll expand the question, is this a reliable website? It looks like a blog to me. BMK (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The dispute is over Leuchter's date of birth. Almost all sources give the place as Meriden, Massachusetts, but various reliable sources give 1942 while others give 1943. (The doubt isw such that one source gave "in the early 1940s).  I have fouind no reliable source that gives Leuchter's actual date of birth, although it could well be out there somewhere.  I do not believe that the two sources above -- Spokeo (which gives Wikipedia as its source -- see the bottom of the page) and Aphosis, an apparent blog, are reliable sources by our definition.  I've removed what I believed to be errant information but an editor restored it over my objections. BMK (talk) 00:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In the meantime, the other editor has found reliable sources to support the DOB, but I'd still like to know of these twowebsite are RSs. BMK (talk) 01:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

qq.com article
is anybody familiar with the Chinese-language website qq.com? The article "蓝水海军的中坚：054A护卫舰" is being for the Type 054A frigate infobox. As far as I can tell, the author's name is not given and it gives no indications as to where it got its information. I am also not familiar with the editorial quality of the site (it's not like it's the People's Daily or something republished by the PRC MoD, both of which may put greater effort into verifying claims when it comes to military matters.)

If the source is acceptable, how much weight should be given to it? Should its information be used in the infobox, or should it be confined to the prose as another (unverified?) viewpoint? - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 02:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Kids Company - Reliable source
(This discussion was started on 14 Aug 2015 at |Editor assistance/Requests Kids Company and moved here as the more appropriate noticeboard)

Hello. I hope I'm in the right place. On the Talk page. A research study by the the London School of Economics into Kids Company is being decried by an editor DeCausa as not from or not a RS. This is not about the figures referenced by the Talk link but about a particular edit stating:


 * "In 2013, a research study by the London School of Economics identified 'imited and unstable funding' as a major source of stress and anxiety for staff and 'a massive challenge for the sustainability' of the charity. It also found that an increase in bureaucracy and excessive management could jeopardise the charity's effectiveness and presented a challenge to its ability to sustain focus on the needs of its clients".

...that has now twice been reverted by the editor who has been a substantial editor of the article over the last 10 days. In a substantive exchange on the Talk page where indicated above, on 12&13th August, the Editor claims an article by The Telegraph and an article on the Times Higher Education website crticising the research study (because London School of Economics was paid to conduct the research) makes the report a unreliable/questionable source. My question is two or three-fold;

(1) When an organisation is considered a reliable source, say Reuters, can articles published by them still be considered untrustworthy/questionable? Equally, if a RS like Reuters published a single unreliable article, would Reuters then automatically be deemd an unreliable source (I hope not) or would the balance of reliable articles they produce keep them in good stead as a RS?

(2) Do articles criticising research necessarily make that research automatically unreliable/questionable. In this case, LSE has robustly defended its own impartiality and that of the article - in the same Telegraph article source saying, "University departments are regularly commissioned by charities, businesses or the government to undertake pieces of research, "This is a standard practice. "With all funding arrangements, academic impartiality and integrity remain of paramount importance. "The findings and analysis of this report were based on the evidence and data collected by the researchers at the time".

Although the Times HE and the Telegraph suggest the LSE report is questionable they produce no evidence to back such claims whilst LSE is unequivocal in its own defence.

In the unlikely case that the LSE research is now considered questionable/unreliable, I would like, at least, to include the response from LSE included in the Telegraph. I hope this all makes sense and look forward to your response. The preceding entry was orginally posted by Selector99 01:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the notice board you're probably needing is WP:RSN. On the substantive point, firstly, it's worth noting that the RS criticized the report because it omitted key issues which were central to the ultimate downfall of Kids Company. It's the quality of the research and not just the payment that has raised the question of whether it is itself RS itself. Secondly, my answer to your specific questions would be as follows. (1) Yes to the first sub-question. A source can and often is WP:RS for some things but not others. Each use of it must be considered on its merits. For example, a noted military historian who writes about World War I is clearly an RS for a discusion of military tactics during the war. However, if in passing, he were to make some comments about Wilfred Owen's poetry not being very good, that probably wouldn't be RS. A judgment has to be made as to what the scope of expertise the RS has. Another example, is if a noted historian writes a series of highly acclaimed books but then writes one that is severely criticized as being poor quality research. His earlier books may be RS, but the latter one may not. An example of this is Hugh Trevor-Roper, an eminent historian of Nazi Germany whose pronouncements on the Hitler Diaries are not RS. As far as the second sub-question is concerned, it depends. I think you are focusing too much on who is the author rather than looking at each work separately. The "S" in "RS" is actually the work and not necessarily - although it is clearly relvant - the author per my Hugh-Trevor Roper example. (2) Not necessarily. It's a matter of consensus whether they do or don't. The preceding reply was posted by DeCausa 07:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, DeCausa, sincerely for that prompt, considered and detailed response. You will understand my seeking further response from an unconnected, third-party, editor. The preceding reply was posted by Selector99 10:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, in advance, for your input and comments. Selector99 (talk) 13:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I enter this discussion from outside, and am not particularly conversant with the issues themselves, especially being American and rather far from awareness of the objects of discussion. In particular, I have visibility only to the printed material avail here on WP and in the references given therein, none to how the English media in general (or on video) are presenting the affair. It seems to me that some of the questions that have arisen about WP:RS may hinge on who is saying what and how, and how that is presented in the media, so I have chosen to remain distant from that kind of froth.

First, my impression is that the London School of Economics looks like a very solid RS from the outside. Barring some history of malfeasance I am not aware of, I see no reason that it should be challenged as unreliable in general. In this specific case, it also looks to me that its study, like most studies, did not have the scope "everything about Kids Company", but rather a more limited look at things. Naturally, the media story about the financial collapse has a wider scope, and with typical media imprecision, some commentators began to ask why LSE didn't scope everything out, glossing over the fact that it wasn't their job. (These are the ITV commentators referenced in the World Academic Summit article.) Notably, that WAS article and its companion here, the Telegraph article, do not themselves level accusations of unreliability against the LSE study. Only WAS mentions the ITV commentators, and those are the glossers. As subtext, I perceive some typical media frenzy, probably involving many unmentioned players, the net effect of which is to whip up emotional reactions to a sizable incident, the demise of Kids Co. Now, both WAS and the Telegraph feature prominently the fact that Kids Co funded the LSE study, but no more. LSE is not criticized for that, nor is the study itself. If someone in the media is trying to imply malfeasance by LSE or to undermine the study, they do not say so explicitly in the referenced articles given here. Therefore I cannot agree with user that the study is questionable, and coming from an RS, it also should then be considered reliable here. I also disagree with DeCausa's analysis of the study itself, particularly in regard to the statement that Kids Company supported 36,000 children and adults. I wonder if the editors have considered that this is (according to the Telegraph), the number claimed by Kids Company at its closure, whereas the LSE report was done in 2013. But wasn't Kids Company supposed to have grown in the two intervening years? Something's fishy with those numbers, and I don't have the interest to sort it out, but I think we would almost surely have unreliable editing going on until the base facts are cleared up.

With regard to RS in general, I would hold up any media outlet and "news report", done for a continuous, hourly, or daily release, to intense scrutiny with regards to its reporting. Such reporting is by its nature designed to bring what facts can be obtained immediately to its audience, but it is not by its nature equipped to do more than a cursory job of vetting, and is never privy to the luxury of taking a longer or wider view of anything, nor of providing any kind of perspective to the events they describe. By their nature, they are highly questionable as to reliability. Only the highest standards of journalism are acceptable as reliable, and then only as to immediate details and perceptions of the moment. There is no question that there can be no scholarly rigor or balance in any of it; that's not its function. Nor can such sources be considered competent to make any judgements as to the reliability of a report such as the LSE's. For this, the ITV commentators are completely unsuitable. They may reliably report that some actual expert has judged the report to be reliable (or not), but they may not take that job unto themselves. So far, there has been no expert criticism of the LSE report presented here on WP (that I have noticed). The LSE report did list primary findings, and classified them as primary, and regardless how it arrived at the findings (a matter on which we and DeCausa have no business speculating), they stand as primary and as reliable so long as the report itself is not successfully challenged by experts (not media).

Please be aware that I'm not stating that the LSE report had its facts correct. I am saying that the report is reliable and should be used on WP as such. If the report is wrong, there needs to be expert conclusion of wrongness (for whatever reason, conflict of interest, or otherwise), not media innuendo. Then that expert conclusion can also be used as RS.

We are an encyclopedia. We take the long view. We do not report the news, even though we can stay up to date. Some things are given to immediate update (Voyager 1 is now x miles from Earth), and others are not. We can sift this, and wait for confirmation. A WP article should not attempt to keep pace with media's breaking stories. We need to provide perspective on what we talk about, and we therefore need to wait for reliable experts to provide us with the sources that enable us to provide perspective. I would suggest that the unfolding news story might be linked into the article in raw form by providing a kind of addendum section with minimal WP text and references to media reports, simply indicating that there is a story going on presently, and letting the media talk for themselves rather than for WP. (But dump the ITV commentators, who are guilty of overreach.) Evensteven (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Evensteven, for your considered response. It's apparent that you have spent some time familiarising yourself with the Kids Company article and I am grateful for that. That said, the important issue is Wiki guidelines and I think you do well to make reference to these throughout. Also, I absolutely agree that the media are great at finger pointing whilst saying very little or even nothing at all. Selector99 (talk) 08:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem here, which is slightly unusual, is the source has become part of the news story, and not in a good way. If we use this source we'll have some text in the article that is cited to it and some text that, in terms (and supported by RS), says what a poor source it is. The scope of the study was supposedly to give an account of the efficacy of Kids Company's work and Kids Company quoted it multiple times as evidence of its efficacy. But, as the BBC has said, "the charity failed to build a serious evidence base behind its work. That made it hard even for lots of very sympathetic funders to back it. We do not know how many young people used the service, let alone how many got qualifications, jobs or were spared prison because of its work. Even the most-cited academic assessments of the charity's work are not useful to this end." The highlighted text is a link to the LSE report. It isn't just that the report has been deprecated by The independent, The Times Higher and the BBC. The report, on its face, has made a number of statements which subsequent RS have contradicted. For example, it says that an increase in the level of management would be a risk to the charity - yet poor management governance (i.e. too light) has been covered by multiple RS as a major problem. I think the maximum we can do with this source is use it to say the LSE report said XYZ, but, so as not to be WP:UNDUE, include the criticism of it with that text. DeCausa (talk) 12:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, on the face of it, that's seems reasonable. But under the skin, it has greater problems. First, the fact that the source has become part of the story is not a particularly unusual thing. It's a fairly normal technique applied in the media when the opportunity arises for them to sell stories based on it. Second, I don't argue with your assertions regarding the actual scope of the study, nor of how the management of Kids Company is a prominent feature of the story, with questions arising before the story became so big and originating outside the media. Nor do I argue with many of your other assertions regarding the far-reaching impacts of the whole mess. They're almost self-evident. But third (to continue my list), the base problem is what we are calling RS. You are citing several news media outlets as RS, and I am objecting to that. What? I don't consider the BBC to be an RS? My answer is yes and no. I'm willing to admit that the BBC is about as good as it gets in Britain (I have had access to some of it across the years, even so far away as I am). But I see many problems confronting journalism these days, and I think many of them erode the confidence we may have placed in even the best institutions in the past. Today, we ought to be more skeptical, and we have grounds to be. Even the BBC has been guilty of presenting stories as though they (the media) are experts in the fields they are reporting on, not just experts in the field of reporting. Those are not at all the same thing, and we must not treat them as the same thing. Now, I don't have anything like exposure to the mass of coverage of this story that I presume is going on in Britain. In fact, what I have is **only** the snippets I have looked at here, as provided by the given sources. That means that I am not an expert on the story, but I think that's a good thing in this case. It allows me to see what is presented on WP, and only that, so I can get a good notion of how well-backed-up the article is wrt the story. And what I see is that these sources are not experts wrt the LSE report, nor do they do any reporting about that report that is based on expert opinion. I think we have to take the media sources as reliable reporters, giving the benefit of any doubt about their journalistic practices. (I'd let editors who know more about them judge that aspect of things.) But just because they have credentials in reporting does not make them expert enough that we need to take what they say about the story as more than simple commentary not coming from experts. Criticisms of the LSE study, or of the charity's management, or assertions of malfeasance or conflict of interest on the part of LSE in connection with funding of the study, or any of the other basic facets of the story, all those essential underlying facts need to be founded on something more expert than the media themselves. Until the media dig up those sources for us and report on them, the media have given us nothing worthy to be called RS on WP. Perhaps we can dig up the requisite sources ourselves, but the media criticisms cannot stand as expert until they have experts telling the same criticisms. In other words, we must hold the media to account for the sources of their information the same way we hold WP editors to account for their sources, because we are both in the business of reporting. And we cannot accept the media themselves as a source any more than we accept editorial opinion on WP. That's my criticism of what I see here at present in a nutshell. I don't doubt there's a great deal more to the story, and maybe even dirt lying in some corners, but I don't believe any of it as fact until I see something better to back it up. Until then, I see innuendo. And I am afraid the media is much given to that these days. We need to be cautious of it. Evensteven (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It could be said that BBC News cannot be considered an RS for this article as the corporation's high-flying and long-standing executive, Alan Yentob was also chair of trustees at Kids Company. It could be argued that BBC News is over compensating in response to allegations of a conflict of interest. But I'd never say that.


 * It could also be argued that the Spectator is no longer a RS for this article as having shown its hand earlier in the year, it had little choice but to subsequently back its own play so its attempts to slur the LSE can't be trusted. But I wouldn't say that either.


 * Instead, I agree with Evensteven and with what I've previously said that outside of suggestion and innuendo, there is no evidence presented by any news item proving the LSE research study is not RS. That's my bottom line. As such I don't think citations from the research require qualification, particularly the quote I'd like to include. There is no conflict between the citation's comment on the pitfalls of "excessive management" and later calls for "improved management". The two are quite different things and, frankly, I think it's disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Selector99 (talk) 11:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * comment - the London School of Economics is a major, globally recognised academic institution.  if they publish a study of something, that is news.  if it generates discussion/dispute, if the study is contested, that may very well also be news; especially if the disputants have some decent credibility in terms of their credentials and/or arguements.


 * one can debate whether the lse study is correct in their analysis of this organisation, BUT the fact a that the study was conducted & published, BY the lse, AND that this study received significant press coverage and discussion, merits inclusion in the article in any case.  NOT to include it would be biased.


 * same goes for the bbc :p


 * Lx 121 (talk) 14:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

i would also note... that at the present time, the article mentions the existence of the LSE report, but then provides NO information about what it contains.

which is bloody ridiculous; it's like reading a global-ban decision coming from the wmf:office :p

our job is to INFORM USERS about the subject (of an article); if our internal arguements & procedures prevent that, then we have FAILED.

Lx 121 (talk) 14:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that voice of reason, Lx 121. I tend to agree that a few news organisations pointing fingers at the LSE, without saying much, before quickly moving on does not somehow make the LSE or its research, 'the accused'. Perhaps it'd be better if LSE was actually the accused. Then we'd, at least, take them at their word instead of attempting to dismiss them as unreliable based on jack all. Selector99 (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that it would be helpful to have some material on what the LSE study actually says in the article. And I agree that any contesting of the study would be news and reportable. However, there has been no contesting of the LSE study by anyone other than the inexpert media, who cannot be RS for the contesting, which has been my point. As soon as someone reliable actually contests it in some way, then they can be sourced here. Evensteven (talk) 05:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)