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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parlamentní listy is used as a source in a very small number of Eng WP articles .

Doesn't seem particularly reliable to me. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The portion that has been found objectionable by some editors is in italics. It was added after the section (already in the body) was duplicated in the lead and then moved to the body. While this source doesn't speak to the GSL article's political concept (nor does it mention the term) it has been accepted as a reliable source for certain statistical figures, but denied for the 40% figure. GSL is a complex political concept that deals with more than simply "guns bought at gun shows", it also deals with gun laws involving background checks.

• 5

• Gun show loophole

• 6 (already in the body; Additional studies by the Bureau of Justice department of state prison inmates in 1991 and 1997 found that less than one percent of criminals purchased their firearms from gun shows)-(quote in question)"and nearly 40% of State inmates carrying a firearm obtained the weapon without a background check."24" Darknipples (talk) 16:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Assuming source 24 is the PDF then it is authoritative and clearly reliable, but where does it contain the quoted fact? Guy (Help!) 17:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

"'60% of firearms were bought via retail, hence 40% had no background check necessary (non-retail)'. This statement is blatantly incorrect, since, as the article says, '17 states and Washington, D.C. do require background checks for some or all private firearm sales'"

"What you consider 'adding balance', I consider adding possible origanal research. '60% of firearms were bought via retail, hence 40% had no background check necessary (non-retail)' (your statement of sourcing) to turn that into 'and nearly forty percent of state inmates carrying a firearm obtained the weapon without a background check' isn't necessarily true. Even taking that sort of leap, the source lists 13.9% in 91 and 20.8% in 97 (so unless I'm looking in the wrong place though it wouldn't be appropriate to tie the different statistics together in that manner if that's the case) the statistic you listed is incorrect. The other half (which you attempted to add balance to)) "Additional studies by the Bureau of Justice department of state prison inmates in 1991 and 1997 found that less than one percent of criminals purchased their firearms from gun shows" is explicitly true from the source."

"'Where is the quote you decided to leave in place for the reference used?' for Additional studies by the Bureau of Justice department of state prison inmates in 1991 and 1997 found that less than one percent of criminals purchased their firearms from gun shows While I've already explained where Mudwater's addition came from in the source, I'll do it again: It's on the first page; under the 'Highlights' section (green background and white lettering); under the section 'Source of gun' (bold lettering); It is also reiterated to the right of that in the summary paragraph, combined statitstically with flea markets."

Quotes from article's talk page in which the source is used.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 17:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll just refer everyone to pages 1, 6, 8, and 10, of the citation. See the "source of gun" charts, where the "less than one percent" figure comes from, and look right below it. My argument is that excluding this material is setting a double standard on the material used from the source. If the consensus is to reword the quotes used, to better reflect the data, I'm fine with that, but it shouldn't be excluded given it's relevance to the article. Darknipples (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, guns obtained by "Family/Friends/Street/Illegal Sources" did/do not require a background check, as per federal law. Darknipples (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

"obtained the weapon without a background check" ≠ "'Family/Friends/Street/Illegal Sources' did/do not require a background check". See "This statement is blatantly incorrect, since, as the article says, '17 states and Washington, D.C. do require background checks for some or all private firearm sales'". "Hence it isn't 'via a double standard'". "Whether relevant data lines up with a particular side or not shouldn't really be a factor in its inclusion. If the balance is accurate and sourced, it should of course be added. That isn't the case in this instance."—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 21:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

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

• The source in question does not say 40% were purchased without back ground checks. To claim so is WP:OR. Many stats related to firearms are easy to misrepresent and thus great care should be taken. In this case I believe the stat can not be reliably assumed from the source provided. Springee (talk) 00:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

  @Springee: Here is a direct quote from page 1 of the citation. "In 1997 among State inmates possessing a gun, fewer than 2% bought their firearm at a flea market or gun show, about 12% from a retail store or pawnshop, and 80% from family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source." Wouldn't it be prudent to at least include the entire context of the quote, rather than excluding or cherry-picking the data used? The relevance is that retail purchases imply background checks, while private purchases do not. Darknipples (talk) 01:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• I would question the use of the data in that article as dated. The NICS went into effect in 1998. The laws governing transfers in the early to mid 90s are different than those of today. I would generally caution against any use of that data without making it clear that it is old and that many background check laws have changed since that study was conducted. Consider a study citing use of the internet based on data from 1998. That said, including the entire context of any of these stats is important. It would seem that most inmates probably didn't have a personal background check before getting a gun. I believe the 40% claim is the one referred to in these articles that were critical of the president for using it.7. This case illustrates the point that stats can be misleading even when you try to give them full context. Regardless, if the number is at all synthesized it should not be included and given the age of the study and the legal changes since bit's probably misleading to include it at all or at least without a large disclaimer to put the data in historic context. Springee (talk) 02:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

• Just my opinion but : The first part -- NYPost is #6 in the List of newspapers in the United States by circulation. The second part -- Fire.org is an advocacy group. The Coastal College part is just harder to find a RS for as a community college is just not going to get the attention that Stanford does. The policy tied only to it could be self-substantiated by cite to coastal.edu itself. A third party story about it is also at Washington Examiner story, but that seems a conservative tabloid. Markbassett (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The story on the Costal College is pretty new, but is there a policy on whether a conservative paper is not a reliable source because it's conservative? I suppose it could matter on the slant, but the same could be said about Salon.com or the NYTimes which tend to be on the left.Mattnad (talk) 00:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Also the Atlantic Covered Stanford's policies 8, but there's an editor arguing it's an "editorial". My read is it's an article, but even if it were an editorial, is it a reliable source?Mattnad (talk) 02:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

NY Post is certainly a reliable source. But there may be special circumstances for a particular article. This is probably nearly the same for Fire. DaltonCastle (talk) 03:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

"Other editor" here. I think I should clarify: the question I've raised is really whether FIRE's interpretation of sexual assault standards at Stanford can be presented as fact. The claim originates with that organization, but is repeated in a New York Post opinion piece written by a FIRE affiliate. Its also quoted (again, attributed to FIRE) in an essay by Conor Friedsordorf of The Atlantic. To my mind, all three sources really originate from the same place, and none of them can be called "reliable" sources for that statement of fact because none of them actually attempt to independently verify it. Nblund (talk) 04:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd agreed to offer attribution, but here's a point but Nblund didn't mention. Fire included a copy of the Stanford policy which says basically what they say it did. The other sources had opportunity to read that same policy themselves. It's a bit presumptuous to say that neither the NY Post or the Atlantic didn't check any facts, even when providing credit to Fire. If it's covered in Reliable Sources, are we supposed to second guess them? I read the same policy included by Fire and so did Nblund. Here's what it states, 9, "A person is legally incapable of giving consent if under age 18 years; if intoxicated by drugs and/or alcohol;". Even though Nblund read it, and the other sources had it easily available, Nblund still claims nobody checked facts.Mattnad (talk) 10:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

FIRE interprets this to mean that the policy "states that students cannot consent to sex—even with a spouse—if “intoxicated” to any degree.". This is an interpretation, and its one that is disputed elsewhere.

News sources, even generally reliable ones, do sometimes quote things without providing a fact check. For example: this CNN article quotes Donald Trump's Obama birthplace conspiracy beliefs without directly repudiating them. Those claims don't become reliable just because they were quoted in a reliable source. Nblund (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Nblund - NYPost is a RS choosing to carry the content about FIRE and Stanford -- which was the question here at RS/N. It seems also carried in RS Atlantic and RS Wall Street Journal (Taranto piece on Drunkeness and Double Standard) and probably other places. This forum is just for RS/N, wording it is a different matter, more suitable for the article TALK. Markbassett (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I have to chuckle at Nblund's use of an opinion piece in a Blog as a source we should consider, when he/she was so firm that opinion pieces are not reliable sources (double standard?), and if we're talking about bias, Amanda Marcott comes strongly from the viewpoint of victim's advocacy. However, I personally think the Slate Blog does qualify as a reliable source, even if Nblund is selective in reliable source interpretation when it suits him/her. However, I've already stated a willingness to qualify any quotes from Fire. But Nblund seems to be still arguing that any of the several sources are not permissible as fruits from a poisoned tree.Mattnad (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

There's no double standard, I think you're just misinterpreting me. Opinion sources are acceptable sources for opinions. If you're willing to qualify the quote as coming from FIRE -- clearly indicating that its an opinion from an advocacy organization, then I think we have the basis for a compromise. The other sources aren't "poisoned", but the fact that they quoted someone else's opinion doesn't render it any less of an opinion, and it shouldn't be used as a pretense to obscure the original source of that claim. Nblund (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not asking about how to word the statement, I'm questioning whether any of these sources can be used to offer FIRE's interpretation as a fact. How do you figure that the NY Post editorial page is an RS here? You mentioned circulation numbers, but I don't see that criteria anywhere in the RS policy. The policy clearly states that these determinations are context-dependent, so I don't entirely understand how you can give a blanket declaration that any of these sources are reliable.

"Carrying" content is not the same as verifying it, all three of these sources are opinion pieces which essentially just quote FIRE's interpretation of the policy. Can you explain how this is distinct from the CNN example I listed above? Nblund (talk) 19:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• high circulation does not equal reliabilty. the NYP is a tabloid. If they are the only source covering something, warning bells ringing all over. if other more reliable sources are covering it too, we would use the more reliable sources instead. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

WSJ and Atlantic Magazine qualify?Mattnad (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, both of those are in the higher quality realms of sources for most content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I think everyone agrees that the Atlantic and WSJ are generally reliable, but both of the articles in question are opinion pieces and neither one purports to offer independent verification of FIRE's claim -- they just repeat it. Per WP:NEWSORG: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Nblund (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Nblund WP:CONTEXTMATTERS applies of the article usage is at 'criticisms of Clery act' so yes I think opinion pieces are OK. It's still RS of a third-party publisher and verifiable cite meaning WP:V of identified location for publicly available content. Just be careful wording at the article so the cite actually says what is attributed to it and author saying it not the publishers (Atlantic or FIRE or NYPost or WSJ or whoever). Whether the cite is supporting that Taranto said it, or that Taranto is summarizing something said elsewhere or that Taranto is quoting a piece elsewhere -- are three different ref formats. I don't particularly see where the article text itself would need togo into who said it where as that's not a significant part of the criticism and is part of the ref. Markbassett (talk) 17:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

They could possibly be used to cite opinions, but never for facts; and it would be important to determine that those opinions are noteworthy enough to include. In any case, the section in dispute previously used TheFire and the Post to state clearly-contentious facts, which is definitely not acceptable; at best, we could list those as the opinions of specific people, attributing it directly to them in-text. --Aquillion (talk) 02:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

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

I would think the Editorial board of the NY times is a reliable source. But I have some disagreement here. What do you think?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 01:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I would say no, at least not as written... See the WP:NEWSORGS section of the Reliable Sources guideline, which states: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." This is the case for all news sources, not just the NYT. Blueboar (talk) 02:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Not reliable except to describe the editorial board's opinions. They almost always draw their facts from their own news stories. Go find the news story the editorial relied on. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

As Blueboar and DrFleischman have said, opinion pieces and editorial board material are not Reliable Source here at wikipedia, regular news articles at he NYTimes or elsewhere would be fine. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Your thoughts please. I would appreciate comments on whether this URL simply meets RS, because its author does, and the domain name is just not relevant. Secondly, any comments on the unusually thorough nature of its exclusion here. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• This is neither extraordinary nor unprecedented. The .guru domain has been on the blacklist requests pending clearance of mainspace links for a while, I cleaned the last handful today and actioned the request. Business as usual, in fact. Feel free to cite something other than his blog (remember: blogs are not normally usable as sources and are always deprecated when any better alternative exists; where no better alternative exists, consider the possibiklity that the information is not actually significant). Guy (Help!) 15:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

This is not a blog, this is a substantial site. Nor are blogs from recognised authorities in the field considered to be outside RS. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Substantial or not, it is $RANDOMWEBSITE (with forums: do you think them reliable too?) that happens to be attached to a notable source. I don't cite Bad Science, even though Ben Goldacre is an authority in his field, but I would cite him from the BMJ, Guardian or some other website with independent editorial review. You do have a couple of options here, one of which is to find an independent site with editorial oversight with the content you want, the other is to ask at the spam whitelist. Guy (Help!) 17:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

This is not $RANDOMWEBSITE, it's the English language version of a very well established German resource on typography. The publisher and main author is well known and meets WP:RS. Yes there are forums too (as does the BBC and The Times) and although of course I don't consider those RS, nor do I consider them contagious and so "infecting" the rest of the site. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Andy, I recommend that you ask our colleagues to add this site to the whitelist by providing evidence that this site passes WP:SPS as it's written by an expert in the field. Blocking the entire guru tld may be a bit extreme but this isn't a very good venue to argue that and it's probably an uphill battle compared to making an exception for one website. ElKevbo (talk) 01:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

It was listed there MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#typography.guru at the same time as this (see MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#.2A.guru too), but so far there has been no comment. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds. This is an update setting a time for the discussion to end as per WP:Discussion notices and a request for wider participation. This request for comment will most likely close Thursday 6 August 2015. The RfC proposes a one-sentence addition to the "Funding" section of Americans for Prosperity. The main source for the proposed content is a pair of reports in The Washington Post, supported by FactCheck.org and the National Journal. Issues in the appropriate application of our sourcing policies and guidelines remain in the discussion. Attention from editors with some previous experience the appropriate application of our sourcing policies and guidelines is respectfully requested. Generous excerpts from the sources are provided in the statement of the RfC question for your convenience. Please help with this important request for comment. Thank you in advance for your time and attention. Hugh (talk) 16:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

This link is being used in P90X to support the claim that:

Actor Chris Pratt used P90X, alongside activities such as CrossFit, to lose 60 lbs in six months for his role in Guardians of the Galaxy.

I'm not sure if mensfitness.com satisfies either WP:RS or WP:MEDRS.Autarch (talk) 01:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Men's Fitness is a published magazine in the US. Since it's not making any actual medical claims, I'd probably let it go. Unrelated to the question of reliability, I'm really not a fan of "in popular culture" sections, and I don't think there's any encyclopedic value in listing every celebrity who has used P90X. But that's a discussion for the P90X talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

As far as WP:RS it is probably acceptable. But as far as WP:NOTADVERT and WP:UNDUE there are major issues. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I removed the section. Celebrity endorsements should be left to the company's marketing campaigns. --Ronz (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

At the Alliance Defending Freedom article, a court brief held on the organisation's website10 is being used for this edit11 changing "ADF opposes same-sex marriage and civil unions, as well as adoption by same-sex couples based on their belief that children are best raised by a married mother and father." to " ADF opposes same-sex marriage and civil unions, as well as adoption by same-sex couples based on their scientific study-supported belief4 that children are best raised by a married mother and father." I already reverted a change from "belief" to "knowledge" earlier today. Doug Weller (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

No way. A court brief by the organization itself cannot be used to say that it's "scientific study-supported". Especially since all major academic organizations have said otherwise. Moreover, the brief relies heavily on Regnerus' work which has been discredited by the American Sociological Association. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The ADF court brief cites scientific studies. Should those studies be cited directly instead? Of course, citing those studies would then leave out the fact that ADF cited them. I think it's pretty clear as is, especially with the hedge word "belief", what is being communicated here, but then again, I'm the one who made the most recent edit. Michaelmalak (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

No, we should cite the third parties who describe what is in the court brief. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. It's the ADF's claim that these studies support their position, not a fact. That claim would need RS support.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The key omission here is that those studies are themselves highly controversial and have been widely rejected by relevant scientific bodies; at best, such a source could be used to say "based on their belief that children are best raised by a married mother and father. The ADF contends that this belief is supported by scientific evidence; however, these studies have been widely rejected by the scientific community." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree with NBSB. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

That proposed edit is tendentious and does not belong, as pointed out above. This is basically a bit of dumpster-diving being used to support a pre-existing position, it is not an honest scientific inquiry into whether the position is correct or not. Guy (Help!) 10:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Ditto as stated by others above. Obviously not a good source. Primary sources hardly ever are. CorporateM (Talk) 07:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

That item is not ADF speaking nor someone speaking about ADF so it does not fit the article. Markbassett (talk) 16:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

'Sci-st-supported' seems the problem here, if the source supports their 'belief', that is not a problem. The proposed edit seems to be wanting to turn a belief into a fact, which it clearly, in this case, is not. Pincrete (talk) 21:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

And it's been reinstated in another part of the article.12 (with material from the SPLC removed in the next edit, but that's for NPOVN. Doug Weller (talk) 15:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

In some cases primary sources (court documents etc) were used to support the existence fo the documents. In others (e.g. 13) primary sources were used in synthesis - "In some ways the victory over sin doctrine is similar to that taught by reformer John Wesley regarding the new birth" referenced to John Wesley's sermon.

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

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

You are right and I, alas, can do precisely nothing. Collect (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that the doctrinal positions can be legitimately sourced from the Church's official website, on which those positions are displayed. For full disclosure, I am a member of this "tiny, tiny sect," but I do not live in the U.S., so I am not directly involved in the legal dispute over the name. I do note, however, that official websites of religious/political, etc. pages do use their official publications, such as websites, to indicate positions, so I don't see the issue with regard to that specific issue. ◄Zahakiel► 17:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

In addition, if scanned articles from newspapers are unacceptable due to copyright issues, I believe they can be referenced by publication date and retrieval date without scanning their images in violation of copyright. I think that I can clean this up acceptably without violating any rules on several of these points. The same goes for the legal documents used to substantiate the court motions and responses. ◄Zahakiel► 17:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

At most a brief summary could be self-sourced, but no more than that. We need reliable independent sources for the bulk of the text, otherwise it's just an indiscriminate colleciton of information. Articles in real newspapers can indeed be cited to issue date, provided the reference is not synthesis (as many of the references clearly were). Guy (Help!) 20:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a website by International Committee of the Fourth International, a Trotskist organization. Here is an example of publication: 14. It has been used on a BLP page to discredit work by historian about Trotsky diff. My very best wishes (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I wish we had a special policy about the best citations for politics, like we do for medicine. If we had one, I would imagine it would say to avoid any sources like this that are published by an organization whose purpose is to advocate for a political agenda. I vote no on this one. CorporateM (Talk) 23:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

This is an advocacy source. I think such sources might be useful in some cases, however they generally should not be used to discredit their political opponents, especially in BLP context, as in this case. My very best wishes (talk) 23:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this. If WP:WEIGHT is considered, a possible exception could be made for the article by David North (socialist). - Location (talk) 21:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

In this particular case, the historians' letter and aspects of its content appeared in the mainstream Swiss daily Neue Zürcher Zeitung: 15. It seems like the review by Patenaude would be a place for commentary on Service's bio of Trotsky, if more is needed on his page. -Darouet (talk) 04:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

It's a primary self-published source, it does not belong in that article, and is in any case redundant because the meaning of the title is blindingly obvious. Guy (Help!) 12:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay having viewed the Psychology Tommorrow sites information about the site, it seems not the most academic of sites, considering the members of the editorial team and no mention of a critical process for submissions, other than through the editorial team there, I contend the source can't be verified as being relaible as is required. Antrangelos (talk) 13:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Aside from the (very considerable) doubts about the reliability of this source, nowhere does it say WHY 'Mr Big' is so-named. The name could well be a triple/quadruple entendre referring to his physical stature, personality and business status as well as his 'natural endowment', (but how do we know that his name is not an ironic reference to his 'wee willie winkie'?). The use of this material is therefore OR and off-topic since no connection to the character is established at all (and the article isn't about dick-size!).Pincrete (talk) 19:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Currently this book, written by Chad Orzel, assistant professor in the department of physics & astronomy at Union College, 16 is being used in Homeopathy to support the claim that "The use of quantum entanglement to explain homeopathy's purported effects is "patent nonsense", as entanglement is a delicate state which rarely lasts longer than a fraction of a second." and also "While entanglement may result in certain aspects of individual subatomic particles acquiring linked quantum states, this does not mean the particles will mirror or duplicate each other, nor cause health-improving transformations." I am concerned that this source does not meet MEDRS as it is a popular science book, not a medical textbook, and am seeking further input on whether this source is reliable and if so how much weight it should be given. Everymorning talk 18:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Anyone wanting to suggest that the latest buzzword (such as quantum entanglement) might be useful in the description of a claimed medical treatment needs a WP:MEDRS. Anyone wanting to point out that the claim is nonsense needs only WP:REDFLAG. Johnuniq (talk) 07:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

As always when the righteousness of a potential source is requested, the answer should be "what do you want to say using this source?" -Roxy the dog™ (Talk to the dog who doesn't know when her owner is coming home) 07:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The source is reliable for the statement. Serious, scholarly works on quantum theory do not discuss homeopathy, because it is patent nonsense (aside: I particularly like Jim Al-Khalili's tweet: "Let me make this very clear: if you think QM allows for homeopathy, psychic phenomena, ESP etc then you'd better take a proper course in QM"). It's clear that homeopathists do engage in quantum flapdoodle, so it's legitimate to cite a popular science book written fomr a perspective of demonstrable competence in the field, in rebuttal of such claims. Guy (Help!) 20:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The statement is by a physics professor in a popular science book, which is sufficient to address WP:FRINGE claims. These claims are by definition not significantly accepted in the scientific community for someone to bother writing an article in a scientific journal about them. Kingsindian ♝♚ 11:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Wrong. 17 18 19 Everymorning talk 15:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Everymorning please look at the 2nd ref you propose there. I think you will strike it when you actually read it. The 3rd ref is an editorial by a guy who works for a company that sells homeopathic remedies, so not good in that it is an editorial, and also from the not-independent front. the first one is indeed a paper in a journal (one focused on alt-med) and presents a model for how quantum theory could apply. this does refute Kingsindian's argument (which he shouldn't have made, since the scientific literature is full of kinds of stuff) but it doesn't make the claim that homeopathy works by quantum entanglement any more sound or accepted. It remains a FRINGE idea. This is nothing at all like understanding the roles various ion channels play in long QT syndrome which is based on solid science. It is way, way out there. Please recognize that. I note that a pubmed search for reviews finds 14 reviews - 6 of them are from the same "metaphor" series as your 2nd one. The other 8 are all in homeopathy journals - not main stream ones. And the most recent one of those (PMID 24439452) says "Other theoretical approaches based on quantum entanglement and on fractal-type self-organization of water clusters are more speculative and hypothetical." So even in the field, which is itself fringey, QE notions are considered "out there". this really is just Quantum mysticism - religion and not science...and yes WP:PARITY applies. Jytdog (talk) 16:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

I believe there are a few points for consideration. First of all, the only reference to The High and the Mighty on the page is this: "Ernie Gann, the writer of numerous books, including Island in the Sky and thee sic High and the Mighty, was one of the pilots for Transocean Airlines." In other words, this is a "failed verification". Secondly, Stich's websites are all self-published. Thirdly, per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodney Stich, he is a non-notable, but prolific author of fringe works. There are no reliable secondary sources discussing him as an expert in aviation. Finally, there are various other much better sources of a less dubious nature that could be used in place of Stich, including the airline's alumni association. I attempted to place a citation to a reliable secondary source published by a third party (diff), but this was reverted by User:Centpacrr (diff) with the reasoning that Stich has "demonstrated expertise in a subject". Please comment on the reliability of Stich and whether or not it is preferable to use another. Thanks! - Location (talk) 02:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• It has been my understanding that the community has long since determined that Stich is not a reliable source. He is a well known (some might say notorious) purveyor of fringe conspiracy theories on a wide range of subjects. I fully support that consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Replacing this with a better source is fine, but that was not reflected in either Location's edit summary nor did he/she explain his/her actions in talk so I was left in the dark as to what he/she meant by "Stitch" being a "fringe" source. Anyway all that the Stitch source seemed to me to be supporting was that Transocean Airlines existed and that Gann had been a pilot for that carrier which I don't see as controversial. I knew nothing about any other issues about him as being unreliable and they were not explained when the ref was removed and replaced with a cite source tag. Centpacrr (talk) 04:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• I assumed my edit summary would have prompted you to take a closer look at http://www.defraudingamerica.com/stich_bio.html to see that it is of dubious reliability, especially when compared to the one I provided. I should not have made that assumption, and for doing so I apologize. - Location (talk) 04:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

I have read many other of Stich's accident summaries and if it serves his purpose to condemn United Airlines pilot training, over and over, he paints a seriously flawed picture of what really happened. He was an FAA on site pilot training inspector at United Airlines for awhile. But, after he continually disrupted UAL's Pilot training schedules, by insisting they employ some of his own special ideas and methods, he was finally removed from that job by the FAA itself. Ever since, he has published as much negative, hateful and distorted diatribes against UAL as he can muster up ("He discovered a practice of hardcore corruption of key people at United Airlines and even worst by people in higher positions within the government agency responsible for aviation safety. People were repeatedly dying—in a horrific manner—because of the continuing corruption." 20). Virtually every UAL accident that has happened, including the two on 9-11, was caused by illegal and criminal coverups by officials in UAL's flight training dept, according to Stich. It seems that almost everything that he does not like is motivated by some conspiracy against him and his brilliant ideas. Frankly, I don't think he plays with a full deck. EditorASC (talk) 07:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Is 21 "Back to Weber" (book review) a strong reliable source for the Jeffrey Elman BLP?

This review states

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

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

In short - is this book review a strong reliable source for the claim in the BLP

"In 2009 Elman sent a letter to a professor in the UCSD Sociology Department regarding an academic dispute with a colleague; the letter instructed the sociologist not to publish a manuscript criticising the colleague and threatened him with censure, salary reduction or dismissal if he continued the dispute"

Clearly the book review is a reliable source for the opinions of Dylan Riley (sociologist) (Associate Professor Sociology at UC Berkeley), the reviewer, about the book, but I doubt myself that this applies to any contentious claims of fact about a third party. At best, this would be a tertiary source, as Riley is not noted as a reporter. Opinions thereon? Collect (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed academic journals of this sort are sources of the highest quality. The journal (its editors) are evidently willing to stand behind the statements made in articles there; if the statements in question are incorrect, then the journal should retract that article. That has not happened, and indeed it's not apparent that Elman has even requested it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

And it is good for the purposes of the magazineperiodical - the discussion of sociology as covered in books. But is it a reliable source for claims of threats by a third party?

If it is not a reliable source per WP:RS for claims about a third party, the cavil that the third party has not requested a retraction (Pray tell -- how the heck can we know as Wikipedia editors that someone did not do something?) is useless.

It is certainly a valid source for information about the reviewer's opinions about the book and sociology, but the "threat letter" is not, IMO, in that class -- the claim at issue is not about the content of the book or the opinions of the reviewer as an expert on sociology, but is a contentious claim about a third party entirely, and as such is not something the reviewer is reasonably a "reliable source" for. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Your use of the word "magazine" in this context betrays a lack of understanding of what kind of source this is. I also wonder whether you have read the entire article... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I grew up in an older time when the old French-derived term (from "storehouse") was sufficient ("journal" was a "record of daily prayers") - I bow to your esteemedness and use "periodical" now as specifically apropos here. Collect (talk) 00:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

If this is the best source we have for this, I have to suggest that it is at least open to question whether it merits inclusion at all, regardless of whether we accept it as RS. If there is a 'controversy', where are the other sources for it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

In a separate newspaper article -- as appearing on our article here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

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

I spent a little while looking, these are the best sources I could find (other than the book review linked above): 2223242526. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Of which none are sufficient for stating as a fact that a threat was made. Sorry fellows - this is a contentious claim about a living person and must be absolutely solidly backed. Right now, it looks more like the examples found in User:Collect/BLP than is comfortable. And before you make claims about sources, read the one you gave: "In a letter, Mr. Elman told Mr. Biernacki he was concerned the manuscript would damage reputations and its publication would be considered “harassment.”" Which does not appear to be a "threat" or back such a term at all.

Another you claim backs "threat" says :"A faculty committee at the University of California at San Diego examined that question in a report this week that finds that a dean responded to a dispute between two professors by telling one not to publish or speak out about the other's research". Which is basically what Elman has said.

Your Union-Tribune article says: " . But his concern, according to his letter to Biernacki, was that Biernacki’s research and manuscript "may damage the reputation of a colleague and therefore may be considered harassment."" Which again is in accord with fact. What is the problem is the claim that in any way Elman made threats of any sort.

Nor do any of the sources rise to a level showing that this is a major issue for a person who wrote the letter as Dean and as being appropriate when there was a dispute between professors. In short - it simply is WP:UNDUE at best, and violative of WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:BLP in all likelihood from the above comments. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC) Collect (talk) 00:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

They're not "my" sources Collect - Andy asked if other were sources were available, so I posted what I'd found as I was looking into this. I have yet to take a position on whether this should be in the article on Elman or not. That said, though, I'm a bit puzzled to see you suggest that there's no evidence of Elman "threatening" Biernacki in the sources:

• This one says "The order also threatened Biernacki with termination if he were to request data from the National Science Foundation," and
• This one says "Elman wrote Biernacki a letter ordering him not to publish his work or discuss it at professional meetings. Doing so, Elman wrote, could result in 'written censure, reduction in salary, demotion, suspension or dismissal.'"
• This one says that Elman's letter "stated that Biernacki could be fired."
• This one says that Elman told Biernacki "he would face discipline if he sought publication of a manuscript criticizing a departmental colleague and others in his field."

As for whether or not Elman's actions were "appropriate when there was a dispute between professors," I'm sorry but for a Dean to order one of his professors not to publish their research is unheard of and very obviously inappropriate. That's why the faculty committee that looked into this concluded that "the dean’s letter contains clear and unacceptable violations of core academic freedom rights." Fyddlestix (talk) 01:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

If you wanted to keep this info out of the article, you'd be much better off arguing that these don't meet the criteria for RS, or arguing that there just aren't enough of them to warrant inclusion (I'm still on the fence on that question personally) than trying to argue that the sources don't say something which they very clearly do. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

This is very well sources. I see no reason to exclude it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Elman here. I think the question should be not simply whether a source is reliable, but also for what information it can serve as a reliable source. For example, an op-ed that harshly criticizes Obamacare would be a valid source for the statement "Obamacare has come under harsh criticism for being ineffective" but not for the statement "Obamacare is ineffective." The journal article in this case expresses an analysis and opinion, but this and the additional sources referred to above all derive from a single UT San Diego article. That article was incomplete, and for example did not include reference to other letters I sent to the professor clarifying that I was not threatening him with sanction, prohibiting him from publication, etc. (I sent these when it seemed that he had misunderstood my initial letter.) And because this was a personnel matter under review, I was told by university counsel that it would be improper at that time for me to make public comments. Kk1892 (talk) 16:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

You have asserted (e.g. at ANI) that the SD-UT reporter(s) did not contact you to ask for your perspective ("no attempt to contact me to provide my explanation or a fuller accounting of the facts"). Now it appears (via implication) that the newspaper did contact you. This is one reason we rely on published sources, not on personal accounts... What is the basis for your assertion that the article in CS is based on the SD-UT article? Riley doesn't say that this is where/how he got the information. As for "opinion", Riley isn't expressing an opinion, he is reporting a fact: "Jeff Elman, the dean of Social Sciences at the University of California, San Diego sent Biernacki a letter in June of 2009 ordering him not to publish his manuscript or present findings from it at professional conferences. The letter also threatened Biernacki with censure, salary reduction, or dismissal if he continued." It's pretty unambiguous. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Not sure how you are drawing the inference that the SD-UT did contact me. They do not say they did and I say they did not. No one has said otherwise. My assertion that the CS article was based on the U-T article is that to my knowledge they are the only primary source for this claim. Riley's "report" of a fact does not make it a fact (the fact is his assertion). That is, multiple repetitions of a single source do not provide independent evidence. Yes, you should regard my statements with caution and balanced against other evidence; that does not mean they should be disregarded or assumed to necessarily be untruthful! Kk1892 (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

From the article: "Elman did not respond to a request for comment." (link) Your post above indicating that university counsel advised you not to make a public comment would help explain why you did not respond to the newspaper's request -- but it is evidently untrue that they did not contact you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

You are making an inference not supported by the posts above. And saying a person said something "evidently untrue" when it is clear that you misapprehended their clear post is interesting. Lastly, Riley is not a good source for a claim of fact here - he is, at best, a tertiary source. Collect (talk) 19:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Collect, you should stick to things you might hope to understand. Kk1892 has said (at least once and possibly several times) that the SD-UT did not contact him to ask for comment. The SD-UT article contains the quote I gave just above: "Elman did not respond to a request for comment." This makes it evidently untrue that "they do not say they did" (as Kk1892 asserts). It's also interesting that you think Riley is a "tertiary source"... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

You show that he disagrees with their claim that they specifically contacted him - but your assertion is that the Riley claim must be true, therefore Elman's claim must be false. That dichotomy places a great deal of faith in the absolute truthfulness of the source you wish to use, and a total belief in Elman's absolute untruthfulness. As Riley is not a reporter, one might reasonably think his "statement of fact" was quite likely based on one of the published secondary sources - and as I understand it, a source specifically based on secondary sources is, by Wikipedia's definition, a "tertiary source." Collect (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

You are conflating different sources, and so I'm not going to continue to discuss it with you unless you can show you've got a correct understanding of what you're discussing. You're just wasting other editors' time now. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not "conflating different sources" and I find your demeanour here to be quite remarkable, indeed. And I rather think that accusing editors of not understanding that which they most assuredly do understand is not precisely "collegial" on Wikipedia. Apparently your mileage varies a great deal. Collect (talk) 20:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Collect - I agree with Nomo. You are twisting policy/guidelines here and making this into a battleground. You came here for other opinions. You got them and they disagree with you. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Indeed. In my understanding of how book reviews normally work is that they're more akin to editorials than to news articles and aren't usually subject to review by anyone except one or more editors. I don't know how this particular journal operates but there is a lot of variance in how book reviews can operate in peer-reviewed journals ranging from invited reviews from well-known scholars to uninvited reviews from relatively unknown scholars hoping to build their CV e.g., graduate students, relatively new assistant professors. But the general point is that not everything in a peer-reviewed journal has necessarily undergone the same level of scrutiny and is given the same level of importance. This is not really a comment on the reliability of the review, at least in the way that we use that term in Wikipedia, but on how much weight we should (not) give it. ElKevbo (talk) 01:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Reviews for a journal like this would be by invitation of the publication's editor (or maybe their reviews editor). Only established, respected scholars with relevant expertise would be asked to write such a review. It's true that the review might not be peer reviewed, however it would have gone through a rigorous editorial review by multiple people before it went to press. It's not like book reviews in such publications regularly contain false or misleading statements of fact. Quite the opposite: journals of this nature are among the most reliable sources that we could hope to use.

Also, remember that this is just one source of about 6 that all say pretty much the same thing. There's no reason (other than Elman's objection) to question the claim that it's being cited to support. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• It would be ever so lovely if editors could actually make an attempt to learn something about the matter they wish to comment on. I said earlier that this journal is peer reviewed. That's because it is in fact peer reviewed. You could learn this by taking a look at the journal home page: http://csx.sagepub.com, "An official journal of the ASA, peer-reviewed and published bi-monthly." The entire journal is reviews of books; it's not the more usual journal format where there are peer-reviewed articles and non-reviewed book reviews. Book reviews in this journal are peer-reviewed. So, the source we are discussing here is in fact peer reviewed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 01:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification and apologies for missing that info earlier, Nomoskedasticity and Fyddlestix!

Like many requests on this noticeboard, this source passes muster as a reliable source. But the question of due weight must also be addressed and that's probably best done elsewhere e.g., the article's Talk page, an explicit RfC if Talk page discussions are fruitless. I recommend closing this discussion so further discussion, if necessary, can focus more directly on other issues. ElKevbo (talk) 02:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I started a discussion thread at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#WP:OR_-vs-_WP:RS and would appreciate if those who are familiar with these 2 policies/guidelines would chime in. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 17:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Can the GT350R lap time be included? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• In the List of Nürburgring Nordschleife lap times article the GT350R lap time is however referenced to the Official Nürburgring website – so why should we discuss either horsepowerkings or EVO in this context? --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Whoever added it to the article included "(official website)" beside the link, however there's nothing official about this website; as BlueEyedSuicide has pointed out, it's a fan site, and it's not used as a source for any of the other times that we list. It shouldn't be used for this one, either. The actual official website is 27, and it does not host lap times. So my question is whether the Evo source in this case can be considered reliable (thus replacing the unreliable one); if not then the information should be removed. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• OK, thanks, sorry for the misunderstanding. I've changed the ref to the EVO webpage for the time being, seems the most preferable source among the available ones, but whether it's enough I couldn't say (not familar with the field). --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

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

P.S- I apologize for my ignorance on how to sort and edit my replies!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, then reliable source or not, the lap time doesn't meet the stated selection criteria, and it merits removal on that basis. Sorry that I didn't see that before. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering if LewdGamer is a reliable source NSFW Link. I noticed it was cited in Momiji (Ninja Gaiden), Kasumi (Dead or Alive), and Kasumi (Dead or Alive), but I did not see it listed on the lists here. I just want to make sure if it qualifies as RS or not, so I came here to get consensus from other editors. The content being sourced in the aforementioned articles is as follows (order respective of articles mentioned):

Momiji also appears in Studio FOW's unofficial CGI-animated pornographic film Kunoichi - Broken Princess.16

and

Despite warnings from Team Ninja to not do it or no more Dead or Alive games will be released for the PC, modders quickly released a topless version of Momiji in Last Round.84

;

...and one fan-made mod for DOA5 modified her training suit to remove most of the clothing.58

and

It is a CG-animated production and its full title is KUNOICHI - Broken Princess.129

;

Despite a warning from Team Ninja that no more DOA games would be released for the PC if the modding community released DOA5 mods that are not designed for "good and moral" play, nude models of Ayane were quickly created by members of the forum Lustful Illumination.172

--DSA510 Pls No Level Up 00:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Although the site was newly formed, the About Us page looks promising: "a dedication to accuracy, a pursuit towards objectivity..." They don't appear to have any overt editorial agenda. The items it's being used as a citation for look mundane enough. I think I might lean towards it being acceptable, so long as it's not used to make an article about a video game focus unreasonably on the sexual aspects. CorporateM (Talk) 23:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for the answer! --DSA510 Pls No Level Up 02:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

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

I've noticed BoxOfficeIndia is the quoted source for box office collections for a number of hindi movies(including PK). Why are their numbers for Bajrangi Bhaijaan not being considered authentic then ? http://www.boxofficeindia.com/Details/art_detail/bajrangibhaijaanclosinginon500croreworldwide#.VbsXEROqr_i Is there an exhaustive list of trusted sources for box office collections for Indian movies ? Sbhowmik89 (talk) 14:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed once before, so that discussion might come in handy now. —SpacemanSpiff 14:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd say none of the issues put forth then have been resolved. The consensus there seems like it was not a reliable source but either "include it because it's the best we got" or "don't because it's not." In this case, we have an actual (somewhat) reliable source so I don't think we should replace a reliable source with one we know is not reliable under the basis that it's "better". I'll make a mention of this at the Indian cinema taskforce and hopefully we get some more insight from them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Second, the past discussion had numerous individuals who acknowledged that the source does not qualify under our WP:RS guidelines but argued that it should be used because it was being extensively used and/or under the belief that nothing reliable existed and this was the best option. I'd say that the use of a source incorrectly (like we did with IMDb) does not grandfather that source from the RS requirements. Further, in this particular case, we have a current RS (namely the article citing 400 crore) which is probably outdated and not totally reliable but it is a better source than a three-paragraph posting from "Box Office India Trade Network" with no evidence of who that is. I say we wait a few more days until one of the newspapers and more reliable sources provide box office results rather than go around with the daily figures of alleged box offices returns. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• • • Support Ricky81682 and the analysis. We need to use only sources that have actually demonstrated a reputation for reliability, accuracy, fact checking and editorial oversight. particularly in the area of Indian box office where one of the top national news agencies gave up attempting to maintain a regular box office column because they could not sustain an accurate representation.28. these fly by night websites surely need more to be posted on the web to be considered reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Further comment: as to the "reliable sources" quoted in the prior RSN discussion by User:Relata refero, the links are largely dead but not one of them are relevant to the discussion of whether boxofficeindia.com is a reliable source. This link is citing www.bosnetwork.com and ibossnetwork.com on page 30. This link cites the IBOS network and OBS on page 49. This page cites IBOSnetwork on page 9. I suspect User:Relata refero was arguing that the information was important therefore we can bypass the usual RS criteria due to the importance of said information (which I don't think is in line with policy and odd since it was evidence that there are reliable source that are in use but those haven't been used for whatever reason). It's particularly irrelevant in this case when we do have reliable sources (even if they are a few days or hours or whatever behind which is natural). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

As discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Box Office India (2nd nomination), there is a boxofficeindia.co.in, which is a legitimate trade magazine, so it may just be intentional confusion here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:04, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

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

articles affected:

• Demographics of atheism
• List of Christian thinkers in science
• Relationship between religion and science
• List of Jewish Nobel laureates
• Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine
• Religiosity and education
• List of Muslim Nobel laureates
• Christian
• Christianity
• Lists of Christians
• Role of the Christian Church in civilization
• Protestant culture

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

Johnuniq (talk) 07:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

By the way,even other studies have shown similar numbers too for Christians and Jews so the numbers are corroborated in other resources. For example, according to a study that was done by University of Nebraska–Lincoln in 1998, 60% of from 1901 to 1990 had a Christian background. Nobel prize winners in physics from 1901 to 1990 and for Jews, we have many sources saying they make up about 20% on average of the Nobel prizes in the sciences 29, 30, and of course others are in the Jewish Nobel prize page.Mayan1990 (talk) 08:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I await with interest attempts to compare skirt lengths to the price of gold. -Roxy the dog™ (Talk to the dog who doesn't know when her owner is coming home) 07:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The source in question is Baruch Aba Shalev's 100 Years of Nobel Prizes. I think it's a totally unreliable source. It has no information about the author's information-gathering; it contains kooky stuff like analysis of Nobel winners' astrological signs; it underwent no peer review-- etc, etc. PepperBeast (talk) 08:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The book of course has a bibliography at the end. It helps to read the actual source (there is an updated 4th edition now) as it is a statistical analysis and all the info and data is there for anyone to see. The author is a well established geneticist with +200 research publications, and his study even has endorsements from two Nobel laureates such as Henry Kissinger and Shimon Peres. On top of that the numbers in the book do reflect similar findings to other sources already cited above. Looks like WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Mayan1990 (talk) 08:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

All your hand waving doesn't elevate this book to the level of a reliable source. Does it tell us how many of the alleged christian winners were male, circumcised and of the gemini persuasion? Enquiring minds want to know? -Roxy the dog™ (Talk to the dog who doesn't know when her owner is coming home) 08:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Roxy, as amusing as I find that, you're not exactly helping.

Mayan: the fact that he's a respected geneticist might mean something if this were a book on genetics; it isn't. The fact that he does statistical analysis doesn't mean much without any explanation on how he got his data. Endorsements don't mean anything. PepperBeast (talk) 08:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Appreciate that Pepperbeast. Anyways, the details are in the book of course. Where else would it be? His analysis is his analysis. All that is needed is attribution. We as editors can only reflect what the sources bring to us. We are not given the task of being detectives beyond what the sources provide us. Statistical analysis is not hard to do especially with readily available biographies and such. You can check it out yourself. It is of course interesting that his findings are consistent with other findings already above. Also looking at the original publisher: Atlantic Publishers, they write "Atlantic Publishers and Distributors Pvt Ltd, established in 1977, is known for quality academic, professional and general publishing. It is also India’s leading distributor of books from across the globe, partnering world's leading publishers in Science & Technology, Management, Humanities and Social Sciences." Good enough for me. Mayan1990 (talk) 09:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Why isn't it helping. I'm just pointing out the absurdity of Ramos' source, you know, the one Ramos is edit-warring to keep in the article. See? -Roxy the dog™ (Talk to the dog who doesn't know when her owner is coming home) 09:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I want a nobel prize, so I'm going to move north, to the Faroe Islands. Does anybody else not know the difference between correlation and causation? -Roxy the dog™ (Talk to the dog who doesn't know when her owner is coming home) 11:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

One question... are these categories really mutually exclusive? Can't someone be an agnostic Christian, or an agnostic Jew? Blueboar (talk) 13:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Agnostic Jew certainly. Agnostic Christian if you include cultural Christians like Richard Dawkins in that category. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

...or Nontheist Quakers and others who practice Christian atheism. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Something else that would add context to the statistics would be to normalize them according to what percent of people self-identified as each religion (or no religion) at the time the awards were given. Nobel prizes have been given out since around the turn of the 20th century, when it was much less common for people to self-identify as not belonging to a religion. For example, Gallup surveys about religious identification only go back to 1948, but at that point the number that answered that they had no religious affiliation was 2% (vs. 16% in 2014). I'm not saying we should use Gallup for these purposes, especially because I think it only surveyed people in the US, but it further questions just how meaningful the data is. Normalized, it may be that the proportionality (which seems like the likely motivation for including the data in the first place) is significantly different. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, I am not edit warring. Originally, Pepperbeast deleted the source without proper justification. Since he was removing it and I had told him to discuss first since it was a reliable source, the correct procedure was to leave the source in all the articles and discuss it like we have over here and then make a decision. Now, no one here has provided a correct justification for removal of the source. The source provides actual numbers and the original publisher Atlantic Publisher and Distributors is not an issue. On their site they say: Atlantic Publishers and Distributors Pvt Ltd, established in 1977, is known for quality academic, professional and general publishing. It is also India’s leading distributor of books from across the globe, partnering world's leading publishers in Science & Technology, Management, Humanities and Social Sciences. At any point of time, Atlantic has more than 50,000 titles on its shelves in varying subjects. It has a strong network of channel partners consisting of sub-distributors, booksellers and library vendors spread across the country. Atlantic is a regular supplier of books to libraries of leading universities, IITs, NITs and institutions in India." Just like any study, attribution should be given. There is every reason to keep the book since the author on top of it is a well stablished scientiist too and even 2 Nobel Laureates endorsed the study. Simply put there is no basis for removal.Mayan1990 (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

It took me a second to figure out that you are Ramos1990. You are the only one arguing that this source is OK. If you think you are not edit warring, please continue, and you will end up at 3RR and very likely blocked. You will do as you will. Jytdog (talk) 18:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Appreciate you concern, but everyone was already calmed down and following the correct procedure since me and Pepperbeast were already en route to resolving the issue while leaving the articles as they were before changing them. In any case, there is not basis for the removal, I am afraid. Most of the issue here has been WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but this is not really a good reason for removing it. The issue looks resolved already. If no one provides a solid reason for objecting, then will re-add the source eventually. Mayan1990 (talk) 18:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

No one here finds this a reasonable reference to use, in the way you have been using. Can you not see that? The correlation is ridiculous and adding content about it is UNDUE. Jytdog (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

?? Ok fair enough, then since you said in the way I have been using it, how would you use it? The book clearly mentions numbers like any other statistical study and the way is was cited was in those numbers only. What is the issue? In none of those articles was anyone saying that Nobel Prizes cause people to be Christians or Jews, it merely showed the distribution according to the source and was pretty straight forward and flat. Now Rhododendrites has mentioned the Gallup study. A general way of using any statistical study is to merely put in the numbers in terms of demographic distribution as found in the sources. Probably the safest approach to these things. The ref was used in a straight forward and neutral fashion as far as I can see. Your issue and others as well, is WP:IDONTLIKEIT but this is not a good reason. Attribution should resolve any issue you think about "UNDUE", considering that there is no issue involving a violation of wikipedia policy in terms of WP:RS. The only complaints here have been what some people supposedly don't like and this if course is unreasonable. Mayan1990 (talk) 18:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Srsly, Ramos? We were not en route to resolving the issue because you won't address the quality of the source. You keep calling other people's objections WP:IDONTLIKEIT without adding any reasons why this should be considered WP:RELIABLE. So I'm happy to have it discussed here, where at least there's some chance of consensus. And my name isn't ‘Pepperblast‘. PepperBeast (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ramos1990: Statistics are added to a Wikipedia article in order to explain a subject that the statistics help to quantify. In other words, the only reason to add statistics to an article like relationship between religion and science is if they help to explain the relationship between religion and science. Incorporating these statistics thus communicates a connection between religion and receiving a Nobel prize. The point people are making (or at least the point I'm taking away from this thread -- and which I agree with) is that while the book itself may be a reliable source for lots of things, these statistics are not sufficient to support the conclusion we're meant to draw from them. It sounds like you're saying this is a well-known and respected book/author (multiple editions, lots of publications), so maybe a good next step would be to search for other reliable sources which provide explanation/interpretation of these statistics in such a way that more explicitly sheds light on the relationship between e.g. religion and science beyond simply correlation (and thus WP:DUE to include). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Ramos, how would I use it? I wouldn't use it. What is point of the table? (also a real question) Jytdog (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not in favor of using a table on any article, the first person on this thread introduced so I merely summarized a bit from the source using the same format. I am only advocating the simple % being mentioned in any article.Mayan1990 (talk) 01:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Meh. What is the point of mentioning the percentage? Jytdog (talk) 02:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

First, it's important to point out that simply because the author is an established academic doesn't make everything he publishes usable as a source. Published material gets its reputability from the reputation of the publisher in the field; a paper published in a physics journal isn't automatically a useful source for sociological statements like this. Second, the core problem isn't the numbers themselves, it's the implicit assertion of significance to this specific measure (ie. a non-normalized nose-counting percentage check based on this specific timeframe, in these specific religious categories, for these specific Nobel prizes in these specific fields.) This source is not enough to justify the assertion that these numbers are relevant, quite apart from whether they are accurate or not. What do they mean? What are they trying to say? We need a usable secondary source that can analyze them and answer those questions if they're going to be included; and I'm not seeing that here. A secondary concern I'd have, looking over that fairly long list of articles, is that it feels like this one source is being given WP:UNDUE weight by inserting it into as many articles as possible; even if we were to cover the author's opinions on the statistics in one article, many of the articles listed aren't really places where it makes sense. None of these are even physics-related articles -- why was this put in Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine? Likewise, just because he mentioned Muslims in passing as part of his numbers, say, doesn't really make this an appropriate thing to include in List of Muslim Nobel laureates. --Aquillion (talk) 05:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The major problem here is that the implication of being a religious believer in science has changed beyond recognition over the last century. In 1901 the default was for most people in the West to have a religion of some kind, and Americans and Britons (two leading sources of Nobelists) were almost exclusively either Christian or (a minority) Jewish, even if they were not observant - and there were considerable social consequences to declaring oneself as non-religious. These days a significant minority of the population of both countries identify as atheist. On the whole this looks like an attempt to shoehorn religion into a place where it is not relevant other than as a possible stalking horse for creationism. Guy (Help!) 07:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

As far as i see the book is a reliable source, some of the participants here say there is no need to add the numbers, and it not necessarily to mention the percentage, but it's been mentioned in these articles the percentage of Jews among Nobel Prize winners and has been mentioned figures and ratios and data (note that determine of who is a Jewish it's harder and more complicated than the identification of Christians), in each of the article as Religiosity and education and Relationship between religion and science has been mentioned percentage from primary sources about the non-believers scientists (it's been mentioned in several article that: "Science academies in the United States and the United Kingdom have found that 7 percent of members of the National Academy of Science in the U.S. had a belief in God or higher power and only 5.3 percent of Fellows of the Royal Society of London believed in a personal God.") so what all this problem to mentions the percentage of christians or Atheist, agnostics, and freethinker among the Nobel prize winneres (it's only show percentage)? Beyond that many of the scientists and Nobel Prize winners in years before 1950 they announced that they are atheists, such as Maria Skłodowska-Curie, So I can not find a single problem of mention that percentage, why then mention the percentage of Jews among Nobel Prize winners or the percent athiest among the members of the National Academy of Science is relelvent while the percentage of christians or Atheist, agnostics, and freethinkers among Nobel Prize winners is irrelevant?.--Jobas (talk) 08:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's take one of the factoids: Christians won 72.5% of the prizes in chemistry. What does that mean? Three quarters of the Nobel prize winners for chemistry had a Christian belief, or were declared Christian in childhood, or were raised in a "Christian" country, or regularly attended a Christian church for worship, or what? I just arbitrarily clicked ten names at Template:Nobel Prize in Chemistry for 1901–2000 and searched each article for "Christian". There were no hits (apart from the use of that word as a name). Are our articles missing important information regarding the prize winners, or is the source claiming that 72.5% of them are Christian bogus? What other source verifies the claim? If no other source discusses the matter, why should we? Christian tells us that a "Christian is a person who adheres to Christianity, an Abrahamic, monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth." Is it likely that 72.5% of chemistry prize winners satisfied that definition, and if it is true, why do our articles not mention it? Johnuniq (talk) 10:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Many of the the prizes in chemistry were christian many were jewish and many were atheist, Some of these christians were nominally christians (but they did not cliams to be an atheist- they consider themselves as christians) some were religous one. but both declered as christians, just becouse some of wikipeida articles dosen't mention that dosent that mean at all they are not christians, it's not really hard to find more information about these winners you will find many of them many at least were nominal christians.

What about the percentage of Jews among Nobel Prize winners? Some of them they convert to Christianity some were totally atheist and non-religious some even were of Jewish descent (even they or their parent's didn't even raised as Jewish) and still these percentage of jewish nobel prize winneres show in many articles in wikipedia. And now we have percentage from a source that you call it "reliable source" and percentages that you said about it "statistics are impecable". And the book it self gave references In the end (Many of the information are documented and in the end, these ratios is a collection of data for the Nobel Prize biography), if there was a Nobel Prize was noted that he was a Christian and there are references and sources. I do not think that our work is also to see and to chick if he was a ture Christian believer or nominally Christian or the degree of his faith in Jesus (example: many soruces show mention that Brian Kobilka is a catholic so he is catholic i don't think it our work to discuss how catholic he is or if he is only nominal or church regular attender) the same go here there been statistics about Nobel prize winners show also percentage of christians (include nominal and religious one, with references) so This is not our work to discusses who is a "ture believer" and who is not a "ture" Christian. and by the way this not the only soruce that give infortmation about the "Nobel laureates by religion ", there been different studies as the study Nobel prize winners in physics from 1901 to 1990 that done by the University of Nebraska–Lincoln in 1998, or books as Scientific Elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States by Harriet Zuckerman or the reviews of these books as the article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and nearlly all gives similar percentages, So this not the Only source. So in the end i think it should be mentioned christian background or that this group it's inclued (nominal and relgious chrisitan winners).--Jobas (talk) 10:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The author is an established academic, he is book is about different information about Nobel prize winners. there nationalities, the years, the females who got the nobel prize, birth of dates, the university affiliation of the nobel prize winners and religions of these winners, and these informations are documented, and the author is not trying to say anything it's only a book gave different infortmation about nobel prize winners and the author is not even a Christian.--Jobas (talk) 11:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The author is an established academic in the wrong field. He's a geneticist, published here in a physics journal; that doesn't make him a reliable source for statements about statistics or sociology. But more importantly, your argument that he's "not trying to say anything" is actually part of the problem. If he were a sociologist, historian, or other expert in the field providing some meaningful statement with these numbers, then we could rely on that interpretation; but as it stands, it feels like users are posting these statistics in an attempt to make their own personal arguments by proxy. This is original research; in order to include statistics in an article, we need to be able to say what they mean and why they're there (why these specific years, how the data is or isn't normalized, who is judging who falls into what category and why, what the overarching numbers mean in light of these decisions, etc.) Absent that sort of analysis, it's not usable as a source, even before you get to the fact that it's geneticist publishing in a physics journal and therefore not someone we could really rely on to begin with. A primary source who is "not trying to say anything" is actually not very useful as a source -- if the numbers say nothing meaningful at all, why include them? If you feel that they do say something you personally think is worth covering (but the author isn't explicitly stating that), then isn't that original research on your part? --Aquillion (talk) 22:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The author still an established academic, and his book been reviews postivily by two Nobel Laureates. My point when i said he "not trying to say anything" mean he is not trying to pass a propaganda since he himself is not a Christian (since some users try to say that). and it's worth to covering, and the author analysis also supported form different refference, and in the end this kind of analysis and statistics that been mention in the book as the university affiliation of the nobel prize winners or the Jewish or women who won nobel prize is show in several article here in wikipeida even there is article about that issue using this kind of book no one call not useful or asked what the reason of analysis and statistics of women who won Nobel prize, or why we should include statisitics about university affiliation of the nobel prize winners.--Jobas (talk) 00:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, "established academic" doesn't mean anything. Reliability is contextual; an academic is a reliable source in their field, but not generally reliable outside it (this is a major issue in our articles on evolution and climate change, say, where people sometimes try to insert the opinions of academics in other fields.) If these statistics are genuinely noteworthy, it should be easy to find a source in a relevant field who discusses them, published in an appropriate journal; relying on something a geneticist published in a physics journal doesn't make sense. And, for what it's worth, I'll point out that the author is Jewish and that the only analysis the book does is about Jewish exceptionalism; now, this is isn't actually the problem (even if we assumed he was WP:BIASED, biased sources can still be used; and it's not necessarily fair to assume that he's biased just because he's talking about his own religion -- if he were a Jewish historian, or a Christian historian, or an Atheist historian or whatever, we might be able to use him as a source.) The problems are that his qualifications don't actually relate to this topic, so the paper is ultimately just someone's personal opinions rather than a reliable source; and that, without a qualified source to give context or meaning to these numbers, including them risks amounting to original research or synthesis on the part of editors, who are implicitly stating that eg. these numbers mean Christians are "good at science" (for some personal, arbitrary definition of what a Christian is and what being good at science means.) You seem to be saying "but the author isn't using these numbers to say that Christians are good at science!" as though that makes everything all right -- but in fact, that's the problem; it would be better for you if the author was saying that. If we had eg. a respected historian saying, explicitly, "I am a Christian, and here are some numbers that mean that Christians like me are good at science", we could totally put that in the article! What we can't do is subtly imply that conclusion without a source clearly making the connection. --Aquillion (talk) 00:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I downloaded the wikitext for the 135 articles of the Nobel Prize winners in Chemistry for 1901–2000. The only articles containing the word "Christian" in the wikitext or categories (other than as a name) are:

• Adolf von Baeyer Mother converted to Christianity
• Henri Moissan religion = Christian
• Fritz Haber Haber converted from Judaism to Lutheranism
• Elias James Corey Corey was born to Christian Lebanese immigrants
• Robert Curl Curl was the son of a Methodist minister
• Richard Smalley Smalley became a Christian shortly before his death

Six of 135 articles (4.4%) connect a Nobel prize winner for chemistry with Christianity. This is the reliable sources noticeboard where editors are encouraged to think about whether a source is reliable for its claims, and the source says that 72.5% of the 135 winners (97 people) were Christian. Who were the other 91 Christian prize winners? Johnuniq (talk) 11:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I did not understand your standard that Christian and non-Christian nobel winner are based on articles which connect a Nobel prize winner for chemistry with Christianity? this standard is a non-academic. If wikipeida didn't mention every thing that mean Nothing. so according to you if there no mention about about their religion so these winners are not christians? oh and how many these article of nobel prize of chemistry connected with atheisim also 4? 5? 10?. let's see some names of Nobel prize winner for chemistry that many sources mention they are christian (nomanilly or religous) but in wikipeida dosen't mention that: Ernest Rutherford, Gerhard Ertl Translated from German: Oh, yes, I believe in God. (...) I am a Christian and I try to live as a Christian (...) I read the Bible very often and I try to understand it, Peter Agre, Robert Bruce Merrifield "Nobel Laureate R. Bruce Merrifield Dies At 84", Harold Urey, Otto Hahn, John Cornforth, Brian Kobilka, Derek Barton etc.. these Nobel winners wikipedia dose not mention anything about their religion but it not really hard to find that they were christians by different sources. So wikipeida the connect of Nobel prize winner articles with Christianity is not the standard here about the Statistics.--Jobas (talk) 11:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC) Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_194
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.

---