Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 183

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Reliable sources. 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 main page.

Archive 180

Archive 181

Archive 182

→

News 0404 Second request, since the first was unanswered

is the new Israeli private news channel, News 0404 founded by journalist Boaz Golan, and self-identified as promoting a 'Zionist-patriotic' perspective according to the stub dedicated to it on the Hebrew Wikipedia (חדשות 0404),reliable for facts? I have raised the issue at the talk page of List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2015 Repeatedly, we have affirmed that even long-established websites full of competent journalists or scholars (Counterpunch, Mondoweiss) (basically anti-Zionist with regard to the I/P area) cannot be used for facts. So on that precedent, it seems self-evident that a new POV-pushing news outlet based on user contributions with no notable names, run by a private entrepreneur, should not be used for facts. Thirdly, the reports are all in Hebrew, and the newbie editor using them supplies no details of their content, which means third parties unfamiliar with that language have to take on trust the veracity of his reports. Could experienced RS hands please set forth the relevant policy on this for that editor's benefit. Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 09:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

News 0404 does not profess a bias or attempt to make a point on their "about" page.[1] There is absolutely nothing wrong with sources in languages other than English (unless the standards changed over the last couple of years). However, their over-eagerness to embrace social media, a limited staff, and some potential sensationalism is worth being concerned. Hard to say without knowing the exact edit in question but, as usual, I would be surprised if whatever it is wasn't covered elsewhere and it probably isn't worth article space if it isn't.Cptnono (talk) 10:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

As I see we may follow on such RS considering 0404 as RS:

--Igorp_lj (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

So if the New York Times quoted Pravda, the citation ipso facto makes Pravda reliable for facts. Really, really. You should actually study Wikipedia practice and policy before making such queer inferences.Nishidani (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

It's worse than that. Igorp's links are for mentions of 0404, not citations of it. Let's consider the first one (Jerusalem Post) for example. There are five hits. (1) Mention that 0404 posted a selfie of smiling settler youths who were "proud of themselves" after being arrested for violence against Arabs. (2) A credit to 0404 for a photoshopped image, no other mention. (3) Report of a complaint made against 0404 for publishing the private phone number of a politician leading to her harassment. (4) A mention of 0404 in an anonymous reader's letter. (5) Mention that 0404 posted a video. Out of all these, the only citation of 0404 for facts is the "proud of themselves" in (1), the rest are irrelevant or about 0404. Igorp, what is your excuse for posting such a misleading comment? Zero^talk 23:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@Zero, regarding to jpost.com: you're only right, that jpost links are references only, but you missed one point: above mentioned comment is a copy from the article in jewishpress.com (not from my list and I'll add it too):

"A passenger named Rina who travels on the Light Rail told the Hebrew-language 0404 website, “The Light Rail in the direction of Pisgat Ze’ev already terminates at Ammunition Hill and no longer enters the danger zone. The driver announces that the last stop is at Ammunition Hill, and tells everyone to disembark,” she said."
A CityPass spokesperson confirmed the decision to 0404, saying it made sense in light of the reduced commuter ridership during the intermediate days of the Sukkot holiday".

So what would be your "excuse for posting such a misleading comment" (@Zero) based on one of my links only ? :)

Here are the references from others sites referenced either its pictures or as ~"according to news website 0404":

... --Igorp_lj (talk) 11:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Nishidani:, I only repeat here from my prev. reply to your comments:

"Nishidani, as I already told you that your choice and approach to RS is very specific. For example I do not see any difference between either The Pyongyang Times from your reply here or Pravda from your RFS reply and your favorite Maan, what may write such passages as
- "As a result, local youths sometimes respond by targeting vehicles belonging to settlers on the area's main roads"
But I do not follow your practice and do not propose remove Maan refs from your article what is mainly based on its biased info.
It's not reminding about Mondoweiss & +972 Magazine what you regularly try to "sale" here in Wiki. :(
Again and essentially: I do not see any problem to use 0404's info with appropriate attribution. --Igorp_lj (talk) 19 January 2015"

--Igorp_lj (talk) 11:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

What's Israel Hayom doing there? It's run by a casino magnate, Sheldon Adelson, explicitly to undermine Israel's mainstream newspapers (free distribution) and support one politician, Binjamin Netanyahu. It utterly fails WP:RS, and its use of .0404 doesn't validate that site.

Igorp, as I have said elsewhere, very high standards are placed on the use of any website, of long-standing notability and often cited in scholarly works, which is deemed to have a favourable view of Palestinians. On Wikipedia, any material re Palestinians is expected to be sourced to mainstream newspapers, even if that means they are mainly Israeli or pro-Israeli. This high bar is never mentioned if there is a dispute about the use of unknown Israeli or Jewish, marginal, contributor-compiled websites with an agenda. I usually don't complain about editors using on occasion Arutz Sheva, Jewish Press com and Algemeiner Journal, though like .0404 they are certainly nowhere adequate with WP:RS rules regarding the sourcing of facts, being frequently opinionated or rumour-mongering, and directed at particular community audiences. One cannot have it both ways, opposing anything but mainstream sources for Palestinians, while accepting any source for Israelis. This practice violatesd WP:NPOV by its deleterious effects to maintain underreportage on one of the two parties to an historic dispute. It's methodological hypocrisy. Ma'an is the regular, Western funded and independent Palestinian newssite, and is essentially unrhetorical and factual. There is no parallel between it, and private websites like .0404. lastly, please await for experienced independent commentary here.Nishidani (talk) 11:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Real news organisations have their own means of fact checking and their own standards for citing claims from unreliable sources. Our standards are very clear; we aren't allowed to cite unreliable sources for facts at all. As Nishidani has spelt out with his usual eloquence, being quoted in a reliable source does not make something reliable. 0404 is a site where anyone, even you or me, can sign up and post "news stories" after signing an agreement that the site won't be held responsible for them. As far as wiki-reliability goes, it is hard to get lower than that. This source is not going to be accepted; you need to get over it. Zero^talk 12:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

So one claim gone, and next came. :) Now I'd ask both you to evaluate above-mentioned quote from Nishidani's Maan - is it suatable for RS or no:

"As a result, local youths sometimes respond by targeting vehicles belonging to settlers on the area's main roads"

and to let me know what kind of "their own means of fact checking and their own standards" (@Zero) it has? --Igorp_lj (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

tvseriesfinale.com

I have found a new website that I think is reliable and could benefit Wikipedia. The link for the site is below and I would like to know if it could be considered a valid citation.

http://tvseriesfinale.com/

I would like to replace info in The Big Bang Theory. The source that is used is not updated due to a neilsen glitch in the ratings, and my source has updated info.

I would like to replace a fact in the US. Viewers Section in the List of episodes for season 8. It says that the first few episodes of the season got a certain number of viewers that was not updated. If here is the exact place on the site that I found the info. Compare it to Wikipedia's non-updated info.

http://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/the-big-bang-theory-season-eight-ratings-33990/

Thank you for your patience. Jatremitiedi (talk) 00:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm curious about this as well. Look like there are 3 writers as listed here. Purports to be getting their info directly from Nielsen per "Ratings © 2014 The Nielsen Company. All Rights Reserved." I thought that Nielsen was subscription only service so I guess issue is if we can trust they have authorization to republish Nielsen and if we can trust they transcribe the info correctly. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Just noting that Jatremitiedi won't be able to use this source, or any other, as he is now indef blocked. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

IS Encyclopedia books or webs reliable sources?

I'm not sure about discussing this issue here, but this is important for me to know the answer of the question as a wiki user. when i needed to saying about Literary Works of George Jordac(Christian Lebanese author),have used one of encyclopedia webs at draft of Gorge jordac article. By the way is that reliable source? Is there any permission for wiki user to use such as these sources?thanks.Samaneh-davoudi (talk) 08:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Not sure... what can you tell us about the underlying website www.albabtainprize.org (note: the fact that the source is in Arabic does not affect it's reliability ... but it will make it harder for us to determine whether it is or isn't reliable... we may need to call in someone to translate it for us). Blueboar (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

My mean of encyclopedia is the book or websites that collected all information about a person or every subject by comprehensive summary like this encyclopedia website in English:[2]. That encyclopedia website [3] was introduced by me, is one of the encyclopedia website in Arabic. My main question is that is it acceptable to use encyclopedia web or books in Writing articles on Wikipedia? Thanks!Samaneh-davoudi (talk) 11:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

As for the Encyclopædia Iranica (the first of the two sources you link) - on first glance, I would call it reliable. Looking at their website's "about us" page, it lists an editorial staff (and so I would assume that it probably meets our requirement for fact checking and oversight). I hesitate, however, because I don't know if it has a good (or bad) reputation for accuracy.

As for albabtainprize.org - again I can't offer an opinion on it because I don't read Arabic. Another editor may be able to do so. Blueboar (talk) 12:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Encyclopedias are generally "tertiary sources" and we should use the sources they cite for their articles - if they cite no sources, then normal practice is to dismiss their articles in any event. Technical or specialized encyclopedias generally show where they got their information. Collect (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Is this true? if one article at encyclopedias is written by known author and is taken from reliable sources, we can use it as reliable source!Samaneh-davoudi (talk) 09:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey Samaneh-davoudi: You can use the source if the authors are reliable and there is an obvious fact checking procedure. As you see, some encyclopedic sources are used here. Mhhossein (talk) 03:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

salam alaykomMhhossein! my main issue is this Arabic website www.albabtainprize.org. I know that it is a Arabic Encyclopedia, just this and i don't know about reliability of it. what ever, thank you for introducing me reliable Encyclopedia!Samaneh-davoudi (talk) 09:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Samaneh-davoudi: Alaykom al-Salaam, You're welcome. For that specific Arabic source, you should follow the same procedure; Who wrote the article you're going to use, Was that checked for the accuracy of the facts possibly mentioned there? and so on. Mhhossein (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Old, outdated info & non-info being used to source incorrect majority shareholder of company

Hello. Myself & two other editors (62 & Galatz) are in a dispute as to who would be considered Total Nonstop Action Wrestling's majority shareholder. 62 & Galatz insist on:

|key_people = Robert Carter
(Majority stakeholder - 71%)

and are using these links as sources in an attempt to verify Robert as being TNA's majority shareholder. I have told them that the first two links would be no good, as the date attached to them makes them old & out-of-date, while the third link makes NO mention of Mr. Carter OR the company he's currently involved with, which would make that link no good as well. I, however, insist on:

|key_people = Janice Carter
(Majority stakeholder - 71%)

and have provided links to more recent, up-to-date articles, verifying Mrs. Carter's company, Panda Energy International, as the company's majority owner/shareholder, as well as Mrs. Carter herself as the company's owner; however, 62 & Galatz refuse to accept the links I have sourced as being correct & continue to revert the article to a version with their, albeit out-of-date & therefore incorrect, information contained within. So, I suppose the question is, would my sources take precedence over theirs, due to mine being more recent & therefore, up-to-date? 76.235.248.47 (talk) 13:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure what @76.235.248.47: is not understanding, I have tried to explain this many times to him. He is confusing control and shareholder. TNA is owned by Panda Energy. Panda Energy is owned by Panda Funds. Panda Funds ownership is listed here [4]. Janice is listed as CEO of Panda Energy, as you can see here [5]. @76.235.248.47: feels that since Janice controls Panda Energy that she is majority shareholder. However all shares of Panda Energy are owned by Panda Funds, she holds no shares in the entity, she is simply the CEO.

I have not utilized any of the sites referenced above by @76.235.248.47:, to draw this conclusions since none in my opinion meet the criteria of WP:RS. Based on the lack of information by an RS, the only thing to base this on is WP:PRIMARY which no where mentions Janice. - Galatz (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Looking at that section of Panda Power Funds's website, NOWHERE does it state/imply, directly OR indirectly, that Panda Power Funds is Panda Energy's parent company. It DOES, however, state "Panda Energy, the predecessor organization to Panda Power Funds", but that would NOT necessarily mean Panda Power Funds is the parent company. Generally, a reference to "the predecessor organization" would mean the company that came before the current organization, not the parent company of the current organization. Now, as far as Mrs. Carter, she is the head executive of Panda Energy. Panda Energy, NOT Panda Power Funds, is the entity that owns 71% (a.k.a. the controlling stake) of TNA. Due to Mrs. Carter being Panda Energy's head executive, she would utilize Panda Energy's 71% controlling stake in TNA to control it. Now, when someone possesses the controlling stake in a company & uses that stake to run/control it, they are legally considered the majority shareholder of said company. Now, as far as Galatz's statement, what he isn't acknowledging is that back when Robert was with Panda Energy, he & Janice (co-)owned Panda Energy, as they founded the company. Robert was Panda Energy's head executive, while I'm not exactly sure what Janice's position was. Robert recently left Panda Energy & is now with Panda Power Funds, which, according to both the reference Galatz used (Panda Power Funds website), as well as the one I sourced from Bloomberg Businessweek, says/references/mentions absolutely NOTHING about Panda Power Funds being Panda Energy's parent company (again, "the predecessor organization" does NOT equate to meaning "parent company"). Therefore, his statement of Panda Energy being Panda Power Funds's subsidiary would be incorrect. Now, Janice would still retain the stake in Panda Energy she possessed back when Robert was with Panda Energy (when Robert & Janice were referenced as co-owners of said company), as her stake would NOT now belong to Robert's company. So, therefore, Galatz's statement that Janice holds no shares in the company is incorrect as well. So, what it comes down to is that Janice & Robert would still co-own Panda Energy, while Robert also owns Panda Power Funds. However, due to Janice taking over her husband's position as head executive of Panda Energy due to his departure from the company, she now controls Panda Energy & as a result of Panda Energy holding a 71% stake in TNA & her utilizing that stake to control/run TNA, she would be TNA's majority shareholder. Therefore, if you follow what I have stated, that would mean that the stances taken by both Galantz & the other editor would be wrong. It would also prove that the two of them know absolutely NOTHING about how business works, regardless of what they otherwise state. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

In fact, here's a news article ([6]) that I referenced in the 3O discussion on TNA's talk page; an article which directly states Mrs. Carter as co-owner of TNA (as she would utilize Panda Energy's 71% stake in TNA). So, that article would prove Galatz's statement about Mrs. Carter not owning shares in Panda Energy OR TNA to be incorrect. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

You are still not making sense. Listen to what you are saying Due to Mrs. Carter being Panda Energy's head executive, she would utilize Panda Energy's 71% controlling stake in TNA to control it. Now, when someone possesses the controlling stake in a company & uses that stake to run/control it, they are legally considered the majority shareholder of said company. The first part is true yes, she controls the stake Panda Energy has in TNA. That DOES NOT legally make them majority shareholder of the company as you stated. What that does is simply allow them to make decisions. Money and paperwork and stock certificates are involved in being a shareholder. Show me where he transferred that into her name? Congrats you have proven she is CEO, but that means nothing for ownership. - Galatz (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

And, again, you are purposely ignoring information that I have presented; I have no idea why. According to Panda Energy's own article:

The Carter family have owned a controlling stake in the company ever since, making Panda Energy a family business.

Ever since refers to when the company was founded, in 1982. So, Panda Energy's own article makes you a liar when you claim that Mrs. Carter owns no stake in Panda Energy. Now, due to the Carters' stake in the company, before Robert's departure from Panda Energy, he & Janice were generally referenced as (co-)owners of Panda Energy; that would mean that the two of them own enough stake in Panda Energy to run/control it. Now, as I have pointed out time & time again, using both the Bloomberg Businessweek article, as well as your own source (Panda Power Funds website), NOWHERE is it stated OR implied, directly OR indirectly, that Panda Power Funds is Panda Energy's parent company. "The predecessor organization" does NOT equate to "parent company"; "predecessor organization" refers to the entity that existed before the current company. So, unless you can show me some reliable source that states Mrs. Carter gave up her stake in Panda Energy at ANY point, you are continuing to be wrong about Mrs. Carter not possessing stake in Panda Energy.

And, the fact of the matter is, when someone utilizes the controlling stake in a company to run/control it, they indeed are generally referred to as majority shareholder. For example, Vince McMahon currently possesses the controlling stake in WWE; that would make him the majority shareholder. WWE's own article confirms that. He is also currently Chairman & CEO of the company, meaning as CEO, he is the head executive, giving him the power to run/control WWE.

So, at this point, you have been proven wrong, not only about Mrs. Carter not possessing stake in Panda Energy (Panda Energy's article confirms she indeed DOES own stake in Panda Energy), but about her not being viewed as majority shareholder of TNA (Vince McMahon holds the controlling stake in WWE [much like how Panda Energy (Mrs. Carter's company) holds the controlling stake in TNA], therefore he is WWE's majority shareholder). So, I have proven that not only is she CEO of Panda Energy, but that she IS indeed part owner of Panda Energy alongside Robert, and thereby meaning she, NOT Robert, would be viewed as majority shareholder of TNA through her position as head executive of Panda Energy, TNA's parent company. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

This entire thread is WP:OR. Unless you have a straightforward direct statement saying that a particular person is the majority shareholder, you cannot put it in. If a corporation is the majority shareholder, the CEO of that corporation is not the majority owner. The owners of the second company are themselves collectively the owners of the owned company. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Gaijin42 is wise. Claims like this should be directly sourced, or removed. bobrayner (talk) 23:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I have sourced TWO news articles ("TNA's current owner, Panda Energy CEO Janice Carter" & "Janice Carter, who is part owner of TNA") which directly state Janice being (co-)owner of TNA. Neither Galatz, nor the third editor involved in this dispute, has provided ANYTHING which states Robert OR Panda Power Funds owning ANY stake in Panda Energy OR TNA. So, according to Gaijin42's statement, the two news articles I've linked to above prove Janice, NOT Robert, in fact IS TNA's majority shareholder. So, I would like to thank Gaijin42 for weighing in & helping prove me correct. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

You are missing the point that everyone is disagreeing with you on that fact, which should be one thing. Second you still have not sourced it with a WP:RS everything you are mentioning is not a reliable source. - Galatz (talk) 14:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it's only been the anonymous editor that inserted out-of-date & therefore incorrect & unusable information & the editor from the 3O discussion who agree with your stance [Panda Power Funds being Panda Energy's parent company & therefore, Robert Carter controlling TNA]. The two editors that replied here have said NOTHING that backs your argument, other than stating that information should only be inserted when backed by a reliable source (my information IS backed by two reliable sources [news articles/reports]), so you are wrong on everyone disagreeing with me, as well as me not providing reliable sources. And, I have provided more than one reliable source (news articles/reports) (satisfying WP:PRIMARY) which directly state my claim about Mrs. Carter's stake in Panda Energy & TNA, therefore backing up my claim. However, since you have edited the article to contain the information we both agree on, the dispute/discussion/argument needs to end here & now. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 15:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC related to reliable sourcing at G. Edward Griffin

It has just a couple weeks to go, and we haven't posted notice of it here. So now I am doing so: Talk:G._Edward_Griffin#RfC:_.22conspiracy_theorist.22_in_first_sentence, in the hope of getting more input for the closer. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

RS issues at G. Edward Griffin

While there is an RfC (dated 3 January 2015) still ongoing at Talk:G. Edward Griffin#Survey, it is a separate issue that references only the first line of the lede. The requester provided a list of sources which he included with his RfC statement (which I've not seen done before now) but I am mentioning them here as the proper venue for RS discussion. I believe the overwhelmingly negative influence that was created by poorly sourced contentious material has resulted in a WP:COATRACK. It prevents Griffin from advancing as a potential GA candidate, which is my primary interest. I doubt it would pass a less stringent DYK review as it is now. A few involved editors are actually OK with the article as is, and don't appear to have any problems maintaining the SQ which is why I brought the RS issues here.

Sources supported as reliable that have raised question

Some of the sources contain less than notable mention of Griffin (not even qualifying as trivial) but are still being used to justify contentious material in this BLP.

[7] - Srich32977 parsed the first 5 sources footnoted in the lede. Below is an indented list with some of the same sources plus two more:
- [8] - only parenthetical mention in a totally unrelated article;
- [9] - partisan bias that was used to criticize the subject, therefore Beck can be used to dispute it;
- [10] - partisan bias actually aimed at criticizing Ron Paul using Griffin to do so;
- [11] - passing mention which contains two references to Griffin, the first listing Griffin as an "author, lecturer, filmmaker", the 2nd referencing conspiracy-theorist;
- [12] - May 1979 - RS, but antiquated. See MSKCC below;
- [13] - Feb 1984 - RS, but antiquated. See MSKCC and PUBMED below which were criticized as unreliable sources;

Other questionable sources, some of which don't pass the smell test for WP:RS but are used in the article to justify contentious material:

[14] - Popular Paranoia cited in the last sentence of the lede.
[15] - An old archive of Public Eye (partisan website along the lines of Media Matters) used to discredit the BLP. Their disclaimer states: "Please remember that this is an archive of an older website for researchers, and it is not being updated. Therefore, much of the material here is not current."
[16] - NIH (1984) report used to justify the term, "a canonical example of quackery", with regards to a topic in Griffin's book, World Without Cancer. Note: While I do not dispute proven science to be the prevailing view, there were approaches to 30 yo research that no longer apply in the 21st Century, therefore citations using updated scientific research are more desirable, correct?
Inclusion of inline templates for not in citation given or citation needed in the article itself.

Sources that were criticized as not reliable that have raised question

The following sources have, for the most part, been criticized as not RS for citing even generalizations of positive reviews about Griffin as an author and lecturer. I suggested using them to balance (NPOV, V, UNDUE, BLP) what critics have alleged about Griffin and his books:

[17] Forbes - (ranked 75 US Alexa) - This battle continued up through the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, whose rather dubious creation was nicely described in G. Edward Griffin’s book The Creature from Jekyll Island.
[18] RT - (67 Russia, 382 Global) - Griffin also takes us back in time, and reminds us how the Fed even came to be – the money trust meeting in secret on Jekyll Island in order to draft a cartel agreement that would eventually be known as the "Federal Reserve Act. RT is consistently under scrutiny by its competitors and critics. Their nominations for an International Emmy as a top News Source is a recognition given by "a membership-based organization comprised of leading media and entertainment figures from over 50 countries and 500 companies from all sectors of television including Internet, mobile and technology."
[19] NPR.org - (129 US Alexa) - quote by Senator Bunning to Bernanke: You put the printing presses into overdrive to fund the government's spending and hand out cheap money to your masters on Wall Street. Your Fed has become the Creature from Jekyll Island. Thank you.
~~www.naturalnews.com/023345.html ^{[unreliable fringe source?]} Natural News - (2,023 US Alexa)~~
[20] GoldSilver.com - (ranked 22,303 US Alexa). G. Edward Griffin is an American film producer, author, and political lecturer. He is best known as the author of The Creature From Jekyll Island: A Second Look At The Federal Reserve, a critique of much modern economic theory and practice, specifically the Federal Reserve System.
[21], Casey Research - (35,748 US Alexa)
~~[22], The Daily Bell - (49,221 US Alexa)~~
[23] Financial Sense - (ranked 49,730 US Alexa). "Listed in Who’s Who in America, he is well known because of his talent for researching difficult topics and presenting them in clear terms that all can understand. One of his best-known books is his critical history of the beginnings of the Federal Reserve, The Creature from Jekyll Island.
[24] Corbett Report - (88,282 US Alexa) - not to be confused with TV's Colbert
[25] Social Studies of Science, an international peer reviewed academic journal — May, 1979 - Vol 9, pgs 139-166;
[26] - update from Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center which states: With the recent discovery of anticancer properties of amygdalin through previously unknown mechanisms (12) (13) (14) (15) (16), there is renewed interest in developing this agent as an anticancer treatment.
- [27] - PUBMED — Anti-tumor promoting effect of glycosides from Prunus persica seeds. (see MSKCC update);
- [28] - PUBMED — Amygdalin inhibits genes related to cell cycle in SNU-C4 human colon cancer cells. (see MSKCC update);
- [29] - PUBMED — Amygdalin induces apoptosis in human cervical cancer cell line HeLa cells. (see MSKCC update);
- [30] - PUBMED — Amygdalin isolated from Semen Persicae (Tao Ren) extracts induces the expression of follistatin in HepG2 and C2C12 cell lines. (see MSKCC update);
- [31] - PUBMED — Amygdalin blocks bladder cancer cell growth in vitro by diminishing cyclin A and cdk2. (see MSKCC update);
- [32] - PUBMED — which states This small study indicates that amygdalin in the doses employed produces few clinical side effects. A definite hazard of cyanide toxic reaction must be assumed, however, and possible long-term side effects remain unknown.
[33] which documents this particular doctor's clinical history, and what inspired Griffin's book;
[34] only as a general reference to statements in the thesis that are well-sourced;
[35] October 2008 research by Giuseppe Nacci, M.D., 500 pgs from EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE: 1,700 official scientific publications 1,750 various bibliographical references with particular emphasis on pgs 17-25, and pgs 159-166 (which includes documented case histories);

Disclaimer - Griffin is a BLP, but one of the books he has written brings PS-Fringe into play. I am not advocating for laetrile (amygdalin, B17) by any means, and I certainly am not suggesting that we, as editors, promote Griffin's book, World Without Cancer, as the end-all cure for cancer. Hell no! I am simply asking the community for input re: RS. My only purpose here is to fix the WP:COATRACK problem created by poorly sourced contentious material, not all of which is PS. I hope to provide proper balance (without WP:UNDUE) by citing sources I listed above to balance the criticism cited by questionable sources used to justify contentious material. I realize BLPs and PS-Fringe are hot topics, which is another reason I'm looking for input from uninvolved editors. If I have misstated anything, please advise and I will be happy to correct it. Thank you. Atsme☯^Consult 23:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

No offense, but things are likely to go better if you can condense this down a bit. Cut the obvious dross (Natural News, goldandsilver.com, etc.) so that we can focus on the sources requiring more thought. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thx, Boris - I probably could have gotten away with listing a few of the PUBMED sources. If one is considered a RS, they all are, right? Atsme☯^Consult 23:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Atsme: My comments here are general notes; I have not specifically examined the sources provided here. I am only posting this to clarify some apparent misconceptions about how sources and reliability work.

A common misunderstanding among editors who don't have a medical or scientific background is that PubMed is a 'source' or publisher; it is not. PubMed is just a really big index (sort of like a library catalog) that collects citation information for a vast amount of science- and medicine-related content from thousands of different journals. So of this material is of high quality, some...not so much. For instance, the first "PubMed" link above (this one) is just a pointer to a catalog entry for a 2003 paper by Fukuda et al. published originally in Biological & pharmaceutical bulletin.

A second common misconception is that a source can be declared "reliable", and that declaration is a fixed, absolute judgement. Reliability depends both on the source itself and on how it is used. This board cannot provide a blanket approval that a source is reliable for all purposes. Some of the most important guidelines for evaluating the use of specific sources to support specific claims can be found in WP:MEDRS. (Of course, a source can be reliable for a particular claim and yet still be omitted from an article for reasons of (ir)relevance, undue weight, or to avoid implying conclusions not actually supported. The greater context of the article matters.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thx, for that explanation. So with reference to "greater context", any passing mention or parenthetical mention (trivial) would not be supported, correct? Is there a statement regarding trivial mention somewhere other than establishing notability, or would it apply anywhere? Atsme☯^Consult 00:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not precisely sure what you're asking. Are you trying to establish notability of a topic – that is, whether or not there is enough material out there to create a proper Wikipedia article – or are you asking about reliability—that is, whether or not a given source supports a particular claim in an article? Those are two often very different questions.

This noticeboard is for addressing questions of reliability. If you read the instructions that appear at the top of this page whenever you edit it (or whenever you create a new section), you'll find three specific pieces of information that you should provide with any request here: a clear identification of the source you would like to use, the article where you would like to use it, and – and this is important – the specific text that you would like to use it to support.

Consider what you see when reading the introduction to an academic paper. You'll read a sentence (or paragraph), and then you'll see a footnote or other citation that identifies the source for the assertions in the preceding text. That's the type of information that we need here, on this noticeboard, to evaluate the question of reliability. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a huge laundry list, and it's not really our job to sort through those at RSN as you present. Instead, you need to specify the specific content either used or proposed and ask whether a one specific or handful of sources is reliable for that specific content. We can't give blanket statements of reliability without the content as TenOfAllTrades mentioned. That's why we have the note at the top of the page under "Before posting, please be sure to include the following information. . ." As it appears you were told at the article talk page, you need to base the discussion on a specific piece of content, so pay special attention to "3. Content. The exact statement(s) or other content in the article that the source is supporting. . ." Otherwise we can't really do anything at RSN to help until we have that specific context. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@TenOfAllTrades: - I apologize for any confusion my original post may have caused. I have narrowed down my questions to specifics. (Sidebar): The reason I listed the PUBMED sources was because MSKCC cited them as the basis for their decision, which is why I used indention.

I believe the MSKCC announcement to conduct further research is notable as well as relevant to Griffin's BLP regarding his advocacy for further research as stated in his book, World Without Cancer. Therefore, my question is "Do the sources pass the acid test for reliability with regards to inclusion of MSKCC's announcement? It will be represented for what it is - hypotheses based on lab experiments - representative of the minority view, making sure it does not receive prominence over mainstream views. It also serves to update the older hypotheses now cited, some of which are 20 to 30 years old.
[36] - is this book an acceptable source since the author of that book is the physician who inspired Griffin to write his book, and it also includes the information Griffin used when writing his book?
[37] October 2008 research by Giuseppe Nacci, M.D., 500 pgs from EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE: 1,700 official scientific publications 1,750 various bibliographical references with particular emphasis on pgs 17-25, and pgs 159-166 (which includes documented case histories) - this is published information (also in book form) authored by a reputable physician. Is it a RS for supporting Griffin's minority view with regards to why he believes what he does? It is my understanding that minority views can be/should be represented as long as they are reliably sourced, adhere to NPOV, and do not give precedence over mainstream views. The fact that the information directly relates to what Griffin advocates and has written about establishes relevance. Yes or no?
You asked, "are you asking about reliability—that is, whether or not a given source supports a particular claim in an article?" Yes, that is what I am asking. If a partisan source or sources include passing mention (trivial, unsourced) of a subject using contentious and/or pejorative terminology in say, an article about a politician, and somewhere in that article they mention one of Griffin's books or Griffin himself in a parenthetical phrase, or brief sentence, (a) does such mention justify such opinions to be presented as statements of fact in Wiki voice, or is it still considered opinion, and (b) what if there are equally as many "reliable" sources that dispute such claims either by omission, or direct denial, including denial by Griffin himself? I understand why such sources could be used to express the opinion of critics, but I don't understand how those opinions could be considered factual based on trivial mention in partisan sources. Yes, or no? Please explain.

I am very appreciative of your intelligible responses, and look forward to further input from you and other knowledgeable editors who are well-versed in this subject. What I learn from the noticeboard regarding the PS-Fringe aspects of proper presentation will also help with regards to the parallel issues relating to Griffin's other books, such as The Creature From Jekyll Island which helps explain the structure of the highly controversial, Federal Reserve System. Atsme☯^Consult 19:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, can you provide specific content for those points? Right now you're listing sources and asking general questions, but we need to see what it would be actually sourced to. We can't say a source is reliable or not otherwise. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I was actually asking TenOfAllTrades. I provided the sources, the diffs, the article name, and "content in the article that the source is supporting". It's pretty straightforward. Example in my initial post above, I am questioning sources that were used to discredit a BLP - contentious material. This board does not require that I include the "exact statement' which I choose not to do because I still believe it is a BLP violation. Also, my question about passing mention is pretty straightforward as well, and shouldn't require exact statements. Thank you for trying to help, but with all due respect, I prefer input from editors who have more experience than my own. I believe editors who have actually created articles and/or experienced at least one GA review tend to be a little more cognizant to RS issues and the questions I've asked. Atsme☯^Consult 13:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Re: This board does not require that I include the "exact statement" True... we don't require you to do anything. However, we probably won't be able to answer the question without knowing the "exact statement". The reliability of a source frequently depends on the specific context in which it is used. Without knowing that context, we can't answer the question. Blueboar (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I try to simplify with a few direct statements you can dig your teeth into:

Edward Flaherty, an academic economist writing for Political Research Associates, characterized Griffin's description of the secret meeting on Jekyll Island as "conspiratorial", "amateurish", and "suspect". [38] An archived partisan opinion that is contentious and used only to discredit the subject. Acceptable?
Forbes - positive references to Griffin - example: Nathan Lewis, author, investor, and contributor to Forbes contends that the ongoing battle over banking "continued up through the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, whose rather dubious creation was nicely described in G. Edward Griffin’s book The Creature from Jekyll Island." (Not worded exactly but close to what I am working on). Acceptable?
"Griffin's websites refer visitors to doctors, clinics, and hospitals with alternative cancer treatments, including sellers of laetrile."<---not in the citation provided (see citation template) [Lagnado, Lucette (2000-03-22). "Laetrile Makes a Comeback Selling to Patients Online". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2008-02-29]. I couldn't find the other source [Jones, Marianna (1976-10-11). "Cure or fraud?". Walla Walla Union-Bulletin. Retrieved 2008-02-29]. Acceptable?
"Landau concludes that although World Without Cancer "is an emotional plea for the unrestricted use of the Laetrile as an anti-tumor agent, the scientific evidence to justify such a policy does not appear within it" cited source: [39] <----written in 1976.
- (a) I don't see anything that resembles "an emotional plea" in Griffin's book.
- (b) While Griffin does advocate for medical freedom of choice as an amendment to the US Constitution, the book itself includes the following disclaimer: "I am a researcher, not a physician; I am not qualified to practice medicine in any way; and I am not recommending Laetrile in the treatment of cancer."
- (c) Chapter 26, pg 368, World Without Cancer states Areas of need for further research with vitamin B17; how the Laetrile controversy differs from medical controversies of the past; and analogy of biological and political cancer; and a scenario in which both will be conquered together.
MSKCC website [40] to quote their statement for the purpose of updating the 30+ year old sources cited in the article now. With the recent discovery of anticancer properties of amygdalin through previously unknown mechanisms (12) (13) (14) (15) (16), there is renewed interest in whether this agent may have potential as an anticancer treatment. The parenthetical numbers in the statement represent MSKCC's citations for 5 studies published in journals such as PONE. (See indented list above).
[41] October 2008 research by Giuseppe Nacci, M.D., 500 pgs from EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE: 1,700 official scientific publications 1,750 various bibliographical references with particular emphasis on pgs 17-25, and pgs 159-166 (which includes documented case histories) <---- the book by nuclear medicine specialist, Nacci, supports some of the things Griffin wrote in World Without Cancer. Plan is to use a quote, or possibly a sentence or two relevant to Griffin's book. For example, a statement Nacci wrote about Richardson, the doctor who inspired Griffin's book.

I don't think I can clarify my questions more than what I already have in the mountain of text above. Your input will be appreciated Atsme☯^Consult 18:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I can safely say I am loath to get involved in any detail in this particular dispute, which frankly appears only tangentially to touch on WP:RS questions. What we seem to have here is a question of WP:NPOV (and perhaps particularly WP:WEIGHT) regarding how to represent the opinions of a person who seems to be known for publicly espousing a substantial number of decidedly non-mainstream views. The questions that Atsme are presenting appear to be part of a much larger dispute (mostly on the article talk page?) over how to balance or represent a range of sources regarding the article's subject.

It seems to me that seeking a declaration from this noticeboard that particular (and favorable-to-Griffin) sources and proposed texts meet a 'reliability' test misses the point of the dispute(s) on the article talk page, and might be misinterpreted or misread as an endorsement of a particular text over and above other sources or wordings being discussed. That is, the issue of WP:WEIGHT seems to be a concern here—while it may be possible to find individual, nominally 'reliable' sources which cast Griffin and his theories in a favorable light, by examining those sources in isolation we would fail to address whether or not a substantial majority or preponderance of reliable sources hold a negative or contrary position. Bluntly, cherry-picking sources which are friendly to promoters of fringe theories is an old problem on Wikipedia. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

No, it actually was about the sources, but I now realize that isn't the issue. Your comment, cherry-picking sources which are friendly to promoters of fringe theories reveals an even bigger problem, and quite frankly, it flies in the face of NPOV. The negative effects caused by WP:CRITICISM, and WP:GOSSIP, all of which were included using poorly sourced contentious material for the purpose of creating a WP:COATRACK, and that is what has to be fixed. At least we agree on the issue of WP:WEIGHT, but not in the way you perceive it. Kindest regards ~~ Atsme☯^Consult 03:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, at some point you are going to have to start listening to what other editors are telling you. TenOfAllTrades , previously uninvolved, has given you very clear feedback here, as have others. In in your posting at BLPN, Elaqueate, NorthBySouthBaranof, Nomoskedasticity (who got involved in the article due to that posting), Yobol (who was already involved in the article), and [[u|Alexbrn}} all told you that they found no serious issues. You found some mild support from Srich32977. At the Fringe noticeboard discussion that I started to clarify issues at the intersection of PSCI and BLP, Guy (who was previously uninvolved in the article but became involved through that discussion) told you that your concerns were not supported by policy; Kingofaces and Alexbrn were there as well. You got some mild support from The Four Deuces. And the Talk page discussion has gone the same way. Pretty much everybody is telling you the same thing - namely that your interpretation of BLN and NPOV is not shared by the community with regard to Griffin. Please do see WP:CONSENSUS and WP:STICK. I do hope you can heed what folks are telling you. Jytdog (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, when you argue that laetrile is legitimate based on a tiny handful of cherry-picked sources, you destroy, in one blow, any credibility your arguments might have. We have been over this at length before. WP:RS, WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE all apply.

You are talking here about something for which small in-vitro studies showed some promise, and whihc is advocated by quacks, but which is stated by large scale independent reviews, government bodies, charities of substantial international reputation and many others, to be quackery. You are asserting that based on the small in-vitro studies, it is legitimate to advance this quackery, because otherwise we'd have to state that someone who advances the quackery is advancing quackery, and that would, in your opinion, violate WP:BLP.

The problem is, it is still quackery.

It really doesn't matter who advocates for it, or how passionately. Read this para from our article:

Laetrile was proven clinically ineffective more than 30 years ago and is considered a canonical example of "quackery".[4] Nonetheless, advocates for laetrile dispute this label, asserting that there is a conspiracy between the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the pharmaceutical industry and the medical community, including the American Medical Association and the American Cancer Society, to exploit the American people, and especially cancer patients. Advocates of the use of laetrile have also changed the rationale for its use, first as a treatment of cancer, then as a vitamin, then as part of a "holistic" nutritional regimen, or as treatment for cancer pain, among others, none of which have any significant evidence supporting its use. Despite the lack of evidence for its use, laetrile developed a significant following due to its wide promotion as a "pain-free" treatment of cancer as an alternative to surgery and chemotherapy that have significant side effects. The use of laetrile in place of known effective treatments of cancer led to a number of deaths.[35]
The FDA and AMA crackdown, begun in the 1970s, effectively escalated prices on the black market, played into the conspiracy narrative and helped unscrupulous profiteers foster multi-million dollar smuggling empires.[36][37][38]
Some North American cancer patients have traveled to Mexico for treatment with the substance, allegedly under the auspices of Ernesto Contreras.[39] The actor Steve McQueen died in Mexico following cancer treatment with laetrile and surgery to remove a stomach tumor while undergoing treatment for peritoneal mesothelioma (a cancer that attacks the lining of the abdomen) under the care of William D. Kelley, a dentist and orthodontist who devised a supposed cancer treatment based on laetrile.[40]
Laetrile advocates in the United States include Dean Burk (now deceased), a former chief chemist of the National Cancer Institute cytochemistry laboratory,[41] and national arm wrestling champion Jason Vale, who claimed that his kidney and pancreatic cancers were cured by eating apricot seeds. Vale was convicted in 2003 for, among other things, marketing laetrile.[42] The court also found that Vale, who had made at least $500,000 from his illegal sales of laetrile, had fraudulently marketed the substance.[43]
The US Food and Drug Administration continues to seek jail sentences for vendors marketing laetrile for cancer treatment, calling it a "highly toxic product that has not shown any effect on treating cancer."[44]

Response in unbelievably tedious detail

In terms of fraudulent quack cancer treatments, there is probably none that is more totally busted than this one. Your wall of text - essentially a Gish gallop across the quackscape of laetrile advocacy - only indicates that your judgment on this issue is simply wrong.

Sooner or later you are going to have to start listening to other people, drop the stick and walk away, or accept a restriction on your editing. There are no other possible outcomes at this point. There really aren't.

I do not doubt your sincerity for a moment. Just like the lay advocates of laetrile, you are wrong. Just like the lay advocates of laetrile, allowing your statements to stand would make the world a worse place.

I can't really show you where you are going wrong without a massive wall of text of my own, so here goes:

I believe the MSKCC announcement to conduct further research is notable as well as relevant to Griffin's BLP regarding his advocacy for further research as stated in his book, World Without Cancer. Therefore, my question is "Do the sources pass the acid test for reliability with regards to inclusion of MSKCC's announcement? It will be represented for what it is - hypotheses based on lab experiments - representative of the minority view, making sure it does not receive prominence over mainstream views. It also serves to update the older hypotheses now cited, some of which are 20 to 30 years old.

No, the MSKCC announcement is not relevant, because they are merely repeating primary research that ma or may not find some minor use for one or more of the chemicals. Laetrile is not just unsupported, it is stated by reliable independent review sources to be refuted. That is, it's not just that there is no evidence it cures cancer, but that there is positive evidence that it does not cure cancer. The fact that advocates have shouted so long and loud that now MSKCC is having to go round the loop again in order to bury the conspiracist claptrap of Ralph W. Moss and his ilk, does not confer legitimacy, and won't confer it until phase 3 clinical trials conclusively prove their claims - which won't happen because no cancer treatment in the world is as effective over such a broad spectrum of different cancers as advocates claim laetrile to be.

Read this article form the Cochrane library on why more studies are not needed.

[42] - is this book an acceptable source since the author of that book is the physician who inspired Griffin to write his book, and it also includes the information Griffin used when writing his book?

Case histories are the least reliable form of medical evidence, and case histories of quack treatments are far and away the least reliable case histories. I can find you a book of case histories making similarly extravagant claims for homeopathy, which is the medical equivalent of young-Earth creationism when it comes to evidential support. The author can be forgiven p- the book was published in 1977, before latrile was considered refuted, but that is no excuse now.

See this CA: Cancer Journal interview with Robert C. Eyerly, M.D. Chairman, the Committee on Unproven Methods of Cancer Management, The American Cancer Society, for the timeline and context of that book. And no, books do not trump peer-reviewed publications in medicine, ever.

[43] October 2008 research by Giuseppe Nacci, M.D., 500 pgs from EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE: 1,700 official scientific publications 1,750 various bibliographical references with particular emphasis on pgs 17-25, and pgs 159-166 (which includes documented case histories) - this is published information (also in book form) authored by a reputable physician. Is it a RS for supporting Griffin's minority view with regards to why he believes what he does? It is my understanding that minority views can be/should be represented as long as they are reliably sourced, adhere to NPOV, and do not give precedence over mainstream views. The fact that the information directly relates to what Griffin advocates and has written about establishes relevance. Yes or no?

That is a self-published document, as far as I can make out, advocating a "Thousand Plants against Cancer without Chemo-Therapy". It's trivially easy to find papers in junk journals, and even occasionally good journals, advocating quack treatments. There's an entire industry built on it, formerly known as CAM and now rebranded "integrative medicine" (I would love to practise integrative engineering on the cars of these quacks, replacing artificial chemical brake fluid with natural water and sending them off onto a ghost ramp).

While the document says "FROM EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE", it is not from any journal of that name or indeed any journal at all. Search for laetrile, you find references like:

Harold Manner Center has been temporarily shut down. They are best known for their use of laetrile in treating cancer. The clinic is in Mexico.

A clinic that even Mexico shits down, is some kind of hell-hole. Seriously.

His references for the section on laetrile:

~~1419) Bruce Halstead, Amygdalin (Laetrile) Therapy, Los Altos, CA: Choice Publications. 1978. In Culbert, "Apricot Power," pp.: 72.~~ Not peer-reviewed, fails WP:MEDRS by a wide margin.

~~1420) Ralph W. Moss, The Cancer Industry: Unravelling the Politics (New York: Paragon House, 1989), 134-5.~~ Unreliable, fails WP:MEDRS, written by a man with a reputation for promoting quackery who was sacked from a minor job at MSKCC (which he misrepresented as much more senior) for falsely claiming that laetrile had been suppressed.

1421) N.M. Ellison et al., Special Report on Laetrile: The NCI Laetrile Review, New England Journal of Medicine. 299(10) pp: 549-552 (1978). Reliable, overwhelmingly negative.

... In Office of Technology Assessment, Unconventional Cancer Treatments, pp.. 102. Also overwhelmingly negative, but (guess what?) shows that the John Birch Society are historically among the proponents of this fraudulent treatment.

~~1422) Michael L.Culbert, D.Sc., Apricot Power: Laetrile as the Marine Corps of the `Alternative' Revolution, Townsend Letter for Doctors (June 1995), pp.: 71.~~ Canonically unreliable. Fails WP:MEDRS and every other kind of WP:RS.

~~1423) Ralph W. Moss, The Cancer Industry: Unravelling the Politics (New York: Paragon House, 1989), pp. 135.~~ As above, special pleading from an advocate, not WP:MEDRS] and not WP:RS for anything other than Moss' view of the world, which is already (a) well documented and (b) wrong.

~~1424) Michael L.Culbert, D.Sc., Apricot Power: Laetrile as the Marine Corps of the `Alternative' Revolution, Townsend Letter for Doctors (June 1995), pp.: 77.~~ Unreliable, see above.

~~1425) Michael L.Culbert, D.Sc., Apricot Power: Laetrile as the Marine Corps of the `Alternative' Revolution, Townsend Letter for Doctors (June 1995), pp.: 77.~~ Unreliable, see above.

~~1426) Michael L.Culbert, D.Sc., Apricot Power: Laetrile as the Marine Corps of the `Alternative' Revolution, Townsend Letter for Doctors (June 1995), pp.: 78.~~ Unreliable, see above.

1427). N.M. Ellison et al., Special Report on Laetrile: The NCI Laetrile Review, New England Journal of Medicine 299(10) pp.:549-552 (1978). Reliable and resoundingly negative, see above.

1428) C.G. Moertel et al., A Pharmacologic and Toxicological Study of Amygdalin, Journal of the American Medical Association 245(6), pp.:591-4 (1981). Reliable but irrelevant to efficacy; did show evidence of cyanide toxicity.

1429) Office of Technology Assessment, Unconventional Cancer Treatments, 107. Reliable, overall negative, see above (the author seems to be cherry-picking paragraphs he likes).

~~1430) M.L. Culbert, correspondence, New England Journal of Medicine 307(2) pp.:119 (1982).~~ Correspondence, not peer-reviewed.

1431) Office of Technology Assessment, Unconventional Cancer Treatments, 107. As before.

~~1432) Michael L.Culbert, D.Sc., Apricot Power: Laetrile as the Marine Corps of the `Alternative' Revolution, Townsend Letter for Doctors (June 1995), pp.: 81.~~ Unreliable, see above.

~~1433) Walters, Options, 184.~~ Unreliable, see above.

~~1434) Michael L.Culbert, D.Sc., Apricot Power: Laetrile as the Marine Corps of the `Alternative' Revolution, Townsend Letter for Doctors (June 1995), pp.: 79-80.~~ Unreliable, see above.

~~1435)Anonymous, "The Committee for Freedom of Choice." In Townsend Letter for Doctors, pp.: 196-7.~~ Unreliable, see above.

~~1436) Michael L.Culbert, D.Sc., Apricot Power: Laetrile as the Marine Corps of the `Alternative' Revolution, Townsend Letter for Doctors (June 1995), pp.: 78.~~ Unreliable, see above.

1437) Luther Bohanon, "Opinion in the Case of Glen L. Rutherford vs. U.S.A. In the U.S. District Court for the Western Region of Oklahoma." No. CIV-75-0218-B. December 5, 1977. In Moss, The Cancer Industry, 150. Case here, irrelevant to efficacy, establishes only that Griffin demanded to be heard.

Seriously, you have asserted at second-hand that this document's conclusions should be taken seriously, but the author advocates multiple mutually contradictory quack remedies and the sources he cites are quote-mined, unreliable, irrelevant, or contradict his case.

See also The case against laetrile, the fraudulent cancer remedy. Fraudulent. Not a word lightly bandied around in the literature.

You should have checked in detail before making your claim. Absolutely no part of that source stands up. None of it. It's an unreliable document of unreliable provenance making unreliable claims based on unreliable sources and, in the few reliable sources, unreliable methods of analysis (specifically, cherry-picking).

I cannot stress this enough: you should not even have considered advancing this as a source. It shows only that you haven't a clue about the subject.

You asked, "are you asking about reliability—that is, whether or not a given source supports a particular claim in an article?" Yes, that is what I am asking. If a partisan source or sources include passing mention (trivial, unsourced) of a subject using contentious and/or pejorative terminology in say, an article about a politician, and somewhere in that article they mention one of Griffin's books or Griffin himself in a parenthetical phrase, or brief sentence, (a) does such mention justify such opinions to be presented as statements of fact in Wiki voice, or is it still considered opinion, and (b) what if there are equally as many "reliable" sources that dispute such claims either by omission, or direct denial, including denial by Griffin himself? I understand why such sources could be used to express the opinion of critics, but I don't understand how those opinions could be considered factual based on trivial mention in partisan sources. Yes, or no? Please explain.

There is a hierarchy of sources. You are picking documents from the bottom of the hierarchy - or in some cases below it - but Wikipedia does not do that.

I am very appreciative of your intelligible responses, and look forward to further input from you and other knowledgeable editors who are well-versed in this subject. What I learn from the noticeboard regarding the PS-Fringe aspects of proper presentation will also help with regards to the parallel issues relating to Griffin's other books, such as The Creature From Jekyll Island which helps explain the structure of the highly controversial, Federal Reserve System.

If you are "appreciative" then why do you ignore all responses that contradict you? Seriously? And the Fed is not controversial, not the way Griffin claims. Some people claim that the existence of income tax is controversial. You can certainly state that income tax is controversial (nobody likes paying it), but its existence is controversial only to a lunatic fringe. Thus it is with the Fed. Its existence is controversial only to cranks, some of its actions are controversial to a greater or lesser extent with the vast majority of humanity for whom its existence is nonetheless entirely unproblematic.

You have established only one thing: that Griffin does not just write about the laetrile conspiracy theory, but actually subscribes to it. You have succeeded in strengthening the case for characterising him as a conspiracy theorist, but have entirely failed to establish that his advocacy of laetrile is anything other than delusional. The only saving grace is that unlike some advocates, he is at least not making money direct from defrauding desperate people with terminal disease. Guy (Help!) 19:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Guy, can I use your last comment in the article?

With the utmost respect to all who have taken such an incredible amount of time to advise me, I THANK YOU. WP may be new to me, but writing isn't. I've probably been writing for longer than most of you are old. Scary to think time has flown by so quickly. The only reason I mentioned it is to demonstrate that my concerns are purely BLP related. I have no intention of getting into a PS-Fringe debate, and I am certainly not going to "promote" anything or try to debunk anything, either. That isn't my job or purpose. I come from old school journalism - cut my teeth on Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntley and David Brinkley back when the news was really the news, and not the partisanship spew it is now. I worked for a short time with CNN a few years after Ted first launched it. Curious - how many of you remember John Cameron Swayze? Anyway, I was one of those little nerd girls who loved to play baseball and ride horses, but who enjoyed reading the Encyclopedia Britannica during quiet time. As a wild guess, I've probably written thousands of television scripts, 7 screenplays, hundreds of magazine articles, edited that many more, wrote/produced commercial videos/dvds, PSAs, countless commercial spots, etc. that, in the aggregate, would easily convert into millions of edits in Wiki voice. I've taught, lectured and served on panels, some of my work is still being cited today, and I pioneered of a new format for television. That's all I need to reveal, but you know what's crazy? I am just as proud of my 5 GAs and 1 FA on WP as I am the many awards I've earned as a writer/publisher/producer. That should tell you a little something about who I am, what I think of this project, and why my focus is on getting the article right. Kindest regards....--Atsme☯^Consult 00:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

off-topic response: Camel Caravan of News. Ed Herlihy was the voice of Fox Movietone News. Clayton "Bud" Collyer was Superman on the radio. Don Herbert was "Mr. Wizard" and Jon Gnagy had the first "network" television program. I out-old you. Collect (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

We're taking the time because we think you are really a very nice person with the potential to do much more of the same tremendous work. Remember, though: a writer normally starts by deciding on an angle. Science doesn't. Laetrile has been illegally sold and promoted for decades, and many sad, desperate, dying people have been bled dry of their life savings pursuing a chimaera. This is not a morally neutral subject. The laetrile fraud is morally repugnant, a con of the very worst kind, and if it was attempted in my country the majority of those involved in promoting it would be prosecuted (you speak of your past as a writer: last year I was one of a small group who succeeded in getting two cancer quacks convicted and fined, and their advertisements stopped - I am proud of this, as you will no doubt guess). The overall tone of any coverage of laetrile must reflect the fact that it is generally dismissed as quackery of the most vile kind. Your sourcing looks more like that of a journalist - you do not apply the necessary scientific filter of hierarchy of evidential quality. Griffin writes books based on sources he likes the look of. The majority of sources don't say what he wants, especially the most robust ones, so he ignores them. That's why he advocates batshit crazy conspiracist memes like chemtrails. we can document that dispassionately, but as soon as we stat applying the same judgment as he does, we cease being Wikipedians and become advocates. My chum Dr. Gorski would change his mind in a snap if credible evidence emerged that laetrile cures cancer. It's unlikely to happen, but it was unlikely that ulcers would turn out to be caused by acid-living bacteria. Science is like that: it doesn't give a damn who advocates a thing, only whether it's true. A good rule of thumb here is that if a source is not in PubMed, it's not reliable. Go with that, eh?

And beware the false equivalence that places lone scientists against antivaxers, lone evolutionary biologists against creationists, lone climate scientists against the execrable Monckton. For every Wikipedia-compliant source you can find pimping laetrile, there will be a hundred or more showing it doesn't work. Guy (Help!) 00:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Violet Brown

There are five sources in the stub article on Violet Brown, an old woman:

"Oldest Validated Living Supercentenarians". Gerontology Research Group. Retrieved 18 December 2012.
Tashieka Mair (16 July 2007). The independent Mrs Violet Brown. The Jamaica Star. Accessed January 2015.
Horace Hines (29 March 2013). An extraordinary senior citizen - ‘Aunt V’ turns 113. Jamaica Observer. Accessed January 2015.
Horace Hines (19 March 2009). Violet Moss-Brown... 109, not out. Jamaica Observer. Accessed January 2015.
Sheena Gayle (8 March 2010). 110-y-o Trelawny woman reveals secret to long life. Jamaica Gleaner. Accessed January 2014.

Between them they give three different dates of birth for her. Is there any reason to consider any of them unreliable, or to consider any one of them to be indubitably more reliable than the others? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Out of these sources, the Gerontology Research Group (GRG) appears to be the only one which actually verifies the age of supercentenarians. Thus, the GRG's dates should receive priority here. Futurist110 (talk) 03:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

All of these are probably reliable sources (I can only judge the GRG by their Wikipedia article). Three of them agree on a March 15 DOB, one says March 10, one March 4. Four of them (the four newspaper articles) report on an event - the celebration of her birthday - and cite sources. It's pretty clear that her birthday was celebrated on March 15 in 2007, 2009 and 2013. It's also pretty clear that her birthday was celebrated 11 days earlier than that in 2010.

While the GRG reportedly verified her age, their source isn't given. And if it is her birth certificate, it's important to note that birth certificates are not necessarily accurate - my grandfather's (born 1906, in Trinidad, which would have had a very similar system of birth registration as Jamaica) DOB is, reportedly, wrong on his birth certificate because there was a fine for reporting a birth more than a week late. A friend's father, born around 1940, has two different birth certificates with different first and surnames. Without more information, I wouldn't take the date supplied by the GRG as a fact, while disregarding the other reported birth dates. That amounts to privileging the most opaque of the five sources. Guettarda (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The GRG requires early & mid-life documentation, as well as later life identification, to verify a supercentenarian claim. That includes a birth certificate, marriage record, census records, and other ID documents. Of course we cannot be completely certain that her claim is true - there is always the chance of misidentification, for example - but you can have a 99% confidence level in verified cases. The point is, they have verified her claim with a birth date of 10 March 1900, so that's the most likely birth date, and that's what should be included in the article. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 07:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The GRG website is a single source. Typos happen all the time. As do transcription errors. As do errors in the creation of official documents. Due to the fact that the GRG website is utterly opaque in this regard, it's impossible to state that the odds of an error are ~1%. Errors in birth registration, for example, are commonplace. Proof may be required now, but when most births occurred at home (as they did in Jamaica circa 1900) proof was impossible to come by. And registrars make mistakes too. You tell someone something, and they write it down. Errors can also occur when you transcribe records. The original entries were transcribed by hand when copies were made. (I don't know if Jamaica has computerised or microfilmed their records recently.) The volunteers themselves can make errors.

The simple fact is that an official DOB is a data point around which there exists a certain amount of error. What that error is, I don't know. But a 1% error rate in a country of 2.8 million amounts to 28,000 errors. Even a 0.1% error rate still means that 2,800 DOBs are wrong. And we're talking about record keeping over 100 years ago. My experience with a country whose bureaucracy was, at the time, run by the same colonial civil service as Jamaica makes me suspect that the rate of accuracy was probably on the higher end. To that error rate we must compound the error rate of researchers (who are volunteers, so who knows how well they are trained in data collection) and the error rate of transcription onto the web site. Against that we have the error rate of the news stories. Maybe journalists make more mistakes than GRG researchers (though I would never assume that a priori); the problem lies not in the possibility of error, but in the coincidence of error. And here's the thing - the newspaper reports are tied to events. It's far easier to transpose a digit when typing than it is to confuse "last Sunday" with "last week Tuesday".

Unless you're willing to assume that Jamaicans as ignorant and First World sources are authoritative, I see no way to privilege that one source while dismissing the others. Guettarda (talk) 23:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Greetings, The Gerontology Research Group is the world's leading authority in extreme longevity tracking. The confidentiality of the data provided and presented by the Gerontology Research Group is beyond any further doubts, once an authenticity of an age is verified just as it happened in Mrs. Violet Brown's case. She was indeed born on Mar. 10, 1900. The verification of a supercentenarian case is a process, in which many different aspects are taken into consideration and it does take time. Firstly a case is pending and then, after further review the final decision is made. A case can be positively verified only when there has been gathered the substantial evidence on the particular case. A news report is not substantial evidence of an age. The Gerontology Research Group bases on the original documentation. Moreover, one document is not enough to verify a case. The multiple number of documents, records, certifications and other sources eliminate the possibility of incompatibility. Then, even if one of these sources was indeed in range of error, the researchers can distinguish it. The researchers, GRG Correspondents are trusted members of the GRG, who have previously proven their credibility and signed the confidentiality agreement. The Gerontology Research Group is a professional organization, cooperates with Guiness World Records as well as with other gerontological and sociological institutions. Its correspondents, apart from collecting the evidence, also often perform the research "in field" by contacting the families of supercentenarians, supercentenarians themselves and exchanging the information with them. Waenceslaus (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Assertions by the GRG fan club that the GRG is infallible are incorrect. On one occasion there was a dispute on Wiki as to whether or not a British supercentenarian had died. The GRG, vigorously supported by Robert Young, assured us that she had died while a relative insisted she had not. The GRG was wrong (they had been supplied incorrect information). Also their website is technologically out of date (they have promised an upgrade for about a year) and some of the pages, cited as references in Wiki, have not been updated for up to 7 years, so there must exist the possibility, however small, that the date published on their website is not what they have on their records. However, while not 100% reliable the GRG is still probably more reliable than your average newspaper where journalism can range from sloppy to grossly incompetent and occasionally deliberately false. In this case I would expect the DoB of 10 March to probably be correct. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

IndiaGlitz

I have used IndiaGlitz as a reference in the article Vikram filmography. I wanna make sure if the source qualifies WP:RS. A point worth noting is that, ref #143 is taken from IndiaGlitz and republished by CNN IBN. There have been numerous instances where IBN have used source material from IndiaGlitz and published them, as can be seen here and here. Considering such information will be allowed as RS, coming from IBN, I think non-controversial claims from IndiaGlitz can also be qualified as RS. I rest my case. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 07:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

It is a reliable citation for this kind of information. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Sriram, on the whole, it qualifies a an RS. Create an article on it and expand it using secondary sources like Hindu, TOI, CNN etc. which mention about it. — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 07:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

International Business Times have made numerous references to IndiaGlitz and have quoted their reviews in their "review roundup" pages to determine how well a film or its music was received, as seen here. There is also this and [44], which are used for different purposes rather than collecting reviews. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@Kailash29792:Your point being? -- Sriram ^{speak up} 08:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

My point being that two internationally reputed sites (CNN-IBN and IBTimes) rely on IndiaGlitz for information, which should prove it's notability and reliability. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Mid Day has also used IndiaGlitz in this. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Bladesmulti, any final word? Kailash29792 (talk) 05:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

No. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

So with all the evidence we have presented, I think the site should satisfy RS, even during FAC's. Kailash29792 (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Dispute about sources establishing setting of a motion picture

Myself and another editor (SummerPhd) are engaged in a dispute about whether each of the following sources are acceptible to establish that a particular motion picture was set in New York City:

(1) A citation to the motion picture itself, as a primary source, in reference to a variety of elements including ending credits [copied from discussion on the article's talk page]:

All of the characters' vehicles seen in the movie bear New York license plates.
In the opening scene the pay phone which Shelley Levene (Lemmon) uses clearly reads "New York Telephone - NYNEX Company."
George Aaronow (Arkin) comments to Shelley, "I had a woman in White Plains on the hook ..."[The characters in this film are salesmen who typically drive to their prospect's homes to close the sale]
The final scene features a subway car with "Sheepshead Bay" (Brooklyn) as the destination.
The scene in which Al Pacino's character arrives at the office features an NYPD squad car parked at the curb (in foreground), and actors in New York police uniforms.
The Detective (Jude Ciccolella) wears a New York City detective's badge. (If the story were supposed to be in Chicago, at the very least the director would have given the detective a Chicago or generic-looking badge instead of the distinctive New York badge).
The film's ending credits state that movie was "filmed on location in New York City."

The other editor contends that direct reference to such elements in the primary source is not allowable because it would be synthesis and original research. I believe that in this context, a primary source is not only allowable but perhaps the strongest, because the primary source is being used to cite a "straightforward, descriptive statement of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."

(2) A citation to a statement from a scholarly, peer-reviewed journal. The journal article states: "[The story is] set in New York City in the film, but Chicago in the play..."

We both agree that this source is acceptable.

(3) A citation to the New York Times, referring to a statement that the film was being shot in New York City. The other editor contends that the mere fact that a film was shot "on location" cannot establish that the story was actually set there. While I agree that this is true to a certain extent, I believe that in practice it is powerful evidence, and goes a long way toward establishing that the film was indeed set in New York.

In sum: the other editor wishes to remove all of the citations except the citation to the academic journal. In my opinion this removes the strongest sources and best evidence, to the ultimate detriment of the article. (The setting of the film has been a subject of dispute in the past, perhaps because the play was set in Chicago).

So you agree about the article's content and the dispute is just about, whether you cite just #2 or all 3 sources? My impression of the discussion is that, you don't primarily disagree about the reliabilty of the sources but rather on what they actually state. If that is so, this is the wrong noticeboard und you probably should ask for 3rd opinions instead.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Robert Ankony, various articles

Robert Ankony is a Vietnam veteran, a veteran police officer and detective, and has a Ph.D in criminology. He has written a memoir, issued by a reputable publisher, as well as articles about his experiences in the Vietnam War, and has written numerous articles in scholarly criminology articles. He maintains a website with reprints of his published writings and a self-published blog: http://www.robertankony.com

Ankony has also contributed to Wikpedia as Icemanwcs (talk · contribs). Many of his contributions have been in the form of citations to his published works. Others have been verbatim copies of those works. It's my opinion, and just an opinion, that he's made those contributions to improve Wikipedia and not for any personal gain. His website does not carry any advertisements and it doesn't appear that he gains any monetary rewards by directing traffic to it. I believe he has contributed his scholarship in good faith, to the overall benefit of the project.

An editor using a variety of IPs (208.54.38.255, 172.56.8.192, 172.56.9.67) has decided that all of the references and external links to writings by Ankony are detrimental to Wikipedia, are in violation of policy, and must be removed immediately without any discussion. He has removed the citations but not the cited material. I've counseled a more cautious approach. In response the editor has made all kinds of accusations about my motives and methods. I don't want to deal with the IP editor any more which is why I'm bringing this here for the community to handle.

Ankony's "About me" webpage says:[45]

He earned his bachelor's degree from the University of Michigan, a master's in correctional sciences from the University of Detroit; and an MS, MA, and PhD in sociology (criminology) from Wayne State University. He did graduate research in the former Soviet Union and other Warsaw Pact nations and now writes criminological, firearms, and military articles for scientific and professional journals and special-interest magazines. He is a member of the American Society of Criminology.

Here are some of the pages from which the IP editor has deleted citation's to Ankony's scholarly, peer reviewed publications or other published writings: Explosive material, Proactive policing, Long-range reconnaissance patrol. Please decide if these citations and contributions should be removed with prejudice or have value. Rezin (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

There's no rule against citing yourself on Wikipedia, if your work is indeed a reliable source on the matter. However, it does present a conflict of interest that should be treated with caution, especially when you're citing your own self-published work, which is why it is usually suggested that people refrain from citing themselves. But that guideline exists to prevent bad citations, not to remove good ones; if a citation is acceptable when placed by one person, then the identical citation is acceptable when placed by anyone.

Certainly, it is bad practice to remove citations but the material being cited; it not only leaves behind potentially incorrect information but does not let future editors figure out where the text came from, making improvement more difficult. As far as your conflict with that editor is concerned, the Reliable Sources Noticeboard is not the forum for that. If you absolutely can't work anything out, consider WP:ARBCOM (keeping in mind that arbitration is about personal conduct, not article content). Knight of Truth (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Rezin is being very misleading here, maybe he did not delve into the history of this link spammer as I have. Robert Ankony is User Talk:Icemanwcs as he admitted on his talk page. Ankony has mostly used his Wikipedia account for self promoting link spam WP:Spammer as reported here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#www.robertankony.com After spending two days investigating and removing his gross amount of link spamming some things have become obvious. 1. He has been warned in the past about his link spamming (over a years time frame) and also asked to use sources other than himself (which he uses for reference link spam). 2. Most of his edits add very little and are mostly minor tweaks and shuffling stuff around with addition of link spam pointing to his own website and other material. In some cases he has removed good sources without explaining why and then adding himself as a source after citing his own opinion with himself as the reference. WP:COI 3. He constantly adds his website to many articles under external link which have no legitimate reasoning for being added other than link spamming his name and website all over Wikipedia. Additionally all we really know is he has a website and has been published in his own online magazine and a few other articles. I suspect he is a veteran and an ex police officer and may have some degrees but we have no easy way of substantiating that. It is all irrelevant as he is clearly misusing his account to link spam the snot out of many articles for self promoting reasons. 172.56.9.123 (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't confuse the behavioral issues concerning Icemanwcs with the question here, which simply concerns whether these references qualify as reliable sources. That issue isn't dependent on who added the citations. If you're claiming that the citations are falsified that's a serious accusation against another editor. It requires substantiation and should be pursued on a different noticeboard, WP:ANI perhaps. Rezin (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

You just confused the issue by insinuating I claimed they were falsified which is a serious insinuation. They are not helpful references as most are only added as link spam and many times to content that was already there before he showed up. The problem with your whole argument is you believe his sources are good (which we do not know) because you believe his claims of expertise make him a trusted authority. How did you come to that conclusion? Have you found evidence of know experts quoting or referencing his works? If you have you should be placing those citations as secondary sources where appropriate. It has been pointed out many times and even above by another editor that it is best not to cite oneself for obvious reasons. When it becomes readily obvious the reason for citing oneself is pure and simple self promotion WP:SPAMMER and the account has been mostly used to promote self interested goals then a reasonable person would also question the objectivity of the source. I have investigated his many edits and have found most to be of little consequence to the article and almost always a way to slip in link spam. It is so obvious that even you are finally acknowledging these "behavioral issues" (your words). The is ample evidence to bring his misuse of editing to arbcom and I believe the are many well respected editors who have previously warned him and would be willing to weigh in on his behavior. It is because of your dragging this around that you have flagged him and that may ultimately happen despite my original intention of warning him again and removing the link spam. He is now on two boards as a result. 172.56.9.123 (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

This thread is solely concerned with whether the references are reliable. You have not presented any evidence why, for example, this reference:

Robert C. Ankony and Thomas M. Kelly, "The Impact of Perceived Alienation on a Police Officers' Sense of Mastery and Subsequent Motivation for Proactive Enforcement," Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, vol. 22, no. 2 (1999): 120-32.

is unreliable for Wikipedia purposes. If there's no reason to question it's reliability then the presumption is that a journal like Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management is probably reliable.[46][47] Rezin (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

[User:Rezin|Rezin]] (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC) I appreciate your defense of my credentials and work. I posted my response on the talk page and I did so again below. I do hope this matter is resolved and that the references to my years of Wikipedia work are restored. I regret that it is viewed by (talk) as spam. I never made a dollar off it. I do it as a contributor to history and from my fields of expertise. I love history and that I happened to live some of it, researched it, and wrote about it shouldn't be taken as a negative. The question should be is my work valid and authoritative. The question by (talk) asking how much of my work has been referenced by known experts is unnecessary because the validity is the publication--editors of scholarly publications thought it was relevant to its readers. I also disagree with the statement that most of my edits add very little and that references were already there before I showed up. I'm sure over the years many of my edits were minor and at times some references were already there. On the other hand do all my edits have to be major and is it recognized that I created pages and cleaned some pages of ramblings, e.g., Proactive Enforcement. Equally important, why was the reference to the definition of Social Alienation or Long Range Reconnaissance Patrol, the lead sentences on each of the pages removed, which are respectively from my doctoral dissertation as published in the scientific journal Policing and from my book LURPS. That's years of my scholarly work erased by (talk). Thank you, Icemanwcs (talk) 09:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello (talk) I only saw your notification today or I would have addressed your concerns immediately. First, it seems years of my published work and references were removed regardless of their relevance. Many of the deletions are from sites I created, e.g., Company E, 52nd Infantry (LRP), a unit I spent six years researching and writing the first edition of my book LURPS and another four years writing the second revised edition. I also served with that unit in Vietnam. LURPS was published by an academic press and is an authoritative source. I was invited to Fort Benning, GA, by the US Army Rangers in 2006 to speak about the history of the unit. The other references cited on the page were placed by me. I do add additional sources where appropriate on other pages. The fact that LURPS is my work and I direct readers to my website is to further explain unit history or show battlefield photos that are not appropriate for Wikipedia and this should be recognized as a contribution to history, not as self-serving though it my appear so at a quick glance. Another example is the Wikipedia site Social Alienation. The very first sentence and definition on that page is from my doctoral dissertation which was published in the scientific journal Policing and the Police Chief magazine. And now that reference is gone as if that definition is not authoritative. There are many other sites where I either created or did extensive work and those references are also gone but my work was left intact without any references. This seems to have been done with a broad brush regardless of the individual content. I do agree that my reference on the Wikipedia site Running may have been wrong, however, I thought the article would be of interest and the site was requesting references. Yes, my reference on that page was not authoritative but my view was it's a starting point. As I said I worked for years on Wikipedia and I periodically come back to sites with new or additional information and source material or photos. On January 8 I received the following message ":NB On further review I see that Robert Ankony may very well be an expert on several of the relevant topics, per "The U.S. .45 Model 50 And 55 Reising Submachine Gun And Model 60 Semiautomatic Rifle" and Lurps: A Ranger's Diary of Tet, Khe Sanh, A Shau, and Quang Tri]. Still, it'd be good if you review the WP:EL to avoid any problems. Thanks for your contributions to WP and, if you're he, your service to the nation. Rezin (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)". I think it would serve history and Wikipedia users if the references and external links are restored. If they are I would be happy to review the sites and remove any links or references that are not of specific need and you could review my work. Thank you, Icemanwcs (talk) 07:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

When User Talk:Icemanwcs states: "That's years of my scholarly work that someone just erased. Thank you" that sums ups his intention of using Wikipedia to self promote his interests through Wikipedia. It matters not whether he made money but that sounds like a canard as he has books for sale and he is slinging his website all over wiki articles. I am sorry I don't buy it. And there are many other field experts with PhD's and books for sale who are not abusing Wikipedia with link spamming WP:SPAMMER. Adding references citing oneself and then adding links to all kinds of articles shows a definitive pattern of abuse that even Reziz has acknowledged. Again the argument against link spamming and misuse of self citing for self promotion does not hinge on whether it is reliable. And Robert Ankony acknowledges that he is not being cited by known experts on Wikipedia or for that matter elsewhere. He has written some articles for magazines which I have looked at and I do not believe a reasonable person would call most of them scholarly publications albeit there may be a few which qualify. Gun magazine and occupational magazines however are not academic publications. Again I will ask the obvious question: Why would such a person who claims to be a scholar not realize it is best not to cite oneself? Did he not learn that in his studies and realize the ethical conflict of interest when doing such? Surely such an academic would have many sources to back up his years of research as he claims he has done above. Why does he not use them and instead chooses to link spam to his website which he claims he never made a penny off of? He has been amply warned by many other editors and has had his link spammed removed many times in the past yet he continues to go on his merry way ignoring the concerns and advice of many editors over a 2 year period. In fact his actions have led to a concern over reliability due to his "Behavioral Issues" -Rezin's description. The constant link spamming of articles is a serious disruption of Wikipedia as it takes many editors time to police rogue behavior. Ankony cannot expect much respect in the wiki community for his view that he is contributing when he has a long record of abusing Wikipedia with link spamming. 172.56.9.123 (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

LInks to Link Spamming on Spam-Blacklist Notice board

I have provided links to the spam blacklit noticeboard which lists some of the spamming by Robert Ankony and his talk page which also shows the warnings given by editors. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=642808855#www.robertankony.com and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Icemanwcs&oldid=642810110#External_links

(talk) It appears you removed all references from years of work yet you left all of my text on the pages. Another editor addressed if a reference can be cited by one person it can be cited by anyone. The question is are my references reliable. Rezin and another editor thought they were. You took the position that because it is my work they must be removed because it is "self-promoting spamming." On the Long Range Reconnaissance Patrol page you stated I have been "spamming the snot out of the page." That's very unfortunate. I put a lot of work into that page and as mentioned have spent ten years researching LURPS. A book that was Nominated for the Army Historical Foundation's Distinguish Writing Award in 2006 and 2009. LURPS was also favorably reviewed by Dr. Erik Villard, US Army Center of Military History, Washington, D.C. And Jason Foster of Vietnam magazine wrote that "LURPS is among the best war diaries available." Vietnam magazine also published some of my work as their cover story "No Peace in the Valley" Oct. 2008. That magazines such as Vietnam or Small Arms of the World are not scholarly is true but they are authoritative sources in their field. Does a source have to be as notable as the New England Journal of Medicine to be referenced on Wikipedia. I think not--but if so why did you remove Policing: An Internal Journal of Police Science and Management? The other issue is the links to my website. I acknowledge this can appear self-serving but it is not for that purpose. Review my website, especially LURPS Gallery it presents a unique contribution to the history of the Vietnam War. It's an archive of photos and scholarly captions that have been complied over many years. Many of the photos are not appropriate for Wikipedia but they show 1968, the most pivotal year of the war. It also depicts the biggest battle of the war, the Tet Offensive, as well as the second largest battle of the war, the Siege of the Marine combat base at Khe Sanh. In addition, it shows the First Air Cavalry Division's assault into A Shau Valley--the most formidable enemy-held territory in South Vietnam. Yes, I served in each of these battles and spent much of my life writing about them because I owe that to the men I served with and to all who died. Please read the work that the links were connected to and see if you still think it is self-promoting. Read "No Peace in the Valley" Oct. 2008, it's on my website. I don't even mention I was there in the article, yet I was. I only use my references or at times direct readers to my website if it adds more relevant detail. I'm sorry you determined that because I researched and wrote articles you believe all my work is self-serving. I consider it an honor to have served with the men I did, both in the military and in law enforcement. I was fortunate that I had the chance to move on in life from a GED to a PhD. Perhaps you should also take a look at the link you removed from Company E, 52nd Infantry (LRP) about Sgt. Douglas Parkinson titled "Team Leader and Mentor." Doug was a giant in Company E and once said, "Bob get the story out and let people know what happened in Vietnam, or the men we lost will just disappear." I hope you repost the references and links and I will give them an editing which you can review. Thank you,Icemanwcs (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk) You erroneously quoted me when you stated: "And Robert Ankony acknowledges that he is not being cited by known experts on Wikipedia or for that matter elsewhere." Please note, I never said that and as an editor you too should be more careful. What I said is this: "The question by (talk) asking how much of my work has been referenced by known experts is unnecessary because the validity is the publication--editors of scholarly publications thought it was relevant to its readers." You also state: "He has written some articles for magazines which I have looked at and I do not believe a reasonable person would call most of them scholarly publications albeit there may be a few which qualify. Gun magazine and occupational magazines however are not academic publications." Did I ever say that everything I wrote is an academic publication? Do you require this of other editors and contributors? Have you looked at the books on Wikipedia pages? Can you really say that all citations are from scientific journals or from an academic press? Thank you,Icemanwcs (talk) 03:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk) I think the external link to the Photographic History of 1st Cav LRRP Rangers in Vietnam (1968) should be re-installed as it provides a vivid and scholarly account of key battles of the war that would be of interest to Wikipedia military historians.Icemanwcs (talk) 07:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this came up back in August of 2013 as well. At that time I went back through and did some work on some of the articles in question to provide balance and more secondary sources. Intothat darkness 15:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Intothat darkness Thanks for your help in the past and for your concern now. I think the argument has been made and I agree.Icemanwcs (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

DRMCC thesis

An editor has twice challenged a thesis published at a university-affiliated research institution, DRMCC: [48] He says that the fact that it is a thesis, and the fact that it is from this university, needs citations. Opinions? — Brianhe (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm a bit lost. Does references the thesis not imply the university and advisor? I mean that info should be in the thesis itself. So unless there is some reason to believe the thesis is a forgery the request of that editor makes no sense to me.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. I advised him of this RSN topic, so if we don't hear from him, I'm taking his actions to imply that he thinks it is a forgery, especially the last edit summary. — Brianhe (talk) 03:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you clarify what sort of thesis this is? A doctoral thesis tends to have a lot more scrutiny than a Masters thesis - and I'm fairly sure that we won't generally cite the latter as RS accordingly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

It appears to be a thesis for a diplôme universitaire; I'm afraid I don't know enough about the structure of French academic degrees and diplomas to place that precisely on the spectrum. My reading of our article (and a combination of my broken French and a bit of Google Translate) suggests that it's certainly much closer to a Master's thesis than a Ph.D. thesis in stature. I'm not sure if a 'defense' is required for one. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

That's how at read it as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Can't answer exactly what the academic stature is, however, its title page says Sous la direction de Xavier Raufer et François Haut, these appear to be two faculty or directors [49] who have been directing or advising the author. I believe the first is the Xavier Raufer with an article at the French Wikipedia. — Brianhe (talk) 05:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I generally wouldn't consider a thesis reliable regardless of degree. Primary peer-reviewed journal articles are generally shaky already because it's difficult for us as a non-expert editors to assign weight and scientific acceptance of the ideas in such a source. Graduate level theses are generally reviewed by committee members and an advisor, but this is can often be done in a hurried manner to get the student to graduate, so that bumps down the reliability even more. It's not all cases, but it occurs often enough that a thesis chapter is very different in quality to that same work published in a peer-reviewed journal. Usually it's a big red flag if that work hasn't been published yet. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The existence of a thesis should be easy enough to verify; these things should be indexed. Using a thesis as a source is something that should be carefully considered on a case-by-case basis: why wasn't it published, are there no better sources, things like that. Specifically here though, I find it odd that it's listed under "further reading". An obscure, unpublished source, in French (apparently) just doesn't sound like something that's a good fit for the 'further reading' section. Guettarda (talk) 05:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's an easy one

Is this book:

Ruiz, Enrique (2009). Discriminate Or Diversify. PositivePsyche.Biz Corp. p. 279. ISBN 9780578017341.

a reliable citation for the statement, "The gathering during Hajj is considered the largest annual gathering of people in the world"? (See [50])

Ping: User:Debresser Shii (tock) 14:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Seems irrelevant. At Pilgrimage and Hajj there are two additional cites used for this assertion [51] [52], and looking on google turns up quite a few alternate refs as well. This source makes mention of the claim in question, but does not seem to comment on its justification; might as well remove it. siafu (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

A self-published work, and I see nothing in even his own bio that suggests that he's a particular expert in the attendance of hajj relative to other worldwide events. So, unneeded (as noted above) and inappropriate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure why this ref is needed surely stronger ones exist. self-published by a expert in Hajj would be cool, but is this guy one?--Inayity (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Musa I of Mali richest man to have lived

Some sources say [Mansa Musa http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/world-history/meet-mansa-musa-i-of-mali--the-richest-human-being-in-all-history-8213453.html independent] and Huffand Daily Mail are these enough to verify a statement that he was one of the richest men to have ever lived? including Henry Louis Gates saying it also gates and he is a historian. Many Thanks--Inayity (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Those are simply reproductions of the original claim, which on close inspection is not particularly reliable. The Independent's a reputable newspaper, but I think it's necessary to exercise a bit of judgement over newspaper stalwart Phil Space putting in something cute from some Website on a slow news day. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that this probably not reliable. Reliability is not all-encompassing; a newspaper that has a great news section might print horoscopes or crazy op-eds, or as User:Pinkbeast mentioned, include something on a "slow newsday" with less rigorous editorial standards than normal. Knight of Truth (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

When taking into account the original source "Celebrity net worth", I think the answer is no. This is a fluff piece for fun, not a serious claim. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately Henry Louis Gates is a historian and the second he uses it, it becomes notable. And please remember your comments MUST deal with RS, not opinions on what is "slow newsday" that is not an academic reply to the criteria of RS. Nor is fluff for fun a serious remark to the validity of a source, it is a personal bias-- and everyone has them. If there is a problem with RS you must have a serious discussion ABOUT the specific source and why that information is (in specific terms) not RS. Fluff piece, Slow day = are name calling, not refutations of a source. We are not discussing Horoscopes, or Op-eds, we are discussing if this source, used by many, including a senior world historian in the said article--Inayity (talk) 23:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Yet when it comes to other historical figures you find this same kind of ref being used. Sure it is not scholarly, but it is Notable enough to be included (when used so widely) in the article. I cannot be washed out. --Inayity (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Gates quotes it as "according to" Celebrity Net Worth. Every other statement in the Gates article is definitive. Bit of a hedge? Pinkbeast (talk) 11:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

This comment is for house keeping purposes. This is why i proposed we edit the line to suggest it is according to some criteria. That way it is not a fact and mirrors a RS source and a person qualified to make the remark, even if with reservations. --Inayity (talk) 04:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: Wealth is not an absolute value for every time and place. While on a desert island, Robinson Crusoe was the wealthiest person alive as far as Friday was concerned. Currently we see some Russian oligarch's having their wealth cut in half by simple currency fluctuations. By the way, RS/N has repeatedly found "CelebrityNetWorth" to not meet WP:RS. [53], [54], [55], [56] etc. Collect (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Nor is "ranker.com" a reliable source for any claim of fact at all. Collect (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Celebrity Net worth is not the only thing we are discussing. I see one editor trying to use this R/S to delete another source from a scholar. While networth might not be r.s the article by Henry Louis Gates IS!!!!!!!! --Inayity (talk) 07:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Henry Louis Gates is just referencing, in passing and not in terms of any kind of serious work, celebritynetworth. It's the same damn source. HLG is a tertiary source and not very relevant one at that. Look, Inanity, you've been told by something like five people here that this is NOT a reliable source. Quit haranguing them, wasting their time, and accept what others are trying to tell you. Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

And yes, what Collect says above is correct. You really can't compare the wealth of someone living in the pre-Industrial world to someone living today. If MM was so wealthy, why didn't he buy a laptop? Why didn't he drive a car? Poor guy couldn't even afford lightbulbs for his palace. And that's putting aside the fact that "lots of gold" is not necessarily the correct measure of wealth. If we measured wealth in terms of purchasing power of, say, wheat, or rice, or tin, or cows or whatever, we'd get a different answer. Note that celebritynetworth.com does not explain their "methodology". Most likely they just made this shit up. Because they're an unreliable source. On Wikipedia we don't include stupid junk that some lame gossip site made up, even if it was repeated by a trashy tabloid.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Wait a minute you cannot compare? So I guess historical economics just went down the toilet with that simplistic statement. We are not really discussing only Celeb (as you know I also do not think highly of it). What I am defending is the hedged statement which says "According to some criteria" I think that is a satisfactory statement. All over Wikipedia I see "Most influential people" and all kinds of similar material which cannot be quantified. But it is used. So Less about the details of how historical net worth is calculated, that is really not the point of contention. Noticed the celeb as a direct ref has been removed. We are dealing with Gates who is a notable scholarly surely he would not use a NONSENSE source and mess up his years of "credit"--Inayity (talk) 08:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Lastly please respect WP:CIVILITY and do not pretend to play parent I only see you edit warring and yapping on. I have been told? You should have followed Wikipedia policy and used the WP:TALK, discuss things like a professional. Now Henry Louis Gates has gone so low he is using Stupid Junk well shame on him, he might still know a thing or two. So where are we? --Inayity (talk) 08:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

If you're referring to Economic History then no, it doesn't go down the toilet. In fact that is precisely what tells you that it's pretty much impossible - or at the very least extremely hard - to compare wealth levels across centuries. Your "hedged statement" looks like a bullshit excuse to insert a nonsense claim from an unreliable source. "Hedged nonsense" is still nonsense. Why not just go ahead and put in "According to the unreliable trashy gossip site celebritynetworth.com..."? That's pretty much what you want us to let you do here. Let you use junk source as long as you "hedge it". No.

Look, that's 3 people here, plus myself, plus at least 2 or 3 more people on the talk page telling you it's rubbish. So stop playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. What's incivil is wasting people's time with inanities. Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Known issues section of Nexus 5

The known issues section of Nexus 5 was removed because none of the sources are considered valid. could an independent party check them one by one?

Energy in Depth

Used by Scientific American. Sci Am also links directly to the source's website within an online Sci Am article. The source is also used by US News, Bloomberg News, CBS News, the LA Times, USA Today, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal. Users @Randykitty: and @HG: nonetheless respectively contend that Energy in Depth is "unusable" and material cited to it is "very poorly sourced". Thoughts? In my opinion excluding Energy in Depth even when use is restricted to with in-text attribution may leave articles about publications and resources preferred by environmental lobbying organizations unbalanced, indeed, that's why so many editors of reliable sources like Scientific American see Energy in Depth as a "go to" resource: it provides critical balance from an authority, albeit an authority with a POV. This POV is affiliated with the energy industry, however my view is that if the partisan affiliation is fully disclosed to the reader, per WP:RS "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." I'll grant that adding critiques to articles is not to everyone's taste, indeed it isn't to mine, but these two editors have already rejected my stripping out the critique to just leave behind the undisputed facts the critique refers to as "original research" on my part. On a related note, I suggest we ask ourselves if black and white thinking about RS is appropriate or necessary: an appreciation of shading would mean sources could be used under specified conditions, such as with attribution.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

It is perhaps important to provide some background information on the disagreement about the use of Energy in Depth as a reliable source. EiD describes itself on their website as a "campaign". They're an industry lobbying group with an axe to grind. Note that Sci Am, LA Times, etc all cite opinions from this group, like newspapers, but not encyclopedias, do. They do not cite them as the source of well established fact. Brian doesn't mention it above, but he has been edit warring for a while now on the article about the scientific journal Reviews on Environmental Health. At first he wanted to insert information about personal opinions of the editor-in-chief, Carpenter, thereby suggesting that these had an influence on the contents of the journal: "The editors-in-chief are David O. Carpenter and Peter Sly. Carpenter has been vocal about what he sees as the cancer risks posed by Wi-Fi in schools,[ref] consuming farmed salmon,[ref] and fracking." (The references, indicated by [ref], can be found in the article history). Without actual evidence that the editor's personal opinions affect the contents of a journal, this suggestive language constitutes SYNTH/POV/OR, is UNDUE (in this article) and irrelevant, and therefore I removed this phrase. I told Brian that info about personal opinions (if well sourced) could be used in a bio (BLP) on the editor, but not in this article, unless a reliable source shows that it is relevant to the subject of the article, i.e. the editorial policy of Reviews on Environmental Health. Subsequently, Brian came up with a reference to EiD: 'Energy in Depth, a research and education program of the Independent Petroleum Association of America, has contended that Carpenter's editor-in-chief role "brings up questions as to the publication’s credibility."[ref]' I (and also another editor) have removed this, too, for the obvious reason that WP is not like a newspaper, but an encyclopedia, and including opinions from lobbying groups in this particular article is UNDUE and inappropriate. --Randykitty (talk) 08:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

My previous editing did not, in fact, contend that. It did allow for the possibility, which is what the facts allowed (no one disputes that both Energy in Depth and Carpenter both have views, it's just that you think that it's extremely relevant with respect to the first and so irrelevant with respect to the second readers should be kept ignorant of the second). You then decided it was IMpossible, presuming some sort of magic firewall. Not that this "background" is relevant if there is any point to having a RS noticeboard as opposed to just telling everyone to keep all RS disputes on article Talk pages, anyway. I would think that if we were all interested in resolving the RS issue, you wouldn't be trying to make an issue out of me, calling me an edit warrior when I've shown more patience than you have (this isn't my first rodeo, and it's a well worn play when someone doesn't have an argument on a content noticeboard to drag in all sorts of "background" that obscures the question raised on the noticeboard and makes a popularity contest of the editor who first went to the noticeboard). As for what is an issue: you haven't posited anything to raise doubt from an RS angle, beside saying they are biased, which RS policy explicitly rejects as rendering the source unreliable. The "newspaper" line is stylistic objection, not a substantive one, and it's a stylistic issue you created by rejecting a less critical presentation of the facts. You evidently think that balance is not appropriate here, because the subject of this article is too much above its critic for Wikipedia to treat them even handedly and have the counterpoint. Do you have any evidence that the subject should be above criticism fro this source when all those RS I pointed to are not engaging in any such elevation?--Brian Dell (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

What is the specific article you want to use the source in, and what is the statement or statements you want to cite to Energy in Depth? An industry lobbying group could be an appropriate source for some things but not others; please be specific. --GRuban (talk) 15:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm looking for input on whether it is EVER usuable. Specific contexts can then be discussed at the specific articles. It is not clear to me the point of a RS noticeboard if the answer is just "appropriate source for some things but not others" since most sources for which in-text attribution is best can be used inappropriately (by not having that in-text attribution).--Brian Dell (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is EVER usable. For example, in an article about an environmental controversy, an opinion from an industry lobbying group, properly cited as such, would be very important. For this specific issue, however, see below. --GRuban (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I thought I had mentioned that (but Brian didn't), this is the disputed article: Reviews on Environmental Health. --Randykitty (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

This same topic is apparently being discussed simultaneously at the BLP noticeboard, under Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive215#Reviews on Environmental Health. I would strongly suggest centralizing discussion there, since there are clear BLP implications. Either way, these discussions should not be happening in parallel. MastCell ^Talk 17:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Even if we assume that there are "clear BLP implications", do you seriously think there should be a brand new discussion about this source next time it comes up and that next time one can't even conceive of a BLP issue, @Mastcell:? Or would there always be a BLP issue? The discussion should have never left the article Talk page if, as you seem to be contending, RS issues are not supposed to be discussed apart from narrow and specific contexts, no? Isn't the BLP issue also occurring in a specific context?--Brian Dell (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

And failing that, reject this request as blatant POV-pushing. Guy (Help!) 20:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the source may be used with attribution. So shoot me. I'm not going to apologize for presenting an argument. Now, do you have any reason for thinking this source should never be used besides the fact I think it may be used? Why is it OK for Scientific American to use this source but not WIkipedia? Or for the U.S. Bureau of Land Management in its Q&A on fracking or for John R. Duda, Director, Strategic Center for Natural Gas and Oil at the National Energy Technology Laboratory to use but not WIkipedia? Why substitute a Wikipedian's judgement in the place of the editorial judgement of all these RS?--Brian Dell (talk) 07:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Bang. Per request. It looks like you're trying to use the source to say that a respected scientist is incompetent and biased. That's a pretty rough thing to say about someone, and for us to say it, it should come from one or more comparable scientists, not an industry lobbying group - which may include some scientists, but will also include some marketing and PR people, and it is not clear which is slinging mud about him here. --GRuban (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Entertainment agency websites as sources for birth dates

During the last few weeks, there has been much edit warring over the inclusion of birth dates in K-pop band pages. Please understand that I am not posting here to determine whether or not birth dates should be included in band articles, which is another related discussion. I am posting here to get input from more editors on whether the entertainment agencies are reliable sources for this information. Some K-pop band members are independently notable and have their own articles, with their birth dates sourced from their agency. Note that band members's profiles (including birth dates) are also published by the Korean media, but the original sources are the agencies.

Drmies maintains that entertainment companies are not reliable sources, as can be seen in these diffs from A Pink: 1, 2 (my reply), 3. See also this diff from Talk:Girls' Generation. A quote from that last one:

"And yes, I am sticking to my guns on the sourcing thing: we have a policy, and it's found at WP:BLP. It applies here. A Hollywood star from the 1930s, you can bet that someone has looked into it, and has written it up in a book or a reliable publication. In this area, we are dependent completely on the production companies, and that's just not a good thing. If we can't trust Allkpop and those kinds of sites, then we certainly shouldn't automatically trust the owners of these groups, their contracts, their social lives and their bodies ("We Got Married"), their sexualities, and their public image. Why would you trust them? Don't you know that youth is a very marketable commodity?"

Examples of company pages that list birth dates:

A Cube Entertainment (A Pink) - currently used as a source for birth dates on A Pink and Jung Eun-ji
S.M. Entertainment (Girls' Generation) - used as a source for birth date on Im Yoona
S.M. Entertainment (Super Junior) - used as a source for birth dates on Leeteuk, Yesung, Kangin, etc.
DSP Media (Kara) - used as a source for birth date on Heo Young-ji

I couldn't find any more examples because the vast majority of South Korean singers' articles have no references at all for the birth date. If references were added they would most likely be from the company website or secondary sources such as Naver or MelOn (which get the info from the companies).

I have never posted on a noticeboard before so please let me know if I've made a mistake or not posted in the right place. Myself (and some other editors) are trying to raise the quality of K-pop articles and are receiving much opposition. A few more opinions on this issue would really help, since many K-pop editors think Drmies is manipulating Wikipedia guidelines because he dislikes K-pop. --Random86 (talk) 00:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that these sites have significant incentives to lie, or at least to repeat as fact performers' own misrepresentations of age. If the only site for a birth date is a site such as this, the date should probably not be in the article. Guy (Help!) 15:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Disagree. Birth date is one of the many entries we generally trust our subjects when they put it on their own web sites, so having it on company pages doesn't seem any less trustworthy. If there are conflicting dates from alternate sources, then we can discuss them, but automatically assuming that a company is unreliable is not correct. --GRuban (talk) 19:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with GRuban. Although these companies may have an incentive to fudge, they also have an incentive to avoid controversies, and the best way to do that is to just tell the truth. If there are no conflicts in published dates, I think it's OK to just use the given date. Note: for US artists we can cite a neutral authority control like the Library of Congress Name Authority File or the Getty Union List of Artist Names. If an authority control for Korea has these artists that would be a good source. – Margin1522 (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Oneindia.com

I want to know whether Oneindia.com is a reliable source or not? It is an online news portal owned by Greynium Information Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and offers news in English, Hindi, Bengali, Tamil, Malayalam, Telugu, Gujarati and Kannada languages.(source) Several reliable sources have used Oneindia.in as sources for their news stories. Examples [57] [58] The Hindu has called it "one of India's leading portals".(source)

Thanks.--Skr15081997 (talk) 14:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Seems to have printed their reports correctly, there was no doubt before either. It is reliable. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed it is reliable, but as for the doubt, so many reviewers have questioned its reliability before.--FrankBoy _(Buzz) 17:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a reliable publisher - evaluate all claims and sources by the depth and accuracy to what other sources report. Use and citation by others indicate reliability and prominence. There is no easy answer or blanket "reliability" to be given. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

- It is just my opinion but looking at it it seems like a diverse and comprhensive news organization. Seems reliable to me. Over 26,000 results appear in Google News Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Is David Dean Shulman RS for labeling settlers as 'fanatics'?

On this edit, it says "described as 'fanatics' by David Dean Shulman". He is a WP:BIASED peace activist which was disputed before as WP:RS. As a Is he enough RS for labeling even when attributed to him? Ashtul (talk) 12:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

A book published by University of Chicago Press is a source of the highest quality. We should rely more on sources of this type and not find reasons to dismiss academic work. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Shulman's book got rave reviews. He is one of the world's foremost authority of Indian languages, is a long-term field worker and researcher on Palestinian rights, fluent, apart from naturally Hebrew, in Arabic. He is referring in his book to Hilltop youth, whom every source I am familiar with calls 'fanatical', something widely recognized on the right as well as the left of Israeli opinion. Even some conservative settlers denounce them. Shulman as a source was discussed way back on RSN. If you read his book, which is a sober, if shocked account of the systematic killing of animals and poisoning of fields, and his bewildered sense of struggling to come to terms with what he can't avoid calling 'evil', you'd find far less accommodating terms than 'fanatic' (like 'terrorists' which the government itself uses to describe some of their behaviour). It's actually quite objective, but of course is to be used with attribution.Nishidani (talk) 12:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Words like "fanatic" can never be more than an opinion, but there is no reason it can't be used in quotation from a notable attributed source. The book is not being used as a source for the truth of the label, but only of the fact that the attributed person uses it. This is perfectly within the rules. Zero^talk 13:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I would add that Shulman does not call 'settlers' fanatics, but, quite specifically uses the term of a fringe, and notoriously violent group at Ma'on.Nishidani (talk) 13:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

"Fanatic" here appears to be an opinion properly sourced as an opinion, not (I trust) implying specific criminal acts. I would note,moreover, that "fanatic" in the sports arena is not even considered much of a pejorative, but simply implying "strong feelings" (though I would state it can not be used as a "fact" in Wikipedia's voice, to be sure). Collect (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Collect on the Wiki voice issue. --Inayity (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Collect regarding sourcing as an opinion. However- I don't know how notable his opinion is as it relates to the article. It seems prejudicial in the way it is used in the article. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The Guardian, Alex Hern, Wikipedia as the Topic

Hello.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/23/wikipedia-bans-editors-from-gender-related-articles-amid-gamergate-controversy

This is the article. My question is, The Guardian is clearly reliable. Beyond reproach in some peoples eyes. The issue here is, some of the facts in this particular article are... wrong. My question is, despite the inconsistencies, can this article still be considered reliable for reporting on the currently ongoing ArbCom case in the Gamergate article? I'm curious about an outsider's perspective. I understand reliability can be questioned based on several factors, with the publication only one of them. Would this article, if it is unreliable, bring into the question of the reliability of the author perhaps? Would love to see some opinions from people "outside" the Gamergate controversy bubble preferably, as it is being debated in the Talk there as well. Ries42 (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

It's op-ed and cites obvious partisans. It's a reliable source for the existence of an opinion, but not as a representation of truth. Guy (Help!) 15:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Not clear that it is an editorial (I can't see anything saying "editorial" on it, can anyone else?). Therefore we can use it. We should avoid using the bits that are incorrect (for one obvious thing, the decision isn't done, so no one has been sanctioned by it yet), and the ones that are clearly slanted ("throwaway accounts"/"every feminist active in the area"). --GRuban (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

As in all cases (and the The Graudian is actually fallible[59] <g>) there is a wee bit of opinion in what could have been purely factual reportage. Where there is the slightest hint that a claim is one of opinion, we are better off citing it properly as the opinion of the one holding it than to run the risk, howsoever small, that readers will take it as absolute fact uttered in Wikipedia's voice. (I consider such statements as " who were all actively attempting to prevent the article from being rewritten with a pro-Gamergate slant " and "The conflict on the site began almost alongside Gamergate, a grassroots campaign broadly targeting alleged corruption in games journalism and perceived feminist influence in the videogame industry" as containing issues which seem to be opinion as much as fact, or possibly more so. The value of using "opinions as opinions" seems to far outweigh the position "but it is fact because a reliable source stated it as fact" at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Collect. --GRuban (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

A reliable source that has shown to be in gross error is not reliable. Editors like to justify sources as "reliable" by its publisher and not the content itself. This is proof of such a case. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with ChrisGualtieri here. The primary source of the "news" is the MarkBernstein blog post, which is riddled with errors. It seems that the Guardian writer made no independent effort to verify Bernstein's claims or get any statements from other involved parties. The article also fails to report that Bernstein himself is topic banned from GamerGate controversy. How low journalism has fallen! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I also agree with ChrisGualtieri Elmmapleoakpine (talk)

While I agree that this is partly a re-hash of the blog post, that doesn't make it useless as a source. If there are factual inaccuracies in it, we should not duplicate them. However, the existence of factual inaccuracies does not necessarily render the whole source unusable. If we took that approach, we would probably be safer just not using journalistic sources at all. There are certainly statements in the source that are wholly accurate, so it depends what you want to use. Formerip (talk) 13:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

72.227.98.109 (talk) 00:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)I thought wikipedia wasn't about the truth. Now that the Guardian has done to Wikipedia what they've been doing all along, suddenly we need a special rule about a reliable source only being a reliable source when somebody (who) decides what the source reports is true? So in the future, when the Guardian reports something, what are you going to do to fact check it before you site them? A Guardian article exactly as wrong as this one about any number of other subjects would have been cited by you guys, and if somebody complained that it was factually inaccurate, you would have told them Wikipedia isn't about the truth and left it in.

This is not an unprecedented phenomenon. People have at times stretched WP:V to justify absurd levels of credulity, but deciding a source is not reliable is the safety valve. It does not take a second reliable source to establish the first one did not check its facts. In fact, as WP:OTTO shows, its dangerous to delegate verification, even to a group of superficially reliable sources. Rhoark (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

It's alleged the article is "wrong," and thus not from a reliable source. The article was updated and corrected today. It now appears to me to be fully accurate. Hipocrite (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

No, not fully accurate. It still contains the claim "The editors, who were all actively attempting to prevent the article from being rewritten with a pro-Gamergate slant, were sanctioned by “arbcom” in its preliminary decision." ... even though it seems to contradict this claim later by saying that the article was corrected because "a quotation suggested that no pro-gamergate editors had been banned from the site." --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

What's the specific factual claim that's being made that is unarguably in error, please? I don't see it. Hipocrite (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The claim that all the editors being banned were actively trying to prevent the article from being rewritten with a pro-Gamergate slant. Hard to describe that as "fully accurate" as you claim it is. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that's a language hiccup - they write that they attempted to correct for the "suggested that no pro-gamergate editors had been banned from the site," which resulted in some broken language up top. If we were to use it for a source that all the editors banned were anti-gamergate, that would be torturing it, but I don't see that it's unarguably in error, just chopped up by the correction. The "all" language used refers to, I believe, the 5 editors topic banned. Hipocrite (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

What you call a language hiccup seems to me to be an incomplete correction of severe errors in the article. If the "all" language refers to "the five editors topic banned", then it is part and parcel of the problem, because there are not just 5 editors proposed to be topic-banned. There's a big difference between "there were 5 people arrested for being dangerously handsome last night, all of whom were named Gertler" and "there were a thousand people arrested for being dangerously handsome last night, 5 of whom were named Gertler" in the picture it paints. Plus, there is no mention of "5 editors" before the "all", but there is a mention of "more than 10 editors" in the subheadline. Add to that that they still have language talking about the bannings as a done deal (Caption: "Wikipedia editors have been banned from topics relating to gender and sexuality.") It was a sloppy article to begin with, and it has been sloppily semicorrected. The willingness to correct themselves is laudible and is the sort of thing we look for in a WP:RS, but this piece remains far from "fully accurate" in important ways. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC) Don't worry, my handsomeness isn't that dangerous.

In general (as I said on that talk page), the best thing to do in a situation like this is wait a bit until more sources become available. If there were a large number of distinct sources saying the same things that this article says, we would eventually be required to put them in the article, even if we feel it's wrong. However, in this case the issue does not seem pressing enough to require that we put it in the article eventually; we can wait until we have other reliable sources, which will hopefully correct any errors when taken together. This is why WP:V is important; when there is only one source (even an otherwise-reliable one), any errors in that source can become magnified. But if we have a wide range of sources to draw on, we can say things more concretely. -Aquillion (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Use of cites not directly needed for the sentence to which they are appended including Right Web and Yale Daily News for BLP claims

(From WP:BLP/N)

The following single sentence is the entirety of the removed text, including refcites, with the reason being the assertion that this Right Web is an "attack site". Here is a link to the series of edits removing material and sources, and here is a link to the talk page discussion.

<blockquote>''Kagan spent 13 years as a Senior Associate with the [[Carnegie Endowment for International Peace]], before joining the [[Brookings Institution]] as a senior fellow in the Center on United States and Europe in September 2010.<ref>[http://www.brookings.edu/media/NewsReleases/2010/0908_kagan.aspx Robert Kagan joins Brookings]</ref><ref>[http://www.carnegieendowment.org/experts/index.cfm?fa=expert_view&expert_id=16 Profile on the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace site]</ref><ref>Robert Kagan, "I Am Not a Straussian", ''Weekly Standard'' 11: 20 (February 6, 2006)</ref><ref>[http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=30540 "Robert Kagan Follows Father but Forges Own Path"], Andrew Mangino, [[Yale Daily News]]</ref><ref>[http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1241 Robert Kagan profile on "Right Web"]''</ref></blockquote>

I suggested there that the pertinent cites for the claims of fact would be any Brookings source stating that he, indeed, worked there and a Carnegie source stating his position with them. The Weekly Standard cite appears to be self-written, so of problematic value as to anything other than statements of fact. The Yale Daily News, AFAICT, is a student publication which is of no value for the sentence to which it is appended, and the RightWeb editorial is also not needed for a claim of fact (indeed is not specifically needed at all here) but which also contains clear opinions which would preclude it being used as an RS for claims of fact. The discussion indeed focused on using the opinions cites as a basis to label living persons as "neoconservative" in Wikipedia's voice. The Right Web cite is clearly an opinion piece and really of no use here as far as I can tell.

Are the last two cites usable at all to state in Wikipedia's voice (I opined that such a use would require that opinions must be properly cited as opinions) that Kagan and others of his family are "neoconservative"? Is it proper to use problematic cites for a simple claim where absolutely RS cites are readily found and used? See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Robert_Kagan and a second section with the same name at the bottom of the page, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Neoconservativism_-_Victoria_Nuland and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Neoconservatism_-_Frederick_Kagan where the same sources and arguments to categorise them is made. See also List of Neoconservatives (listing towards bottom of article) and diff [60] [61] where specific living persons are categorized on the basis of an opinion article, and so on. Thanks. Collect (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

It is not quite clear to me what you're asking. It might help if you could condense your post for readability and clarity. As best I can tell, the question is whether reliable sources describe Robert Kagan as a "neoconservative". The answer is obviously yes, since 5 seconds of work yields high-quality sources as Der Spiegel, The Guardian, Politico, and so on. We shouldn't use low-quality sources like RightWeb, or borderline sources like the Yale Daily News, but then there's no need to do so—the question is moot since high-quality sources are available. MastCell ^Talk 12:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Publishers Weekly as source in author article

Is it appropriate to include Publishers Weekly's review of Orson Scott Card's novella "Hamlet's Father" in Card's article? User:Collect claims it is a BLP violation to include a mention of the publication's brief negative review, since PW points out that the novella attempts to link homosexuality to pedophilia, while I argue that PW is a major industry publication whose reviews of full-length novels are not usually much longer than this and that BLP definitely does not bar criticism of an author's creations, which is what this is. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

If the article describes the author's work in some detail then of course reviews can be consulted, no matter whether they are negative or positive. However the reviews mentioned should be some representative for reviews as a hole. So don't use (only) a negative review, when most revoews are actually positive and vice versa. I see nothing wrong with using Publisher's Weekly for reviews or biographical information even. --Kmhkmh (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The question is:

Is a PW single paragraph review a reliable source to state in a BLP:

Trade journal Publishers Weekly criticized Card's "flimsy novella", stating that the main purpose of it was to attempt to link homosexuality to pedophilia.

Where one would surmise that saying a person was attempt(ing)ing to link homosexuality to pedophilia as a fact in Wikipedia's voice is a "contentious claim" per se. Is saying a person is attempting to link homosexuality to pedophilia a "contentious claim" or not? is the actual question here. I note the editor above also states it as a "fact". Also note that there is a very extensive section in the Orson Scott Card BLP on "views on homosexuality" (over three hundred words on the topic) and thus there is also a WEIGHT issue present. Collect (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The sentence is an accurate summary of the Publishers Weekly review (though I'm rather hoping we specify which novella was reviewed), and Publishers Weekly is a reliable source for book reviews. As a short review it certainly doesn't deserve more than one sentence, and as a relevant comment, I can't see how we can give it less than one. (Maybe if there were multiple reviews that said the same thing, we could write that in one sentence?) --GRuban (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Card specifically denied any imputation about homosexuality in the novella, and the claim is under an ArbCom area decision regarding charges about homosexuality. IMO, the review is an opinion piece,and in no way should its opinions be placed in Wikipedia's voice. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree completely. Reviews are opinion pieces and should not be given in Wikipedia's voice. The proposed sentence (assuming it is clear which novella is being discussed) is good. --GRuban (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, in the text Collect removed the novella was identified by title, as another secondary source which mentioned the PW review was also present and preceded it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I gave the entire sentence relevant to the PW review above. Your imputation that I "removed" anything from my post here is abhorrent. The entire paragraph was:

Card has also expressed his opinion that paraphilia and homosexuality are linked. In a 2004 essay entitled "Homosexual 'Marriage' and Civilization", Card wrote: "The dark secret of homosexual society—the one that dares not speak its name—is how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual community and live normally."[60][non-primary source needed] Card's 1980 novel Songmaster depicts a homosexual relationship between a young man and a 15-year-old boy. Card described this relationship as "a mutually self-destructive path" and stated: "I was not trying to show that homosexuality was 'beautiful' or 'natural'—in fact, sex of any kind is likely to be 'beautiful' only to the participants, and it is hard to make a case for the naturalness of such an obviously counter-evolutionary trend as same-sex mating."[56][non-primary source needed] Additionally, in Card's 2011 novella Hamlet's Father, which re-imagines the backstory of Shakespeare's play Hamlet, Card was accused of directly trying to link the king's pedophilia with homosexuality. The novella prompted public outcry and its publishers were inundated with complaints.[61][62][non-primary source needed] Trade journal Publishers Weekly criticized Card's "flimsy novella", stating that the main purpose of it was to attempt to link homosexuality to pedophilia.[63] Card responded to the claim: "...[T]here is no link whatsoever between homosexuality and pedophilia in this book. Hamlet's father, in the book, is a pedophile, period. I don't show him being even slightly attracted to adults of either sex. It is the reviewer, not me, who has asserted this link, which I would not and did not make."[62][non-primary source needed]

Which is entirely aimed apparently at setting an extended argument that Card considers homosexuality and pedophilia in the same category, and then gives him one sentence of rebuttal. And I noted that the link to pedophilia was cited only to PW and not to any other sources (The Guardian only links to the PW review for the precise claim - the Rain Tree review is not cited in this BLP and says "The old king was actually murdered by Horatio, in revenge for molesting him as a young boy" but appears to use "Card has publicly stated that homosexuals will destroy America" as his primary basis for that assertion. As Card specifically denies linking homosexuality to pedophilia, and the basis source is a very short PW review, then we are hitting a "contentious claim" - based on the assumed anti-gay bias of Card to assert something Card says in not in the novella (retelling of Hamlet). Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Collect doth protest too much, methinks. MastCell ^Talk 14:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, you're now denying that you removed this text? You can't have your cake and eat it too; if you want to be able to indignantly cry that you didn't remove it, put it back in the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

It is reasonable to use the Publishers Weekly review as a source, provided it has proper in-text attribution and is not presented in Wikipedia's voice. As Collect would ordinarily be the first to point out, Publisher's Weekly is a reliable source for opinion, and can be used as such here. There is no WP:BLP issue in accurately conveying the content of a book review from a reputable source. MastCell ^Talk 12:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course PW is a reliable source for the proposed content. It's attributed and presented with appropriate context. It's also not an isolated viewpoint.- Mr X 13:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Did you note The Guardian used the PW as its source for that claim? LOL! The other source (book review) does not make the claim in as strong terms, to be sure, at all, so you are saying The Guardian (which used PW) and PW are distinct sources in your opinion? Clue: Sources which quote the same source do not become multiple sources. Really. Collect (talk) 13:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Ludicrous. The Guardian didn't simply reprint a wire story. Of course it's a distinct source.- Mr X 14:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Read The Guardian article, please:

Subterranean produced its limited edition, signed, 1,000-copy run of the book this spring, with the release largely falling under the radar, apart from a damning review from trade journal Publishers Weekly which said that its focus was "primarily on linking homosexuality with the life-destroying horrors of paedophilia, a focus most fans of possibly bisexual Shakespeare are unlikely to appreciate". This is a view Card has espoused in the past, writing in 2004 that "the dark secret of homosexual society – the one that dares not speak its name – is how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual community and live normally".

I read that as saying the only place initially making the homosexuality-pedophilia claim was the single PW review which it quotes. I do not know how else one can interpret "under the radar" and "apart from" can be interpreted. And again -- citing a source does not make it a separate source -- The Guardian, in fact, says it basically was the only initial source for such a claim at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Did you read the article?

""Here's the punch line: Old King Hamlet was an inadequate king because he was gay, an evil person because he was gay, and, ultimately, a demonic and ghostly father of lies who convinces young Hamlet to exact imaginary revenge on innocent people," writes William Alexander. "The old king was actually murdered by Horatio, in revenge for molesting him as a young boy – along with Laertes, and Rosencrantz, and Guildenstern, thereby turning all of them gay … Hamlet is damned for all the needless death he inflicts, and Dead Gay Dad will now do gay things to him for the rest of eternity: 'Welcome to Hell, my beautiful son. At last we'll be together as I always longed for us to be.'" "
— The Guardian

Referencing this.

Of course, there are other sources: Salon, Wired, New Statesman, The Telegraph, and Advocate, and Huffington Post. I'm straining to assume good faith here, but it's difficult not to see the obvious GAMING in these objections.- Mr X 14:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of anything whatsoever? If so, you are substantially errant. My goal here, at Johann Hari, Charlie Crist and any of several thousand BLPs so far is consistent. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The source is fine; it's a very good source for a review of this sort. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Publisher's Weekly is a first rate source and is one of the key sources we use in the library field to evaluate works. It is unquestionably a reliable source. I should also point out that it is very common in biographical reference works to cite reviews of an author's work in the entry on an author, so I see no reason why we should not do so here. Since PW is a leading mainstream source of such reviews, issues of partisanship, obscurity, undue weight of fringe viewpoints, and BLP do not apply as they would if we were citing a review from, say, Breitbart. Gamaliel (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. There is no WP:BLP issue in quoting a book review from a reputable source such as this. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome2theBronx

This discussion has been deleted by Joestanza as Blueboar suggested this is not the correct venue for this discussion. Diff; discussion here. Epic Genius (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Hillel Ticktin ref

Some material (Summing up his work, Ticktin says: "My work on the political economy of the USSR showed … " ) in a BLP is ref'd to this site [62]. It appears to be the personal blog of a woman in Ontario. Is this RS? Capitalismojo (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments? Capitalismojo (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

No, but it looks like the University of Southern Queensland may think it is.- Mr X 01:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

You've noticed that that page is just copying off Wikipedia, yes? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course. I should have put a

next to my comment.- Mr X 03:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear, there is no disagreement that this blog isn't RS? Capitalismojo (talk) 03:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The page said that this comes from an e-mail interview with Ticktin. While I personally think the interview probably happened and he probably said these things, it's not a reliable source. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph

Is The Daily Telegraph a WP:reliable source? An IP-hopping editor is repeatedly removing the phrase "making New Caledonia one of the few countries or territories in the world with two recognized flags" from Flag of New Caledonia claiming that the Telegraph is "Not reliable source". They justify this on the talk page by arguing that it is "an article in the other part of the world". They use the same argument for their repeated removal of the second flag from the infobox of New Caledonia. The source says "New Caledonian Congress overwhelmingly voted to adopt the emblem of the indigenous movement ... as the nation's second official flag" and "The unusual move makes New Caledonia one of only a handful of countries ... that have two official national flags." Are there any policy based reasons why this Telegraph article is not reliable? Does the geographic location of a source impact its reliability? TDL (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Properly cited as such, and sourced to the Daily Telegraph, the claim can be made. The Tricolor is the national flag of France, of which New Caledonia is a part, and the New Caledonians appear to have chosen what the US calls a "state flag" as it is not considered a separate "country" by France. It is likely more correct to call the Tricolor the "national flag" and the new flag the "state flag" (where "state" seems likely to be a more understandable term than "collectivity"). Collect (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

By the way, where state and province flags are counted - they are far from rare, and the Daily Telegraph seems to have gotten carried away. Even Scotland, Wales and England have distinct "flags." Collect (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you to TDL. By motivating me to look at our Daily Telegraph article I came across the delightful name "Cockie Hoogterp" which I had never encountered before. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Definitely a reliable source. It is a 160 year old newspaper that is quoted all over the world all the time. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Timothy McVeigh Religion and Political categorization

Is [63] this ethicsdaily.com article sufficient to label Timothy McVeigh's religion as Christian Identity?

There is no doubt that Timothy McVeigh was deeply influenced by the Christian Identity movement. Christian Identity is a profoundly racist and theocratic form of faith that developed in the late 1970s and spread like wildfire through rural communities throughout the U.S. in the 1980s.

In my opinion, McVeigh was one of those who responded to the traces of Christian Identity beliefs that are woven into Pierce's book.

From here it looks like the opinion of the writer who proffers no actual source for the claim whatsoever. Absent a real source, we can not assert McVeigh's religion to have been "Christian Identity Movement".

Second issue is whether we can place McVeigh in Category:American libertarians on the basis of [64] page 298 The claim made in the biography sourced to that book was:

but may have voted for Libertarian Party candidate, Harry Browne, in the 1996 presidential elections.

Which sounds like pure speculation at best. Is that book a good source for the claimmade? Is the claim actually speculation which does not belong in a biography? Is the claim as stated sufficient to place McVeigh in the category? Thanks. Collect (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sourcing aside, even if that source was determined to be reliable, there is a bit a logical leap from "Timothy McVeigh was deeply influenced by the Christian Identity movement" to "Timothy McVeigh's religion is Christian Identity". You can be influenced by a religious movement without identifying yourself as a member of that movement. Similarly, on the second issue, even if we knew for a fact that McVeigh voted for Browne that doesn't make him a libertarian. As with the religion, you can vote for a candidate without identifying with their political party. I know many people that consider themselves democrats that have occasionally voted for a republican and vice versa, and many more people who consider themselves independent who have voted for members of several political parties. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

ethicsdaily.com doesn't appear to be a reliable source. Is there any reason to believe that it has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking? As for the second issue, we need to look at the totality of what reliable sources say. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Going to chip in here and agree on both points - the inference is not supported and should be removed for the reasons provided thus far. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Ahecht the quote from the source that he was influenced by the Christian Identity movement doesn't automatically mean it was his religion. Based on the quoted text it is not an adequate source for making that point. I can't comment on the reliability of the book itself. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

This source doesn't do it for me. McVeigh is hardly an obscure figure it should be easy for the editors on this article to locate a reliable source clearly addressing these issues in a more substantive way. Take a look, it's in a book. Gamaliel (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Are "page cites" required?

There is a Wikipedian who believes you can cite a book without a page number and that's okay. He does not possess the books because he sold them a long time ago: he just cites them anyway.

I think this is absolutely not the case, and that page numbers and references to text in specific pages are required (^{[page needed]} templates should be installed if no page numbers are present). See Talk:Chinese_Canadians_in_British_Columbia#Re Oppenheimer.... WhisperToMe (talk) 15:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a question of citation style, not whether the book is a reliable source. A source can be a reliable basis for an article even if the article uses a poor citation, or indeed, doesn't cite the source at all. As far as sourcing goes, the two questions here are whether the source is reliable (is that in dispute?) and whether the article text is faithful to the content of the source. Anyway, for book citations, the content guideline suggests: "Specify the page number or range of page numbers. Page numbers are not required for a reference to the book or article as a whole. When you specify a page number, it is helpful to specify the version (date and edition for books) of the source because the layout, pagination, length, etc. can change between editions." Knight of Truth (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

So, that's quite different from what he reports of this discussion on Talk:Chinese Canadians in British Columbia#Oppenheimer et al. which I encourage you to read and compare to what you and GB Fan have said here......only about citation style, nto about iron-clad insistence on page-cites for everything ... or he will delete it i.e. CENSOR it.Skookum1 (talk) 11:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Knight has responded to you at 16:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC). He is correct that not having the page doesn't make the source unreliable but he has said: "I do think citations should be as specific as possible for the statement cited (which, for general concepts, may preclude page numbers, but will at other times include even line numbers or the like)." and "Certainly, I don't think it's best practice to cite works you don't have on-hand, because there is great potential for accidental improper synthesis. How do you separate your interpretation from the author's words, if you have only your memory to rely on?" WhisperToMe (talk) 18:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I would say in general a page number is generally needed. To determine if a source is reliable, you need the specific content being cited. Shorter sources like journal articles, etc. generally don't need a specific page. However, people shouldn't be spending time going through a whole book to find a single page to verify the content. In most cases, just a specific sentence or paragraph at most is being cited, so page numbers should be included in that case. Page numbers aren't needed so much if the entire book is being cited for a broad concept and discussed by the whole book rather than something suited to a single sentence. That's an example where things get iffy, but the general rule I like to see is that a person can verify the sourced content with source in hand in a matter of minutes. If they can't do that, more information like a page number is needed. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, and especially thank you for the clarification in regards to the general idea of the book not needing a page number, while specific facts do need page numbers. I think this is important information to relay. R.E. journal articles, it's good to know. I still prefer to cite exact page numbers from journals to help people find the sourcing content quicker, and to assist slow readers or people with dyslexia, or people with English as a second language. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know there isn't any requirement for any citations to have page numbers. It is always preferable to add as much information as possible to citations but the only thing that is required is enough to identify the source. If the source can be identified then it is possible to determine if the source verifies the information. -- GB fan 21:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, per WP:V: Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate).

If a page number would have been appropriate (which it almost always will be for a book, following any reputable guide to referencing), then the cite fails WP:V without it. Formerip (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

So you are saying that if a book is referenced without a page number you can not verify the information that it cites? IMO, it will make it harder but the information can still be verified even if the whole book has to be read. -- GB fan 11:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Asking somebody to go through an entire book to find a fact on one page is putting a big burden on them. Some people are fast readers and/or can use an index to find the pages by getting the key word, but some things don't show up in the index and some books don't have an index. Some people are dyslexic, have English as a second language, and/or have little free time, so they need as much information as they can get in locating the passages that confirm the text. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

That passage from WP:V ONLY concerns direct quotes/ NOT anything else. See my final comments on the parallel discussion launched by him on the OR board, something I say repeatedly and also with increasing frustration on his "la la I don't hear you" re-assertions on the talkpage when he continues to not just demand them, but order me to get the page-cites "ASAP". Impatient as well as rude and AGF, wot? Thing is, he's also maintaining his SYNTH version of WP:V applies to talkpages, and to even simple mentions of something a source says that I know it says and tell him; he wants even those mentions of sources deleted from the talkpage unless I page-cite them....do you get an idea what I've been dealing with this last few months? that's only the tip of the iceberg, but a very pointy and sharp one right now....Skookum1 (talk) 11:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I haven't seen the behaviour you're talking about, so I can't comment on that.

I have to say you're wrong on the point of fact here, though. It doesn't only concern direct quotes. The wording is very clear: "all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged" (my bolding). Formerip (talk) 14:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

As noted below, he's used mention of this discussion on the CCinBC talkpage to assert that he did get support for his position about page cites but I see nothing like that in your response or in GB Fan's rather more explicit "no page-cites are not needed" [paraphrase] below; re your "the two questions here are whether the source is reliable (is that in dispute?) and whether the article text is faithful to the content of the source. Anyway, for book citations,"

the source is reliable. It's him maintaining that my account of what's in it is not reliable is the gist of his escalating demands for page-citing, as laid out in a bit more detail below); i.e. he maintains, to my face that *I* am not reliable and what I say about what's in a book shouldn't be believed.... I don't keep books "in hand" for years (they're heavy and airlines charge quite a bit for excess baggage as you know) but I also know what I've read and don't make things up. And actually, yes, rather than accept the source outright he went and sourced reviews on it to write book review article In the Sea of Sterile Mountains apparently in order to discredit it, as indeed the POV academic crowd did..including whining it had no line-cites; even though it has far more information in it than the sum of all the "scholarly" papers he's using to construct his ethno-POV soapbox-article.

anything I've put in by way of "the article text" IS faithful to the content of that source; and in fact most things I mention are in several sources.....all of which he knows I don't have on hand so can't page-cite..hence the demands for page-cites as a dodge to defray their inclusion in the article; he's demanding sources for e.g. Golden Village (Richmond, British Columbia) and Metrotown as being concentrations of Chinese commerce and populations in Greater Vancouver, which they famously are (and in spades); without seemingly ever once looking at those articles to see what sources are already in Wikipedia (and which nobody else has ever warred over page-cites about).

What he's pretending your answers to him said, vs what you actually did say, is yet more evidence that he only hears himself and/or doesn't actually understand what was said..... and another case of him SYNTHing complete untruth about something in the course of his asserting his fictional and biased version of history and how Wikipedia allegedly operates i.e. requires; there are no rules here, but he sure loves asserting that there are and making up more.Skookum1 (talk) 11:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

To actually respond to what's relevant (seriously stop posting walls of text focusing on other editors) how is one supposed to verify the source is reliable for the specific content in cases like this? Page numbers generally are needed for books. That not only allows people to check what was said, but also prevents people from making claims that aren't quite mentioned in the book. If it's not apparent where a source makes a claim, it's generally fair game to delete the content because the cite doesn't match the claim made on Wikipedia. FormerIP's post above is pretty concise on what why we need page cites in most cases as well, and I will agree with WTM that page cites should be included to verify content, especially because this appears to be a contentious topic. Just cite your source (i.e. page) when you are discussing specific content. That shouldn't be anything controversial at all, so there's no reason to bring in all the other drama to this board as well. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

This is that Wikipedian mentioned in the lede of this oh-no-not-yet-another-board-essay as a way to reject good faith and demand page-cites when they are not needed. This has included WTMs' demands that I must provide page cites even for talkpage mentions of sources and events that he is also determinedly finding ways to keep (or try to keep) from conflicting with this chosen POV-theme for "his" article; he orated endlessly and repetitiously at the OR board recently, asserting that WP:V requires page-cites for anything or HE will delete it, including apparently his threats to delete the talk page mentions of issues and events absent from or in conflict with the prejudicial biases of the selection of "scholarly" sources he insists are all that matters; he holds in disdain the many local histories I mention and items in them, again demanding page cites, and last night (in my time zone) ordering me to get the page-cites that he's demanding; he wants me to put more time into his demands and is escalating his attacks on anything I bring up. This is yet another bureaucratic side-discussion where he is IMO CANVASSING for support to get me out of his way; I know BC and BC wiki-space like almost no one else, and have a lot of support and respect for my knowledge of BC history and sources about it outside Wikipedia as well as inside it (see the barnstars section of my userpage).

But not to him, he went to the OR board to get support for the notion that my 59 years of life and over 45 years of in-depth readings of BC history and media was not valid i.e. he didn't have to listen to it because that is "original research" in his instruction creeping rule-mongering world of "scholarly"

He makes SYNTH arguments about so many things in so many ways it's obnoxious and highly disruptive and AGF.....yet because of my resistance to his POV agenda and control-oriented demands that *I* do what *he* wants an ANI which was started by @Moonriddengirl: was turned directly against me while his own ongoing misconduct and disruptiveness

I've never encountered anyone so hostile to things he doesn't know or are which in the way of the thesis he's developing on the page in question, and in various others, and in good two dozen lengthy and SYNTH-y arguments on various talkpages and boards while continuing to TRIVIA/UNDUE expansions of material, fighting off, again even talkpage mentions of events he hasn't heard about....and which his preferred collection of bias sources with their glosses and generalizations of half-truths either avoid or just don't know about. They're all "of a kind" and the article is increasingly an ethnopolitics soapbox and not a good article, and is at conflict in its tone and conclusions/assertions with many (many) other BC articles. His cite-obsession and SYNTHographical ramblings include attempts to justify capital-W "Whites" rather than the WikiCanada standard "European Canadian" or the more specific uses like British, American, Maritimer, German, etc as the paradigm of his selection of sources is "White/Chinese" in a very recognizable theme of anti-"white" bias most easily summarized as "cruel nasty exploitive white bigots vs earnest hard working decent and suffering Chinese"; way too common in modern academia; and for those thinking I'm just an "angry old white man" who's anti-Chinese, that's a crock and I'm not alone.....

as an example, see the CCinBC talkpage about a geographer named Mike Kennedy who, like me and many others, doesn't like at all the ideologically driven fabrications and distortions of current (recent) trends in BC historiography; and the way said authors either don't know the facts, or don't want to admit to anything that gets in teh way of their biased constructs about BC's complicated past. And THAT is exactly where WTM is coming from too - this discussion about page-cites is only looking for validation (which he hasn't gotten though on the talkpage he's pretending he has) of his efforts to block any mention of facts and issues and to exclude sources I know them to be in, with the page-cite game only IMO a ruse; he knows I don't have the books on hand (I live in Cambodia for now) and yet keeps on telling me to get them and page-cite them. Not just insistently, but actually as though he's Editor-in-Chief...which he's NOT. He's No 34 on list of all-time wikipedians but his user summary is opted out of; from what I have experienced I suspect that most of his edits re board-wars and long SYNTH-y essays and given what I'm seeing of his work on articles of "his" I've seen and tried to cope with and input on, I'm aghast at what else must be out there on Wikipedia written by him.

the POV quality of his sources is rank in many cases, and I'm kept too busy responding to him, and defending myself from a campaign to block me (yet again for no good reason other than revanchism and the semi-literate culture used to avoid discussing issues rather than personalities and writing styles that is becoming a hallmark of character assassination and personality-attacks in that place called ANI that is more full of projections and accusations and AGF/NPA behaviour than anywhere else in Wikipedia. And there, a block campaign was launched by someone with a very determined axe to grind re some other POV stuff to do with the Ottawa shootings where I worked hard to keep propaganda-style content and actual censorship edits, and false edit comments, from overtaking the article (as also at various other POV issues in various areas over my 9 years here)....

....and yes, no wonder "some people" want me blocked, I insist on fairness and the complete truth and know propaganda and distortion when I see it; while they want me gone because that's NOT what they want in Wikipedia, rather information control and suppression of fact in the way of their respective agendas........including in the case of Chinese Canadians in British Columbia; I get accused of "walls of text" in that ANI while his (incredibly) lengthy and unreadable expoundings of weird-logic and selective-cite SYNTH go unaddressed and unrestricted; it was said to me I should edit in other topic areas where I will not encounter such people and one (too typical) somebody-else-that-knows-nothing-about BC denounced me for OWN behaviour on BC topics; nothing could be more misdirected and a-factual; telling me to abandon my province's history and social geography to people from beyond whose only sources are online and have no direct experience of the place is utterly absurd; while not telling it to someone constructing and bureacratic-board warring, as again here, to continue his campaign of rule-mongering and fact-avoidance and anti-collaboration and very obvious "OWN" behaviour is ludicrous.

I have contemplated taking the many issues concerning his obstructive and imperious/demanding and ordering-me-around behaviour to boards on the problems I find in all his work (including an atrociously bald writing style with bad syntax and clumsy construction, but what's going on is SYNTH/OR, TRIVIA, UNDUE, ESSAY, POV and more all at the same time; his AGF towards anything I say is reflexive by now; but has escalated since a discussion on my talkpage where he disputed my removal of "Anglophone schools" from BC education sections and proceeded to lecture me, a real live British Columbian, on what he thought was OK, and even though two other editors joined me in seemingly getting him to understand how wrong he was, he never conceded defeat though conceding he should use "English-language schools" and "French-language schools" but still not getting that those "English-language schools" have French-immersion programs and are not really "English-language schools".

He spoke throughout that like a college professor telling us (all three were Canadians) what was "actually" the case, even though he's never even been to the country and only just started "invading" Canadian wiki-space a few months ago...three or four very long months now, all the while disputing word-usages and page-cite-demanding and advancing the POV of his choice of sources while ignoring dozens of sources I've assembled on that talkpage; probably archived now because of his ongoing nit-pickery about words using SYNTH/out-of-context and often highly illogical "logic".....

Following that non-admission-of-error, his latest onslaught began against a slew of edits in the last 48 hours on the CCinBC article; so many that I can't keep up; that he would order me to go buy the book in question, which I already have read several times and know well (I don't keep mental notes of page numbers when reading/digesting as I'm reading as an historian, not a wiki-bureaucrat) as I have dozens of other books - hundreds really - about BC that he doesn't even want to give a nod to, except to demand page-cites when they're not necessary, as GB Fan encouragingly notes above...but in the comment on the CCinBC talkpage just now that clued me into the existence of this yet-another-side-discussion of his, he makes no concession AT ALL to what GB Fan has said....he hears only himself, and turns things said in edit comments and talkpage mentions back with complete distortion or miscomprehension of what was said, juxtaposing his SYNTH and misapprehensions on what was being changed or had said, and never listening and always arguing.

Yet I'm the one in hot water because of his onslaught of half-truths and rule-happy things like this discussion - "it's OK if I demand page-cites for anything, right?". No it's not, and it's not OK to keep on with this behaviour, and not OK to imperiously tell off a Wikipedian experienced in the subject area and who has built a great deal of the BC content in Wikipedia that he is worthless and tht anything he says cannot be taken in good faith; he doesn't say that directly but the message has been clear; including in his coming here to look for yet more support for his SYNTH extrapolations of guidlines into iron-clad rules in order to censor what he doesn't want to hear and doesn't want in "his" article(s).

Yet another hour of my time spent on all this (I type fast, this didn't take me hours though indeed hours upon hours and days upon days have been spent trying to get him to listen to commonsense....or resist attack from those he's found "support" from in the vicious bearpit of hate and pomposity called ANI.Skookum1 (talk) 10:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Though I stand by what I said above, that cited page numbers are not required for a source to be reliable, I do think citations should be as specific as possible for the statement cited (which, for general concepts, may preclude page numbers, but will at other times include even line numbers or the like). Certainly, I don't think it's best practice to cite works you don't have on-hand, because there is great potential for accidental improper synthesis. How do you separate your interpretation from the author's words, if you have only your memory to rely on? It goes without saying that no-one should claim article ownership, and articles are usually not made better when information is removed that is cited poorly but nevertheless accurately reflects the source.Knight of Truth (talk) 16:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

If it's not a BLP issue, the way I deal with it is to just put a "pageneeded". That way the information stays up and there is time taken to either get the specific pagecite or find an alternate source which says the same thing. I'm perfectly fine keeping up the information cited from the book. I started this to underscore what best practices are on Wikipedia, and that possession/access to the works is very important. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The ^{[page needed]} tag has been added throughout the article so it seems like this issue should be resolved. That being said, it seems like this is less about the use of page numbers in references and more about the behavior of the other editor. Perhaps this should be taken to another place. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Safety of electronic cigarettes

Postgraduate Medical Journal

A 2014 Postgraduate Medical Journal stated that e-cigarettes have concentrated liquids that are packed in colorful containers and combined with flavors that appear to be made to attract children. The flavors include Gummy Bears and bubble gum. It was concluded that it is recommended that e-cigarettes be kept in a safe place, where children and pets do not have access them.
A 2014 Postgraduate Medical Journal stated that the proponents of e-cigarettes assert that nicotine is "as safe as caffeine".~~it has become clear that this is not true.~~
A 2014 Postgraduate Medical Journal stated that proponents frequently assert that e-cigarettes is only water vapor.~~this is not true.~~

McKee, M. (2014). "Electronic cigarettes: peering through the smokescreen". Postgraduate Medical Journal. 90 (1069): 607–609. doi:10.1136/postgradmedj-2014-133029. ISSN 0032-5473. PMID 25294933.

Is the [ Postgraduate Medical Journal] reliable to use at Safety of electronic cigarettes for the claims above. According to WP:RS/MC, Being a "medical source" is not an intrinsic property of the source itself; a source becomes a medical source only when it is used to support a medical claim. It is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge. For the non-medical claims above I think this source is reliable for the claims. For example, stating that there are flavors that include Gummy Bears and bubble gum and claims made by advocates or proponents are non-medical claims.

According to WP:RSOPINION, Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion. I prefer to include in-text attribution to the source as above for the non-medical claims. QuackGuru (talk) 04:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

There has already been a long discussion on this source link QuackGuru has not informed the other editors involved of bringing this here. The source is an Editorial and he is seeking to use it on a medical page, in a medical section. AlbinoFerret 05:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

In terms of reliability, an editorial in a journal (much different than a newspaper) would be a hazy middle ground between a primary source and a review article. The article is still doing a review in a secondary source fashion, but authors tend to be able to be allowed more flexibility it stating their own opinions, and generally it's just the editor determining if it's appropriate for publication.In a review, a statement needs to be much more concretely supported by sources, is peer-reviewed, etc. Seeing some of the stuff that gets into editorials in journals though, I wouldn't consider them reliable to the point of in text attribution, but definitely for a opinion. You can still have fringe opinions in editorials, so weight would really need to be considered for including the opinion in the article. If we're talking about in-text attribution, we really should be reaching for those designated as review articles and not editorials. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

If there are important aspects of this editorial that should go into the article, then it should be sourced from some more reliable review articles. And if these aspects cannot be sourced from other secondary sources... then there is a problem. Because then both weight and reliability speak against using those aspects. --Kim D. Petersen 18:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm not saying there's anything inherently unreliable about the source that would preclude its content from the article. It's still a kind of secondary source that can take the position of a WP:NOTEWORTHY opinion (i.e., some scientists think X) unless there are other sources brought to the table that establish it as a fringe idea. Basically, it's reliable enough for inclusion, but it needs to be stated not in Wikipedia's voice and probably closer to how it's currently presented as the opinion on behalf of the journal. The "not true" bit in the last two lines though is begging for an explanation, so either the why behind that not true needs to be added (still in the statement of the opinion from the source if it has it), or else a review is needed to back the claim up if fact is going to be asserted.

I should also point out I was thinking more about letters to the editor in my above post. Since this is actually an editorial, it's a bit more reliable towards asserting fact, but still not enough for Wikipedia's voice. Definitely reliable enough for saying there's a significant minority (at a minimum) when determining weight though without competing sources. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Well there is a consensus consisting of every editor, including Doc James with the only exception being QG, for not using that source at the article. So it doesn't really matter. And general consensus on E-cig articles is that only full reviews are used for medical information. So why QG brings it here is rather curious. --Kim D. Petersen 20:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Kim D. Petersen wrote "And general consensus on E-cig articles is that only full reviews are used for medical information." I agree we should use review articles not editorials for medical information. That's not the issue here. I want to use the source for mundane claims there are not specifically about medical information. I think there is no argument being made not to use this source for non-medical claims. Consensus is based on the arguments not a vote. So what is the reason not to use a reliable source for non-medical claims when there was in-text attribution to the journal? The text was not asserted as fact. QuackGuru (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

In terms of non-medical vs. non-medical, 1. (just added formatting to your original post) would be non-medical and is pretty mundane as you say, and 3. could be hazy since it is about chemistry, but it relates to health. 2. definitely would be medical content though. At RSN, we don't really care what the consensus is at the article; we're here to just give outside input on reliability. How(if) you all use the source is more of a weight question that's better left for elsewhere. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

How about only the proponents claim for 2? A 2014 Postgraduate Medical Journal stated that the proponents of e-cigarettes assert that nicotine is "as safe as caffeine". I striked the last part for both 2 and 3. I think the proponents view brings balance to the article. QuackGuru (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

That would still be a medical claim. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

1) A 2014 Postgraduate Medical Journal stated that e-cigarettes have concentrated liquids that are packed in colorful containers and combined with flavors that appear to be made to attract children. The flavors include Gummy Bears and bubble gum. It was concluded that it is recommended that e-cigarettes be kept in a safe place, where children and pets do not have access them.

3) A 2014 Postgraduate Medical Journal stated that proponents frequently assert that e-cigarettes is only water vapor.

1 is non-medical and 3 is the assertion of the proponents. I shortened 3 from the original wording. Is the Postgraduate Medical Journal reliable for these claims? QuackGuru (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Find another source for your information - just as has been repeated again and again on the talk-page. You can't just dismiss consensus... that would be gaming the system. [never mind the fact that it isn't the "postgraduate medical journal" that makes these claims - but Martin McKee] --Kim D. Petersen 23:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Even if you could get around consensus, which you cant. 1 is a medical claim because it is warning of dangers of ingestion of a chemical. AlbinoFerret 23:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it would be the opinion of the journal, hence the distinction between an editorial versus a letter to the editor. The latter would be strictly the opinion of McKee, but the former is commissioned and approved of by the journal itself. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43: now that is a curious assertion. Do you have any evidence that this is the case for BMJ editorials - because it certainly isn't the general case - here for instance is the JAMA description of what an editorial in medical journals is[65]:

Editorials in medical journals are short essays that express the views of the authors, often regarding a research or review article published in the same issue. Editorials provide perspective on how the current article fits with other information on the same topic.

And considering that - i'd like you to expand a bit on that. --Kim D. Petersen 00:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

In fact for the Postgraduate medical journal the description is[66]:

Editorials should deal with contemporary issues of importance to clinicians. Their content can be clinical, social, political, legal or related to research issues. Although they may be controversial, they should attempt to provide a balanced view. Editorials provide a personal view and, as such, will not be routinely submitted to peer review.

The underlined part is mine. So please expand how these represent the view of the journal? --Kim D. Petersen 01:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Read at the end under Footnotes. The source said it is a "Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed."[67] QuackGuru (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't change that editorials are "personal view[s]", as has already been stated on the talk page. And internal peer-review is not real peer-review QG. (not that it would've changed it if it had been through real peer-review) --Kim D. Petersen 01:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Opinion of the journal, which is why they have the internal peer-review. Remember that editorials generally are intended to reflect the view of the publisher, not just the author. If it was just a letter to the editor (journals have those too) it wouldn't be peer-reviewed. That being said, the section Kim D. found on personal views is interesting. That seems to suggest the journal blurs the two a bit and also calls what's normally letters to the editor editorials too. However, that they specifically state the editorial was both commissioned and internally reviewed suggests the journal's approval in the form of what we'd typically call an editorial in most journals I'm familiar with at least. If it was volunteered and not reviewed, it'd be a letter to the editor and the opinion of strictly the author. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43: According to both JAMA and the PMJ the major difference between editorials and letters is length, with editorials being essay length. For both publishing companies, editorials are not the views of the journal. So you will have to demonstrate that editorials (in medical publishing) is the view of the journal. I've done my part in demonstrating that it certainly isn't the case in the PMJ (or the JAMA line of) journal[s]. Therefore we cannot state this is the view of the journal, and we have to treat it as the views of its author - since that is what is verifiable. --Kim D. Petersen 07:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

One more case where we should stick to citing opinions as opinions. Opinions from notable persons are citable as opinions from notable persons. Opinions in editorial columns are still opinions. And if there is a consensus that the opinions are not from a notable person, and are not an official view of a publication, than it is a matter of editorial discussion as to whether to use the opinions. The gist is at the end of the column where it is clear that the author is opposed to tobacco companies "reinventing themselves as legitimate businesses" which is not a "medical statement" but a strongly political statement. Usable if cited as opinion ascribed to its (non-notable) author, not to the publication. And subject to the consensus of other editors. Were this a column by a notable person I would more strongly suggest consensus ought to allow its use. Collect (talk) 12:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I remind all that Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion... yes, the source may reliably verify that the author of the source has an opinion on E-cigs... However, that is not the real issue here. The issue is whether the article should mention that opinion in the first place. That is a question of DUE WEIGHT and editorial consensus. Blueboar (talk) 13:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Consensus from uninvolved editors is that the source is reliable and we should cite opinions as opinions. QuackGuru (talk) 06:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

A policy statement from the American Association for Cancer Research and the American Society of Clinical Oncology

See Talk:Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes#In-text_attribution_again.

Brandon, T. H.; Goniewicz, M. L.; Hanna, N. H.; Hatsukami, D. K.; Herbst, R. S.; Hobin, J. A.; Ostroff, J. S.; Shields, P. G.; Toll, B. A.; Tyne, C. A.; Viswanath, K.; Warren, G. W. (2015). "Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems: A Policy Statement from the American Association for Cancer Research and the American Society of Clinical Oncology". Clinical Cancer Research. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-2544. ISSN 1078-0432.

1. Nicotine is regarded as a possibly lethal toxin.[68]

2. A policy statement by the American Association for Cancer Research and the American Society of Clinical Oncology has reported that "Third-hand exposure occurs when nicotine and other chemicals from second-hand aerosol deposit on surfaces, exposing people through touch, ingestion,and inhalation".[69]

Is the policy statement from the American Association for Cancer Research and the American Society of Clinical Oncology reliable for these claims? QuackGuru (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The subject of the article is not "Nicotine". Unless you have a claim that nicotine, at the levels found in e-cigarettes, is "possibly a "lethal" toxin it is inappropriate to use in an article om e-cigarettes. There are lots of substances that can be lethal when taken in large quantities, even water. Using claims about nicotine at strengths above that found in e-cig's leads to original research by synthesis when followed by claims about e-cigarettes and the nicotine, at lower levels, in them. AlbinoFerret 20:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

On point 2, there shouldn't be any problem with that source (not even sure why it needs to be asked here). It's titled "Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems . . ." which is exactly in the scope of the article. That's exactly the kind of secondary source we're looking. Point one though is rather mundane as written. The source is reliable for an obvious fact, but unless there's addition context (i.e. levels in e-cigs) it probably won't pass when weight is considered. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The reason is because of this discussion. link AlbinoFerret 04:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It looks like in that discussion you and others are misunderstanding what a secondary source/review is considered. If a reputable scientific organization in the field states something in the context of summarizing the scientific literature, that is in the same ballpark as a review article in the sense that it is contributing towards summarizing scientific consensus. In almost any other article there wouldn't be any question on this being the kind of source we're looking for in determining where the science community stands. I can't say whether it's just a good-faith misunderstanding or WP:POV problems, but just a friendly reminder for everyone to check their POVs at the door before editing and just summarize what the sources say. Sometimes those sources are going to say things someone doesn't agree with, but in the science realm we need to accept inconvenient things like that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Note. If this source is reliable I think it is safe to say a lot more policy statements can be added to the page. QuackGuru (talk) 05:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

That really depends on each case and how they would be presented, so I would be careful with that approach. In a topic like this I'd make sure it's from highly reputable organizations to avoid just having a list of all the organizations in their statements (and avoid just ending up here again). I'd also be careful about weight as some organizations might be more speculative, while others will specifically state their statement is based on the current understanding of the literature. There will probably be some variability between those two. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I think Kingofaces43 make very solid points. An article the covers the safety of a product requires reliable scientifically reputable sources. I also think there is a build in problem given the name of the article. Safety of electronic cigarettes is an unusual title for an article. Other editors should notice that there do not appear to be many articles on the safety of X, y, or Z and none of those are the safety of a specific consumer product. It would lead me to believe that this article may have been started as a form of advocacy and has now become a battle ground. I think it would be better to merge this into the electronic cigarette article and pare it down to just what the most reliable and reputable sources say. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Environmental impact

Chang, H. (2014). "Research gaps related to the environmental impacts of electronic cigarettes". Tobacco Control. 23 (Supplement 2): ii54–ii58. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051480. ISSN 0964-4563. PMC 3995274. PMID 24732165.

See Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes#Environmental_impact. Is this source reliable? QuackGuru (talk) 05:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I would say yes. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Seems like another WP:SNOWBALL case. That's exactly the kind of source we'd be looking for in such a statement. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret tried to hide text from a reliable source from the page. He eventually deleted some of the text.[70][71][72][73][74] QuackGuru (talk) 01:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

World Lung Foundation

"WHO Right to Call for E-Cigarette Regulation". World Lung Federation.

I noticed a lot of text and sources are being deleted from the Safety of electronic cigarettes. Is World Lung Foundation source reliable? QuackGuru (talk) 23:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

It is a press release being used to make a medical claim. AlbinoFerret 23:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

So what is unreliable with using the source for the statement clearly attributed to the World Lung Foundation? QuackGuru (talk) 23:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Its a press release being used to make a medical claim. AlbinoFerret 23:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

It is the position of the World Lung Foundation. I think they are the experts. The same source is currently being used at another e-cigs page for a long time. It was added to the safety page because it has relevant information about safety. QuackGuru (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Unless someone is trying to claim the World Lung Foundation's statement is not what the World Lung Foundation actually said, it's plenty reliable. We don't use press releases because they typically don't have the expertise to reliably report on studies, but they're perfectly fine for documenting with an organization says. This is exactly what we'd be looking for in terms of a statement from an organization. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

If it were just used as a statement of the orginazation, on the Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes page that would be fine. But the way its being used is to state a medical claim on the Safety of Electronic cigarettes page. There is long standing agreement on the e-cigarette pages to only use reviews for that purpose. AlbinoFerret 01:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

It is a statement of the organisation and this organisation is reliable for the claim. There is no special agreement to delete sources. The agreement on the page is that you don't have consensus to delete statements from organisations. QuackGuru (talk) 01:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:ONUS is in play here, just because its reliable its not automatic to include it. AlbinoFerret 01:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

You deleted it because you claimed it was unreliable. I think you are now acknowledging it is reliable. Because you wrote in part "its reliable". QuackGuru (talk) 01:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Wrong, I still think its unreliable, especially for the use you want. What I am saying that even if someone finds something reliable, it does not guarantee inclusion. AlbinoFerret 02:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what you're seeing as unreliable here Albino. It's a pretty straightforward statement by what appears to be a reputable medical themed organization [75]. The question at this point would be weight as to how to include it, not whether it's reliable anymore. Weight's not really a question for here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

That would be wrong. While a source is deemed reliable in one context, it doesn't follow that it is reliable in all context. --Kim D. Petersen 13:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease

Bam, T. S.; Bellew, W.; Berezhnova, I.; Jackson-Morris, A.; Jones, A.; Latif, E.; Molinari, M. A.; Quan, G.; Singh, R. J.; Wisotzky, M. (1 January 2014). "Position statement on electronic cigarettes or electronic nicotine delivery systems [Official statement]". The International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease. 18 (1): 5–7. doi:10.5588/ijtld.13.0815.

AlbinoFerret thinks the page is now POV. Is the International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease reliable? QuackGuru (talk) 05:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Reliable for their statement, but it doesn't appear they are a medical/scientific organization per se but more of a health advocacy group. Sort of a gray area, so I'd stick to more reputable orgs. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

World Medical Association

"WMA Statement on Electronic Cigarettes and Other Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems". World Medical Association.

Is the World Medical Association a reliable source? QuackGuru (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The WMA is reliable but the source is tertiary and articles should be based on secondary sources. Presumably before publishing their statement they consulted review studies and those are the sources we should use. TFD (talk) 07:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Yep, and that is the generic problem with the sources above as well. --Kim D. Petersen 13:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

World Vision International

The World Vision International article has a list of well known people who endorse the organization. Is it appropriate to use a youtube video of of the individual endorsing World Vision International, that are also happen to be promotional videos for WVI? The only purpose of referencing the video was to prove that the individuals actually endorsed WVI. There are 14 people listed in this section and I did this for several of them including Alex Trabek, Hugh Jackman and Sarah McLaughlin. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Not really. The Hugh Jackman video for example doesn't support a claim that he endorses World Vision International or even that he is affiliated with it. It's little more than a commercial that he may or may not have been paid for. The video is a primary source, so its use as a reference is very limited. The most you could say is that he appeared in a video promoting World Vision International. Likewise, the Sarah Mclachlan video could be used to state that she appeared in a video promoting World Vision International, discussed her visit to the Killing Fields in Cambodia, and then sang a song.- Mr X 04:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Lovearth.net

Lovearth.net seems painfully non-RS. It is a personal blog of conspiracy theories. It is being used extensively at the General Motors streetcar conspiracy article [[76]]. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

No, it's clearly not, and it tries to deploy a Java (malware?) app, so hell no.- Mr X 14:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

No, Lovearth.net doesn't look like a reliable source. But I can't find it used anywhere in the article, presumably because it's been removed. This was a reprint of Snell's original 1995 article which appeared in The New Electric Railway Journal, which is a reliable source. It has been reprinted in various places, notably www.tompaine.com. That's where Lovearth.net got it, and also a GM site which is already cited in the article, in the External links.

Since the article seems to be about a controversy touched off by Snell, I think Snell's 1995 article should be cited. So I would suggest restoring the material that cited Lovearth.net, but this time to cite the reprint at www.tompaine.com (archived but hard to read) or the one the GM site instead of the one at Lovearth.net. I'd also suggest including Snell's 1974 statement before Congress, which is another basic document in this controversy. I added a link to that in the External links.

I'd also add one more thing, which is that the article reads like a debunking article, with traces of edit warring like defensive footnotes. I'd suggest getting rid of the POV language in the lead, like "urban legend" and "simplistic conspiracy theory thinking, bordering on paranoid delusions". This is nothing more than name calling. It could be deleted without changing the substance of the article. And there are too many adjectives telling the reader what to think, like "controversial" and "briefly". From an NPOV perspective none of this is desirable. – Margin1522 (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't seem reliable. Given it is a a blog known for conspiracy theories wouldn't that also make it also a primary source? Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

If you replaced "Urban Legend" with "myth" would that work? That's exactly how Bob Post described it. [[77]]. I don't think "coachbuilt.com" can be described as a "GM site," and is the Snell piece an article from NERJ, or,essentially a letter to the editor?Anmccaff (talk) 02:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

So we are in argeement that this malware infested blog should not be used as RS. It is by the way still being used at the article. It is just being cited (and linked to)in a non-standard way. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)