Open main menu

Wikipedia β

Welcome to the reliable sources noticeboard. This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context.
Before posting, please check the archives for prior discussions of the source. If after reviewing, you feel a new post is warranted, please be sure to include the following information, if available:
  • Links to past discussion of the source on this board.
  • Source. The book or web page being used as the source. For a book, include the author, title, publisher, page number, etc. For an online source, please include links. For example: [http://www.website.com/webpage.html].
  • Article. The Wikipedia article(s) in which the source is being used. For example: [[Article name]].
  • Content. The exact statement(s) in the article that the source supports. Please supply a diff, or put the content inside block quotes. For example: <blockquote>text</blockquote>. Many sources are reliable for statement "X," but unreliable for statement "Y".
While we attempt to offer a second opinion, and the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy.
Please focus your attention on the reliability of a source. This is not the place to discuss other issues, such as editor conduct. Please see dispute resolution for issues other than reliability.
If you are looking for a copy of a specific source, please ask at the resource exchange board.
Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
Search this noticeboard & archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210
211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220
221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230
231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240
241, 242, 243


RfC: Wound characteristics of military-style riflesEdit

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

Proposed textEdit

Wound characteristics

The New York Times interviewed several trauma surgeons with military experience, who described the wounds created by assault rifles, both military and civilian variants: “What makes injuries from these rifles so deadly…is that the bullets travel so fast. Those from an M-16 or AR-15 can depart the muzzle at a velocity of more than 3,000 feet per second, while bullets from many common handguns move at less than half or a third that speed. The result: The energy imparted to a human body by a high velocity weapon is exponentially greater than that from a handgun.” The bullets in an M-16 or AR-15 also turn sideways (yaw) or "tumble" when they hit a person. The surgeons also explained "the weapons produce the same sort of horrific injuries seen on battlefields…You will see multiple organs shattered. The exit wounds can be a foot wide.” As the blast wave travels through the body, it pushes tissues and organs aside in a temporary cavity larger than the bullet itself. They bounce back once the bullet passes. Organs are damaged, blood vessels rip and many victims bleed to death before they reach a hospital.”[1]

BackgroundEdit

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

Survey questionsEdit

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

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

Straw pollEdit

  • OPPOSE INCLUSION FOR ALL ARTICLES...by definition, anecdotal evidence, as such not reliable.--RAF910 (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
RAF910, "interviews with trauma surgeons with military experience" on this topic is not anecdotal evidence by any definition, much less a news article based on them among other sources. If that's what your opposition is based on, you might want to rethink it. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
The NYT article is filled with hyperbole. For example "The exit wounds can be a foot wide." Really? Someone please tell me where I can get 5.56mm ammo that will produce an exit hole larger than a basketball. Maybe you should rethink your support.--RAF910 (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • No, the NYT is not a RS for medical information and has an axe to grind on this issue. This is not MEDRS compliant AFAIK. And it is also filled with hyperbole due to the gun debate in the US. The reality is a tad more nuanced - there are high velocity handguns on the one hand, and the M-16/AR-15 small caliber has actually led it to be ineffective against body armor - with the army looking at 6.8mm [1] and 7.62. Interviewed surgeons invariably (in any conflict) bemoan the damage caused by bullets (whether they stay in or zip out). We should stick to a solid medical (or cadaver/dummy) studies, of which I am sure there are several, which are not linked to the gun control debate.Icewhiz (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
    To clarify my !vote in light of comments below - In "axe to grind" I was referring to this being coverage related to the gun debate in the US. The NYT, is, of course considered the gold plate in journalism in the US (and beyond). However, the underlying source of the information (surgeon interviews as opposed to an actual study), the rather inaccurate language (e.g. exponentially which is technically incorrect here), and the sensationalist (as opposed to technical) tone - makes this a far from perfect source for bullet wound dynamics. It is definitely reliable to say that trauma surgeons said so in an interview - so in that sense the NYT is a RS - however per WP:MEDRS (and I do see bullet wounds as "biomedical information" per MEDRS) such a primary statement should be avoided. Finally, there are actually several review studies available for bullet wound characteristics - which would be a much better source.Icewhiz (talk) 10:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Not usable for anything here. I get a feeling that the journalist has done some heavy editing on what the trauma specialists said, without knowing what he/she was doing, because I doubt they said what the article says. The energy does not depend entirely on bullet velocity, as the article seems to claim when mentioning the lower velocity of handgun bullets, but on velocity when entering the target and bullet weight (½ x bullet weight x velocity squared), which since handguns usually have heavy bullets (ranging from ~125 grain for a 9mm to ~230 grain for a .45ACP) while the 5.56x45mm NATO (which is the caliber they were talking about, since that's what the M-16 and most AR-15s are chambered for) usually have bullets in the 55-70 grain range, and handguns are used at short range while rifles are used at longer range, means that a handgun bullet can very well have the same energy when hitting the target as a 5.56mm rifle bullet has. Which a surgeon with military experience of course would know. The material has been repeatedly added to Assault rifle and Assault weapon, i.e. articles about weapons, where it most definitely does not belong, for these reasons (copied from a post of mine at Talk:Assault rifle):
"They (i.e. wound characteristics) are totally irrelevant in this article since it isn't the rifle as such that causes the wound, but the ammunition/bullet. How severe a wound is, i.e. penetration, size of wound cavity etc etc, depends entirely on the cartridge (bullet diameter, bullet length, bullet weight, bullet type, velocity when entering the target etc), not on what type of weapon that was used. The barrel length matters, since a longer barrel usually results in a higher muzzle velocity, but what type of action the weapon has, what it looks like, whether it has a removable magazine or not, etc, is totally irrelevant. Which is why wound characteristics belong in articles about specific cartridges (and many articles about military cartridges already have such information), not in articles about different types of weapons."
So, as I wrote there, the only article that kind of material might belong in is 5.56x45mm, but that article already has that kind of information (scroll down a bit and you'll find illustrations and all...), much more professional information to boot, so I see no use at all for the kind of unprofessional sensationalist information the NYT article provides. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes the New York Times is a reliable source for reporting the assessments of experts in this or any other field. Dismissing such as merely "anecdotal evidence" strikes me as a bit odd. I'll pass on the question of which article(s) are appropriate for this information. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
"Anecdotal evidence is evidence from anecdotes, i.e., evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony."--RAF910 (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment This is a difficult set of questions as phrased. It depends greatly on what context. The NYT source suffers from being politically motivated and lacking some requisite technical details but that alone doesn't exclude it. It is a poor quality source on this topic which already has good, technical sources in 5.56x45 NATO. Which article it is fit for raises questions of NPOV and DUE weight which cannot be decided here. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • YES INCLUDE for all the articles. Of course the NYT is a credible source of information and the damage caused by AR-15 is specifically described. Several respondents above act as if their own expertise matters, when it does not. Wikpedia is about including facts from credible sources. They are welcome to add other articles that further cover the subject that may disagree with the statements of the trauma surgeons cited in the NYT article. But to exclude such content is wholly inappropriate. "You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts" as the saying goes. It's factual, it's from a credible source, include it. Then decide how to balance it if you have other credible factual sources that disagree.Farcaster (talk) 21:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
    • All what articles? All the articles on Wikipedia? This is RSN, being a reliable source doesn't make something fit for inclusion in any given article. It could be an entirely reliable and factual source but you can't just pop it into the Opossum article. Which articles in particular are you saying this is a RS for? And that still doesn't answer whether it is DUE. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
      • The articles are listed above. Please read what you are commenting on.Farcaster (talk) 23:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
        • Sorry, my apologies, I didn't see that line. Not listed is the most relevant article which I could see it going in and the one I had suggested: 5.56x45 NATO. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Inadequate It isn't a very good source when more academic works on the subject may be found. Concerning two of the doctors cited in the article, they mention the rarity with which they operate on someone having these wounds and that doesn't go well with describing them as experts. "Now, though the wounds are still rare on the streets of Birmingham, he operates on occasional victims..." concerning Dr. Kerby. Concerning Dr. Gupta, "Attacks using AR-15-style weapons are still rare, he emphasized. He sees mostly handgun wounds and some from shotguns." Better sourcing with more collated data from actual experts en masse is needed and available. Try books about ballistic wounds. Trying to use a NYT article for this subject is a hack job.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes for the first question per Shock Brigade Harvester Boris. As for the second question, that's beyond the scope of this noticeboard. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Actually, after reading the NYT article more closely, I don't think the proposed text is completely accurate in capturing the what the source is saying. First, while it does say that 3 of the doctors served in the military, but does not say how they served. Perhaps they were surgeons. Perhaps they were infantry. We don't know because the article doesn't say. Second, unless I missed it, I don't think it supports the text "both military and civilian variants". Therefore, I would propose the following:
Wound characteristics

The New York Times interviewed several trauma surgeons with military experience, who described the wounds created by assault rifles, both military and civilian variants: “What makes injuries from these rifles so deadly…is that the bullets travel so fast. Those from an M-16 or AR-15 can depart the muzzle at a velocity of more than 3,000 feet per second, while bullets from many common handguns move at less than half or a third that speed. The result: The energy imparted to a human body by a high velocity weapon is exponentially greater than that from a handgun.” The bullets in an M-16 or AR-15 also turn sideways (yaw) or "tumble" when they hit a person. The surgeons also explained "the weapons produce the same sort of horrific injuries seen on battlefields…You will see multiple organs shattered. The exit wounds can be a foot wide.” As the blast wave travels through the body, it pushes tissues and organs aside in a temporary cavity larger than the bullet itself. They bounce back once the bullet passes. Organs are damaged, blood vessels rip and many victims bleed to death before they reach a hospital.”[1]

  • Source has serious issues, these wounds are not inflicted because they are from a military style rifle, but instead because they are from a rifle firing a certain cartridge, the type of rifle is incidental. This is equivalent to saying being hit by a MAN truck is in some way worse than being hit by a Mercedes truck, despite the two travelling at identical speeds and having identical fronts. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 23:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC).
    • Logic needs work; the cartridge by itself does nothing; throwing it does little damage.Farcaster (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I think you should read what I wrote, "they are from a rifle firing a certain cartridge", who said anything about throwing? Rather than simply making snide comments about those who hold opposing views from your own, can I suggest you familiarise yourself with WP:CIVIL and WP:EQ. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 23:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • To clarify:
Q1 - yes source is reliable by definition no source is not reliable - thank you to Farcaster for bringing my attention back to WP:NEWSORG, having reviewed it and WP:MEDRS again I assess the NYTs is not a reliable source of biomedical content. Changed !vote. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 04:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC).
Q2 - none of the above - it lacks the specificity to be included in any of the above pages, nor any others that I am aware of. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 00:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC).
Surely it could be included on the AR-15 or M-16 pages, which are specifically mentioned in the source? –dlthewave 01:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
No I do not believe it can. The AR-15 action in its various guises comes in various chamberings and these are not specified, whilst the M16 is only mentioned in passing. If the article specified a cartridge it would be a different argument. My criticism of the article above stands. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 05:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC).
  • Hm.
PMID 25724396 is a review from 2015, PMID 20565804/PMC 2898680 is a review from 2010, and PMID 19644779 is a review from 2009; they are the most on-point MEDRS reviews and both say the same thing -- that tissue damage from a bullet is a function of the kinetic energy of the bullet; the kinetic energy = one-half the mass times velocity squared. So velocity is by far the most important aspect. The velocity is dependent on the weapon, with handguns providing far less than rifles, with shotguns in between but depending on the range, causing more damage due to the multiple projectiles. Both articles walk through that and talk about the resulting injuries. The shape of the bullet also matters, and whether it tumbles or fragments. They also make it clear that the temporary cavitation when a high velocity bullet passes through tissue is much larger than with a low velocity bullet, and that inelastic organs like the brain, liver, and spleen are devastated by large temporary cavitation from high velocity bullets. This is what the surgeons in the NYT article talked about the most.
The Hartford Consensus from 2015 also talks about this; it is a high quality MEDRS source -- a clinical guideline. It doesn't go into the same deal but see example page 30, left column, where the stuff I just wrote is reviewed.
This document from the military about kinds of wounds, and wound management, says the same thing as well. It also names kinds of weapons, so will be more useful with respect to adding content to specific articles.
All four of those are MEDRS and say the same thing as the NYT.
In my view the content should absolutely come in in the relevant articles about guns and rifles and shotguns, with these sources. The NYT ref can be used to a) provide as a "lay summary" and b) connect the generic types of weapons discussed in these pages to the specific models, if that is needed. Jytdog (talk) 00:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
btw PMID 26958801 is a primary source, reviewing autopsy reports of civilian mass casualty shootings, and comparing those to battlefield wounds. It notes that there is a much higher mortality rate with civilians because a) civilians aren't wearing protection so head and chest "hits" are devastating; b) civilian shootings tend to be close range. That is addressing comments above bringing in issues of range, with respect to velocity.
An aside -- in the course of looking for sources, I came across this article from the UK about care of wounded soldiers, which has some history and some horrific pictures that were hard to see. It is Memorial Day tomorrow in the US. Jytdog (talk) 00:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, Jytdog, these sources from how you have described them seem quite useful and appropriate. The discussion of different rounds and weapons in the military document would make this appropriate for the Assault rifle article and could be used to expand the individual weapon and round articles (at least one of which already has this discussion in technical detail). The military document does on the other hand list among common misconceptions velocity being the most important factor. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
glad you are pleased. Please be careful not to cherry-pick. :) Jytdog (talk) 01:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I personally have no concern with how lethal or devastating any round or weapon is described to be as long as it is well sourced and accurate. From my knowledge 5.56mm AR-15s do produce massive wounds. I was brought to this discussion by concern over the manner in which a secondary dictionary definition was added to the Assault rifle article, not any interest in hiding discussion on the lethality of these weapons. I should mention that you are right, it is good to remember Memorial Day in this discussion. —DIYeditor (talk)
Your knowledge is wrong. 5.56mm rifles produce massive wounds. They produce massive wounds whether the rifle is a 5.56mm AR-15 or a 5.56mm Ranch Rifle with the same barrel length firing the same ammunition. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Source is reliable, but lack of specificity limits applicability to a few articles The source in question makes some generalized statements about bullet wound characteristics without specifying the cartridge(s) from which the bullets creating the observed wounds were fired, although it may be inferred the cartridge would have been the 5.56×45mm NATO which was the primary cartridge used in the M4 and M16 rifles. Although AR-15 style rifles are mentioned by the source, many AR-15 style rifles use other cartridges. The 5.56×45mm NATO cartridge is also used in many other firearms, and many bullets used by civilians are of distinctly different design than the bullets used in military loads and may be loaded to significantly lower velocities. The material might be useful in articles like Stopping power or Hydrostatic shock (firearms) focusing on description of bullet injuries. Its usefulness for the 5.56×45mm NATO article would be conditioned upon positive identification of that cartridge to the described injuries. It would not be appropriate for articles describing firearms suitable for multiple cartridges because of the erroneous implication the firearm rather than the cartridge is a primary determinant of injury characteristics. Thewellman (talk) 02:57, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes The NYT is a reliable source, but it may need to be attributed if any RS challenges any of this.Slatersteven (talk) 08:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes Yes, obviously a RS and should be included. Contrary to some assertions above, the muzzle velocity and damage caused is certainly not a function of the cartridge only. It also depends on the barrel, and is generally greater for longer barrel lengths. Waleswatcher (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Of course it's an obvious RS, regardless of whatever original research or fantasies people concoct to try and change that fact. Maybe should be attributed at most. Some of the comments here are frankly ridiculous ("I know better than the writer therefore it's not RS!") Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, obviously. A reliable source. Objections seem to be special pleading here. Neutralitytalk 15:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break to minimize edit conflictsEdit

  • I think that question #1 kind of misses the point. Why do we care about whether a source is "reliable"? It's so we know whether we can "rely" on it, in our quest to get our facts straight in the article. Are these claims accurate? Well, looking at some even more obviously reliable sources, the answer is "yes". Can you rely on this source? Yes. Is it possible to substitute in a gold-plated academic source? Yes. Is using the "best" source necessary? Well, it's not required by any policy, but as a matter of practical politics, people who don't like the content will have a much harder time saying "You didn't say Mother, May I? when you added that content, because that's only an acceptable source rather than the best possible kind!" (I find it hard to believe that people who know anything about firearms would even pretend that a class of rifles that was originally designed for the US military would be no more dangerous to its targets, or even any different from, any other firearm that can shoot any of the same cartridges. Muzzle velocity is significantly affected by the barrel, not just the cartridge. To put it another way, everything in this list uses the same cartridge, but they do not have identical effects.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes Reliable Source can be used wherever it is relevant. Journalist conveying qualified expert knowledge. That's what journalists do. SPECIFICO talk 16:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • No, Misleading. The removed content stated "assault rifles, both military and civilian variants:" This would incorrectly lead readers to believe all AR's are assault rifles. The content also attempted to mislead readers by asserting that simply being shot one time from this caliber is so deadly that a instant death is assured.
I do not believe comparing a rifle with a hand gun is relavent to the proposed articles. It is common knowledge that most rifles are more powerful than a hand gun. The removed content also stated "“What makes injuries from these rifles so deadly…is that the bullets travel so fast" compared to a hand gun. The content is making a very specific claims with velocity, it is just on the high end of this caliber with a very specific barrel length, twist rate and bullet weight. Most rifle calibers have this speed and beyond (with a much bigger bullet). This caliber makes this speed because of it very light and small varmit size bullet. Because mass times speed equals energy, this caliber on the high end has about the same energy as a 44 Magnum, 50 AE, .454 Casull, and about half of .500 S&W Magnum. Most rifles far surpass this. You are also making a distinction with just one caliber in a general article of weapons.
It would appear that some editor here have just a very basic understanding of firearms, by there comments. And therefor basing there views on this lack of knowledge.
In most states it is illegal to hunt deer or anything larger with this caliber ammunition, it doesn't offer much stopping power for anything other than small game.
The WP:BALASP policy states "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms , or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial , but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news ." -72bikers (talk) 23:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • No Since this fits the definition of WP:Biomedical information, WP:MEDRS sources are necessary. The New York Times is not a valid source for biomedical information, as per WP:MEDPOP. As Icewhiz has pointed out, there appear to be several decent MEDRS-compliant sources on the topic, those should just be used instead. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure that gunshot effects are MEDRS. But even if they are, this is at the bottom of that advisory page: "If WP:MEDRS can be found to support the information, and it is relevant and encyclopedic, then ideally provide a better source yourself. If you cannot find an appropriate source but the material seems accurate, consider adding a [medical citation needed] tag." My interpretation would be to include that citation at the end, if we confirm it's MEDRS, and then have the pros layer in the sources listed above by Jytdog, replacing it.Farcaster (talk) 01:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • No...but The question is reliable for what? A number of other editors have hit on many of the issues here. When it comes to the actual study of the trauma we have actual medical sources we can draw on. When it comes to the opinions of the surgeons who were questioned, yes, the article should reliably convey their opinions. How and where this source would makes sense in use? That's a big question. It's not specific or methodical. The opinions are of medical professionals but it's not clear they have the background information or expertise needed to make the assessments (this projectile fired from this barrel does this harm). As was previously mentioned the reported information was anecdotal and was packaged in a way that was advocating a position. So it may be reliable in some cases but not in general. Springee (talk) 01:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

*Yes Reliable Source and *Yes is should be included The NYT may bit be the best source, but wounding capabilities are (at least in part) are a reason these weapons have been chosen by the military (indeed have often been a marketing ploy, as in their ability to stop elephants, if the manufacturers consider to ability to inflict injuries notable why should we not?).Slatersteven (talk) 08:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Whether the author is a scientist or not is irrelevant. Further, the formula for kinetic energy is 1/2mv^2 (one-half mass x square of the velocity). So if the bullet travels twice as fast, other things equal, it imparts four times as much energy. That is exponential.Farcaster (talk) 14:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Are you crazy or trying to be funny? If you don't know the difference between quadratic and exponential, go back to primary school. 2$2=4, depending on the operation the $ represents could apply equally well to linear, quadratic, exponential or random. Exponential energy would mean something like 0.5m2^v (which is wrong!). For a constant mass of projectile, by the time we are contemplating quadruple instead of double the velocity, we would have 2^5=32 vs 5^2=25. By the time we are looking at supersonic speeds the slope is huge, so don't come telling us it is all a matter of scientific pickyness. JonRichfield (talk) 05:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • No: for two reasons.
[1] WP:MEDRS is our policy for biomedical information, and The New York Times is not a MEDRS-compliant source. See WP:MEDPOP.
[2] The conclusion that the NYT author came to is obviously wrong. The Ruger Ranch Rifle and the Ruger's version of the AR-15, each chambered for 5.56×45mm NATO ammunition and each with the same barrel length, have the same muzzle velocity and ballistics when shooting the same ammunition. Yet the NYT claims that assault rifles such as the AR-15 are somehow unique in the wounds that they inflict.
 
Ruger's version of the AR-15
 
Ruger Ranch Rifle
--Guy Macon (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Guy Macon, you wrote the NYT claims that assault rifles such as the AR-15 are somehow unique in the wounds that they inflict. Where in the article does it say that? From what I read, the comparisons to other guns are to handguns, plus a brief mention of shotguns. —DIYeditor , same question to you. Thanks. Waleswatcher (talk) 21:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
NYT: "Perhaps no one knows the devastating wounds inflicted by assault-style rifles better than the trauma surgeons who struggle to repair them."
False by omission or grossly misleading in two ways:
  1. This is a characteristic of hunting rifles in .223 as well.
  2. This is not necessarily a characteristic of the most common assault rifle round, the 7.62x39, which some AR-15s fire.
The NYT article is trying to make it sound like this is in particular a concern with assault-style rifles or with the AR-15, both of which are false. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Seriously? You (Waleswatcher) actually read an article that starts out with "perhaps no one knows the devastating wounds inflicted by assault-style rifles better than the trauma surgeons who struggle to repair them. The doctors say they are haunted by their experiences confronting injuries so dire they struggle to find words to describe them" and somehow came to the conclusion that the source didn't claim that assault rifles such as the AR-15 are somehow unique in the wounds that they inflict? Either you are trolling me, grasping at straws to support your POV, or have a WP:CIR problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
It quite clearly doesn't claim that. It doesn't even imply it. What it does say is that of the gunshot wounds commonly seen by these surgeons, those inflicted by assault-style rifles are by far the worst. Quite possibly if lots of people were getting shot by high-powered hunting rifles instead of handguns, that wouldn't be the case. Waleswatcher (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
So as long as good old "foot wide exit wounds" NYT heard it from some MD, you would be fine with a Wikipedia article claiming that injuries from getting hit by Toyotas cause more damage than injuries from getting hit by bicycles -- with the claim made only on Toyota-related pages? Even if we documented that individual Toyotas and Nissans exist with the exact same weight, top speed, and front-end/bumper design? OK, so how about if we claimed that blue Toyotas cause more damage than bicycles? How about blue Toyotas driven by blacks? How about blue Toyotas driven by blacks who voted for Bernie Sanders? No one doubts that being hit by a 100KPH blue Toyota driven by a black who voted for Sanders will almost always mess you up more than being hit by a bicycle. If the NYT asked a trauma surgeon he would have to agree agree that the statement is technically accurate.
Re your "Either you are trolling me, grasping at straws to support your POV, or have a WP:CIR problem." comment, (Personal attack removed).
BTW, I would love to hear your theory on how it is, exactly, that a trauma surgeon knows that a gunshot victim was shot with one type of rifle instead on another type of rifle that creates identical wounds? Do they include the rile on the gurney? Are there patients bleeding out because the surgeon hasn't received a copy of the police report? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
The source is comparing the weapons which are actually used in mass shootings, not ones that could have been but weren't. (And yes, if a bicycle attack epidemic was replaced by a string of attacks by blacks who voted for Bernie Sanders driving blue Toyotas, reliable sources would surely talk about the deadliness of Toyotas compared to bicycles as well as the reasons for this oddly specific trend, regardless of whether the factors are internal or external to Toyota, blacks or Bernie Sanders. The related Wikipedia articles would be updated to reflect this coverage. Nissans have nothing to do with it.) –dlthewave 15:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
The attempt by those who wish to ban Toyotas to introduce such a claim into Toyota articles but not Nissan articles when reliable academic sources show no difference between Toyotas and Nissans does have something to do with it. Editors who attempt to drag in the bogus anti-Toyota claims by comparing Toyotas (but not Nissans) with bicycles do have something to do with it.
I don't know if you are aware of this, but science already has an answer to the mass shootings question. See The Effects of Bans on the Sale of Assault Weapons and High-Capacity Magazines also, Before the first assault weapon laws were enacted in the 1990s, assault weapons were used in 1.4% of crimes involving firearms and 0.25% of all crimes that involved injuries to the victim. So if you want to argue percentage of crimes, you should argue for banning handguns. If you want to argue severity of wounds, you should argue for banning shotguns. If you want to argue bullet velocity, you should advocate banning all guns that fire certain cartridges (for example, banning all that fire 7.62x39 NATO while allowing all that fire .22 long rifle) What you don't want to do is to advocate banning certain guns based upon irrelevant characteristics. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • No per Guy Macon above, simply and clearly explained. I was on the fence but I think he sums it up. This type of information (from a RS) belongs in 5.56x45 NATO where there is already a section about it, and probably in articles about weapons which are chambered for that round. This NYT article is not a reliable source for this topic and is anecdotal rather than scientific. It is misleading as well in characterizing this as a quality of the AR-15 when other rifles, even bolt-action hunting rifles, are chambered for the same round.
 
Bolt action hunting rifle in same caliber that inflicts the same type of wounds
Sorry for equivocating. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • No per prior. Also, where the user is trying to put this source is not the right place. This article is about a specific type of firearm/bullet. If anything, at the very least that would be something to put on the page for that type of rifle. Reb1981 (talk) 03:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
@Reb1981 Could you please clarify your comment? The proposal is to put this text on (as you said) "the page for that type of rifle". The NYT article and text in question is about assault rifles and specifically mentions the M-16 and AR-15. So you said "No" but your text says "yes."Farcaster (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes the New York Times is reliable for the proposed text. The material is properly attributed to medical professionals interviewed by a highly-reliable source. The claims are not extraordinary, although the word "exponentially" is somewhat vague. The first paragraph of WP:MEDRS explains why the guideline is being improperly cited by those in the 'No" camp: It's implausible that Assault rifle, Assault weapon, or AR-15 style rifle would ever be used as a source for health information by any non-insane person. Also, the unqualified original research by some of the opposers who are attempting to refute what is in a reliable source should have no bearing on the outcome of this poll. I would support A Quest For Knowledge's version also.- MrX 🖋 13:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
It's a good thing it's not up to you to evaluate the outcome of this, pointing out obvious factual errors isn't "unqualified original research"... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 14:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Opinions from anonymous people on the internet are not facts. There is a reason why we cite sources, and not what editors think they know.- MrX 🖋 14:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
The claims that wounds depend on the ammunition and that assault rifles, AR-15 style rifles and assault weapons can be had in many different calibers are of course easily sourced, so no, it's not original research. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 14:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Ruger AR-556 40.9 cm Ranch Rifle 46.99, so no they do not have the same barrel length.Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: You're wrong, the Ruger Ranch Rifle can be had with barrel lengths from 13" to 22" (even though 16" is minimum legal barrel length for civilians AFAIK), so yes, both of those rifles can be had with the exact same barrel length. You have double-!voted here, BTW, so when are you going to strike your extra vote? - Tom | Thomas.W talk 14:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, but the fact they come if different barrel lengths means we would need to see what the comparable MV are. So can we have the MV's of the 16.12 inch barrels for both guns (sourced of course)?Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
AR-556 16.10", Mini-14 (i.e. Ranch Rifle), 16.12". - Tom | Thomas.W talk 15:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I know they both exist, I want to know what the MV is?Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
If both use the same ammunition from the same manufacturing batch the muzzle velocity is of course identical. Manufacturers can't give a "fixed" muzzle velocity since it depends on which ammunition is being used (bullet weight, propellant type, propellant quantity etc). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 15:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
So then neither can eds on Wikipedia, which I think was my point.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: Que? Think again, but do it right this time. If two firearms are chambered for the same cartridge, have the same barrel length and fire the same ammunition their muzzle velocity will be identical, but what that muzzle velocity will be depends on which ammunition they use (bulletweight, propellant type, propellant quantity). There's a wide range of ammunition available for 5.56x45mm, with different muzzle velocity for a given barrel length for each of them, which is why muzzle velocity is given by ammunition manufacturers, not rifle manufacturers... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 16:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Editor Slatersteven no disrespect meant. Are you sure you understand what you are replying to? Editor Tom is saying (what is common knowledge) gun manufacturers do not give velocities for there guns. Ammo manufacturers do give velocities and will state barrel length they tested for this velocity. The speed is determined by the ammo and barrel, not the gun as a whole or type of gun. Velocities can vary significantly from manufacturer to manufacturer and the same exact ammo can vary from box to box. These issues are why I made the statement that perhaps editors were not fully understanding this content fully. Not trying to be mean or basing my vote by, just some constructive criticism trying to resolve this issue -72bikers (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Slatersteven, Re: your claim that the Ruger AR-15 and Ruger Ranch Rifle Ruger do not have the same barrel length, first of all, the fact that (like most rifles) both are available in a variety of barrel lengths and that some of the available barrel lengths match up is easily verifiable. Second, your point is irrelevant unless you are prepared to make the dubious claim that all 5.56×45mm NATO assault rifles have significantly longer/shorter barrel lengths than all conventional 5.56×45mm wooden-stock rifles. It's as if I had pointed out the stupidity of some ER doctor claiming that (based of a tiny sample) Fords cause worse wounds than Chevrolets and you responded by saying that the Ford Mustang and the Chevrolet Bolt have different vehicle weights and different top speeds. That's true, but has zero relevance to the question of whether Fords cause worse wounds than Chevrolets, and it is certainly possible to pick a Ford and a Chevrolet that weight roughly the same. If a Ford and a Chevy are the same weight, go the same speed, and have essentially the same front end, then the wounds they make when hitting a pedestrian are the same. This is true even if there exists an organized political movement to demonize Fords and not Chevrolets. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The NYT may be a RS, but that doesn't make everything they print correct or usable (Jayson Blair anyone?). In this case, some doctors gave anecdotal information, not presenting the results of actual studies. If this was all as correct as it is presented, I wonder why the US military is looking at going to a larger caliber rifle? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The NYT article for the specific text listed. In general the NYT is a reliable sources but in this situation they are not. As cited all over better sources are available for this information, so purpose those instead. No comment on the text in general since that is not he purpose of this board. PackMecEng (talk) 15:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion for the three articles listed, per WP:DUE. Interviews with trauma surgeons with military experience is not anecdotal evidence. In any case, other sources listed in this discussion support these conclusions. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Um, yes, it it anecdotal. No matter what their experience is or where they got it, when they are answering based on their experience, that is exactly what anecdotal evidence is. Can you explain how basing it on personal experience is NOT anecdotal? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Um, no, it's called "expert opinion". K.e.coffman (talk) 20:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
They are experts in medicine. No dispute there. But when their opinion is based on their own experiences, not through actual study, it's anecdotal. Do you even know what the word means? "based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation" They are reporting their own observations. It's the very definition of it. Or you just know more than the dictionary? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Nah, it's expert opinion. Do you even know what these words mean? And please stop badgering other editors; I've submitted my iVote and I'm not changing it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
The old classic: "Don't confuse me with facts, I've already made up my mind"... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 18:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
please stop badgering other editors; I've submitted my iVote and I'm not changing it. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Thomas.W and Niteshift36, I might point out that C.J. Chivers (one of the two authors of the article) is a former Army captain who served in the first Gulf War, and is the author of a book called "The Gun", about the AK-47. Waleswatcher (talk) 21:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
@Waleswatcher: What has being a former military officer got to do with anything?. This is about being an expert on the characteristics of wounds caused by being hit by a bullet from a certain type of firearms, not about being an expert on how to pull the trigger. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 21:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC) (If being a former military officer automatically made someone an expert on wound characteristics I'd be an expert on this too...)
  • No. The source is unreliable, whether NY Times or Captain Marvel comics or self-styled "expert opinion". The reporter either is quoting unreliable sources without comprehension, or has mutilated a reliable source by lack of comprehension of technical terms. For example, the effect of a bullet's velocity on the wound is not exponential in any useful sense, except perhaps "lots and lots and lots". WP is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not Ripley's Believe it or not. The effect of the relative velocity of a bullet, on the form and scale of the wound it causes, is related to many variables apart from energy, and besides, the energy in a moving projectile is kinetic, which rises quadratically with velocity, not exponentially. Is that the sort of garbage we are to be retailing? I hope' not! 04:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC) JonRichfield (talk) 05:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
@JonRichfield Please look up the definition of exponential, then update your comment.Farcaster (talk) 14:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
@Farcaster OK, I looked it up, just to please you, please note, so don' t say I never do anything for you. Now what part of my comment did you think needed updating? What did you think it meant? JonRichfield (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, for starters exponentially includes "quadratically" and other powers. The source doesn't say energy is the only factor, simply that it's a key factor. Just thought you should know your premise is almost entirely disconnected from your conclusion.Farcaster (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Qualified support the NYT is an acceptable source for these interviews, but better context is needed than what is provided in the quote and consensus would be needed at a particular article to include such an extensive quote. As noted by various other editors, the cosmetic and rate-of-fire characteristics of a semi-auto rifle do not affect the terminal ballistics of each bullet. This is an easily sourced observation, and any claims to the contrary need to meet WP:REDFLAG. Further, the article is comparing the terminal ballistics of intermediate cartridges to the affects of (relatively common) pistol rounds - full-power rifle rounds do not appear to be considered at all. Finally, this is RSN - we can assess reliability, but not whether specific content should be included at a particular article. That should be determined, considering other policies and guidelines as well, at the article talk page. For example, here the content was contested on the grounds of editorial consensus and relevance, neither of which are going to be reversed by a discussion here. VQuakr (talk) 15:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support - I would prefer the experts be cited directly, but if those sources aren't available, this is acceptable. The phrase "exponentially greater" is being used in a lay sense of simply meaning "a lot larger"; a scientific assessment (that a 3x velocity means a 9x increase in energy) would be better than directly quoting that sentence. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
A 3x increase in velocity meaning a 9x increase in energy is technically true, but if you're comparing two different types of weapon it's true only if the bullets weigh the same (½x bullet weight x velocity squared), which they don't if you compare an AR-15 to a handgun, since handgun bullets are much heavier than bullets used in 5.56x45mm ammo (twice the weight if it's the most common 9mm ammo, 4x the weight if it's the most common .45ACP ammo...). If you compare with a 9x19mm handgun it's also not 3x the velocity since a typical muzzle velocity for that caliber is ~1,200ft/s with a 124 gr bullet... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support within limits - from my reading, the source is saying that wounds from rifles like the AR-15 and M16 are more severe than more common (for civilians) handguns and shotgun wounds, which seems fine and isn't contradicted by anything I can find. It's true that some conventional rifles might cause even more severe wounds than an AR-15, but the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America so it gets more coverage. By the same token: SUVs pose more danger to pedestrians compared to a standard sized sedan. Ceteris paribus, getting run over by a tank is worse than either, but it's also far more rare so it receives less comment. Nblund talk 19:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • So you would be fine with an article claiming that injuries from getting hit by Fords cause more damage than injuries from getting hit by bicycles -- with the claim made only on Ford pages? Even if we documented that individual Fords and Chevrolets exist with the exact same weight, top speed, and front-end/bumper design? OK, so how about if we claimed that white Fords cause more damage than bicycles? How about white Fords driven by women? How about white Fords driven by women who voted for Hillary? No one doubts that being hit by a 100MPH white Ford driven by a women who voted for Hillary will almost always mess you up more than being hit by a bicycle. If I asked a trauma surgeon he would agree that the statement is technically accurate. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, that depends on the scenario - did white Ford trucks become the most popular trucks in America after previously being banned? And have they become the preferred truck for people committing large scale vehicular homicide? If either is true, then yes, it would probably make sense to comment on how their relative size and weight makes them deadlier than smaller sedans and bicycles that were previously more common. Nblund talk 15:54, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Of course this isn't a reliable source because the NYT has openly taken a political position on gun control in general and assault rifles specifically. As such the information contained within these articles, which was written by two reporters, has to be considered a POV given by somebody who is not an authority on the subject. Since the article is POV by nature and written by somebody who isn't an authority on the issue, how can it be utilized in Wikipedia without making the article POV? Syr74 (talk) 04:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
First of all, taking a position doesn't make a source unreliable. For example, the Congressional Budget Office takes the position that tax cuts increase deficits relative to a baseline without those tax cuts, and their information is considered unbiased and definitive on the subject. Second, in terms of NPOV, from the Wikipedia NPOV page: "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage."Farcaster (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
This is a discussion about whether the NYT article is a reliable source for the proposed text or not (which is why this is called the "Reliable Sources Noticeboard"...). Whether the addition violates WP:NPOV (including WP:UNDUE) or not, and should be balanced by addition of other material or not included at all, is the next step, but such discussions take place on each article. Either after a discussion at RSN is over or, as in this case (since those discussions are already taking place there), in parallel with this discussion. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 15:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia states that a relevant source can be a biased source, but goes on to suggest that such a source would contain reliable and pertinent information. The New York Times has been embroiled in several scandals within just the 21st century that have damaged the reputation of the paper, many of which have led to retractions and omissions including the New York Times citing that, at one point, their reporting was factually biased due to 'institutional issues'. That is literally an admission that lying to push a viewpoint had become an accepted tactic of leadership. This included the termination of a prominent reporter at the paper who, according to the paper, distorted facts over the course of several years and an admission that the paper had been less than honest during reporting up to and during the Global War on Terror/Iraq War. The issue isn't just that they are biased but, rather, that they have a relatively recent track record of allowing that bias to lead them to go so far as to be dishonest to push a political view point. As such, reliability ought to be questioned. Syr74 (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
I would direct you to Wikipedia:NEWSORG which states: "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact."Farcaster (talk) 04:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Direct away, but you aren't addressing the issue I brought up. My problem here isn't one of opinion vs fact, rather my issue is with the fact that the New York Times itself has, on multiple occasions, stated that items published in their paper have been untrue and this in relatively recent history. A lie is not an opinion, and absolutely speaks to reliability. If the paper can't police their own reporters and editors reliability then they cannot be considered reliable. Syr74 (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • No, none -
"Is the New York Times a reliable source for bullet wound characteristics?" - No That's a bit mis-stated and a mis-quoted bit here but being literal no, NYT is not an expert in medicine or ballistics. They have some WP:NEWSORG ability to be RS for statements OF others, but they cannot judge among statements and the text in question did not attribute the words as being those solely of Dr. Schreiber. The two journalists seem to have relevant background, and the Doctor apparently has some battlefield wound experience -- but none apparent regarding AR-15, and obviously not expert in ballistics which is what the article context is making statements about. As others noted, incorrect statements. This text is talking speed which is a factor from cartridge and barrel length and not what 'style' the barrel is mounted in. So you'd see non-'military' rifles better than some models of AR-15 with identical cartridges, and some handguns over 2000fps but not as lethal as 'slow' but big impact of a 44 magnum or 50 S&W.
"Which article(s), if any, should this be included in?" None. Even if restated to just military and noting just Dr. Schreiber -- there is no particular reason to put his particular words filtered thru NYT and then WP as something authritative or famous.
Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • No. Newspapers are RS for news. Technical detail filtered thru journalists often turns into nonsense. If it were an direct interview with a recognized expert, whose words were a direct unedited non-cherry-picked speech, we could have attributed some technical info the expert, but never to the NYT. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Guy Macon and practically every oppose !vote so far that makes the case for inaccuracy and anecdotal rather than facts. -- ψλ 15:27, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • On the narrow point of RS: NYT is of course reliable for claiming to interview people, for accurately reporting those interviews, and selecting reasonably qualified experts. As for the expert quotes, if we cut through the wikilawyering and POV-wars, the quotes in isolation shouldn't be particularly controversial. They are doctors (half military doctors) describing cases they have treated, they basically say heavy weapons can and often do create more severe wounds than handguns, and they explain why. However that does not mean this is an appropriate way to write these articles. I would not be surprised to see individuals on either or both sides of this battle heading towards a topic ban. Alsee (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
@Alsee: "However that does not mean this is an appropriate way to write these articles" Could you clarify what you mean by this? –dlthewave 20:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
dlthewave on one side some pro-gun editors are battling it with bogus arguments, and on the other side the content itself is screams anti-gun motives. Strong partisan views tends to lead to both poor arguments and poor content. The content is practically all quotation, from a piece who's entire theme is how "ghastly" shootings are. If anyone wants to present an emotive case on either side of gun-control/gun-rights, take it to an article gun on the controversy. The content could fit there. Alsee (talk) 07:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Content about how devastating assault rifle and assault weapon wounds are is simply factual. That is in fact why the weapons were developed. The more scientific journals support what the NYT is saying, as several editors and one admin have pointed out. Now if I added photos or testimonials describing children roughly cut in half as they were at Sandy Hook, then your point might have merit, although I think lacking that content is probably an omission as well. Those photos could be balanced by the pro-gun group showing smiling teenagers at the shooting range with their assault weapons.Farcaster (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, specifically to the question asked (is the NYT reliable for this use), but I strongly oppose using this text in any of the proposed articles. The NYT is not a gun-focused publication, and without gun experts to consult, they made the rather basic mistake of not understanding that those wounds are characteristic of the round being fired by assault weapons. This same round, be it a 5.56 or a 7.62 or even a 6.8 is a round a large number of hunting rifles and the occasional handgun or PDW are also chambered for.
tl;dr: The NYT is technically correct with this piece and generally reliable, but this piece strongly implies that only assault rifles cause these wounds, which is trivially wrong.
Oh, and I forget who suggested that shotguns cause worse wounds, but I've known people shot by both: You can't just compare wounds at 10 meters. There's a huge difference between what 12ga 00 buckshot will do to you at 15 meters vs what it will do at 150 meters. Meanwhile, a 5.56x45mm will do pretty much the same thing to you, whether you're at 1 meter, 100 meters or 400 meters. I can tell you right now exactly what a 12ga slug will do at anything past ~25 meters: miss. And that's assuming no-one uses 28ga or .410 shotguns, or rock salt, or bean bags... It's an interesting point, but not one likely to get you far.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

Question #2 is off topic for this noticeboard as phrased and should be stricken. It combines consideration of DUE weight and NPOV with reliable sourcing. If it were to remain here it should ask whether it is a RS for particular articles, instead it begs for an extended discussion on a number of topics. Also not phrased in a simple manner per RfC instructions because it fails to provide any background - totally open discussion would be instigated. Since the RfC has already started and there are responses, the malformed question #2 should simply be removed from consideration here. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The two main concerns are "The NY Times article is not a reliable source, period" and "The source isn't talking about the topic of this article, but you might try adding it somewhere else." In fact you've admitted to using the latter argument to make Farcaster someone else's problem by sending them to another article where you believe their edit will be rejected, when you actually believed it would be more relevant to a third article. I'm hoping to "kill two birds with one stone" and avoid sending Farcaster on another Fool's errand. My intent was to determine which article the source is about, since it mentions several different models and we don't have a Military-style rifle article.
I agree that ...whether it is a RS for particular articles is a better way to phrase it. Perhaps If the statement source is found to be reliably sourced reliable, which article(s) (if any) should it be added to is it a reliable source for? would be a better question. –dlthewave 00:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes I think that would be the right way to handle it. And maybe list it as "which of the following articles" and list them with the RFC question because I originally missed the line below the text which listed the articles. Maybe it's just my problem but it seems like the formatting was a little confusing. My main point was to clarify that a finding of "reliable source" here is not a definitive answer on whether to include it. As a note, I did not think I was sending Farcaster on a fool's errand in the sense that the NYT article was not fit for the AR-15 article, I think it probably is, I only meant that the discussion is more appropriate there. I do think he would run into the same degree of reaction against it there but I don't at this point agree with that reaction. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Let me further say, I was confused a bit by the "proposed text" being included when the survey questions were not about the proposed text. I don't think we can address the proposed text here except as far as to say if it is based on the RS correctly - and that would be a question #3. I focused mainly on the two questions as they were worded, which is really what an RfC is supposed to be, and I think we have been somewhat talking at cross purposes because of this. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Why NYT (yes, a gold-standard for journalism, but this is not a journalism issue) - and not actual journals and serious publications? e.g. [2], [3] (yes a presentation, but their paper is probably interesting and they have results in a nice chart), [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9].Icewhiz (talk) 11:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
    • I believe that's not really the source of the dispute. The editors who want to include this kind of information would be happy having better sources (they just used what they found available); the editors who don't want to include this kind of information will not be happy no matter how "perfect" the source is. People who don't see it as a political issue may be a little confused about why this isn't standard information for all articles about firearms. What happens to the target is relevant even if your context is purely subsistence hunting. You can't eat pink mist (a bullet that shreds isn't so handy if you want to eat squirrel meat), but you do need a bullet that hits with enough force to kill your next meal. But here, I think that the complaints about the source quality are just the first step in complaining about whether the information belongs in the article at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: You seem to have missed the point entirely. Those who object to adding it to the articles it was added to do so because it, for the reasons given in multiple posts above, simply doesn't belong in those articles, but in articles about the cartridges (in this case the 5.56x45mm). Where there's no need for the NYT article since that information in many/most cases already exists in those articles... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 15:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm looking at this from a WP:MEDRS perspective as well as from a non-US-centric perspective. I think it would be interesting if we quantified the "deadliness" of assault rifles (which, BTW, in what I skimmed through some of the links above regarding the M-16/AR-15 has actually more to do with the bullet breaking up/fragmenting in the body and less with velocity) vs. other types of guns - but I really do not think that the motivation of the really RECNETISM (in terms of how "hot" a topic this is) of gun control vs. assault-like guns due to school shootings should be the motivating factor.Icewhiz (talk) 15:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Actually, Tom, if the problem is "doesn't belong in those articles", then I'm correct: The actual problem is not about whether the source is reliable for the claims being made. The actual problem is that some editors don't want this information in these articles at all. If you personally believe that it belongs in another article, then of course please feel free to copy it there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
You hit the nail on the head WhatamIdoing; I think that is the real issue here. The NRA caucus doesn't want this sort of graphic description of what these rifles actually do seeing the light of day.Farcaster (talk) 04:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I am uncomfortable assigning political views to any editor. I agree with you that this dispute really belongs at WP:NPOVN instead of RSN. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Icewhiz, the deadliness of assault rifles vs. other types of guns has already been established. The answer is "identical if the cartridge and barrel length are the same". BTW, at the range at which most shootings occur, a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with #4 Buckshot (twenty four 1/4-inch lead balls traveling at about 1,200 feet per second) is far more deadly than any assault rifle. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment whether NYT is generally regarded as RS is irrelevant. If a particular source publishes patently illiterate or innumerate garbage, it certainly is not a reliable source in that context at least. The quote's source is nonsensical in terms of school physics, never mind real-world wound ballistic technicalities, so it is not merely unreliable but wrong. No matter how reliably the report uncritically quotes nonsense, that does not make it reliable. If it is not reliable for this article, that does not make it reliable in any other article whatsoever, politically slanted or not, unless perhaps as a horrible example in an article on lousy reporting. JonRichfield (talk) 05:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
To date, 18 no 10 yes and 2 maybes. -72bikers (talk) 22:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

RFC on this RFCEdit

Can anyone clarify (or expound on above comments of possible sanctions) why this is not forum shopping even assuming it is unintentional? How is this not advertising in different places "...in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want." as opposed to an extenuating circumstance of "Where multiple issues do exist, then the raising of the individual issues on the correct pages may be reasonable...". My concern is more of the fact that there were ongoing discussions and it seems that article consensus on those individual articles were against the inclusion of a particular source. I just glanced over things so if this is not the case please enlighten me:
Prima facie it seems that this was a valid question raised in good faith here but it seems to me it was shot down by a majority local consensus and then shopped at this "store" to see if a better/desirable deal could be made. Here is the problem as I see it: Article consensus carries weight as opposed to resolution of edit wars or general reliability questions presented here. It seems that a fair question of "I'd like to include the following text (with text following"): starts an article RFC. Because it is not specifically listed as an RFC (or changed by any editor) does not make it any less so. From what I can see the consensus on each is that the source not be included with valid reasoning. The issue as here raised is simply a re-hashing of what has already been decided at multiple locations. Lacking any questions, concerns, or issues related to policies and guidelines how can this not be the above mentioned "shopping" as a "let's keep looking for the right answer" scenario? It seems to me the subject has become moot not once but three, now working on #4, times. The reliability of the main sourcing is not the issue but the reliability of the specific source to support the claims. Determining the reliability of a source in general is one thing, if it is reliable in the context of supporting the content even providing due weight, another. If this is not forum shopping then what exactly is so considered. If it is considered forum shopping, lacking some exception, then this needs to be closed as a waste of time and possible referred to, and looked at, by an admin not only for closing this as well as the others but for possible warnings or sanctions to any involved as disrupting Wikipedia.
If for some reason, that I am not aware of, this has become a normal process of what I consider Wikipedia:Gaming the system by circumventing or attempting to circumventing policy then a discussion needs to take at Wikipedia:Consensus to modify the "rules". Otr500 (talk) 16:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
When NYT and Merriam-Webster alternate definitions about a subject are excluded from Wikipedia articles on that subject, we have a serious problem that meant we needed to bring in some admins. There's an aggressive group of pro-gun editors preventing legitimate content. Other editors probably got tired of putting up with their bullying and have gone elsewhere from the article pages, but they jumped in right away when this RfC was posted. So far, I've had several edits reverted such as: a) NYT article with interviews with trauma surgeons explaining the wound characteristics of assault rifles and assault weapons; b) NYT article explaining that since soldiers are trained to fire assault rifles on semi-auto most of the time, the technical distinctions between assault rifles and civilian variation assault weapons are limited in practice (i.e., civilians have infantry weaponry, especially when one considers the legality of bump stocks); and c) A Merriam-Webster alternate definition of an assault rifle that included the civilian variant. Admin MastCell explained just how weak the pro-gun editor arguments are. I'm waiting for a couple more admins to weigh in and shut that out-of-control group down.Farcaster (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Farcaster, re accusations of bullying, what did the pot call the kettle? Cavalryman V31 (talk) 04:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
That was intended as an attack on your argument, not ad hominem.Farcaster (talk) 11:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I am not sure about "alternate definitions" in one medium, or what an admin can weigh in on concerning policies and guidelines some editors might have broken, but according to US law and sources on the internet the definition of an "assault rifle" would have to include "select fire". The former "legal" definition would have included the ability to hold a certain number in the magazine. Using the extremely broad term "assault style", other than in looks, would need some disambiguation. Otr500 (talk) 05:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
One of the challenges in this space is too many people trying to substitute their gun "expertise" for verifiable facts. M-W is a credible source (the best-selling English language dictionary according to sources) and states in its "Assault Rifle" definition: "any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire; also: a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire." There are sections in both the "Assault rifle" and "Assault weapon" articles where this text could appropriately go, but it was merely excluded.Farcaster (talk) 11:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I should add that the Heritage American Dictionary also defines assault rifle as: "A rifle that has a detachable magazine and is capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, designed for individual use in combat. 2. An assault weapon having a rifled bore and a shoulder stock." The Oxford dictionary is more aligned with the military definition: "A lightweight rifle developed from the sub-machine gun, which may be set to fire automatically or semi-automatically." The key point of the NYT article b) above is that the distinction is mostly irrelevant in practice. The definitions get even more blurry when you factor in bump stocks. This is a key insight missing from the Wikipedia articles.Farcaster (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Regarding your "RfC on this RfC" I should add that much of the discussion here was held prior to discussion on the talk pages.Farcaster (talk) 11:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
My personal opinion is that you are very biased and wanting to include material against consensus in four places so to me your editing preferences are as bad as those you claim are conspiracy NRA editors. This has been forum shopped four times now and you have boldly advertised that you are shopping for admins that will agree with you so "I" am asking you to stop this before, as mentioned by an editor above, sanctions are handed out that might include some admin you drag into this. I looked at the reference as an editor for Wikipedia not anything else. I do not have the agenda against guns you have exhibed, have never been an NRA member, and can look at this with neutrality. Your comments show that is not so from your side. I also want to inform you and any admin "you find" that consensus in four places can exclude a particular source or particular material by such majority consensus. The case is not "if" the source is reliable but if it is reliable for particular context and in this particular place. I have no ax to grind on any of this including any political agenda. From a neutrality point of view I can also appreciate any editor with an opposing view for balance but having been thrown into some extremist NRA camp by your comments is insulting. Otr500 (talk) 08:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't appreciate your threats or the ad hominem attack. As you can clearly see, this RfC was begun early in the process well before any consensus was reached on the talk pages. Whether I have a particular view or not is irrelevant; my proposed edits are from the NYT (a reliable source by any definition) and the Merriam-Webster dictionary. Please add your vote above and we'll see where you stand.Farcaster (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
That is pretty comical. "Help! A bunch of NRA memberS ARE ATTACKING ME because I am running all over Wikipedia to get a source included, and I !voted different from them (so they must be NRA gun nuts right?), and advertise I am polling for admin assistance". I have been looking at this all the way around and what I see is you having to comment on just about every !vote on a crusade. "IF" I was at a point to "threaten" you I would have simply reported you. I actually gave you a polite warning that what I have seen you do "IS attacking" other editors and asking you to stop. Now! IF you feel I am attacking you or threatening you then you don't worry about if or when I !vote but report me and we can see how my request for you to stop attacking editors that !vote opposite you works out. Since I do not have a history of doing such a thing maybe you can go through four ANI's to find an admin to help. OH! I really don't care which of the four RFC's were started first or if one or more editors might not consider this canvassing or vote stacking, the other RFC's are still open, you or anyone else not an admin-- and I would still think it improper to jump around discussions didn't force a move (that I saw), and I didn't see a request for closing just--- OH! "this is also going on somewhere else because local consensus is no longer important" is not good reasoning. This means it is YOUR opinion that discussions in the other locations are in fact "too close to call so a "no consensus" allowing your agenda to be spread around. This does not grant a pass to circumvent policies and guidelines. That is "my personal opinion at this point and we are still having multiple RFC's ongoing at the same time----still. I am sure you can start a fifth if you want to though. It is hard for me to even see what is what so someone request a closing at the other shopping centers and then this can be reconsidered. Otr500 (talk) 09:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
We'll, I'm actually trying to get several edits made from multiple sources across multiple articles, all of which have run into resistance from the same group of editors. So far, 4 of 5 dictionaries that I've looked at include civilian assault rifle variants in the assault rifle definition, but that is not enough to get that into the assault rifle article, according to one editor on that page, since he knows better than those definitions (among other laughable arguments). Then of course we have the NYT explaining that the difference between assault rifles and assault weapons is irrelevant in practice, as soldiers are trained to fire semi-automatic in most cases. That's before we even talk about the legality of bump stocks. That also apparently is unworthy of mention on either the assault rifle or assault weapon article. And finally, the subject on this discussion, the effects of these weapons, as described by five trauma surgeons to the NYT. In no case was a good faith effort made by these opposing editors to move, modify, or contradict these sources, choosing instead to revert entirely. That's why we're here, and that's what you should be concerned about, not "Wikilawyering" some garbage about "opinion shopping." Am I really supposed to fight say 7 different talk page battles simultaneously against an organized group making invalid arguments, as Admin MastCell explained so well? This was a venue to bring in more editors to the debate, which is what I hope Wikipedia is for. And if you looked at this as carefully as you say you did (since you by your own admission did not before your initial post) you'll see this board was suggested by another person, who created this discussion in a good faith effort to help get this resolved in one place rather than several. And of course the usual suspects have already argued even this board is non-binding.Farcaster (talk) 11:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Just a comment on the 4 of 5 dictionary definition claim. First, dictionaries are not expert sources. If the dictionary definition conflicts with expert sources we use the expert source. The definitions you are trying to use are generally the secondary definitions for the entry. I would assume the dictionaries are following the loose usage we see in the media (like calling a facial tissue a Kleenex, in proper usage Kleenex is a brand, not a facial tissue). Second, of the 4 secondary definitions, two are nonsensical. For those who care, I explain the issues here [[10]]. In the mean time I think we should stop beating this dead horse. Springee (talk) 12:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I've proposed some simple text on the assault rifle page to reflect the majority of dictionary entries covering civilian models. Apparently, there are pro-gun groups that found the M-W change threatening, a controversy that may also be worth covering.Farcaster (talk) 12:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Next stepsEdit

So editor Thomas.W has made it clear on my talk page this content will never see the light of day on these articles, and that the straw poll is not binding. What are the next steps? The most reasonable action based on the discussion thus far is either: 1) Include as is with a medical tag, perhaps with some copy edits; 2) Include the academic sources mentioned by Jytdog either along with it or instead of it.Farcaster (talk) 14:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

That is of course not what I wrote, just Farcaster's usual deliberate misrepresentation of things. What I wrote was that it is up to editors on each of the articles that Farcaster wants to get the material into to decide whether their very POV own interpretation (see discussion above) of the NYT story should be included in the article or not, based on WP:NPOV/WP:UNDUE and other policies... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 14:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Whether or not a straw poll is binding (if the consensus from the straw poll is clear and someone wishes to ignore that consensus, I will be happy to post an RfC, which is binding), WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDPOP are already binding. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the above is an RfC. However, as is always the case, consensus can change and RfCs are never truly binding. Springee (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Stupid mistake. I saw "straw poll" and had a brain fart. (Note to self: next time, smoke crack after editing Wikipedia.)
I believe that you are incorrect about RfCs not being binding. According to WP:CCC, they are not binding forever, and you can re-ask the same question in a new RfC, but not immediately after the old RfC closed. Until you can demonstrate the the consensus has changed (or that one of the exceptions in WP:CONEXCEPT applies), the result of an RfC is binding. And of course you can challenge the result if you believe that the closing summary got it wrong. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
RfCs are binding, but AFAIK RSN only decides on whether a particular source is reliable or not, not on whether a certain personal interpretation of what that source source says (which the proposed text is, see the long discussion above) can be included in specific articles or not, that should be decided through consensus on the articles, taking all other relevant policies into consideration. As can be seen in the discussion above the NYT article in question is also not seen as MEDRS-compliant. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 16:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
@Thomas.W: This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context (emphasis mine). The RSN instructions state that the specific statement in question is to be included in the initial post.
In other words, we discuss whether or not the source reliably supports a specific statement in a certain context, not just the overall reliability of the source itself. In this case we're discussing whether the source supports the proposed text in the context of a certain category of weapon, type of ammunition or model of rifle. –dlthewave 17:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
No RfCs are NOT binding which is why other forms of DR may continue even after an RfC.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC))
  • Some people seem to think that the discussion has been "won" by those who want to include the material, but a quick count seems to indicate that those who oppose inclusion are at least equal in number to those who support inclusion, those who oppose also bring up serious questions about using the NYT as a source for something that would normally require a MEDRS-compliant source. So this aint over yet... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 18:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
First of all, there's a lot of confusion about WP:MEDRS here. That guideline doesn't forbid using the popular press; instead, it encourages us to "seek out the scholarly research behind the news story" and to "cite a higher-quality source along with a more-accessible popular source". So editors should be looking deeper, for other sources, rather than using MEDRS as a roadblock. Jytdog has shown, above, that there are numerous scholarly sources supporting the content of the Times article and the quoted trauma surgeons. Here's another one: PMID 19644779 states, among other things:
Sellier and Kneubuehl state that the temporary cavity is the most important factor in wound ballistics of high velocity rifle bullets, and that almost all biological phenomena can be explained by it... The temporary cavity also has little or no wounding potential with handgun bullets because the amount of kinetic energy deposited in the tissue is insufficient to cause remote injuries. The size of the temporary cavity is approximately proportional to the kinetic energy of the striking bullet and also the amount of resistance the tissue has to stress...
... which is a fancier way of saying exactly what the quoted trauma surgeons said in the Times article. The review goes on to talk about yaw etc. There are a number of other scholarly sources saying, in essence, exactly what the Times piece says, but I'd like some of the involved editors from this thread, who feel that the Times is an unreliable source, to do the work of finding them.
Putting on my administrative hat, I'm concerned to see a number of frankly bizarre and off-base comments in this extended thread; people are arguing that the Times is unreliable because it contains "anecdotal evidence, as such not reliable", because it "has an axe to grind", because the Times has intentionally misrepresented the quoted trauma surgeons (no evidence is presented for this rather startling accusation), because the quoted trauma surgeons apparently don't have enough case volume to qualify as experts (according to a random Wikipedian), because of some gunsplaining nonsense ("It would appear that some editor here have just a very basic understanding of firearms, by there comments. And therefor basing there views on this lack of knowledge" [sic]), and so on. It should go without saying that not only are these invalid objections, but they are well outside the realm of reasonable policy-based discussion. Moreover, as WhatamIdoing has noted, the dynamic at play in this thread is concerning: "The editors who want to include this kind of information would be happy having better sources (they just used what they found available); the editors who don't want to include this kind of information will not be happy no matter how 'perfect' the source is."
If these sorts of arguments are relied upon to exclude content, or to attempt to disqualify obviously reliable sources, that may constitute tendentious and disruptive editing and may become an issue for administrative attention. I guess this is as good a place as any to notify, or remind, thread participants that gun-control-related articles remain under standard discretionary sanctions. MastCell Talk 19:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
@MastCell: It's worth noting that how severe a wound is depends entirely on the properties of the bullet, it's velocity and where it hits, not on which type of firearm it was fired from. No one objects to adding the material to articles about cartridges, in fact many such articles already have that kind of information, the objections are to adding the material to articles about types of weapons, with very wide variation within each type when it comes to calibers and potential wounds (Assault rifle, AR-15 style rifle and Assault weapon), even though the information is valid for only a subset of each type, without telling readers that the information isn't valid for all weapons of each type. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 19:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks MastCell, a helpful explanation of the invalid arguments on the "No/Exclude" side.Farcaster (talk) 21:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
There appears to be a attempt to cheery-pick issues and not address legitimate concerns. The WP:BALASP policy states "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms , or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial , but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news ."-72bikers (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
So an administrator spoke and explained in detail why most of the "No/exclude" votes are invalid. So who is going to include the text? Or do we need another administrator?Farcaster (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
It's almost unbelievable how little you know about how things work here, considering your account was created ten years ago. The words/opinions of administrators carry no extra weight in discussions, but are equal to those of peon editors. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 15:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
By my count it is 8 to include and 14 to not. That is almost a 2 to 1 for no inclusion in the proposed articles. -72bikers (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
At the time of this count, it's 14 to "exclude" the content, 12 to "include", and 2 participants (MastCell and Thewellman) with no conclusion offered. However, dropping invalid arguments (e.g., votes to "exclude" due to Anecdotal, Not RS, MEDRS, and "I know better than the NYT"), at least 12 of the 14 "exclude" votes would carry no weight. This puts us at +10 (12-2) in favor of adding.Farcaster (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Bikers, this RFC only opened a few days ago. It is way too soon to be counting up !votes, and declaring a “winner”. The ratio may well change as the RFC continues (not predicting that it will, just warning that it might... I have seen it happen in the past). Have some patience. Blueboar (talk) 16:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
@Blueboar: Biker's comment was probably a reply to Farcaster's comment yesterday morning (US time), declaring "victory" for the include-side... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 16:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
obviously that was too soon as well. Blueboar (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for any misunderstanding. I was not trying to draw any conclusion. As editor Tom explained, just a response to Farcaster-72bikers (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Most of the "No" votes have been dismissed. Some argued the NYT was not a reliable source, those count as zero. Some argued MEDRS, that was dismissed, those count as zero. Some argued their own expertise in place of the NYT, those count as zero. Not even close. Again, what's the next step?Farcaster (talk) 17:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
@Farcaster: No, there are no !votes that have been dismissed. People expressing personal opinions about the !votes of others does not automatically lead to those !votes being dismissed, regardless of if the person who expresses that opinion is an admin or not. It's up to whoever closes this discussion (which should be an uninvolved admin since this is a discussion about contentious edits on articles that are under discretionary sanctions) to evaluate the consensus based on Wikipedia policy. Making it highly unlikely that there will be any mass dismissal of !votes here. And please note that there are admins on both the no-side and the yes-side here... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Evidently I need to clarify my role here. It is not my place to "dismiss" specific comments, and I am not going to close this thread with any sort of verdict. My opinion on the content question itself carries no more weight than anyone else's. If this thread is formally closed by an admin, then the closing admin will make a determination about whether to disregard specific !votes. My point is pretty simple: if editors are relying on flagrantly absurd or inappropriate rationales to stonewall or exclude material, anywhere in this topic area, then I will handle that as tendentious/disruptive editing. The questions raised in this thread should be answered by discussion, but that discussion needs to take place within the parameters of site policy. A small group of editors ignorant of site policy cannot hijack or derail the discussion. Right now, I don't see any reason to act administratively, but the content of some commentary here was concerning enough—in terms of being utterly contradictory to site policy—that I felt compelled to say something. MastCell Talk 18:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Just one tiny problem: your opening comment contains a claim about what is and is not in the NYT source that is factual incorrect. You wrote (quoting a RS) " 'the temporary cavity is the most important factor in wound ballistics of high velocity rifle bullets, and that almost all biological phenomena can be explained by it... The temporary cavity also has little or no wounding potential with handgun bullets because the amount of kinetic energy deposited in the tissue is insufficient...' " That's comparing high velocity rifle bullets with (lower velocity) handgun bullets, and is entirely correct. Alas, you went on the claim "...which is a fancier way of saying exactly what the quoted trauma surgeons said in the Times article." Wrong, Wrong, Wrong. The trauma surgeons compared assault rifles with the handguns. Not rifles. Assault rifles. No scholarly source makes such a claim. The two claims are not the same. I am shocked that an experienced editor such as yourself would misrepresent the source in this way. The NYT made a claim about assault rifles. Editors wishing to cite the NYT article want to do so on pages about assault rifles. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment The source quoted was wrong and ignorantly wrong at that, never mind RS. Schluss. At that point it falls off the bus. The quote is not acceptable in this article or any other article, irrespective of other considerations. Whatever the bullet, the firearm, the clothing, the time of the year, the intentions of the victim or the politics of the assailant might have been, nonsense is nonsense, and we need another source, not walls of text on what might have been or why every opposing editor is a dickhead. JonRichfield (talk) 05:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Both could be true. I could be 100% correct in my claim that "The Ruger Ranch Rifle and the Ruger's version of the AR-15, each chambered for 5.56×45mm NATO ammunition and each with the same barrel length, have the same muzzle velocity and ballistics when shooting the same ammunition. Yet the NYT claims that assault rifles such as the AR-15 are somehow unique in the wounds that they inflict." and I could also be a dickhead. It is a factual claim. easily verified in multiple reliable sources. Whether the claim is true of false has nothing to do with who makes the claim. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Legal problem on Mariano Rajoy's articleEdit

Please, may someone who knows about law decide which source is more valid to determine when Mariano Rajoy's term ended? According to the Spanish Constitution (Art. 101) and the date the BOE published the Royal Decrees dismissing Rajoy and appointing Sánchez as Prime Minister, it should have ended on June 2, not on June 1: Art. 101 El Gobierno cesa tras la celebración de elecciones generales, en los casos de pérdida de la confianza parlamentaria previstos en la Constitución, o por dimisión o fallecimiento de su Presidente.

El Gobierno cesante continuará en funciones hasta la toma de posesión del nuevo Gobierno.

(TRANSLATION: 1. The Government shall resign after the holding of general elections, in the event of loss of Parliamentary confidence as provided in the Constitution, or on account of the resignation or death of the President. 2. THE OUTGOING GOVERNMENT SHALL CONTINUE IN POWER UNTIL THE NEW GOVERNMENT TAKES OFFICE).

https://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2018/06/02/

However, one user hinders me from making the change (June 2 is stated as the date Rajoy's term ended in all other Wikipedias, although I know different-language Wikipedias are independent from each other) and insists on using a chart which appears in LaMoncloa's official website as a legal criterion to determine the date. However, LaMoncloa's website is not a legal source and that chart's data may have even been extracted from Wikipedia itself - workers who are in charge of the page are obviously not lawyers and their main job is to design a beautiful website with useful information and news about the Government, but it is not their aim to specify and solve subtle legal questions of this kind. Thank you and sorry for insisting. I just would like you to understand that the sources that are being used to support that date are not legally valid. This is the chart: http://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/presidente/presidentes-desde-1823/Paginas/index.aspx

However, Rajoy's term ended on June 2, not on June 1. It specifically ended when Sánchez became Prime Minister. There cannot be a power vacuum between both days (Pedro Sánchez's term is already said to begin on June 2). The Royal Decrees published in the Official Diary of the State were signed on June 1, but were published the following day, and therefore did not come into force until that same day. The day the decree was signed has no legal validity. Please check how the Decree which made Rajoy Prime Minister in 2011 was also signed one day before it came into force - it was signed on December 20, the day he was elected by the Congress of Deputies, but Rajoy only became Prime Minister one day later, when the Decree was published and he was sworn in. This same article states that his first term began on December 21, so there is an obvious contradiction between both dates, because two different criteria are being followed. I can guarantee you that the correct criterium is the 21 December - 2 June one, which is the one that has been followed to fix the date Rajoy's term began and also to establish the dates when former Spanish Prime Ministers began and finished their terms. Thanks a lot for your attention. Check: http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2011/12/21/pdfs/BOE-A-2011-19861.pdf

So what do you think? Could someone answer please? Hello?

Is Norman Finkelstein a reliable source on GazaEdit

At 2018 Gaza border protests a revert specialist excised a piece by Norman Finkelstein stating unreliable sources, not an historian Norman Finkelstein Gaza:An Inquest into Its Martyrdom, University of California Press 2018.

I know the answer, which is obvious for technicians of RSB issues, but I would like external neutral confirmation. Thank you. Nishidani (talk) 17:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

A book by a visible activist and self described as Finkelstein’s magnum opus is both a monument to Gaza’s martyrs and an act of resistance against the forgetfulness of history. is definitely a WP:BIASED source, and would require balancing at the very least.... Note the diff you are linking to is soirced to a Mondoweiss opinion piece, which would not be RS.Icewhiz (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
So you think s scholar who writes to resist our tendency to forget history is 'biased'? Don't we read, for our moral sanity, numerous works on the Holocaust, lest we forget, and is to do so proof that the historians who keep our sensitivities alive are biased???? Every journalist writing for the newspaper sources we base our articles on is an 'activist' or 'partisan' by your criterion. Please also note that the massive coverage of the 2018 Gaza border protests article's content we use comes from newspaper reports overwhelmingly written by journalists rewriting army press reports, as has recently been admitted, and no Israeli journalist was permitted to get within viewing distance of the snipers operations. Notwithstanding this, we duly cite those newspapers. The University of California Press is one of the world's major peer-reviewed academic publishing venues. You don't get published there unless peers in the field scrutinize your manuscript and approve its quality. That Finkelstein chooses to write for Mondoweiss is none of our business, and what he is writing about is what the Israeli press admits: the problems of reporting details on an event no one was allowed to directly witness from the safe Israeli trenches and berms. The RSN board has never decreed that Mondoweiss is off-limits. Its usability depends on who is writing the given piece. Thirdly, I added a balancing piece to Finkelstein's views.Nishidani (talk) 19:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
The diff of the revert you linked to above is the removal of a sentence sourced to a Mondoweiss opinion piece by Finkelstein. Where does the book come into play?Icewhiz (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:RS#Exceptions: Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Such material, although written by an established author, likely lacks the fact checking that publishers provide. Avoid using them to source extraordinary claims.

Even if this were self-published Finkelstein clearly meets the threshold for established expert in the field as his works on the topic has been published by highly respected academic presses. And really, is that an exceptional claim? Somebody is actually challenging Media coverage of the events has been the object of controversy? That is literally the most mundane fact about any topic in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. nableezy - 05:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I frankly do not understand why the controversy of media bears mentioning - it is indeed par the course. However it seems this opinion source is also used elsewhere in the article. As for Finkelstein's opinion piece on the New York Times reporting (an actual RS) - it is RS for Finkelstein's opinion only, which is probably UNDUE if only published by the small and polemic Mondoweiss.Icewhiz (talk) 06:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
No, again, what WP:RS actually says is when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications a source may be used for non-extraordinary claims. You are inventing these thresholds, small and polemic are a. untrue, and b. irrelevant. If this had appeared on Finkelsteins geocities blog it would meet the requirements to be used, because Finkelstein is an established expert in the field? Why is he an established expert in the field? Because his works in the relevant field have been published by highly respected academic presses and journals.[11] [12][13] Im sorry you dislike his politics. He however without question meets the requirements as an established expert on the topic for statements he writes anywhere, including a small and polemic website. You disliking somebody's views is not license to silence them on Wikipedia. nableezy - 06:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Though this board is not for discussion of information of WP:UNDUE his opinion is WP:UNDUE and also who decided that he such expert on Gaza matters and facts?--Shrike (talk) 07:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

The University of California Press when they published his book on Gaza. nableezy - 07:40, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Can we have input by neutral editors now? All that is required is to measure the status as an informed political scientists/historian of the I/P area, Norman Finkelstein, whose book on Gaza was peer-reviewed and published by the University of California. It's not a hard call.Nishidani (talk) 09:10, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
You are not sourcing to a UCL book, but to an oped on Mondoweiss. Calling expert on an oped by an activist, who is also an academic, is stretching it.Icewhiz (talk) 09:17, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
The Mondoweiss in these case are WP:SPS platform.Does every word of Finlelshtein about Gaza is WP:DUE?--Shrike (talk) 11:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Please stop repeating things you know to be false. Mondoweiss is not WP:SPS. RSN boards consistently state that the outlet for an established historian or writer (himself RS) has nothing to do with the outlet he choses to publish in.Nishidani (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Icewhiz, this habit of completely ignoring what people write is a bit tendentious. Last time hopefully, WP:RS says that when an established expert in a field writes something that can be used as a source even if it is self-published. And this isnt even self-published. But even if it were it would still be a fine source. He is an established expert because he has been published on this specific topic by top quality academic presses. If you have any reply to that feel free, otherwise you are simply playing the I did not hear that game. And hello, you arent even disputing the accuracy of the content. nableezy - 18:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
RSN reports should be specific on the source - which in this case is not a book (though looking at the post above one might be confused) but an oped. As for content - ssome of the other content - which is Finkelstein's oped critique of the NYT - is most definitely not a RS for anything but Finkelstein's opinion. The NYT piece, on the other hand, is a RS.Icewhiz (talk) 19:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I am being specific on this source. Finkelstein is an expert in the field. This specific source is written by an expert in the field. WP:RS specifically allows for citing established experts in the field regardless if they publish that statement on a blog or on a third party website. Again, stop ignoring your interlocutors when they cite policy. It is tendentious and disruptive. nableezy - 21:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
One of Finkelstein’s books was published by the University of Minnesota Press (1996), another one (1998) by Henry Holt and Co., a third and fourth (2008,2018) are published by the University of California Press. That establishes his credentials as a reliably published expert beyond contention. Despite the severe external pressure put on Ucal not to publish his 2008 book, they went ahead with it, after a three year delay. While Finkelstein was forced out of academia and the academic press, he produced several works I don’t cite because he could only get them into print by OR Press. I never even try to argue for their use here because that would be easily challenged. This year he came out with an extremely close reading of I/P reportage, and Ucal had it peer reviewed, and went ahead and printed it, breaking the informal taboo. Proof, if any if needed, that his status as an authority on these matters now is not questioned. Could we please have external neutral input here? Nishidani (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Could neutral external editors, for the second time, please spend a few minutes reviewing this? The I/P are is notoriously a toxic zone, and I understand no one wants to comment there. It's precisely for this reason that we have recourse to forums like this, to get assistance from some sane independent and policy-competent people. Please, whatever your views. Nishidani (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
You aren't going to get input blessing every op-ed by Finkelstein (which is what is being discussed here) as a reliable source for anything other than Finkelstein's rather strong opinion.Icewhiz (talk) 13:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Stop the prophecy, and exercise restraint and patience.Nishidani (talk) 13:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

He is RS, he is a noted commentator and recognized expert and it was published by a reputable publisher.Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Perfectly useable. Even if it was self published it would be useable. If it was sourcing something particularly contentious I might ask 'is this undue?' but for the material it is being to reference its fine. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Reliable: a scholar & a recognised expert in the field; has studied the topic and published books on it. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • He's a Princeton PhD who has published in multiple university presses. He should be considered a recognized expert on Israel-Palestine given that he's published in academic outlets on that topic. Given that he's offering expert commentary on a highly controversial issue, his assertions should preferably not be in Wiki voice but instead be attributed to him. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

FBI file as a reliable source for basic background information?Edit

Would you consider an FBI case file to be a reliable source for basic biographical information? Radical activist Robert F. Stern's article uses his FBI casefile as a reliable source. I think we can all agree that it is not necessarily a good source for someone's views, but I believe it should be used to substantiate basic biographical information.--TM 17:38, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely not. FBI files are compilations of allegations. They are not compilations of fact! There's nothing factual in FBI files that can't be confirmed from actually reliable sources—because if it can't be found in a reliable source it's not a fact. - Nunh-huh 17:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
I actually think such case files are highly reliable in some cases, and they can be a superb source if you are doing research (and this is true of totalitarian regimes as well - e.g. the Soviets - such case files are often very detailed and more "honest" than censored public documents). However, they are primary sources and if the subject is a BLP as he seems to be here, then they are (with minor carveouts for augmentation) disallowed per WP:BLPPRIMARY.Icewhiz (talk) 19:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
They superb documents for research and to assemble a picture or biography of a person - yes, but that activity is in WP usually a violation of WP:OR.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
That very much depends what the basic infrmation is that is supposed to be sourced here. For stuff like place of birth, attended schools, occupation/job using an FBI file might be unproblematic. But other than that their use is often highly problematic. It is also highly depended on the context. For instance basic biographic information about foreign national might much less reliable (and potentially speculative), whereas the same basic information about an American where the FBI has access to the birth certificate, social security number and other public records is much less problematic.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
The issue at hand is whether it is a reliable source for stating which high school the subject attended.--TM 12:49, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Well assuming the identity as such of the person is not in dispute and that fbi file is publically accessible then sourcing with it to which highschool the person went seems harmless enough, so imho ok. However looking that the article in question it seems there was about 10k of text associated with fbi file as source rather than just the highschool name. While you may use the FBI file as source for the highschool name, you may not use it for for most of the other stuff, the removal of which hence seems appropriate.--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The question that immediately comes to my mind is whether the file has been reliably PUBLISHED. How did you obtain the file? Blueboar (talk) 13:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not the one who sourced the article. I believe they found the information here. It seems to have been part of a government publication in 1975.--TM 20:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

VG (Norwegian newspaper)Edit

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

Can “wire” news services such AP, Reuters, or AFP ever report inaccurate, misleading, or false informationEdit

Title is pretty self explanatory. Anyways, I know that people regard these sources as the most reliable and objective news sources, but can they ever report information that is inaccurate, misleading, or false. (This is mostly by accident because the information was believed to be true at the time). Or report information that we cannot really confirm or deny because it’s just so vague and they don’t give a lot of background information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MBridges1996 (talkcontribs)

  • Of course they can... No media source gets it right 100% of the time. Which is why we should always check to see if a news outlet has issued a retraction or correction (Indeed, issuing retractions and corrections when errors occur is one of the signs that a media outlet is reliable). Blueboar (talk) 12:52, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Wire sources are not acceptable for medical claims, many historical claims, claims about engineering, etc. Sources are only reliable in a context for a claim. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Well-established wire services with a good track record for reliability and an explicit editorial presence are generally considered WP:RS, but no source is infallible. And as said above, different sourcing/evidence criteria apply for different topics. -- The Anome (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

And when they do make errors, they publish corrections. In fact, the regular appearance of corrections is a key indicium of reliability. EEng 01:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
+1. They do on occasion publish content in error, but they (rarely, and normally in a timely manner) publish corrections to that effect. Non-corrected content is reliable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

It depends on how the AP, et alia is cited. For example, assume the fictional case where a wire story reports that researchers at X organization discover ABC is a cure for Made-up disease. The problem is taking this article & writing "ABC is a cure for Made-up disease", which is a blanket, absolute statement & asserts a fact that may not be in evidence; many preliminary reports of discoveries or cures later prove not to be the case. However, using that wire story to write, "Researchers at X organization reported success using ABC to cure Made-up disease" would be acceptable, since it is a fact that people reported that success. And while some would prefer to use a more specialized publication to cite for this statement, at least the fact of the statement has been corroborated, & someone else with better knowledge of the subject can then replace the wire story with a better citation. (This careful handling makes this a case of the perfect is the enemy of good.) -- llywrch (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Article by a professor of Columbia UniversityEdit

an ip user keep on censoring the wikipedia content in ZTE, at first he claimed this is WP:original research (but it actually an article by Curtis J. Milhaupt), then claim it is not an approved source. Please revert his edit Special:Diff/846126374 if it really an reliable source. Matthew_hk tc 14:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

other source http://www.scmp.com/week-asia/opinion/article/2150979/china-us-zte-deal-calm-storm. Matthew_hk tc 14:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/2.15.12drake_testimony.pdf
https://www.ft.com/content/24c998b4-416c-11e8-803a-295c97e6fd0b (quoting National Cyber Security Centre) Matthew_hk tc 14:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't have time to look into the content issue, but the article linked is a shorter preprint of the final article, which was published in the Georgetown Law Journal and is available as a full preprint. I'm not an expert on law, but I do think that the published version is an impeccable source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Looks to me like the source is reliable. While (arbitrary) university hosted webpages as such are not reliable sources and are often to be treated as self published sources, you can nevertheless argue the established expert exception here (Wikipedia:USERG). Moreover if the content of that webpage is just a copy of an article, that was properly published in an (reputable) academic journal as Stephan points out above, then it is indeed at formally an impeccable source and hence at first glance no grounds for exclusion from the WP article.--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Reliability of WikiJournal of ScienceEdit

The first issue of the WikiJournal of Science was published recently; it can be seen here. This is a Wikimedia project, hosted at Wikiversity. Is it a reliable source?

A discussion has been taking place at Iridescent's talk page, and the majority opinion there seems to be that it is not. That's not really the best place to get visibility for a community consensus, though, so I am posting here in the hope of getting a discussion that we can point to in the future.

Disclosure: I am the author of one of the articles in the first issue of WikiJSci and plan to abstain from !voting below as a result. I had assumed it would be considered a reliable source, but I have no problem if the consensus is that it is not.

Pinging those involved in the earlier conversation, including the lead in to that conversation: Iridescent, Anthonyhcole, Evolution and evolvability, EEng, Ealdgyth, Mikael Häggström, Sylvain Ribault, Izno, Noswall59, Hawkeye7, Only in death, Floquenbeam, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Sitush, TonyBallioni, Johnbod, Rachel Helps (BYU), Natureium. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

  • I'll let others address WP:RS and WP:MEDRS issues, if any. It's been a while since I've read them. I'd like to address WikiJournal in the general context of academic publishing. The traditional science and medicine publishing model relies on the reputation of the publisher, whom the reader trusts to run a high quality review by anonymous peers/experts, and the reputation of the authors, whose names are all disclosed. Both elements - the reputation of the publisher and the reputations of the authors - are essential. Humans - with careers and personal reputations and egos to protect - put their names behind an article. Wikipedia permits authors to remain anonymous and Wikijournal allows the reviewers to remain anonymous - leaving only the reputation of the publisher as a guarantee of reliability, and WikiJournal has no reputation yet.  --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I added the top two links for additional information. So, let's first discuss this issue as if we are to keep the option for peer reviewers to process articles anonymously (which it can possibly deny depending on this discussion). This is the prevalent system for scholarly journals in general. The journal does have WP:SCHOLARSHIP in that an editorial board invites independent experts on the subject to perform peer reviews. Still, it depends on trusting that the editorial board of the journal does indeed accept only experts in the field. Mikael Häggström (talk) 04:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Eh, for my own editing purposes this journal would need some kind of accreditation or reputation before I'd consider it a reliable source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
@Anthonyhcole: I have to disagree with your views on The traditional science and medicine publishing model relies on the reputation of the publisher. This is placing one's blind faith on the publisher. For all we know, even Elseiver has done really sketchy stuff (see Australasian Journal of Bone & Joint Medicine and 5 other journals that are ghost written by big pharma). I'm not saying that all Elseiver journals are sketchy, but it should be judged independently and not with blanket assumptions. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I think you're right about my use of "reputation of the publisher", OhanaUnited. That was approptiate language decades ago, when many more journals were published by academies, professional associations and learned societies. Nowadays, with the growing dominence of large corporate publishers, I should rethink that. I'll do some more reading and thinking about the issue, and in future may find myself refering to the reputation of the journal itself - rather than the reputation of the publisher. Notwithstanding that, reputation is the bedrock of sound medical and scientific publication - and has been since its inception in the 17th century. For instance, in this joint statement from the UK Royal Society and the national academies of France and Germany (outlining best practice for high quality science publishing), see the emphasis they place on the reputation of a journal's editor-in-chief, editorial committee and assistant editors. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
No one said anything about blind faith. He just said that the model relies on the reputation. He didn't say blindly. EEng 17:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Rewind to the previous line and he said in the general context of academic publishing. That's clearly generalization. And I have provided an example where even reputable publisher does sketchy stuff in the name of profit. Then he said Wikijournal allows the reviewers to remain anonymous. As Mikael Häggström pointed out, most journals don't reveal who the reviewers are, or even the peer-review reports. What I am seeing right now is that quite a number of people flatly saying "no" rather than "wait and see" as other new, nameless journals are afforded to out of courtesy. OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
A general statement doesn't imply blind application. And yes, I'm saying flatly No. EEng 21:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • At a minimum, I would say “Not yet”... an important aspect of reliability is “reputation”, and Wikijournal is still too new to have earned any reputation (good or bad). Blueboar (talk) 11:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with Blueboar and the others who have mentioned reputation. - Sitush (talk) 11:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I'd disagree with Anthonyhcole's assertion that WikiJournal has no reputation yet; as a WMF project it has the reputation for accuracy that every other WMF project has, which is—for good reason—extremely low. I would be willing to bet a fair amount that few other journals have a disclaimer of this nature prominently linked from every page (and subject-specific disclaimers such as There is absolutely no assurance that any statement contained or cited in an article touching on medical matters is true, correct, precise, or up-to-date linked from the relevant pages as well). There are some scientific journals—particularly in specialist areas such as engineering and animal husbandry—where individual writers have such a reputation for accuracy that peer review isn't even considered necessary (the London Railway Record is pretty much a one-man operation published from the editor's house, but if anyone tries to tell me it's not a reliable source on urban rail design and planning I'll laugh in their face) but that relies on the author(s) in question having built up a reputation over decades for accuracy and (equally importantly) for prompt corrections. Wikimedia is never going to develop a reputation for accuracy—if anything, the WMF would probably summarily close the Wikijournals if it did look like they were developing a reputation as independent sources in their own right, since it would destroy §230 protection if we abandoned the "we're just repeating what other sources say" defense; consequently the only path to RS-hood is by way of contributor reputation, which it's hard to imagine developing on a project where it's a matter of faith who is operating what account. ‑ Iridescent 11:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • While I agree that a new journal, based on a new publishing model, with no track record and no substantial body of outside evaluation should not be considered a 'reliable' source for most Wikipedia purposes, the presence of a content disclaimer is a red herring. Finding a content disclaimer on a website is regularly held up as some sort of Gotcha!, by editors who really ought to know better by now. A content disclaimer doesn't say anything one way or another; it just means that the publisher probably consulted a lawyer.
    If, for example, you visit the website of the Nature Publishing Group and read any Nature article, at the bottom of every single page is a link to the Legal Disclaimer, in part reading NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES ARE GIVEN AS TO THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS WEB SITE, OR ANY WEB SITE TO WHICH IT IS LINKED. (That's their all-caps screaming, by the way.) The New England Journal of Medicine has a similar disclaimer, under the Terms link at the bottom of – you guessed it – every single page: The [publisher] makes no warranty that the operation of the Services will be uninterrupted or error-free or as to the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or result obtained from the use of the Services or any content included therein. That's just a taste; both pages go on at rather more length about how you absolutely should not rely on them. You'll find similar disclaimers on the websites of the New York Times, and the BBC, and just about everywhere else. (If anything, the absence of a content disclaimer should probably be seen as a mild warning signal.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Basically, per Iri. No reputation for accuracy basically means no reliablity in wikipedia terms. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • No, at present. Wait until unquestionable peer reviewed sources from publishers with reputation in the relevant field, cite it, then you can cite those RS in Wikipedia articles, and perhaps open a new discussion, here, where you try to actually demonstrate reputation using number of citations. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Not yet, for the reasons others have given. Possibly never. Johnbod (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree that the journal doesn't yet have much of a reputation for anything because it is so new. I think it's important to consider the context of a citation. Most pages on medicine shouldn't be citing a single research study. I think a citation to a study in the WikiJournal of Medicine could show that a topic is undergoing research, but should be presented differently than a meta-study or overview study. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • No for the reasons above, and I'd be surprised if it ever is. If the issue is significant there will be other sources in any case. Doug Weller talk 13:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • There are two basic types of articles in the journal. The first is a Wikipedia article that has undergone peer review such as Radiocarbon dating. There's really no RS issue here, since there is no original research and all content is attributed to another source. We can, and do, copy-and-paste this content into our articles along with the references.
The second type of article includes original published research. The only example I found in the inaugural issue was A card game for Bell's theorem and its loopholes, in which the authors present the new concept of a card game based on a number of reliable sources. I would agree that this is not a reliable source, unless the journal establishes a reputation of reliability. It's certainly possible that this type of research would eventually be republished in a reliable source which could then be cited.
I noticed that WikiJournal articles have the same "Edit" button as any other wiki article. I won't test this, but it appears that anyone can modify these articles after they are published. The Bell's Theorem article was accepted on 31 May 2018 yet its history shows that the author has edited as recently as 10 June. Have these subsequent edits been subjected to any sort of peer review or editorial oversight? –dlthewave 16:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
A pdf is available for each article of the version accepted by the journal; that version never changes, and if the journal were ever to be regarded as a reliable source, that's what would have to be cited. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Mokele-mbembe, crypto-creationists, and mystery sourcesEdit

Hello, folks. I'm putting together a rewrite of the infamous Mokele-mbembe, but I'm having some trouble making sense of the sources. For those of you haven't been involved in the recent pseudoscience cleanup efforts in these areas (articles around the living dinosaur-Young Earth creationism-cryptozoology pseudoscience circle, that is), this article may be perplexing and the topic requires a little background.

Essentially, the article is written like so many others related to it on Wikipedia: mostly in direct violation of WP:PROFRINGE. Individuals who fall out of line with the fringe view, like academics, are described as a "skeptic" and ushered into the back. Heavy emphasis is placed on "sightings", etc. Where this one differs from the usually quackery is that reliable sources on this topic in fact do exist (thus meeting WP:FRIND), but they tell a very different story than the current article does. It turns out that a lot of the material produced on this topic results from Young Earth creationist-cryptozoologist overlap, as paleontologist Donald Prothero's work on this topic illustrates (see his The Story of Life in 25 Fossils: Tales of Intrepid Fossil Hunters and the Wonders of Evolution, pp.232-234, Columbia University Press and also Abominable Science: Origins of the Yeti, Nessie, and other Famous Cryptids, pp. 115-116, 262-265, Columbia University Press with Loxton).

In short, creationist groups have been funding cryptozoologist trips to Africa to find this purported dinosaur (or, if you're a cryptozoologist, a "cryptid") for quite some time now (reaching back as far as the 1980s, even). Their goal? To 'prove evolution wrong'. Typically, while well known, you won't find this less than savory fact mentioned by notable adherents of the pseudoscience themselves (but you might find a citation or two to genesispark.com from cryptozoologists, like in George M. Eberhart's Mysterious Creatures: A Guide to Cryptozoology(!)). It all makes for a case book example of why WP:FRIND is so important in these corners.

This idea of Mokele-mbembe comes from somewhere, yet the ultimate source of these concepts seems pretty blurry. A lot of writers mention it comes from some kind of folk belief, but that may not actually be the case. For example, editors who have researched the history of the concept of the yeti knows that this can be a complex topic, perhaps even resulting from some kind of misunderstanding in translation, and then taking on a life of its own. Anyway, does anyone know of any solid sources on the origin of the Mokele-mbembe concept? Any specialist linguists, anthropologists, or folklorists who can shine some light on how all this developed as a vehicle for the we-gotta-find-a-dinosaur-to-prove-evolution-is-wrong crowd? :bloodofox: (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

(FYI, I have a thread on this at Talk:Mokele-mbembe#Cryptozoologists,_creationists,_and_"living_dinosaurs".) :bloodofox: (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
It's been years since I really researched this subject, but I do seem to recall a fairly famous paleontologist cynically noting in some book that that the brontosaurus-esque descriptions first appeared shortly after an outspoken creationist went on a missionary trip to the Congo around the time of the Scopes monkey trial. It stuck out in my head because the notion made me (creationist as I then was) rather angry, and I wasn't able to easily disprove it. Sorry I couldn't be of more help, but my library of the mysterious has long since been lost to time, curious former friends and vengeful ex girlfriends. Hopefully this will help point you in the right direction, though. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, that's interesting. If you can think of anything else, please let me know. It seems there's been a significant amount of money involved in all this, so perhaps there might be a lot more coverage beyond Prothero and a few other scattered sources I've found out there. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

LaMoncloa's websiteEdit

Please, may someone who knows about law decide which source is more valid to determine when Mariano Rajoy's term ended? According to the Spanish Constitution (Art. 101) and the date the BOE published the Royal Decrees dismissing Rajoy and appointing Sánchez as Prime Minister, it should have ended on June 2, not on June 1:

(TRANSLATION: 1. The Government shall resign after the holding of general elections, in the event of loss of Parliamentary confidence as provided in the Constitution, or on account of the resignation or death of the President. 2. THE OUTGOING GOVERNMENT SHALL CONTINUE IN POWER UNTIL THE NEW GOVERNMENT TAKES OFFICE).


https://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2018/06/02/

However, one user hinders me from making the change (June 2 is stated as the date Rajoy's term ended in all other Wikipedias, although I know different-language Wikipedias are independent from each other) and insists on using a chart which appears in LaMoncloa's official website as a legal criterion to determine the date. However, LaMoncloa's website is not a legal source and that chart's data may have even been extracted from Wikipedia itself - workers who are in charge of the page are obviously not lawyers and their main job is to design a beautiful website with useful information and news about the Government, but it is not their aim to specify and solve subtle legal questions of this kind. Thank you and sorry for insisting. I just would like you to understand that the sources that are being used to support that date are not legally valid. This is the chart: http://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/presidente/presidentes-desde-1823/Paginas/index.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.156.8.194 (talkcontribs) 14:01, June 19, 2018 (UTC) (and another dozen or so unsigned comments further down)

Well the BBC say 1st June [14]. One issue may be that a source saying that Pedro Sánchez was sworn in on the second does not mean that Rajoy term ended on the second. It is often the case a post is unfilled until it is filled. Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
And government does not mean "Prime Minister". You need a source saying he was still PM.Slatersteven (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

https://politica.elpais.com/politica/2018/06/02/actualidad/1527918278_189826.html https://www.eldiario.es/politica/BOE-nombramiento-Pedro-Sanchez-Gobierno_0_777972243.html http://www.elmundo.es/espana/2018/06/02/5b1237ad46163f8b2a8b45e8.html http://www.lavanguardia.com/politica/20180602/444002616755/boe-pedro-sanchez-presidente-cese-rajoy.html http://www.abc.es/espana/abci-publica-cese-rajoy-y-nombramiento-sanchez-201806020830_noticia.html http://cadenaser.com/ser/2018/06/02/politica/1527924001_915647.html

LA SER: El Boletín Oficial del Estado publica este sábado los tres Reales Decretos que oficializan el relevo al frente del Gobierno. El primero de ellos es el que nombra como presidente a Pedro Sánchez. Los otros dos recogen el cese de Mariano Rajoy y de todos sus ministros.

Para evitar cualquier vacío de poder, el artículo 101.2 de la Constitución establece "El Gobierno cesante continuará en funciones hasta la toma de posesión del nuevo Gobierno". Como Pedro Sánchez ha tomado posesión este sábado, Mariano Rajoy ha sido muy pocas horas presidente en funciones.

The Government does include the Prime Minister: art. 98 of the Spanish Constitution: The Government consists of the President, Vice-Presidents, when applicable, Ministers and other members as may be created by law.

First new source "The royal decrees, signed on Friday by the King", so he was dismissed on the first. And the above quote does not say that the PM is the government, it is just the announcement of the publication of the royal decree signed on Friday 1st. stating that Sanchez took office on Saturday, well that could mean at midnight, thus meaning that Rajoy was PM up until 11:59:59 on the Friday.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I already tried to explain this IP user before. He tries to collect and re-interpret the wording of the Constitution and various laws to imply that Rajoy was acting PM from 1 to 2 June, even when La Moncloa's website itself did not show Rajoy within the acting government's composition, nor did he act as acting PM or as PM at all from 1 to 2 June, nor there is any source pointing out that Rajoy was indeed acting PM until 2 June. All sources point out Rajoy's term ended on 1 June. Re-interpreting sources to try to imply things not stated by the sources themselves is an exercise of WP:SYNTH. I hope the issue is finally solved now. Impru20talk 15:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

They were signed on Friday, but can't enter into force until they are published. Please read carefully from LASER's source: Para evitar cualquier vacío de poder, el artículo 101.2 de la Constitución establece "El Gobierno cesante continuará en funciones hasta la toma de posesión del nuevo Gobierno". Como Pedro Sánchez ha tomado posesión este sábado, Mariano Rajoy ha sido muy pocas horas presidente en funciones I think it's pretty clear.

It does not say that Rajoy was still in office on Saturday, it says only that Sánchez took office on Saturday. We can only say what sources say, not what we interpret them to say. None of your sources say he was PM on the second, only that someone else was.Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it does. I'll translate. It literally says that, in order to avoid a power vacuum, the Constitution establishes that the outgoing Government shall continue in office until the new Government is sworn in. So, since Pedro Sánchez has taken office on Saturday, Mariano Rajoy has been the acting Prime Minister only for a few hours. I think it's utterly clear.

That's your own interpretation of the law, combining material from different sources to reach conclusions not explicitly stated in them. The sources you provide establish 1 June as the end date for Rajoy's term. You asked for comments from other users, and now you have them. Seriously, there is little else to discuss here. Please, refrain from engaging in further disruptive editing at Mariano Rajoy. Impru20talk 16:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
It also does not say when those few hours were, Saturday evening, Friday morning or sometime in between.Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it is time for others to chime in.Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2018

I agree. Thanks a lot for listening and giving your opinion. However, I would be extremely grateful if other users who know about law expressed their own viewpoint.

It is not knowing about law, but knowing about WP:SYNTH. Unless you can show a source that explicitly confirms Rajoy was still PM on Saturday, 2 June, there is little that anyone, we or others, could do here. Also, please stop spreading the discussion everywhere throughout Wikipedia. You're repeating the same arguments here, at Talk:Mariano Rajoy#End of term and now at Talk:Pedro Sánchez (politician)#Date as well. Please, respect WP:TALK#USE. Impru20talk 16:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Please keep quiet until other users answer. Primary information sources are obviously more reliable that secondary information sources, which are the ones you're using - but newspapers obviously don't deal with subtle legal questions like this, so it's difficult to find an article stating that Rajoy's term ended on June 2, even if I have found one - LASER - that suggests it did, and you insist on rejecting its validity -. If we find someone who knows the actual effects of publishing a decree in BOE, our dispute will be solved.

https://www.uv.es/legalskills/validez/cundo_entran_en_vigor_las_normas.html

This is a legal source where it is explained that decrees must be published in BOE before entering into force, so Mariano Rajoy can't have stopped being PM before the decree ousting him from office was published.

You have been already told that reaching conclusions not explictly stated in the sources you provide is original research, which is not allowed in Wikipedia. You have been already shown that even your own sources do show that Rajoy's term ended on 1 June, and you have been so far unable to provide a source which explictly confirms that Rajoy was still PM on Saturday 2 June. So far, you are flooding Talk:Mariano Rajoy#End of term, Talk:Pedro Sánchez (politician)#Date and Talk:List of Prime Ministers of Spain#Rajoy's term end date with the exact same argument over and over again, unwilling to accept that others may think against your criteria. This is overtly disruptive. It is obvious you have nothing new to say, so await until others come on and comment but 1) do not try to impose your will as you have tried to do at Mariano Rajoy, and 2) surely, others may be hampered from giving their thoughts if you do not stop copy-pasting your walls of text over and over again throughout multiple talk pages. Impru20talk 17:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay, but please wait until others read the discussion and answer. If we keep discussing they will not read it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.156.8.194 (talkcontribs) 17:41, June 19, 2018 (UTC)

@93.156.8.194: Please add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) after each new comment of yours, so they are identified and timestamped. Thank you. Mathglot (talk) 19:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Request input on article source content credibilityEdit

Does the content provided by sources referenced in the article satisfy the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies? Per recent feedback from a wiki contributor, "This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". I would like to get other opinions on this topic.

Article: Draft:SenRa — Preceding unsigned comment added by TekJunky (talkcontribs) 08:33, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Vadim Sidorovich, peer-reviewed work, published by Chatyry ChverciEdit

Input requested on this: Naliboki Forest: Historical outline and ethnographical sketch, pages 1024-1026, by Prof. Dr. Vadim Sidorovich of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus. The article in question is Naliboki massacre (which at present uses rather poor sources (mainly interim reports by a prosecutor's office) and for which this is a distinct lack of English RS (there is some newspaper reporting on the outrage of the prosecutor's actions - but little on the historical events themselves)) and incorporation of material from Sidorovich regarding Naliboki village in the months prior to May 1943 and May 1943. The publisher is Chatyry Chverci from Minsk. The work has been peer reviewed by Prof. Dr. Mikhail Nikiforov (National Academy of Sciences of Belarus), Prof Dr. Uldazimir Bahinski (National Academy of Sciences of Belarus), Prof. Dr. Frieder Luz (Weihenstephan-Triesdorf University of Applied Science), Prof Dr. Wlodzimierz Jedrzejewski, and Prof Dr. Annick Schnitzler (University of Lorraine). The author is an expert on the Naliboki forest, and the work itself is a 3 part anthology - the first part on land and plant communities, the second on wild animals, and the third is this volume which is a Historical outline and ethnographical sketch.Icewhiz (talk) 09:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Reasonably reliable / acceptable: the author is not an academic historian, so I would classify this (3rd) volume as "popular history". The work has been published with a third-party press and peer-reviewed, and we can reasonably expect that the author has handled his sources with care. Popular histories are not excluded per policy. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
@K.e.coffman really? look at your comment and vote here -->[15] Why change of the opinion on the matter of non-academic historians now? GizzyCatBella (talk) 04:53, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Poray is a WP:SPS by a non expert, and mentioned unfavorably (briefly) in RS. Sidorovich on the other hand is an established academic in a different field who published a peer-reviewed scientific-popular history book via a reputable publisher. Would a journal article by a top notch historian be better? Yes. Sidorovich is however much better than media reports or interim prosecutor reports (or media reports of prosecutor stmts) - with bias issues and beyond that a much less robust review process.Icewhiz (talk) 05:13, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Excuse me Ice, but this question wasn’t addressed to you so please don't respond for somebody else. Thank you. GizzyCatBella (talk) 05:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Unreliable source, this is an environmental book “Land, Wildlife and Human” by biological studies professor Vadim Sidorovich (not a historian). All his books are about wildlife like this one for example “Guide to mammal and bird activity signs” [16] This author can’t be used as a reliable source on historical subjects. GizzyCatBella (talk) 04:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Unreliable as a source about Naliboki massacre It is not clear what sources the author used for description of the massacre (there is a "Literature" section, but no references), and most sources seem to be geography or biology monographs. The author also cites some obscure web sites, and it is quite possible he used some of them (uncritically, because he is not a historian) to describe a massacre story. Moreover, I see the author used the Wikipedia article "Армiя Краёва" (Home Army), so it is quite likely this author tells the story he read ... in Belorussian Wikipedia.
Unacceptable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:07, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
He does mention Musial 2009 as a source in the section. Most of the sources in the literature section are legit. The section is most certainly is not based on the Russian, Belarussian, or Ukranian wikis - I have scoured all looking for sources - and the accounts there for this obscure event (covered mainly as a post-2000 memory politics issue in poor non-academic sources) are scant compared to Sidorovich. If we were to disqualify every book that has a couple of mentions of Wikipedia in the literature section (with 99% being non Wiki) we will be disqualifying a very large chunk of post 2010 books.Icewhiz (talk) 05:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
He cites many reliable sources, but they all seem to be geography or biology books. It seems he is a specialist in this subject. However, I found no historical documents in the literature section, but there are many blogs (see below), or dead links to a highly questionable narod.ru. By no means these self-published blogs are reliable sources. My conclusion, a history related part of this book was written by non-specialist, and it is based on unknown or obscure sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:44, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
For example, the author cites this local blog as one of the sources. This page describes the massacre. --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Ice! Since March 19 you started to criticise Bogdan Musiał with a massive attack on critique of his work [17] with 16 edits nothing but negative additions about his work [18], [19],[20],[21],[22],[23],[24],[25],[26],[27],[28],[29],[30],[31],[32],[33] that ended up with an article being tagged with and UNDUE tag[34]Why are you giving an example of Sidorovich refering to Bogdan Musiał now???? Can you explain that to us? GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I added well sourced info, I did not "attack". Certainly Musial's work (and public stmts on the Jewish religion) has been much criticized. I would say that some of Musial's work is not RS (depends on when/where it was published). However, there are very few (or rather - none or close to none) academic quality sources on Naliboki in 1943. Musial was published, and the cited work does contain a rather large collection of PRIMARY materials that are usable even if one views Musial's analysis as questionable. I do not fault Sidorovich for citing Musial on this subject - as Musial is really practically the only other borderline academic source available - however, use of Musial is attributed in Sidorovich who also takes a rather NPOV stance (Sidorovich does not assign "blame" to any of the sides and sticks to a factual description of events).Icewhiz (talk) 18:59, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Reliable for text on Naliboki's wild animals and flora. Not reliable for historical stuff.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Over SourcingEdit

I started the Del Barber a number of years ago. Recently, I've been adding more information and more sources. There are lots of sources on Del. Now, there are certain parts of the article in which I've sourced with lots of sources. Some of his influences have four sources. You always want to source information, but can you over source? Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 15:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

It's an essay, but WP:OVERCITE seems applicable here. --tronvillain (talk) 16:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, and the section on influences looks like a cite farm designed to over emphasis a subjects notability by cite spamming. Also there is an over reliance on primary sources.Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Independent sourcesEdit

It has been suggested that sources such as The Catholic Encyclopedia and Catholic Answers are not WP:RS for assertions about the Catholic Church in general and papal infallibility in particular, because they are not "independent". Apparently, the only way to document facts about Catholicism is by anti-Catholic sources whose agenda is refutation of Catholic doctrines? Just how "independent" does a RS have to be? I was under the impression that this was designed to exclude press releases, company blogs, and advertisements from dominating sources. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

  • It depends on the material being sourced. Generally catholic sources are reliable for non controversial information about Catholicism. They will also be generally reliable for the opinion/Catholic stance on controversial issues. What they sometimes (mostly) won't be is reliable for statements of fact about controversial Catholic based issues. Is there a particular discussion this is a problem in? Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:22, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • There is also a time issue. JP2 and the current pope have challenged/refined/obsoleted a fair bit of previous dogma. So the Catholic encyclopedia for example is only going to be useful for a historical perspective. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Doctrine is not obsoleted or challenged. It is infallible, eternal, unchanging. The Catholic Encyclopedia is dated: there is much described that is based on pre-Code canon law, and discipline and liturgy that is no longer in universal usage. But as far as historical matters and scholarship, and doctrinal issues (it was published post-Vatican I) the Encyclopedia is a cornerstone of reliability, and that has been borne out by Wikipedia's heavy reliance on its Public Domain texts since the inception of our project. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Which edits are you referring to, the only ones I can find do not use The Catholic Encyclopedia as a source.Slatersteven (talk) 18:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
added here 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 18:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
That is not either of the sources you claim to be sourcing here.Slatersteven (talk) 20:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
It is the Public Domain The Catholic Encyclopedia hosted by New Advent. Chapman, John. "Pope Honorius I." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 7. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 23 Jun. 2018 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm>. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Why would you use a website rather than the Archive.org, Google Books, or Wikisource options? --tronvillain (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Why not? It's exactly the same text. Does the medium of publication have a germane effect on its reliability for certain facts as pertains to this noticeboard? 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
It would have made it more obvious you weren't linking to some random website (as would not simply using bare links), and at least in published versions one can be more confident the text hasn't been changed. --tronvillain (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It is not good practice to use a privately hosted version because; a) there is no guarantee the text has not been modified b) the potential for WP:CITESPAM abuse c) private web sites are more likely to disappear and break the link than either Google Books and Archive.org. Jbh Talk 21:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)