This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 175

←

Archive 180

Archive 181

Archive 182

Archive 183

Archive 184

Archive 185

There has been a great deal of dispute on the Death of Eric Garner article about whether the medical examiner's report is a reliable source for Eric Garner's cause of death.

In short, an NYPD officer applied a restraining technique to Garner's neck prior to his death. The ME report states the following as the cause of death:

Compression of neck (choke hold), compression of chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police

Numerous reliable sources (e.g., the Associated Press, The New York Times, Time, and NBC New York) have reported the medical examiner's conclusion. Additionally, in a surprising exercise, an editor contacted the medical examiner's office regarding the "choke hold" language to ensure that it appears in the report as claimed by reliable sources. The ME's office purportedly confirmed that it did in an email to that editor.

To my knowledge, no other medical expert has issued a finding as to the cause of Eric Garner's death. While some non-experts have offered their opinions that the restraining technique was a "headlock" and not a "choke hold," no other medical expert has (again, to my knowledge) contradicted the ME's finding that the compression of Eric Garner's neck contributed to his death. An editor has suggested that the medical examiner's conclusion be considered "disputed" due to these non-expert opinions.

My questions are as follows: under these circumstances, is the medical examiner's report a reliable source for Eric Garner's cause of death? If so, should the report be prefaced by the word "disputed," based on non-expert opinions?

NOTE: There is a pending discussion at WP:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Death_of_Eric_Garner, also regarding the choke hold language. It has featured some discussion of whether the medical examiner's report is a reliable source, but the focus has been primarily on BLP concerns. This is not an effort to forum-shop, just an effort to separate the issue of whether or not the ME report is a reliable source for the cause of death from those BLP concerns. Dyrnych (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that in general, a medical examiners opinion alone, is or should be considered a reliable enough source for cause of death that we can flatly state that cause as a fact. But if there is significant dispute and doubt about ME's opinion, even if only by notable non-experts, then the examiner's cause should not be flatly stated as a fact, and the dispute should be noted along side the examiner's opinion, though perhaps with due weight. Usually when persons are accused of causing a death, the cause itself is not disputed, only the identity of the person who caused it. When there is a dispute about the cause, the opinion of a single medical examiner is not considered conclusive. In these cases of unarmed deaths, the families and even the federal government, often commission a second autopsy, because they don't think one examiner's opinion should be relied upon to establish the facts.

In this case, there is the additional complication that reliable sources have reported the ME's opinion of the cause, and I am having a hard time getting across the idea that there is a difference between a reliable source confirming the truth of what the opinion of the medical examiner is, and the reliable source concluding that the medical examiner's cause of death, was in fact the true and correct cause of death. The reliable sources in this case obviously don't have access to the information needed to establish one way or the other whether the ME's conclusion was correct, because the autopsy is still secret. They report the ME's conclusion, but they don't make their own independent conclusion. Likewise, Wikipedia should report the ME's cause finding, but not flatly state that finding as a correct fact. Mindbuilder (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

That argument makes no sense to me. Lady Gaga is a notable non-expert. So are Carlos Chavez and Roberto Benigni. By that logic, we'd put their opinions up alongside the MD who is officially designated to examine and determine the cause of death? This argument is absurd on its face. SPECIFICO talk 19:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, of course. The ME's finding/ruling/decision (not opinion) carries significant weight. Unless the ME's ruling is overturned, for example, by a court, it should be considered a fact. This is amplified by the fact that reliable sources have cited the ME's ruling, which lends credibility per WP:USEBYOTHERS. I see no reason to use the word disputed when reporting Eric Garner's cause of death, as that would be giving undue parity to a WP:FRINGE viewpoint.- MrX 20:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Treat as an RS unless or until there is some particular reason to question the ME's report then it should be considered an RS on the subject. The distinction between faithfully reproducing the ME's conclusion and supporting that conclusion independently is a canard; the ME is an expert on causes of death, conducted the primary research (the autopsy), and made a report whose contents have been verified through other means. It is not wikipedia policy to question the truth of statements made by RS's (in this case, the ME) as a general rule (see WP:V), and "notable non-experts" creating "dispute and doubt" do not present a compelling reason to do so. siafu (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO - If you put only clowns up against a medical examiner, then that gives the dispute the appearance of being ridiculous. But that's just a logical falacy. It's not just clowns disputing this. The accused, the police unions, pundits with audiences in the millions, martial arts experts, and a significant fraction of the Wikipedia editors of this story. The not chokehold theory may be a minority theory, but it is not a fringe theory.

@MrX - It is not wise to assume the truth of a disputed fact based just on the opinion of one person, not even an expert. It would not be good for Wikipedia's reputation to have the policy of assuming disputed facts based on the opinion of a single expert. That reliable sources and even I myself have cited the ME's conclusion, doesn't mean we shouldn't acknowledge significant dispute and doubt.

@Siafu - There is particular reason to question the ME's report. That the chokehold/headlock was only 15.3 seconds and Garner was still talking afterward are significant reasons to question it. They're not definitive reasons but they're significant. The contents of the report have not been verified through other means. A single expert only barely qualifies as a reliable source, and the general rule against questioning reliable sources goes out the window when there is significant dispute.

It's also important to remember in this debate, that the ME is an expert in cause of death, but I see no reason to believe that he is an expert or reliable source on the linguistic definition of the term chokehold. NYPD policy only defines chokeholds as that which restricts air, not blood. The ME actually ruled one of the causes of death to be "compression of neck". That doesn't necessarily imply significant impeding of air supply. It may only be restriction of blood flow. We don't know if the ME was using the same definition of chokehold. I don't consider the ME to be an expert or reliable source on that matter. Mindbuilder (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

A single expert does indeed qualify as a reliable source, per wikipedia policy. Being just one person does not ipso facto impact the reliability of a source. siafu (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Reliable, and everything that WP:RS means. A medical examiner should always be considered one kind of reliable source for this information. Their findings are not gold though. They can be wrong too. That means if there are other sources reliable for the claim, they can be used to dispute it. Say for instance we're editing a science article and add the content X causes Y sourced from one review. The producer of X disagrees with it, but we don't consider that a reliable source to dispute the claim. A new review concludes X doesn't cause Y, but Z did. At a minimum, we'd say the claim that X causes Y is disputed at that point. In the case of the medical examiner, they do not have the final say, but good enough sources need to be presented to either match or disprove those findings. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it's important to note that the opinions disputing the medical examiner's report are particularly low-quality, as they mostly come from political pundits and parties who are directly interested in the outcome of the case (e.g., the police union). I'm not aware of any medical experts who dispute the cause of death, even without having performed their own autopsies. Dyrnych (talk) 02:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

An M.E.'s reports is supposed to contain his expert opinions as to fact - but do not establish those opinions as fact per se. The language used should be:

The M.E.'s report gave the cause of death as ..."

and not

The cause of death was ...

Just as we handle all opinions of experts or persons notable in the field. We do not and ought not assert infallibility to any such opinions on any topic. "Cause of death" is not the same as "weight" or "height" as being an empirical statement of fact. Collect (talk) 01:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@Collect: How would you apply this to the questions I presented? Dyrnych (talk) 02:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Even by Wikipedia standards, this is a ridiculously pedantic discussion. Determining a cause of death always involves some level of "opinion", at least in the way Collect construes opinion. The cause of death is determined by synthesizing available clinical, contextual, and pathologic findings. The medical examiner is the ultimate expert and legal authority in making such a determination. We should report the cause of death as determined by the medical examiner. If other well-qualified pathologists or medical authorities dispute the M.E.'s findings, then we should note that as well. However, to dismiss the M.E.'s cause-of-death determination as "opinion" is expedient (for some, I suppose) but fundamentally silly, since some element of subjective interpretation is inherent in any cause of death determination. MastCell ^Talk 01:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The medical examiner isn't the ultimate expert, he is just one, and one that is often not considered authoritative by the families and even the federal government who commission second or third autopsies, because they don't consider the ME to be reliable. We have a rather unusual situation amongst general expert situations here, because in most subject areas, other experts could render an opinion if the opinion of one expert was questionable. But in this case, it is not that all the experts agree with the ME, it is that no other expert can dispute the ME, because they don't have access to the body or even the autopsy report. An expert opinion should be considered even less authoritative when it can't be closely examined and challenged. Secret reasoning and evidence should be especially suspect at Wikipedia. Sources based on secret reasoning should either be considered not reliable, or barely reliable, and described as disputed when there is significant dispute, even among non-experts. Mindbuilder (talk) 02:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Mindbuilder: That's all your OR. If there is only the official autopsy by the qualified professional who is designated NYC Medical Examiner, that constitutes the available fact. For this reason, the Medical Examiner's report has been cited by every RS which discusses the matter. There's no basis for WP editors to speculate about counterfactual scenarios. SPECIFICO talk 02:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Mindbuilder: can you provide support for the claim that families and the federal government (1) often seek alternatives to the medical examiner's report (2) because they don't consider the ME's report to be authoritative? Dyrnych (talk) 02:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Reliable source to confirm what was reported by the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time and NBC, all reliable sources in themselves. Until reliable sources report that it was contested and withdrawn, it would be OR to second guess a widely trusted expert. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Many here are still mixing up the difference between a reliable source reporting somebody else's conclusion, and the reliable source asserting the conclusion themselves. For example, many reliable sources have reported that the FBI says that their experts have decided that there is conclusive evidence that North Korea perpetrated the attack on Sony Studios. Does that mean the reliable sources believe that the FBI's evidence is conclusive? No, they're just reporting the FBI's claim. Can we state it flatly as a fact on Wikipedia that the FBI's evidence is conclusive? No. We can report the FBI's claim, because the reliable sources do, but we can't flatly state as fact that North Korea is responsible. As another example, many reliable sources have reported that Pantaleo said he did not choke Garner. Does that mean we can assert it as a fact in Wikipedia that Pantaleo did not choke Garner because reliable sources reported that claim of fact? Obviously not.

On the other hand, many reliable sources have flatly stated as fact that Pantaleo put his arm around Garner's neck. They don't say Pantaleo appeared to put his arm around Garner's neck. They don't say that the medical examiner concluded Pantaleo put his arm around Garner's neck. They just flatly state it as a fact that they have determined to be true to their satisfaction. That is the conclusion of a secondary source that has viewed the primary source of the video, and found it to be reliable enough and clear enough, that the fact doesn't need to be couched in terms of the opinions or claims of experts or others. When the reliable sources report it as an apparent chokehold, that is their implicit recognition that it might not be what it appears, and that they do not find enough reliable evidence to simply flatly state that it was in fact a chokehold, and that the chokehold caused the death. The reliable sources are not just saying, that since the ME claims it, then its a reliable fact without significant doubt. The reliable sources are recognizing the debate as significant enough to be worth mentioning, and so should we. Mindbuilder (talk) 08:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think your FBI analogy is relevant, and the logic of second paragraph is a bit too tortured and convoluted for me to follow. I notice that a lot of people are telling you pretty much the same thing, here and in other venues, and you don't appear to be listening. MastCell ^Talk 17:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Reliable source - The ME's report is an expert report and should be treated as such. It's also a primary source, so it's valuable to have reliable secondary sources (NYT, WaPo, etc.) supporting this. That said, the fact that the cause of death is disputed by various non-experts is notable, and should be given appropriate weight in the overall discussion of Garner's death. That said, the opinion of non-experts who have not had a role in the autopsy should not be treated as anything more than an opinion by a non-expert. Think Jim Inhofe's opinion that global warming is a fraud. It's notable because he's notable, but it can't be given the same weight as the conclusions of experts. Guettarda (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Reliable source of facts If the ME report says something, and there's no other reliable source that says differently, the ME's report can be used as unattributed fact - that, in fact Garner died of the chokehold. Hipocrite (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Acceptable primary source One of the situations where it is acceptable to use a primary source is when it is the subject of extensive secondary sources, as is the case here. It is probably also acceptable as a primary source in less controversial cases, even when not supported by secondary sources, as there is no weight issue in including cause of death, which is a de-facto part of any article about a deceased individual. CorporateM (Talk) 18:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The huge difference between the reliability of experts here and in the global warming debate, is that with global warming, thousands of experts have been able to review the openly available evidence and reasoning. In this case we have just one expert with secret evidence and reasoning.

I'm perplexed as to why almost nobody is getting or even mentioning the difference between a reliable source reporting someone else's conclusion, and adopting a conclusion of fact as their own. Was the last paragraph of my 8:44 post unclear as it was for MastCell? Mindbuilder (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Reliable. The ME report is, in the vast majority of cases, going to be the most reliable source for the cause of death. It does not need to be in-text attributed unless other reliable sources disagree (for example, other expert opinions who have examined the evidence). Yobol (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Very Much Not Reliable. I have found some info that even surprises me. I think this changes our whole discussion. Above I had stated my opinion that the ME could be considered a reliable primary source to state findings of fact at least in cases of little dispute. But I didn't realize how low the standards of proof can be for an ME's findings. Now I realize I was wrong. We can never use an ME's opinion as flatly stated fact, at least not unless we have more info about the degree of certainty of the examiner's finding.

The "National Association of Medical Examiners" writes in "A Guide For Manner of Death Classification" at https://netforum.avectra.com/Public/DocumentGenerate.aspx?wbn_key=38c0f1d2-11ec-45c7-80ca-ff872d0b22bc&SITE=NAME

"In general, the certifier of death completes the cause-of-death section and attests that, to the best of the certifier’s knowledge, the person stated died of the cause(s) and circumstances reported on the death certificate. It is important to remember that these “facts” only represent the certifier’s opinion and are not written in stone or legally binding."

But it gets worse. It goes on:

Because the cause and manner of death are opinions, judgment is required to formulate

both for reporting on the death certificate. The degree of certainty required to classify the manner of death depends sometimes on the circumstances of the death. Although such issues will be discussed in further detail below, a general scheme of incremental “degrees of certainty” is as follows:

• Undetermined (less than 50% certainty)
• Reasonable medical or investigative probability (Greater than a 50:50 chance; more likely than not)
• Preponderance of medical/investigative evidence (For practical purposes, let’s say about 70% or greater certainty)
• Clear and convincing medical/investigative evidence (For practical purposes, let’s say 90% or greater certainty)
• Beyond any reasonable doubt (essentially 100% certainty)
• Beyond any doubt (100% certainty)

Seldom, for the purpose of manner-of-death classification, is “beyond a reasonable doubt” required as the burden of proof. In many cases, “reasonable probability” will suffice, but in other instances such as suicide, case law or prudence may require a “preponderance” of evidence—or in homicide—“clear and convincing evidence” may be required or recommended.

Notice that a finding of homicide MAY require a heightened standard of 90%. But that means that the finding MAY NOT require even 90% certainty! Given the definition of homicide that the Garner ME is using, I'd say the manner of death as homicide in this case may easily be in the beyond any reasonable doubt range. But for the cause of death, the ME may well be using the 70% "Preponderance of medical/investigative evidence" or even the 51% "Reasonable medical or investigative probability" standard! The ME may well have found a higher certainty. We don't know. But until we know, we can't state it as fact in Wikipedia. I have not seen any of the reliable sources state the degree of certainty of the ME's findings. And I think many of them, perhaps all of them, may have made the same mistaken assumption that we made, in thinking that the ME's opinion was something considerably more certain than 51%.

We need to modify the reliable sources guidelines to warn other Wikipedia editors that ME findings may be only 51% certain.

So what say you all now? Mindbuilder (talk) 04:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't have any idea where you found this or what you think its application to this case is, but let me quote you from page 2 (in a section entitled "Preface and Caveats") of the document you think disproves the reliability of medical examiners: "This book is a Guide. The recommendations contained herein are not standards and should not be used to evaluate the performance of a given certifier in a given case. Death certification and manner-of-death classification require judgment, and room must be allowed for discretion on a case by case basis." (emphasis mine). Also, this document is over twelve years old and it's entirely unclear that it has any application at all to a medical examination performed in 2014. Honestly, it seems like you are grasping at straws in your effort to hold sources to a standard not found in Wikipedia policy. Dyrnych (talk) 04:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

One further point: you're looking at the preponderance of the evidence standard as though it calls into doubt a particular conclusion. You want to guess what standard is used to establish facts in most civil litigation? Yup, preponderance of the evidence. So when we say as a fact, in Wikipedia's voice that someone is liable for a particular tort, we're saying that a trier of fact found that it was more likely than not (i.e., a greater than 50% chance) that that person committed that tort. Dyrnych (talk) 05:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course the document is from the National Association of Medical Examiners website at http://thename.org Many of their sub pages are hosted on avectra.com. To find the document, go to thename.org, expand the "general info" tab on the left and select "Death Certification".

Are you seriously suggesting that a 51% degree of certainty is strong enough to flatly declare a fact in Wikipedia's voice? Mindbuilder (talk) 07:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Good point. These proceedings rely on a balance of evidence where 51% likelihood is sufficient for a finding of fact, unlike a criminal proceeding. TFD (talk) 16:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I am seriously suggesting that this document, by its own terms, has virtually no application here. It explicitly states that it is not providing standards. I understand that you oppose the inclusion of the medical examiner's report, but your actions and arguments have been extreme in doing so. Between actually contacting the medical examiner (thought there was no basis for disputing that the report was quoted properly), proposing that we consider it a non-RS based on this flimsy sort of "evidence," and considering the opinions of editors posted prior to your introduction of this "evidence" to be invalid, I suggest that you've drifted far away from policy and are just throwing things at the wall to see what will stick. Dyrnych (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Not rs Legal rulings are frequently found to be wrong. We need reliable secondary sources, such as news media, to determine the general acceptance of them. For example, a news source may say, "x happened" or "according to the medical examiner, x happened", but legal experts challenge the findings and the victim's family has appealed the decision." And of course not all errors that appear in reports are so egregious that they could support an appeal. TFD (talk) 16:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Kind of curious on this one, but would news media really be a reliable secondary source in this question? Reporters wouldn't particularly have expertise in this area to evaluate the validity of the claim, but we would be looking to other experts to establish that. It would seem similar to how we rely on literature reviews to evaluate primary sources in scientific content rather than news articles. I'm not sure if we have sources like that though in this case. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

We have reliable secondary sources that have unequivocally backed the medical examiner's ruling, for example Time. I don't think it's appropriate to cast a such a wide net and say that legal rulings are frequently found to be wrong and thus this one is not reliable. The evaluation of the Office of Chief Medical Examiner of the City of New York as a reliable source should be based on whether it has an extensive record of making rulings that are later found to be incorrect. Absent such a record, it's reasonable to assume that they know what they're doing. Of course, this is all moot, because we have secondary sources that corroborate the primary one.- MrX 13:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• There is No better RS for "Compression of neck (choke hold), compression of chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police". In fact, as it's a quote, it is required RS citation per WP:V. It's not a legal determination, it is a medical determination, a mortality determination, and a statistics determination. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Reliable source. In fact, probably the most reliable source, enough so that if we had no other reliable sources that contradicted, we would write it as a fact. However, as most respondents above are saying, that doesn't mean it's the only reliable source, and if we do have other reliable sources disagreeing we should write "the official coroner's report says X; however Dr A, Professor B, and other noted expert C say Y" --- and A, B and C had better be highly qualified sources in the subjects of choke holds, causes of death, or both, not Lady Gaga. --GRuban (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Note: Now they're forum shopping at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#Unexpectedly low degree of certainty in medical examiner findings.TMCk (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I can't believe it took me this long to notice this, but the fatal (if you'll pardon the pun) flaw in Mindbuilder's reasoning is that the excerpted segment applies to manner of death, not cause of death. Mindbuilder is conflating the two (whether from carelessness, ignorance, or whatever other reason), but they're entirely different; cause is a medical determination, while manner is not. So even accepting that this cherry-picked material has any application to this matter (which I don't), the thesis is that a medical examiner may require as low as 51% certainty before deeming a death to be one of the following: suicide, homicide, accident, or natural causes. That has no application whatsoever to the degree of certainty of the determination of the cause of death, i.e., the medical circumstances that ended the life of the decedent. That is the question presented here: whether the medical examiner's report is a reliable source for the cause of death, not the manner of death. Dyrnych (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Sources

1. WP:MEDRS WP:SECONDARY literature review: Simon-Delso, N.; et al. (January 2015). "Systemic insecticides (neonicotinoids and fipronil): trends, uses, mode of action and metabolites". Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 22 (1): 5–34. doi:10.1007/s11356-014-3470-y. Retrieved 6 January 2015. It says: "persistent, low concentrations of these insecticides pose serious risks of undesirable environmental impacts.... their broad spectrum leads to undesirable effects on non-target insects" (citing Lu et al 2012 and 2014.)
2. WP:PRIMARY sources: Lu, Chensheng (Alex); Warchol, Kenneth M.; Callahan, Richard A. (2014). "Sub-lethal exposure to neonicotinoids impaired honey bees winterization before proceeding to colony collapse disorder" (PDF). Bulletin of Insectology. 67 (1): 125–130. along with the same authors' 2012 work.
3. WP:SECONDARY popular treatment: Tarlach, Gemma (May 9, 2014). "Pesticides, Not Mites, Cause Honeybee Colony Collapse". Discover. Retrieved 3 January 2015. It states: "researchers monitored 18 bee colonies — six in each location — from October 2012 through April 2013. A third of the colonies were exposed to low doses of the pesticide imidacloprid, while another third were exposed to the pesticide clothianidin. Both pesticides belong to the neonicotinoid class and are commonly used in agriculture. The remainder of the colonies were left untreated.... In January, however, while the control colony populations began to increase as expected, the number of bees in the treated colonies continued to decline. By April, 50 percent of the treated colonies had been wiped out, showing the hive abandonment pattern typical of CCD.... Researchers noted that one of the control colonies also was lost, but its thousands of dead bees were found inside their hive, showing symptoms of Nosema ceranae, an intestinal parasite. When CCD first emerged in honeybee colonies in the mid 2000s, N. ceranae was put forward as a possible cause. Subsequent research in Europe, however, has suggested N. ceranae was widespread in many areas before CCD and is not associated with the phenomenon." (emphasis added.)

Articles

Colony collapse disorder (CCD), as discussed at Talk:Colony collapse disorder#Mites ruled out, along with Neonicotinoid, and possibly Imidacloprid, Clothianidin and Fipronil.

Content question

Do reliable sources support the assertion that Nosema ceranae mites have been ruled out as a possible cause of CCD? If so, should this statement be included in Wikipedia's voice, or attributed to one or more of the sources? EllenCT (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a PRIMARY source. There are reviews coming out in this area all the time. Wait til a secondary source or two comes out that takes this into account. Every WP policy and guideline urges us to do that. Jytdog (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The Simon-Delso review is a secondary MEDRS-grade review which clearly confirms both Lu et al primary studies. The secondary popular news treatment is included for its clear description of the experiments and their outcomes. EllenCT (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

For the Discovery source 3, it is not from an expert in the field. For anyone well versed in the topic, almost any primary study claiming to have figured out CCD is a huge claim that would require great evidence. That's one thing we'd need a review article to weigh in on to specifically state whether such a study is valid, or what potential causes have been ruled out or not. It is indeed a kind of secondary source, but not one reliable for claims made by the primary source. #1 just cites the primary source, but does not give a blanket confirmation to the study. There are other similar sources disputing the study as well, so I'm not seeing any rush to push content in here (none has been proposed yet). Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you claim that the Discovery source 3 misconstrues the primary study or its results in any way? Do you claim that the secondary MEDRS-grade review disapproves of any aspect of either primary experiment in any way? Which "similar sources" dispute the studies? The proposed change is the addition being asked about under "content question" above. EllenCT (talk) 23:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: my first interaction with User:Kingofaces43 involved my asking him what he considered to be reliable WP:MEDRS-quality "literature reviews supporting his contention that neonics are not toxic to bees or implicated in CCD," to which in reply he offered this source which was sponsored by Bayer Cropscience, written by paid consultants, and which purports to be a general review of toxicological findings, but in actuality is only a review of study methodologies. Since then Kingofaces43 has become extremely upset when I have brought this subject up, complaining about me for doing so several times on WP:ANI. He was also very upset and accusatory when I asked him simple, non-identifying questions to clear up COI issues, such as his job title. Since then, I used the opportunity of the recent Arbitration Committee elections to ask all twenty candidates whether they thought bringing up these facts was appropriate (Question 4 here.) I note that more than half of the candidates, and more than half of the winning candidates, indicated that it is appropriate to raise this issue. EllenCT (talk) 00:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Note, EllenCT completely misrepresents the history here. So much so that there is nothing to say. Needless to say, there is no secondary source for the conclusion she draws and the primary source doesn't make as strong a statement as she wants to make. She is really just POV-pushing here. not worth responding beyond that. Jytdog (talk) 02:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

How exactly am I misrepresenting history? I note the discussion is ongoing on the article talk page, where it appears that there are no objections to including the secondary source's characterizations of the primary sources' conclusions, and no policy-based reasons for not including a description of the experiments themselves, along with their outcome. EllenCT (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll just leave a quick note as well for those reading. Ellen has been made quite aware that her description is extremely misleading on her talk page 12 and at ANI3, yet continues to misrepresent what I've said and is continuing the hounding in inappropriate places such as here. Both are against WP:TALKNO and not appropriate for this venue anyways, but I'm just hatting this rather than deleting the comment. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I stand by my description as entirely accurate. Your links do not contradict my description in any way. Are you claiming that raising unresolved COI concerns is contrary to WP:TALKNO?EllenCT (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Continued harassment and purposely misrepresenting an editor's statements are indeed contrary and are especially inappropriate regardless of legitimacy of a claim about a user while at RSN. That is why this conversation was hatted to at least give you the opportunity to drop the stick. You've been made aware multiple times you are misrepresenting what I wrote and twisting it into strange beliefs (hence the purposely above). I don't intend to entertain the WP:IDHT behavior anymore. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

If you want uninvolved editors to reply then you need to better explain the dispute. Editors should not have to read through the links, edits to the article and the discussion threads to understand what the dispute is about. TFD (talk) 04:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Did you mean to reply to me or Kingofaces? EllenCT (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Is this article from the Middle East Research and Information Project a reliable source? It reads like advocacy, but the information on their About Us page seems to suggest they may be reliable. OTOH this source from James D. Savage, a political science professor at the University of Virginia may be more reliable and has a very different tone.

This is regarding a discussion on the RTI International page with User:Exit8 and User:FreeRangeFrog, where I have a COI and have brought the article up to "Good Article" standards. CorporateM (Talk) 17:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Article: American Left (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Sources

• Howie Hawkins quoted in Tarleton, John, "Meet Howie Hawkins, the Anti-Cuomo", The Indypendent: “I see the Green Party as the political expression of the New Left of the ’60s.”
  
• Hawkins, Howie, "The Green Party and the Future of the US Left", Left Turn: "Is the Green Party that left party that has been missing in US politics? The Green Party is still a work in progress and the radical left can help shape its development.... The radical wing of the Green Party sees the Greens as the political party expression of the New Left.... The moderate wing is oriented most toward winning over progressive Democrats by raising traditional liberal demands...."
• "United States: "Greens become NY's third party after strong left campaign", Green Left Weekly: "Green Party gubernatorial ticket in New York in the November 4 elections — headed by left-wing activist Howie Hawkins for governor and International Socialist Organization activist Brian Jones for lieutenant governor — scored a large rise in the Green vote."
  

Edit: 4

Do any of these sources say say that the Green Party of the United States is a left-wing (i.e., socialist party)? Or do they say that there is a left-wing element within the Green Party?

Do these sources meet rs? Two of them are an expression of opinion by the NY gubernatorial candidate of the Green Party. All of them appear in left-wing magazines, while the categorization used for all the other parties is mostly academic books.

There is a discussion at Talk:American Left#Green Party.

TFD (talk) 03:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Er ... that's two different questions. Per our article Left-wing politics, even the Democratic Party in the United States is considered left-wing (in direct opposition to your statement at the top of that talk page section, I must note). But that is not to say that it is socialist. Same for the Greens; clearly they are left of the US center, but that is not the same thing as socialist. Here, for example, is the US Freedom Socialist Party explaining that the Greens aren't socialist. http://www.socialism.com/drupal-6.8/faq Also note that Left and Right can only be defined in a relative sense, not an absolute one, and will mean different things in different countries and different times; for example, their original meaning was support for or opposition to the French Monarchy. --GRuban (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually the term only came to be used to describe ideology in the 20th century, by which time the socialists occupied the left in the French assembly. Marcel Gauchet wrote a history of the use of the term in "Right and Left". Nonetheless, the article is not about the political spectrum but about a related group of movements in the U.S. that are normally described as left-wing. Arguably the Republicans are left-wing too, but it would change the focus of the article if it were about all political parties in the U.S. TFD (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The paper whose reliability is in question is this one. I added it to homeopathy but was reverted by User:BullRangifer. If it was added to this article, I would want it to be supporting a sentence like, "A 2014 literature review found preliminary evidence of a beneficial effect of homeopathy as a treatment for fibromyalgia." Everymorning talk 01:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The source itself is OK; however, your proposed wording does not seem consistent with the article's stated findings. Perhaps you could revise it to stay a little closer to the source. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Exactly what part of my proposed wording did you think contradicted the cited paper? Everymorning talk 02:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmmmm....let's get some context here. After some searching, I found that I deleted it here, with this edit summary: "preliminary"???? I hope you're joking.... The edit was this:

A 2014 meta-analysis concluded that there was "a sufficient basis for discussing the possible benefits of homeopathy for patients suffering from fibromyalgia;" but the review also noted that its results were only preliminary.¹

That fails MEDRS miserably. We don't give "preliminary" results any mention here, not even by the homeopathic shadow of a wishful thought.

From the source:

Results

We found 10 case-reports, 3 observational studies, 1 non-randomized and 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on homeopathy for fibromyalgia. Both case reports and observational studies are naturally predominated by the use of qualitative and not validated outcome measures. Meta-analyses of CCTs revealed effects of homeopathy on tender point count (SMD = −0.42; 95%CI −0.78, −0.05; P = 0.03), pain intensity (SMD = −0.54; 95%CI −0.97, −0.10; P = 0.02), and fatigue (SMD = −0.47; 95%CI −0.90, −0.05; P = 0.03) compared to placebo.

Conclusion

The results of the studies as well as the case reports define a sufficient basis for discussing the possible benefits of homeopathy for patients suffering from fibromyalgia syndrome although any conclusions based on the results of this review have to be regarded as preliminary.

Need I say more? That this was even published is pretty astounding and saddening. If there is anything here which can teach us something, it's the sorry state of affairs with homeopathic research. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• It seems like any statement that reflected the conclusions of this source would be so laden with caveats as to be useless. Dyrnych (talk) 05:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Exactly! -- Brangifer (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

User User:Danecobain has spent the last year or so quietly adding links to his own personal blog at 5. Is this classed as a WP:RS issue or a WP:SPAM issue? Are there any tools available for seeing links to external sites or removing them automatically or have I got it all wrong at it's ok in this case? GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 15:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Definitely not RS - no evidence for "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". In fact, no evidence that this is anything beyond a personal blog. And accordingly, spam. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

is the new Israeli private news channel, News 0404 founded by journalist Boaz Golan, and self-identified as promoting a 'Zionist-patriotic' POV according to the stub dedicated to it on the Hebrew Wikipedia (חדשות 0404),reliable for facts? I have raised the issue at the talk page of List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2015 Nishidani (talk) 12:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to evaluate whether GospelPrime is a WP:RS in the context of publishing a factual story on a living person having received an award. Somewhat hampered by its being published in Portuguese, however, it appears to be an 80-person online news publication with an editorial control and has existed since 2008. Here is their "about us" page: http://www.gospelprime.com.br/quem-somos/ — Brianhe (talk) 14:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I have created and expanded (to some extent) this article on a film portal website and I want to evaluate whether it satisifes WP:RS or not? Thanks. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 03:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

It would probably work for Tamil movie news,6(fine article) it can be optional for reporting about Tamil songs and actors. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@Bladesmulti: Yes, and also for film reviews, top 10 regional songs, and box office rankings (Chennai city only). — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 08:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

International Journal of Hydrogen Energy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Our article on this journal states that it is peer reviewed, but makes no mention that they have published articles supportive of HHO and magnecules. The prior is from a conference and the latter is from the "discussion" section of the journal, but these still seem highly dubious. Is the source itself reliable? Should our article on the journal discuss its publication of pseudoscience? VQuakr (talk) 07:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd have thought that the more important question would be why we have an article on the journal at all. The article cites no source which in any shape or form establishes its notability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: valid point. I would be curious to hear your thoughts on the journal's reliability, as well. It is used as a source in at least one article. VQuakr (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, Elsevier, the publisher has something of a mixed reputation, and the Journal seems to have published some fringe stuff - but I'm sure that there are other contributors more able to assess such journals than me. Certainly the mere fact of being peer-reviewed doesn't make for automatic reliability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

In the area I work in, much of one side of a complex reality is ignored or underreported, though covered in part by sources I personally try not to use except when the context or authorship of the piece seems to justify using them.

At Skunk (weapon), some editors are claiming that

• Haggai Matar, 'WATCH: Police spray putrid water on Palestinian homes, schools,' +972 Magazine
• Annie Robbins,'Videos: Jerusalem Skunk,' Mondoweiss

cannot be used.

These episodes are underreported in Israeli newspapers. They are of high relevance to the Palestinian side. Haggai Matar and Anni Robbins are journalists. Matar writes in Hebrew, worked for Haaretz and Ma'ariv, and won the 2012 Anna Lindh Mediterranean Journalist Award. Annie Robbins's works for Mondoweiss. I am less sure that she fits the profile, but her article is not what we normally understand as blogging. It is documented reportage.

The objection is that these are blogs. +972 Magazine has quite a lot of journalists who publish in Israel Hebrew newspapers, and some like Larry Derfner, former editor for the Jerusalem Post and Mairav Zonzein are published in mainstream Western newspapers, and mainstream Jewish journals like The Forward.

The two articles in question hosted by +972 Magazine and Mondoweiss contain videos illustrating the journalists' reportage. Does the presence of videos documenting what the text refers to validate these as sources specifically for what the article describes? My view on such borderline cases is contextual, whether the article informs, or rants, or just opinionizes. I see both of these specific articles as examples of straight reportage of an otherwise underdescribed (in Western mainstream media) events. Nishidani (talk) 12:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I know I have no real expertise here, but my guess would be that the Matar piece would qualify as a reliable source, based on the reputation of the author, and that the Robbins piece might qualify as corroboration of Matas if such were deemed to be required. I would tend to agree that blog posts which are obviously of an opinionated nature probably can't be used, but I think we have in the past found that blog entries of some newspapers and news sources do qualify as reliable, and if these meet similar criteria, as I think they probably do, they would qualify. The presence of videos in some sites, like perhaps Joshua Bonehill-Paine's website, given the, um, reputation of the site and its author in general, might be different, but those would I think be separate cases from this one. John Carter (talk) 20:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Blogs that can be presumed to have decent editorial oversight - New York Times, BBC etc - are usually ok. Are these comparable? I must add a pet peeve: we do a lot to ensure that people with poor sight are not massively impeded here on Wikipedia (I know that we are not perfect) but I've been seeing a lot of videos of late and they are almost always useless for the deaf. It is because I am deaf that I can't comment here on whether, for example, the video is being used in an original research manner, an analogous example of which can be seen in a thread at Talk:Bhagat Singh today where someone tries to extrapolate a religious belief from appearance in a photograph. - Sitush (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I wish I knew of a way which we could use to maybe do something like wikisource does on some pages, like for instance this one, which could be set up to show the video on one side and a transcript of the audio on the other. I'm not at all sure that we could necessarily do that without some real copyright problems, or maybe extremely high standards of content, to not intentionally or unintentionally misrepresent what is being said. I honestly don't have a clue what could be done there, but maybe the foundation might be able to arrange transcripts of some sources on one of the sites. Maybe. But that would probably have to be done by the foundation itself. John Carter (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Both articles have text accompanying the videos. In my understanding, blogs are rightly viewed as extremely iffy in so far as they are personal views, and we try to build up the data base of our articles on facts. When one has, with +972 magazine, an on-line medium that does a lot of translating of what the Hebrew press reports, is run by professional journalists, many who have solid curriculum vitaes as professionals, and report otherwise relatively neglected issues, with an accompanying video that 'verifies' that we are not dealing with personal opinions for an incident or event, but objective occurrences, then I think our rationale for challenging the 'blog' is substantially weakened. The editors opposing this material are opposing it because they mechanically erase at sight anything on their black list dealing with the reportage of incidents in the West Bank. They do not, to my knowledge, show any passion or alacrity for applying the extremely stringent reading of RS they use here, to any Israeli-interest events. I don't think this blatant instrumental, partisan use of rules shows any concern for wikipe4dia's factual objectivity. To the contrary it uses a rule to violate NPOV coverage. Nishidani (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not understand why this question arises at all. May be because it based on such incorrect base as:

• "These episodes are underreported in Israeli newspapers"

See the following examples which I found in one minute:

• IDF uses 'skunk bomb' in Bil'in demo jpost, 07/11/2009
• Land Day: 1 reported killed in Gaza ynetnews, 03.30.12
• Jerusalem Arabs: Police using riot control means for collective punishment haaretz, Oct. 28, 2014
• Jerusalem mayor orders crackdown on Palestinian area to curb riots haaretz, Oct. 29, 2014
• Jerusalem: Between Ferguson and Damascus jpost, 10/30/2014

... & besides of

• Israeli ‘skunk’ fouls West Bank protests arabnews, 4 September 2012
• Israeli Skunk Spray Effectively Dispersing Violent Arabs (2 Videos) jewishpress, 2013/04/18
• Israeli use of skunk water fuels anger in East Jerusalem ft, Nov. 29, 2014
• Unrest by Palestinians Surges in a Jerusalem Neighborhood nytimes, 2014/09/18

So I do not see any need in those biased & not reliable sources. In my opinion, NYT, Haaretz, and arabnews is more than enough :) --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

It is underreported. I've searched extensively over the 6 year period in which it is, according to observers, used frequently, and found very little information. To call a source 'biased' because it reports a Palestinian POV is not to understand that in Wikipedia, NPOV consists of balancing POVs. Most of what strictly qualifies as 'mainstream press' coverage in the I/P area comes from Israel and the United States, and the reportage is notoriously skewed to one side. Any incident involving Palestinian violence gets world-wide massive and detailed, ongoing coverage. Most incidents reported in Ma'an News Agency as violence to Palestinians has no echo in the Western press. There are 10 incidents per diem on average of violence or clashes throughout the occupied territories, and you're 'lucky' to see one reported in a week in the mainstream foreign press. Systemic bias is at play, and while I subscribe to a strong reading of WP:RS in my editing, I have no problem in using minor sources as here where I approached a minor Israeli news outlet as usable if the information is otherwise underreported. Nishidani (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani, What I wonder why does it have to be reported on every single incidents you found? For that you opened a page List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2015 or 2014 or 2013. You have on the page the fact it was and is still used, you have names of places, you have a few examples and then you move on and criticism of the way it is used by Israel. At some point the article seemed like an index for any news reports you could put your hand on.

Do you now put on article for Tavor any time it was used? I don't compare and I think the Skunk article should reflect the problematic use but between that and obsessing over it, there is a big distance. Ashtul (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

What's that got to do with the price of fish. I've been silent for 8 years on the fact that editors have dedicated an enormous amount of their time and mainspace on a unilateral classification of types of violence of Palestinians against Israelis. The Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel alone has twelve articles registering by year rocket attacks. User:ShulMaven's Silent Intifada, which started out as the usual monocular focus on a series of incidents in which Palestinian acts of terrorism were highlighted, was hived off, by common consent, into a List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2014, which I helped then build, and then created the new page for this year. The premise of POV-pushers creating this stuff is that an incident is worthy of article-length description if an Israeli/Jew is injured. These are all well-covered by RS. If an editor like myself reports violence against Palestinians, rarely in an article, mostly in lists, then the sources are fine-combed to complain of violations of a very rigid reading of WP:RS. That is the point here. Any source is fine for violence to Israelis, but only the New York Times etc., if they ever notice,(which they don't mostly) is a valid source for violence to Palestinians. When you have videos reporting an event attached to an article, written by acknowledged Israeli professional journalists, this should pass all reasonable standards for WP:V and WP:RS. Yet one group grouches.

There is one difference, in the work I do in this area: I define the article to refer to all incidents of violence Israeli vs Palestinians, as well as Palestinians versus Israelis, in accordance for once with WP:NPOV. I don't scour for results. I read the newspapers, and add events as they occur, and have an impact on either side. I don't obsess. I watch what editors do, and try to ensure that this encyclopedia comprehensively covers all sides to a conflict, rather than being a vehicle for one state's complaints.Nishidani (talk) 09:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani, the article Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel is a collection of those attacks so a list is appropriate, it isn't the Qassam rocket page. Skunk page is about the material. If you wish to start a page list of case where Skunk was used, go ahead. But it does NOT belong on a page of the Skunk itself. Ashtul (talk) 14:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• "It is underreported" @Nishidani

The same claim you can hear from Israeli side too. So? Two examples only: Israeli police's reports, one approving Arami murder as terror attack, and 2nd - denied settlers' responsability on mosque's damage (12 November 2014) were not reported by international media. I'd remind that Secret have deleted the Death of Netanel Arami article basing on your arguments about the absence of such publications in international media. I do not think that it was right decision, but ...

Both your +972 & Mondoweiss sources are based on same 2 clips (25 sec & 1:22 long). Anybody may check them and see that they do not give any reliable & whole picture about what happened there. So you really propose to base on commentaries from those biased sources only. :( --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

In fact Mondoweiss is suffient. No source has to give the 'whole picture': none ever does. So your point is pointless. The question is, if that video and report confirm each other and as such are usuable?

Nishidani, the article Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel is a collection of those attacks so a list is appropriate, it isn't the Qassam rocket page. Skunk page is about the material. If you wish to start a page list of case where Skunk was used, go ahead. But it does NOT belong on a page of the Skunk itself. Ashtul (talk) 14:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Please stop raising irrelevant arguments not pertinent to this request. Please desist from what appears to be a new life-meaningful mission to follow my editing work and make silly remarks or reverts on them.Nishidani (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Irrelevant? You asked why over there it is OK and here it isn't and I answered that. Once again, Skunk page is about the MATERIAL and there should be info of how it used of which you have excelled. What it should NOT be is an index for everytime it have been used.

And it is not life-mission, just hobby. I don't touch anything that is even close to reasonable. With all the controversial articles I saw, no editor was as biased as you are. "Israel sought to justify..." right? - "but the source wrote it". Right!

Ashtul (talk) 09:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Ashtul, your irrelevant comments, your highly biased edits, and your obsessive HOUNDING of User: Nishidani are tiresome and annoying. I advise you to stop your disruptive behavior, or you could be topic-banned or blocked. Regards, IjonTichy (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Content:

In recent years, there has been criticism of the song, stemming from a modernistic reading of the wolf/mouse dynamic as being sexually predatory. While traditionally interpreted as the mouse wanting to stay and putting up only token protests for the sake of appearance, some commentators perceive the lyrics as the "mouse" as genuinely wanting to leave but being stopped by the "wolf" being coercive in his pleading. These readers cite certain lines as being questionable, including "I simply must go", "The answer is no", "I've got to go home". There is also the line "Hey, what's in this drink", which is seen as implicative of alcohol affecting the "mouse's" judgement or that they have been drugged. However, many movies,^which? at the time the song was written, used a similar line to refer to someone behaving in a different manner than they expected and blaming it on the alcohol.

"‘Baby It’s Cold Outside’ was once an anthem for progressive women. What happened?". The Washington Post. Hannun, Marya (11 December 2013). "'SOUTH PARK' Takes on Bill Cosby ... BABY THERE'S AN ASSAULT OUTSIDE". TMZ (11 December 2014). "8 Romantic Songs You Didn't Know Were About Rape". Cracked.com (13 February 2010). "“Baby It’s Cold Outside” Isn’t About Date Rape!". Salon (website) (19 December 2012). "Is "Baby, It's Cold Outside" a date-rape anthem?". Salon (website). Deusner, Stephen (10 December 2012). "Baby, It’s Just A Song". The Federalist (website). Magness, Cheryl (3 December 2014). "Christmas songs that illustrate the worst in humanity". George Ouzounian (19 December 2012).

These are some of the proposed sources for and against the date rape implications surrounding Baby, It's Cold Outside. We are determining if these are propaganda or satire, and if so, which ones fit RS guidelines. Timeraner (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The sources all appear OK, especially WP and Salon. Doesn't this more belong at WP:NPOV/N?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll move it. Timeraner (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Cracked.com is definitely not a reliable source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm wondering if the Hollywood Reporter, specifically this article would be a reliable source for the info put on this page. The source is used as an example as to why the song was taken off the radio, but I don't think that this is all too reliable, as the source only says it "includes" some specific lyrics, but never says that those specific lyrics actually caused the song to be taken off the radio. If the source reliable in this instance (it's not even related to Pumped Up Kicks), or would it count as "personal opinion of the author" (or anything similar)? Pyrotle…the "y" is silent, BTW. 05:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Find corroborating content if Hollywood Reporter is not seen as reliable, the article is mainly about Ke$ha, and not about Foster the People. All else false attribute it to The Hollywood Reporter.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The main question here, however, is that would the Hollywood Reporter article be a reliable source for the following bolded text?

"The song was pulled from some U.S. radio stations in December 2012 in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, due to its lines "You'd better run, better run, outrun my gun" and "You'd better run faster than my bullet."¹"

As the article is mainly about Ke$ha and not Foster the People, and that the article doesn't actually say those specific lyrics caused the song to be taken off the radio, what I'm wondering is that is the Hollywood Reporter article a reliable source for the bolded text above, or should the bolded text be taken out of the article?

Sorry for any in convince caused by this.

Pyrotle…the "y" is silent, BTW. 20:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The article in The Hollywood Reporter says that the song was taken off the air and lists the lyrics; however, it doesn't explicitly link them. I noticed quite a few hits on Google News for the radio ban, and most of them also seem to quote the chorus. Clearly, the chorus is a part of why it was taken off the air, but it's difficult to find an article that explicitly links the lyrics to the ban. This article does, but it's a local newspaper. This article also cites the lyrics as the cause for another local station. Maybe you can find a source that's a bit less regional in scope, but it doesn't seem like this is unwarranted original research. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is TMZ which is not a local source. http://www.tmz.com/2012/12/19/pumped-up-kicks-foster-the-people-newtown-sandy-hook-school-schooting/ I think that we can write it was removed from multiple radio stations after Newtown because of its lyrics which seemed to depict a school shooting. We don't need to specify which specific lines caused it. --GRuban (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

By comparison, the article for Titanium, another song taken off the radio after the tragedy, states the song was taken off simply for having "gun-related lyrics", but don't list specific lyrics, even though doing such can be easily done. So yeah, I'm going to remove the specific lyrics from the Pumped Up Kicks page and replace it with something more… general. Pyrotle…the "y" is silent, BTW. 01:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Done; I replaced the bolded text above with something more general that TMZ states, which is also what I think as well, to be honest. Pyrotle…the "y" is silent, BTW. 01:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• http://www.chuckhawks.com & http://www.chuckhawks.com/g-s_about_us.htm & http://www.chuckhawks.com/g-s_masthead.htm
• Use on Wikipedia: hundreds of articles (some as external links) 7
• Previous discussions: Talk:.375 Remington Ultra Magnum#Chuck Hawks reference removed, Talk:.300 Savage#300 Savage as Parent for 308, Talk:.25-06 Remington#Lack of factual information and accuracy of stated information, Talk:7.5×55mm Swiss#Origin the Schmidt Rubin part in the article name, Talk:.308 Norma Magnum#Error in specifications, Talk:W. D. M. Bell#Reverts of edits, Talk:Comparison of the AK-47 and M16/Archive 2#Service life, User talk:Fluzwup/Archive 1#Recoil, Talk:Baltimore-class cruiser#Largest class in history
• Note: This is an extension of a review at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms‎#Source discussion, brought here for more input.

Discussion:

This website has articles by Chuck Hawks about many topics (motorcycles, astronomy, travel & fishing, etc). The largest division is titled "Guns and Shooting Online". That part has a masthead-type staff, but the "Owner and Managing Editor"/main contributor, Chuck Hawks, is a private person. I can find no evidence that he has ever been published in a reliable source or anywhere outside his own website. Likewise for other contributors. It's been the subject of some discussion on WP. An anonymous editor calls him "a well respected and widely published firearms and reloading expert." Two different editors question the accuracy of certain facts from the site. An editor finds an incorrect fact from an article by a 3rd party on the site that was subsequently corrected. One editor said that he is not a reliable source for military firearms. And another editor finds a Hawks' article to be superior to a Wikipedia article on the same topic. (Faint praise!) An editor of a naval article said that the source looks self-published and therefore not to be relied upon. The primary question here is whether it looks like the editorial process is sufficient prevent the site from being regarded as self-published, and whether that editorial process applies both to regular contributors and to the main contributor/"Owner and Managing Editor". How do we decide? Rezin (talk) 04:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Without detailed information on the editorial process, I think it's fair to assume that the owner and managing editor of a website who is also its main contributor should be treated as a self-published source. That's not to say he isn't reliable; WP:SPS has "self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." You said he's never been published elsewhere, but have other publications cited his work on the website as being useful or reliable? Some self-published authors' work is well-respected in their field. Knight of Truth (talk) 17:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. The website has been cited in some books. See Google books search I don't see which refer to him as an expert. When I read over talk pages discussing the SPS policy I got the impression that being cited wasn't sufficient to qualify as a recognized expert, and that the only test was previous publication.

If we go with the view that Hawks, the owner/editor, is a non-expert self-publishing his own work how does that bear upon articles written for the website by third parties? Rezin (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Certainly, preference should be given to people who have been published in third-party sources, or better yet, the non-self-published sources themselves. But when a self-published source has a reputation for quality and accuracy, personally I'm inclined to file it under WP:WORKINPROGRESS. (At least, when it's not on a very sensitive topic.) As for articles written by others, I think we should be suspicious in treating their work as non-self-published if we treat Hawks' work as self-published. But if there's evidence to suggest they go through a process of editing and fact-checking, I think they would be acceptable. However, more scholarly works are always preferable; have you considered whether the local library has anything on offer? It's useful to other editors if the sources are online, but they certainly don't need to be, and you shouldn't be disinclined to use a print source if it's better than what's there right now. Knight of Truth (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

That sounds a bit like WP:IAR, which is a legitimate answer. As for 3rd parties, Hawks calls himself an editor, so unless he's lying he's reviewing and editing the work of those he publishes. As for its use in place of scholarly sources, I couldn't answer that easily - this review is a wholesale process. I'm trying to clean up thousands of articles in the WP:GUNS which use seemingly self-published sources. But in general there aren't many scholarly sources that address firearms (except in reference to gun violence). Links to this particular source appear 385 times on Wikipedia articles and talk pages.8 So it'd lighten my workload, and that of future editors looking to cite existing text, if the website is deemed reliable. Rezin (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• Chuck hawks is an online publication and there is no difference in notability between that and an offline publication. He is the editor and also the author of some articles. Many of his authors are well known subject matter experts as he is. He takes in money for advertising industries in the many different fields his online publication writes about. I feel many argue against Hawks because of his position on guns that many liberals would like to dismiss. It has become a matter of silencing Hawks in order to further push their own agenda and nothing more but using wiki lawyering to accomplish that goal. 208.54.38.255 (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Please don't make unfounded accusations. This is part of an objective review of self-published sources. You seem to be familiar with the source. If you can tell us which authors published on his site have been previously published in reliable sources that'd help the discussion. Rezin (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding this edit dispute. Fredrick Brennan is a young man with osteogenesis imperfecta, "brittle bone disease", which has had a major impact on his life - wheelchair bound, very short, over 100 highly painful broken bones over his 20-odd years. He's managed to achieve something despite this but it hasn't been easy. He wrote about this, and about how it caused him to support eugenics, so no more children would be born with his problems. But the place he wrote about it was the Daily Stormer, a racist website. (He said others wouldn't take it - even a disabled person writing about sterilizing disabled people is too touchy.) Anyway, I wanted to use it in the Fredrick Brennan article, to talk about his early life and his views on his condition, as it is an article subject writing about himself, and something rather important to his life. User:Ryulong objects because the Stormer is clearly not a reliable source in general. --GRuban (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• The news front for Stormfront (website) is not a reliable source and it never will be.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• I oppose use of Stormfront as a source in any context. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
• There is no way we can possibly trust Stormfront as a source for anything. Ever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not Stormfront but a blog called, The Daily Stormer. Here's the article. Raquel Baranow (talk) 03:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• Well we aren't going to cite that festering heap of shit either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

  Look, even a FHoS is reliable when writing about itself, right? Well, here it is. --GRuban (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• Is it or is it not affiliated with Stormfront.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • No idea, and don't care. The detailed taxonomy of racist sites isn't relevant. The point is that it is a source writing about itself. --GRuban (talk) 05:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
• Clearly a self-published source, I would say. (Let use leave the publisher's point of view out of it for a moment.) If The Daily Stormer was the only one that would take it, being unique in this respect, this reflects poorly on any editors the blog might have. I doubt much in the way of fact-checking, etc. was conducted. Self-published autobiographies should always be treated with a little skepticism, but are a good source for someone's personal opinion. It is not a reliable source for Brennan's life history in the objective sense; even someone's view of their own life can be wrong. Unless there is reason to suggest Brennan is not the true author, I don't see why we should treat a biased site as different from any other self-published source. Knight of Truth (talk) 07:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

  Because the website is a neo-Nazi blog.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

...and? The caveats for use of self-published sources are such that it does not really matter whether the self-publishing medium is opinionated. It does not make sense to me that content on a subject's own website could be acceptable, but the same content by the same person on a website run by unlikable people could not. If you feel strongly about not linking to the site, why not use WebCite and only provide the archival link? Knight of Truth (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Because we have no way of verifying that the archived version is authentic either, for a start. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, Brennan isn't simply 'writing about himself' - he is (if the source is to be trusted, which I don't think we should) advocating a particular political policy: "offering people with debilitating, genetically dominant genetic diseases $100,000 cash each to undergo voluntary sterilization would be a libertarian, humane way to encourage genetic purity." AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

That is writing about himself. It is stating is that he holds that opinion. We certainly write on advocates' pages what positions they advocate. --GRuban (talk) 21:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The main issue I see is can it be reliably verified that the purported post is actually from the subject in question. Stormfront is not reliable for that purpose. If it could be verified, or if his post has been discussed in secondary sources, then I think it may qualify under SELFPUB. (the secondaries would remove the issue anyway as we can use them directly, as we do at Steve Scalise where we also have content that was written about a BLP by an anonymous source at stormfront, which was subsequently picked up by secondaries and used in our article. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

If the information is correct, you can find something better than stormfront. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, no, no we can't. Brennan specifically says "I hope you will not dismiss this article as the ravings of a neo-Nazi given the site it’s on. I could find no other publication which would publish this article, and I am far from a neo-Nazi." (Also, why does everyone keep saying Stormfront? The name seems to be Daily Stormer. There is, unfortunately, more than one neo-nazi site in the world.) --GRuban (talk) 03:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

How does WP deal with a non-legal source giving a legal opinion or attempting to provide a legal analysis? The issue here is that an editor is attempting to use a Vice article (http://motherboard.vice.com/read/dear-gamergate-please-stop-stealing-our-shit), written by a staff writer (to the best I can tell, a non-lawyer), who quotes several lawyers and attempts to perform a legal analysis of a very complex subject, specifically, possible violations of Copyright law by the use of archive.today. The author make several claims, specifically, that this use of archive.today is both a violation of copyright law in the specific instance that is being alleged in the article, and that the people who are using archive.today in this manner are "stealing". Both of these claims are extremely problematic from a legal stand point, and further, are never actually made by the quoted legal experts. At best, the legal experts quoted hedged and said its possible at best, but not a "slam dunk" case. This is further exasperated by the editor attempting to use this source as a reliable source for both this legal analysis and the legal conclusion the author makes. Without getting into the particulars of legal advice, and legal analysis, I have two questions.

• First: Can a non-legal source be cited for a legal opinion or analysis?
• Second: While a source may be reliable for its opinion, can a source be unreliable in other matters, for instance, for providing legal analysis or legal conclusions (in this case, that X factual situation violates copyright law). Ries42 (talk) 04:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd think that 'piracy is against the law' would be about as controversial as 'water is wet'. What actual edit does someone want to make based on that article? Daveosaurus (talk) 05:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

If it were that simple, sure. But this isn't Piracy. And frankly, when dealing with legal opinions nothing is ever really cut and dry. And copyright law in particular is notoriously complex, even among legal topics. Frankly, I have reservations that a full legal researched law review article could do the topic justice, there is virtually no way a Vice blog staff writer could do so (no offense intended). The edit in question: This practice attracted criticism from Jason Koebler, writing for Motherboard, as a violation of copyright laws. The only person to make that claim in the article in question is a non-lawyer. All the lawyers quoted made much less direct statements. Ries42 (talk) 05:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

That is an attributed statement of opinion. It is not an assertion, in Wikipedia's voice, that Koebler is correct. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

It is still an assertion, if not in WP's voice, it is one that is on WP. We wouldn't allow an assertion that is a BLP violation of WP, even if it wasn't in WP's voice, this is no different. If anything, this may be worse. Stating what the law is, is generally ok. For instance, "Stealing is illegal". Sure. You can even explain what the specific law is with little trouble. "Statute X.XX says petty theft is the stealing of an item or items whose total value does not exceed $100." That's still pretty ok. Its when you take the next step, and actally apply the law to a factual situation where you get into drawing a legal conclusion and legal analysis that is inappropriate for a non-legal authority to state. For instance "Johnny has committed petty theft" or "Johnny is in violation of copyright law" is inappropriate. Also, those statements may be illegal for a non-lawyer to make in the non-hypothetical sense as an unlicensed practicing of law.

I would appreciate if a lawyer actually weighed in here. I'm not asking for legal advice, simply a lawyer would understand what I'm trying to explain better than a non-lawyer. Ries42 (talk) 13:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

"those statements may be illegal for a non-lawyer to make in the non-hypothetical sense as an unlicensed practicing of law"? No. That is complete and utter nonsense. Koebler isn't practising law. Saying that someone is stealing from you (even if incorrect) isn't practising law. Not even remotely. Nobody is paying Koebler for legal advice. Koebler isn't arguing a case in court. He makes no claims to be a lawyer. It is self-evident to our readers that Koebler, as an involved party, isn't offering neutral legal advice. Nobody is going to take such a statement as some sort of legal ruling. And incidentally, accusing someone of 'unlicensed practicing of law' looks to me very much like a WP:BLP violation... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not accusing anyone of anything. I said it could be, and it can be. The issue I'm speaking about here is specifically about putting on Wikipedia that "X is a copyright violation." No matter the context, a non-lawyer making that statement is at best problematic. I'm asking about something specific, that likely a lawyer needs to weigh in on. Are you a lawyer? Ries42 (talk) 14:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

This is the Wikipedia reliable sources noticeboard. All contributors may comment here - and we do not offer legal advice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not asking for legal advice. But you clearly don't know what you're talking about, so I'm asking for other people who do to weigh in. Ries42 (talk) 14:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I know Wikipedia policy. You clearly don't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Andy. We can certainly write that Jason Koebler said X, without it necessarily sounding like we agree that X is right. I might rephrase it a bit to make this point more clear (say: "Jason Koebler, of Motherboard, wrote that this was stealing, and a violation of copyright law") but the basic statement is fine. From reading the source, it does seem as the opinion might be relevant, since it says that Motherboard was noticeably hit by this, so their reaction would matter. --GRuban (talk) 23:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Generally agree with AndyTheGrump and GRuban. Also agree that GRuban's example is better, more clear writing.

What is the context of the requested edit? Article? Preferably a diff if someone's already added it. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Is this a credible source for the claim "in many West African countries including Ghana Hinduism is the fastest growing religion"? Thanks. --50.46.245.232 (talk) 03:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

He has written Religion and Chieftaincy in Ghana: An Explanation of the Persistence of a Traditional Political Institution in West Africa and it was published by LIT Verlag, a German academic publisher. Author has some credible. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

How nice of you to join the discussion, Bladesmulti. The issue is not whether the author is a serious scholar; I have no reason to doubt his credibility. The issue is whether that page qualifies as a credible citation, especially on issues as contentious as religious demographics. --50.46.245.232 (talk) 04:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

It can be contentious only if it is contradicting with others. Does it? Not sure about many West African countries, but at least for Ghana it seem to be working. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

What does 'fastest growing religion' actually mean though? It is an inherently ambiguous statement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree and that's why about 1 year and 4 months ago the page was nominated for deletion and most of the votes were made in favour of deletion. If there is something very relevant about citing the so called fastest growth, it can be mentioned on the main page. E.g. ".... is the fastest growing religion of Russia" it can be cited on Religion in Russia, there is hardly any need to have a separate page. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

If you agree that it is ambiguous, why are you insisting that it go in the article? 9 AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

It is commonly used on this page, about 9 times for fastest-growing religion as it is the main concept of the article and it is ambiguous. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

That is not an answer. Why are you insisting that an ambiguous source be used in this case? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Because he has written the books about religion in Ghana and one of them was published by LIT Verlag, a German academic publisher, thus this page link can be used as a citation. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Is that even supposed to make sense? The phrase "in many West African countries including Ghana Hinduism is the fastest growing religion" is ambiguous regardless who wrote it. Measured how? In raw numbers of new believers? As a percentage compared to previous percentages? Measured over what timescale? It can simply be interpreted too many ways to be useful information. Why should an article include vague statements like that, when there are alternative sources (i.e. the ones you have avoided discussing at Talk:Growth of religion) that discuss the growth of Hinduism in Ghana in greater depth, and actually include a meaningful discussion of the subject? AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed with the depth of field. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Patheos seems to have been used as a citation on more than 120 pages, including Islam, Taoism and others. One of the editor questioned if it is an Wikipedia:SPS. Although I think the website can be reliable for religious demographics. Bladesmulti (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

It's a pretty weak source, being a haphazard collection of broadly strewn blogs and columns with little in the way of credible editorial oversight or serious fact-checking. It's more like a forum where authors get to say whatever they want more or less unhindered. Calling the individual blog posts and articles SPSs is pretty close to the truth. It's like a Hyde Park with lots of individual soapboxes. I wouldn't use it for anything I could not verify with a much better source, in which case Patheos becomes redundant. Definitely not reliable for highly contentious and more-often-than-not totally fudged religious demographics. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

This is the context and the source which seems to be a self-published essay. I don't think it should be used in the article. JimRenge (talk) 07:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Had some doubts that's why didn't used it on main page. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm new here and I've tried to improve Muhammadu Buhari's WP page by adding a series of sources and important informations. Unfortunately, those sources and my editing work were promptly reversed by two users (an account and an IP address) who immediately accused me of working for the opposition and for using libelous and defamatory information. I've asked for help in the Teahouse and I was advised to come here to explain my sources and get your opinion as well.

As for my sources, even if they present a more rounded approach to the legacy, life and rule of Buhari, they are by no means libelous.

I've used two New York Times articles from the 1980s, 1 source from the BBC from 2014, reports from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, the text of the decrees passed by Buhari and then the 5 biggest Nigerian newspapers. So no blogs or things heard through the grapevine, rumors, unsourced information.

You can see my modifications and sources here and here.

I'm afraid that I've stumbled into some delicate territory here and I really need your advice as to how I should proceed next, knowing the fact that the two other users don't listen anybody and undo everything. Thanks a lot for your help. Passenger68 (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@Passenger68: This may be better posted at WP:BLP/N - Cwobeel (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

You are invited to participate in RfC -- Debate over claims of discrimination in academia with particular attention to the sources cited for the contribution.–GodBlessYou2 (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The ENW mentioned Brittany Maynard as an alumna of one of their schools, front page. The brief article refers to an on-line editorial, which repeats the information and then goes on to talk religion and morality. Along the way, the author of the editorial asserts what the correct pronunciation of her last name is.

There is a dispute on Talk:Brittany Maynard#Self-published source? whether this is RS or not, and I'm moving it here.

I think the high school information is of no interest, and is UNDUE. The pronunciation, however, seems interesting. Choor monster (talk) 00:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Are the sources for the following lead sentence for the gun show loophole article WP:RS?

Gun show loophole is a term referring to the ability of private buyers at gun shows being able to purchase firearms from private sellers without a background check.^{1: 1 2: 11 3: 27}

--Lightbreather (talk) 23:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Quote from source 1: Clinton directed the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General to close the gun show loophole.
• Quote from source 2: The term "gun show loophole" is often used to describe the fact that federal law allows private sellers to sell firearms without background checks or recordkeeping.
• Quote from source 3: According to a 1999 report by the Department of the Treasury and DOJ, this is known as the "gun show loophole."

I can provide dozens of others if requested. Lightbreather (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is sufficient sourcing, why would somebody challenge it? Spumuq (talk) 10:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The argument is that the lead sentence "is not factually correct," and that "there is no loophole in the law." There are people who believe that, and it needs to be addressed in the article, and mentioned in the lead, too, but not in the lead sentence. That would give it undue weight (POV), which is where I'll probably head next, depending on the outcome here.

Thanks for your feedback. Lightbreather (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Can the think-tank Palestinian Media Watch, which supposedly reports content from Palestinian TV programs and newspapers, be used as a source if they're cited by another, potentially more reliable source? The claim, in 2012_Olympics_one_minute_of_silence_campaign, is that the Palestinian Authority newspaper Al-Hayat Al-Jadida referred to the Munich Olympics massacre as the "Munich operation." It's my view that we can't cite an unreliable source at any remove, and that if Al-Hayat said this, a reliable source which says so, or the actual Al-Hayat article saying so, should be available - otherwise it's not verifiable. User:I invented "it's not you, it's me"'s view is that being cited in Commentary magazine legitimizes this source (its report is that "PMW said this"). I'll also note that the Commentary piece appears to be an opinion column, so the broader issue may be moot. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

While I see your concern, the general answer is yes, assuming the repeating source is itself reliable. See the current controversy at Steve Scalise where we have a random blogger, who found an anonymous posting on stormfront, but his claims are repeated by reliable sources, so the information is BLP complaint. WP:GRAPEVINE would be the obvious counter argument, but in this case if PMW is mistranslating something that is getting coverage in mainstream sources, someone will certainly call them out on it. In any case, the Al-Hayat source itself would be sourcing for whatever they said, which is easy to WP:V (assuming one speaks Arabic) so I think this particular issue is a non issue along multiple avenues of argument. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

also, Commentary is not attributing that statement to PMW (although it is reasonable to assume thats where they got it). its in their own voice, which makes the whole thing further reliable. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

If you mean that there is good reason to think Palestinian Media Watch provides inaccurate information, and therefore its information shouldn't be included in Wikipedia even if it is mentioned in a normally reliable source, that would essentially be arguing that the normally reliable source made an error in mentioning Palestinian Media Watch. A normally reliable source can be ignored if it's clear it made a mistake.

If you mean that reliable sources have to follow Wikipedia's Verifiability policy and can't use any source Wikipedia wouldn't use, no, that's nonsense. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

1. http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1729685,00.html html

2. Ann Dunham

3.

In late 1994, Dunham was living and working in Indonesia. One night, during dinner at a friend's house in Jakarta, she experienced stomach pain. A visit to a local physician led to an initial diagnosis of indigestion.

I noticed that you can only see the first section of this article. Is this source reliable, since most of it (including the part about Dunham being diagnosed with Uterine cancer) is not viewable to most people? I've read the page for reliable sources, but unfortunately came up with no answer regarding this issue. Thanks, 2607:FB90:42B:9201:86E5:F4F6:D92F:95E (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

In general, yes. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Access_to_sources. Time is a pretty top tier source. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Although we cannot cite this page, as a Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Convenience_links link you can see the full article at http://fmcsg.tripod.com/id19.html Gaijin42 (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I just wanted to bring it to your attention in case it wasn't a credible source. Thanks for the link to the full article. :) - 2607:FB90:42B:9201:86E5:F4F6:D92F:95E (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone support the contention that the content of the website

• http://www.tudorplace.com

and more specifically this page

• http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/HUNGERFORD.htm ("the TP source")

is a Wikipedia reliable source

I have stated that I do not consider it to be a RS (diff), Kbabej stated "I don't agree that Tudor Place is an unreliable source. It is used all over Wikipedia. If you show me parameters that list Tudor Place as unreliable, then I'll remove it. Until then, it's a common practice." (diff)

The issue is over a relationship between two people. There is an article called Anthony Hungerford of Black Bourton (we have lots of articles called "Anthony Hungerford" it was a popular family name). This particular article is fully sourced using a Dictionary of National Biography article as a source for his family (see s:Hungerford, Anthony (1564-1627) (DNB00)). It states "By his first wife Lucy he was father of Sir Edward Hungerford (1596-1648) q.v., and by his second wife was father of Anthony q.v. and John, and two daughters."

Kbabej has created an article called Anne Hungerford Lee and justifies the inclusion of the statement "Anne Hungerford was born to Sir Anthony Hungerford of Black Bourton and his fifth cousin Lucy Hungerford" based on the TP source. I do not consider that the TP source to be reliable enough to support this statement (if it was to support a DOB of DOD, which might be supportable elsewhere that would be another issue where a {{better source}} would surfice) but this is in my opinion too large an issue to be left to an unreliable source such as a page www.tudorplace.com.ar.

What do others think, is "the TP source" a reliable source for this sort of information? -- PBS (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The Tudor Place article is used as an easier layout to read and supports the same information presented in Families Directly Descended from All the Royal Families in Europe (495 to 1932) and Mayflower Descendants bound with Supplement, which has been listed as another source for the information you are disputing, PBS. The information matches. --Kbabej (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for providing a more reliable source. I am not disputing the information, I am questioning adding text to Wikipdia based on a source such as www.tudorplace.com.ar. You have stated that "I don't agree that Tudor Place is an unreliable source." as I disagree I think whether it is need to be discussed here to see where the consensus lies. If you are so sure that TP is a reliable source why have you felt the need to cite another one? -- PBS (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Good question. Two reasons: 1. To prove it matches other reliable sources. 2. So the information would not be removed. --Kbabej (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the about page shows it's a website put out by an amateur - I doubt it is reliable for much information, unless you can show that the guy Jorge H. Castelli is an expert in genealogy or history. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

It would be useful if a few more of the editors who lurk here were to add their opinions to this section as to whether this website is or is not a reliable, because this it is used as a source on about 400 pages. -- PBS (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Yesterday, I had added this page to 8chan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to support a statement connecting something to the Gamergate controversy in addition to its stated connection to 8chan in various other reliable sources. Weedwacker has been repeatedly reverting my addition of this page, claiming that because Gameranx is a website for video game news and because it is absent from WP:VG/RS that it is not a reliable source at all. I attempted to retort that because the article the source is used on is not about a video game that should not matter and also that the website is already used extensively on the English Wikipedia and they have a clearly defined editorial team. This two year old discussion is all I can find about it on the video games project, but it's established usage on Wikipedia should suggest that it is considered a reliable source already. I believe that the only reason that this particular source is being contested is because the author of the article in question, Ian Miles Cheong, is a known critic and harassment target of Gamergate, and Weedwacker has been mostly pro-Gamergate since he returned to editing Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Reliable. Their content is cited by Game Informer, GameSetWatch, Kotaku, Gamasutra, and VG247 (all of which are considered reliable sources by WPVG) and MCVUK, which is used across the project as well. Their editors—one of them being the author of the piece in question—previously worked for other publications which have been similarly cited. This is the definition of the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" that we look for. Woodroar (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• I'd have to agree with Woodroar. If you do a Google search for "according to gameranx", you get quite a few prominent reliable sources who quote the site, including PC Gamer. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Is Andreas Umland, German political scientist and historian, specializing in contemporary Russian and Ukrainian history, reliable source to speak about use of Wolfsangel by Social-National Party of Ukraine ?

link - https://www.opendemocracy.net/od-russia/andreas-umland/kyiv%E2%80%99s-next-image-problem

Are Anton Sheckhovtsov's articles at Open Democracy site reliable to speak about use of Wolfsangel by Social-National Assembly and Azov Battalion?

links: https://www.opendemocracy.net/od-russia/anton-shekhovtsov/provoking-euromaidan https://www.opendemocracy.net/od-russia/anton-shekhovtsov/look-far-right-and-look-right-again-avaz-batalion-neo-pagan-neo-nazi

Is Anti-Defamation League site reliable source to state racist Aryan Nations organization uses Wolfsangel as emblema?

http://www.adl.org/mobilehatesymbols/symbol-20.html

I think yes, but Iryna Harpy names it "soapboxing, advertising or promotion" Cathry (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Is Republic Report a reliable source? It is being used for several citations at For-profit higher education in the United States. It is a site owned by an organization called Essential Information. If it is a reliable source in general, should it be used in connection with individuals per WP:BLP? See this diff. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it can be used with caution. They are a non profit, started by Ralph Nader. They don't appear to have significant editorial oversight, so for contentious claims on WP:BLPs they may run afoul of WP:SPS.They are likely reliable for their own statements of opinion, especially when not used in a BLP context tho. For opinions about BLPs, it would likely depend on how contentious the opinion is Gaijin42 (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The report has very strong editorial positions reflected in its articles, and should primarily be used as an opinion source and not as a source for anything remotely approaching a contentious claim about living persons for sure.

Corruption of our politics poses an existential threat to our republic. Will we be a self-governing nation of the people, by the people and for the people, or will we be ruled by special interests and big money lobbyists?

seems a clear declaration that it is not intended to state facts in a neutral manner, to be sure. No way for contentious claims of fact about living persons - if it is a fact, try to find a solid reliable source. Collect (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

David Halperin is a lawyer in Washington, DC who would vouch for his credibility and trustworthiness. Please let me know of any deletions, so that I can notify Mr. Halperin. Dahnshaulis (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, in terms of credibility of the subject in question, Rep. Alcee Hastings...¹. Then watch the video ² Dahnshaulis (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Dahnshaulis Are you saying that a lawyer may be involved if we delete content sourced to Republic Report? Gaijin42 (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

No. I saying that I will let Mr. Halperin know of the status of any deletions of his references. If you delete anything, I'd just like to have an explanation so that I can inform my sources. This also applies to any other sources with authors I have made personal contact with. Dahnshaulis (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

You may notify whoever you wish, but wikipedia doesn't really care if he cares. Beyond the general policies and discussion which we are having now and on the article talk page nobody is required to give any reasons to justify wikipedia's actions to outside individuals. This site and report is not reliable for the claim made, and the source should be removed. However, there are better sources available which make the same claim so could be used instead. 10 11 1213 141516 Gaijin42 (talk) 22:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

It says, "The views expressed in a given piece reflect those of the Republic Report writer authoring the piece." So each article must be evaluated seperately using the section "News organizations" in RS: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Assuming an article meets RS, the next hurdle is weight - if the information is only found there, is it significant? Probably not. TFD (talk) 05:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Source: HaKol_HaYehudi

Article: List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2015

Is HaKol HaYehudi, an Israeli extremist website, known for its support of violence, reliable for facts on the Israel-Palestinian conflict? I have raised the issue at the talk page of List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2015 page. This is what an Israeli investigative news-site reports of its activities.

• (a)Yossi Gurvitz Government funding institutions supporting Jewish terrorism +972 magazine October 26, 2011

Ha’Kol Ha’Yehudi, the site which promotes the List of “price tag” pogroms, published on Monday an article by Yossi Elitzur, in which Elitzur called for the murder of terror suspects instead of their arrest

• (b)Yossi Gurvitz Settler 'price tag' pogroms against Palestinians go under the radar +972 magazine June 11, 2011

When a post mortem on Israeli democracy takes place, there’s a good chance that the “Ha’Kol Ha’Yehudi” will be considered akin to Radio Rwanda, which encouraged and led the murderers to the victims during that country’s genocide. The site (Hebrew), whose name means “The Jewish Voice,” is operated by the Yehudim Smechim (“Happy Jews”) Association (Hebrew), which is the active front of the students of the “Od Yoseph Khai” yeshiva in Yitzhar. Led by Yitzhak Ginzburg, this is in all likelihood the most extreme yeshiva around. It became famous, or rather infamous, when two of its rabbis wrote “Torat Ha’Melekh,” a treatise on the proper way – according to Jewish law – to kill gentiles.Nishidani (talk) 13:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

HaKol HaYehudi has been cited by major news outlets such as JPost and Haaretz. Major Israeli media does not publish small incidents. This is just as reliable as "local..." or many other reports where nobody even saw a 'settler' but they are the immediate suspect. Ashtul (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

That is not an argument for re 'a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy'. Mondoweiss is cited by Haaretz, too, but that technically does not make it reliable itself for facts. Please await independent editorial input. Nishidani (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I have another question: is uniquely biased +972 magazine - RS for evidence about other source "cited by major news outlets such as JPost and Haaretz".

The question why Nishidani regularly leads +972, is also quite interesting :) --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The question is, why do editors remove those two sources on sight, as not compliant, while the same editors allow venues like the two Ashtul has introduced to be cited. If serious Israeli journalism is not RS, then crap sites not written by notable Israeli journalists, are automatically ruled out. I'm only being polite in raising these two sites here. I could have removed at sight Ashtul's edits from these sources since they obviously fail all RS criteria.Nishidani (talk) 08:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted that this JPost story, that Ashtul claimed was an example of HaKol HaYehudi being cited by a reliable source, is nothing of the sort. Actually it cites Army Radio as saying that HaKol HaYehudi was raided by police who "arrested three of the site's operators on suspicion of incitement". So rather than providing evidence of the site's reliability, it demonstrates the opposite. Haaretz also did not cite HaKol HaYehudi for facts but only noted what could be seen on a video posted there. I think Nishidani was way too accommodating in bringing this issue here. To put it bluntly, if web sites like HaKol HaYehudi are wiki-reliable we might as well just delete WP:V and forget the concept of reliability. Zero^talk 09:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

It was not accommodating. Where there are just 3 editors, and I am in a minority, the exercise of a policy right to remove non-RS compliant material etc. is pointless because the other two editors will or can revert one immediately, which is the case there. One has no alternative than to appeal to the larger community's judgement to establish what is obvious, and in flagrant breach of standard editorial principles, which are not being observed there. Could experienced wikipedians please clarify here and above the obvious reading of WP:RS. Though it is a formality, the editors in question cannot see the error. Nishidani (talk) 09:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I do NOT suggest HaKol HaYehudi will be a WP:RS on any regular article. But on those lists Nishidani nurture, many sources are half-baked. Some Ma'an articles note 'locals say...' and I assume even the UN statistics work in similar nature. No major media outlet wastes time or effort on a Molotov cocktail that caused some damage. If no one was injured, it isn't reported. They are basically equivalent to burglaries - if no one was shot, in ain't interesting.

Pretending this article will ever be fully trustworthy is not serious. In many cases no one even saw Israelis make the damage. Think of this.

My bad (or good) or the JPost link. I mistook site->cite. Ashtul (talk) 10:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

These considerations are irrelevant to wiki policy. Wikipedia is not divided into 'regular' and 'irregular' articles, with different criteria governing the way each might be sourced. 'Locals say' is in the source, but has been replaced since. Please wait for external input.Nishidani (talk) 11:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I would like to ask any editor who answer to address the issue of Ma'an not standing behind some news by stating "Local say..." Ashtul (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

This is syntactically incoherent, and meaningless. As it stands, one editor has chipped it, and the point made is obvious. I am being too generous in even raising these questions of reliability. Both this and the earlier text are self-evidently in violation of elementary wiki definitions of WP:RS. Unless an independent editor challenges this judgement I will be removing both within three days. In the meantime, I have removed it. The sourcing, Facebook red alert pages, o404, and HaKol Hayehudi, is patently abusive and defiantly disruptive, and continued notwithstanding my opening this request. Nishidani (talk) 10:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Nish, nobody reply about 0404. Please edit those sources back!Ashtul (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

No one deigned to reply because the answer, I presume, was obvious. I am held to strict standards by pro-Israel editors, who delete relatively good sources because they assert the brandname (Mondoweiss, Counterpunch, etc.) is unacceptable, even if the pieces carried are by authoritative scholars and journalists. 0404 is patently way below that level. I will repost the request since it was ignored, but it is only a formality. Such crap is removed without objection by serious editors on sight.Nishidani (talk) 09:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

17 is being used to label a Roman Catholic as "Jewish" in his biography Michael Hahn and to add him to various "Jewish" categories. Does this source meet WP:RS for so labelling a person as "Jewish"? Note that it does not even appear to call the person "Jewish". Note this person is now also in 18 where the removal of the Roman Catholic is labelled "vandalism" by the editor, despite the discussion just above finding his original source to not meet WP:RS. Collect (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

What is the source for your claim that he's Roman Catholic? I don't see any decent citations in the article. Also, you removed a citation to Kurt Stone's book The Jews of Capitol Hill along with your removal of the Jewish Virtual Encyclopedia (19). Stone's book states that Hahn was born to Jewish parents but was a practicing Christian for most of his life. I don't know whether Stone's book meets our sourcing criteria, but at a bare minimum you need to present your question accurately and honestly—the "Jewish" identification was not sourced solely to the Jewish Virtual Encyclopedia, as you implied, but also to Stone's book. MastCell ^Talk 23:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The JVL biography does not say he was Jewish at all. Stone's work was already discussed above and was deemed not a reliable source for claims that a person is Jewish. When jumping in, please READ the prior discussion as it is not that hard to find. Or are you asserting that having Jewish ancestry makes a person Jewish for Wikipedia purposes? The same editor listed Barry Goldwater as Jewish, by the way. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article has had "Catholic" as his religion since at least March 2007 -- I did not add that claim. Collect (talk) 01:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Right, but you keep saying here that he's Roman Catholic. What's the source for that assertion? MastCell ^Talk 02:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I presumed that something which even MastCell did not correct in seven years likely had a source. Clearly you demur, but I also did not change his birth date or anything else in the article - all I did was remove what was clearly not supported by any reliable sources. Cheers. Collect (talk) 09:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, there's no need to shout. My point is that the sourcing for Judaism is weak, but the sourcing for Roman Catholicism is non-existent. I don't understand why you accepted uncritically that Hahn was Roman Catholic, but applied a very strict level of scrutiny to the claim that he was Jewish. It just seemed odd to me. Anyhow, it would seem that the statement about Roman Catholicism should be removed, since Hahn is variously described by reliable sources as either Jewish (Encyclopedia Judaica) or Episcopalian (Louisiana Secretary of State website). Right? MastCell ^Talk 17:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The cited source for "Catholic" is apparently la-cemeteries.com. The official state bio from the Louisiana Secretary of State's office says he was Episcopalian. 20 Many sources that state in passing that he was Jewish, including the Encyclopedia Judaica 21 but I haven't come across any online source, other than Stone, that goes into detail. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

IOW, the Jewish Virtual Library bio which makes no claim at all that he was Jewish in the first place, is not even any sort of source for claiming he was Jewish - right? And sources which do not even create their own bio are not a source at all - just a copyfarm. Collect (talk) 09:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

As Arxiloxos pointed out, Encyclopedia Judaica describes Hahn as Jewish, and in fact as "the first Jewish governor in the United States". Presumably this is a reliable source, so it renders the discussion of the Virtual Jewish Library moot in this instance. I'm not sure what your reference to "copyfarms" is intended to mean. MastCell ^Talk 17:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I will give you a pass on the snark as soon as you tell me what sources the EJ used - listing its cites for the Hahn biography would be a good start. Meanwhile, I think you should note that encyclopedia's seem to fall into the category of "tertiary sources" at best, and where they offer no sources whatsoever for their biography, not even that high on the source chain. Collect (talk) 13:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand your continued focus on the tertiary status of the source. Reliable tertiary sources may be used as a matter of policy, and the Encyclopedia Judaica seems to be a widely respected and reputable tertiary source. It is not essential that such sources provide separate footnotes for each of their findings. Your insistence here strikes me as a demand for a shrubbery rather than a serious sourcing concern, and seems particularly arbitrary since you accepted and repeated the claim that Hahn was Catholic with zero sources whatsoever. MastCell ^Talk 20:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Since there are different definitions of Jewish, we should always be explicit what is meant when someone is called Jewish. In this case the sources say he had Jewish ancestry, we should not imply that was his religion, unless a source says so. TFD (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I have added a number of citations to the article, but so far only found one source saying that the subject is of jewish heritage:

• Kurt F. Stone (29 December 2010). The Jews of Capitol Hill: A Compendium of Jewish Congressional Members. Scarecrow Press. p. 24. ISBN 978-0-8108-7738-2.

More than one source say that the subject was born a bastard, to a widower.

The question though I think is whether JVI is a reliable source. IMHO the book provided above is a better source, all things considered, as the editorial status of JVI and fact checking reliability of the source are up in the air. That doesn't mean that the source cannot be used, but the Scarecrow Press published source should be used to back it up.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@Collect:, one thing though, the source says that the subject was Christian, but didn't specify which denomination. Trying to find a source now.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

This source says he is Catholic, but uses Wikipedia as a reference, thus unusable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Alas, Kurt Stone provides zero material indicating that he has any solid basis to label a person as Jewish here -- other than having, apparently, a "Jewish name" which was the criterion of a rather unlamented political party of the last century. Wikipedia has decided on requiring more than "Jewish name" IIRC. For religion, I sugest you look at his obit for the church of his funeral, by the way. Collect (talk) 00:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll give you a pass on the Godwin's Law violation, but it's been pointed out several times now that Encyclopedia Judaica describes Hahn as Jewish, and in fact as the first Jewish governor in the US (22). I would suggest that it's a reliable source for this sort of material. What is your view? MastCell ^Talk 19:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

See response above. An "encyclopedia" which offers no sources at all for its claims is barely even a tertiary source. Like Wikipedia would be if we did not require cites. Collect (talk) 13:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Let us centralize this discussion on the talk page of the article, I have already started a discussion on the subject's religion there.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

HI, another editor and I are having a disagreement about sourcing in the article Mexicans of European descent. Brief intro, then I will show the current content and the content I proposed.

Intro: The content we want to include is about Genetic genealogy in Mexico, particularly for Mexicans of european descent. The current content is based on old, WP:PRIMARY sources, one of which is just a conference abstract. I introduced content from a recent WP:SECONDARY source and it was reverted by Aergas.

In my view, all WP's content policies strongly urge us to use recent secondary sources (see WP:OR and WP:NPOV) as does the WP:RS guideline.

On Talk, Aergas had:

• 1) claimed that the secondary source is "incorrect" because it has sample bias, (see the diff for Aergas' analysis of that, which in my view is WP:OR). When I asked for a source for the analysis and claim that the source is incorrect, Aergas just reiterated his argument that the source is "incorrect".
• 2) He then made an argument that the source is "is focused in Amerindian genetic diversity". I replied that the source is called "Interethnic admixture and the evolution of Latin American populations" and as its abstract says, "A general introduction to the origins and history of Latin American populations is followed by a systematic review of the data from molecular autosomal assessments of the ethnic/continental (European, African, Amerindian) ancestries for 24 Latin American countries or territories.".
• 3) in response to my citing PAG on secondary sources, Aergas wrote that use of secondary sources is "not mandatory" and when I asked for a good reason not to use the recent secondary source, Aergas continued his argument about the secondary source being incorrect due to sample bias.

• current content, with its sources:

Despite that extra-official sources estimate the modern white population of Mexico to be only 9-16%, in genetic studies Mexico consistently shows a European admixture comparable to countries that report white populations of 52% - 77% (in the case of Chile and Costa Rica, who average 51%¹ & 60%² European admixture respectively, while studies in the general Mexican population have found overall European ancestry at 58.96%³ ranging from 56%⁴ to 50-60%,⁵ and up to 78% ⁶).

1. ^ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25052264
2. ^ "Gene admixture in the Costa Rican population". Ann. Hum. Genet. 67 (Pt 1): 71–80. 2013-03-25. doi:10.1046/j.1469-1809.2003.00010.x. PMID 12556237.
3. ^ J.K. Estrada, A. Hidalgo-Miranda, I. Silva-Zolezzi and G. Jimenez-Sanchez. "Evaluation of Ancestry and Linkage Disequilibrium Sharing in Admixed Population in Mexico". ASHG. Retrieved July 18, 2012.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_182
Text je dostupný za podmienok Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 Unported; prípadne za ďalších podmienok. Podrobnejšie informácie nájdete na stránke Podmienky použitia.

---



Navigácia: Veda >

Analytika
Antropológia
Aplikované vedy
Bibliometria
Dejiny vedy
Encyklopédie
Filozofia vedy
Forenzné vedy
Humanitné vedy
Knižničná veda
Kryogenika
Kryptológia
Kulturológia
Literárna veda
Medzidisciplinárne oblasti
Metódy kvantitatívnej analýzy
Metavedy
Metodika

Metodológia vedy
Náboženstvo a veda
Náučná literatúra
Podvody vo vede
Popularizácia vedy
Potravinárstvo
Prírodné vedy
Pseudoveda
Scientometria
Spoločenské vedy
Teórie
Teatrológia
Technické vedy
Technika
Terminológia
Umenie
Výskum

Veda
Veda a technika podľa štátu
Veda a technika podľa kontinentu
Veda a technika podľa roka
Veda v kozme
Vedci
Vedecká literatúra
Vedecké databázy
Vedecké experimenty
Vedecké konferencie
Vedecké metódy
Vedecké ocenenia
Vedecké organizácie
Vedecké parky
Vedeckí spisovatelia
Vzdelávanie
Záhady

Príbuzné výrazy:

---

Text je dostupný za podmienok Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 Unported; prípadne za ďalších podmienok.
Podrobnejšie informácie nájdete na stránke Podmienky použitia.

---

www.astronomia.sk | www.biologia.sk | www.botanika.sk | www.dejiny.sk | www.economy.sk | www.elektrotechnika.sk | www.estetika.sk | www.farmakologia.sk | www.filozofia.sk | Fyzika | www.futurologia.sk | www.genetika.sk | www.chemia.sk | www.lingvistika.sk | www.politologia.sk | www.psychologia.sk | www.sexuologia.sk | www.sociologia.sk | www.veda.sk I www.zoologia.sk

---