Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 244

Springer book
'Eradicating Terrorism from the Middle East' says that 16,000 people were killed by MEK after 1979 in Iran and the author cites infoplease.com as the source. Is it reliable enough? I checked other sources; this one says: "Total: Since 1979 over 10,000 people have died in the conflict," and 10.1111/j.1949-3606.1994.tb00535.x says: "...Mojahedin was an organization of questionable reputation responsible for “the deaths of more than 10,000 Iranians”" -- M h hossein   talk 18:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I replaced the now-blacklisted Sci-Hub link with the doi-link. DMacks (talk) 14:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The author (Dr. Alexander R. Dawoody) and publisher (Springer) seem reputable, but infoplease doesn't really seem reliable at a quick glance. Do you have the exact URL that is used for the citation or does it just say it is from infoplease? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It does say that, but I don't know what "infoplease.com" has to do with that. And sixteen thousand is over ten thousand, so that's not necessarily even a conflict.--tronvillain (talk) 20:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, it's also on a later page with the reference to infoplease. --tronvillain (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The book is a secondary source subject to scholarly peer-review. If it has passed through the Springer refereeing, I'd say that it is reliable. Pahlevun (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * They officially take pride in killing more than 63,000 in 1988 alone, taking credit of killing 55,000 in the "Operation Eternal Light", and 8,000 in the "Operation Forty Stars". Pahlevun (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

The stringency and quality of editorial oversight and peer review varies in publications by commercial academic publishers. That the book cites infoplease.com for that fact is an indication of poor editorial oversight and poor peer review, and reflects poorly on the author. It is sometimes the case that editorial collections (such as this book) are not independently peer-reviewed, and are only comprehensively edited (in terms of substance, not copyediting) by the editor of the edited collection. The book should not be considered a RS for the 16,000 figure. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The chapter is derived from a journal article published by International Journal of Public Administration. Pahlevun (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This article by RT mentions the same number: "More than 16,000 people have been killed in violent acts carried out by MEK since 1970s, including dozens of targeted assassinations against Iranian politicians". Pahlevun (talk) 22:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The journal article has the same citations to simply "www.infoplease.com", which makes one wonder about the journal. --tronvillain (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Agree with Snooganssnoogans, infoplease.com is not a reliable source (which is where the author says he retrieved this figure), hence this figure cannot considered reliable. Also Iran-based media cannot be considered a reliable source of information for this article as it's in direct COI with this subject. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Reliability of 'Religion En Libertad'
I was reading the Spanish version of wikipedia's article on teenager LGBT suicide (https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicidio_entre_j%C3%B3venes_LGBT) and stumbled upon a new section called "Recent studies" (Estudios recientes).

In this section it was argued that: 'several recent studies had stablished no relation between discrimination and LGBT suicide due to statistics from 'Scandinavian countries' and Holand. These statistics show that LGBT teenagers' suicide rate are mostly the same as in the rest of the world even though these countries have 'marginal homophobia''. The citation linked to an article from (https://www.actuall.com/familia/la-alta-tasa-suicidios-homosexuales-se-la-homofobia-estudio-derriba-este-mito/) and the man responsible for that article is a regular writter at 'Religion en Libertad', website cited for the text that followed.

The text said: 'It has been verified that transexual people who transition (I assume it refers to both the hormonal treatments and surgical procedures) worsen their mental state. Citing as source: (https://www.religionenlibertad.com/blog/55533/transexualidad-datos-mentiras.html)

After the first reading, I thought the additions to the wikipedia article were highly biased considering their citation was a Religious 'blog' web page. Upon further inspection the articles failed to cite their sources for several of their statistics. They even stated that 'Already in the USA, laws are being approved that deny parents to seek alternatives methods like psychiatric treatment and leave the children to the inocent free will.'

Would you say the articles cited are reliable? If so, might they present bias? And if bias is present, what would be the best approach to changing the information written?


 * Neither actuall.com nor religionenlibertad.com are reliable sources. They are indeed religious blogs, or something very close. They should not be used on the English language Wikipedia. I am not familiar with the relevant policies of es.Wikipedia, but I hope this helps. Hunc (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Can we attribute statements to Snopes?
One editor has removed the following text from The Daily Wire:


 * According to Snopes, "DailyWire.com has a tendency to share stories that are taken out of context or not verified." Among the falsehoods published on The Daily Wire include protesters digging up Confederate graves, Democratic congresspeople refusing to stand for a fallen Navy SEAL's widow, and Harvard University holding segregated commencement ceremonies.

The editor argued that Snopes is not RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That editor is wrong. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Going through past discussions, we have this, this, and this discussion with the general consensus that, yes it's reliable. We also have RSN being updated to a new Snopes piece on identifying fake news sites, because Snopes is not only reliable in general but especially for pointing out fake news sites.  Additional examples include this, this, and this.  In general, I've only ever seen its reliability called into question by far-right POV pushers who are upset that we let reality get in the way of politics (unlike some other sites). Ian.thomson (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Generally speaking, Snopes is a reliable source. In this particular instance, the use the of Snopes appears appropriate and accurate. The only change to the text that I might suggest is to use in-line attribution for the second sentence, too. For example:


 * According to Snopes, "DailyWire.com has a tendency to share stories that are taken out of context or not verified." Snopes reports that among the falsehoods published on The Daily Wire include protesters digging up Confederate graves, Democratic congresspeople refusing to stand for a fallen Navy SEAL's widow, and Harvard University holding segregated commencement ceremonies.

My suggested change aside (with which other reasonable editors may or may not agree), the text and sourcing look spot on. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I removed that content and that's not at all what I argued! I did not say Snopes was unreliable. I said that that specific Snopes article was unreliable. I provided my reasoning on the talk page, but in short, I argued that Snopes falsely accused The Daily Wire of falsely claiming that Mohammed was the most common name for newborn boys in Netherlands.  w umbolo   ^^^  16:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * While the specific page in question related to Mohammad is a separate issue, the paragraph about the Daily Wire points to other Snopes articles that outline the points in the given article text. And for each of those, Snopes outlines the sources it has used to demontrate why the Daily Wire (and others, like Daily Mail) are wrong or misreporting or the like. Following the lines of the three previous discussions (given by Ian.thomson above), this is a perfectly fine use of Snopes, but since they seem to be the only group noting this falibility of the Daily Wire, it is also fully appropriate to attribute that to Snopes (as effectively done already). --M asem (t) 16:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * an issue on such a large scale renders the rest of the article unusable. If it points to other Snopes articles, then cite the other Snopes articles. w umbolo   ^^^  16:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The paragraph in the Snopes article on the Mohammad piece that refers to the Daily Wire is sufficiently standalone. Even if the rest of the Snopes article is wrong (and reading through, I see reasons to question one or two things but I would not call it wrong), this standalone piece is fine, as long as we're not stating it in WP's voice as factually true (eg, it is fine as long as we have "According to Snopes...". --M asem (t) 16:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Just so that I make sure that I understand you, are you arguing that this Snopes article is wrong? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm arguing that it is wrong regarding the Muhammad names story. w umbolo   ^^^  16:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm...well, that's a problem, because the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. As best I can see, you have three options: Just in case anyone mentions WP:OR, it's only original research to include unverified information in an article. It is not original research to omit information from an article. Good luck! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Find a reliable source that directly says that this Snopes article is wrong.
 * 2) Find a reliable source that directly says that the Daily Wire article is correct.
 * 3) Convince your fellow editors on the article that your argument is correct.  But since you're at dispute resolution (WP:RSN), I suspect that this will be difficult.  You can open an RfC to see if other editors agree with you, although I suspect they will side with Snopes.  Another option is to invite the editors at the Language Reference Desk to participate in the article talk page discussion. The latter might be your best option.


 * Looking at  it seems that it all depends on whether you count homophones as different names. It makes no sense to judge a different interpretation of the same data as straight false, so I am changing my opinion. The Snopes article is not wrong, but neither is The Daily Wire's, in my opinion.  w umbolo   ^^^  17:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Where did this business about homophones come from? The second reference made clear that Oliver was the most popular name at the time and Muhammad came 15th. Dmcq (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that all of the sources are correct... for a given value of correct. The problem with statistical surveys is that you get different answers depending on HOW you compile the statistics (or “spin” them, if you are of a more cynical mind).  Blueboar (talk) 23:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Not in this case - Snopes is a well-regarded source. However, the specific phrase "has a tendency to" is a subjective judgement about a political matter, and thus ineligible for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Snopes can be used as a reference for statements of fact, including as a reference for specific errors made by the DailyWire.com, but the original phrasing needs to be changed. OtterAM (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

VICE News
We have had a discussion at the Felix Abt page about whether VICE News was a reliable source. [url=https://news.vice.com/article/argument-for-investing-in-north-korea-felix-abt This] is the VICE article in question. I have just found that Abt has complained about the Wikipedia article in a self-published book (as quoted on the Talk page). I think it's clear that removal was the right decision, but I was wondering whether in general VICE is considered a reliable source.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Vice's use of native advertising and it's lack of clear editorial independence have been called in to question, and relying too heavily in Vice may raise NPOV or due weight concerns. That said, I think the stuff published under the Vice News header is generally reliable, or at least as reliable as similar digital outlets like Buzzfeed News or Vox. This is a few years old, but this report from the Reuters institute has some useful insights on how sites like these can differ from traditional media. [[User:Nblund |Nblund ]]talk 15:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:08, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia as a self-source.

 * Source: The following Wikipedia links are used as a general source;
 * Awdry, Rev. W., Small Railway Engines
 * Awdry, Rev. W., Oliver the Western Engine (cameos)
 * Awdry, Rev. W., Duke the Lost Engine
 * Awdry, Christopher, Jock the New Engine
 * Awdry, Christopher, Wilbert the Forest Engine (Rex, Mike and Jock do not speak)
 * Awdry, Rev. W. and G., The Island of Sodor: Its People, History and Railways
 * Awdry, Christopher, Sodor: Reading Between the Lines
 * Sibley, Brian, The Thomas the Tank Engine Man
 * Article: Arlesdale Railway
 * Content: Apparently the entire content is generally sourced and although WP:CIRCULAR seems pretty clear there appears to be some interpretation of an exemption for "in-universe" sourcing. Otr500 (talk) 20:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As I've already told you at your frivolous ANI filing, these are not Wikipedia links are used as a general source, they're the Wikipedia articles about the books used as sources, which is correct practice when a book listed in a bibliography is itself the subject of a Wikipedia article. Stop forum-shopping. &#8209; Iridescent 23:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Reply: Excuse me, If you care to look at the timelines, and re-read instead threatening me out of the gate, this was sent first asking about the use of the Wikipedia articles that ''are listed as a source" and referred to as "in-universe sources". The editors "mistakes" or your threats solve nothing for me. If we have Wikipedia links listed under "sources", and this is acceptable, then why in the world have WP:CIRCULAR. I have neither been uncivil nor trying to forum shop as you assert and according to policies and guidelines I am sure you are aware of, this is not an excuse to be rude, to harass, or to be uncivil. This source issue and the ANI are two separate issues. Otr500 (talk) 23:27, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

RfC: JAMA opinion piece at Trump-related article
There is a RfC at Presidency of Donald Trump about a sentence which cites an opinion article (i.e. not peer-reviewed) in JAMA. Several editors dispute that the JAMA piece is a WP:RS or dispute the quality of the analysis in the opinion article (e.g. "Sounds ridiculous", "a out there guess", "ridiculous, POV, unencyclopedic, opinion-based (rather than fact- and/or evidence-based) nonsense", "seriously lacks credibility"). The disputed text reads as follows: Snooganssnoogans (talk) 07:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


 * In a 2018 analysis, David Cutler and Francesca Dominici of Harvard University found that under the most conservative estimate, the Trump administration's rollbacks and proposed reversals of environmental rules would likely "cost the lives of over 80 000 US residents per decade and lead to respiratory problems for many more than 1 million people."


 * Unreliable – This analysis is an opinion piece in the JAMA Forum, not a peer-reviewed paper that would be published in JAMA itself. The source itself states: Disclaimer: Each entry in The JAMA Forum expresses the opinions of the author but does not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of JAMA, the editorial staff, or the American Medical Association. — JFG talk 08:59, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Unreliable as currently used. By that I mean that the proposed text is not supported by the source.  If you look at other secondary sources, they say "could" or "might".   The proposed text states their prediction using the term "found" as if it were an unequivocal fact.  Second, secondary sources tend to note that this is not a peer-reviewed article, but an opinion piece.  This qualification is missing from the proposed text.  Third, secondary sources also tend to note that this conclusion is contradicted by the EPA.  The proposed text omits this information.  Finally, "found" is a WP:WTA.  See WP:CLAIM.  Someone should suggest alternate text that addresses these issues.  Until then, the source is unreliable for how it's being used.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:59, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:DONOTDEMOLISH seems like a good read. The source not being properly represented in the article does not mean it's unreliable - simply means that further discussion should take place on the article talk page to resolve the issue. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Unreliable- As made obvious by the disclaimer and media coverage, it is not peer-reviewed and is an opinion piece. Being that there is an open RFC on this, it appears to be WP:FORUMSHOPPING and its probably best this discussion be closed.--Rusf10 (talk) 13:42, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Posting to the Reliable Sources Noticeboards is explicitly one of the methods of publicizing an RfC: Requests_for_comment. --tronvillain (talk) 13:58, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Needs to make provenance clear This is a scientific opinion, not just any opinion by people who are experts in the job as attested by others, plus it has been widely reported. It should be made clear that it is not peer reviewed. The only problem I can see is should it be considered as medical information? I don't think so. Personally I'll be surprised if it is as low as that but that's for the future to decide. Dmcq (talk) 14:08, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * In regards to if it is medical info, I think it might be. Under WP:MEDRS it lists biomedical information as a criterial. Under Biomedical information, a supplement to MEDRS, in the Health effects section it states "Whether human health is affected by a particular substance, practice, environmental factor, or other variable; what those effects are, how and when they occur or how likely they are, at what levels they occur, and to what degree; whether the effects (or the original variables) are safe, nutritious, toxic, beneficial, detrimental, etc." which I think this fits the bill for and would require higher level sourcing. Unless I am reading it all wrong, I am not sure. What do you think? PackMecEng (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Reliable, but requires attribution This doesn't fall under MEDRS as it isn't a biomedical claim but a political one (i.e. without implying any bias, but this has to do with government policies, hence it's political). Thus, this isn't any different than citing an article from a newspaper - i.e. it's perfectly fine. The authors being scientists and not just random people on the street also adds enough credibility to the piece for it to be considered a reliable source. Of course, being an opinion, it would require attribution, per WP:BIASED (which clearly says that non-neutral sources are ok). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 15:34, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It is political but making medical claims about the impact the polices would have on mortality and respiratory problems. PackMecEng (talk) 15:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems like a quite literal interpretation of WP:MEDRS (spirit of the rule vs. letter, anybody?). Nevertheless, that still doesn't mean we should exclude it - WP:MEDASSESS simply says that we should give due weight to it, and favour "more reliable" sources for it. In this case, since we have no higher level sources (and such source do not exist, i.e. it's hard to make scientific studies on future events...), we can stick with the expert opinion and simply properly attribute it. Quoting WP:BIASED, "However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. [emphasis added]" By that criteria, the source is clearly acceptable. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding the spirit of the rule, MEDRS starts with "Wikipedia's articles are not medical advice, but are widely used as a source for health information." The sourced used here clearly isn't used to provide "health information", merely a viewpoint on government policy. Given that such sources are used without problem when there's no "medical information" involved, I fail to see why we should apply the stricter requirements of MEDRS for this, even if this could fall under such criteria under a strict literal interpretation of the policy (which is a policy not a law). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The issue here is not WP:BIASED, it is that the source is fairly unreliable overall for what it is being used for. I think we can agree to disagree on the MEDRS part of it. PackMecEng (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: the statement is being used as an attributed opinion. Experts are reliable for their opinions. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:11, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Note - note that everyone commenting here so far (myself included) also commented in the original discussion on the relevant talk page, which actually most likely lede to the posting on this board. So..... this doesn't really help to resolve the disagreement.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Counter-note Don't make hasty generalizations - I didn't. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 13:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Attributed expert opinion. I'm sure that estimates vary widely on Trump-related environmental deaths (for environmental related estimated deaths - I know they vary widely on various topics - as I am familiar with the estimates on various non-Trump environmental issues). Even if this were published in a RS, we would probably would attribute the estimate (as these estimates vary even with minor variations of assumptions - and typically one has a few competing estimates). In this particular case this was published as an opinion piece. David Cutler does appear to be an esteemed expert in the field. Therefore - this could be used attributed to him as an expert. The question of inclusion is a matter of WP:DUEness - not RS - if others (and this can be in other opinion pieces or in news reporting) quote Cutler's estimate it would be easy to say it is DUE in regards to Trump's environmental policy (which is clearly a matter that is discussed much in regard to Trump's presidency). If no one else refers to this estimate by Cutler, then saying it is DUE would be more difficult (due to the wide amount of publications about Trump's presidency) - but it would be possible to include it (i.e. on a less traveled topic - it would be easier to justify DUEness).Icewhiz (talk) 06:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I would tone done the language - cutting out analysis (suggests this was published), conservative estimate (suggest this is a lower bound estimate which is probably isn't), and "rollbacks and proposed reversals" (stmt of fact - unless this is accepted fact in the article) - instead of "In a 2018 analysis, David Cutler and Francesca Dominici of Harvard University found that under the most conservative estimate the Trump administration's rollbacks and proposed reversals of environmental rules would likely " I would go with "David Cutler and Francesca Dominici of Harvard University have estimated that the Trump administration's modifications to environmental rules would likely ".Icewhiz (talk) 06:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * But to strip 'conservative estimate' is to alter their analysis with WP:OR. This is not my field, but I have added plenty of peer-reviewed studies to articles which show far more drastic health impacts of regulations and pollution (and experts on the matter do seem to concur with the JAMA op-ed that the estimates are conservative, e.g. this Harvard health policy expert), so I don't see any reason to doubt the lower bounds estimate. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Fairly confident in saying twitter posts are not reliable sources. PackMecEng (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's in response to Icewhiz's unsubstantiated non-expert assertions about the lower bounds estimate, his uninformed take on the state of research in this field, and his desire to introduce WP:OR to the article. At no point have I argued that a Twitter post by Harvard public health scholar Amitab Chandra should be added to any article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh I know you would never do that in an article, but it's not best anywhere on wiki really. PackMecEng (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Opinion pieces in JAMA are clearly and unarguably reliable under the provisions of WP:RSOPINION. Sure, it's probably better to use a word like "argued" rather than "found", but otherwise the proposed text is entirely appropriate and policy-compliant, and includes appropriate in-text attribution. More generally, I'm getting tired of what is either obvious contempt for, or obvious ignorance of, basic site policy when it comes to reliable sources. This trend is in evidence here. Note that I'm saying this as an admin; I am not going to use admin tools to enforce a content decision, but I am open to using them to deal with clear misrepresentations of site policy, particularly when those misrepresentations result in stonewalling and other disruption. MastCell Talk 14:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually a better verb would be wrote. (See WP:SAID) Found implies a rigorous scientific study, and argued implies an argument. 'Wrote is a neutral term that isn't loaded with other connotations. ~Awilley (talk) 03:05, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The column falls within RSOPINION, and could be used with attribution. However, the opinion quote being used I believe fails WP:NPOV and WP:NOT. It is an extremely speculative statistic, akin to a scare tactic like the Doomsday clock, and its inclusion is meant to sway the reader, which is not what we should be doing. It's inclusion would only be merited if a large number of other RSes focused on the statistic. --M asem (t) 03:43, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Is the NY Times a reliable source?
A number of editors are fighting for the exclusion of content sourced to the NY Times (this NY Times piece. This is the disputed text in question from the Amy Coney Barrett page:


 * The New York Times reported that Barrett was a member of a small, tightly knit Christian group called People of Praise. According to The New York Times, "There are some indications that both Ms. Barrett and the People of Praise may have tried to obscure Ms. Barrett’s membership in the group." Members of this religious group swear a lifelong oath of loyalty to one another, and commit to be accountable to a personal advisor (either referred to as a "head" or a "handmaid"). The heads and handmaids instruct the member on important life decisions. Legal scholars say that such an oath raises legitimate questions about the ability to serve as an independent and impartial judge. Previously, in a scholarly article in 1998, Barrett herself had said that Catholic judges should recuse themselves in the sentencing phase of death penalty cases.

One editor argues that the NY Times piece should be excluded because conservative op-eds characterize the piece as "politically motivated "hit piece"". Another editor claims that the piece contains "unsupported insinuation" and cite a conservative op-ed to justify the claim. A third editor claims that the content needs to go because readers might confuse it for the Handmaid's Tale, but I'm not sure that's a RS concern. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:48, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes the NYT is RS, if we start to exclude "bias" sources that leaves out all of the media.Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not an RS issue and this is the wrong venue. The editors at Talk clearly accept NYT at RS as you can see by these quotes:
 * "Are you saying that the New York Times is not a WP:RS?" Snoogans
 * "No, please see above comment. That's clearly not what I'm saying." DynaGirl
 * "we need to assess whether or not it is WP:DUE" Lionelt
 * This is a frivolous thread. Snoogans is wasting everyone's time. – Lionel(talk) 10:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ^ This is the same user who called for the exclusion of the NY Times source because two conservative op-eds said the "the NYT article was a politically motivated "hit piece"". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the New York Times is a reliable source for that claim, but it appears that the debate on the talk page is over whether it should be included, not about whether it's verifiable. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 10:43, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * (ec) Yes. This is about WP:DUE amongst other things. Not WP:RS. We should close this before anymore valuable editor time is wasted.– Lionel(talk) 10:51, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * One editor removed the NY Times source because it contained "unsupported insinuation". Lionelt himself is calling for the exclusion of the source because two conservative op-eds said the "the NYT article was a politically motivated "hit piece"" (i.e. "a published article or post aiming to sway public opinion by presenting false or biased information in a way that appears objective and truthful" per Wiktionary). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:49, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You brought up "politically motivated "hit piece" THREE TIMES. Do you know that this is a heavily watched board and it would be a bad idea to repeatedly beat everyone over the head with the same repetitive phrases? WP:TE WP:BLUDGEON – Lionel(talk) 10:54, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * DUE has as a prerequisite RS. It did sound like you were saying it wasn’t DUE because it was a “politically motivated hit piece”, suggesting the source wasn’t RS and therefore the subject not DUE. In any case, since RS is established by all, this discussion is probably moot. O3000 (talk) 11:50, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Video interviews as RS for Thuy Bo massacre
On the page Thuy Bo massacre, these 6 video interviews:, , , , , from the Vietnam: A Television History documentary series are relied on as evidence of a massacre by US Marines. The 2 US Marines interviewed don't admit they massacred civilians. The 4 Vietnamese civilians claim there was a massacre. As these interviews were conducted in Vietnam in 1980/1 and were likely to have been Government controlled (the terms of the interviews are not revealed) at a time when the US and Vietnam had no diplomatic relations (and the US was conducting a proxy war against Vietnam in Cambodia) I believe that they are unreliable and at a minimum WP:BIASED, if not WP:PROPAGANDA. These interviews effectively form the entire basis for the claim that a massacre occurred rather than civilians having been killed during a battle with Viet Cong at the village as the official Marine history states. Mztourist (talk) 09:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Not reliable. Primary, inexpert. Bias doesn't matter: the lack of scholarly historical review matters. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:09, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * More over see WP:HISTIP. They're being used as the written equivalent of an unnecessary image gallery. Primary candidate for an external links section, if it isn't copyvio Fifelfoo (talk) 09:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - they are first hand accounts which should be treated with caution, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be used. From what I recall, when the Wikipedia article was first published, the accounts weren't treated as 'fact', but described clearly as accounts from survivors/military personnel on the scene. A valid question would be to ask how extensively we rely on these first hand accounts. I see Mztourist has reduced the length of the Wikipedia article but still seems to capture the main points made by the participants, which seems a good compromise. By their nature the interviews will be made from a particular person's point of view (from the military and the survivors alike), so to describe them as WP:BIASED is stating the obvious. There is a physical monument to the event, so the interviews are hardly the only evidence that something untoward happened. Sionk (talk) 09:14, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't even think it could qualify as WP:PRIMARY as it not clear if those who said what they said stand behind their words as there were coerced by the government.Shrike (talk) 09:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - reliable. there are corresponding sources or article discussions in academic works, e.g. nick turse and the other guy. its a secondary source discussion, but given there was no investigation onto the matter in the same way that my lai had been, or very little detail of it, it I don't see why it isn't regarded as reliable. since the actual interviews were conducted by a very reputable historian, Stanley karnow, without discussion of the merits of it, they don't seem to fall into WP:PROPAGANDA or WP:BIASED without accusing the authors of it as such. but they are perfectly valid in discussing differing reports or stories of the atrocities. by the way, the source states the two alleged perpetrators are not sure but do not deny the issue, and there are much more than 4 interviews with villagers. you should see the actual source.124.85.14.35 (talk) 10:09, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Reliable for the opinions expressed, not for those opinions being facts.Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Could you atleast present the source material from an NPOV point of view? Its bad enough you already depreciated the article and deleted components you do not like. But to allege this event is a hoax is another matter, given its officially recorded and commemorated at the location it is reported to have occurred, according to the sources in the article in 1977, 5 years before these interviews were conducted and not as you claim "forms the basis of these allegations". 124.85.14.35 (talk) 12:20, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * A memorial erected by the Vietnamese Government is not WP:RS. Mztourist (talk) 12:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Wrong question. The question should be "is Vietnam: A Television History a reliable source for details on an alleged massacre. When you start to say parts of an award-winning (including a Peabody Award) documentary 'relied on primary sources' you are engaging in WP:OR in order to discredit it. Its a documentary, of course it will take into account primary sources. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No OR here, these extracts are presented as the essentially the only RS for this massacre. Just because the series won a Peabody doesn't mean we can't question its reliability on this issue. Mztourist (talk) 03:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The documentary is the the source. Not the extracts individually. If you want to question a source you would need to make an argument that a)its published by an unreliable publisher, b)its author is not qualified or otherwise lacks credibility, c)its basic methodology is flawed in some way. Its a documentary that has been recognised by both historians and journalism critically (the Peabody is not the only award it recieved), its published/funded by PBS/WGBH-TV, which is certainly not unreliable given their funding methodology, and if you want to take a shot at Stanley Karnow being unreliable for conducting investigative journalism in Vietnam, feel free. As I have previously said, the argument that because a source uses primary (interviews with subjects) accounts of the events is just laughable. Thats what historians and journalists do, they sift the evidence and analyse from all the available evidence. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:19, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have been thinking the same thing. There is a reason we do not allow individual extracts, we cannot be sure how they have been edited. The program would be an RS, but not an edited extract.Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thats not generally prohibited either. Its fine to point out a specific episode of a series if something needs closer sourcing. 'Interview with blah in episode X' etc. But we wouldnt generally link directly to it unless someone wanted to verify it for themselves. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately your faith in the reliability of interviews in Vietnam is misplaced. These interviews were Government controlled but that isn't disclosed. Mztourist (talk) 06:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Again thats WP:OR. Only in death does duty end (talk) 06:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


 * what is OR is using quote a from primary sources contained inside an Rs to advance claims of what happened. I am not happy with Karnow being cited from a documentary being hqrs, but SHOULD Karnow make factual claims in his authorial "voice" in the documentary use those. An "image gallery" of illustrative primary sources is NOT reliable Nor good illustration of conclusions drawn from a secondary source. We don't cite primaries contained in UP monograph and for claims. We cite the monograph and, if requiring illustration by quote, quote the illustrative section of the primary quoted in the monograph. Claiming the interviewees statements are made reliable by Karnow is exactly the same as using primary sources from a sourcebook are made reliable by the sourcebook so editor. State intervention doesn't matter: the same is true of Any abuse of a primary source for a historical claim. If Karnow draws a conclusion or claim, cite him.  We do not re-evaluate Karnows evidence. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Gospel of John
This is about the revert at. Is any source older than 100 years reliable for Wikipedia? Are any Ancient or Medieval writings reliable sources? Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Are references to ancient sources banned from Wikipedia, if they are cited without interpretation and relevant to the topic of discussion? And multiple, if not synthesized to form conclusions not stated by said sources?Bdub2018 (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Straight dope: Bdub2018 wants to WP:VERify scholarly claims to Ancient writings in order to oppose WP:RS/AC and WP:CHOPSY. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Any older source which is contradicted by newer sources which, themselves, represent the academic consensus are completely unreliable for making claims of fact. If they are notable, we may refer to them for statements about their contents, but we will never do so in a way that implies they are correct. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  05:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thegeorgescu is not stating the matter correctly. For clarification of context, the article is composed primarily of tertiary and opinionated sources, with a unilateral disregard and apparent disdain for ancient historic testimony, which makes the article completely one sided. Was attempting to balance out the argument. I did not remove WP:RS/AC where it was not redundant or unnecessary or misleading; most sources were simply moved to more relevant sections. The gospel is 2000 years old, it is relevant as sources closest to the point of authorship are highly relevant in stating the traditional position. I am being told they cannot be cited at all; my understanding is that it should be without interpretation and synthesis (i.e., to reach conclusions not stated in sources). For example, "Irenaeus of Lyon, a student of John's disciple Polycarp,[Irenaeus, Epistle to Florinus] writes, 'Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.'" (Against Heresies, 3.1.1). If not, please advise appropriate revision.


 * Wikipedia is mainly a venue for expressing views supported by established science and peer-reviewed scholarship (and perhaps reputable press, for certain subjects). Editors are supposed to understand this, to wish this and be competent at doing this.


 * Supporting mainstream science and mainstream scholarship is, therefore, required of all editors. Failure to respect mainstream science leads to the loss of disputes, and may result in being blocked and eventually banned. Strong adherence to mainstream science and mainstream scholarship is what made Wikipedia one of the greatest websites. So, dissent from mainstream science and mainstream scholarship will be perceived as an attack upon Wikipedia itself. If you want to win a dispute, your claims must be backed by reputable science or peer-reviewed scholarship. If you cannot honestly do that, then you must refrain from making a particular claim. And remember, Wikipedia is just a mirror, mainstream science and mainstream scholarship exist outside of Wikipedia and cannot be changed through editing Wikipedia, Wikipedia merely reflects them. So if you want to change science/scholarship, you have to be a scientist or a scholar; Wikipedia is not the venue for revising scientific opinion. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:16, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Respectfully, the statement "If they are notable, we may refer to them for statements about their contents" (i.e., without commentary) does not line up with what you have been saying.Bdub2018 (talk) 05:19, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * the article is composed primarily of tertiary and opinionated sources, with a unilateral disregard and apparent disdain for ancient historic testimony That, itself is an egregious misrepresentation of the situation. I am well familiar with the page. I am also familiar with a significant chunk of the literature on the subject. The present scholarly skepticism of ancient primary sources is proper per the historical method; making it the best way of approaching history. If you disagree with that, I suggest you seek out a history degree (and a philosophy degree, as well, preferably with a focus on epistemology) and try to make your case in the proper peer-reviewed forums. Trying to make the case that the historical method is inappropriate (even in particular cases) on Wikipedia is a violation of our policies and can result in you being blocked from editing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  05:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I am not trying to say the historical method is inappropriate. This has been my field of study for over twenty years. In the page you cite, "If the sources all agree about an event, historians can consider the event proved." All the ancient sources attribute the gospel to John, no contradiction required resolution. The manner in which first century literature was written precludes the claim of anonymity i.e., title and author were found in subscription at the end of the scroll, also in inscription on papyri, and on a tag called a titulus attached to it; authors tended to refer to themselves in the third person within the body of the work, and not identify themselves in the first person within the body of the text (e.g., Josephus, Wars, book 2). This is the assumption that underlies all modern arguments: John is anonymous, because he does not identify himself in the body of the work. Documentary evidence does not support this. (Gutzwiller, Kathryn J. (2007). A Guide to Hellenistic Literature. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 44; Trobisch, David (2000). The First Edition of the New Testament. Oxford University Press US. pp. 142 (fn.93).) This will be my last comment. Point, in context of historical method. Thank you for your time.Bdub2018 (talk) 05:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia sides with modern, mainstream Bible scholars, it does not side with Eusebius. As I told you, our definition of primary and secondary sources does not agree with yours. Your choice is obey the rules as they apply for all editors or head towards being banned from editing Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the venue for revising present-day academic consensus in Bible scholarship. You may take your own analysis of Ancient sources to: (i) your own blog (ii) Conservapedia or (iii) peer-reviewed scholarly journals. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I can follow rules when I understand them. You guys keep threatening bans when I'm new just trying to understand the rules, and why there is a conflict (as I perceive it) between policy I read and what you say. By reading the policy, many of the things you both say are not clearly documented the way you say them, so when editing I was not aware policy was being "violated". So I am understanding. What purpose is there in communicating, however, when every communication ands with a threat of banning? I haven't been editing pages since your first notice that I may not be following policy. I have been in talk, and you threaten to ban over and over again when I am seeking clarity, and a third opinion, and you keep interjecting when the dispute is with you. I can't believe I can't ask questions without biting and threats. You guys obviously don't tolerate the learning curve on new editors; wonder that I am still trying to get it all when everyone bites your head off.Bdub2018 (talk) 05:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Like how many times do you want to hear that WP:OR based on Ancient writings is banned from Wikipedia? Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Bdub2018, you don't act like a newbie asking good-faith questions. You act like someone who has made up their mind and wants Wikipedia to change our content and/or policies to support your point of view. Which is not only allowed but encouraged; maybe our policies need to be changed. That being said, you are correct about one thing; while it is possible for someone to be blocked (Tgeorgescu, learn your terminology please, "blocked" and "banned" have specific meanings on Wikipedia) for disruptive behavior on talk pages, you haven't even come close to being disruptive, and should be allowed to make your case without anyone talking about banning or blocking you. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I would tend to agree as well that Bdub hasn't been disruptive yet. But I fail to see how anyone could pursue the argument that mainstream scholarship is wrong and ancient sources are right without quickly becoming disruptive. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  03:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * He has been caught WP:SOCKing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Second account was activated for fresh start because you won't stop hounding.Bdub2018 (talk) 06:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC). Why do you think I wrote, "Thank you; I appreciate the input. Frankly, though, I'm done. Too much hostility on Wikipedia so far, from my experience." It was to get you off my back; I had no intention of continuing at that time. Then decided to give another go and do things right. Third person statement was made because of your hounding. You will never see this account being used for another edit, that was the intention then, that is still the intention now.Bdub2018 (talk) 06:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no grudge against you as a person. I was only "hounding" WP:PAG violations. When I see a problem I confront it head on and I'm very blunt about what the violation was. Personally, I would wish that any editor who breaks our rules first learns what our rules are, then decides to obey them and becomes a productive editor. But not everybody is up to this task. I think that you should reflect upon and  in order to understand the principal reason why your edits were contrary to the purposes of Wikipedia (namely being a high-quality encyclopedia based upon mainstream science and mainstream scholarship). Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

John and his followers are not reliable secondary sources for historical or theological claims. Seek the consensus opinions of modern scholars in the scholarly literature and weight them according to their acceptance. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

"Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Try to cite current scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications. Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context. Material should be attributed in-text where sources disagree."

- WP:SOURCETYPES


 * Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Let me explain it simply: the policy pages do not explicitly state the policies like you do. I don't know you, or if you are playing by your own rules, because what you cite and say do not line up. You say primary sources are not allowed; here I'm told I can cite them if they are noteworthy, but not assess their correctness. Already, that was not what you were telling me. FYI, the information on ancient sources on "Primary sources" was relegated to a footnote I didn't notice at first. "(see footnote)" would have been simple, and helped. The third POV helps me to understand whether you are speaking rightly, or just being territorial. Quite frankly, I've read the policy pages multiple times trying to see what you are saying. You are an experienced editor, I have been here about a week. If these are the policies, I will abide by them, but this would be simpler if Wikipedia policy writers made specific mention of how old a source needs to be, etc. Otherwise, many new editors will think you're making things up and being territorial, and this will lead to unnecessary conflict. FYI, calm explanations are GREATLY helpful, because threats of bans and other hostile rhetoric towards new editors is not helpful, it makes it seem like your hostile based upon POV. You undid hours of work that I had done while I was updating the information in compliance with your original statement, providing secondary sources asked for. Then when I stopped editing and was trying to talk, you write, "Just for the record, Bdub2018 seems to desire to violate policies in a big way. Of course we cannot allow that and there can be no negotiations about that, so I will knee-jerk reject WP:DRN about performing WP:OR on Ancient sources." My feeling is at this point because of the treatment here by you for the last two days that it's not worth editing all, or worth the headache.Bdub2018 (talk) 06:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Ok, perhaps you were unaware of it, but you were breaking our rules. The rationale for not WP:VERifying claims to Ancient writings is:


 * these writings are not scholarship in the modern (post-Enlightenment) academic sense;
 * even if they were, they would be by now severely outdated. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * You couldn't figure that out when I was new? Did you not consider that I want to improve the quality of the articles on Wikipedia, just like you? I have my experience, you have yours. That is supposed to be what makes the site better. Honestly, I have no enthusiasm left, and don't feel particularly welcome. Hope things go better for you with the next new editor.Bdub2018 (talk) 06:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, you claim to be new, yet our articles are plagued by users who have been banned and come back having other usernames. Knowledge of arcane essays like Facts precede opinions does not plead for you being a newbie. Anyway, I have explained you the rules several times, in the end I got the impression that you were simply unwilling to take the word of several experienced users that you broke our rules. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I found it while running searches on policy. I was never banned only to come back with a different username. I was never banned at all. It's not right to keep treating someone as though they have been banned and come back with another username, when they really are new.Bdub2018 (talk) 06:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Start with field reviews for the scholarly consensus. Write from the secondary sources most highly praised in field reviews. If major scholarly positions exist that aren't the consensus note them in a section dedicated to alternative scholarly positions. Place fringe views in seperate articles if they're separately notable. Otherwise don't include them in the project. If contemporary scholars (in biblical text studies this would be those post documentary hypothesis scholars who are still approvingly cited) discuss the ancients own beliefs, then include them in their own section IF worthy of placing article weight upon them, "ancient beliefs regarding John: according to Jane (2006) … the importance of this is that it shows the ancients approached x in terms of y" Fifelfoo (talk) 06:47, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you; I appreciate the input. Frankly, though, I'm done. Too much hostility on Wikipedia so far, from my experience.Bdub2018 (talk) 06:54, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm always fascinated by how the work of Biblical scholars can fit our definition of a reliable source. Has anyone ever encountered a Biblical scholar who declared a major book of the Bible to be a load of crap? I know this is a radical question, and the Christians will howl me down, but one day I would love to see all religion articles handled rationally, honestly and logically. HiLo48 (talk) 07:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Bart Ehrman has declared great portions of the synoptic gospels the be a load of crap every time he affirms his own lack of faith. The same can be said of any agnostic or atheist scholar, though to be sure they're in the minority. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  03:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Frankly, such position would not be a great outlier in Bible scholarship, if by "crap" you mean historically unreliable. In fact, the standard approach in Bible scholarship is being critical (i.e. skeptical) of the Bible. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Only marginally. Got a real example? HiLo48 (talk) 07:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * See our article The Exodus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Which part? HiLo48 (talk) 08:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The Exodus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * So, are they tackling the Jesus story next? HiLo48 (talk) 08:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * It's not our task to WP:RGW. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * How is that an answer to my question? HiLo48 (talk) 08:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I saw that you were alluding to Christ Myth Theory. WP:RS/AC is as it is, we simply take it at face value. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:54, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Which brings us back to my initial query. If it was a non-religious matter, we would not depend on works by people with such biased initial positions. HiLo48 (talk) 09:41, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Bart Ehrman is an atheist Bible scholar and has stated flatly that people without biases don't exist. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree completely. How many atheist Bible scholars are there? HiLo48 (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It's certainly a non-zero number. A number of prominent atheists have arrived at their position based on extensive study of the Bible, and there is an argument that any properly dispassionate study of the Bible leads directly to atheism, or certainly to a categorical rejection of the Bible as anything other than the work of men blinded by belief. Guy (Help!) 07:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I can't think of any situation where it would be ok to just cite directly to the Bible without a secondary source for the exegesis. Citing directly to primary for simple facts is fine, as long as it's done sparingly (the more primary is used, the more likely it is that it is being used improperly). But as the Bible can not be cited for "objective statements of fact" it seems some degree of interpretation would be necessary whenever it is cited - it is best practice to cite the primary along with a supporting secondary when editing theological topics. If you are going to use a source like Eusebius you better be sure you know what you are doing. In other words, if editors check more recent sources, they should roughly corroborate what you've written. The best practice would be to add those sources to the article while you are working per WP:V. Seraphim System ( talk ) 07:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

You linked to the article on the historical method, but did you read it? Some of its contents would actually support Bdub2018's methodology:

"The following core principles of source criticism were formulated by two Scandinavian historians, Olden-Jørgensen (1998) and Thurén (1997):


 * Human sources may be relics such as a fingerprint; or narratives such as a statement or a letter. Relics are more credible sources than narratives.
 * Any given source may be forged or corrupted. Strong indications of the originality of the source increase its reliability.
 * The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate historical description of what actually happened.
 * An eyewitness is more reliable than testimony at second hand, which is more reliable than hearsay at further remove, and so on.
 * If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased.
 * The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations.
 * If it can be demonstrated that the witness or source has no direct interest in creating bias then the credibility of the message is increased."

Personally, I would not expect to find unbiased ancient or medieval sources, but at least mentioning the primary sources and their writers' agendas should not be avoided. For example, Josephus is a valuable primary source on the 1st-century Roman Empire and the history of Judaism, but he is rarely impartial in his depictions of people and events. "[Josephus] was conceited, not only about his own learning, but also about the opinions held of him as commander both by the Galileans and by the Romans; he was guilty of shocking duplicity at Jotapata, saving himself by sacrifice of his companions; he was too naive to see how he stood condemned out of his own mouth for his conduct, and yet no words were too harsh when he was blackening his opponents ... To compare his historiography with another ancient historian, consider Dionysius of Halicarnassus. Feldman lists these similarities: "Dionysius in praising Rome and Josephus in praising Jews adopt same pattern; both often moralize and psychologize and stress piety and role of divine providence; and the parallels between … Dionysius's account of deaths of Aeneas and Romulus and Josephus's description of the death of Moses are striking." Dimadick (talk) 08:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * And WP:RULES have rightly consigned such research to papers and books published through the proper venues. We're not a research institute, so we cannot tell whether a claim would be true or false; all we can do is evaluate the reliability of secondary sources written by modern scholars&mdash;we obviously cannot do that with ancient primary sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You linked to the article on the historical method, but did you read it? Yes, have you? Perhaps I should have linked to a more appropriate article, such as scientific consensus which more accurately portrays what Bdub is claiming to be wrong. You can't assume that because an editors is capable of making points that they are correct: Bdub's assertion is that the consensus of modern historians is wrong and ancient sources are right, which puts his position in many of the same categories as Creationism, Breatharianism, The flat Earth theory, Acupuncture and the belief in ancient aliens. No matter hos sophisticated their argument: Bdub has an extraordinarily high standard for evidence to clear, and absolutely no business doing so here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  03:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * At one point scientific consensus was that the earth was at the center of the universe and life was the result of spontaneous generation. How did that scientific consensus turn out factually? At one time, scientific consensus was that the universe was shrinking. Now it is that it is expanding. Within ten to fifteen years, scientific consensus will change again in some way shape or form. Scientific consensus when given undue weight in arguments will devolve into just another form of argumentum ad populum. It should be given weight, but not undue weight. Evidence will remain the same. New evidence requires new evaluation; improper evaluation of evidence requires reevaluation. State the evidence correctly, without suppressing or manipulating it, then make conclusions about what evidence. No man is free from bias. I have come to the understanding that Wikipedia wants scholarly consensus, so please do not misunderstand. In the topic at hand, I have stated, there was no controversy for 1900 years. Someone in the 19th century decided that the gospel was anonymous because he does not directly identify himself in the first person within the body of the work. Modern "scientific consensus" on the matter is that this was standard practice, that the title and author occurred on the inscription (if papyri) and subscription along with a leather tag called a titulus. Look it up, you will see I am correct. But I do realize at this point that Wikipedia will not allow that process to be carried out on its pages, so again, I am simply addressing a statement.Bdub2018 (talk) 07:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * In other words, scientists are not immune to the bandwagon effect.Bdub2018 (talk) 07:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:FLAT, WP:BALL and https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Galileo_gambit Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Vaai, Saleimoa (1999). Samoa Fa'amatai and the Rule of Law. Samoa : National University of Samoa
Seems to be a book of Thesis Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy of the Australian National University thus is it RS for claims about what a word means (as in here )?Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have a link to a library entry or the document itself? This is the National University of Samoa, and per WP:SCHOLARSHIP it would matter if this were an m.sc thesis, a phd, or alternatively a book by issued by a scholar in the university. It does seem that it is being cited by others - e.g. -, which is a positive indication.Icewhiz (talk) 16:29, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope, nor a page number for what is being cited. But doing a search for it brings up this .Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Possibly this Asiata Sale'imoa Va'ai guy - covered here. If it is a PHD thesis subsequently published as book - then yes - per WP:SCHOLARSHIP it would be acceptable, particularly given that it is cited by others. I would however expect the editor using this to provide a page number and possibly a quotation.Icewhiz (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll wait ma bit longer before removing the RS tag, but only until tommorow (as I am going out soon and it will give time for a bit more input.Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think I saw some 10-20 odd cites for this (some in good locations - others in m.sc theses) - which is a good indication. It also seems that some are citing the 1995 document (as an unpublished PhD) and others are citing the 1999 book (the published form of the PhD).Icewhiz (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Academic now, they have changed the source.Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Ayurveda
As seen in this diff, two sources were added to support the statement:"The origins of Ayurveda have been traced to around 6,000 BCE."

There was a pretty extensive discussion about this sentence and related issues on the talk page where it was established that the sources added in the diff were probably the "best" support available: Oxford Medical Companion and Complementary Therapies for Pain Management: An Evidence-based Approach Also currently being used as support of the statement is Complementary and Alternative Medicine for Older Adults: A Guide to Holistic Approaches to Healthy Aging There was also a brief discussion at Wikiproject Medicine, but there wasn't any reference to that on the Ayurveda talk page prior to one of current edit descriptions as far as I can tell.

The relevant quote from Complementary Therapies for Pain Management is "Ayurveda evolved in India some 8000 years ago and is often quoted as the oldest medical system in the world.", while the relevant quote from the Oxford Medical Companion is:"'The origin of the art of healing in India is steeped in obscurity. 'Ayurveda' means 'knowledge of life'. The Vedas are believed to contain knowledge of divine origin, pertaining to all aspects of human life, which was passed on by the gods to certain sages, who became teachers and passed on the knowledge to their disciples. Ayurveda is attributed to Lord Brahma (considered as creator of the universe in Hindu mythology) and can be traced back about 8000 years." While these may be considered reliable sources for certain statements, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and in my opinion the above sources shouldn't be considered reliable for an extraordinary historical claim of this type, especially since other references used on the page make more concrete statements like "Ayurveda has antecedants in the medicine found in much earlier periods in India, and in texts as far back as the Atharv-Veda of around 1000 BCE (Zysk 1996; Bahulkar 1994). However systematic medical theory began to be formulated only around the time of the Buddha (ca. 400 BCE)" and "With such attention to sanitation, they almost surely possessed a system of medicine, though no firm evidence yet exists to support this conjecture except for the discovery in Harappan remains of substances such as deer antler and bitumen, which are used in classical Ayurveda." and "From the youngest of the Vedas, the Atharva-Veda, developed Ayurveda, probably with the help of residual Harappan knowledge.": There appear to be zero actual historians supporting this claim, only incidental repetitions of the same claim of great antiquity. --tronvillain (talk) 17:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Unless there was only source but dozens of reliable sources have been provided on talk page about this information, varying from historians to medical experts. You have been disputing this information but that is contrary to most editors on talk page (including JzG) who agreed with no less two sources. Also read Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 111. We don't use our own opinion to dispute the reliable sources. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is not relevant as these sources have idea about what they are talking about. Oxford University press is a reliable source and Edzard Ernst is one of the most acclaimed authority on alternative medicines, who is always used as a source in many of these articles including Ayurveda for years. These two sources are more than enough for the information and since the information has been similarly supported by other reliable sources, it is fine for stating. Capitals00 (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * These were apparently the absolute best sources you could provide. I think people can judge for themselves whether these constitute reliable sources for that statement. --tronvillain (talk) 17:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)


 * None of these are in any way reliable sources for this statement and you're right to bring this here. As anyone with a background in Indo-European studies or historical linguistics knows, Sanskrit studies and Indology are very well-developed fields with a long and consequential history. However, exterior to academia (and even within academia exterior to the work of specialists), purportedly "Vedic" topics are prone to hijacking, weaponization, or for-profit exploitation by all sorts of snake oil peddlers, nationalists, and even well-meaning bystanders. As a general rule of thumb, if you can't find a reliable, peer-reviewed source from a scholar in the field explicitly making a statement on what is "Vedic", in my opinion you should feel entirely free to spade out it out. These sources simply are not good enough. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 17:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Wrong, and I don't think you've bothered to wade through the gazillion sources (all "reliable, peer-reviewed source from a scholar in the field") that have been supplied on the article's talk page by a number of users, including me. When we have hordes of sources (from publishers like Oxford University Press, Routledge, Elsevier Health Sciences, etc.that are as reliable as they come) all saying the same thing, there ought to be no hue and cry against stating the statement in Wikipedia's voice. To put it bluntly, the sources used on the article are exactly "reliable, peer-reviewed sources".   MBlaze Lightning  talk 18:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Without wading through a thousand edits: Do any of those sources include historians in, say, Sanskrit studies? A health science degree does not grant any authority in the field of history, linguistics, or folklore studies. If not, this discussion is pointless, and the material needs to be removed until an appropriate source can be found. I'm not seeing any appropriate sources in the link you've provided so far. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Historians/Indologists are also of the same view as the sources above. This is why you were asked you to go through the sources since we have discussed many such sources but the fact is that we need those sources on article that are also competent in the medical field. Ayurveda is not an extension of Sanskrit, neither Ayurveda is a linguistic field. It is not going to be considered as WP:RS if a writer of Sanskrit studies is being used as source for a medical field. Anything that has been published by the experts of the field writing for Oxford University Press are undoubtedly reliable per WP:RS. Since we are not supposed to use only a "historian" or "linguist" in a subject that requires knowledge about the medical field, the three sources as pointed above were agreed to be best for the information as they have a clue about the medical subject as well as history. Until no dispute from another reliable sources comes forward, there is no reason to remove the information in question that can be verified by a lot of reliable sources. Capitals00 (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If you're making a statement on history — especially when in wikivoice — you are in fact required to turn to a historian for that data per WP:RS. A medical doctor has zero qualifications outside his or her field. A health sciences degree confers no authority on textual criticism, historical linguistics, or specialist history, all of which are bedrock elements for making any sort of statement regarding the Vedic period. The fact that this statement is receiving push back raises a parade of red flags, as is often the case when it comes to topics involving "ancient origins" in India (do not pet the nationalists). This definitely needs a closer look, and the sources you're providing only make me more concerned about what's going on at this page. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 19:16, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This is why I said that unless dispute from another reliable sources comes forward, we can think about disputing the current statement that is widely accepted among relevant experts, be it historians or medical experts and expert of alternative medicine like Edzard Ernst who is the top authority on this subject and is no fan of Ayurveda (per his analysis of the subject). Generally accepted information is not a red flag, only very isolated information is. As for medical history of India, it is generally dated to much older period, read . Capitals00 (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It is widely asserted, but not by any actual authority on history, and the assertion has never been supported in anything thus far presented. Contrast that with the sources in my OP, or A Concise Introduction to Indian Medicine (described by Wujastyk as "a small masterpiece of clarity, presenting in a few pages a great deal of accurate and historically-informed information about the healing traditions of India, and especially Ayurveda"), which says The remains of Mohenjo-Daro in the lower Indus valley and of Harappa, further north, attest to the existence of a civilization of such a high level, from as early as the third millennium BC, that we may safely think that medicine might already have been advanced there, but they do not tell us anything as regards its actual development", and In the absence of supplementary evidence, it has not been possible to determine the magnitude of the medical legacy from which the Aryan immigrants may have benefited.", as well as It was only towards the end of the Vedic period that Indian medicine began to become observational and rational and progressively constitute itself into a consistent system to which the name of Ayurveda, the 'Science (veda) concerning longevity (ayur)' was given." --tronvillain (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sources provided by me above are coming from both historians and medical experts that are frequently cited by others discussing Ayurveda and they are published by highly acclaimed publishers. While your sources are very weak and they don't even support your point of view. We are talking about origins, not established foundation. Computer has its origins in ancient times as well but it was developed very later. Capitals00 (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sources provided by me above are coming from both historians It's historians that matter. Could you please point them out? --Ronz (talk) 21:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sources above provide name of historians as Gerrit Jan Meulenbeld and Georg Feuerstein. D4iNa4 (talk) 08:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Looking through the sources below, the only one that appears to be relevant for the history of Ayurveda Wujastyk and Smith - it's study of the history and cultural impact of the practice, rather than a discussion of the practice itself; the editors are an Indologist and a Sanskrit scholar respectively. It's not a great source, since it only covers the early history of Ayurveda in the preamble to the introduction, but it's better than anything else on the list. Here's what it says about the early history:
 * "Ayurveda... ...dates back at least 2000 years "
 * "Ayurveda has antecedents in the medicine found in much earlier periods..."
 * "systematic medical theory began to be formulated only around the time of the Buddha (ca 400 BCE)"

That seems like the best that can be got from these sources - dating the beginnings of Ayurveda to around 400BCE. Of course it can be traced back to older practices, but what can't? Everything we do can be traced back to something similar that people did beforehand - we can't say that the antecedents of Ayurveda and Ayurveda itself are the same thing.Girth Summit (talk) 07:23, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * And certainly Wujastyk and Smith also recognizes the dating of "8,000 years" old (page 12), and given it is backed by better source (Oxford, EHS) there is clearly no doubt regarding the authenticity of the dating and the sources that are being used since they are top in the quality. D4iNa4 (talk) 08:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * With respect Di4Na4, Wujastyk and Smith do not recognize the dating of "8,000 years". They say on page 12 that it is "axiomatic to find statements in nearly all institutional, lineage and popular presentations of Ayurveda that it is 5,000 years old, with some claiming it is 8,000 years old". Given that the same authors have, in the same chapter, indicated that it dates from 400BCE, that sentence implies very strongly that the 5,000/8,000 year old dates are not true. This is the best of a bad bunch of sources, but it clearly says that Ayurveda is about 2,400 years old.Girth Summit (talk) 09:56, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That's WP:SYNTH and source does not say that. Atharvaveda alone dates to 1,000 years BCE+. "systematic medical theory" is far ahead and not same as origins and it has been already mentioned on article with better sources that Ayurveda significantly developed during Vedic period (1500 - 600 BCE). The source is saying that it is widely accepted that origins date back to 5,000 years and some claiming it to be 8,000 years old. Which would be a good source in your terms? I must have found earlier on talk page, given we have analyzed dozens of them. Capitals00 (talk) 10:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what was WP:SYNTH about what I said? I am only talking about one chapter of one source, and I've quoted the relevant sections. As I read it, it is saying (a) that Ayurveda dates back to 400BCE, and (b) various sources regularly cite older dates. The obvious implication is that these dates are wrong, since they have already stated unambiguously that it is not 5,000 or 8,000. Am I missing something?Girth Summit (talk) 10:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * They have highlighted the dates or origins while only emphasized the established foundation of Ayurveda. Your "obvious implication" is WP:SYNTH because you are combining "different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source". It has to be supported by the same book. "systematic medical theory" or "systematic theory" of anything would obviously date to very later times, but origins date back to more ancient times as supported by other reliable sources. Capitals00 (talk) 11:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No. There's no synth there. We're talking about a single chapter of a single book. I repeat: (a) - they say that Ayurveda dates back to 400BCE, and (b) they acknowledge that earlier dates are often given in a range of sources. I'm not synthesising the implication there, it's pretty obvious.Girth Summit (talk) 11:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * And of course, as pointed out on the talk page, the whole quote is "It is axiomatic to find statements in nearly all institutional, lineage, and popular presentations of Ayurveda that it is 5,000 years old, with some claiming that it is 8,000 years old, that it is a direct descendant of the medicine of the Atharva-Veda, that it was always allied with Tantra, and that the increasingly popular diagnosis by pulse (nadivijnana), which is not mentioned in any classical text, is an ancient ayurvedic practice." When the sentence is viewed in context, it is apparent that is simply an acknowledgement that the claim is widespread in Ayurveda rather than an endorsement of the claim (as GS points out). If the article simply wishes to acknowledge that the claim is often made, (a change that Ronz made which was stable for months), that's completely different than stating it as fact in Wikipedia's voice. Also Girth Summit, check out A Concise Introduction to Indian Medicine'' as mentioned above. --12:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * But th tagging is misleading since the sources are neither close to the subject nor they are unreliable and tagging entire section for one sentence is an overkill. Attribution is incorrect since none of the sources can be interpreted as ayurvedic, as all of them are critical of Ayurveda. Do you have any specific wording in your mind, which would be better than the current sentence? Capitals00 (talk) 12:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

VG (Norwegian newspaper)
Is this really a reliable source for Norway related articles, or should it be held in the same esteem as tabloid newspapers from the Anglosphere such as the Daily Mail, The Sun, New York Daily News, and the New York Post. If so, then why the double standard concerning tabloid newspapers from non-English speaking countries? (I would say it’s in between the New York Times and the National Enquirer in terms of credibility and reliability). — Preceding unsigned comment added by MBridges1996 (talk • contribs)

Landauer's principle
Unless I am mistaken, Landauer's principle is considered by mainstream science to have been experimentally verified. 

Despite this, Landauer's principle claims that "but in recent years it has been challenged", but are the sources cited for for that reliable? In particular, is material preprinted PhilSci-Archive but not in any peer-reviewed journal considered reliable? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * There was until recently considerable debate as to how Landauer's principle applied in quantum systems, but that question seems largely resolved as of this year . Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Does anyone have an opinion on my other question ("n particular, is material preprinted PhilSci-Archive but not in any peer-reviewed journal considered reliable?")? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


 * It would depend on the author. But I note that at least one of the Norton papers has been published in a journal . Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

2018, Small Arms Survey
I can't believe that I'm even having these discussions at the Talk:Gun ownership page. However, is the 2018, Small Arms Survey report a reliable source of information for firearm holding; "Civilian-Firearms-Numbers", "Military-Firearms-Numbers" and "Law-Enforcement-Firearms-Numbers"? Please see links below.... Please comment below. --RAF910 (talk) 21:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/de/about-us/highlights/2018/highlight-bp-firearms-holdings.html
 * http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/T-Briefing-Papers/SAS-BP-Civilian-Firearms-Numbers.pdf
 * http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/T-Briefing-Papers/SAS-BP-Military-Firearms-Numbers.pdf
 * http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/T-Briefing-Papers/SAS-BP-Law-Enforcement-Firearms-Numbers.pdf
 * Support...of course it's a reliable source of information.--RAF910 (talk) 21:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Content dispute between two editors, discussion has been on the talk page for less than 24 hours. I suggest that both of you stop replying per WP:BLUDGEON and give someone else a chance to weigh in. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * OK with me, that's why I brought it here.--RAF910 (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Support* I'd say that this looks like a reliable source when it comes to estimating the number of firearms in the world. They're affiliated with a prestigious university, they list their staff members on their website, they are quoted by various news sources, they release at least some information on their methodology, and they seem to be used by several national governments and international organizations as a reference. I don't know if that means they're always accurate, but those are at least the signs of a reliable source. At the very least, their opinion is relevant and worth mentioning. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The Small Arms Survey is as far as I know a highly reliable academic source. It's run by academics at a highly ranked institution and often cited by academics. The Small Arms Survey has been published multiple times in Cambridge University Press, which is a premier academic book publisher in the field of International Relations. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:22, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The very specific problem raised with the Small Arms Survey related to the numbers they have given for Ireland, which are patently ridiculous - they state that there are more illegally held firearms in Ireland than the Army has. Specifically, they're estimating ten illegal firearms for every single member of the Gardai including the Reserves. That figure stems from the 2007 report, where they cited five newspaper articles about gun crime, only two of which were from Ireland, and then multiplied the official number of licences by a ratio of about 1.7 and produced their estimate of how many illegal firearms there were. The data from every year since has done the same thing, you can literally see it using a calculator and reading the latest garda figures. They're not doing research ``in Ireland``. When the original page used the 2007 survey as a base, we corrected the figure to the official figure. We tried to do that here; the change was reverted because RAF910 felt the Gardai were not as reliable a source. However there's a larger issue here which is not being addressed which is that the previous page had existed for some time with considerable work put into it and it was deleted, entirely, without any prior attempt at consultation on the Talk page, and was replaced en masse by a straight copy of the 2018 survey, instead of the proper way to do things which would have been to merge the 2018 survey into the older page with prior consultation on the Talk page. MarkDennehy (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Without taking sides on the content dispute, I would note that the edit summary of the edit that you object to was "This list is badly out-of-date (over 10 years) and frankly not salvageable. Therefore, I have redirected it to the Gun ownership page which has which has a far more comprehensive and up-to-date list, taken from the June 2018, Small Arms Survey report" and that when you reverted it your edit comment was "The figures for Ireland are very inaccurate, as explained previously here: [link]". To me, that sounds like you objecting to the reliability of the source. If you are right about the source being unreliable, then merging it in would be the wrong thing to do. I would like to hear whether your argument above convinces any of the editors who have made comments on this page saying that it is a reliable source. Are you aware of our No original research policy? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Guy, that was absolutely not my reversion edit comment, which is here : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country&oldid=848029202 and reads "Redirecting an entire page with a long history of revisions and edits without even an entry on the talk page discussing the move ahead of time, to a page where I can right off the bat see grossly incorrect data is verging on vandalism." MarkDennehy (talk) 20:23, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I've been looking through those sources you posted on the article talk page to support your claim that the numbers in the Small Arms Survey are ridiculous. There's nothing like that in any of them. First of all they're pretty low quality sources, being transcripts from parliamentary hearings. Second of all, they don't really address the issue. There is absolutely nothing in them that casts doubt on the SAS numbers.
 * This is the source you cited for this statement: And several Irish Ministers for Justice have stated on the record that the idea of estimating how many firearms are held illegally here is ridiculous. I don't know how you're getting that from this. This is a quote from the justice minister responding to a question about illegal firearms amnesty in 1991. Just because there were no available Garda statistics in 1991 does not mean that the SAS estimate is inaccurate. Even if there are no available statistics now, they don't claim to be using statistics. In their annual report, they say that their number for unregistered firearms in Ireland comes from "expert estimate(s)". It seems that their estimate is that there are about 7 unregistered firearms for every 10 registered firearms in Ireland. They discuss the situation in detail in the 2007 Small Arms Survey Yearbook, and nowhere do they source their numbers to any news articles. They do use news articles, in addition to official government reports, as sources for basic information, such as the number of licensed firearms, the number of firearms seized each year, etc. They actually don't present any source for their estimate of 150,000 unregistered firearms in Ireland, but they don't need to (though I would be curious to see how they came up with that number). They are recognized as experts when it comes to estimating the number of firearms in a country. I think I've read everything you've presented as evidence that their numbers for Ireland are wrong, and I haven't seen anything convincing. Do you have any better sources that actually address the number of unlicensed firearms in Ireland? Red Rock Canyon (talk) 07:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The survey does actually list who those "expert estimates" were though, in 2007, as I pointed out before : http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/A-Yearbook/2007/en/Small-Arms-Survey-2007-Chapter-02-annexe-3-EN.pdf
 * That's four newspaper articles, only two of which were from Ireland (neither of which was written by a firearms expert); the other two were from Northern Ireland and were talking about Northern Ireland which is a different country. They also cited their own report as a source.
 * For context, if there were 150,000 illegally held firearms here, that would be ten for every single Garda including the reserves. It'd be more firearms than the Irish Defence Forces have. We see absolutely nothing of that scale here, and based on the rise in drug-related crime in the last decade, we would have seen evidence if this had existed since 2007 because we have had a Garda operation (Operation Anvil) running now since 2004 to crack down on illegally held firearms and in the first five years of their operation, despite over 80,000 searches and almost 9,000 arrests, they had only found just under 3,000 illegally held firearms (https://www.herald.ie/news/over-2800-guns-seized-during-operation-anvil-27936158.html )
 * This isn't a case of arguing the toss between five and ten thousand; the number the survey gives is beyond ridiculous in context. It also does not appear that they have done any sort of research since because every year the number they give for Ireland is 1.7 times the official Garda estimate. Every year. Enough illegally held firearms to arm every Garda and every Irish soldier about six times over. The entire argument here appears to be that because the Small Arms Survey published a figure, the actual lived experience of people in Ireland doesn't count.
 * If you want citations arguing against them, sure, everyone from GunPolicy to Firearms United argues against them (that's from both the anti-private-firearms-ownership side to the pro-private-firearms-ownership side), but I normally hesitate to cite either GunPolicy (as their firearms legislation pages on Ireland have significant errors) or Firearms United (because the very first response will be a variation on `"they're just a gun lobby group, those figures aren't reliable, you're a gun lobbyist"`). But since on firearms numbers they both use the same base sources of the ICVS and the eurobarometer and so on : http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/ireland (see "Gun Numbers" and the sections on illegally held firearms) https://firearms-united.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Firearms_ReportII-Gun_Ownership_in_Europe.pdf MarkDennehy (talk) 11:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm fairly certain those sources aren't being cited for their estimated number of illegal firearms, or at least, not directly. None of those articles ever even mentions any kind of estimate of illegal firearm ownership. Plus, SAS's estimates for Ireland, Japan, and Korea are that there are .714 illegal firearms for every registered firearm. Clearly they aren't getting that from some newspaper articles from Ireland and Northern Ireland. However, that does bring up the question of where they are getting that number from. Here's what GunPolicy.org has to say about illegal firearm ownership in Ireland:
 * To me, that seems even worse than whatever SAS's methodology is, since they at least seem to make some effort to choose a multiplier to suit a given country's situation, instead of using the same multiplier for every single country (additionally, that's not even what UNODC says. The sentence they cite claims that the dollar value of the global illegal arms trade is 10-20% of the value of the legal arms trade). In the SAS annexe, out of all the countries with illegal arms estimates based on "Total From Registered Guns Correlation", Ireland, Japan, and Korea have the lowest multiplier. For Northern Ireland, they use a multiplier of 1.65.
 * Reading the Firearms United report, they do criticize SAS. But this is what they say in conclusion The official data in the attachment 4 show that the number of 79 million for licit firearms is overestimated by nearly 50%. We assume that the number of 67 million for illicit firearms is underestimated by at least 30%, maybe even 150%. So they're saying that when it comes to Europe-wide firearm ownership numbers, SAS's estimate for legal firearms is a large overestimate, and that their estimate for illegal firearms is a large underestimate. If this can be applied to Ireland in specific, then they're saying that 200,000 legal firearms is an overestimate (there appear to be only 179,000 in official documents) but 170,00 illicit firearms is an underestimate. There's nothing in the Firearms United report that discusses Ireland's number of illicit firearms in particular, and they don't speak about SAS's estimates for illicit firearms except for what I quoted above.
 * Also, about your comment on how absurd it is that there would be more illegal firearms in Ireland than there are members of the Garda—I think it is generally the case, throughout most of the world, that the number of unregistered civilian firearms is far larger than the number of police or military firearms. Here's what Firearms United wrote about illicit firearms: The number of illicit guns in the European Union can only been estimated. Most illegal-held firearms belong to the huge block of passive illegaly-held firearms which will not enter any market. From time to time police discovers them - sometimes by pure luck, sometimes by neighbours' complaints, sometimes by their own research in internet sales and sometimes by internation scheduled raids at houses of suspects of organized crime groups. Personally, I'm not sure if SAS's numbers are accurate and now I'm really curious how they come up with them, but they do appear to be widely recognized as the best estimate. GunPolicy.org doesn't even attempt to make an estimate, and Firearms United suggest that, if anything, there are far more illegal firearms in Ireland than SAS estimates. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 06:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * So, in order:
 * I just cited those sources for their estimated number of illegal firearms, here. It wasn't necessary on the main pages because we had corrected the figure on the main page many years ago because the SAS 2007 wasn't reliable enough for the grounds we've just gone over. Those citations both specifically give estimates of illegal firearms ownership (see the "illicit firearms" section in the gun numbers/civilian guns section in the GunPolicy citation, and section 3.2.1 in the Firearms United report which talks about a total estimate of firearms that's higher than the registered number of firearms (any unregistered firearm in Ireland is by law illegally held, we don't have any category of firearm that does not require a licence - granted, that's not as obvious as it could be if you're not familiar with Irish firearms law, which is rather draconian in text and enforcement on that specific point and a few others)).
 * Yes, SAS's estimate for firearms in Ireland is the Garda number multiplied by 1.7, that's my point. It isn't based on any research done by SAS on Ireland, it's just taking the official figure off a website run by the Irish government and applying a multiplier that SAS have invented themselves. The cited sources they gave for that multiplier back in 2007 were two newspaper articles written in Ireland by non-experts in a tabloid style over a decade ago, two written in another country about that other country, and their own report.
 * Ireland isn't merely a tightly regulated firearm market, we're one of the most tightly regulated in the world, due to our laws being written in the aftermath of a nasty civil war, and hardened during thirty years of domestic terrorism happening in Northern Ireland and spilling over into Ireland and where the law enforcement efforts to stop that terrorism happened on both sides of the border. As a result of those parts of our history we simply don't have the tradition of owning firearms here that you see elsewhere and the SAS estimate does not take account of this, it assumes we can be treated as being uniformly consistent with everywhere else and as a result their estimate is ridiculous. Maybe in other countries it wouldn't be; but I'm not arguing about their numbers in other countries, I don't have the competency to do that and I've left it to those who do (and they did, for a decade, on the original paged based on the SAS 2007 report).
 * It's important to remember that many EU norms don't apply in Ireland. We don't even have the same definition of what a firearm *is* in law (our definition of that term in law is far more inclusive than it is anywhere else I've ever heard of - not just airguns, but some kinds of sights, all component parts, crossbows, paintball markers, tazers, pepper spray and a few other nonobvious items are legally firearms here in their own right, in exactly the same way as a pistol or a rifle would be). So even if you compare official numbers, you're still not comparing like with like when you compare our figures to EU figures. If you look at our figures and extract just the things that the EU considers to be firearms, we're in direct competition for the lowest firearms ownership rate in the EU. We're an edge case.
 * Firearms United does not suggest what you say they suggest; you're reading that into their report by assuming Ireland is homogenous with continental Europe, which is what I'm trying to explain is incorrect above. And the GunPolicy citation lists numbers for illegally held firearms. You can say they don't attempt to make an estimate, but there's the estimate, right there, on that page, with *more* backing citations for data than the SAS gives. I don't particularly endorse either of those sources for the reasons I gave earlier, but nevertheless both are every bit as valid as the SAS citations in terms of "is this a citation" and they're frankly both better sources of data than the SAS because they're both using more sources of data and their sources of data come from actual fieldwork done in Ireland. MarkDennehy (talk) 07:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I've read the papers you linked, and I just don't see what you're talking about. 3.2.1 is a comparison table with SAS estimates for total number of civilian firearms, SAS estimates for registered number of firearms, and the official records of registered firearms. They don't make any estimates of their own, nor do they criticize SAS's estimates for illicit firearm numbers, except where they say earlier that these estimates are probably too low. Gun Policy clearly states in their source that they based their estimate on a UN organized crime study about the total dollar value of the global arms trade. I see that determining the number of firearms in a country is incredibly difficult, that there are other estimates and critics of SAS, but no evidence suggesting that they're unreliable. If they're relied upon by so many governments and international organizations, then I'd want some pretty strong evidence to show that they're unreliable for our purposes. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 10:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * As before...all I see is a lot of very dated original research, and "obsessing" about the obsolete and very out of date "2007, Small Arms Survey report". This discussion is NOT about the 2007 report. It's about "June 2018, Small Arms Survey report." --RAF910 (talk) 18:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no material difference between the 2007 SAS figure and the 2018 SAS figure (or the 2017 SAS figure which is the one you cited). in each case, it's the Garda figure times 1.7 and in each case, it's wrong for the same reasons. MarkDennehy (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no material difference between the 2007 SAS figure and the 2018 SAS figure (or the 2017 SAS figure which is the one you cited). in each case, it's the Garda figure times 1.7 and in each case, it's wrong for the same reasons. MarkDennehy (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Straw poll

 * OPPOSE INCLUSION FOR ALL ARTICLES...by definition, anecdotal evidence, as such not reliable.--RAF910 (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * RAF910, "interviews with trauma surgeons with military experience" on this topic is not anecdotal evidence by any definition, much less a news article based on them among other sources. If that's what your opposition is based on, you might want to rethink it.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 13:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The NYT article is filled with hyperbole. For example "The exit wounds can be a foot wide." Really? Someone please tell me where I can get 5.56mm ammo that will produce an exit hole larger than a basketball. Maybe you should rethink your support.--RAF910 (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * No, the NYT is not a RS for medical information and has an axe to grind on this issue. This is not MEDRS compliant AFAIK. And it is also filled with hyperbole due to the gun debate in the US. The reality is a tad more nuanced - there are high velocity handguns on the one hand, and the M-16/AR-15 small caliber has actually led it to be ineffective against body armor - with the army looking at 6.8mm and 7.62. Interviewed surgeons invariably (in any conflict) bemoan the damage caused by bullets (whether they stay in or zip out). We should stick to a solid medical (or cadaver/dummy) studies, of which I am sure there are several, which are not linked to the gun control debate.Icewhiz (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * To clarify my !vote in light of comments below - In "axe to grind" I was referring to this being coverage related to the gun debate in the US. The NYT, is, of course considered the gold plate in journalism in the US (and beyond). However, the underlying source of the information (surgeon interviews as opposed to an actual study), the rather inaccurate language (e.g. exponentially which is technically incorrect here), and the sensationalist (as opposed to technical) tone - makes this a far from perfect source for bullet wound dynamics. It is definitely reliable to say that  trauma surgeons said so in an interview - so in that sense the NYT is a RS - however per WP:MEDRS (and I do see bullet wounds as "biomedical information" per MEDRS) such a primary statement should be avoided. Finally, there are actually several review studies available for bullet wound characteristics - which would be a much better source.Icewhiz (talk) 10:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Not usable for anything here. I get a feeling that the journalist has done some heavy editing on what the trauma specialists said, without knowing what he/she was doing, because I doubt they said what the article says. The energy does not depend entirely on bullet velocity, as the article seems to claim when mentioning the lower velocity of handgun bullets, but on velocity when entering the target and bullet weight (½ x bullet weight x velocity squared), which since handguns usually have heavy bullets (ranging from ~125 grain for a 9mm to ~230 grain for a .45ACP) while the 5.56x45mm NATO (which is the caliber they were talking about, since that's what the M-16 and most AR-15s are chambered for) usually have bullets in the 55-70 grain range, and handguns are used at short range while rifles are used at longer range, means that a handgun bullet can very well have the same energy when hitting the target as a 5.56mm rifle bullet has. Which a surgeon with military experience of course would know. The material has been repeatedly added to Assault rifle and Assault weapon, i.e. articles about weapons, where it most definitely does not belong, for these reasons (copied from a post of mine at Talk:Assault rifle):
 * "They (i.e. wound characteristics) are totally irrelevant in this article since it isn't the rifle as such that causes the wound, but the ammunition/bullet. How severe a wound is, i.e. penetration, size of wound cavity etc etc, depends entirely on the cartridge (bullet diameter, bullet length, bullet weight, bullet type, velocity when entering the target etc), not on what type of weapon that was used. The barrel length matters, since a longer barrel usually results in a higher muzzle velocity, but what type of action the weapon has, what it looks like, whether it has a removable magazine or not, etc, is totally irrelevant. Which is why wound characteristics belong in articles about specific cartridges (and many articles about military cartridges already have such information), not in articles about different types of weapons."
 * So, as I wrote there, the only article that kind of material might belong in is 5.56x45mm, but that article already has that kind of information (scroll down a bit and you'll find illustrations and all...), much more professional information to boot, so I see no use at all for the kind of unprofessional sensationalist information the NYT article provides. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 20:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes the New York Times is a reliable source for reporting the assessments of experts in this or any other field. Dismissing such as merely "anecdotal evidence" strikes me as a bit odd. I'll pass on the question of which article(s) are appropriate for this information. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "Anecdotal evidence is evidence from anecdotes, i.e., evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony."--RAF910 (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

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


 * Source has serious issues, these wounds are not inflicted because they are from a military style rifle, but instead because they are from a rifle firing a certain cartridge, the type of rifle is incidental. This is equivalent to saying being hit by a MAN truck is in some way worse than being hit by a Mercedes truck, despite the two travelling at identical speeds and having identical fronts.  Cavalryman V31 (talk) 23:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC).
 * Logic needs work; the cartridge by itself does nothing; throwing it does little damage.Farcaster (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you should read what I wrote, "they are from a rifle firing a certain cartridge", who said anything about throwing? Rather than simply making snide comments about those who hold opposing views from your own, can I suggest you familiarise yourself with WP:CIVIL and WP:EQ.  Cavalryman V31 (talk) 23:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * To clarify:
 * Q1 - yes source is reliable by definition no source is not reliable - thank you to Farcaster for bringing my attention back to WP:NEWSORG, having reviewed it and WP:MEDRS again I assess the NYTs is not a reliable source of biomedical content. Changed !vote. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 04:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC).
 * Q2 - none of the above - it lacks the specificity to be included in any of the above pages, nor any others that I am aware of. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 00:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC).
 * Surely it could be included on the AR-15 or M-16 pages, which are specifically mentioned in the source? –dlthewave ☎ 01:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No I do not believe it can. The AR-15 action in its various guises comes in various chamberings and these are not specified, whilst the M16 is only mentioned in passing.  If the article specified a cartridge it would be a different argument.  My criticism of the article above stands.  Cavalryman V31 (talk) 05:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC).


 * Hm.
 * is a review from 2015, / is a review from 2010, and  is a review from 2009; they are the most on-point MEDRS reviews and both say the same thing --  that tissue damage from a bullet is a function of the kinetic energy of the bullet; the kinetic energy = one-half the mass times velocity squared.  So velocity is by far the most important aspect. The velocity is dependent on the weapon, with handguns providing far less than rifles, with shotguns in between but depending on the range, causing more damage due to the multiple projectiles.  Both articles walk through that and talk about the resulting injuries.  The shape of the bullet also matters, and whether it tumbles or fragments.  They also make it clear that the temporary cavitation when a high velocity bullet passes through tissue is much larger than with a low velocity bullet, and that inelastic organs like the brain, liver, and spleen are devastated by large temporary cavitation from high velocity bullets.  This is what the surgeons in the NYT article talked about the most.
 * The Hartford Consensus from 2015 also talks about this; it is a high quality MEDRS source -- a clinical guideline. It doesn't go into the same deal but see example page 30, left column, where the stuff I just wrote is reviewed.
 * This document from the military about kinds of wounds, and wound management, says the same thing as well. It also names kinds of weapons, so will be more useful with respect to adding content to specific articles.
 * All four of those are MEDRS and say the same thing as the NYT.
 * In my view the content should absolutely come in in the relevant articles about guns and rifles and shotguns, with these sources. The NYT ref can be used to a) provide as a "lay summary" and b) connect the generic types of weapons discussed in these pages to the specific models, if that is needed. Jytdog (talk) 00:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * btw is a primary source, reviewing autopsy reports of civilian mass casualty shootings, and comparing those to battlefield wounds. It notes that there is a much higher mortality rate with civilians because a) civilians aren't wearing protection so head and chest "hits" are devastating; b) civilian shootings tend to be close range.  That is addressing comments above bringing in issues of range, with respect to velocity.
 * An aside -- in the course of looking for sources, I came across this article from the UK about care of wounded soldiers, which has some history and some horrific pictures that were hard to see. It is Memorial Day tomorrow in the US.  Jytdog (talk) 00:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot,, these sources from how you have described them seem quite useful and appropriate. The discussion of different rounds and weapons in the military document would make this appropriate for the Assault rifle article and could be used to expand the individual weapon and round articles (at least one of which already has this discussion in technical detail). The military document does on the other hand list among common misconceptions velocity being the most important factor. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * glad you are pleased. Please be careful not to cherry-pick. :) Jytdog (talk) 01:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I personally have no concern with how lethal or devastating any round or weapon is described to be as long as it is well sourced and accurate. From my knowledge 5.56mm AR-15s do produce massive wounds. I was brought to this discussion by concern over the manner in which a secondary dictionary definition was added to the Assault rifle article, not any interest in hiding discussion on the lethality of these weapons. I should mention that you are right, it is good to remember Memorial Day in this discussion. —DIYeditor (talk)
 * Your knowledge is wrong. 5.56mm rifles produce massive wounds. They produce massive wounds whether the rifle is a 5.56mm AR-15 or a 5.56mm Ranch Rifle with the same barrel length firing the same ammunition. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Source is reliable, but lack of specificity limits applicability to a few articles The source in question makes some generalized statements about bullet wound characteristics without specifying the cartridge(s) from which the bullets creating the observed wounds were fired, although it may be inferred the cartridge would have been the 5.56×45mm NATO which was the primary cartridge used in the M4 and M16 rifles. Although AR-15 style rifles are mentioned by the source, many AR-15 style rifles use other cartridges. The 5.56×45mm NATO cartridge is also used in many other firearms, and many bullets used by civilians are of distinctly different design than the bullets used in military loads and may be loaded to significantly lower velocities. The material might be useful in articles like Stopping power or Hydrostatic shock (firearms) focusing on description of bullet injuries. Its usefulness for the 5.56×45mm NATO article would be conditioned upon positive identification of that cartridge to the described injuries. It would not be appropriate for articles describing firearms suitable for multiple cartridges because of the erroneous implication the firearm rather than the cartridge is a primary determinant of injury characteristics. Thewellman (talk) 02:57, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes The NYT is a reliable source, but it may need to be attributed if any RS challenges any of this.Slatersteven (talk) 08:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes Yes, obviously a RS and should be included. Contrary to some assertions above, the muzzle velocity and damage caused is certainly not a function of the cartridge only.  It also depends on the barrel, and is generally greater for longer barrel lengths.   Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 12:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course it's an obvious RS, regardless of whatever original research or fantasies people concoct to try and change that fact. Maybe should be attributed at most. Some of the comments here are frankly ridiculous ("I know better than the writer therefore it's not RS!") Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, obviously. A reliable source. Objections seem to be special pleading here. Neutralitytalk 15:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break to minimize edit conflicts

 * I think that question #1 kind of misses the point. Why do we care about whether a source is "reliable"?  It's so we know whether we can "rely" on it, in our quest to get our facts straight in the article.  Are these claims accurate?  Well, looking at some even more obviously reliable sources, the answer is "yes".  Can you rely on this source?  Yes.  Is it possible to substitute in a gold-plated academic source?  Yes.  Is using the "best" source necessary?  Well, it's not required by any policy, but as a matter of practical politics, people who don't like the content will have a much harder time saying "You didn't say Mother, May I? when you added that content, because that's only an acceptable source rather than the best possible kind!"  (I find it hard to believe that people who know anything about firearms would even pretend that a class of rifles that was originally designed for the US military would be no more dangerous to its targets, or even any different from, any other firearm that can shoot any of the same cartridges.  Muzzle velocity is significantly affected by the barrel, not just the cartridge.  To put it another way, everything in this list uses the same cartridge, but they do not have identical effects.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes Reliable Source can be used wherever it is relevant. Journalist conveying qualified expert knowledge. That's what journalists do.  SPECIFICO talk 16:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No, Misleading. The removed content stated "assault rifles, both military and civilian variants:" This would incorrectly lead readers to believe all AR's are assault rifles. The content also attempted to mislead readers by asserting that simply being shot one time from this caliber is so deadly that a instant death is assured.
 * I do not believe comparing a rifle with a hand gun is relavent to the proposed articles. It is common knowledge that most rifles are more powerful than a hand gun. The removed content also stated "“What makes injuries from these rifles so deadly…is that the bullets travel so fast" compared to a hand gun. The content is making a very specific claims with velocity, it is just on the high end of this caliber with a very specific barrel length, twist rate and bullet weight. Most rifle calibers have this speed and beyond (with a much bigger bullet). This caliber makes this speed because of it very light and small varmit size bullet. Because mass times speed equals energy, this caliber on the high end has about the same energy as a 44 Magnum, 50 AE, .454 Casull, and about half of .500 S&W Magnum. Most rifles far surpass this. You are also making a distinction with just one caliber in a general article of weapons.
 * It would appear that some editor here have just a very basic understanding of firearms, by there comments. And therefor basing there views on this lack of knowledge.
 * In most states it is illegal to hunt deer or anything larger with this caliber ammunition, it doesn't offer much stopping power for anything other than small game.
 * The WP:BALASP policy states "An article should not give  undue weight to  minor aspects  of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events,  criticisms, or  news reports  about a subject may be  verifiable  and  impartial, but still disproportionate to their  overall significance  to the  article topic. This is a concern  especially  in relation to  recent events  that may be in the  news ." -72bikers (talk) 23:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * No Since this fits the definition of WP:Biomedical information, WP:MEDRS sources are necessary. The New York Times is not a valid source for biomedical information, as per WP:MEDPOP. As Icewhiz has pointed out, there appear to be several decent MEDRS-compliant sources on the topic, those should just be used instead. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that gunshot effects are MEDRS. But even if they are, this is at the bottom of that advisory page: "If WP:MEDRS can be found to support the information, and it is relevant and encyclopedic, then ideally provide a better source yourself. If you cannot find an appropriate source but the material seems accurate, consider adding a tag." My interpretation would be to include that citation at the end, if we confirm it's MEDRS, and then have the pros layer in the sources listed above by Jytdog, replacing it.Farcaster (talk) 01:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

*Yes Reliable Source and *Yes is should be included The NYT may bit be the best source, but wounding capabilities are (at least in part) are a reason these weapons have been chosen by the military (indeed have often been a marketing ploy, as in their ability to stop elephants, if the manufacturers consider to ability to inflict injuries notable why should we not?). Slatersteven (talk) 08:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  13:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No...but The question is reliable for what? A number of other editors have hit on many of the issues here.  When it comes to the actual study of the trauma we have actual medical sources we can draw on.  When it comes to the opinions of the surgeons who were questioned, yes, the article should reliably convey their opinions.  How and where this source would makes sense in use?  That's a big question.  It's not specific or methodical.  The opinions are of medical professionals but it's not clear they have the background information or expertise needed to make the assessments (this projectile fired from this barrel does this harm).  As was previously mentioned the reported information was anecdotal and was packaged in a way that was advocating a position.  So it may be reliable in some cases but not in general.  Springee (talk) 01:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Was it Groundhog Day, ? :) Deja vu.
 * Pedantic No. The way "exponentially" is used in the cited passage shows that its author was not a scientist. Maproom (talk) 08:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Whether the author is a scientist or not is irrelevant. Further, the formula for kinetic energy is 1/2mv^2 (one-half mass x square of the velocity). So if the bullet travels twice as fast, other things equal, it imparts four times as much energy. That is exponential.Farcaster (talk) 14:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you crazy or trying to be funny? If you don't know the difference between quadratic and exponential, go back to primary school. 2$2=4, depending on the operation the $ represents could apply equally well to linear, quadratic, exponential or random. Exponential energy would mean something like 0.5m2^v (which is wrong!). For a constant mass of projectile, by the time we are contemplating quadruple instead of double the velocity, we would have 2^5=32 vs 5^2=25. By the time we are looking at supersonic speeds the slope is huge, so don't come telling us it is all a matter of scientific pickyness. JonRichfield (talk) 05:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * No: for two reasons.
 * [1] WP:MEDRS is our policy for biomedical information, and The New York Times is not a MEDRS-compliant source. See WP:MEDPOP.


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


 * Ruger AR-556.jpg


 * Ruger Mini-14.jpg


 * --Guy Macon (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Guy Macon, you wrote the NYT claims that assault rifles such as the AR-15 are somehow unique in the wounds that they inflict. Where in the article does it say that?  From what I read, the comparisons to other guns are to handguns, plus a brief mention of shotguns.  —DIYeditor, same question to you.  Thanks.   Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 21:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * NYT: "Perhaps no one knows the devastating wounds inflicted by assault-style rifles better than the trauma surgeons who struggle to repair them."
 * False by omission or grossly misleading in two ways:
 * This is a characteristic of hunting rifles in .223 as well.
 * This is not necessarily a characteristic of the most common assault rifle round, the 7.62x39, which some AR-15s fire.
 * The NYT article is trying to make it sound like this is in particular a concern with assault-style rifles or with the AR-15, both of which are false. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Seriously? You (Waleswatcher) actually read an article that starts out with "perhaps no one knows the devastating wounds inflicted by assault-style rifles better than the trauma surgeons who struggle to repair them. The doctors say they are haunted by their experiences confronting injuries so dire they struggle to find words to describe them" and somehow came to the conclusion that the source didn't claim that assault rifles such as the AR-15 are somehow unique in the wounds that they inflict? Either you are trolling me, grasping at straws to support your POV, or have a WP:CIR problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It quite clearly doesn't claim that. It doesn't even imply it.  What it does say is that of the gunshot wounds commonly seen by these surgeons, those inflicted by assault-style rifles are by far the worst. Quite possibly if lots of people were getting shot by high-powered hunting rifles instead of handguns, that wouldn't be the case.   Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 16:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * So as long as good old "foot wide exit wounds" NYT heard it from some MD, you would be fine with a Wikipedia article claiming that injuries from getting hit by Toyotas cause more damage than injuries from getting hit by bicycles -- with the claim made only on Toyota-related pages? Even if we documented that individual Toyotas and Nissans exist with the exact same weight, top speed, and front-end/bumper design? OK, so how about if we claimed that blue Toyotas cause more damage than bicycles? How about blue Toyotas driven by blacks? How about blue Toyotas driven by blacks who voted for Bernie Sanders? No one doubts that being hit by a 100KPH blue Toyota driven by a black who voted for Sanders will almost always mess you up more than being hit by a bicycle. If the NYT asked a trauma surgeon he would have to agree agree that the statement is technically accurate.


 * Re your "Either you are trolling me, grasping at straws to support your POV, or have a WP:CIR problem." comment,.
 * BTW, I would love to hear your theory on how it is, exactly, that a trauma surgeon knows that a gunshot victim was shot with one type of rifle instead on another type of rifle that creates identical wounds? Do they include the rile on the gurney? Are there patients bleeding out because the surgeon hasn't received a copy of the police report? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The source is comparing the weapons which are actually used in mass shootings, not ones that could have been but weren't. (And yes, if a bicycle attack epidemic was replaced by a string of attacks by blacks who voted for Bernie Sanders driving blue Toyotas, reliable sources would surely talk about the deadliness of Toyotas compared to bicycles as well as the reasons for this oddly specific trend, regardless of whether the factors are internal or external to Toyota, blacks or Bernie Sanders. The related Wikipedia articles would be updated to reflect this coverage. Nissans have nothing to do with it.) –dlthewave ☎ 15:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The attempt by those who wish to ban Toyotas to introduce such a claim into Toyota articles but not Nissan articles when reliable academic sources show no difference between Toyotas and Nissans does have something to do with it. Editors who attempt to drag in the bogus anti-Toyota claims by comparing Toyotas (but not Nissans) with bicycles do have something to do with it.
 * I don't know if you are aware of this, but science already has an answer to the mass shootings question. See The Effects of Bans on the Sale of Assault Weapons and High-Capacity Magazines also, Before the first assault weapon laws were enacted in the 1990s, assault weapons were used in 1.4% of crimes involving firearms and 0.25% of all crimes that involved injuries to the victim. So if you want to argue percentage of crimes, you should argue for banning handguns. If you want to argue severity of wounds, you should argue for banning shotguns. If you want to argue bullet velocity, you should advocate banning all guns that fire certain cartridges (for example, banning all that fire 7.62x39 NATO while allowing all that fire .22 long rifle) What you don't want to do is to advocate banning certain guns based upon irrelevant characteristics. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


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


 * CZ527American223.JPG


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


 * No per prior. Also, where the user is trying to put this source is not the right place. This article is about a specific type of firearm/bullet. If anything, at the very least that would be something to put on the page for that type of rifle. Reb1981 (talk) 03:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * @Reb1981 Could you please clarify your comment? The proposal is to put this text on (as you said) "the page for that type of rifle". The NYT article and text in question is about assault rifles and specifically mentions the M-16 and AR-15. So you said "No" but your text says "yes."Farcaster (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes the New York Times is reliable for the proposed text. The material is properly attributed to medical professionals interviewed by a highly-reliable source. The claims are not extraordinary, although the word "exponentially" is somewhat vague. The first paragraph of WP:MEDRS explains why the guideline is being improperly cited by those in the 'No" camp: It's implausible that Assault rifle, Assault weapon, or AR-15 style rifle would ever be used as a source for health information by any non-insane person. Also, the unqualified original research by some of the opposers who are attempting to refute what is in a reliable source should have no bearing on the outcome of this poll. I would support A Quest For Knowledge's version also.- MrX 🖋 13:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a good thing it's not up to you to evaluate the outcome of this, pointing out obvious factual errors isn't "unqualified original research"... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 14:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Opinions from anonymous people on the internet are not facts. There is a reason why we cite sources, and not what editors think they know.- MrX 🖋 14:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The claims that wounds depend on the ammunition and that assault rifles, AR-15 style rifles and assault weapons can be had in many different calibers are of course easily sourced, so no, it's not original research. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 14:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Ruger AR-556 40.9 cm Ranch Rifle 46.99, so no they do not have the same barrel length.Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You're wrong, the Ruger Ranch Rifle can be had with barrel lengths from 13" to 22" (even though 16" is minimum legal barrel length for civilians AFAIK), so yes, both of those rifles can be had with the exact same barrel length. You have double-!voted here, BTW, so when are you going to strike your extra vote? - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 14:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the fact they come if different barrel lengths means we would need to see what the comparable MV are. So can we have the MV's of the 16.12 inch barrels for both guns (sourced of course)?Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * AR-556 16.10", Mini-14 (i.e. Ranch Rifle), 16.12". - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 15:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I know they both exist, I want to know what the MV is?Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If both use the same ammunition from the same manufacturing batch the muzzle velocity is of course identical. Manufacturers can't give a "fixed" muzzle velocity since it depends on which ammunition is being used (bullet weight, propellant type, propellant quantity etc). - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 15:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * So then neither can eds on Wikipedia, which I think was my point.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Que? Think again, but do it right this time. If two firearms are chambered for the same cartridge, have the same barrel length and fire the same ammunition their muzzle velocity will be identical, but what that muzzle velocity will be depends on which ammunition they use (bulletweight, propellant type, propellant quantity). There's a wide range of ammunition available for 5.56x45mm, with different muzzle velocity for a given barrel length for each of them, which is why muzzle velocity is given by ammunition manufacturers, not rifle manufacturers... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 16:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Editor no disrespect meant. Are you sure you understand what you are replying to? Editor Tom is saying (what is common knowledge) gun manufacturers do not give velocities for there guns. Ammo manufacturers do give velocities and will state barrel length they tested for this velocity. The speed is determined by the ammo and barrel, not the gun as a whole or type of gun. Velocities can vary significantly from manufacturer to manufacturer and the same exact ammo can vary from box to box. These issues are why I made the statement that perhaps editors were not fully understanding this content fully. Not trying to be mean or basing my vote by, just some constructive criticism trying to resolve this issue -72bikers (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , Re: your claim that the Ruger AR-15 and Ruger Ranch Rifle Ruger do not have the same barrel length, first of all, the fact that (like most rifles) both are available in a variety of barrel lengths and that some of the available barrel lengths match up is easily verifiable. Second, your point is irrelevant unless you are prepared to make the dubious claim that all 5.56×45mm NATO assault rifles have significantly longer/shorter barrel lengths than all conventional 5.56×45mm wooden-stock rifles. It's as if I had pointed out the stupidity of some ER doctor claiming that (based of a tiny sample) Fords cause worse wounds than Chevrolets and you responded by saying that the Ford Mustang and the Chevrolet Bolt have different vehicle weights and different top speeds. That's true, but has zero relevance to the question of whether Fords cause worse wounds than Chevrolets, and it is certainly possible to pick a Ford and a Chevrolet that weight roughly the same. If a Ford and a Chevy are the same weight, go the same speed, and have essentially the same front end, then the wounds they make when hitting a pedestrian are the same. This is true even if there exists an organized political movement to demonize Fords and not Chevrolets. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


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


 * Support inclusion for the three articles listed, per WP:DUE. Interviews with trauma surgeons with military experience is not anecdotal evidence. In any case, other sources listed in this discussion support these conclusions. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Um, yes, it it anecdotal. No matter what their experience is or where they got it, when they are answering based on their experience, that is exactly what anecdotal evidence is. Can you explain how basing it on personal experience is NOT anecdotal? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Um, no, it's called "expert opinion". K.e.coffman (talk) 20:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * They are experts in medicine. No dispute there. But when their opinion is based on their own experiences, not through actual study, it's anecdotal. Do you even know what the word means? "based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation" They are reporting their own observations. It's the very definition of it. Or you just know more than the dictionary? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Nah, it's expert opinion. Do you even know what these words mean? And please stop badgering other editors; I've submitted my iVote and I'm not changing it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The old classic: "Don't confuse me with facts, I've already made up my mind"... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 18:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * please stop badgering other editors; I've submitted my iVote and I'm not changing it. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thomas.W and Niteshift36, I might point out that C.J. Chivers (one of the two authors of the article) is a former Army captain who served in the first Gulf War, and is the author of a book called "The Gun", about the AK-47.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 21:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What has being a former military officer got to do with anything?. This is about being an expert on the characteristics of wounds caused by being hit by a bullet from a certain type of firearms, not about being an expert on how to pull the trigger. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 21:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC) (If being a former military officer automatically made someone an expert on wound characteristics I'd be an expert on this too...)


 * No. The source is unreliable, whether NY Times or Captain Marvel comics or self-styled "expert opinion". The reporter either is quoting unreliable sources without comprehension, or has mutilated a reliable source by lack of comprehension of technical terms. For example, the effect of a bullet's velocity on the wound is not exponential in any useful sense, except perhaps "lots and lots and lots". WP is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not Ripley's Believe it or not. The effect of the relative velocity of a bullet, on the form and scale of the wound it causes, is related to many variables apart from energy, and besides, the energy in a moving projectile is kinetic, which rises quadratically with velocity, not exponentially.  Is that the sort of garbage we are to be retailing? I ''hope' not! 04:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC) JonRichfield (talk) 05:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * @JonRichfield Please look up the definition of exponential, then update your comment.Farcaster (talk) 14:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * @Farcaster OK, I looked it up, just to please you, please note, so don' t say I never do anything for you. Now what part of my comment did you think needed updating? What did you think it meant? JonRichfield (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, for starters exponentially includes "quadratically" and other powers. The source doesn't say energy is the only factor, simply that it's a key factor. Just thought you should know your premise is almost entirely disconnected from your conclusion.Farcaster (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Qualified support the NYT is an acceptable source for these interviews, but better context is needed than what is provided in the quote and consensus would be needed at a particular article to include such an extensive quote. As noted by various other editors, the cosmetic and rate-of-fire characteristics of a semi-auto rifle do not affect the terminal ballistics of each bullet. This is an easily sourced observation, and any claims to the contrary need to meet WP:REDFLAG. Further, the article is comparing the terminal ballistics of intermediate cartridges to the affects of (relatively common) pistol rounds - full-power rifle rounds do not appear to be considered at all. Finally, this is RSN - we can assess reliability, but not whether specific content should be included at a particular article. That should be determined, considering other policies and guidelines as well, at the article talk page. For example, here the content was contested on the grounds of editorial consensus and relevance, neither of which are going to be reversed by a discussion here. VQuakr (talk) 15:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak support - I would prefer the experts be cited directly, but if those sources aren't available, this is acceptable. The phrase "exponentially greater" is being used in a lay sense of simply meaning "a lot larger"; a scientific assessment (that a 3x velocity means a 9x increase in energy) would be better than directly quoting that sentence. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 19:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * A 3x increase in velocity meaning a 9x increase in energy is technically true, but if you're comparing two different types of weapon it's true only if the bullets weigh the same (½x bullet weight x velocity squared), which they don't if you compare an AR-15 to a handgun, since handgun bullets are much heavier than bullets used in 5.56x45mm ammo (twice the weight if it's the most common 9mm ammo, 4x the weight if it's the most common .45ACP ammo...). If you compare with a 9x19mm handgun it's also not 3x the velocity since a typical muzzle velocity for that caliber is ~1,200ft/s with a 124 gr bullet... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 20:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Support within limits  - from my reading, the source is saying that wounds from rifles like the AR-15 and M16 are more severe than more common (for civilians) handguns and shotgun wounds, which seems fine and isn't contradicted by anything I can find. It's true that some conventional rifles might cause even more severe wounds than an AR-15, but the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America so it gets more coverage. By the same token: SUVs pose more danger to pedestrians compared to a standard sized sedan. Ceteris paribus, getting run over by a tank is worse than either, but it's also far more rare so it receives less comment. [[User:Nblund |Nblund ]]talk 19:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * So you would be fine with an article claiming that injuries from getting hit by Fords cause more damage than injuries from getting hit by bicycles -- with the claim made only on Ford pages? Even if we documented that individual Fords and Chevrolets exist with the exact same weight, top speed, and front-end/bumper design? OK, so how about if we claimed that white Fords cause more damage than bicycles? How about white Fords driven by women? How about white Fords driven by women who voted for Hillary? No one doubts that being hit by a 100MPH white Ford driven by a women who voted for Hillary will almost always mess you up more than being hit by a bicycle. If I asked a trauma surgeon he would agree that the statement is technically accurate. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, that depends on the scenario - did white Ford trucks become the most popular trucks in America after previously being banned? And have they become the preferred truck for people committing large scale vehicular homicide? If either is true, then yes, it would probably make sense to comment on how their relative size and weight makes them deadlier than smaller sedans and bicycles that were previously more common. [[User:Nblund |Nblund ]]talk 15:54, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Of course this isn't a reliable source because the NYT has openly taken a political position on gun control in general and assault rifles specifically. As such the information contained within these articles, which was written by two reporters, has to be considered a POV given by somebody who is not an authority on the subject. Since the article is POV by nature and written by somebody who isn't an authority on the issue, how can it be utilized in Wikipedia without making the article POV? Syr74 (talk) 04:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * First of all, taking a position doesn't make a source unreliable. For example, the Congressional Budget Office takes the position that tax cuts increase deficits relative to a baseline without those tax cuts, and their information is considered unbiased and definitive on the subject. Second, in terms of NPOV, from the Wikipedia NPOV page: "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage."Farcaster (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a discussion about whether the NYT article is a reliable source for the proposed text or not (which is why this is called the "Reliable Sources Noticeboard"...). Whether the addition violates WP:NPOV (including WP:UNDUE) or not, and should be balanced by addition of other material or not included at all, is the next step, but such discussions take place on each article. Either after a discussion at RSN is over or, as in this case (since those discussions are already taking place there), in parallel with this discussion. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 15:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia states that a relevant source can be a biased source, but goes on to suggest that such a source would contain reliable and pertinent information. The New York Times has been embroiled in several scandals within just the 21st century that have damaged the reputation of the paper, many of which have led to retractions and omissions including the New York Times citing that, at one point, their reporting was factually biased due to 'institutional issues'. That is literally an admission that lying to push a viewpoint had become an accepted tactic of leadership. This included the termination of a prominent reporter at the paper who, according to the paper, distorted facts over the course of several years and an admission that the paper had been less than honest during reporting up to and during the Global War on Terror/Iraq War. The issue isn't just that they are biased but, rather, that they have a relatively recent track record of allowing that bias to lead them to go so far as to be dishonest to push a political view point. As such, reliability ought to be questioned. Syr74 (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I would direct you to NEWSORG which states: "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact."Farcaster (talk) 04:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Direct away, but you aren't addressing the issue I brought up. My problem here isn't one of opinion vs fact, rather my issue is with the fact that the New York Times itself has, on multiple occasions, stated that items published in their paper have been untrue and this in relatively recent history. A lie is not an opinion, and absolutely speaks to reliability. If the paper can't police their own reporters and editors reliability then they cannot be considered reliable. Syr74 (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


 * No, none -
 *  "Is the New York Times a reliable source for bullet wound characteristics?" - No  That's a bit mis-stated and a mis-quoted bit here but being literal no, NYT is not an expert in medicine or ballistics. They have some WP:NEWSORG ability to be RS for statements OF others, but they cannot judge among statements and the text in question did not attribute the words as being those solely of Dr. Schreiber.  The two journalists seem to have relevant background, and the Doctor apparently has some battlefield wound experience -- but none apparent regarding AR-15, and obviously not expert in ballistics which is what the article context is making statements about.   As others noted, incorrect statements.  This text is talking speed which is a factor from cartridge and barrel length and not what 'style' the barrel is mounted in.  So you'd see non-'military' rifles better than some models of AR-15 with identical cartridges, and some handguns over 2000fps but not as lethal as 'slow' but big impact of a 44 magnum or 50 S&W.
 *  "Which article(s), if any, should this be included in?" None.  Even if restated to just military and noting just Dr. Schreiber -- there is no particular reason to put his particular words filtered thru NYT and then WP as something authritative or famous.
 * Cheers  Markbassett (talk) 03:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


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


 * Oppose per Guy Macon and practically every oppose !vote so far that makes the case for inaccuracy and anecdotal rather than facts. -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 15:27, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * On the narrow point of RS: NYT is of course reliable for claiming to interview people, for accurately reporting those interviews, and selecting reasonably qualified experts. As for the expert quotes, if we cut through the wikilawyering and POV-wars, the quotes in isolation shouldn't be particularly controversial. They are doctors (half military doctors) describing cases they have treated, they basically say heavy weapons can and often do create more severe wounds than handguns, and they explain why. However that does not mean this is an appropriate way to write these articles. I would not be surprised to see individuals on either or both sides of this battle heading towards a topic ban. Alsee (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "However that does not mean this is an appropriate way to write these articles" Could you clarify what you mean by this? –dlthewave ☎ 20:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * dlthewave on one side some pro-gun editors are battling it with bogus arguments, and on the other side the content itself is screams anti-gun motives. Strong partisan views tends to lead to both poor arguments and poor content. The content is practically all quotation, from a piece who's entire theme is how "ghastly" shootings are. If anyone wants to present an emotive case on either side of gun-control/gun-rights, take it to an article gun on the controversy. The content could fit there. Alsee (talk) 07:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Content about how devastating assault rifle and assault weapon wounds are is simply factual. That is in fact why the weapons were developed. The more scientific journals support what the NYT is saying, as several editors and one admin have pointed out. Now if I added photos or testimonials describing children roughly cut in half as they were at Sandy Hook, then your point might have merit, although I think lacking that content is probably an omission as well. Those photos could be balanced by the pro-gun group showing smiling teenagers at the shooting range with their assault weapons.Farcaster (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, specifically to the question asked (is the NYT reliable for this use), but I strongly oppose using this text in any of the proposed articles. The NYT is not a gun-focused publication, and without gun experts to consult, they made the rather basic mistake of not understanding that those wounds are characteristic of the round being fired by assault weapons. This same round, be it a 5.56 or a 7.62 or even a 6.8 is a round a large number of hunting rifles and the occasional handgun or PDW are also chambered for.
 * tl;dr: The NYT is technically correct with this piece and generally reliable, but this piece strongly implies that only assault rifles cause these wounds, which is trivially wrong.
 * Oh, and I forget who suggested that shotguns cause worse wounds, but I've known people shot by both: You can't just compare wounds at 10 meters. There's a huge difference between what 12ga 00 buckshot will do to you at 15 meters vs what it will do at 150 meters. Meanwhile, a 5.56x45mm will do pretty much the same thing to you, whether you're at 1 meter, 100 meters or 400 meters. I can tell you right now exactly what a 12ga slug will do at anything past ~25 meters: miss. And that's assuming no-one uses 28ga or .410 shotguns, or rock salt, or bean bags... It's an interesting point, but not one likely to get you far. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion
Question #2 is off topic for this noticeboard as phrased and should be stricken. It combines consideration of DUE weight and NPOV with reliable sourcing. If it were to remain here it should ask whether it is a RS for particular articles, instead it begs for an extended discussion on a number of topics. Also not phrased in a simple manner per RfC instructions because it fails to provide any background - totally open discussion would be instigated. Since the RfC has already started and there are responses, the malformed question #2 should simply be removed from consideration here. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The two main concerns are "The NY Times article is not a reliable source, period" and "The source isn't talking about the topic of this article, but you might try adding it somewhere else." In fact you've admitted to using the latter argument to make Farcaster someone else's problem by sending them to another article where you believe their edit will be rejected, when you actually believed it would be more relevant to a third article. I'm hoping to "kill two birds with one stone" and avoid sending on another Fool's errand. My intent was to determine which article the source is about, since it mentions several different models and we don't have a Military-style rifle article.
 * I agree that ...whether it is a RS for particular articles is a better way to phrase it. Perhaps If the statement source is found to be reliably sourced reliable, which article(s) (if any) should it be added to is it a reliable source for? would be a better question. –dlthewave ☎ 00:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes I think that would be the right way to handle it. And maybe list it as "which of the following articles" and list them with the RFC question because I originally missed the line below the text which listed the articles. Maybe it's just my problem but it seems like the formatting was a little confusing. My main point was to clarify that a finding of "reliable source" here is not a definitive answer on whether to include it. As a note, I did not think I was sending Farcaster on a fool's errand in the sense that the NYT article was not fit for the AR-15 article, I think it probably is, I only meant that the discussion is more appropriate there. I do think he would run into the same degree of reaction against it there but I don't at this point agree with that reaction. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Let me further say, I was confused a bit by the "proposed text" being included when the survey questions were not about the proposed text. I don't think we can address the proposed text here except as far as to say if it is based on the RS correctly - and that would be a question #3. I focused mainly on the two questions as they were worded, which is really what an RfC is supposed to be, and I think we have been somewhat talking at cross purposes because of this. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Why NYT (yes, a gold-standard for journalism, but this is not a journalism issue) - and not actual journals and serious publications? e.g., (yes a presentation, but their paper is probably interesting and they have results in a nice chart), , , , , , .Icewhiz (talk) 11:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe that's not really the source of the dispute. The editors who want to include this kind of information would be happy having better sources (they just used what they found available); the editors who don't want to include this kind of information will not be happy no matter how "perfect" the source is.  People who don't see it as a political issue may be a little confused about why this isn't standard information for all articles about firearms.  What happens to the target is relevant even if your context is purely subsistence hunting.  You can't eat pink mist (a bullet that shreds isn't so handy if you want to eat squirrel meat), but you do need a bullet that hits with enough force to kill your next meal.  But here, I think that the complaints about the source quality are just the first step in complaining about whether the information belongs in the article at all.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You seem to have missed the point entirely. Those who object to adding it to the articles it was added to do so because it, for the reasons given in multiple posts above, simply doesn't belong in those articles, but in articles about the cartridges (in this case the 5.56x45mm). Where there's no need for the NYT article since that information in many/most cases already exists in those articles... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 15:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at this from a WP:MEDRS perspective as well as from a non-US-centric perspective. I think it would be interesting if we quantified the "deadliness" of assault rifles (which, BTW, in what I skimmed through some of the links above regarding the M-16/AR-15 has actually more to do with the bullet breaking up/fragmenting in the body and less with velocity) vs. other types of guns - but I really do not think that the motivation of the really RECNETISM (in terms of how "hot" a topic this is) of gun control vs. assault-like guns due to school shootings should be the motivating factor.Icewhiz (talk) 15:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, Tom, if the problem is "doesn't belong in those articles", then I'm correct: The actual problem is not about whether the source is reliable for the claims being made.  The actual problem is that some editors don't want this information in these articles at all.  If you personally believe that it belongs in another article, then of course please feel free to copy it there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You hit the nail on the head WhatamIdoing; I think that is the real issue here. The NRA caucus doesn't want this sort of graphic description of what these rifles actually do seeing the light of day.Farcaster (talk) 04:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I am uncomfortable assigning political views to any editor. I agree with you that this dispute really belongs at WP:NPOVN instead of RSN.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Icewhiz, the deadliness of assault rifles vs. other types of guns has already been established. The answer is "identical if the cartridge and barrel length are the same". BTW, at the range at which most shootings occur, a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with #4 Buckshot (twenty four 1/4-inch lead balls traveling at about 1,200 feet per second) is far more deadly than any assault rifle. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment whether NYT is generally regarded as RS is irrelevant. If a particular source publishes patently illiterate or innumerate garbage, it certainly is not a reliable source in that context at least. The quote's source is nonsensical in terms of school physics, never mind real-world wound ballistic technicalities, so it is not merely unreliable but wrong. No matter how reliably the report uncritically quotes nonsense, that does not make it reliable. If it is not reliable for this article, that does not make it reliable in any other article whatsoever, politically slanted or not, unless perhaps as a horrible example in an article on lousy reporting. JonRichfield (talk) 05:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * To date, 18 no 10 yes and 2 maybes. -72bikers (talk) 22:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

RFC on this RFC

 * Can anyone clarify (or expound on above comments of possible sanctions) why this is not forum shopping even assuming it is unintentional? How is this not advertising in different places "...in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want." as opposed to an extenuating circumstance of "Where multiple issues do exist, then the raising of the individual issues on the correct pages may be reasonable...". My concern is more of the fact that there were ongoing discussions and it seems that article consensus on those individual articles were against the inclusion of a particular source. I just glanced over things so if this is not the case please enlighten me:


 * Talk:Assault rifle: Ended by listing here.
 * Talk:Assault_weapon: Ended by listing here and,
 * Talk:AR-15 style rifle.
 * Prima facie it seems that this was a valid question raised in good faith here but it seems to me it was shot down by a majority local consensus and then shopped at this "store" to see if a better/desirable deal could be made. Here is the problem as I see it: Article consensus carries weight as opposed to resolution of edit wars or general reliability questions presented here. It seems that a fair question of "I'd like to include the following text (with text following"): starts an article RFC. Because it is not specifically listed as an RFC (or changed by any editor) does not make it any less so. From what I can see the consensus on each is that the source not be included with valid reasoning. The issue as here raised is simply a re-hashing of what has already been decided at multiple locations. Lacking any questions, concerns, or issues related to policies and guidelines how can this not be the above mentioned "shopping" as a "let's keep looking for the right answer" scenario? It seems to me the subject has become moot not once but three, now working on #4, times. The reliability of the main sourcing is not the issue but the reliability of the specific source to support the claims. Determining the reliability of a source in general is one thing, if it is reliable in the context of supporting the content even providing due weight, another. If this is not forum shopping then what exactly is so considered. If it is considered forum shopping, lacking some exception, then this needs to be closed as a waste of time and possible referred to, and looked at, by an admin not only for closing this as well as the others but for possible warnings or sanctions to any involved as disrupting Wikipedia.
 * If for some reason, that I am not aware of, this has become a normal process of what I consider Gaming the system by circumventing or attempting to circumventing policy then a discussion needs to take at Consensus to modify the "rules". Otr500 (talk) 16:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree this is by definition forum shopping--RAF910 (talk) 18:10, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * When NYT and Merriam-Webster alternate definitions about a subject are excluded from Wikipedia articles on that subject, we have a serious problem that meant we needed to bring in some admins. There's an aggressive group of pro-gun editors preventing legitimate content. Other editors probably got tired of putting up with their bullying and have gone elsewhere from the article pages, but they jumped in right away when this RfC was posted. So far, I've had several edits reverted such as: a) NYT article with interviews with trauma surgeons explaining the wound characteristics of assault rifles and assault weapons; b) NYT article explaining that since soldiers are trained to fire assault rifles on semi-auto most of the time, the technical distinctions between assault rifles and civilian variation assault weapons are limited in practice (i.e., civilians have infantry weaponry, especially when one considers the legality of bump stocks); and c) A Merriam-Webster alternate definition of an assault rifle that included the civilian variant. Admin MastCell explained just how weak the pro-gun editor arguments are. I'm waiting for a couple more admins to weigh in and shut that out-of-control group down.Farcaster (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Farcaster, re accusations of bullying, what did the pot call the kettle? Cavalryman V31 (talk) 04:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That was intended as an attack on your argument, not ad hominem.Farcaster (talk) 11:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not sure about "alternate definitions" in one medium, or what an admin can weigh in on concerning policies and guidelines some editors might have broken, but according to US law and sources on the internet the definition of an "assault rifle" would have to include "select fire". The former "legal" definition would have included the ability to hold a certain number in the magazine. Using the extremely broad term "assault style", other than in looks, would need some disambiguation. Otr500 (talk) 05:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * One of the challenges in this space is too many people trying to substitute their gun "expertise" for verifiable facts. M-W is a credible source (the best-selling English language dictionary according to sources) and states in its "Assault Rifle" definition: "any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire; also: a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire." There are sections in both the "Assault rifle" and "Assault weapon" articles where this text could appropriately go, but it was merely excluded.Farcaster (talk) 11:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I should add that the Heritage American Dictionary also defines assault rifle as: "A rifle that has a detachable magazine and is capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, designed for individual use in combat. 2. An assault weapon having a rifled bore and a shoulder stock." The Oxford dictionary is more aligned with the military definition: "A lightweight rifle developed from the sub-machine gun, which may be set to fire automatically or semi-automatically." The key point of the NYT article b) above is that the distinction is mostly irrelevant in practice. The definitions get even more blurry when you factor in bump stocks. This is a key insight missing from the Wikipedia articles.Farcaster (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding your "RfC on this RfC" I should add that much of the discussion here was held prior to discussion on the talk pages.Farcaster (talk) 11:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * My personal opinion is that you are very biased and wanting to include material against consensus in four places so to me your editing preferences are as bad as those you claim are conspiracy NRA editors. This has been forum shopped four times now and you have boldly advertised that you are shopping for admins that will agree with you so "I" am asking you to stop this before, as mentioned by an editor above, sanctions are handed out that might include some admin you drag into this. I looked at the reference as an editor for Wikipedia not anything else. I do not have the agenda against guns you have exhibed, have never been an NRA member, and can look at this with neutrality. Your comments show that is not so from your side. I also want to inform you and any admin "you find" that consensus in four places can exclude a particular source or particular material by such majority consensus. The case is not "if" the source is reliable but if it is reliable for particular context and in this particular place. I have no ax to grind on any of this including any political agenda. From a neutrality point of view I can also appreciate any editor with an opposing view for balance but having been thrown into some extremist NRA camp by your comments is insulting. Otr500 (talk) 08:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't appreciate your threats or the ad hominem attack. As you can clearly see, this RfC was begun early in the process well before any consensus was reached on the talk pages. Whether I have a particular view or not is irrelevant; my proposed edits are from the NYT (a reliable source by any definition) and the Merriam-Webster dictionary. Please add your vote above and we'll see where you stand.Farcaster (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That is pretty comical. "Help! A bunch of NRA memberS ARE ATTACKING ME because I am running all over Wikipedia to get a source included, and I !voted different from them (so they must be NRA gun nuts right?), and advertise I am polling for admin assistance". I have been looking at this all the way around and what I see is you having to comment on just about every !vote on a crusade. "IF" I was at a point to "threaten" you I would have simply reported you. I actually gave you a polite warning that what I have seen you do "IS attacking" other editors and asking you to stop. Now! IF you feel I am attacking you or threatening you then you don't worry about if or when I !vote but report me and we can see how my request for you to stop attacking editors that !vote opposite you works out. Since I do not have a history of doing such a thing maybe you can go through four ANI's to find an admin to help. OH! I really don't care which of the four RFC's were started first or if one or more editors might not consider this canvassing or vote stacking, the other RFC's are still open, you or anyone else not an admin-- and I would still think it improper to jump around discussions didn't force a move (that I saw), and I didn't see a request for closing just--- OH! "this is also going on somewhere else because local consensus is no longer important" is not good reasoning. This means it is YOUR opinion that discussions in the other locations are in fact "too close to call so a "no consensus" allowing your agenda to be spread around. This does not grant a pass to circumvent policies and guidelines. That is "my personal opinion at this point and we are still having multiple RFC's ongoing at the same timestill. I am sure you can start a fifth if you want to though. It is hard for me to even see what is what so someone request a closing at the other shopping centers and then this can be reconsidered.  Otr500 (talk) 09:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We'll, I'm actually trying to get several edits made from multiple sources across multiple articles, all of which have run into resistance from the same group of editors. So far, 4 of 5 dictionaries that I've looked at include civilian assault rifle variants in the assault rifle definition, but that is not enough to get that into the assault rifle article, according to one editor on that page, since he knows better than those definitions (among other laughable arguments). Then of course we have the NYT explaining that the difference between assault rifles and assault weapons is irrelevant in practice, as soldiers are trained to fire semi-automatic in most cases. That's before we even talk about the legality of bump stocks. That also apparently is unworthy of mention on either the assault rifle or assault weapon article. And finally, the subject on this discussion, the effects of these weapons, as described by five trauma surgeons to the NYT. In no case was a good faith effort made by these opposing editors to move, modify, or contradict these sources, choosing instead to revert entirely. That's why we're here, and that's what you should be concerned about, not "Wikilawyering" some garbage about "opinion shopping." Am I really supposed to fight say 7 different talk page battles simultaneously against an organized group making invalid arguments, as Admin MastCell explained so well? This was a venue to bring in more editors to the debate, which is what I hope Wikipedia is for. And if you looked at this as carefully as you say you did (since you by your own admission did not before your initial post) you'll see this board was suggested by another person, who created this discussion in a good faith effort to help get this resolved in one place rather than several. And of course the usual suspects have already argued even this board is non-binding.Farcaster (talk) 11:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Just a comment on the 4 of 5 dictionary definition claim. First, dictionaries are not expert sources.  If the dictionary definition conflicts with expert sources we use the expert source.  The definitions you are trying to use are generally the secondary definitions for the entry.  I would assume the dictionaries are following the loose usage we see in the media (like calling a facial tissue a Kleenex, in proper usage Kleenex is a brand, not a facial tissue).  Second, of the 4 secondary definitions, two are nonsensical.  For those who care, I explain the issues here [].  In the mean time I think we should stop beating this dead horse.  Springee (talk) 12:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've proposed some simple text on the assault rifle page to reflect the majority of dictionary entries covering civilian models. Apparently, there are pro-gun groups that found the M-W change threatening, a controversy that may also be worth covering.Farcaster (talk) 12:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Next steps
So editor Thomas.W has made it clear on my talk page this content will never see the light of day on these articles, and that the straw poll is not binding. What are the next steps? The most reasonable action based on the discussion thus far is either: 1) Include as is with a medical tag, perhaps with some copy edits; 2) Include the academic sources mentioned by Jytdog either along with it or instead of it.Farcaster (talk) 14:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That is of course not what I wrote, just Farcaster's usual deliberate misrepresentation of things. What I wrote was that it is up to editors on each of the articles that wants to get the material into to decide whether their very POV own interpretation (see discussion above) of the NYT story should be included in the article or not, based on WP:NPOV/WP:UNDUE and other policies... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 14:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Whether or not a straw poll is binding (if the consensus from the straw poll is clear and someone wishes to ignore that consensus, I will be happy to post an RfC, which is binding), WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDPOP are already binding. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, the above is an RfC. However, as is always the case, consensus can change and RfCs are never truly binding.  Springee (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Stupid mistake. I saw "straw poll" and had a brain fart. (Note to self: next time, smoke crack after editing Wikipedia.)


 * I believe that you are incorrect about RfCs not being binding. According to WP:CCC, they are not binding forever, and you can re-ask the same question in a new RfC, but not immediately after the old RfC closed. Until you can demonstrate the the consensus has changed (or that one of the exceptions in WP:CONEXCEPT applies), the result of an RfC is binding. And of course you can challenge the result if you believe that the closing summary got it wrong. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * RfCs are binding, but AFAIK RSN only decides on whether a particular source is reliable or not, not on whether a certain personal interpretation of what that source source says (which the proposed text is, see the long discussion above) can be included in specific articles or not, that should be decided through consensus on the articles, taking all other relevant policies into consideration. As can be seen in the discussion above the NYT article in question is also not seen as MEDRS-compliant. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 16:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context (emphasis mine). The RSN instructions state that the specific statement in question is to be included in the initial post.
 * In other words, we discuss whether or not the source reliably supports a specific statement in a certain context, not just the overall reliability of the source itself. In this case we're discussing whether the source supports the proposed text in the context of a certain category of weapon, type of ammunition or model of rifle. –dlthewave ☎ 17:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No RfCs are NOT binding which is why other forms of DR may continue even after an RfC.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC))


 * Some people seem to think that the discussion has been "won" by those who want to include the material, but a quick count seems to indicate that those who oppose inclusion are at least equal in number to those who support inclusion, those who oppose also bring up serious questions about using the NYT as a source for something that would normally require a MEDRS-compliant source. So this aint over yet... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 18:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * First of all, there's a lot of confusion about WP:MEDRS here. That guideline doesn't forbid using the popular press; instead, it encourages us to "seek out the scholarly research behind the news story" and to "cite a higher-quality source along with a more-accessible popular source". So editors should be looking deeper, for other sources, rather than using MEDRS as a roadblock. Jytdog has shown, above, that there are numerous scholarly sources supporting the content of the Times article and the quoted trauma surgeons. Here's another one: states, among other things:


 * ... which is a fancier way of saying exactly what the quoted trauma surgeons said in the Times article. The review goes on to talk about yaw etc. There are a number of other scholarly sources saying, in essence, exactly what the Times piece says, but I'd like some of the involved editors from this thread, who feel that the Times is an unreliable source, to do the work of finding them.
 * Putting on my administrative hat, I'm concerned to see a number of frankly bizarre and off-base comments in this extended thread; people are arguing that the Times is unreliable because it contains "anecdotal evidence, as such not reliable", because it "has an axe to grind", because the Times has intentionally misrepresented the quoted trauma surgeons (no evidence is presented for this rather startling accusation), because the quoted trauma surgeons apparently don't have enough case volume to qualify as experts (according to a random Wikipedian), because of some gunsplaining nonsense ("It would appear that some editor here have just a very basic understanding of firearms, by there comments. And therefor basing there views on this lack of knowledge" [sic]), and so on. It should go without saying that not only are these invalid objections, but they are well outside the realm of reasonable policy-based discussion. Moreover, as WhatamIdoing has noted, the dynamic at play in this thread is concerning: "The editors who want to include this kind of information would be happy having better sources (they just used what they found available); the editors who don't want to include this kind of information will not be happy no matter how 'perfect' the source is."
 * If these sorts of arguments are relied upon to exclude content, or to attempt to disqualify obviously reliable sources, that may constitute tendentious and disruptive editing and may become an issue for administrative attention. I guess this is as good a place as any to notify, or remind, thread participants that gun-control-related articles remain under standard discretionary sanctions. MastCell Talk 19:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that how severe a wound is depends entirely on the properties of the bullet, it's velocity and where it hits, not on which type of firearm it was fired from. No one objects to adding the material to articles about cartridges, in fact many such articles already have that kind of information, the objections are to adding the material to articles about types of weapons, with very wide variation within each type when it comes to calibers and potential wounds (Assault rifle, AR-15 style rifle and Assault weapon), even though the information is valid for only a subset of each type, without telling readers that the information isn't valid for all weapons of each type. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 19:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks MastCell, a helpful explanation of the invalid arguments on the "No/Exclude" side.Farcaster (talk) 21:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There appears to be a attempt to cheery-pick issues and not address legitimate concerns. The WP:BALASP policy states "An article should not give  undue weight to  minor aspects  of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events,  criticisms, or  news reports  about a subject may be  verifiable  and  impartial, but still disproportionate to their  overall significance  to the  article topic. This is a concern  especially  in relation to  recent events  that may be in the  news ."-72bikers (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * So an administrator spoke and explained in detail why most of the "No/exclude" votes are invalid. So who is going to include the text? Or do we need another administrator?Farcaster (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's almost unbelievable how little you know about how things work here, considering your account was created ten years ago. The words/opinions of administrators carry no extra weight in discussions, but are equal to those of peon editors. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 15:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * By my count it is 8 to include and 14 to not. That is almost a 2 to 1 for no inclusion in the proposed articles. -72bikers (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * At the time of this count, it's 14 to "exclude" the content, 12 to "include", and 2 participants (MastCell and Thewellman) with no conclusion offered. However, dropping invalid arguments (e.g., votes to "exclude" due to Anecdotal, Not RS, MEDRS, and "I know better than the NYT"), at least 12 of the 14 "exclude" votes would carry no weight. This puts us at +10 (12-2) in favor of adding.Farcaster (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Bikers, this RFC only opened a few days ago. It is way too soon to be counting up !votes, and declaring a “winner”.  The ratio may well change as the RFC continues (not predicting that it will, just warning that it might... I have seen it happen in the past).  Have some patience. Blueboar (talk) 16:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Biker's comment was probably a reply to Farcaster's comment yesterday morning (US time), declaring "victory" for the include-side... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 16:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * obviously that was too soon as well. Blueboar (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry for any misunderstanding. I was not trying to draw any conclusion. As editor Tom explained, just a response to Farcaster-72bikers (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Most of the "No" votes have been dismissed. Some argued the NYT was not a reliable source, those count as zero. Some argued MEDRS, that was dismissed, those count as zero. Some argued their own expertise in place of the NYT, those count as zero. Not even close. Again, what's the next step?Farcaster (talk) 17:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No, there are no !votes that have been dismissed. People expressing personal opinions about the !votes of others does not automatically lead to those !votes being dismissed, regardless of if the person who expresses that opinion is an admin or not. It's up to whoever closes this discussion (which should be an uninvolved admin since this is a discussion about contentious edits on articles that are under discretionary sanctions) to evaluate the consensus based on Wikipedia policy. Making it highly unlikely that there will be any mass dismissal of !votes here. And please note that there are admins on both the no-side and the yes-side here... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 17:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Evidently I need to clarify my role here. It is not my place to "dismiss" specific comments, and I am not going to close this thread with any sort of verdict. My opinion on the content question itself carries no more weight than anyone else's. If this thread is formally closed by an admin, then the closing admin will make a determination about whether to disregard specific !votes. My point is pretty simple: if editors are relying on flagrantly absurd or inappropriate rationales to stonewall or exclude material, anywhere in this topic area, then I will handle that as tendentious/disruptive editing. The questions raised in this thread should be answered by discussion, but that discussion needs to take place within the parameters of site policy. A small group of editors ignorant of site policy cannot hijack or derail the discussion. Right now, I don't see any reason to act administratively, but the content of some commentary here was concerning enough&mdash;in terms of being utterly contradictory to site policy&mdash;that I felt compelled to say something. MastCell Talk 18:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Just one tiny problem: your opening comment contains a claim about what is and is not in the NYT source that is factual incorrect. You wrote (quoting a RS) " 'the temporary cavity is the most important factor in wound ballistics of high velocity rifle bullets, and that almost all biological phenomena can be explained by it... The temporary cavity also has little or no wounding potential with handgun bullets because the amount of kinetic energy deposited in the tissue is insufficient...' " That's comparing high velocity rifle bullets with (lower velocity) handgun bullets, and is entirely correct. Alas, you went on the claim "...which is a fancier way of saying exactly what the quoted trauma surgeons said in the Times article." Wrong, Wrong, Wrong. The trauma surgeons compared assault rifles with the handguns. Not rifles. Assault rifles. No scholarly source makes such a claim. The two claims are not the same. I am shocked that an experienced editor such as yourself would misrepresent the source in this way. The NYT made a claim about assault rifles. Editors wishing to cite the NYT article want to do so on pages about assault rifles. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment The source quoted was wrong and ignorantly wrong at that, never mind RS. Schluss. At that point it falls off the bus. The quote is not acceptable in this article or any other article, irrespective of other considerations. Whatever the bullet, the firearm, the clothing, the time of the year, the intentions of the victim or the politics of the assailant might have been, nonsense is nonsense, and we need another source, not walls of text on what might have been or why every opposing editor is a dickhead. JonRichfield (talk) 05:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Both could be true. I could be 100% correct in my claim that "The Ruger Ranch Rifle and the Ruger's version of the AR-15, each chambered for 5.56×45mm NATO ammunition and each with the same barrel length, have the same muzzle velocity and ballistics when shooting the same ammunition. Yet the NYT claims that assault rifles such as the AR-15 are somehow unique in the wounds that they inflict." and I could also be a dickhead. It is a factual claim. easily verified in multiple reliable sources. Whether the claim is true of false has nothing to do with who makes the claim. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: Please see Reliable sources/Noticeboard above dated today. Otr500 (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Unarchived to request closure at WP:ANRFC. Cunard (talk) 03:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Nirvikalpa page
Hi all. I have run into an issue where a Wikipedia contributor insists on using an invalid source for the sub-section on Buddhism in the Nirvikalpa article. The crux of the problem is that he quotes a source that, according to him talks about Nirvikalpa with respect to Buddhism. Having read a fair amount on Buddhism myself, this didn't seem right, so I bought the ebook of the source he referenced and did a search for the term, which came up with zero hits. I was able to find part of his quote - but not in reference to the topic of Nirvikalpa. I've tried to change the article accordingly, but he is adamant that his source is correct, despite me providing proof (verbatim) from my kindle edition. Is there anything I can do about this? He has flagged my comments as un-constructive... and reverted my changes. (On a side note - I tried to upload screenshots of my book to provide further proof... but it seems that this is not allowed by Wikipedia?).

A second issue is that he objects to my use of Thanissaro Bhikkhu, a practicing Buddhist scholar monk of more than 30 or 40 years, as a valid source (he also translated many Buddhist Suttas). In a previous discussion I had in this forum, the consensus was that the views of Buddhist scholar monks are valid, as they are qualified to comment on their own philosophy. The source discussed at that time was Thanissaro Bhikkhu as well.

A third issue is that he objects to my use of John Myrdhin Reynolds, an author of several Tibetan Buddhist books on the grounds that his views are WP:UNDUE. Given that his comments are in line with the Buddhist suttas, that he has a background in Religious Studies, and that no major source disputes his comparison of Nirvikalpa to the formless absorptions (which I was trying to include in the article), I don't see how he can be WP:UNDUE as a source.

If you could please comment on the above (taking a glance at the Buddhism sub-section of Nirvikalpa:Talk if you have time), it would be much appreciated. Trutheyeness (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Conze p.253 does mention nirvikalpa; see my cpmments at Talk:Nirvikalpa; see also diff.
 * The source provided for Thanissaro Bhikkhu does not contain an introduction, let alone any statement contra Schmitthausen etc. Even if it did, see note 21 of Four Noble Truths for scholarship on inconsistencies in the Buddhist texts regarding the relation between dhyana and insight.
 * I did not say that Reynolds is undue (though I'm not sure that his equation of nirvikalpa samadhi with the four formless jhanas is correct); what is undue is the amount of information taken from this source, which is not about nirvikalpa, but about the buddhist tradition regarding the awakening of the Buddha. And this traditional account is questionable too, and reveals more inconsitencies. NB: the reynolds-source itself is from Reynolds' own website, and gives the traditional account of the Buddha's awakening.
 * Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  15:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Reynolds is incorrect. Reynolds states:
 * Candradhara Śarmā (1996), The Advaita Tradition in Indian Philosophy: A Study of Advaita in Buddhism, Vedānta and Kāshmīra Shaivism, Motilal Banarsidass, p.139:
 * Nirodha-samapatti is the ninth jhana, not one of the four formless jhanas. it comes after the four formless jhanas. There is a fundamental tension in the Buddhist tradition between dhyana and insight; see note 21 mentioned above, especially La Vallee Possin (1937), Musila et Narada; reprinted in Gombrich (2006), How Buddhism Began, appendix; and Johannes Bronkhorst, (1993) [1986], The Two Traditions Of Meditation In Ancient India, Motilal Banarsidass. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  16:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) :* Conze p.253 does mention nirvikalpa; see my cpmments at Talk:Nirvikalpa; see also diff.
 * I've read your response on the other page, and you still haven't proven this. As mentioned before, I did a search for the term 'nivikalpa' and 'undifferentiated cognition' through the entire book to verify that it isn't there. Please remove this reference.
 * 2)The source provided for Thanissaro Bhikkhu does not contain an introduction, let alone any statement contra Schmitthausen etc. Even if it did, see note 21 of Four Noble Truths for scholarship on inconsistencies in the Buddhist texts regarding the relation between dhyana and insight.
 * The source is this. Your follow up argument that there are inconsistencies is a debate for another article, as you are on the verge of WP:SYNTH. You've come to the conclusion that the four noble truths are invalid and are trying to tie that to Nirvikalpa... however that is only your opinion and you have no sources to tie the two together.
 * 3) Reynolds is incorrect...
 * It is up to you to believe or not. You cannot simply remove a source because you disagree with it. See my point below if you would like a corroborating source.
 * 4) I did not say that Reynolds is undue (though I'm not sure that his equation of nirvikalpa samadhi with the four formless jhanas is correct); what is undue is the amount of information taken from this source, which is not about nirvikalpa''
 * He is not the only source to say so. See this reference that equates Nirvikalpa with the formless absorptions (also in the Nirvikalpa::Talk page, a post from the Wanderling - an accepted source). I'm happy for both interpretations to be included, however.
 * 5) Candradhara Śarmā (1996), The Advaita Tradition in Indian Philosophy quote...
 * As my point above. Both interpretations should be on the page, especially given the source you quote seem to be proponents of Advaita and therefore have a natural bias (I could be wrong, but the authors are Hindu yes?)
 * 6) Nirvikalpa seems to mean different things to different people. See here for an another article on the matter that states: "However there is another state that is even spoke about in yoga, (yogic swoon) a wrong type of nirvikalpa samadhi where one attains a cessation of perception, its like being in a very deep sleep. This happens when the mind stream simply isn't pure enough and is mistaken for nirodha samapatti. This is a type of samadhi that yoga practitioners in India claim to bury themselves under the ground and reemerge a few days later...Some people really like it and think it's nibbana or cessation. Actually, it's the state of non-perception (asaññi-bhava)." You have sources claiming Nirvikalpa to be equivalent to Enlightenment (except for Conze... you've attributed something to him that he didn't say). I have equally valid sources to the contrary. I see no issue in presenting both perspectives, given the diversity of opinion.
 * As I pointed out over there, before your last reply... from page 253: "Nothing short of the 'undifferentiated cognition" (nirvikalpa-jñāna) of the emancipated can dispel all doubts on the subject." --tronvillain (talk) 20:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I just saw it and acknowledge that (I've posed some a few other comments about it on that page...). To finish off the thread in this page - can I take it then, that because you haven't responded to my other points that these alternative sources are fine and that both views can be presented?Trutheyeness (talk) 20:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No, you can't. I thought I'd address the source about which you claimed to have "proof" first. --tronvillain (talk) 20:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay then, please present the reasons as to why the above sources are invalid (it would be great if you could keep to the numbering above in order to maintain a separation of concerns). Note that Thanissaro Bhikkhu has already been accepted within this forum as a valid source and that 'the wanderling' has been accepted in [Nirvikalpa:Talk] as a valid source. (see 'External Links Issues' section in Talk:Nirvikalpa)Trutheyeness (talk) 21:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No, you can't. I thought I'd address the source about which you claimed to have "proof" first. --tronvillain (talk) 20:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay then, please present the reasons as to why the above sources are invalid (it would be great if you could keep to the numbering above in order to maintain a separation of concerns). Note that Thanissaro Bhikkhu has already been accepted within this forum as a valid source and that 'the wanderling' has been accepted in [Nirvikalpa:Talk] as a valid source. (see 'External Links Issues' section in Talk:Nirvikalpa)Trutheyeness (talk) 21:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

maybe it's time for you to read WP:ICANTHEARYOU, in addition to WP:RS. Regarding your replies: Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  21:43, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 1. You were plain wrong about Conze;
 * 2. You yourself added Thannisaro's translation of MN36 as a reference for his view that "there is little reason to accept these suggestions", instead of a link to MJ26;
 * 3. Reynolds being incorrect is not a matter of belief, but a matter of accuracy;
 * 4. The wanderling is definitely not an acceptable source. Talk:Nirvikalpa is about external links, not about WP:RS; and it's the opinion of one editor, not a shared opinion resulting from discussion;
 * 5. "proponents of Advaita [...] have a natural bias" is not an acceptable way to judge a source;
 * 6. I suggest, again, that you read those sources, instead of The Wanderling; your contributions to this discussion are sub-standard.
 * 'The Wanderling" appears to be textbook WP:SELFPUBLISH, unless it is established that they are an expert whose other work in the relevant field is published by reliable third-party publications. That someone on the talk page considered them acceptable for external links doesn't change that, though looking at it now, WP:LINKSTOAVOID may very well apply there: "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority." --tronvillain (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh wow, check out THE WANDERLING AND WIKIPEDIA. --tronvillain (talk) 22:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, so having reflected on this conversation, as well as the one in Nirvikalpa:Talk, I think I've been a bit combative in my approach; and in the spirit of putting Buddhism into practice, I'd like to apologise for the way in which this discussion unfolded. I had posted a series of rebuttals which are also somewhat combative in nature, but have decided overwrite it with this post, where I'd like to talk through things in a calmer manner. So, to finalise some of the points:
 * 0) I believe that we are making our way towards a consensus, but it has not been reached... so potentially hold off on WP:ICANTHEARYOU?
 * 1) This was my mistake - I searched for both terms you recommended I search but couldn't find it in my Kindle reader. It would have been good to get a link earlier to your source earlier in the conversation, but I concede the point about Conze.
 * 2) I think, given the discussion around Thanissaro Bhikkhu that he can be taken as a valid source. If you are agreed on this point, we can talk about relevance in Nirvikalpa:Talk
 * 3) I re-read your links and revised post in the Buddhism section of Nirvikalpa, and can see why you consider Reynolds to be inaccurate. Accuracy aside (as we can discuss his content in Nirvikalpa), I believe he has the credentials to be a legitimate source. If we can come to an agreement on this, we can move the discussion on accuracy to Nirvikalpa:Talk as potentially, that is a matter of perspective.
 * 4) Having read 's post, as well as your own links I believe you are correct on this point. I will discard 'the wanderling' as a source. Hypothetically though... if someone publishes work that is 'scholarly', but also simultaneously holds views that are completely not mainstream (or, for lack of a better word, crazy), can they be used as a source? (Even if the answer is yes, I'll still refrain from using 'the wanderling' as a source, due to the self-published nature of the work. But I'm curious).
 * 5) This was more a comment around the fact that almost all sources have a natural bias, so it's good to include multiple sources to provide a balanced view. On the topic of sources, I believe this may be a relevant source, as it delinates types of Nirvikalpa. As Nirvikalpa's literal meaning is 'apart from order', or something to that effect, the contents of this article can show various 'types' of Nirvikalpa states. Again, if we can get agreement on whether the source, in principle, is valid we can talk about the content in Nirvikalpa:Talk
 * 6) I've taken your suggestion and read your sources... but I'd like to think that my contributions have been useful as they have resulted in a rewrite of the section on Buddhism, even if my contribution was rewritten by you.Trutheyeness (talk) 02:31, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologies accepted; thanks. The sources I mentioned are really worth reading; Bronkhorst, The Two Traditions, is a really good starter. I've been searching for older contributions of mine, and also found some other sources; nirvikalpa samadhi belongs to the Yoga tradition, especially Patanjali; the term is uncommon in Buddhism. Some authors do indeed compare the four formless jhana's, plus nirodha samapatthi, with nirvikalpa samadhi; others state that nirvikalpa is nirodha. So, 'the Buddha attained nirvikalpa samadhi, but was not satisfied', probbaly is not the best statement in this regard. I suggest we continue this discussion at Talk:Nirvikalpa. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Football statistics
Hi. I am wondering whether this blogspot can be considered as a reliable source for sourcing football player's career statistics. Let me inform you that this blogspot is one of the two known websites which contain statistics pertaining to a player in Spain's fourth tier (Tercera Division). To elucidate, I would like to use the example of Óscar Prats. This BDFutbol shows statistics of him for all the seasons he had played till the third tier of Spanish football. However, it does not contain the player's statistics for the 14-15, 16-17 amongst others as he played those seasons in the fourth tier. However, the blogspot page has complete details of his statistics. Also among the seasons which are common to both the sites, there is no discrepency. I have cross-checked it for other footballers' articles also. So I would like to know, whether this can be used even though it falls under WP:BLPSPS. RRD (talk) 15:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I would say not, as I see no evidence it's author is a paid journalist or noted football expert. It just looks like Just Another Blog.Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)