Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 198

Comicbookmovie.com: User-generated source for exclusive interviews?
I'm coming from the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film discussion. A WP:Permalink for it is here. It's about using comicbookmovie.com as a WP:Reliable source or rather for exclusive interviews. While I've stated that I understand why two of the editors, per WP:QUESTIONABLE, have been removing the source from articles, I also pointed out that there have been cases at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard and WP:BLP noticeboard where an exclusive interview from a source that is otherwise generally considered unreliable is deemed fine because the interview is exclusive from that website. For such an example, see Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive208. The editors with a different view than mine or Drovethrughosts's on this consider comicbookmovie.com to completely unreliable because the source is user-generated. For example, one of them stated, "And actors/actresses are less likely to go after a self-described fan site like CBM than a major publication like the Daily Mail. Also the sources that re-print information from CBM avoid liability by attributing it to them. Besides the argument against CBM is not based on accuracy but on authorship. Wikipedia has strict guidelines against user-generated content. IMDb can be accurate but we're still not allowed to use it a source."

I disagree with completely discarding comicbookmovie.com per the site not having had any issues with its reliability noted in WP:Reliable sources, per it not appearing to have fabricated any of its interviews, and per the aforementioned "exclusive interviews from a poor source" aspect. Erik cited WP:USEBYOTHERS, and pointed to this Google Books link, which shows some WP:Reliable sources citing comicbookmovie.com as though it is reliable. And, like I stated in the aforementioned discussion, in addition to the WP:Reliable book sources that seemingly trust comicbookmovie.com, comicbookmovie.com interviews are cited by online sources that pass the WP:Reliable sources guideline for certain content, such as this and this slashfilm.com source, and this Mstars News source. These facts, and that celebrities, writers and directors seem to trust this source, and that this source does not have any sort of bad reputation, should factor into any decision regarding its use on Wikipedia. I brought this matter here for wider input. I will also alert Village pump (policy) to this discussion. This matter affects a lot of Wikipedia articles, and I think it needs as much input as it can get. Flyer22 (talk) 07:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:USERGENERATED states, "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database (IMDB), CBDB.com, content farms, collaboratively created websites such as wikis, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users." Comicbookmovie.com does not employ "credentialed members", so it's "exclusive" content should not be treated any differently. Per their website: "We are the #1 comic book movie fansite on the web, and completely user-generated by the FANS! Join our 6 million PLUS community and start contributing!"--TriiipleThreat (talk) 07:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * TriiipleThreat is one of the editors I was referring to above. In that aforementioned discussion, I noted that WP:USERGENERATED does not state that such sources are never reliable and/or can never be used on Wikipedia. I also noted that it's a guideline, not a policy. There is not a lot more that I have to state on this matter. I will point out, though, that comicbookmovie.com includes the following disclaimer: "This article was submitted by a volunteer contributor who has agreed to our code of conduct. ComicBookMovie.com is protected from liability under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) and 'safe harbor' provisions. CBM will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please contact us for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. You may also learn more about our copyright and trademark policies HERE." So they clearly take their reliability seriously in some regard. WhatamIdoing, you often give good advice on matters such as these. Any opinions on this case? And, Viriditas, are you sure you want to bow out of this discussion? If so, I understand. Flyer22 (talk) 07:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Eh, taking care in removing plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement is by no means the same as making sure that the remainder of the material is factually correct - it does not mean that they take reliability serious, at all. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * For this case, I disagree on that; I stated "in some regard" because I don't know for certain how far their "code of conduct" goes. But it seems like it includes making sure all of the content is reliable. Again, their interviews, for example, seem legit. And the non-interview content they report on can be easily found in more reliable sources. But, again, I await other opinions regarding the use of this source for exclusive interviews, per what I and others have stated about this case. Flyer22 (talk) 08:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC) Signed again for extra content I added on to this post. Flyer22 (talk) 08:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * If normally unreliable sources have an exclusive interview, I think it's OK to use. Treat as if it's a self-published statement by the interviewee, and don't source it for contentious facts.  If the interviewee states their full name, age, place of birth, and gender, then I don't see any reason why we can't source those details from an interview, no matter where it's hosted.  If the interview looks like a hoax, then obviously don't cite it.  But just because it's not at a reliable source doesn't mean that it's completely unusable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * My initial thought is very similar to NinjaRobotPirate's. It's not technically a self-published source by the interviewee, but you could—if you really needed to use it—handle it like one.  This type of source has, at best, borderline reliability for anything beyond the fact that the source exists and says a particular thing.  I would avoid using it unless it were the only available source of information that would routinely be included in an article, and I would use it with WP:INTEXT attribution.  (Would you cite Wikinews?  This is very similar.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

There's absolutely no issue in using interviews from otherwise unreliable sources. WP:USERGENERATED is not policy and even the essay guideline includes the caveat "are largely not acceptable". Unless there is concern that a source is literally making up the interview there should be no issue in using it. Such sources are used often in articles about subjects that are fairly fringe or not immensely notable as they simply don't get interviews in larger, more reliable publications. Capeo (talk) 17:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Minor point of clarification: WP:USERGENERATED is a guideline, not an essay as stated by Capeo.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, TriiipleThreat, you are quite right. I've corrected above. Capeo (talk) 12:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Population of Poland by U.S. Census Bureau 1954
User:Unbuttered Parsnip deleted this reliable source the Population of Poland by U.S. Census Bureau 1954 from the Demographic history of Poland twice  -  I reverted the first edit here User:Unbuttered Parsnip did not leave an edit summary for these two edits.

I maintain that this publication is a reliable source based on that fact that it received a favorable review by the peer reviewed academic journal The Professional Geographer. I believe that this reliable source should be restored at Demographic history of Poland --Woogie10w (talk) 14:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Strike my remarks, User:Unbuttered Parsnip edits were correct but he should have left an edit summary to explain the deletion.--Woogie10w (talk) 15:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Is this source reliable?
Hello, i would like to know if this source is reliable for the Internet Horror Movie Database page. It has a staff and seems to be a Google News editor. Here the link: http://www.gossipday.it/internet-horror-movie-database-online-il-colosso-horror/ (Pizzole (talk) 11:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC))


 * IMDB is not accepted as a "reliable source" itself. I suspect "GossipDay" is also quite unusable for much of anything ... see WP:RS.   Collect (talk) 13:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

GossipDay states (Binged and then translation fixed a tad)
 * This site is not a newspaper, ... and is not to be considered an editorial product subject to discipline pursuant to art. 1, subparagraph III of l. n. 62 del 7.03.2001.
 *  Logos and names mentioned are the property of their respective owners. The authors are not liable for websites accessed through links contained within the site, provided as a service to network users. The fact that GossipDay provides these links does not imply endorsement of these sites, the quality, content and graphics, and declines responsibility.
 * GossipDay further disclaims all responsibility for any inappropriate comments in articles that are subjected to moderation.

Seems to indicate that GossipDay provides no factchecking at all, and does not assert anything whatsoever about the nature of its content. Collect (talk) 14:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Tel Rumeida sourcing
An editor, User:Settleman, has twice removed sourced information at Tel Rumeida on the grounds, declared but not argued on the talk page, that they fail WP:RS. See The multiple (6) sources are
 * here (17:57, 1 October 2015‎) and
 * here 13:14, 30 September 2015‎
 * Yifa Yaakov, 'State funding archaeological dig in heart of Hebron,' The Times of Israel 9 January 2014.
 * 'Israelis begin construction on new settlement in central Hebron,' Ma'an News Agency 5 January 2014.
 * Haaretz Editorial, 'Hebron Dig: Annexation in the Guise of Archaeology,’ Haaretz 10 January 2014
 * 'Losses continue to pile up for Abu Haikel family on Tel Rumeida,'  Christian Peacemaker Teams  January 17, 2015
 * 'Settlers attempt construction of new access path at Tel Rumeida,' Christian Peacemakers Teams 27 March 2014.
 * 'Land grab in the name of archaeology,' EAPPI 24 March 2014.

As explained on the talk page Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel (EAPPI) and Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPI) are NGOs that monitor events on the grounds in zones where conflict  between Israelis and Palestinians is intense (as does B'tselem, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International all of which are accepted as RS (as are Haaretz, The Times of Israel and Ma'an News Agency). They have a constant presence, mainly accompanying people at risk, but also documenting through interviews the subjects’ histories, personal and legal. They are often our only source for information on these obscure tragedies. I think this behavior reportable because 3 of the removed sources are unquestionably reliable sources as newspapers. No one challenges their use on Wikipedia. The two ecuemical and avowedly peaceful (not 'activist') organizations are often our only sources for much of what happens in detail in these territories, and to rule them out categorically, rather than evaluating them contextually (6 sources indicate a consonance of intelligence) is, to my mind, ideological, and an instrumental use of RS theory to exclude important data.

Could involved editors, other than of course Settleman, refrain from comment to allow external advice on this?Nishidani (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * - Thanks got pinging me.
 * Whoever invest the time to help here, please be aware of the smokescreen here. The text in question is mainly During the period of the British Mandate the area of Tel Rumeida was an Islamic waqf property rented out to a Jewish association and managed by a Jewish farming family. In 1948 the land came under the control of the Jordanian government. The family of Abu Haikel, who had given sanctuary to Jews during the 1929 Hebron massacre,  which was added in this edit. Sources 6,7 (on this diff) are an editorial or don't mention this info at all and source 8 (from it the info is actually copied) is a blog ran by activists. I can't see how it can be reliable for anything, not to mention be reliable for historical facts from ~85 years ago.
 * The touchy, feely implication the Human Right organization don't lie (or make mistakes) is a no-brainer. People have lied for worse reasons (Nishidani and me had similar interaction over similar issue where I proved an HR NGO spread lied). Settleman (talk) 22:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Your incompetence is such that you erased all of the nuanced information in that edit, and rewrote according to the one Ma'an report, ignoring the fact that further down the page, your material had already been conveyed, there in correct English. You rewrote as follows:
 * "According to Abu Haikel, he rented the land from Jordanian government's Custodian of Enemy Property. After 1967, a new lease was signed with Israeli government's Custodian of Absentee Property. In 1981 the Custodian refused to charge the lease fees but later accepted the payment. Such incident reoccured in 2001 and 2002."
 * Had your eye studied the section, this ungrammatical and obliquely vague rewrite would have been understood to be utterly purposeless. For below it we have,
 * "The Israeli Custodian of Absentee Property refused to accept the Abu Haikal's rent payments in 1981, but, after an agreement was renegotiated in 2000, the back rent for 1981-2000 was reportedly paid up by the family, and fees were regularly accepted for the following 2 years, after which the land was declared a closed military zone, rent payments were rejected and the family was refused further access,"
 * The Haaretz editorial was evidently not appropriate, I'll concede that. As for the rest it is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT and disattentiveness. Now let us wait for external third party input.Nishidani (talk) 15:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What 'sources' gave information about 1929 'sanctuary' beyond EAPPI blog? Answer the question and stop your elaborating sidetracking! Settleman (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Are we done here? Settleman (talk) 08:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That is up to the RS experts who so far (it is a tradition now that even they are reluctant to touch the I/P field with anything short of a 10-foot pole) have withheld comment (if they have noticed at all). If no one comments either way, it means the RS-status is undetermined, and therefore I will use those sources with attribution, and you may tag them.Nishidani (talk) 11:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you answer to the point instead for inventing new policies? You can't use a blog for this and there is no consensus for that. Like I showed, your 'six' sources do not support what I removed, only the blog. Alternatively, you can try to represent this again in a neutral way and ask if EAPPI blog can be used for that one statement. Hopefully that won't scare the experts. Settleman (talk) 15:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You are new, and don't understand Wikipedia practice and policy.
 * You have removed information regarding 'protected tenancy' which is independently confirmed by a right-leaning RS (The Times of Israel) in the Yifa Yaakov article linked above, which, against all the rules, you cancelled.
 * "Though the Tel Rumeida site is Jewish-owned, a Palestinian family used to live on the site and till the land as protected tenants up until the Second Intifada in the early 2000s, when they were prohibited from farming"
 * The Christian Peacemaker Teams link gives again the same information with more detail:
 * "On 31 December 2014, the Abu Haikel family had their case protesting Israel’s takeover of the land on which they held a protected tenancy contract for more than sixty years heard in the Israeli High Court, only to find that the State of Israel, in a secret deal, had given the land to Hebron settlers in 2012.,, In the High Court hearing, the three judges glossed over why Israel took over the tenancy from the Abu Haikels in the first place and said they had done nothing to establish tenancy despite the fact they have faithfully paid rent on it for decades (See link to timeline below). However one judge still expressed her shock over the behavior of the State. She asked what criteria Israel had used for giving the land to the Jewish settlers of Hebron instead of putting the land on the market."
 * It would be quite extraordinary for an organ of this kind to invent, or falsify what an Israeli High Court proceeding established, particularly when the Times of Israel which no one doubts is RS reports the same essential fact. EAPPI's version is similar.
 * "Originally being Islamic Waqf property, the land was rented to a Jewish association during the British Mandate of Palestine. A Jewish Palestinian family, who the Abu Haikal family sheltered and protected during the massacre against the Jewish minority in Hebron in 1929, had taken care of the land. Following the establishment of Israel in 1948 the land was placed under the care of the Jordanian government, and eventually fell under the Israeli Absentee Property Law with the Israeli occupation of the West Bank in 1967. Throughout all of this, the Abu Haikel’s rented the land from the Jewish association, granting them the status of protected tenants."
 * The rare independent input we have had on several of these sources notes that 'blogs' (personal divagation sites) are not what they were, and that numerous news outlets have grow out of that format to host journalists, investigative or otherwise, of stature. If no one chips in, I will take this as indeterminate, and use the sources with attribution. We are not here to bicker, but to ask others to independently review the evidence for the status of evidence for events presented on sites run by Christian Peacemaker Teams and the Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel, who have decades long experience with on-site observers in this area. The fact is, you do not want any of this reported detail in. Nishidani (talk) 13:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Good God. After all that, I do not even remember the question.  This entire business would have been much better off if both of the involved parties had said so much less than they have so far done.  I understand this issue is highly contentious.  I understand that there are incentives to deceive on both sides of it.  I understand that truth can sometimes be hard to come by.  I also understand that Wikipedia's policy with regard to the reliability of sources is a fundamentally conservative one, in which not only must a source be reliable, but it should also be secondary.  In this sense, anything that is being reported "first hand" by journalists in the field is to be considered of lesser quality and can often be justifiably removed without much recourse (I say this generally— the exceptions are legion).  I hesitate to comment on the specific news sources mentioned here as I do not personally know anything of their histories and I can see that looking it up is likely to get me dragged in to what looks like quite a morass.  Best of luck to you on this. [End communication]  KDS 4444  Talk  08:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Gulf News Journal
The source Gulf News Journal does not seem to meet the reliability standards, per WP:RELIABLE.

"Reliable sources must be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people."

The website, "Gulf News Journal", was created only a few months ago (April 2, 2015) according to a Whois search. The site lists no physical address or telephone number, lists no editors, and shows no names of authors on any of its posts. It doesn't include any human names on its bylines, about page, or contact us page (or any page on the website that I can see).

Source: Gulf News Journal - http://gulfnewsjournal.com

Articles and Content found in:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_policy_of_Bahrain

"However, travelers from approved countries can now get their visas online or when they arrive in the country. Bahrain has issued more visas since the policy was implemented than it did before". Citation goes to: http://gulfnewsjournal.com/stories/510545844-new-visa-policy-in-bahrain-leads-to-sharp-rise-in-business-and-leisure-travelers

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_rankings_of_Qatar

"Waste generation: Per capita, the waste generation rate in Qatar is one of the highest in the world. Each person in Qatar generates an average of four pounds of trash every day. Qatar’s population generates 2.5 million tons of solid waste every year". Citation goes to http://gulfnewsjournal.com/stories/510634043-qatar-deploys-strategies-to-cope-with-huge-amounts-of-waste

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBQ

"In July 2015, Fitch Ratings gave IBQ a long-term issuer default rating of A+. Fitch also gave the bank a “stable outlook and short-term issuer default rating” of F1". Citation goes to http://gulfnewsjournal.com/stories/510626547-ibq-earns-a-rating-from-fitch

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar_Charity

"In July 2015, Vodafone Qatar and Qatar Charity created a partnership. Employees of Vodafone helped feed workers at camps in the Ras Laffan Industrial City with Iftar meals during Ramadan. Vodafone promised to donate $275 per hour that each employee volunteers. The donations will go to Qatar Charity’s Family Sponsorship program. The program helps low-income families throughout the Gulf area". Citation goes to http://gulfnewsjournal.com/stories/510625796-vodafone-and-charity-qatar-team-to-deliver-ramadan-meals — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saedattaman (talk • contribs) 14:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I saw your post in Talk:Visa policy of Bahrain in which you make an argument that this is not a reliable source and state "the website appears to be a text spinner for press releases". The subject matter does not appear to be very contentious, however, I cannot find the names of people - authors or editors - who might be responsible for the content. I am leaning towards "not reliable". - Location (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I am leaning more towards "not reliable" as well on this one. Cheers,  Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 22:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * GNJ published this completely bogus article about Yale and Harvard establishing branches in Qatar teaching Sharia law, in which the author also conjures up and quotes incoherent fringe theories related to terrorism. Definitely going with not reliable. Elspamo4 (talk) 01:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I have had a look at this website, and what I see there is not encouraging. Not only are most of the articles written by "Gulf News Journal Reports", but the remainder are written personally by a Sarah Wali, who must be extremely productive. On a web site which considers its write-up of the price of a 2-room apartment to be a kind of "news story", I smell a web-rat of some kind or other. Not a reliable source. KDS 4444 Talk  08:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Are these sources reliable?
I was editing the article on the Kensington Runestone, and I found a couple links to websites that, if true, would have staggering implications in terms of what people know about the subjects. The sources are as follows:

Source #1: The Kensington Runestone - An Ancient Mystery Solved Source #2: Kensington Rune Stone

What do you guys think? I would love to find out. Mizzou1993 (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Both urls are not acceptable as sources for WP. For any claims/conclusion about that stone, that go beyond a simple description or stating its existence/discovery you would need a scholarly publication.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. Looking at the article I'm seeing that it is already quite extensive and well sourced. If you want to content there you should use only source of similar reputation to those scholarly ones already used in the article. Your 2 websites above are a clearly not suited to source any content that article.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The only reason I added those links in the first place is that if the info contained in them were true, it would contradict much of the current body of knowledge regarding the subject of the article. Mizzou1993 (talk) 23:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The "if" is exactly the problem. WP is not a place to publish "new" theories, speculations or fringe stuff, but WP compiles established, reliably and reputable information. I.e. some new theory needs to published elsewhere with a reputable publisher or at least by a reputable author, after that that has happened it can be integrated into WP but not before. So only after the material from the websites has been published in a scholarly publication and has been reviewed and accepted by other scholars, it could be incorporated into the WP article.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree fully with KKmhkmh. The sources do not seem reliable enough to support the content of the article.  Hope this helps.  Cheers,  Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 23:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree that both sources are completely unreliable. One source is simply a blogpost of one person's personal feelings about the runestone. The other is largely based on the work of Scott Wolter, who claims to be a geologist despite having no actual training or expertise in the field, and whose books appear to be self-published. I would consider the content at both sites to be FRINGE and insignificant. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, this is clearly fringe theory stuff from self-published sources that may very well be interesting, but not reliable for our purposes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Robert Anton Wilson's Everything Is Under Control: Conspiracies, Cults and Cover-ups
1. Source. Robert Anton Wilson's Everything Is Under Control: Conspiracies, Cults and Cover-ups (pdf) 2. Article. Mary Pinchot Meyer 3. Content:
 * a. Mary Eno Pinchot Meyer (October 14, 1920 – October 12, 1964) was an American socialite, painter, former wife of Central Intelligence Agency official Cord Meyer and mistress of United States president John F. Kennedy who was often noted for her desirable physique and social skills.
 * b. Mary may also have done some work for the CIA during this time but her tendency towards spur-of-the-moment love affairs reportedly made the agency wary of her.
 * c. Mary Pinchot Meyer and John F. Kennedy reportedly had "about 30 trysts" and at least one author has claimed she brought marijuana or LSD to almost all of these meetings.

Klaun raised the issue of this source in Talk:Mary Pinchot Meyer. I have enough doubts, too, that I thought it should be brought up here for feedback. Some other sources repeat the "30 trysts" + "marijuana or LSD" claims, but they look a bit sketchy to me, too. According to the article's edit history, the original citation for this article was Mary Pinchot Meyer in everything2.com with a note that Wilson is cited on that page. - Location (talk) 03:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * RAW's book is definitely not a reliable source for anything. It's an enormous piece of tale-spinning and bizarre pseudo-reporting, as Wilson himself will admit. Wilson is most famous for his bizarre, almost psychedelic fiction (e.g. The Illuminatus! Trilology); he has written some serious stuff but this is definitely not one of them. Softlavender (talk) 07:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It could possibly be used for RAW's opinions, with in-line citation making it clear that this is just his opinion. It definitely can't be used for statements of fact the way it's currently being cited in two places in the article.  Even if it's cited for his opinions, it'd work best combined with another source to indicate that this opinion is noteworthy, and any cite to it should make it clear what sort of book it is (although its title generally conveys that, provided it's mentioned in-text.)  I think it could sometimes be used, carefully, with the above caveats, to illustrate that a conspiracy theory exists about something, but I'm not sure whether that's appropriate or WP:UNDUE here. --Aquillion (talk) 21:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Reed and Bergman
The article says he used the name Reed for comedy roles and Bergman for serious parts. The other way around. I used to play poker at his home. He once told us he changed his name to Reed because he was known for comedy as Bergman and he wanted to play serious roles (including "The Postman Always Rings Twice" where he was the detective)and was criticized by Walter Winchell for doing so, writing that Bergman was good enough for Ingrid Bergman. H sent Winchell a letter of explanation, but said Winchell ignored it. Max Shapiro
 * The comment seems to be about Alan Reed. --Dweller (talk) 10:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Abandonia Reloaded as source for Vega Strike
Vega Strike is an article for deletion, and its nominator won't accept

as a valid source for it, and deleted it first as a reference, then after a compromise attempt as an external link on the grounds that after discussion (where I can't see a consensus declaration), it was somehow listed on the video games project list of unacceptable sources.

However, it contains a detailed review of the game, which is what the nominator seems to find lacking from the article in his deletion request, and I can't see a problem of non-neutrality or anything since it's just describing aspects of the game. I believe the source should be accepted to at least help asserting the notability of the game, or at the very least, be an acceptable external link per WP:ELYES #3 which the nominator rejected based on their interpretation of what it says.

LjL (talk) 14:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It definitely fails WP:RS; it's a personal website, and as far as I can tell, reviews there are user-generated (they accept and post anything that is submitted; see [here] on their forums.) As an external link I feel it fails WP:ELNO point 11 on the same lines -- it's a personal fan website for abandoned games.  The external link usage is a bit more tricky; I could see it being used as an external link, maybe (though I'd be opposed), but it definitely cannot be used as a source, given the lack of editorial controls. --Aquillion (talk) 21:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * They do have some degree of editorial control, in the form of content submission guidelines with the two "admins" ultimately deciding whether reviews are accepted or not. Relevant quotations:
 * The content on Abandonia: Reloaded will be exclusively controlled by the admins, updaters, and game producers.
 * We will still accept member-submitted content, but we cannot guarantee it will be used.
 * You can submit reviews for games, but we may choose to use our own. Contact either Frodo or Doubler via PM if you are interested in submitting a review for a particular game.
 * LjL (talk) 21:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Definitely Fails WP:RS. Two guys moderating a blog using the names Frodo and Doubler? It would be funny if it were not so sad. Lipsquid (talk) 13:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it would be in the best interests of this discussion to stick to things that aren't their nicknames or their perceived sadness. LjL (talk) 13:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I only wanted to point out that the fact that they do not use their real names is an even stronger indicator that they are not WP:RS. What are you going to do say "According to Frodo ......" with a straight face as if that could possibly be a reliable source to anyone sane?  Next will we have someone who calls themselves "Harry Potter" as a reliable source on chemical reactions?  Lipsquid (talk) 13:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Infectious Magazine
I've had a dispute with another editor lately regarding the reliability of Infectious Magazine. I've been under the impression that magazine sources are generally considered reliable on Wikipedia. Here's their "About Us" page. Any thoughts? Kokoro20 (talk) 13:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Nope. It is apparently on "wordpress" using a "free wordpress theme" - a self-publishing site specializing in glorified blogs.  No sign of an actual "editorial staff" nor of any fact-checking at all.  While some "real sources" do use wordpress, there is no sign that this is one of them. Collect (talk) 13:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Syrian Arab News Agency
I was hoping for some advice on whether the Syrian Arab News Agency is a reliable source on Wikipedia? It is Syria's news agency and a public-owned media organization linked to the Ministry of Information over there.

I have had this edit reverted on the basis that SANA isn't a reliable source.

Also today I had the Moscow Times reverted as WP:FRINGE, although I think I have argued that as fair WP:NPOV in an unbalanced article.

Being as how ten million people voted for them, I cannot really see how the Syrian government's news agency or their sources can be classified as unreliable or fringe, let alone Russians, Iranians, Iraqis, Lebanese, etc. and their news agencies and sources. It would be a bit of a one-sided Wikipedia without them.

Please let me know if anyone has any constructive guidance? Thanks. Guru Noel (talk) 22:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem with news agencies like these is that they frequently carry propaganda. And propaganda is not reliable by default. All these countries either have a reputation for spreading falsehoods (the Russian media, for example) or are parties in the war (the Syrian government media, for example) and this reduces their reliability.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply but I am still a bit flabbergasted that Wikipedia's reliability standards depend on an editor's opinion of them as propaganda. Only using Western news agency propaganda seems to directly contravene WP:NPOV? I still don't quite get what is the difference between Western (US/European/AUS/NZ) and Eastern (Russian/Syrian/Iranian/Iraqi/Lebanese) propaganda? Most countries are parties to the war in one way or another. The Russians have shown everyone quite blatantly in the last week that the Western media has been spreading falsehoods about the phantom Free Syrian Army for months, arming and equipping terrorists to the point where the Russians are having to go in to blow up the weapons stockpiles that our taxpayer's dollars have been spent on giving to "moderates" who simply, and obviously now just passed them on to terrorists one way or another. If anything it is the Western media that should be seen as propaganda in many areas and not reliable by default. They had us believing there were WMDs in Iraq a few years back, remember? The only solution to this sad state of affairs would seem to be to set up national Wikipedia's where only your own country's news sources can be used as reliable. Guru Noel (talk) 09:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * When more new countries join the Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War that seems to be doing something effective in combating ISIS, Al-Nusra and Al-Quaeda affiliates, when is proper to label their media and news sources as propaganda? And when does it become noticeable and a bit abhorrent that Wikipedia is de-facto supporting terrorists via this policy? Guru Noel (talk) 10:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between a news agency located in a nation, and a news agency that is operated by that nation's government. That difference is editorial independence. A state-run news agency will generally be treated by Wikipedia the same as the government's official spokesperson, regardless of the topic being covered. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that clarifies that state-run news agencies can be used as a reliable sources as governments' official spokespeople are not WP:FRINGE then. As long as the government bias is attributed in-text I feel fine proceeding back to the propaganda battlefield better armed with your information. Thanks. Guru Noel (talk) 13:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Um, no, that's not what he said. He said both things would be treated the same by Wikipedia— which is to say, both would be considered unreliable sources motivated by those who control them politically rather than by the intention to disseminate accurate and practical news-related truths.  Unless I myself have misread.   KDS 4444  Talk  08:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The intention to disseminate accurate and practical news-related truths is inevitably biased and controlled by the national government of the country where the news agency is based, to a greater or lesser degree. SANA is public-owned and "linked" to the Ministry of Information in a fledgling constitutional democracy, but not state-owned like the Saudi Press Agency which has a president directly reporting to a Minister in an absolute monarchy. I would like to highlight the degree of Saudi political and financial influence that controls the "reputable" Western Press in general over the Syrian Civil War and suggest that both can be used as reliable sources as spokespeople for the government, as spokespeople for governments are recognized differently by Wikipedia, being themselves reliable sources for what that government has to say. Not giving the legitimate government of a country a voice on Wikipedia is blatantly contrary to WP:NPOV standards. To not do so takes us to a very dark area of censorship. That's how I read it anyhow.  Guru Noel (talk) 00:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I would agree with Guru Noel as it has to be viable at the very least when attributed. If any government funded news agency is unreliable, then we would end up removing references to the BBC, PBS (including Frontline), Xinhua and many other credible news sources from Wikipedia which would be a gargantuan effort and leave gaping holes in articles.  To allow, the BBC or Xinhua, but exclude SANA would show extreme bias.  The articles at the root of this discussion already have a very large US-centric slant as is. Lipsquid (talk) 14:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Referencing main articles and WP:CIRC
Hello, here is mine edit removed. The Contrail editors consider it 'unreferenced meaningless bullshit'. However, it is basically a reference to the articles which add some missing material. The Contrails explains how contrails are formed from engine-exhausted vapour but my referenced articles say that primary source of cloud formation are pollution particles, soot from the airplane engines and that the effect is so strong that it even causes global dimming. I summarize those ideas and reference them. Yet, Contrail authors remove everything, demanding support for my references. What the hell? How can I reference the references? It is difficult to find anything more stupid. If you cannot click and open a reference and see details at the main article, then, what is the point of copy-pasting the sources, reproducing the whole referenced articles in referencing one? This defeats the whole purpose of referencing. Some guys in irc.freenode told me that this is necessary to avoid WP:CIRC. Yet, the whole purpose of references is defeated anyway. I guess that you should not demand any supporting references when it is clear that main WP article is referenced and anybody can see that your summary is correct. --Javalenok (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Also, no original research, i.e. if you can't find a secondary source that says what you want (specifically that Cloud condensation nuclei are responsible for Contrail formation), then it shouldn't be in the article.  Note that the Cloud condensation nuclei article doesn't even mention contrails.  So the editor was correct to remove it.  Bromley86 (talk) 20:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * THank you for playing a shit. The article on global dimming is clear is precise on soot (from ariplain engines) causing the clouds, the way described in the Clound condensation nuclei. It even has a photo of airplane contrails, for absolute idiots who read the articles and cannot relate the material, cannot understand that soot is an example of condensation nuclei. What is the point of articles if you cannot tie 1+1? The article Cloud condensation nuclei itself is meaningless if you do not understand that what is the nuclei and tie it to the soot and soot-contrail to the cloud formation, described in the nuclei cloud formation article. On the other hand, your response is a big progress. It is at least something, a starting point that may let to find out a way for that soot-induced material to appear in the article. --Javalenok (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Play nice. Bromley86 (talk) 20:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Soot from aircraft does have an effect on contrails. The climate effects are complex: although one might expect dimming due to contrails blocking sunlight, contrails reduce natural cloudiness by consuming water vapor that would otherwise be used to produce naturally formed cirrus. See e.g., Burkhardt and Kärcher (2011), Nature Climate Change. Complexities like this are why we need references. And calling other editors "ass-heads" isn't generally considered a suitable method for evaluating microphysical interactions with climate. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Don't think the problem is one of RS, including that text at that location makes little sense imo, but if one wants a source for the soot as condensation nuclei: http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/pdf/contrails_k-12.pdf "Contrails are a type of ice cloud, formed by aircraft as water vapor condenses around small dust particles, which provide the vapor with sufficient energy to freeze. The water vapor is already in the air surrounding the aircraft while the dust, or condensation nuclei, is comprised primarily of soot particles produced during the combustion process."  Ssscienccce  (talk) 19:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The Telegraph and WP:BLP at Jeremy Corbyn
A number of good faith editors have raised serious concerns at Talk:Jeremy Corbyn over whether the Telegraph should continue to be regarded as a reliable source at that article - given articles like this one, which appear to some, at least, to present a very slanted view of the true position. Obviously I'm aware that the Telegraph holds a particular editorial position, which is apparently not shared by some editors, and also that the dividing line between factual reporting and commentary is becoming increasingly blurred. I'm not sure whether it's best to shift the discussion on the Corbyn page (which has involved several threads, not just the latest one) to this page, or whether experienced editors on this page would wish to comment over there. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * the problem is that nobody will make a blanket statement about a publication in this way. The Telegraph, in common with all UK newspapers, is suffering a very serious decline in journalistic standards. However we can't exclude that it might report some facts for a change. -- ℕ  ℱ  09:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The issue is not the article but its headline. IMO, headlines (which are generally written by a "headline writer" with the intent of getting readers to notice the article) frequently are not the same as the actual article at all.   The word "snub" in the headline is not in the Telegraph article, nor is it implied in the actual article.  Thus the article is perfectly usable IMO.  The headline is not a proper source for anything here. Collect (talk) 13:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There is, however, an element of opinion that cannot be separated easily from facts in those type of one-sided articles. Namely, the opinion of the journalist that the facts he presents are worth reporting or relevant to the biography of the subject. Often the trivia is brought to the fore by those seeking to push a particular political angle. Therefore I think we should be careful to underline that coverage of a 'fact' by the Telegraph may not be a sufficient condition for inclusion in a wikipedia article. Of course these things, as always, must be addressed in the particular on a case by case basis. -- ℕ  ℱ  16:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, however imho that has little to do with a slipping of journalistic standard or a lack oj journalistic standard. It is in general true, that not every detail mentioned in the news media is necessarily of encyclopedic relevance and needs to be included into an WP article.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Possibly relevant requested move discussion
A proposal has been made at Talk:Honey bucket to rename the article about a particular type of portable toilet made using an actual bucket from Honey bucket to Bucket toilet. Much of the discussion is about how to interpret and apply our guidelines concepts of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RS to a specific case and the available evidence. If you have opinions how to do this, you are invited to join the discussion. But please be respectful that the discussion is not a vote. Your opinion is valued but it's most helpful if you can support it with evidence and arguments based on the guidelines. Msnicki (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Per the notification at the top of the page:

"Please focus your attention on the reliability of a source. This is not the place to discuss other issues, such as editor conduct. Please see dispute resolution for issues other than reliability."
 * This isn't actually relevant to RSN, except for the reliability of he sources on the opening statement and the "Google searches results". Happy to comment later but this isn't the right board for this. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 06:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Apologies. I will do better next time.  Now that discussion has closed, it's easier for me to explain why I thought it might be of interest here without violating canvassing guidelines by inadvertently offering an invitation that favored one side or the other.  This was a discussion where WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RSN were cited repeatedly by both sides but quite obviously with different ideas what they meant and how to apply them.  WP:COMMONNAME suggests we should pick the most common name in WP:RS as the title.  But in an actual case where there are literally hundreds of thousands sources using the terms and easily thousands that are reliable, two very practical questions you hit are (1) What is the set or subset of RS you should count (estimate)?  Should you sieve this?  Is it all sources that might pass muster here at WP:RSN or only the highest quality or do you weight them somehow? (2) If you know what you're trying to count (estimate), how do you propose to do it?  But again, sorry for spamming you.  Best regards, Msnicki (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Understandable, and I'd probably drop a note here as well if I was in your position, but it would be better to post something like this on the talk page though there is less traffic there. If there are specific sources that you and/or the other editors want to be checked, then by all means post the sources themselves here with some context.
 * I'll post my reply about how I would approach a titling dispute on your talk page since the discussion has ended. Hope this helps at least a bit and it's never spam when it's good-faith and/or constructive. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 23:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC); amended 23:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The Tab student newspaper
Any views on whether The Tab is reliable or not? I bumped into it in the Bullingdon Club article, where it's used to support a statement about the existence of a photograph and who's in it. Obviously, in this particular case, it's more a question of whether or not The Mail is a RS when it comes to identifying those in the picture (as it was the source), but I was curious as to whether The Tab would be a RS if they hadn't been churning The Mail. Bromley86 (talk) 02:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Definitely published, mostly 3rd party. Anything else you'd want in a source...not so much. I'd say no. Dailymail equivalent. 78.144.221.190 (talk) 19:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The tone of the about-us page suggests that its content is going to be all primary-source kind of stuff. It may have editorial oversight, which would mean the basic facts it presents will have at least been looked at by someone other than the person who wrote it, but the cutting-edge-ness of the site overall means I'd want to see a better and preferably secondary source for any claims it is being used to support.  KDS 4444  Talk  08:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Like the above user said, essentially it should have all the basic facts correct, however the sources it uses should be checked thoroughly. I would look into citing other, more reliable and well-known, sources.  Cheers,  Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 01:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Rhodesiana and rhodesia.nl
Is this magazine reliable? Also the page http://www.rhodesia.nl, which is hosting the material, is full of material supporting the apartheid and, in my opinion, doesn't seem appropriate to having it in pages about africa, or in Wikipedia in general. See. Rupert Loup (talk) 18:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

PCB content in legal article

 * 1) Source: Substances Portal - Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
 * 2) Article: Monsanto legal cases
 * 3) Content: "in 1979, the US Congress banned PCB manufacture" (Sample extract from paragraph in this version.)

Discussion is here. My concerns are that:
 * 1) Linking to the PCBs page (as per the current version) is all that a reader needs for context.
 * 2) The source is a primary source - a US government listing of toxic substances.
 * 3) The source does not support the content. Go to the link, search for "1979". No results. How is a reader supposed to find the cite for the content in Wikipedia? Download every PDF listed on the page?
 * 4) The Wikipedia article is a battleground, with anti-Monsanto activists doing their best to slant the material to their preferred view. An Arbcom case is underway on a related topic. In this sensitive area, we should take care to comply precisely with wikipolicy. --Pete (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Muhammad al-Munajjid
Hi,

Could somebody tell me if the following is suitable for a biography of a living person:


 * Source: http://islamqa.info/
 * Article: Muhammad al-Munajjid
 * Content: Views and Controversial Statements

I am concerned as the article makes a number of controversial claims using the the IslamQA.info website and this seems to fail WP:BLPPRIMARY. Thanks RookTaker (talk) 16:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Full Service (book)
This book makes contentious allegations about dead people (that they specifically had unusual sexual orientations, etc.) sourced only to one person - the book's author. On its own, the book appears to be a wonderfully salacious exercise in dropping names of as many Hollywood stars - and libel-proof by them being dead. The book ranks in Amazon's top 110,000 best-sellers.

My query is whether the use of as many names as possible (over thirty separate names) in the Wikipedia article serves readers, or simply serves salacious spreading of allegations to which the people have no recourse beyond the grave? Given that there is a sole source for all of the allegations, would we be more accurate in eliding individual names as being gratuitous tabloidism? Or by listing a large number of "noted persons", are we simply accurately stating what is in the book?

And is the book qua book "notable" in itself? Collect (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * As to reliability... I would say the book is very unreliable for statements of blunt fact (ie the unattributed statement: "Joe Movie Star liked to have sex with llamas") and reliable (but seriously UNDUE) for stating opinion (ie the attributed statement: "According to author Scotty Bowers, Joe Movie Star liked to have sex with llamas").
 * As for Notability... the book does seem to be notable, but I would not call it "note worthy". In other words, it probably merits its own article, but does not merit being mentioned in other articles (especially bio articles). Blueboar (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Lions' Gate stabbings
I wish to know if the following can be included in this article based on these sources.

www.albawaba.com

www.middleeasteye.net

The relevant material is However other sources stated that eyewitnesses at the scene claimed that the Palestinian woman was unarmed and was defending herself after being physically attacked by two Israeli settlers.

Thanks Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 09:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Middle East Eye is a small outfit that employs political activists-turned-journalists and has no regular staff anywhere outside London; it employs freelancers. the history of its Wikiepdia page shows that the page itself is a battleground. A source on the page as it stands asserts that Middle East Eye employs Muslim Brotherhood activists. But the main points appear to be lack of recognition as a serous news outfit, and failure to employ journalists in the Middle East - except for freelancers. So, no, its not a reliable source.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I generally avoid using Middle East Eye, though there is nothing wrong with employing freelancers as journalists. A better source for the same assertion is this: "Witness accounts to Ma'an claim that an Israeli man opened fire at the teenager while she was near a pharmacy in the al-Wad Street in the Old City, a few meters away from the Council Gate leading to Al-Aqsa Mosque. They said she was assaulted by the Israeli man and did not have any sharp objects on her person." Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 18:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't use Middle East Eye myself much, but I see no reason to exclude it. The editor there is David Hearst who has a much stronger curriculum that numerous journalists we use from Ynet, Jerusalem Post, Haaretz, etc. He was chief foreign leader writer of The Guardian, former Associate Foreign Editor, European Editor, Moscow Bureau Chief, European Correspondent, and Ireland Correspondent. He joined The Guardian, from The Scotsman, where he was education correspondent. Since that's the man in the editor's chair, overseeing the news site, it is acceptable. Belen Fernandez is another regular contributor of notable quality. In general, as Kingsindian notes, one searches for more regular sources, but that rule is not exclusive, for the simple reason that mainstream sources are notoriously partisan, and predictable in their POV, in this area.
 * The second point is that editors are required to be coherent in their policy interpretations, E. M. Gregory That means that one doesn't get much street cred if you construct a page and oversee its build-up using Arutz Sheva,New Jersey Jewish News, JNS.org, CAMERA as you have recently done at Death of Adele Biton and then insist on a high bar for any source that does not, as the ones I cited, reflect the kind of one-eyed bias you get in those mediocre sources. Camera is not acceptable as a source for facts, as all wikipedians know from an old discussion of its devious behavior here. If you will accept any provincial or activist source that serves your POV, then you are not going to be heard if you complain of sources that provide a different perspective.Nishidani (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Citing an uncontroversial public statement by Jody Rudoern of the NYTimes to a Camera publicatoin is very different than KingsIndian's project of citing an assertion that an attack did not happen to a website like Middle East Eye, when the article is sourced to reputable dailies like the BBC that say it did happen, and to police reports that cite both evidence  and witnesses.  A London-based  News site citing facts to unnamed witnessed interviewed by unnamed journalists at an unspecified place and time cannot be cited to contradict the NYTimes, The Telegraph, and the BBC, and the police all agreeing on the basic facts.  While all news organizations make mistakes, Ma'an is constrained to conform to a narrative, as editors are  where they serve at the pleasure of oligarchs. Lack of press freedom constrains Ma'an to a narrow line of reporting often out of touch with fact and reality.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The Israeli police like the IDF are notoriously imprecise, vague and constantly alter or update their reports on these incidents. They work off a simpleton's verbal template. 'terrorist, identified, shot'. Everyone is automatically a 'terrorist' if said to be so, so that a boy or man running away from a scene (probably but not proven to be) a stabber perhaps, can be shot dead on the spot in the back by a passing policeman because people yelled out 'terrorist'. No stabbing event occurred yesterday: a man held a knife, and ran away: he was drilled with 14 bullets, amidst screams of 'terrorist, terrorist'. Nothing of this emerges in the usual mainstream reports. It comes out weeks later in Am nesty International, B'tselem, or Human Rights Reports, and on this Israeli mainstream journalism is a disgrace. In any event you can pick holes in most of these reports as the emerge in sequence. I've indicated that several times, documenting this, on articles you edit. These reports are summarily repeated in a variety of foreign sources, and one has always to check the time line, since much is copy and paste. The only foreign paper I have found exercising some scrupulous care in getting things right regularly in the Christian Science Monitor. As to Ma'an, it is less under the beck and call of oligarchs than most of the newspapers we cite as mainstream. The reports are pared down, names are given correctly, places identified, and both sides reported,  unlike what is usually the case in The Times of Israel, Ynet, or the Jerusalem Post. Elide the Palestinian POV in a few repeated terms or notes, and it is basically factual. Any editor can confirm this by comparing a Ma'an report to the same news reported in The Times of Israel, for example. The latter is intensely emotive.Nishidani (talk) 12:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you mean by "Kingsindian project". I gave an alternative WP:RS for the same assertion, and suggested that it be used instead of Middle East Eye, to cut through useless discussion of whether the latter is WP:RS. If you are claiming that a news report in Ma'an is not WP:RS for this assertion, you need to give evidence. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 13:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * To use an excellent Greek word culled from Sextus Empiricus, editors who work with newspapers must be 'ephectic,' that is 'suspensive in judgement' because the search for verifiable facts that would allow a judgement is still onhoing. This because reports are driven by frantic  deadlines and fragmentary details. Those who mistake those breaking news reports for 'facts' are, according to the same analysis, 'dogmatists'. The problem is not only in the sources: it is in the editorial approach that would take at face value what scattered data coming in from several venues, police, eyewitnesses, and interested parties, appears within an hour or two to have determined to be the truth. In 4 cases of 'terrorism' over the past week or so, nearly all sources affirm what the video evidence of witnesses renders suggests is far more complicated.Nishidani (talk) 13:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ma'an is a news source that reliably prefaces bits of information inimical to its cause with the modifier: "alleged". It limits quotes on fraught events to witnesses reinforcing approved narratives.  I do not blame individual Palestinian witnesses for spouting politically acceptable versions of events (i.e., lying), but the fact that private justice is visited on Palestinians who voice inconvenient facts (such as: I saw that fellow stab the Israeli with a knife...) makes them tell the reporter what they know that they are supposed to say.  Or perhaps even makes them afraid to see that the alleged attacked was wielding a bloody knife.  the Palestinian territories are an impossible environment for locals who attempt to do the serious journalism on fraught issues. (Foreign journalists do not put their sister's lives at risk by fact-finding and truth-telling)   And that is why Ma'an needs to be taken with an even larger  grain of salt than partisan newspapers in countries where the penalty for voicing an unpopular opinion is not paid out by masked thugs at midnight.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What kind of unadulterated bullshit is that? Completely and utterly made up nonsense. Maan is cited by the NYTimes and other serious sources, and they are usually cited as Palestinian news wire. You not liking giving Palestinians a voice does not make it an unreliable source, sorry.  nableezy  - 18:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Before I grew up, I loved goodguy/badguy stories. Then I grew up. ' Masked thugs at midnight'? Everything you say above can be said of either side. Israel is simply far more efficient. It will win of course, but won't come out with its dignity intact in  historiography, which keeps complete records.Nishidani (talk) 21:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The NYT in this case did not do any "fact-finding", it simply quoted the Israeli police. If you believe that Israeli police always tell the truth while Palestinian witnesses always lie, I don't know what to say. Luckily your strange criteria to determine WP:RS are not grounded in any wikipedia policy. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 21:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There is an imposing academic literature dealing with media bias in the I/P conflict that shows profound inaccuracies in reportage from both sides. I won't give a list, but simply note for the curious that this is never, as E.M. Gregory's article creation and edits suggest, a nursery tale/Manichaean black and white world. The only significant structural fact is that one side is an occupying power, and the other is occupied. Any report that ignores this simple legal/historical reality is suspect, and that is why independent reportage is invaluable. There is no set list of intrinsically trustworthy newspaper sources for this area.Nishidani (talk) 21:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Drop the Straw man arguments. I have never argued for a Manichean world.  What I have said is that in this world of imperfect news coverage, the situation in the Palestinian territories is worse than that in Britain or Israel where there is a free and lively press.  If it is hard to get the story right for an Irish or Australian journalist, internal political and security issues within the Palestinian territories and political world make it almost impossible for Ma'an.  Good journalism cannot survive where political struggles are conducted with guns.  Arafat used to kneecap journalists and destroy presses (yeah, they had actual presses back then)  It's far more dangerous nowadays.  Impossible situation for even the best-trained, best-intentioned journalists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

here is a previous discussion about Ma'an. It does not seem that there was any kind of consensus it's reliable. The fact it produces reports that nobody else does and attributes them to unnamed eyewitnesses is not a plus but a minus. Serious news organizations name the people they get information from unless there's a compelling reason not to. Add to that some of the ridiculous stuff they reported which is mentioned in the previous discussion, and the picture is not a good one. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That is absurd. If Ma'an is unreliable in general, hundreds of Wikipedia pages that cite it would need to be changed. Your reasoning is also breathtaking. According to you, it is ok to do no reporting, and simply quote a government official press conference/govt. spokesman (as the NYT did), but if one actually does reporting and interviews witnesses, it is suspect, because they may be lying. And your assertion that the previous discussion did not result in a consensus is pretty misleading. I see exactly one section which makes sense: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_139. That simply asked whether Ma'an is reliable for a single sentence. It was unanimously accepted as reliable. The OP did not like it and brought up other things, and discussion got muddled as is usual in these cases. This is why RSN requires the format: sentence, source, article, so that discussion is focused. If you want to claim that Ma'an is unreliable for this, it is simple: open a discussion giving the exact quote and article, and let people comment. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 04:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * By the way, why are we spending all this time on a question by an editor - Johnmcintyre1959 - who you have already accused  on a separate board of being a disruptive  partisan sockpuppet (an assessment with which I and others concur).  And a source that Johnmsintyre1959 himself replaced on the page by sourcing this allegation to a report in Haaretz?E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not at all what I said. I said "The fact it produces reports that nobody else does and attributes them to unnamed eyewitnesses is not a plus but a minus. Serious news organizations name the people they get information from unless there's a compelling reason not to". If you'd like to address that rather than a strawman of your creation, please feel free. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Kingsindian should drop the straw man argument and address the fact that Ma'an's sourcing in this case is highly problematic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's get this straight. Are you claiming that Ma'an made the witness testimony up? Also, really, witnesses are always named in serious news reports? Bullshit. NYT source 1: "...according to witnesses and others briefed on the trip.". NYT source 2"...that witnesses and officials blame on Boko Haram Islamic extremists." NYT source 3 "...during and Israeli raid for suspected militants in the northern Gaza Strip, officials and witnesses said.". And please don't give me any BS about "name withheld". When names are withheld, it is explicitly stated. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 18:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The attempt here is to cite a Ma'an story that contradicts the physical evidence (man hurt in stabbing attack; police found 2 knives in possession of this attacker) with the statements given by unnamed alleged witnesses. What I am saying is that people often see what they want to see, and witnesses often say what the public wants to hear.  Happens the world over.  But it especially happens in places like the Palestinian territories where people can be killed for expressing the wrong opinion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, witnesses can lie. And government officials can also lie (happens all the time, all over the world). For instance, see the Amnesty International investigation here for a similar but different incident. I don't see you arguing for removing the Israeli police account for that reason. One presents the Israeli version, and the Palestinian version, both attributed correctly. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 21:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * A New York Times report on Palestinian falsehoods in the recent series of stabbing attacks, including the accusation that a teenage stabber had been "murdered" by Israeli police (he was wounded, but safely tucked up in bed at Hadassah Hospital watching TV): "In a video report accusing Israel of faking evidence of other knife attacks, a reporter for the Palestinian news agency Maan described the clip as evidence of “murder” and claimed in her narration that the video showed the boy lying on the ground when “an Israeli occupation soldier shoots him in the head,” which it does not."  Link: .  Ma'an is not merely a news source with a POV, it is an unreliable news source.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The relevant report here is this. Ma'an states that the boy was injured, not dead. There was a separate Palestinian who was killed. Maybe the other reporter confused the two people, happens all the time. You want to extrapolate from one thing to say that all Palestinians are liars, while Israel tells the gospel truth. Ma'an is routinely quoted by news organizations all over the world, including Israeli media: (Vox, Times of Israel, Jerusalem Post, Al Jazeera, IBTimes UK and many many more). Ridiculous to claim that Ma'an is unreliable in general. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 20:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Alon Gratch
An editor is insisting on sourcing information in Zion Square assault to one Alon Gratch. Gratch is a psychologist. Not an expert in anything other than psychology as far as I can tell, and his book was published by a regular fiction publisher, not an academic press or anything that would indicate any degree of fact checking or endorsement by peers or any of the other criteria that would make him RS. Is this acceptable? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Both this and the preceding were amply explained on the Talk page, and the attempt to rid the page of two RS is in bad faith. Alon Gratch’s bio shows he has, both by background as an Israeli and with professional qualifications as a psychologist working with problems of violence in New York, eminently qualified to write about the conflict his country is involved in, as both insider, and a widely published author in his field. The book, after all, is a study of Israel by an Israeli with doctoral qualifications, and a distinguished career. What NMMGG is objecting to is the use of Gratch as a source for the following uncontroversial comment.


 * "The Israeli Minister for Education requested that time be set aside in all junior and hugh schools throughout Israel for a lesson on the attempted lynching episode"
 * There is nothing exceptional about Gratch reporting this. It was mentioned all over the local and international press, as any child could have confirmed in an instant googling.
 * Omri Meniv, 'Israeli Schools to Address Attack On Arab Teenager in Jerusalem,' Al Monitor 24 August 2012
 * Jodi Rudoren, Isabel Kerschner, 'After Attacks, Israeli Schools Confront Hate,' New York Times 27 August 2012


 * This arose because NMMGG challenged the article Zion Square assault as lacking continuity in references to the incident in RS. I took up the bet, and added these  two sources as evidence that the incident was mentioned in RS in later years, thus satisfying WP:EVENT. What does NMMGG do? He removes the sources he otherwise implicitly denied existed. And now complains when they are restored with talk page and article consensus.Nishidani (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Putting aside your ridiculous accusations of bad faith, and other irrelevant (and deliberately misleading) information, the question remains what are Gratch's qualifications as RS here? The answer is none. If you want to source to the NYT then by all means do so, but Gratch is not RS for this. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

If you have excellent sources like the NYT for this statement, why are you insisting on  a very marginal source? Replaced it in the article, hopefully this settles it. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 20:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read the comment I made. NMMGG said the article lacked sources attesting to the fact that it was not merely a one-time event in the press, but reported in sources in successive years. Gratch is one such source, and I am perfectly correct in citing it for a commonplace, to show the Zion Square incident is still mentioned 3 years later. By the way, who are you?Nishidani (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No. I specifically asked another editor (not you) to evaluate this article based on criteria he used for other articles. You on the other hand never mentioned LASTING or EVENT and regularly argue for articles such as this one to be rolled into large lists. Stop trying to mislead other editors, not that it would have been relevant even if you weren't being deliberately misleading. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure. I am 'deliberately misleading'. Blumenthal is 'deliberately deceptive'. The world is just crawling with people deliberately disagreeing with you.Nishidani (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I gather you've run out of relevant policy based arguments. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Did he have any to begin with? I haven't seen any. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 21:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We're here for independent, third party input, and this chat is not likely to interest anyone. So let's drop it and wait for third party wikipedians familiar with RS policy to comment.Nishidani (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Magazines
I've seen several magazines backing sources for genres but they don't seem to be completly reliable. These are:


 * http://lithiummagazine.com
 * http://www.ghostcultmag.com
 * http://www.musicmayhemmagazine.com

Thoughts? Thanks. Anonpediann (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Lithium Magazine looks unreliable. From the About page, they seem to chiefly use third and fourth year college students, and there is no editorial board listed.  Ghost Cult looks reliable.  Checking their About page, it's got an editor-in-chief listed.  It looks a bit like a glorified blog, but I'd let it through.  You might want to raise any issues you have at WikiProject Albums/Sources.  Music Mayhem Magazine also looks reliable.  Their About page lists an editor.  Again, it seems like a glorified blog, and I would raise specific issues at WikiProject Albums.  For something like trivial like genre, I would think it would be uncontroversial to use Ghost Cult Magazine or Music Mayhem Magazine.  I would not use Lithium Magazine, and I would probably strip out citations to this site as unreliable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Disposable Media
I've been wondering if disposablemedia.co.uk could be considered a reliable source. Thanks. Anonpediann (talk) 18:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Reliability is contextual, so you'd have to indicate what you want to cite it for (eg. more controversial or exceptional claims require better sources.) But looking over it it does not look like a great source to me; in particular, there's no indication of editorial oversight I can see, which would make it basically useless for most purpose.  How does one become a contributor there?  What guidelines to they have?  What sort of fact-checking do they do?  They need a "reputation for fact checking and accuracy" to pass WP:RS, essentially. --Aquillion (talk) 09:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Genealogy websites as sources for birth names
This website was being used as a reference for the birth name of Randy Quaid. I see two problems: Firstly, it doesn't say the person whose birth certificate is given there is indeed the actor. Secondly, I rather don't think genealogy websites of this kind meet Wikipedia's standards of reliability. Per WP:BLPPRIMARY: "Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses." That also seems to imply that using public records in this way is not acceptable. Thoughts? Huon (talk) 00:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You are correct. Genealogy websites and public records are not acceptable reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 02:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Ethnic Groups and Population Changes in Twentieth Century Eastern Europe
There is an ongoing dispute regarding my use of the following source at Polish census of 1931 Source-Piotr Eberhardt,Ethnic Groups and Population Changes in Twentieth Century Eastern Europe: History, Data and Analysis, M E Sharpe Inc, 2003 ISBN 0765606658 pages 112 and 114  Content in question  and According to pl:Piotr Eberhardt  "it is commonly agreed that the criterion of declared language led to an overestimation of the number of Poles"   in the 1931 census. He maintains that figures of language spoken "led to an overestimation of the number of Poles by about one million" ....Eberhardt believes that criterion of religion tended to be a better indication nationality, he pointed out that 381,000 Jews were considered Poles according to the language spoken. My Argument -I maintain that this source is reliable because it was written by Piotr Eberhardt an academic who is the author of numerous works on demographic geography.. I not saying that this analysis by Eberhardt is the final word on the topic. I maintain that we should include this analysis of the 1931 census in order to maintain a NPOV. We should not take sides and present only the figures of the Polish government  as being correct, since the results of the 1931 Polish census are disputed we should not present the raw data on Wikipedia ,which is primary source material, without analysis by reliable secondary sources. I own a hard copy Ethnic Groups and Population Changes and will be glad to provide jpgs of the pages I cited. Please contact me on Wiki Email and I will be glad to forward the copies for your review.--Woogie10w (talk) 14:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * How many times can you find authors who cite a Communist Party historian as the basis for the same opinion? Eberhardt, the doctor of geography, wrote, "The focus of this book is on the geographic and demographic questions rather than on ethnology or ethnography." Thus not RS for purposes of ethnology or ethnography, what extrapolating ethnicity from a census which surveyed religion and mother tongue is. Also note pg. 499 which shows Polish Communist Party Historian Jerzy Tomaszewski interpolations of the census in the bibliography as the source for the numbers used in his charts. Jerzy Tomaszewski's contributions need to be identified as coming from him, and include the fact that he was a Communist Party member. Communist Party controlled history publications also need to note that relationship since they are RS of nothing. Without labeling the Communist Party POV as such, and we thus go from Wikipedia to Commipedia. Credibility laundering by using tertiary sources is completely unacceptable.Doctor Franklin (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Dr. Franklin you have misrepresented Piotr Eberhardt, on p. 3 he actually wrote "The focus of this book is on the geographic and demographic questions rather than on ethnology or ethnography. The book therefore contains broad statistical documentation of the ethnic changes within the various pertinent national boundaries and administrative subdivisions."  Note well Dr. Franklin that ethnology and ethnography are branches of physical Anthroploogy--Woogie10w (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I quoted him very directly.  This "broad statistical documentation of the ethnic changes" is based upon Jerzy Tomaszewski's opinions and theories, and Tomaszewski was very openly, a Communist Party historian.  Eberhardt simply repeats and amplifies Tomaszewski's opinions and theories, and illustrates them in big charts corresponding to the geographical national boundaries, without providing his own interpretation of the census itself.Doctor Franklin (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * No,no. you have misrepresented Piotr Eberhardt, you cherrypicked part of his remarks and left out the the following relevant sentence.  Eberhardt does not cite the 1985 study byTomaszewski as the source of his analysis. This discussion is not about Tomaszewski. --Woogie10w (talk) 15:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * See pg. 499 which shows Polish Communist Party Historian Jerzy Tomaszewski in the bibliography, which is the source for the numbers used in his charts.


 * You have misrepresented Eberhardt again, the population figures on p. 117 in Ethnic Groups and Population Changes in Twentieth Century Eastern Europe are not the same as Tomaszewski's which were cited in Piotrowski's Poland's Holocaust on p.294. The calculations are Eberhardt's which he detailed  with footnotes.--Woogie10w (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you please advise on which page of his book, Eberhardt acknowledges the 1931 Census itself as a source for this book in the bibliography? Unless your book is different from what I can see online, he doesn't cite the census itself, only Tomaszewski, the Communist Party historian.Doctor Franklin (talk) 21:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * See p. 117 Source: Drugi Powszechny ....(1933-1938). Eberhardt does not cite Tomaszewski as the source of his data, his figures do not agree with Tomaszewski's. There is only one reference in the book to Tomaszewski on p. 499 in the bibliography, a 1991 publication.  The 1985 study Tomaszewski is not listed in the bibliography. Tomaszewski  is not the source of Eberhardt's data.


 * Thank you for confirming that Piotrowski also cites Tomaszewski. We don't need another non-social scientist repeating Tomaszewski's theories and opinions, giving them an appearance of greater acceptance than they have, and hiding their real author.Doctor Franklin (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Your rant about Communist Party POV and Commipedia has nothing at all to do with the source being discussed Ethnic Groups and Population Changes in Twentieth Century Eastern Europe which was first published in Poland in 1996--Woogie10w (talk) 16:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Eberhardt is a doctor of geography, and not sociology, history, ethnography, ethnology, or demography. He was educated in the Communist era and relies upon Tomaszewski's interpolations of census data to make his charts, which are the point of his book.  The data used for the charts is not.Doctor Franklin (talk) 17:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Here is the CV of Piotr Eberhardt --Woogie10w (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The issue is plain and simple. We are talking about known scholars, not some weekend geographer. Unless you have other scholars which criticize the scholars in question, there is nothing to discuss here. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

re: He was educated in the Communist era: The whole Solidarność was educated in the Communist era. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing in Albert Folch Folch
I wondering if a few other editors would mind taking a look at the sources cited in Albert Folch Folch. Quite of few of them seem to be to websites self-published by Folch Folch himself, such as his blog, YouTube videos, Picasa pages, etc. For example, http://albertfolch.wix.com/introtobiomems and the statement "This textbook is now being adopted worldwide (more than 60 departments in 14 countries)." was just added by an IP with.

There are quite a few other similar sources being used in a similar manner which might not be in accordance with WP:BLPSELFPUB or WP:BLPSPS. I have started a discussion about this at Talk:Albert Folch Folch, but that was the first new post added to the talk page in almost a year, so I'm not sure how many people are watching it. Anyway, any comments would be most appreciated. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Your instincts seem correct. Go forth and edit boldly. Rhoark (talk) 02:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Linkedin / Zoolink
Looking for feedback on whether the statement below employing Linkedin / Zoominfo as the source is realiable or constitures original research.--Labattblueboy (talk) 07:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "'According to their linkedin profiles, the CEO of Kromtech, senior executives and nearly all employees (with LinkedIn profies) are based in Ukraine.'"
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * The first link doesn't work for me. In general while a LinkedIn profile is a reliable source for any "According to a LinkedIn profile ... " content, the real problem here is WP:WEIGHT. We're meant to be relaying accepted knowledge on topics, not piecing together articles from insignificant primary sources. Alexbrn (talk) 07:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * My concern is employing a collection of profiles beyond being user generated content also constitute original research.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * WP|RS Identifying_reliable_sources addresses this. See the section on "Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves." Self published Social network profiles can be used as source on themselves in limited circumstances (see 5 criteria in WP:RS) .  The 5 criteria for self published/questionable sources in WP:RS are met in this case.Tonyjkent (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Each linked source is reliable for undisputed, non-self-serving facts about each profile's owner, but not to support the proposed text. Editors are not allowed to combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.- MrX 17:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input MrX.  Isn't each component of the assertion supported by it's own reference?  There's a reference for the CEO, References for each of the three executives and a list of employees & their location [the first bullet]. I thought each part of the statement stands on its own with its own references.   Is there a specific part of the statement that isn't supported by any of those references?  Looking at WP:NOTSYNTH "SYTH is not a summary",  do you think the statement in question is just a summary, but not synthesis .  Also looking at "SYNTH is not obvious" on WP:NOTSYNTH,  'if something  is obvious to anyone who reads and understands the sources that are supposed to support it, it is not SYNTH". . After reading WP:NOSYTH, I can't work out which part(s) of the statement, if any, are synthesis.   I also looked at NOTOR.   Any additional thoughts or insights you have would be helpful.  Tonyjkent (talk) 20:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really. Where is a source that states "senior executives are based in Ukraine" and where is a source that states "nearly all employees (with LinkedIn profiles) are based in Ukraine"?- MrX 20:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you saying the sources are required to have these statements verbatim or you can't find where on the linkedin profile it states where the person is based?  I don't believe sources are required to be verbatim - summarizing / paraphrasing is not synthesis WP:NOTSYNTH . OR requires articles to be written in our own words while retaining the meaning of the source material.  Are there policies or guidelines that I missed? . "nearly all employees (with LinkedIn profiles) are based in Ukraine" is a summarization of the first reference.  When I scrolled through the list I saw only 2-3 people who weren't in Ukraine so I think the summarization is valid.  Reflecting on the statement in the article I do think "senior executives" is an inference not stated in the sources.  Their actual titles are stated in the sources so we can use those.
 * The sources don't need to be verbatim, but the paraphrased content must mean the same thing. The first link in the above list is a search results page, so it's not even a source. You can't conduct your own analysis of that information to form a conclusion that is not explicitly stated. Looking at a listing of information and forming your own conclusion is the definition of original research. Zoom info is a site scraper and thus not reliable. The other three links are to individual social media profiles so those can be used to source content about those people, as individuals. - MrX 22:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi MrX I appreciate your POV and input. However, I think your POV is inconsistent with WP:NOTSYNTH because I've summarized the sources and drawn an obvious conclusion, not drawn conclusions that can't be verified by looking at the profiles.    There's no guideline or policy that I'm aware of that requires the conclusion to be explicitly stated in the source. In fact, WP:NOTSYNTH says it doesn't have to be explicitly stated "SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources....Summary is necessary to reduce the information in lengthy sources to an encyclopedic length -- even when the information being summarized comes from multiple sources. It's not necessary to find a source that summarizes the information. As long as what's in the article is an accurate, neutral summary, and each of the statements is verified by an appropriate source, then the summary is also verified by the same sources. Summary is not forbidden by any Wikipedia policy. On the contrary, "coming up with summary statements for difficult, involved problems" has been described as "the essence of the NPOV process".....   The idea here is to summarize all the linked profiles of the employees rather than list them all individually which would make the article worse.  The search results just make verification easier - the underlying reliable sources are the individual profiles.  Just because a conclusion isn't explicitly stated in the source, it doesn't mean the conclusion is OR.   However, if you find a policy or guideline that requires statements to explicitly stated in the source I would really like to take a look at it.   I removed the Zoominfo source - I don't know enough about it and I'll take your comment about it at face value. Sorry for the length responses - I want to  make sure everyone is on the same page about what the Policies and Guidelines have to say on this issue  Tonyjkent (talk) 23:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You're misreading WP:NOTSYNTH (and, more importantly, WP:SYNTH, since NOTSYNTH is just an essay, not policy.) WP:SYNTH states that you must not "...combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."  In other words, if you want to reach the conclusion of "the majority of this company's employees are based in the Ukraine", you most produce a source that explicitly says "the majority of this company's employees are based in the Ukraine" (or words to that effect; you can paraphrase, but the gist of what you're saying must come from a single source.)  You cannot go over a list of employees on different LinkedIn pages, look up where they work, then say "all right, the majority of these work in the Ukraine" and put that in the article using those pages as a source.  Doing so is textbook WP:SYNTH. --Aquillion (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Based on your feedback I've fixed "senior executives" and removed the zoominfo reference. I think these are good improvements. Let me see if I can recap / distill the remaining issues - is the remaining issue whether "nearly all employees (with LinkedIn profiles) are based in Ukraine"  is original research or a summary? Tonyjkent (talk) 23:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is original research, not a summary.- MrX 00:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If the article said "97% of employees (with linkedin profiles) are in Ukraine WP:CALC and WP:NOTSYNTH says that is not original research.   I don't see any substantive difference between a numerical summation of 97% and "nearly all"  - Do you?  Is the precision really important?  Is the article really improved that much by saying 97% instead of "nearly all". I Would appreciate any specific quotes from the policies and guidelines that show why its not a summary.   Tonyjkent (talk) 01:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Either way, it's original research. You should not include the content unless a reliable source states it in terms equivalent to the proposed text. I don't know how to make it more clear.- MrX 01:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What's not clear is whether your view is consistent with Wikipedia editorial policies and guidelines. I've provided lots of evidence and analysis in this discussion on the relevant policies and guidelines.  Despite being pressed, if you not willing or able to discuss which specific policy or guideline allows WP:CALC and WP:NOTSYNTH to be set aside in this case, and show where in the policy/guidelines is the requirement for the source to explicitly state the material, I can only conclude that your view is an opinion on what the editorial policy should be rather exegesis of the current editorial policy and guidelines.  Tonyjkent (talk) 04:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Uninvolved editor - IF the sources are saying that it is above a threshold of around 90%, common sense would dictate that converting that into prose would be synonymous with "nearly all" or "most". I have not seen a source proposed above that actually states in clear language that: nearly all [97%] of the employees are based in Ukraine: which would constitute WP:OR rather than be a summary of the sources unless this is a 4/5 person company? Is this what you are getting at ? Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 05:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * To clarify, I'm not saying any one of the sources states x% of employees are in Ukraine. I'm saying if you look at the 120 linkedin profiles of people who worked at Kromtech (the first reference), nearly all of them are in the Ukraine.  I don't understand why this conclusion isn't justified by WP:NOTSYNTH 'Synth is not summary' which states - "Summary is necessary to reduce the information in lengthy sources to an encyclopedic length -- even when the information being summarized comes from multiple sources. It's not necessary to find a source that summarizes the information. As long as what's in the article is an accurate, neutral summary, and each of the statements is verified by an appropriate source, then the summary is also verified by the same sources." I don't understand why 'nearly all of them work in Ukraine' isn't an accurate, neutral summary of those 120 LinkedIn profiles.Tonyjkent (talk) 05:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:CALC does not apply. I don't know how else to explain to you that you can't combine sources to reach a conclusion. Perhaps someone else can explain it so that you understand.- MrX 20:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's exactly what I'm getting at.- MrX 20:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * My personal view is it also constitutes WP:OR as the conclusion is not the result of research from a secondary source. A comment from I agree with "You should not include the content unless a reliable source states it in terms equivalent to the proposed text"--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Primary sources are ok to use in some circumstances. Research doesn't have to be exclusively from secondary sources. See Identifying_reliable_sources for details.Tonyjkent (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * This belongs on WP:ORN, really. But I agree that this is synthesis.  The sources are not reliable for the proposed statement, {s we would need a third-party, secondary reliable source to make this conclusion.  To cobble together a series of primary sources and interpret them in a group is the very definition of synthesis.  So, no, the sources can not be used for this statement.  But they could conceivably be used as reliable sources for other, non-synthy facts. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The reason I think 'nearly all employees are based in Ukraine' its not synth is because the LinkedIn profiles state the location of the employees and all I am doing is summarizing those locations without interpretation. I don't think I've drawn any conclusion than the location of the employees.  I think What_SYNTH_is_not allows this type of summary. If I said "..and therefore the headquarters of the company is effectively in Ukraine then I agree that would be synthesizing a new idea.    I also cant find any policy or guideline that says 'we would need a third-party, secondary reliable source to make this conclusion' . Identifying_reliable_sources  allows use of self published sources in certain circumstances (the 5 criteria). Can you take at look atWhat_SYNTH_is_not and expand on your thinking ?  I am struggling to understand why summarizing the location of each person (which is explicitly stated on each profile) is Synth and not summary.    Tonyjkent (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I was recently pointed to WP:BLPPRIMARY which specifically forbids source personal information from primary sources. AFAIU linkedin profile is unquestionably primary self-pub source. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It appears self published sources are ok for living people according to.  WP:BLPSPS Tonyjkent (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

It can be used in very, very limited circumstances per WP:SELFSOURCE, but generally it isn't useful for anything important that you couldn't just as easily find elsewhere. Regardless, this particular usage feels like WP:SYNTH. --Aquillion (talk) 06:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * re 'anything important that you couldn't just as easily find elsewhere' TO my knowledge its not easily available else. Better sources would be great if they exist. Re WP:SYNTH could you take a look at my comments to user:NinjaRobotPirate.  It appears in this case the article is summarizing where employees are based (which is explicitly stated in the LinkedIn profiles) and the 5 criteria for self source are met.  Can you let us know if you have additional thoughts on whether this is SYNTH or Summary? Tonyjkent (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's definitely textbook WP:SYNTH (it's an attempt to stitch together a bunch of unrelated social media pages to invent a new statement about a company, which no source attests to individually.) To me this seems crystal-clear; I don't see this as an edge case.  It's textbook WP:SYNTH with no room for doubt. Regardless, it also unequivocally fails WP:SELFSOURCE -- LinkedIn pages generally fail WP:RS and therefore can only be used for the very very narrow exceptions WP:SELFSOURCE defines, which means they can only be used to source specific, limited, uncontroversial statements about the specific people there.  Arguing that you can stitch them together to make a statement about a company is absurd and would make a mockery of WP:SELFSOURCE.  The only place where a LinkedIn page could even remotely be considered a viable source is when the topic of discussion is the one specific person that page is about, and the only thing it can ever be used to cite are direct, noncontroversial statements about that one person.  Bottom line:  LinkedIn absolutely cannot be used as a source for this statement; it clearly violates multiple policies.  If you want to state that the majority of the company's employees come from a particular place, find a source that says so explicitly.  Without that source, it cannot be on the Wikipedia page. Aquillion (talk) 18:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi ,let's unpack that last statement:
 * Your statement 'it's an attempt to stitch together a bunch of unrelated social media pages' is not true. The pages are all related because they all (with 1 or 2 exceptions out of 120) state the location of a Kromtech employee.
 * Your statement 'invent a new statement about a company' is not true.  I'm not making a statement about a company. I'm making a statement about the locations of its employees.
 * 'which no source attests to individually' is not true. the statement is about the location of employees which each source attests to individually
 * Re 'Regardless, it also unequivocally fails WP:SELFSOURCE' For the individual claim about each employee  to pass WP:SELFSOURCE - the following is criteria must be met: it is neither unduly self serving or an exception claim; does not involve claims about third parties; does not involve claims about events directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as it's authenticity, the article is not based primarily on such sources.'  None of the criteria unequivocally fail.
 * Re 'Arguing that you can stitch them together to make a statement about a company is absurd and would make a mockery of WP:SELFSOURCE. ' I'm not making a statement about a company. I'm making a statement about the location of its employees which is the explicitly stated in each LinkedIn profile;
 * RE 'a LinkedIn page could even remotely be considered a viable source is when the topic of discussion is the one specific person that page is about, and the only thing it can ever be used to cite are direct, noncontroversial statements about that one person' . This is not true. There is no prohibition on summarizing multiple sources - in fact its the essence of NPOV. See What_SYNTH_is_not - 'As long as what's in the article is an accurate, neutral summary, and each of the statements is verified by an appropriate source, then the summary is also verified by the same sources. Summary is not forbidden by any Wikipedia policy. On the contrary, "coming up with summary statements for difficult, involved problems" has been described as "the essence of the NPOV process'.
 * Re 'Bottom line: LinkedIn absolutely cannot be used as a source for this statement; it clearly violates multiple policies' - as the above analysis shows it doesn't clearly violate multiple policies.  WP:NOR doesn't apply to accurate, neutral summaries of multiple sources.   WP:RS is statisfied because WP:SELFSOURCE is statisfied for the location of each individual employee.Tonyjkent (talk) 13:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Continuing discussion on SYNTH vs SUMMARY at No_original_research/Noticeboard thanks Tonyjkent (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Linking to a Wikipedia Article
Someone is linking to a wikipedia article to be used as a reliable source. This doesn't seem accurate to me, but I thought I should ask here to get the 411! -- MurderByDeadcopy  "bang!"  19:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia articles are by definition not a reliable source for Wikipedia articles. Feel free to mention the articles in question, though. LjL (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Original article is Institutional racism  and the article used for sourcing is . --  MurderByDeadcopy  "bang!"  21:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay I think they meant to link to this instead.  MurderByDeadcopy  "bang!"  22:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * That's not a Wikipedia article, that's a journal being cited, see this diff. The fact that the journal has a Wikipedia article about it is not a problem, obviously. LjL (talk) 22:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Family member's unpublished account in Roy Furmark
1. Source. Noted as: "Immediate Family member of Roy M Furmark described info pertaining to his death {Sources: Dr. David Roberts, Chief of Neuro Surgery at DHMC, in Lebanon, NH. Springfield Health & Rehab Ctr 105 Chester Road, Springfield, VT ; where Roy died.Mr. Yeyah El-Komi of Cairo, Egypt, who Roy was with.Younger son/RMF Wife, can attest to the Facts.}" 2. Article. Roy Furmark 3. Content. Roy Furmark

The entire section about the subject's death, a lengthy description about his ordeal while suffering from cancer, was added by a new editor who states that he is the subject's son. I believe I know the answer here, however, dealing with family members is always a touchy subject. Maybe someone more experienced can have a look. Thanks! - Location (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately for that section of the article, Wikipedia articles must be verifiable by any reader. This means that they must cite reliable published sources.  Eurostyle says "if u dont believe, look them up, and call them yr self", however that does not make them verifiable.  Those people that Eurostyle wants us to call will not live forever, they will die themselves, moreover they probably don't want everyone who looks at the article calling them and asking them to confirm gory details of his death.  Published material, on the other hand, will continue to be verifiable by cite checkers for a long time, and is not annoyed by many people reading it. Hence, unpublished first hand information doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and shouldn't be included. Eurostyle, are there published accounts of his death anywhere that can be cited? ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 18:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

US Census Bureau, The Population of Poland
There is an ongoing dispute regarding my use of the following source at Polish census of 1931. Source- US Census Bureau, The Population of Poland Ed. W. Parker Mauldin, Washington-1954. pp.74-75 Content in question  A 1954 study of the Polish population  by the United States Census Bureau concluded that " in presenting the results, the Central Statistical office emphasized the central role played by the Polish ethnic group by increasing the number of minority groups, and thus reducing the size of a given group, shown in the results, Ukrainian and Ruthenian were tabulated as separate langauges, although Ukrainian was simply the newer name for Ruthenian used by the more politically conscious and nationalistic elements. In the Province of Polesie, the census authorities returned most of the Belorussians  there as speaking "local languages" My Argument -I maintain that this source is reliable because it was written by the demographic professional W. Parker Mauldin, the author of numerous works on demographic topics. The Population of Poland received a favorable review by the peer reviewed academic journal The Professional Geographer. I not saying that this analysis by the US Census Bureau is the final word on the topic. I maintain that we should include this analysis of the 1931 census in order to maintain a NPOV. We should not take sides and present only the figures of the Polish government  as being correct since the results of the 1931 Polish census are disputed we should not present the raw data on Wikipedia ,which is primary source material, without analysis by reliable secondary sources. I own a hard copy of The Population of Poland and will be glad to provide jpgs of the pages I cited. Please contact me on Wiki Email and I will be glad to forward the copies for your review.--Woogie10w (talk) 13:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So why is one nation's census bureau revising the national census of another 23 years later? How could it review the original census returns, or interview the census enumerators, which were behind the Iron Curtain?  How is this verifiable per WP:Verify.  This is a tertiary source likely considered a political document.  If the 1954 US census report is mentioned, the methodology of its review needs to be stated clearly, i.e., that it did not review original census returns or interview Polish census enumerators, and its interpretations are opinion, not Wikifact. With regard to the criticism of the methodology of the Polish census, it also needs to be noted that the U.S. Census Office did not survey ethnicity (just like the Poles) in the U.S. census from 1930-1950, had no survey for religion,(which the Poles had), and only surveyed mother tongue for immigrants, (when the Poles surveyed mother tongue nationwide). If found, relevant academic discussion of WHY the U.S. Census Office had revisited and reclassified the population from a foreign census from 23 years previous, which I believe is unprecedented, should be included. Doctor Franklin (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The US Census Bureau cited the published official Polish census data to support their analysis. We need to include other reliable sources like the US Census Bureau report that analyze the Polish census. You have not provided a single source defending the methodology of the Polish State Statistical Office and expect readers to accept the official Polish figures as being correct. Dr. Franklin will not allow criticism of Polish government sources on Wikipedia, even if the source is reliable. --Woogie10w (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, so the methodology of the US Census Bureau report was to simply reinterpret, 23 years later, the data published in original Polish census (secondary source) without re-examining the census surveys or interviewing the census enumerators. As such this is tertiary source of limited usefullness as RS on the census itself. As far as criticizing the methodology of the Polish census, that begins with an opinion that the Poles had intended to measure ethnicity, when they in fact had removed the ethnicity question which was asked in the previous census.  Thus the methodology of the census was not to survey ethnicity, which is exactly the same as the US census from 1930-1950 (only race was surveyed, not ethnicity of Europeans).  Unlike the US, the Poles enumerated religion, and mother tongue of all residents.  The U.S. did not.  Your issue is not the methodology of the census, but its interpretation of the primary data, i.e., that the local language speakers in Polesia were really Ethnic Belarussians, and the Catholic Ruthenians and Polish speaking Greek Catholics were really ethnic Ukrainians.  This is something that a tertiary source cannot do and be RS that the original was fixed, etc.  It is just an opinion, and an unsupported one at that.  It may be worth noting that the U.S. had done this, but not as a RS that the Polish census was biased, any more than the Russian Census Bureau can be used to impeach the ethnic or linguistic results of another nation's census.Doctor Franklin (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Given's Mauldin's credentials it seems reasonable to include that as a reference for another point of view, as long as it is identified as such.OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Just to add, that this also appears to be a dated work. [Edit to note that the review from The Professional Geographer is from 1954.)   It was published in the middle of the Second Red Scare in the U.S.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Scare#Second_Red_Scare_.281947.E2.80.9357.29  Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the archives have been opened, a much better sources exist on the region.  Most modern social scientists would dispute that those who speak Polesian are ethnic Belarussians, which was Mauldin's opinion. "If you want to know about Polesian, I can tell you the exact composition of our language. It is 40 percent Ukrainian, 5 percent Belarusian, 5 percent Polish, and 50 percent Polesian. — Vasily Ptashits (Василий Пташиц)." Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, Intermarium: The Land Between the Black and Baltic Seas. Vasily Ptashits (Василий Пташиц) and the Polesian nationalism (Transaction Publishers 2012) p. 493. ISBN 1412847745. (See also, Kate Brown in "A Biography of No Place".) The languages are very different.Doctor Franklin (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Dr. Franklin's claim that the criticism of the 1931 Polish census is communist propaganda is groundless OR. In fact the US Census Bureau report on p. 74 maintained that the use of linguistics statistics "is prone to be biased"  According to the  US Census Bureau the Polish government, at that time,was engaged in a campaign of forced Polonization.  The census report mentioned  that "it had become precarious to be identified with either the Ukrainian or Jewish minority" . Note well that his report was published by the U.S. government  in 1954 when there was a policy of zero tolerance of communist influence in government and the media. All government employees were required to sign loyalty oaths.  The claim that the criticism of the Polish census is communist propaganda is utter nonsense. (the  US Census Bureau did not mention the Recovery of Orthodox Churches in the Second Polish Republic, however these events took place at the time of the 1931 census)--Woogie10w (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't misrepresent my comments, or conflate arguments from other places. Note that recent commentary from the region does not support Mauldin.  So here is a recent analysis of this Census from Sergey Lebedev, PhD in Political Science from Leningrad State University.  He has quite impressive Soviet academic credentials and notes no controversy over the census's methodology:
 * "It turns out that a lot remained Russian Rusyn identity despite full patronage of "Ukrainians" by official authorities and the Uniate Church...Alas, the Ukrainians identified themselves as more than half of the Galician Rusyns, so ukrainianizers could assume that Ukrainians constrict the Russian identity." Russian Folk Line (January, 18, 2014)http://ruskline.ru/analitika/2014/01/18/galiciya_etnicheskaya_istoriya/
 * No evidence exists that the census had intended to enumerate ethnicity. (The U.S. didn't either.)  Much of what you posted above is your own OR, or SYNTH, but whatever you claim about "Polonization", (i.e., the establishment of a national language to facilitate industrialization of a population of illiterate peasants, which the Soviets later did as well,) doesn't make Mauldin's mischaracterization of the speakers of the "local" language in Polesia (Polesian) as ethnic Belarussians correct.  In fact, Mauldin, was simply an apologist for the expansion of Soviet borders during the Second Red Scare.  He made it appear somehow justified.  Even a former Communist like Lebedev doesn't agree with him.  You appear determined to WP:CHERRYPICK as many anti-polonist sources as possible on this topic.  But also note that from the previous census the percentage of the population identified as Jews, (using religion, since some Jews considered themselves Poles) increased measurably:
 * 1921 census Jews 2.048.878 (07.97%)
 * 1931 census Jews 3,113,933 (09.76%)
 * change Jews    +1,065,055 (+01.79%)
 * The numbers don't lie, and the census speaks for itself, what you don't want it do.Doctor Franklin (talk) 17:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Upon review, I don't see Mauldin's academic credentials on display anywhere. Based upon the publication in which he appears, it looks like he may have been an expert on contraception and population growth, not ethnography or ethnology. User Woogie10w appears to want to use this source for political criticism of the Second Polish Republics decision to not enumerate ethnicity, (thus following the U.S. model) rather than any criticism of the accuracy of the methodology for counting the population itself. The issue here is how others choose to interpolate the data to approximate ethnicity, not that parts of the population had not been counted in the census. Mauldin appears to have no academic credentials in the social sciences to justify his political opinions as RS on the topic.Doctor Franklin (talk) 18:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * W. Parker Mauldin was demographic professional, the author of numerous works on demographic topics. The U.S. Census Bureaus Population of Poland maintained the 1931 census in Poland was biased in favor of ethnic Poles, according to their study the language categories Ruthenian and "local people" were created in order to minimize the number of Ukrainians and Belorussians in the total population. See pages 74-75. I will provide jpgs of these pages, please contact me by Wiki mail.--Woogie10w (talk) 22:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * A google search is not the same as providing a reference for the man's academic credentials, which you have not done. Still waiting.Doctor Franklin (talk) 22:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Sergey Lebedev who joined the KGB in 1975, an ally Of Vladimir Putin, is a rather dubious source. --Woogie10w (talk) 22:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, Sergey Viktorovich Lebedev has a Ph.D. from Leningrad State University in Political Science would have been 13 years old then: www.obeschania.ru/persons/lebedev-sergej What he writes is mainline academic political thought in Russia regarding Ukraine and its Catholic Galicians. This is more than we now about Mr. Mauldin.  Doctor Franklin (talk) 05:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, We now see that you you did not know what what you were talking about and have corrected yourself. --Woogie10w (talk) 09:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The website ruskline.ru engages in Russian nationalist propaganda. ruskline.ru is definitely not a reliable source. The piece you cited  is an anti-Ukrainian polemic. --Woogie10w (talk) 09:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Spoken like a true Ukrainian nationalist wishing to suppress it.Doctor Franklin (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Wayman Parker Mauldin was a graduate of the University of Virginia (1936)--Woogie10w (talk) 10:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, this is page from a yearbook, not proof of a degree of any kind. For all we know, his uncle got him a political patronage job with a mail order diploma.Doctor Franklin (talk) 15:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The thesis dissertation of W. Parker Mauldin, Rural vs. urban individualism. M.S. University of Virginia 1936  --Woogie10w (talk) 22:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Submitting a dissertation and having a degree awarded for it are two very different things. What are his academic credentials?  Social scientists don't usually get M.S. degrees, and nothing here indicates that he has the credentials to distinguish Polesians from Belarusians, or a Polish speaking Lithuanian like Pilsudski from other Poles, or analyze the internal politics of the Second Polish Republic.Doctor Franklin (talk) 02:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

This German map from 1930 clearly shows that the Polesians were not Belarussians as critics like Mauldin contended: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Lange_mitteleuropa_1930.jpg The census got this part right. The ethnic issues were disputed at the time. Different "experts" had different interpretations. The Germans clearly disagreed with Mauldin, whatever his academic credentials were.Doctor Franklin (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The map doesn't show that. It has labels for Ukrainians and White Russians.Faustian (talk) 17:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The map labels Polesians Ukrainians, which means not Belarussians. Thus, the Germans who had occupied the region in WWI disagreed with Mr. Mauldin across the ocean.  The Polesian language is closer to Ukrainain than Belarussian.  No serious linguist would dispute that.Doctor Franklin (talk) 21:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Robert Conquest
appears to be editing tendentiously, using sources that are bad or misinterpreted on Robert Conquest. Please see the discussion at Talk:Robert Conquest for details. Thank you. —  Jeff G. ツ (talk)   06:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * These are the sources that some people is saying are tendentious:
 * 
 * As you can see, it was all well sourced with reliable sources (mainly from Conquest and people who knew him personally or collaborated with him). Maybe facts can look not neutral at the first sight, but in fact that's what happened so I believe it should be reported in the biography. If it does not look neutral is because Conquest was never neutral! I believe that to not report his non-neutrality would mean not meet the NPOV and depict a fictitious "Conquest image" not corresponding to the reality!
 * I also would like to add that I am the user who wrote most of the current revision, even after the deletions made by Jeff G. -- Flushout1999 (talk) 06:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I can see two problems. First, User:Flushout1999 is making blatant copyright violations. For example, on this page about work by Robert Conquest they included the following text :

Here is original source. It tells: "In 1981, the Ukrainian Research Institute approached Conquest with a major project: a book on the 1932-33 famine. The pot was sweetened by an $80,000 subside from the Ukrainian National Association, a New Jersey-based group with a venerable, hard-right tradition; the UNA's newspaper, Swoboda, was banned by Canada during World War II for its pro-German sympathies."

This is exactly the same text, but Flushout1999 did not provide "...". This quotation also shows another problem: POV-pushing using poor sources and selective quotation. In particular, Jeff Coplon (used as a source above) is not an appropriate source because he is well-known for [Holodomor denial]. This is like using writings by a Holocaust denialist to discredit mainstream academic work about the Holocaust. I did not check everything, and perhaps many edits by Flushout1999 are not copyright violations, valid and well sourced, but Flushout1999 must do their changes very gradually, piece by piece, starting from something non-controversial, and wait for consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 15:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Excellent example of WP:WPNOTRS . [struck-through comment, since no one actually used WP as a source] The section Denial_of_the_Holodomor is nothing more than an editor's opinion about Coplon, based on two articles written by him. Those two articles (and an article by Wilfred Szczesny, presented as "other similar writings") are the only sources given. I would call that a textbook example of WP:OR. Ssscienccce  (talk) 17:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC) ; edited 19:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, sure. This paragraph is OR based on precisely the same unrelaible source, only by someone else and on a different page. Note the url which leads to website of Grover Furr, a notorious Stalinist apologist.My very best wishes (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That is indeed one of the sources used in the section. Don't know what you mean by "only by someone else and on a different page". What's your point? Ssscienccce  (talk) 18:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually User:Iryna Harpy informed me here that the Jeff Coplon source is a valid reliable one, even if you find it in the Grover Furr's website. Therefore if it is valid there, it should be valid also in The Harvest of Sorrow if used in order to address Coplon's criticisms and criticism from other historians cited in this very same source. -- Flushout1999 (talk) 11:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * My comment on the matter is actually to be found here. Ultimately, it's contingent on a per article and context based evaluation, i.e., whether it is WP:DUE, WP:OR, and whether it is being introduced as a WP:COATRACK. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * My point is that contributions by Flushout1999 represent a mixture of copyright violations and POV-pushing, exactly as was already noted by several contributors on talk page of the article . OK, let's consider another random example. Here Flushout1999 included the following text: "He claimed that the primary purpose of these camps was not gold extraction, but systematic extermination of the prisoners as it happened in Hitler's Final Solution[44], a vision opposed by most western historians...". The part of text indicated by italic is a copy-paste from the source without providing "...". The rest ("a vision opposed by most western historians...") is an assertion not supported by the reference. My very best wishes (talk) 19:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In retrospect, I probably should have addressed the issue in a separate thread, since it concerns the sourcing of the Holodomor denial article, which isn't the topic of this dispute. I leave it to others to decide whether to collapse it as offtopic. Ssscienccce  (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello My very best wishes, you forgot to mention another unreliable source confirming the sponsorship from the Ukrainian National Association, the Los Angeles Times, here, so Conquest actually received subsides from the Ukrainians to write "The Harvest of Sorrow". Or perhas also the LA Times is a "holodomor denial"? Who knows, but it does not look like that from the article. Copyvio is just a more subtle excuse to delete materials that do not meet the taste of some users, otherwise "deleting users" will give time to the "editing user" to correct the paragraphs in question. In addition, yesterday I have re-written many sentences on Robert Conquest in order to comply with the copyright rules that I did not read before. It changed anything? Not! Solution is always the same: deletion of materials well sourced only because someone has preconceived ideas on a particular subject. -- Flushout1999 (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The edit you are talking about stated the following: "In 1978, Conquest published Kolyma: The Arctic Death Camps, on the infamous Kolyma camps in the Soviet Far East. He claimed that the primary purpose of these camps was not gold extraction, but systematic extermination of the prisoners as it happened in Hitler's Final Solution[44], a vision opposed by most western historians who have argued that any series of events, except for the famine in Ukraine in 1932-33, can be termed genocide as it is defined by the UN convention.[44]"
 * In the original source (here ) you can find this:
 * "The plural form of the English title, Stalin’s Genocides, and of the Ukrainian and Russian translations Genotsidi or Genotsidy Stalina, implies that several or all of the well-known and currently heavily researched historical phenomena should be termed “genocide”. In recent years, few Western historians have argued that any series of events, except for the famine in Ukraine in the fall of 1932 and spring of 1933, can be termed genocide as defined by the UN convention."
 * So it is all present in the original source. Stop trying saying that I wrote something false, I always stick to the source. Oh yeah, so now it is indisputable it is in there, you cannot say is false, then you go with the copyvio... It's ok, you and others have already deleted almost everything. --- Flushout1999 (talk) 19:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So, you are telling that you fixed copyright violations already. I am sorry, but the last example above was your latest version, and it still contained obvious copyright violations (see above) and distortions of quoted sources. In particular, this source, which you included in the end of the phrase, does not claim that "most western historians" opposed to the idea that Soviet labor camps were camps of death (He claimed that the primary purpose of these camps was not gold extraction, but systematic extermination of the prisoners as it happened in Hitler's Final Solution[44], a vision opposed by most western historians...[44] in your version). My very best wishes (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not know the Final Solution was not a genocide, and that therefore most of the western historians were agreeing with Conquest that in Kolyma there was a "systematic extermination of the prisoners as it happened in Hitler's Final Solution" while saying at the same time that only the famine "can be termed genocide as defined by the UN convention".
 * What I wrote in the talk page? "I made substunctial corrections to the article in order to avoid/resolve Copyvio. I used the Copyvio Detector and I re-wrote the parts highlighted in the tool which were not in-text quotations. All the other quotations should now comply with the Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Avoiding plagiarism guidelines. If you think this is not the case for some paragraph, feel free to notify me here and I'll rewrite the paragraph. If you think the article looks unbalanced, then add more sourced edits, don't delete mine." I received great help, sure. People wanted only to delete my edits since the beginning, that's all. It has been only a huge waste of time. You and others should be greately satisfied of the outcome at this point. -- Flushout1999 (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Unfashionista - Tim Hunt
Someone has added the article in Louise Mensch's blog unfashionista as a source to the Tim Hunt article. It is potentially quite significant information which contradicts some of the earlier reports which were found in national broadsheet newspapers such as The Times, therefore I think it is important to decide whether it is sufficient reliable in consideration of the status of transcripts of Hunt's contentious speech. See source -- ℕ  ℱ  22:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think the reference is necessary. My understanding is that that news articles are always preferred over blogs as references on WP (see ). The fact that it is an ``approximate reconstruction" is obvious. The recording by Natalia Demina has been reported in many other news sources. This smells of someone trying to promote the blog. I say remove the reference. I have left a few other remarks on the talk page. Danski14(talk) 22:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Ishkur's Guide to Electronic Music
| This site is widely used on electronic music articles, such as UK hard house, but appears just to be a personal website. Can we get some opinions on whether this should be used as if it is a RS please? Please note the disclaimer (which states it is for entertainment) available from the tab on the front page of the site and the WP page about the site at Ishkur's Guide to Electronic Music. Thanks--  SabreBD  (talk) 12:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hah, I believe I may have placed a few of those references, many years ago. I personally believe it is a *useful* reference. The problem is its hard to find scholarly references on the names for different genres of of trance/house music, etc. Ishkur's guide is well known and frequently referenced on places like listology / DI.fm forums and various amateur online guides to electronic music genres.  As to whether this counts as a 'reliable source' I'll defer judgement to the experts. Danski14(talk) 23:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Ancient History Encylopedia
Just ran across this being used in a lot of articles as an EL (maybe spam) and in some as a source, eg Ancient Greek medicine. Some articles have named authors (the author of the article used for the Greek Medicine article for instance has a biography here, others just a first name with no information about them. I can't see this as meeting either our sourcing criteria or our criteria for external links. But it's linked a lot. Doug Weller (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. Their statements about their "team" here does not even remotely inspire real confidence in me. John Carter (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Concur. A tertiary source from a bunch of BA does not strike me as reliable. Adding them to "external links" section does look like "product placement" spam. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree - not reliable.  Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 23:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Colton Haynes
There is speculation about this actor's sexuality. Until he confirms he's gay or a RS decides to write about his love life in a non-speculative manner, the current content doesn't belong in the article. I removed the poorly sourced material recently added by an IP, but the IP has reverted.

The sources in question:
 * Moviepilot (link) - Most of this website's material is written by fans. The guy who wrote this piece has the tagline "Everything Marvel Studios, and then some. All the rumors, all the news, all the hype.™" So he admits to posting rumors and the section about Haynes includes (???) after his name, meaning he can't confirm anything.
 * The Only Way is Gay (link) - The whole piece is just confirming rumors exist. It's being used to confirm that Haynes dated Zachary Quinto. But it includes Haynes' quote: "Although I support homosexual rights, I date country girls that are out of the spotlight, my friend Holland knows my long term girlfriend, and Zach and I were just actor buds."

This is a clear case of using non-RS for contentious material about a BLP. APK whisper in my ear  05:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Removed, watchlisted. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 10:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Google Earth as source on its own 3D coverage
I removed an impressively long, but seemingly unsourced, table from Google Earth, which listed all the cities and town with automatically generated 3D buildings. This was done due to, among other things, rough consensus on the talk page.

However, my removal was subsequently reverted and then challenged, the main rationale being that "the source of this list is Google Earth itself. Verification can be achieved by simply checking out the area in GE".

Is Google Earth itself a valid source for the table, keeping WP:PRIMARY and WP:NOR in mind (although, in my opinion, WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTGUIDEBOOK also apply, but I guess those are not relevant source-wise)?

LjL (talk) 14:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The various things Wikipedia Is Not are not reliable sourcing guidelines. They're about what kinds of articles should exist. I don't see any reason Google Earth could not be a kind of source. The question is, who controls the information? Rhoark (talk) 02:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, as I said, the "NOT" parts are probably not relevant to this noticeboard. However, WP:PRIMARY and WP:NOR kinda are. Google Earth is quite clearly a primary (not secondary) source for itself, and as such, it should be used with extreme care; but as a matter of fact, to be used for this, a person must do some peculiar research inside it, namely zoom into cities and determine whether buildings are shown in 3D. I don't think this matches how articles are normally sourced on Wikipedia. LjL (talk) 13:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Whether it's a reliable source depends on how verifiable the information is. I've previously summarized that at WP:APPLYRS. What you've identified is more a question of WP:DUE weight - i.e., if no secondary source has bothered to describe these details about Google Earth, what indication is there that it's worthwhile information for the article? Rhoark (talk) 13:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Good point. Although I'd still argue that zooming into every city on Google Earth to determine whether it has 3D buildings or not smells very much like original research on the article's subject... sure, it can be verified, but only by duplicating the lengthy original research itself. Sources are meant to be simply consulted. LjL (talk) 13:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Adding to this discussion the secondary source I referred to on the talk page (from Google Earth Blog): KML file ESRoads (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't see why Google Earth couldn't be used as a reliable source. Like Rhoark said above, the more important question to ask is where is the information coming from, and is it verifiable.  I'm sure that Google takes appropriate measures to make sure all of the information is updated and correct.   Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 23:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Err, are you sure you've understood the issue? This is not about using Google Earth as a geographical source to verify geographical facts. It is about using Google Earth itself to list the city for which Google Earth has 3D buildings (versus the ones where it has just pictures). It's like directly using the contents of, say, a movie to make statements about the movie, instead of using a secondary source that describes that movie. LjL (talk) 23:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Does it depend on how Google Earth is used as a source? For example, we've referred to "zooming into every city" as a form of research to determine whether each city has or does not have 3D imagery. But (and the challenge is missing this information) Google Earth has a feature in its "Voyager" layer that displays placemarks for the areas where it has 3D imagery. Would simply compiling these placemarks into a list be a misuse of the primary source? (I say this for argument's sake, but hasten to add that such a list would be far too extensive for WP's purposes; it should merely be cross-referenced with other sources.) ESRoads (talk) 03:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't have a definite opinion on this but I'll just say that in general, a source doesn't have to be either reliable or unreliable: it can, indeed, be reliable in part, or for some uses, or depending on how it's used. In this case, maybe an argument could in fact be made that using something where they already made their own "research" and created a database (layer) "listing" the 3D buildings is not original research on our part, while zooming in and doing our own research, is well, original research.
 * Meanwhile, I see another section has been created on this board on using Google Maps as a source; I think that should be about using Google Maps (and Google Earth, which is effectively the same thing) as a source for geographical information, while I started this section explicitly to determine whether it's usable as a source about itself. I'm not sure some of the commentators have realized that. LjL (talk) 13:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * , I would make exactly that argument: using something where they already made their own "research" and created a database (layer) "listing" the 3D buildings is not original research on our part, while zooming in and doing our own research, is well, original research. I think the latter is sufficiently novel/transformative to be SYNTH or OR. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 14:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Glorified blog?
This site has been used as a source for an addition to List of surviving silent film actors. This source appears to me to be self-published and therefore no more reliable than anything in IMDB. Am I correct that this fails WP:RS? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Does not seem like a reliable source to me. I agree that it looks self-published as well and probably shouldn't be used.   Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 16:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Start Class
Can I please get some additional input regarding the reliability of this source? It's being used in this article to make a straight forward claim that "As of 2015, USC is the #22 Ranked Research University on StartClass." The website includes some information at the bottom of the page where sources for the information are listed and they include Wikipedia although it's not clear what information from Wikipedia is included. The website's about page doesn't seem to provide any helpful information. (I also don't think that the source passes the due weight hurdle but that's a slightly separate question.) ElKevbo (talk) 15:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * From a certain standpoint, citing the publisher of rankings for that ranking is almost certainly permissible under WP:SPS; several of the U.S. News and World Report rankings are cited to that publisher's own material, in comparison. It is not reasonable to expect that every entry in every published set of rankings will be independently included in third-party coverage, after all. So, here, the big question is less about reliability sourcing as it is about due weight, as you observed. StartClass is one of many "research engine" products of Graphiq. I'm unconvinced that it represents a significant viewpoint (and share the concern about several of the sources in the same paragraph); if retained, it should probably be identified as "Graphiq's StartClass" or something of that nature (in parallel to the Niche product, although I'm not much less dubious about it). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Domestic Violence article
Hello. Someone suggested placing my query here, rather than get entangled in some type of edit war over the issue. Seems much more sensible to me! Specifically I am wondering if this academic, peer reviewed meta-analyses, conducted by Archer (2000) and contained within the Psychological Bulletin is a reliable source, and if it could possibly be used somewhere within the body of the controversial and emotive domestic violence article?

The meta-analyses concluded that women were slightly more likely than men to use one or more act of physical aggression and to use such acts more frequently, after examining 82 studies that found gender symmetry. (Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A metaanalytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651-680.)

All opinions very much welcome! Will go by what others say here. Thanks.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What does the literature say about this article according to the usual indices? Has it been refuted, rebutted and/or withdrawn? -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  02:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * This is the most slam-dunk obviously reliable source I've seen anyone bother to bring to the noticeboard. Psychological Bulletin is quite venerable, and the article shows 156 citations on PubMed. A random spot check of the text of those articles shows it is being used at face value, not criticized. Rhoark (talk) 02:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Orangemike and anyone else, what the literature generally states on matters such as these is seen at Talk:Domestic violence. A WP:Permalink for it is here. So Rhoark's characterization that "[t]his is the most slam-dunk obviously reliable source" is inaccurate. Furthermore, peer review is not the same thing as a literature review or systematic review; WP:MEDRS prefers the latter two. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid your statements are not at all probative. The existence of other reliable sources does not impact the reliability of Archer. Undergoing peer review is indeed different from being a literature review, but Archer both did the first and is the latter. It would meet the recommendations of WP:MEDRS, though that's irrelevant since it is not being used to support a biomedical claim. Rhoark (talk) 04:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you need to read up on the WP:Due weight policy, including its subsections, and better understand what WP:Lead means about what is lead material and what is not lead material. It is also a good idea to ask about this matter at WP:Med. Or rather invite WP:Med to this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want to move the goalposts, you'll have to move them farther than that. I don't think you can make a case that in domestic violence it is undue to include a top-shelf rigorous study of the prevalence of domestic violence. You seem fond of linking WP:Lead but a link is not an argument. There is nothing there that would serve to exclude Archer. Common practice in WP:Fringe articles where prevalent lay opinions diverge from academic sources is to lead with academic conclusions as statements of fact and then note that the majority opinion in the general population differs. That seems like a reasonable blueprint for this situation. Rhoark (talk) 14:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Your assertion that I can't "make a case that in domestic violence it is undue to include a top-shelf rigorous study of the prevalence of domestic violence." is a wrong assertion. Charlotte135 was using the source in a way that violates the WP:Due weight policy. And as made clear by others below (and even indicated by Orangemike above), it should not be used in that way. The WP:Due weight policy is very clear. And so is the WP:Lead guideline, which is certainly a valid argument with regard to this matter. That you think WP:Lead doesn't apply in this case is something I will chalk up to a difference in our experience levels about what is and is not lead material. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * APB on some goalposts, last seen westbound out of town. So Charlotte's edit could WP:STICKTOSOURCE better about the population sample Archer applies to. You see, that's the kind of collaborative criticism that she was asking for while you were delivering ultimatums on the talk page. You'll note also that the merits of Charlotte's edit are not a property of the source. Now, the question is not whether WP:Lead is applicable to leads, but rather what it is in the content of that policy you feel supports the conclusion that the gender balance in commission of domestic violence is not sufficiently important to the topic to merit inclusion there. Rhoark (talk) 03:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Disagree, except for the "the question is not whether WP:Lead is applicable to leads"; the question was never about that. It was about whether or not the content Charlotte135 added is lead material. It was also about what is undue weight. I've made my points on these matters, and I view them as perfectly clear. You are wrong, per what I and others have stated. So I see nothing left to state to you on this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I will go ahead and make my view clearer, though, since we have different views on what is lead material: The lead is for summarizing what is already in the article, especially its most important aspects. The lead is not for adding statistical data that contrasts various other statistical information, and especially if that information is not covered lower in the article. The "Globally, however, a wife or female partner is more commonly the victim of such abuse." sentence summarizes a significant aspect of the topic; that aspect is covered lower in the article, in various ways. The vast majority of the Domestic violence article is about women because domestic violence sources focus on women far more than they focus on men or on children. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * And click on the biomedical link for what biomedical means. Epidemiology is a medical/biomedical matter, and it is listed at WP:MEDSECTIONS. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Crime is sometimes treated using epidemiological methods, but placing all statistics on crime or violence under the rubric of MEDRS is clearly unworkable. This is tangential anyway, since Archer meets the standards expected of a medical source. Rhoark (talk) 14:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * No one stated or implied that we should place "all statistics on crime or violence under the rubric of MEDRS." But violence, including domestic violence, is a medial topic, and its health aspects are subject to WP:MEDRS sourcing. The Archer source is a poor source for the material it was being used for in the article, as made clear by Kaldari below, and it was poorly used in the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The paper is a reliable source, but "is biased toward young dating samples in the United States" (quote from abstract), thus it should not be used to make sweeping claims about domestic violence in general, especially when such claims are contradicted by most other reliable sources. Kaldari (talk) 04:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - The Archer article is a reliable source, and the Scientific American article that discusses the Archer and Strauss articles is also a reliable source. I don't know why anyone is bringing up MEDRS, as this has nothing to do with human biology or health advice.  Flyer22 seems to be using the wrong standard to judge the reliability of sources in this article.  I agree with Kalahari that it shouldn't  be used to make sweeping claims about domestic violence, and it shouldn't be presented on parity with the current mainstream view - but it should not be excluded from the article completely. Not sure this should occupy a prominent place in the lead, but it should be incorporated in the article. Minor4th  05:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: Minor4th is one of the editors who supports the minority viewpoint; his dismay that WP:MEDRS is a factor for information such as this is well-documented, as seen by this discussion and the ones following it when scrolling down. As those discussions show, he disagrees with WP:MEDRS applying to such matters, despite various medical editors being clear that WP:MEDRS applies. His assertion that I'm "using the wrong standard to judge the reliability of sources in this article" is at odds with the WP:MEDRS guideline. And by his own admission that he agrees with Kaldari "that [the Archer source] shouldn't be used to make sweeping claims about domestic violence, and it shouldn't be presented on parity with the current mainstream view," I am applying the WP:Due weight policy correctly. As for the source being excluded from the article entirely, I already stated, "[I]n the Violence against men subsection, we have [...] the following: 'A 2014 study of intimate partner violence by the British Psychological Society concluded that women are more likely to be physically aggressive in domestic scenarios than men.' If your Archer text is to go in the article, it would be better suited in that section. But I don't agree with it being included." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * So that people can see what I mean about WP:MEDRS applying, I commented on "biomedical," "epidemiology" and WP:MEDSECTIONS above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you please back off a bit so others can join the discussion - and let this RSN discussion speak for itself and on its own merits without all this well poisoning. Please?  Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 15:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * may I venture to suggest that F22 has explained the situation adequately, and nothing more need be said. It is very clear. Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 15:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So the Archer article in question is or is not a reliable source? <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:100%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 15:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Obviously it is a reliable source - but only for what it actually supports (see the very important comment/qualification by Kakdari above). More importantly,  the main finding can't simply be stated blindly as fact - it needs to be properly contextualized and evaluated for weight. If other scholars and studies say something different,  then that should be noted.  And if a great many other RS say something different,  then it's possible this needs to be characterized as an outlier,  or maybe even not mentioned at all.  This hinges on the sources weight not its reliability. It just depends on what the broader body of literature on DV says. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Minor4th, adding appropriate context to a discussion is not poisoning the well. It was important to note that you are not a random passerby and that WP:MEDRS applies in this case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, well poisoning, like I said. And the irony is that I'm actually agreeing with you, but you don't see it.  And MEDRS does not apply to domestic violence statistics and studies (no matter how many times you say it). <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:100%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 22:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, we disagree on the poisoning well aspect. And as for you agreeing with me, I acknowledged in my "05:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)" post above and in my "22:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)" post (where I was going to use the names "Kaldari and Minor4th" but opted for "others") that you agree with me as far as WP:Due weight in this case goes. But as for WP:MEDRS, we clearly disagree. The difference is that I have medical sources and medical editors (other than myself) to back me up on the fact that WP:MEDRS apples to "domestic violence statistics and studies." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay thanks to all editors who have added input. So far there appears to be a clear consensus that it definitely is a reliable source. No question about that. Where it is used/placed in the article is however still undecided. I agree that it is probably misplaced in the second paragraph and shouldn't be used to make sweeping claims about domestic violence. Okay so these are the parameters. It also needs to be said that this reliable source is not an outlier, by any means, so should be included somewhere in the article, but needs to be properly contextualized. Am I on track here so far?Charlotte135 (talk) 23:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You got it. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:100%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 06:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

There still clearly appears to be significant disagreement as to whether WP:MEDRS applies or not to the domestic violence article? Fler 22reborn is convinced it does, and cites other medical editors who agree, I think? However it seems other experienced editors who have taken part in this discussion disagree and believe it doesn't. It has therefore been left open-ended which provides no real guide for future edits. Can others here please give their understanding of the consensus if any, after all comments above are considered? How is this decided anyway if there is such conjecture? Does it mean primary sources cannot be used in this article?Charlotte135 (talk) 13:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Minor4th is the only editor in this discussion who has stated or indicated that WP:MEDRS doesn't apply to "domestic violence statistics and studies." Either way, WP:MEDRS is not preventing the content in question from being added to the Domestic violence article. I've been clear that I took issue with how you added the content and where. I was also clear that "[I]n the Violence against men subsection, we have [...] the following: 'A 2014 study of intimate partner violence by the British Psychological Society concluded that women are more likely to be physically aggressive in domestic scenarios than men.", which means that what you want to add, even though not the Archer source, is already addressed in the article. I've been clear that if your Archer content is to go in the article, it should go there in that section that is already reporting on that aspect. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * And as for primary sources, primary sources should be used sparingly regardless of whether or not they are WP:MEDRS-compliant; this is per the WP:Primary sources policy. Domestic violence is a health issue, which is why it is covered by so many health/medical sources, and is widely subject to medical studies; so the idea that WP:MEDRS does not apply to it holds no weight. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * That's not true Flyer22reborn, Rhoark also said the reliable source "...would meet the recommendations of WP:MEDRS, though that's irrelevant since it is not being used to support a biomedical claim." So it was not just minor4th who questions the applicability of WP:MEDRS in this article. And there obviously is further criteria for adding reliable sources if it is applied to the domestic violence article flyer 22 reborn.Charlotte135 (talk) 22:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * It is true; where did Rhoark state or imply that WP:MEDRS does not apply to "domestic violence statistics and studies"? That is why I stated that "Minor4th is the only editor in this discussion who has stated or indicated that WP:MEDRS doesn't apply to 'domestic violence statistics and studies.'" Unlike Rhoark, Minor4th has claimed that domestic violence is not a medical topic. I was already clear above that Minor4th's dismay that "WP:MEDRS is a factor for information such as this is well-documented, as seen by this discussion and the ones following it when scrolling down." If you think that it should be a question as to whether or not WP:MEDRS applies to the topic of domestic violence, I have no problem listing sources, including the World Health Organization (WHO), showing and/or stating that domestic violence is a health/medical topic. It should not even be a question. And I've told you that "Either way, WP:MEDRS is not preventing the [aforementioned] content [you want to add] from being added to the Domestic violence article." If you want to debate the application of WP:MEDRS, then take it to the Domestic violence article talk page, and we can start a WP:RfC on that if you so desire. Whether I start it or someone else starts it, I'll be sure to list an abundance of quality sources showing and/or stating that domestic violence is a health/medical topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay. cool. So, unless any other editors believe it not to be a WP:MEDRS applicable article then I guess that's pretty clear cut, done and dusted. I think that I must have misinterpreted this comment made by Rhoark ".....though that's irrelevant since it is not being used to support a biomedical claim." Anyway will let them comment further if they wanted, rather than my interpretation of their comment. I was really just trying to get an idea on where the group consensus on this actually was?Charlotte135 (talk) 09:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * While Domestic Violence may be reasonably considered a Public Health issue, I do not concur that it is reasonably considered Biomedical content. Accordingly, I would consider that WP:MEDRS does not apply. Hope this helps. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 10:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Correct. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:100%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 15:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Ryk72, considering that "biomedical" includes physical and psychological issues, which are medical issues and are aspects of domestic violence, and considering that health/medical sources classify domestic violence as a medical issue, why would you state that "WP:MEDRS does not apply"? Are you stating that WP:MEDRS does not apply to the source in question? Or are you stating that WP:MEDRS does not apply to domestic violence at all? If it's the latter, you are certainly incorrect, for the reasons I and other WP:Med editors have stated. WP:MEDRS does not only apply to biomedical content; medical editors made this clear at Talk:Domestic violence against men when arguing against Minor4th, who was looking to add poor sources to that article. Furthermore, you seem to to be defining biomedical strictly. Look at the Biomedical article, which is titled Medical research, and see what its scope is. Again, domestic violence concerns physical and mental harm; those are medical/biomedical topics, and is exactly why domestic violence is listed as or called a medical topic by various medical sources. Your and anyone else's commentary encouraging the use of sources that are not WP:MEDRS-compliant for domestic violence material encourages poor sourcing for this health topic. So it does not help. We do not use any and every type of source for the Domestic violence article. News sources are generally a no-go, per WP:MEDRS and per WP:Identifying reliable sources. Domestic violence is not simply a cultural topic, nor simply a legal topic. It is a medical, legal and cultural topic. If the content is legally or culturally-based, then WP:MEDRS is not likely to apply. If the content is health-based, then WP:MEDRS does apply. Simple, really. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I've taken this mater to Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the essay WP:Biomedical information, which is linked from WP:MEDRS, is probably as helpful as anything else that we have; and putting that together with WP:MEDRS, I cannot, in good faith, conclude that a source on the rates of domestic violence is biomedical information, and therefore covered. There may be other discussions to be had around WP:NPOV and WP:DUE, but I don't think that WP:MEDRS is the hook to hang the hat on here. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 12:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , With respect, I feel there's a fair amount of equivocation in the reasoning provided here. It seems a bit like "WP:MEDRS applies to biomedical information, which is kind of the same as medical, which is kind of the same as health, which is, you know, public health, which includes domestic violence; so it's covered by WP:MEDRS". It may not be the intent, but that's how it comes across - all just a little too tenuous a link.


 * Ryk72, in this case, there is only "equivocation" to editors who do not understand how health/medical topics should be sourced, and/or those trying to push a specific POV that is not widely supported by the medical literature. Like I stated above, I've taken the matter to the WP:MEDRS talk page. Hopefully, some WP:MEDRS editors weigh in on it. Then again, they might feel that they don't need to, per what I and other WP:Med editors have stated about domestic violence and its medical/biomedical relation. I can't agree with you because it makes absolutely no sense to me to state that a topic that deals so much with medical/biomedical issues (just look at the topics in the Domestic violence article) is not in the domain of WP:MEDRS. Then again, it seems you are now only stating that WP:MEDRS doesn't apply to epidemiology (rates of domestic violence). If you recognize that some aspects of domestic violence require WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing, then good; I can assume some good faith on your part here. But either way, with the exception of GregJackP (mentioned in the aforementioned section at the WP:MEDRS talk page), the only editors so far to claim that domestic violence doesn't require WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing have been men's rights editors and those involved with the Gamergate controversy article; I doubt that's a coincidence. It's common for such editors to want us to forgo high-quality medical sources for obvious POV-pushing reasons. It's interesting that you argue that the WP:Biomedical information essay supports your view, when I stated the opposite in the aforementioned section at the WP:MEDRS talk page; I stated, "The main dispute for whether 'biomedical' applies to domestic violence is the epidemiology material. I've stated that epidemiology material should be WP:MEDRS-compliant; this view is also currently supported by the 'What is biomedical information?' and 'The best type of source' sections at the Wikipedia:Biomedical information essay." We'll see what WP:MEDRS editors state, if they state anything at all on this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I am also not POV-pushing here, I have made no statement as to the inclusion of any material in any article; simply that I don't think WP:MEDRS applies in this case. As above, there may be WP:NPOV or WP:DUE reasons which apply. I agree with both you and that additional, reasoned, opinions would be useful - and concur that an RfC might be useful. The question was brought here, seeking opinions. I've opined. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 13:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , I must respectfully request that you do not use straw man arguments or genetic fallacies. Topic spaces in which editors may have participated are not germane to the reasoning that they provide for opinions here. I do not assert that WP:MEDRS doesn't apply to epidemiology; I assert that WP:MEDRS does not apply to prevalence rates for domestic violence, on the basis that domestic violence is not a medical condition. I also do not mention prevalence rates to indicate that they are an exception; I mention them because that appears to be the subject of the discussion at the Domestic violence page which was linked above.


 * Ryk72, I must respectfully request that you learn about sourcing medical issues before you comment on what type of sourcing a medical issue should have. Also read up on what epidemiology entails, if you think that it doesn't include statistics and that a violence topic such as domestic violence doesn't fall under epidemiology. I disagree with everything you've stated in this section, except for WP:NPOV or WP:DUE concerns and the suggestion of a WP:RfC, and the reasons why are noted above and below. For example, if "Topic spaces in which editors may have participated are not germane to the reasoning that they provide for opinions here." was at all true, the Domestic violence article talk page would not be tagged with Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. Such editors have repeatedly plagued gender-related articles, and the way they think on topics such as these are very much a concern. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Given that I have opined - the crux of which is WP:MEDRS applies to biomedical information; "Domestic violence" is not a medical condition, so prevalence rates are not biomedical information; and therefore WP:MEDRS does not apply - will there be a substantive response to this reasoning? From this side of the keyboard it feels like the response has been a mix of logical fallacies and personal attacks; which, to be honest, would seem to undermine the contra opinion rather than strengthen it. As for statistics, I agree that both prevalence rates for domestic violence and epidemiology make use of statistics; but so do Mean Time Between Failure rates for mechanical components, and they are not necessarily biomedical. It seems a bit "fowls lay eggs; fish lay eggs; fish are fowls" unfortunately. What say we put together the RfC, see what comes out of it? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 13:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I must admit to being very disappointed - "request that you learn about sourcing before you comment" is incredibly dismissive and rude, and quite the personal attack. We owe each other better. I have read fully & absorbed WP:MEDRS and WP:Biomedical information, other than these what additional materials are considered necessary & sufficient to opine?


 * Ryk72, even though I don't care if you are disappointed in me, especially given what I have observed of your short history editing Wikipedia (that is, if you are indeed a WP:Newbie), my "respectfully request" comment was no more rude or a personal attack than your "respectfully request" comment. You are acting like "biomedical" only refers to what you call "a medical condition." So it's safe to state that your understanding of WP:MEDRS very much contrasts mine and that of many other WP:Med editors. As for the rest of your "13:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)" reply, it's already clear that we are at an impasse, that I disagree with you; I see no need to continue any further discussion with you on this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Flyer, maybe you should start an RfC on the MEDRS talk page? You are consistently misrepresenting my view, so let me clarify. MEDRS applies to medical information re: humans - not to sociology issues. Simple as that. I mean, think about the actual purpose of having a more restricted MEDRS guideline for reliable sources - it's so we get the science of human medical issues right. We might need MEDRS for describing the medical aspects of post-traumatic stress disorder, but we don't need MEDRS to describe underreporting or crime statistics or public perception, etc. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:100%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 12:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. I am not a "men's rights editor" and I've never had anything to do with the gamergate controversy. Nor am I POV pushing.  That is a tremendous assumption of bad faith on your part, Flyer 22.  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:100%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 12:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Consistently misrepresenting your view? In this section, did you not state "Ozzie, this is not a biomed article, so I don't know why MEDRS is brought up. In any event, the sources that Flyer22 keeps trying to remove do comply with MEDRS, even though this article does not have to meet that requirement."? In that same discussion, did you not also state "From what I see, this article has no bearing on WP:MED. This is a sociology issue."? You made it seem like domestic violence against men is a sociological topic only, as if none of it concerns the medical realm. And you were/are wrong on that. This discussion was the only discussion where you seemed to acknowledge that some aspects of domestic violence against men concern WP:Med/MEDRS; you stated, "1. Application of WP:MEDRS - from looking at recent comments, I think we all now agree that MEDRS does not generally apply to every part of the article, but issues directly related to health and medical information should be sourced according to the guideline."


 * As your definition of sociology, I just told you that epidemiology is not simply a sociological matter; it is a medical matter more than anything else. I stated that reporting on statistics for domestic violence is not much different than reporting on statistics for suicide, which is reporting that requires WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing. As for your claim that you are not a men's rights editor, I'll leave it at that: Your claim. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That was way over the line. You need to strike that. Painful as it is to say that was a full on gendered attack . Also, if you truly want input from other editors you should stop badgering everyone here. Your opinion on the matter is known - let others chime in without further expansion of this wall of text. Thank you.  J bh  Talk  15:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Jbhunley, we clearly have different definitions about what is "way over the line," what is a "gendered attack," and what is "badgering everyone." If someone replies to me or makes a comment relating to me, I should not have to quit responding. Same goes for someone making a comment on something I feel they are incorrect on. And my text in this section is hardly any more "wall of text" than others' comments in in this section. Thank you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * First, I want to be very clear the "you" in the following example is generic. Let me replace one word in the statement you made above - 'As for your claim that you are not a men's rights feminist editor, I'll leave it at that: Your claim.' - they are equivalent, in fact yours is worse because the Men's rights movement is a rather odious thing whereas being a feminist is not. Beyond that whether one is a men's rights editor or a feminist editor has no bearing on the matter and to bring it up is a personal attack. In re 'wall of text'; you have been here long enough to know that is is not always productive, and is often counter productive, to respond to every comment. I addressed my comment to you because you have been going after every editor who expresses an opinion counter to yours and are calling them 'inexperienced' or denigrating their input because they are not WP:MED editors rather than addressing the substance of their arguments. That is not proper. J bh  Talk  16:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Jbhunley, I reiterate: "[W]e clearly have different definitions about what is 'way over the line,' what is a 'gendered attack,' and what is 'badgering everyone.' If someone replies to me or makes a comment relating to me, I should not have to quit responding. Same goes for someone making a comment on something I feel they are incorrect on. And my text in this section is hardly any more 'wall of text' than others' comments in in this section." As for men's rights editors, I've been clear above that the Domestic violence article talk page is tagged with Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. I stated, "Such editors have repeatedly plagued gender-related articles, and the way they think on topics such as these are very much a concern." If you feel it is a gendered attack to note the problematic men's rights editors that have plagued the Domestic violence article, and that they should be of concern because of the type of content they continue to try to push on that article, then I'd rather not discuss anything with you. Your definition of a gendered attack is flawed. Also take note that I do not identify as a feminist, but, even if I did, the Domestic violence article is not under a feminist probation. And your assertion that I "have been going after every editor who expresses an opinion counter to [mine] and [am] calling them 'inexperienced' or denigrating their input because they are not WP:MED editors rather than addressing the substance of their arguments." is wrong. What you are doing is, for some "mysterious" reason, giving me a lecture that I do not need. You are not helping; you are unnecessarily inflaming the situation. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Then I shall withdraw. I did not know your gender when I made the original comment and I do not care what you identify as. I checked to make sure I did not make an implied accusation if you happened to be female and even though I made that clear you seem to have found a way to take offence. I gave you an opinion as an uninvolved editor expressing a clear opinion about what I see as problematic behavior. If you wanted to notify an editor of sanctions then do it, do not make attacks. If you feel calling out bad behavior is 'inflaming the situation' we can disagree on that as well. I will leave you with a simply observation - Whether you think something you say is an attack or not is completely irrelevent . The person your comment was directed at saw it as an attack and an outside observer (me) saw it as an attack. If you do not understand that then there are bigger issues in play than I can hope to address. PS I stand corrected, you did not accuse the other editor of being inexperienced. You accused them of being a SOCK. "(that is, if you are indeed a WP:Newbie)". That is so much better. J bh  Talk  17:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Jbhunley, you are still inflaming the situation, and with silly assumptions to boot. For example, stating that "Whether you think something you say is an attack or not is completely irrelevent ." Yes, tell that to editors who helped craft WP:Civility and WP:No personal attacks, and to those who have debated at those policy talk pages what is perceived as a civility or personal attacks violation. Editors do not get blocked because a person stated "He or she was being uncivil to me." or "He or she made a personal attack against me." They get blocked when there is an actual clear-cut violation, and usually if the block is preventative; blocks are not meant to be punitive. You are more than free to try your luck reporting me at WP:ANI. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Nah. ANI is pointless for civility. Civil people do not need to be forced to be civil. Polite people are willing to examine their behavior to see why others feel they might have given offence rather than dig their heels in and require ANI to tell them how to behave. I am sorry I mistook you for someone who simply got too involved in a discussion and did not realize they were attacking others. There is no point in arguing with the obstinate. I hope, on calmer reflection, you see the point I was trying to make. Good day to you. J bh  Talk  18:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, the OP has given no exact statement for which the source is supposed to be cited. They should read the format given at the top of the page. Reliability is always in context. Reading the rest of the discussion is a bit more illuminating, though also confusing. My opinion is that WP:MEDRS does not apply here. Of course this is a biomedical matter, but that is not the only thing. It is also a psychological and social matter, this is why a journal like this is investigating such things. The source is generally reliable, but its conclusions should not be overdrawn, and due weight should be given. It is hard to be more specific than this without seeing the exact statement which this source is used to support. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 14:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Kingsindian, I appreciate the comment, especially since you noted "Of course this is a biomedical matter, but that is not the only thing. It is also a psychological and social matter." This is similar to my "04:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)" statement that "It is a medical, legal and cultural topic." Psychology, though, like psychiatry, does partly fall under "biomedical. Still, this discussion has gotten off track by focusing on WP:MEDRS; this is why I tried to steer it back on track when I told Charlotte135 above (my "14:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)" post) that "WP:MEDRS is not preventing the content in question from being added to the Domestic violence article. I've been clear that I took issue with how you added the content and where." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, Kingsindian, this link shows the statement the source was used to support; I noted it in my "22:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)" comment above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for providing the exact statement. Firstly, there is the issue of weight, which is not a matter for this noticeboard, but for the talk page. Usually it is better for stuff to be entered in the body of the article first, and then summarized in the lead. Secondly, the source looks fine to me for the statement cited. As I stated above, WP:MEDRS is not relevant for this, since this is not talking about biomedical matter. It is a short statement from the abstract, summarizing the results of the study. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 15:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The "General" section under Domestic_violence is the section that pertains to gender ratios in commission of domestic violence. It would be appropriate to include Archer in that context.
 * Regarding MEDRS, it is not a monolith. There are several factors.
 * First of all it defines criteria for identifying the highest quality sources on any scientific topic, not only medical ones.
 * It gives guidelines on balancing due weight between sources of different quality. All else being equal, it is good to follow those recommendations even outside medical topics.
 * It identifies as special class of biomedical claims, which is more stringent than merely relating to health.
 * It then identifies particular ways that lower quality sources should not be used in relation to biomedical claims.
 * Within the topic of domestic violence, there can be claims that are biomedical, merely health-related, or neither.
 * An example of a biomedical claim in the article is that domestic violence increases the likelihood of HIV transmission.
 * Psychological claims can be biomedical, for example that clinical depression may contribute to or be exacerbated by domestic violence.
 * Demographic statistics, especially about who commits violence, seems at best tenuously health-related.
 * Finally, Archer rates among the highest quality sources according to the MEDRS rubric, especially considering it is sociological rather than in the hard sciences. Rhoark (talk) 15:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Archer (2000) looks to pass MEDRS so whether MEDRS applies is moot. Since the issue has been brought up and is contentions it is worthwhile to examine if MEDRS should apply to domestic violence. In short, it is my belief that domestic violence slips through the definition of 'bio-medical' as it is defined in Biomedical information unless we take the way over broad claim of "Biomedical information is information that relates to (or could reasonably be perceived as relating to) human health." to be the test. That said domestic violence is considered as and, most importantly, studied with the same rigor as the subjects contemplated in Biomedical information. So whether or not it fits the strict criteria it should be subject to the same sourcing requirements as biomedical information. J bh  Talk  16:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22 has opened another discussion on this topic at Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) Rhoark (talk) 17:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Rhoark, I was already clear about that above (my "06:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)" post). And as you can see, the medical editors are weighing in, and WP:MEDRS has already been partly revised here and here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Yes, the Archer article (here for example) is about the topic and the diversity part of it and research is suitable and nice.  Good article.  But.  I think the discussion focus/intent for it is getting astray of the article topic.  The article is about a broad topic of behaviour pattern, challenged enough with describing and explaining all the kinds and social contexts.  It's not a contest of 'more the victim' and would be a bad article if it were ever going to resolve down to simplistic stereotype.   Markbassett (talk) 23:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

southbendtribune.com
I'm trying to figure out how reliable a news source "South Bend Tribune" currently is. It appears to have a news staff with editors, so I imagine it's more than an advertising handout. It is currently being used to establish notability in the new article NTA (company), though the article being cited reads like a press release. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The South Bend Tribune, as a newspaper, has a long history. There's nothing that immediately indicates their web product lacks editorial control. The article is question is bylined by a correspondent who has written for them at least from 2007 to 2013, based on a quick search of their archives. Some of his work, especially early on, is about local business news and really does seem like it was adapted from press releases. He's not purely an advertising mouthpiece, though, and has produced articles for the Tribune that look like real reporting. Where does that leave us? I'm inclined to say that this article is local-business reporting, slanted heavily towards the appearance of a press release (and potentially adapted from one) because that's often what local-business reporting does. I don't think this source would be unsuitable for the article, but I wouldn't count it very heavily towards establishing notability. If you're taking the "count to two" approach to meeting the notability standard with nontrivial, independent, reliable sources, I'd only consider this as a half-point. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * For the purpose of establishing notability for a company WP:AUD requires a minimum of coverage in regional sources. The South Bend Tribune does not seem to be that by a long shot so better sourcing for notability is needed. J bh  Talk  17:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I would like to clarify that the South Bend Tribune provides coverage to and is read throughout the Michiana region, not just South Bend. Given that it's not clear to me how large a region is required by the guideline, I have no opinion as to whether this article is sufficient to establish notability. - Location (talk) 01:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It is rs - business stories are frequently based on company press releases. We rely on the publication to determine how accurate it is.  But I do not think a brief mention establishes notability.  TFD (talk) 00:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree with previous comments... good for verifiability, but not for establishing notability. Blueboar (talk) 00:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Can we use this racist website (added an external link) as a source for Willis Carto's death?
Editors are trying to rewrite the article to say Carto is dead, which may be the case. I can't find any reliable sources for this however. Currently the article says he's dead, and an editor says the source is [, a racist anti-semitic site run by [[Mark Cotterill]]. It's not actually added as a source but as an EL. I removed it because I think that as an EL it is just publicising a tiny racist website - I didn't consider it a source, but I've been reverted saying that it is a source. Doug Weller (talk) 13:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that's definitely not a usable source for a claim about a living or recently deceased person. I did find this, however it also doesn't seem to meet our guidelines. - MrX 13:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hm, the editor has been warned about using reliable sources for deaths in the past, and blocked twice for BLP violations. Doug Weller (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * How about this? David in DC (talk) 16:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, SPLC is fine. - Location (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm going to adjust my comment. The SPLC is a reliable source, but they are reporting what unreliable sources have stated. I guess I'd like to hear other opinions. - Location (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * He was editor and publisher for the Barnes Review, I'm sure they're "reliable" about his death. Link to Barnes Review obituary. Raquel Baranow (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. There's not a lot that Barnes Review would be an RS for, but ok for his death. Doug Weller (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Rochdale Online
Is currently primarily used in the BLP for Simon Danczuk for such claims as:
 * In October 2015 over 5,000 people signed a petition asking the Parliamentary Labour Party withdraw the whip from Simon Danczuk, and the Rochdale constituency consider deselection [11] as a result of Danczuk repeating a particular falsehood that smeared the leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn. http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/98824/over-five-thousand-sign-petition-asking-for-the-labour-party-to-offload-simon-danczuk
 * Danczuk's comments prompted local criticism in Rochdale  http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/97493/simon-danczuk-causes-outrage-by-suggesting-labour-mps-should-subvert-democratically-elected-leader
 * Danczuk was first married to Sonia Milewski with whom he had two children. They divorced in 2010 previously used for https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simon_Danczuk&diff=688345209&oldid=687423382 2009 with the reason cited as Mr Danczuk's adulterous behaviour

I note that multiple blogs are used in that BLP as well including "LabourList" ("LabourList is an independent progressive blog providing a platform for open debate about centre-left issues and the future of the Labour movement.") and numerous other blogs, and thus I am catenating them here with the local newspaper used to make contentious claims, and the fact the Daily Mail is here used for its "celebrity gossip" as well. (" On 3 February 2012, Huhne became the first Cabinet Minister in British political history to be forced from office as a result of criminal proceedings") and for the ref for the divorce. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2658971/I-took-ecstasy-cannabis-Labour-MP-Simon-Danczuk-admits-drug-fuelled-nights-wife-defends-cleavage-selfies.html

Thanks. Collect (talk) 12:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Rochdale Online is probably reliable for some claims, but its choice of tone is clearly biased. I do not think it is appropriate for contentious BLP claims, such as calling someone a liar or stating the reasons for someone's divorce. The focus on the petition is probably undue - its a change.org online petition with only 5000 signatures. Here are some better sources on Danczuk's contentions about Corbyn: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/25/corbyn-leadership-challenge-labour-mp-threatens-to-stand-if-may-elections-disappoint http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-funded-ira-bomber-sun-report-inaccurate-disproved-1987-10509965.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhoark (talk • contribs) 14:38, 31 October 2015


 * Unreliable for any claims except as allowed at WP:ABOUTSELF. Rochdale Online is an "online department store" that happens to have a "news desk", most likely for SEO purposes. It lacks author by-lines, masthead/editorial board, and the standard legal disclaimers that you'll find at any reputable publisher. And, most importantly, there is zero evidence of "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy": they have not received any major (or minor) journalism award and other reliable sources do not share their articles. Woodroar (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Max Blumenthal
Can Max Blumenthal, writing in Goliath: Life and Loath*ing in Greater Israel be used as a source for "Ben-Zion Gopstein of Lehava, an organization dedicated to anti-assimilation, declared to reporters outside the courtroom that:'It seems that here the youth raised Jewish pride off the floor, and did what the police should have done", which was put in Zion Square assault? Please note that this is a claim about a 3rd party living person, and should be fairly easily sourced to a news outlet since he says it was told to reporters. Blumenthal is a polemicist, and even some of his political supporters describe him as "﻿deliberately deceptive" No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Eric Alterman is not a 'political supporter' of Max Blumenthal. Ist error. Secondly, the cherrypicked 'deliberately deceptive' phrase should be read in context.
 * Eric Alterman, 'Max Blumenthal’s carelessly constructed case against the Jewish state won’t help the occupation’s victims,' The Nation 16 October 2013 states
 * "'Blumenthal’s accounts are mostly technically accurate, but often deliberately deceptive. In one relatively trivial but revealing example, Blumenthal hides behind the passive voice to repeat the accusation that El Al “airline has been accused of allowing Mossad officers to pose as El Al staffers to collect information on non-Jewish passengers in foreign airports” [italics mine]. Lo and behold, it turns out that the accuser in question was a recently terminated El Al employee who spent nineteen years at the company without ever mentioning any of this (and who presented no evidence for his claim).'"
 * (Alterman was proved wrong in any case, as the South African cables affair revealed earlier this year)
 * In short Alterman's whole case, and NMMGG's, for saying Max Blumenthal is 'deliberately deceptive' is that he reports an accusation in the passive voice, a voice most editors in Wikipedia use in reporting similar claims. That is all Alterman can come up with. There is no other evidence for deception, deliberate or otherwise, in the review. The charge is unsubstantiated.
 * Nina Burleigh 'Goliath vs. Goliath: Blumenthal Book Is Right About Israeli Myopia, but Naive on Islamists,' Observer 29 October 2013 found the book accurate.
 * Ian Lustick, perhaps the greatest authority on this conflict, took Blumenthal's work seriously, and engaged in a long dialogue before Penn students in which the crisis was discussed amicably. See Max Blumenthal and Ian Lustick speak at Penn
 * David Dean Shulman, 'Occupation:The Finest Israeli Documentary,' New York Review of Books  22 May 2014 likewise reviewed it positively.
 * Blumenthal quotes Ben-Zion Gopstein’s statement. The statement is in keeping with someone who is a Kahanist by background, and a leader of Lehava, an organization that the Government itself has several times considered outlawing as terroristic, as it has Meir Kahane's organization. He regards Palestinian as a form of cancer, and has openly promised that one of their parliamentary representatives in Israel Azmi Bishara will be hung.
 * There is nothing out of character in the kind of statement Blumenthal attributes to him, and Blumenthal has not been called to account for consistent misrepresentation of sources to my knowledge, neither in the investigative works on American politics nor for the details he has dug up in Israel.Nishidani (talk) 19:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Blumenthal is "deliberately deceptive". His "﻿selectivity often gets in the way of his truth-telling". That's from someone who's on the same side politically as he is. I could bring many more from the other side, naturally. The assistant book editor at the WSJ said the book is garbage . He is making claims you should be able to source to better sources. About living people. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Contentious claims about living people need better sourcing than this. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The source is not contentious. Have you edited wiki under another name?Nishidani (talk) 20:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Blumenthal quotes Arutz Sheva for this statement. Unless you believe Arutz Sheva will lie about a Kahanite, or that Blumenthal made the quote up, this is rather beside the point. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 21:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Feel free to dig up the original Arutz 7 quote and use it instead of this unreliable source. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 21:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I am saying that Blumenthal is not RS for this per Wikipedia policy, and that we should be extra careful with BLP. And that I'm fairly certain I've seen you arguing against the reliability of Arutz 7. Or am I mistaken about the last one? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Arutz Sheva doesn't quote Ben-Zion Gopstein. Arutz Sheva ran an interview with him, which is on Youtube. It is from this interview that Blumenthal is quoting. So it is immaterial whether the source is Arutz Sheva. The only technical objection can be that of showing that the quoted phrase is not what BenZion Gopstein says in that verifiable interview. So by all means go ahead, and check the translation in Blumenthal against that video-recorded comment (or the following comments made by him in the Arutz Sheva studio debate).Nishidani (talk) 21:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have a link? I'm not sure about the policies re: youtube. If it can be used, by all means use it. The point still stands about Blumenthal and claims about living persons. He is not a reliable source and should not be treated as such. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not incumbent on me to dig up the Arutz Sheva interview. Blumenthal quotes them, that is enough. If you have any evidence that Blumenthal made up the quote, feel free to provide it. As to reliability of Arutz Sheva, it is always in context. They are reliable for internal settler matters, and for an interview with a Kahanist guy, who shares their ideology. Why would they make up stuff about a Kahanite? Arutz Sheva is not reliable for Palestinian matters. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 23:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course it is incumbent on you to dig up the Arutz Sheva interview - if Blumenthal is unreliable - how do we know he' accurately quoting his claimed source? When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The quote is also sourced here, which sources it to here; both of them seem reasonably usable. In general I'm not sure I see the argument against Blumenthal in the first place; one person making an accusation against him in an editorial, review, or similar opinion piece doesn't instantly render everything he writes unusable, especially if his books are being published by a respectable publisher. --Aquillion (talk) 09:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 972 is a group blog. It is not reliable. If we have the original source- (INN/Arutz 7 ) - why not use that? When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 14:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * It is not incumbent on me to find the A7 source, for the simple reason that you are assuming the conclusion in stating that Blumenthal is unreliable. Nobody in this section has charged that he makes up quotes, and there is no reason prima facie to suspect that the quote is wrong. But it turns out that the original A7 article has been found after all, and Google Translate confirms that the quote is real. Can we forget this petty dispute now? Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 20:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that is not the way it works around here . You seem to be operating under the mistaken assumption that a source is presumed reliable unless proven otherwise, but it is in fact the other way around - unless a source is shown to be reliable - by meeting certain criteria spelled out in WP:RS - such as a reputation for fact checking, editorial oversight, etc.. - it is presumed not reliable. I have no idea if MB makes up quotes, but it wouldn't surprise me if he did, seeing as we have sources that say he is deliberately deceptive - which is a reason to suspect he is wrong,or aat least not accurately quoting.. Anyway, now that  the A7 source was found, we can certainly use THAT as a source, but not Blumenthal. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 04:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, that is indeed the way it works around here. Blumenthal is a journalist who has been published in many places. Nobody, anywhere, has alleged that he makes up quotes. The book is published by Nation Books, which has editors and fact-checkers. Blumenthal explicitly gives his source, anyone can check it, fulfilling WP:V. If Blumenthal gave his own interpretation of the quote, then it would be relevant for one to consider the general reliability of Blumenthal's political judgements etc. As to using the A7 source, it can be used together with the Blumenthal source, because English language sources are preferred on WP. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 08:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Though you preface your paragraph with "...that is indeed the way it works around here." - the following text shows you know this to be false, as you then attempt to prove MB's book is a reliable  source, using the criteria established by WP:RS, ergo, it is not reliable by default - its reliability needs to be proven. That's good, were making some progress in getting you to understand  and correctly apply wikipedia's sourcing  policy. As to the arguments themselves - firstly, you should really drop the false line that nobody here has suggested MB is unreliable. Several have, and reliable  sources have been produced that explicitly  state he is a deliberately deceptive source. That alone should put a huge red flag over using him. Journalists  are not inherently reliable - their reliability stems from their association with reliable  publishers who employ editorial oversight and have a reputation for fact checking. I am not sure those apply to Nation Books.  English wikipedia prefers reliable ENglish sources over reliable non-English ones, but it does not prefer non-reliable  English sources over reliable former language ones. If we have the original, we can simply use that. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 14:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Find me one person in this area who is not criticized by some person or the other? Benny Morris is used in literally hundreds of Wikipedia articles, and you can find scholarly opinions on him, tearing him to shreds. But nobody claims that he makes up reports of atrocities. The questions are always about interpretation, emphasis and so on. Blumenthal is used to substantiate a quote, the quote is even found to exist, exactly in the place where he said it existed. If Blumenthal is quoted in his interpretations of Israeli policy, then you may or may not have a point about reliability. Simply insisting over and over that he is "unreliable" because some guy does not like his work is useless. This is too petty a dispute for me to continue. So I am done. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 16:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This is getting silly:'sources have been produced that explicitly state he is a deliberately deceptive pluralizes one polemical dismissal by Eric Alterman, which has been shown to be absurd, since it consists in a protest about his grammatical usage of the passive voice. Why Blumenthal should require exceptionalist quarantine, when there is no evidence in sources that he is more, or less, reliable than any other journalist of the numerous we use here, is the query. Could we therefore drop the expostulations and ask some neutral outside experts to make a simple call.Nishidani (talk) 16:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Since there is repeated edit-warring to remove the sources, could I prevail on the board to attend to these requests for external third party input? It really should not be difficult to decide whether Max Blumenthal, published by Nation Books is WP:RS. This is an issue that has been brought up for consultation now twice here, without significant third party input, and the problem will not go away until the issue is decided.Nishidani (talk) 15:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Max Blumenthal is a journalist and there is no reason to believe that Gopstein's statement, reported elsewhere and wholly consistent with his political beliefs, is fabricated. -Darouet (talk) 17:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Umm what? Journalists do not have some magic "reliability dust" that magically renders anything they write, in any forum, reliable. Their reliability stems first and foremost from being published in newspapers that have editorial oversight and a reputation for fact checking - neither of which exist here. If other, reliable sources confirm the Gopstein quote, we can use them. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

If there is any question about Gopstein's own acknowledged politics: [,, , . -[[User:Darouet|Darouet]] (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The consensus of this page is that Max Blumenthal is perfectly adequate as an RS source for this comment (and I might add generally). Unless their are further objections, can this be formally closed as resolved? Nishidani (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want a formal close, you can list it at WP:ANRFC. I can do it if you like. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 23:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd much appreciate that, and sorry for the bother. Anything technical is beyond me, apart from work around a house.Nishidani (talk) 23:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Wait, what? You can't close this as an RfC without advertising it as such. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not asking for a close as an RfC. I am asking an uninvolved editor to look at this discussion. This page cannot have an official consensus anyway, as stated at the top of the page. This page is just volunteers replying to questions. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 23:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Using the same or similar acronyms means there potential for some confusion between RfC - Request for Comment and ANRFC - Request for Close? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This page says at the top that the answers given here are not official policy. Of course, if people wish, they can stonewall, and force an RfC. It would be incredibly petty to do so, since even the quote has been found in the exact place where the author said it was. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 00:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, Apologies, I was just pointing out the potential for the two terms to be confusing; not making any comment or suggestion on action. From my reading of the above, you clearly meant ANRFC (Request for formal closure of the discussion above), which is different to RfC, despite the similarity in naming. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That is ok, I wasn't really replying to you, but talking generally. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 00:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

UKGameshows.com
I was directed here from Template:Did you know nominations/One Hundred And Eighty but this request pertains both to it and Template:Did you know nominations/Safeword (game show).

The source, generally, is UKGameshows.com. I have added this source to a number of game show articles over the past six months, including (from memory) Benchmark (game show), Freeze Out (game show), Rebound (game show), Decimate (game show) and most recently of all Pick Me!, many of which to supplant the game play sections and for other assorted bits of information (e.g., "Pick Me! was developed by Possessed, a production firm owned by Glenn Hugill"). In One Hundred and Eighty's case, this is just one statement (that nine-dart legs win £1,000); for Safeword, this is at the time of writing the entire gameplay section due to the length of which the DYK nomination dragged out (I may trawl YouTube for relevant clips - but see below). These have recently been removed by an IP address citing WP:IMPORTANT (along with the entire background section of One Hundred and Eighty - make your own mind up).

I would argue that the site is reliable because, as copied from Template:Did you know nominations/Safeword (game show), "UKGameshows.com is primarily edited by David J. Bodycombe, a man who has 25 years experience in the field of game shows and was responsible for bringing the nation The Crystal Maze. I consider him a reliable source." Yes, it is a wiki, but it is not freely editable - you need an account, and very rarely are they issued. My request was rejected. (There's no need to worry about circular referencing - we tend to be described as 'that other wiki' by the site.)

I would also like clarification on two other sources: Weaver's Week, a weekly review of 'the latest happenings in game show land' (this week's is an excellent example), and the shows themselves. I ask for clarification in these instances as they are borderline self-published and original research respectively.-- Laun  chba  ller  18:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Though the UKGameshows.com Wikipedia article is almost entirely unsourced, it does say at the moment that the site was updated and edited by Bodycombe until 2004, when it was re-launched using mediawiki software. This strongly suggests that any content after 2004 has been added by a variety of editors, in a similar fashion to Wikipedia. Sionk (talk) 21:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The list of editors can be found here, where it seems a number of editors were involved before the site converted to MediaWiki software, which would lead me to believe it was converted to facilitate those editors. Bodycombe remains the editor/project manager.-- Laun  chba  ller  00:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The 'elephant in the room' question is why you are so keen to rely solely on UKGameshows.com to source your edits, when there are always recognised reliable sources available for notable TV programmes (e.g. newspapers and news websites). Sionk (talk) 20:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I read the site's TV Guide and Weaver's Week columns every week anyway. Nowadays, very rarely do the mainstream media come out with anything chunky.-- Laun  chba  ller  23:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * After poking around the site in question, I have concerns similar to those expressed by Sionk. The good news is that while UKGamesshows accepts contributions from the general public (via a form at the bottom of each entry), the general public is unable to directly modify a page.  I was unable to locate any information as to how much editorial control is exercised over suggested changes once they are submitted to the site.  Things quickly become murky past his point in the investigation.  As noted above, the site uses mediaWiki software.  Account access is restricted, but individuals can apply for an account by answering a handful of questions and expressing an interest in the site.  Communication with the site's controls is by email or a Yahoo! Groups.  Notably missing from the contact information is any form of telephone number or Snail mail address.  Given the uncertain level of editorial control exercised and the lack of contact information for legal inquiries, UKGameshows comes across as a higher quality fan site.  This means I would have to rate the site as a potentially useful resource that falls short of being a reliable source. --Allen3 talk 22:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay. (I did test the editorial control last night after finding an error in their TV Guide - it failed to mention that the Challenge repeats of Fifteen to One started fifteen minutes earlier one day. He checked it against the listings and then changed it. That should tell you all you need to know on that account.) What is your verdict on using the shows themselves?-- Laun  chba  ller  01:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The television shows themselves (on YouTube or the channel's website) are WP:PRIMARY sources, so the normal guidelines for using primary sources would apply, wouldn't they (i.e. with care and not as the main source for the article). Sionk (talk) 23:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)