Misplaced Pages

So why is one nation's census bureau revising the national census of another 23 years later? How could it review the original census returns, or interview the census enumerators, which were behind the Iron Curtain? How is this verifiable per WP:Verify. This is a tertiary source likely considered a political document. If the 1954 US census report is mentioned, the methodology of its review needs to be stated clearly, i.e., that it did not review original census returns or interview Polish census enumerators, and its interpretations are opinion, not Wikifact. With regard to the criticism of the methodology of the Polish census, it also needs to be noted that the U.S. Census Office did not survey ethnicity (just like the Poles) in the U.S. census from 1930-1950, had no survey for religion,(which the Poles had), and only surveyed mother tongue for immigrants, (when the Poles surveyed mother tongue nationwide). If found, relevant academic discussion of WHY the U.S. Census Office had revisited and reclassified the population from a foreign census from 23 years previous, which I believe is unprecedented, should be included. Doctor Franklin (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The US Census Bureau cited the published official Polish census data to support their analysis. We need to include other reliable sources like the US Census Bureau report that analyze the Polish census. You have not provided a single source defending the methodology of the Polish State Statistical Office and expect readers to accept the official Polish figures as being correct. Dr. Franklin will not allow criticism of Polish government sources on Misplaced Pages, even if the source is reliable. --Woogie10w (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Right, so the methodology of the US Census Bureau report was to simply reinterpret, 23 years later, the data published in original Polish census (secondary source) without re-examining the census surveys or interviewing the census enumerators. As such this is tertiary source of limited usefullness as RS on the census itself. As far as criticizing the methodology of the Polish census, that begins with an opinion that the Poles had intended to measure ethnicity, when they in fact had removed the ethnicity question which was asked in the previous census. Thus the methodology of the census was not to survey ethnicity, which is exactly the same as the US census from 1930-1950 (only race was surveyed, not ethnicity of Europeans). Unlike the US, the Poles enumerated religion, and mother tongue of all residents. The U.S. did not. Your issue is not the methodology of the census, but its interpretation of the primary data, i.e., that the local language speakers in Polesia were really Ethnic Belarussians, and the Catholic Ruthenians and Polish speaking Greek Catholics were really ethnic Ukrainians. This is something that a tertiary source cannot do and be RS that the original was fixed, etc. It is just an opinion, and an unsupported one at that. It may be worth noting that the U.S. had done this, but not as a RS that the Polish census was biased, any more than the Russian Census Bureau can be used to impeach the ethnic or linguistic results of another nation's census.Doctor Franklin (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Support Given's Mauldin's credentials it seems reasonable to include that as a reference for another point of view, as long as it is identified as such.OhNoitsJamie 18:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Just to add, that this also appears to be a dated work.

Dr. Franklin's claim that the criticism of the 1931 Polish census is communist propaganda is groundless OR. In fact the US Census Bureau report on p. 74 maintained that the use of linguistics statistics "is prone to be biased" According to the US Census Bureau the Polish government, at that time,was engaged in a campaign of forced Polonization. The census report mentioned that "it had become precarious to be identified with either the Ukrainian or Jewish minority" . Note well that his report was published by the U.S. government in 1954 when there was a policy of zero tolerance of communist influence in government and the media. All government employees were required to sign loyalty oaths. The claim that the criticism of the Polish census is communist propaganda is utter nonsense. (the US Census Bureau did not mention the Recovery of Orthodox Churches in the Second Polish Republic, however these events took place at the time of the 1931 census)--Woogie10w (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent my comments, or conflate arguments from other places. Note that recent commentary from the region does not support Mauldin. So here is a recent analysis of this Census from Sergey Lebedev, PhD in Political Science from Leningrad State University. He has quite impressive Soviet academic credentials and notes no controversy over the census's methodology:

"It turns out that a lot remained Russian Rusyn identity despite full patronage of "Ukrainians" by official authorities and the Uniate Church...Alas, the Ukrainians identified themselves as more than half of the Galician Rusyns, so ukrainianizers could assume that Ukrainians constrict the Russian identity." Russian Folk Line (January, 18, 2014)http://ruskline.ru/analitika/2014/01/18/galiciya_etnicheskaya_istoriya/

No evidence exists that the census had intended to enumerate ethnicity. (The U.S. didn't either.) Much of what you posted above is your own OR, or SYNTH, but whatever you claim about "Polonization", (i.e., the establishment of a national language to facilitate industrialization of a population of illiterate peasants, which the Soviets later did as well,) doesn't make Mauldin's mischaracterization of the speakers of the "local" language in Polesia (Polesian) as ethnic Belarussians correct. In fact, Mauldin, was simply an apologist for the expansion of Soviet borders during the Second Red Scare. He made it appear somehow justified. Even a former Communist like Lebedev doesn't agree with him. You appear determined to WP:CHERRYPICK as many anti-polonist sources as possible on this topic. But also note that from the previous census the percentage of the population identified as Jews, (using religion, since some Jews considered themselves Poles) increased measurably:

1921 census Jews 2.048.878 (07.97%)

1931 census Jews 3,113,933 (09.76%)

change Jews +1,065,055 (+01.79%)

The numbers don't lie, and the census speaks for itself, what you don't want it do.Doctor Franklin (talk) 17:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Upon review, I don't see Mauldin's academic credentials on display anywhere. Based upon the publication in which he appears, it looks like he may have been an expert on contraception and population growth, not ethnography or ethnology. User Woogie10w appears to want to use this source for political criticism of the Second Polish Republics decision to not enumerate ethnicity, (thus following the U.S. model) rather than any criticism of the accuracy of the methodology for counting the population itself. The issue here is how others choose to interpolate the data to approximate ethnicity, not that parts of the population had not been counted in the census. Mauldin appears to have no academic credentials in the social sciences to justify his political opinions as RS on the topic.Doctor Franklin (talk) 18:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

W. Parker Mauldin was demographic professional, the author of numerous works on demographic topics. The U.S. Census Bureaus Population of Poland maintained the 1931 census in Poland was biased in favor of ethnic Poles, according to their study the language categories Ruthenian and "local people" were created in order to minimize the number of Ukrainians and Belorussians in the total population. See pages 74-75. I will provide jpgs of these pages, please contact me by Wiki mail.--Woogie10w (talk) 22:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

A google search is not the same as providing a reference for the man's academic credentials, which you have not done. Still waiting.Doctor Franklin (talk) 22:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Sergey Lebedev who joined the KGB in 1975, an ally Of Vladimir Putin, is a rather dubious source. --Woogie10w (talk) 22:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Right, Sergey Viktorovich Lebedev has a Ph.D. from Leningrad State University in Political Science would have been 13 years old then: www.obeschania.ru/persons/lebedev-sergej What he writes is mainline academic political thought in Russia regarding Ukraine and its Catholic Galicians. This is more than we now about Mr. Mauldin. Doctor Franklin (talk) 05:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, We now see that you you did not know what what you were talking about and have corrected yourself. --Woogie10w (talk) 09:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The website ruskline.ru engages in Russian nationalist propaganda. ruskline.ru is definitely not a reliable source. The piece you cited is an anti-Ukrainian polemic. --Woogie10w (talk) 09:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Spoken like a true Ukrainian nationalist wishing to suppress it.Doctor Franklin (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Wayman Parker Mauldin was a graduate of the University of Virginia (1936)--Woogie10w (talk) 10:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

No, this is page from a yearbook, not proof of a degree of any kind. For all we know, his uncle got him a political patronage job with a mail order diploma.Doctor Franklin (talk) 15:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The thesis dissertation of W. Parker Mauldin, Rural vs. urban individualism. M.S. University of Virginia 1936 --Woogie10w (talk) 22:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Submitting a dissertation and having a degree awarded for it are two very different things. What are his academic credentials? Social scientists don't usually get M.S. degrees, and nothing here indicates that he has the credentials to distinguish Polesians from Belarusians, or a Polish speaking Lithuanian like Pilsudski from other Poles, or analyze the internal politics of the Second Polish Republic.Doctor Franklin (talk) 02:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

This German map from 1930 clearly shows that the Polesians were not Belarussians as critics like Mauldin contended: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Lange_mitteleuropa_1930.jpg The census got this part right. The ethnic issues were disputed at the time. Different "experts" had different interpretations. The Germans clearly disagreed with Mauldin, whatever his academic credentials were.Doctor Franklin (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The map doesn't show that. It has labels for Ukrainians and White Russians.Faustian (talk) 17:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The map labels Polesians Ukrainians, which means not Belarussians. Thus, the Germans who had occupied the region in WWI disagreed with Mr. Mauldin across the ocean. The Polesian language is closer to Ukrainain than Belarussian. No serious linguist would dispute that.Doctor Franklin (talk) 21:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Robert Conquest

Flushout1999 (talk · contribs) appears to be editing tendentiously, using sources that are bad or misinterpreted on Robert Conquest. Please see the discussion at Talk:Robert Conquest#POV_and_Call_for_Revision:_October_9.2C_2015 for details. Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 06:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

These are the sources that some people is saying are tendentious:

As you can see, it was all well sourced with reliable sources (mainly from Conquest and people who knew him personally or collaborated with him). Maybe facts can look not neutral at the first sight, but in fact that's what happened so I believe it should be reported in the biography. If it does not look neutral is because Conquest was never neutral! I believe that to not report his non-neutrality would mean not meet the NPOV and depict a fictitious "Conquest image" not corresponding to the reality!

I also would like to add that I am the user who wrote most of the current revision, even after the deletions made by Jeff G. -- Flushout1999 (talk) 06:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• I can see two problems. First, User:Flushout1999 is making blatant copyright violations. For example, on this page about work by Robert Conquest they included the following text :

In 1981, the Ukrainian Research Institute approached Conquest with a major project: a book on the 1932-33 famine. The pot was sweetened by an $80,000 subside from the Ukrainian National Association, a New Jersey-based group with a venerable, hard-right tradition; the UNA's newspaper, Svoboda, was banned by Canada during World War II for its pro-German sympathies

Here is original source. It tells: "In 1981, the Ukrainian Research Institute approached Conquest with a major project: a book on the 1932-33 famine. The pot was sweetened by an $80,000 subside from the Ukrainian National Association, a New Jersey-based group with a venerable, hard-right tradition; the UNA's newspaper, Swoboda, was banned by Canada during World War II for its pro-German sympathies."

This is exactly the same text, but Flushout1999 did not provide "...". This quotation also shows another problem: POV-pushing using poor sources and selective quotation. In particular, Jeff Coplon (used as a source above) is not an appropriate source because he is well-known for . This is like using writings by a Holocaust denialist to discredit mainstream academic work about the Holocaust. I did not check everything, and perhaps many edits by Flushout1999 are not copyright violations, valid and well sourced, but Flushout1999 must do their changes very gradually, piece by piece, starting from something non-controversial, and wait for consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 15:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Excellent example of WP:WPNOTRS. The section Denial_of_the_Holodomor#Jeff_Coplon is nothing more than an editor's opinion about Coplon, based on two articles written by him. Those two articles (and an article by Wilfred Szczesny, presented as "other similar writings") are the only sources given. I would call that a textbook example of WP:OR. Ssscienccce (talk) 17:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC) ; edited 19:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, sure. This paragraph is OR based on precisely the same unrelaible source, only by someone else and on a different page. Note the url which leads to website of Grover Furr, a notorious Stalinist apologist.My very best wishes (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

That is indeed one of the sources used in the section. Don't know what you mean by "only by someone else and on a different page". What's your point? Ssscienccce (talk) 18:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually User:Iryna Harpy informed me here that the Jeff Coplon source is a valid reliable one, even if you find it in the Grover Furr's website. Therefore if it is valid there, it should be valid also in The Harvest of Sorrow if used in order to address Coplon's criticisms and criticism from other historians cited in this very same source. -- Flushout1999 (talk) 11:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

My comment on the matter is actually to be found here. Ultimately, it's contingent on a per article and context based evaluation, i.e., whether it is WP:DUE, WP:OR, and whether it is being introduced as a WP:COATRACK. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

My point is that contributions by Flushout1999 represent a mixture of copyright violations and POV-pushing, exactly as was already noted by several contributors on talk page of the article . OK, let's consider another random example. Here Flushout1999 included the following text: "He claimed that the primary purpose of these camps was not gold extraction, but systematic extermination of the prisoners as it happened in Hitler's Final Solution, a vision opposed by most western historians...". The part of text indicated by italic is a copy-paste from the source without providing "...". The rest ("a vision opposed by most western historians...") is an assertion not supported by the reference. My very best wishes (talk) 19:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

In retrospect, I probably should have addressed the issue in a separate thread, since it concerns the sourcing of the Holodomor denial article, which isn't the topic of this dispute. I leave it to others to decide whether to collapse it as offtopic. Ssscienccce (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello My very best wishes, you forgot to mention another unreliable source confirming the sponsorship from the Ukrainian National Association, the Los Angeles Times, here , so Conquest actually received subsides from the Ukrainians to write "The Harvest of Sorrow". Or perhas also the LA Times is a "holodomor denial"? Who knows, but it does not look like that from the article. Copyvio is just a more subtle excuse to delete materials that do not meet the taste of some users, otherwise "deleting users" will give time to the "editing user" to correct the paragraphs in question. In addition, yesterday I have re-written many sentences on Robert Conquest in order to comply with the copyright rules that I did not read before. It changed anything? Not! Solution is always the same: deletion of materials well sourced only because someone has preconceived ideas on a particular subject. -- Flushout1999 (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The edit you are talking about stated the following: "In 1978, Conquest published Kolyma: The Arctic Death Camps, on the infamous Kolyma camps in the Soviet Far East. He claimed that the primary purpose of these camps was not gold extraction, but systematic extermination of the prisoners as it happened in Hitler's Final Solution, a vision opposed by most western historians who have argued that any series of events, except for the famine in Ukraine in 1932-33, can be termed genocide as it is defined by the UN convention."

In the original source (here ) you can find this:

"The plural form of the English title, Stalin’s Genocides, and of the Ukrainian and Russian translations Genotsidi or Genotsidy Stalina, implies that several or all of the well-known and currently heavily researched historical phenomena should be termed “genocide”. In recent years, few Western historians have argued that any series of events, except for the famine in Ukraine in the fall of 1932 and spring of 1933, can be termed genocide as defined by the UN convention."

So it is all present in the original source. Stop trying saying that I wrote something false, I always stick to the source. Oh yeah, so now it is indisputable it is in there, you cannot say is false, then you go with the copyvio... It's ok, you and others have already deleted almost everything. --- Flushout1999 (talk) 19:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

So, you are telling that you fixed copyright violations already. I am sorry, but the last example above was your latest version, and it still contained obvious copyright violations (see above) and distortions of quoted sources. In particular, this source, which you included in the end of the phrase, does not claim that "most western historians" opposed to the idea that Soviet labor camps were camps of death (He claimed that the primary purpose of these camps was not gold extraction, but systematic extermination of the prisoners as it happened in Hitler's Final Solution, a vision opposed by most western historians... in your version). My very best wishes (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I did not know the Final Solution was not a genocide, and that therefore most of the western historians were agreeing with Conquest that in Kolyma there was a "systematic extermination of the prisoners as it happened in Hitler's Final Solution" while saying at the same time that only the famine "can be termed genocide as defined by the UN convention".

What I wrote in the talk page? "I made substunctial corrections to the article in order to avoid/resolve Copyvio. I used the Copyvio Detector and I re-wrote the parts highlighted in the tool which were not in-text quotations. All the other quotations should now comply with the Misplaced Pages:Plagiarism#Avoiding plagiarism guidelines. If you think this is not the case for some paragraph, feel free to notify me here and I'll rewrite the paragraph. If you think the article looks unbalanced, then add more sourced edits, don't delete mine." I received great help, sure. People wanted only to delete my edits since the beginning, that's all. It has been only a huge waste of time. You and others should be greately satisfied of the outcome at this point. -- Flushout1999 (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Ancient History Encylopedia

Just ran across this being used in a lot of articles as an EL (maybe spam) and in some as a source, eg Ancient Greek medicine. Some articles have named authors (the author of the article used for the Greek Medicine article for instance has a biography here, others just a first name with no information about them. I can't see this as meeting either our sourcing criteria or our criteria for external links. But it's linked a lot. Doug Weller (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree. Their statements about their "team" here does not even remotely inspire real confidence in me. John Carter (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Concur. A tertiary source from a bunch of BA does not strike me as reliable. Adding them to "external links" section does look like "product placement" spam. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree - not reliable. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 23:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing in Albert Folch Folch

I wondering if a few other editors would mind taking a look at the sources cited in Albert Folch Folch. Quite of few of them seem to be to websites self-published by Folch Folch himself, such as his blog, YouTube videos, Picasa pages, etc. For example, albertfolch.wix.com/introtobiomems and the statement "This textbook is now being adopted worldwide (more than 60 departments in 14 countries)." was just added by an IP with this edit.

There are quite a few other similar sources being used in a similar manner which might not be in accordance with WP:BLPSELFPUB or WP:BLPSPS. I have started a discussion about this at Talk:Albert Folch Folch#Sourcing, but that was the first new post added to the talk page in almost a year, so I'm not sure how many people are watching it. Anyway, any comments would be most appreciated. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Your instincts seem correct. Go forth and edit boldly. Rhoark (talk) 02:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Google Earth as source on its own 3D coverage

I removed an impressively long, but seemingly unsourced, table from Google Earth, which listed all the cities and town with automatically generated 3D buildings. This was done due to, among other things, rough consensus on the talk page.

However, my removal was subsequently reverted and then challenged, the main rationale being that "the source of this list is Google Earth itself. Verification can be achieved by simply checking out the area in GE".

Is Google Earth itself a valid source for the table, keeping WP:PRIMARY and WP:NOR in mind (although, in my opinion, WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTGUIDEBOOK also apply, but I guess those are not relevant source-wise)?

LjL (talk) 14:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The various things Misplaced Pages Is Not are not reliable sourcing guidelines. They're about what kinds of articles should exist. I don't see any reason Google Earth could not be a kind of source. The question is, who controls the information? Rhoark (talk) 02:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, as I said, the "NOT" parts are probably not relevant to this noticeboard. However, WP:PRIMARY and WP:NOR kinda are. Google Earth is quite clearly a primary (not secondary) source for itself, and as such, it should be used with extreme care; but as a matter of fact, to be used for this, a person must do some peculiar research inside it, namely zoom into cities and determine whether buildings are shown in 3D. I don't think this matches how articles are normally sourced on Misplaced Pages. LjL (talk) 13:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Whether it's a reliable source depends on how verifiable the information is. I've previously summarized that at WP:APPLYRS. What you've identified is more a question of WP:DUE weight - i.e., if no secondary source has bothered to describe these details about Google Earth, what indication is there that it's worthwhile information for the article? Rhoark (talk) 13:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Good point. Although I'd still argue that zooming into every city on Google Earth to determine whether it has 3D buildings or not smells very much like original research on the article's subject... sure, it can be verified, but only by duplicating the lengthy original research itself. Sources are meant to be simply consulted. LjL (talk) 13:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Adding to this discussion the secondary source I referred to on the talk page (from Google Earth Blog): KML file ESRoads (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why Google Earth couldn't be used as a reliable source. Like Rhoark said above, the more important question to ask is where is the information coming from, and is it verifiable. I'm sure that Google takes appropriate measures to make sure all of the information is updated and correct. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 23:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Err, are you sure you've understood the issue? This is not about using Google Earth as a geographical source to verify geographical facts. It is about using Google Earth itself to list the city for which Google Earth has 3D buildings (versus the ones where it has just pictures). It's like directly using the contents of, say, a movie to make statements about the movie, instead of using a secondary source that describes that movie. LjL (talk) 23:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Does it depend on how Google Earth is used as a source? For example, we've referred to "zooming into every city" as a form of research to determine whether each city has or does not have 3D imagery. But (and the challenge is missing this information) Google Earth has a feature in its "Voyager" layer that displays placemarks for the areas where it has 3D imagery. Would simply compiling these placemarks into a list be a misuse of the primary source? (I say this for argument's sake, but hasten to add that such a list would be far too extensive for WP's purposes; it should merely be cross-referenced with other sources.) ESRoads (talk) 03:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a definite opinion on this but I'll just say that in general, a source doesn't have to be either reliable or unreliable: it can, indeed, be reliable in part, or for some uses, or depending on how it's used. In this case, maybe an argument could in fact be made that using something where they already made their own "research" and created a database (layer) "listing" the 3D buildings is not original research on our part, while zooming in and doing our own research, is well, original research.

Meanwhile, I see another section has been created on this board on using Google Maps as a source; I think that should be about using Google Maps (and Google Earth, which is effectively the same thing) as a source for geographical information, while I started this section explicitly to determine whether it's usable as a source about itself. I'm not sure some of the commentators have realized that. LjL (talk) 13:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

LjL, I would make exactly that argument: using something where they already made their own "research" and created a database (layer) "listing" the 3D buildings is not original research on our part, while zooming in and doing our own research, is well, original research. I think the latter is sufficiently novel/transformative to be SYNTH or OR. - Ryk72 14:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Domestic Violence article

Hello. Someone suggested placing my query here, rather than get entangled in some type of edit war over the issue. Seems much more sensible to me! Specifically I am wondering if this academic, peer reviewed meta-analyses, conducted by Archer (2000) and contained within the Psychological Bulletin is a reliable source, and if it could possibly be used somewhere within the body of the controversial and emotive domestic violence article?

The meta-analyses concluded that women were slightly more likely than men to use one or more act of physical aggression and to use such acts more frequently, after examining 82 studies that found gender symmetry. (Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A metaanalytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651-680.)

All opinions very much welcome! Will go by what others say here. Thanks.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

What does the literature say about this article according to the usual indices? Has it been refuted, rebutted and/or withdrawn? --Orange Mike | Talk 02:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

This is the most slam-dunk obviously reliable source I've seen anyone bother to bring to the noticeboard. Psychological Bulletin is quite venerable, and the article shows 156 citations on PubMed. A random spot check of the text of those articles shows it is being used at face value, not criticized. Rhoark (talk) 02:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Orangemike and anyone else, what the literature generally states on matters such as these is seen at Talk:Domestic violence#Should the Scientific American "rates of domestic violence are roughly equal between men and women" material be included?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. So Rhoark's characterization that "his is the most slam-dunk obviously reliable source" is inaccurate. Furthermore, peer review is not the same thing as a literature review or systematic review; WP:MEDRS prefers the latter two. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid your statements are not at all probative. The existence of other reliable sources does not impact the reliability of Archer. Undergoing peer review is indeed different from being a literature review, but Archer both did the first and is the latter. It would meet the recommendations of WP:MEDRS, though that's irrelevant since it is not being used to support a biomedical claim. Rhoark (talk) 04:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid you need to read up on the WP:Due weight policy, including its subsections, and better understand what WP:Lead means about what is lead material and what is not lead material. It is also a good idea to ask about this matter at WP:Med. Or rather invite WP:Med to this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

If you want to move the goalposts, you'll have to move them farther than that. I don't think you can make a case that in domestic violence it is undue to include a top-shelf rigorous study of the prevalence of domestic violence. You seem fond of linking WP:Lead but a link is not an argument. There is nothing there that would serve to exclude Archer. Common practice in WP:Fringe articles where prevalent lay opinions diverge from academic sources is to lead with academic conclusions as statements of fact and then note that the majority opinion in the general population differs. That seems like a reasonable blueprint for this situation. Rhoark (talk) 14:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Your assertion that I can't "make a case that in domestic violence it is undue to include a top-shelf rigorous study of the prevalence of domestic violence." is a wrong assertion. Charlotte135 was using the source in a way that violates the WP:Due weight policy. And as made clear by others below (and even indicated by Orangemike above), it should not be used in that way. The WP:Due weight policy is very clear. And so is the WP:Lead guideline, which is certainly a valid argument with regard to this matter. That you think WP:Lead doesn't apply in this case is something I will chalk up to a difference in our experience levels about what is and is not lead material. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

APB on some goalposts, last seen westbound out of town. So Charlotte's edit could WP:STICKTOSOURCE better about the population sample Archer applies to. You see, that's the kind of collaborative criticism that she was asking for while you were delivering ultimatums on the talk page. You'll note also that the merits of Charlotte's edit are not a property of the source. Now, the question is not whether WP:Lead is applicable to leads, but rather what it is in the content of that policy you feel supports the conclusion that the gender balance in commission of domestic violence is not sufficiently important to the topic to merit inclusion there. Rhoark (talk) 03:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Disagree, except for the "the question is not whether WP:Lead is applicable to leads"; the question was never about that. It was about whether or not the content Charlotte135 added is lead material. It was also about what is undue weight. I've made my points on these matters, and I view them as perfectly clear. You are wrong, per what I and others have stated. So I see nothing left to state to you on this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I will go ahead and make my view clearer, though, since we have different views on what is lead material: The lead is for summarizing what is already in the article, especially its most important aspects. The lead is not for adding statistical data that contrasts various other statistical information, and especially if that information is not covered lower in the article. The "Globally, however, a wife or female partner is more commonly the victim of such abuse." sentence summarizes a significant aspect of the topic; that aspect is covered lower in the article, in various ways. The vast majority of the Domestic violence article is about women because domestic violence sources focus on women far more than they focus on men or on children. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

And click on the biomedical link for what biomedical means. Epidemiology is a medical/biomedical matter, and it is listed at WP:MEDSECTIONS. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Crime is sometimes treated using epidemiological methods, but placing all statistics on crime or violence under the rubric of MEDRS is clearly unworkable. This is tangential anyway, since Archer meets the standards expected of a medical source. Rhoark (talk) 14:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

No one stated or implied that we should place "all statistics on crime or violence under the rubric of MEDRS." But violence, including domestic violence, is a medial topic, and its health aspects are subject to WP:MEDRS sourcing. The Archer source is a poor source for the material it was being used for in the article, as made clear by Kaldari below, and it was poorly used in the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The paper is a reliable source, but "is biased toward young dating samples in the United States" (quote from abstract), thus it should not be used to make sweeping claims about domestic violence in general, especially when such claims are contradicted by most other reliable sources. Kaldari (talk) 04:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - The Archer article is a reliable source, and the Scientific American article that discusses the Archer and Strauss articles is also a reliable source. I don't know why anyone is bringing up MEDRS, as this has nothing to do with human biology or health advice. Flyer22 seems to be using the wrong standard to judge the reliability of sources in this article. I agree with Kalahari that it shouldn't be used to make sweeping claims about domestic violence, and it shouldn't be presented on parity with the current mainstream view - but it should not be excluded from the article completely. Not sure this should occupy a prominent place in the lead, but it should be incorporated in the article. Minor4th 05:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: Minor4th is one of the editors who supports the minority viewpoint; his dismay that WP:MEDRS is a factor for information such as this is well-documented, as seen by this discussion and the ones following it when scrolling down. As those discussions show, he disagrees with WP:MEDRS applying to such matters, despite various medical editors being clear that WP:MEDRS applies. His assertion that I'm "using the wrong standard to judge the reliability of sources in this article" is at odds with the WP:MEDRS guideline. And by his own admission that he agrees with Kaldari "that shouldn't be used to make sweeping claims about domestic violence, and it shouldn't be presented on parity with the current mainstream view," I am applying the WP:Due weight policy correctly. As for the source being excluded from the article entirely, I already stated, "n the Violence against men subsection, we have the following: 'A 2014 study of intimate partner violence by the British Psychological Society concluded that women are more likely to be physically aggressive in domestic scenarios than men.' If your Archer text is to go in the article, it would be better suited in that section. But I don't agree with it being included." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

So that people can see what I mean about WP:MEDRS applying, I commented on "biomedical," "epidemiology" and WP:MEDSECTIONS above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you please back off a bit so others can join the discussion - and let this RSN discussion speak for itself and on its own merits without all this well poisoning. Please? Minor4th 15:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

may I venture to suggest that F22 has explained the situation adequately, and nothing more need be said. It is very clear. Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 15:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

So the Archer article in question is or is not a reliable source? Minor4th 15:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Obviously it is a reliable source - but only for what it actually supports (see the very important comment/qualification by Kakdari above). More importantly, the main finding can't simply be stated blindly as fact - it needs to be properly contextualized and evaluated for weight. If other scholars and studies say something different, then that should be noted. And if a great many other RS say something different, then it's possible this needs to be characterized as an outlier, or maybe even not mentioned at all. This hinges on the sources weight not its reliability. It just depends on what the broader body of literature on DV says. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Minor4th, adding appropriate context to a discussion is not poisoning the well. It was important to note that you are not a random passerby and that WP:MEDRS applies in this case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Right, well poisoning, like I said. And the irony is that I'm actually agreeing with you, but you don't see it. And MEDRS does not apply to domestic violence statistics and studies (no matter how many times you say it). Minor4th 22:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, we disagree on the poisoning well aspect. And as for you agreeing with me, I acknowledged in my "05:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)" post above and in my "22:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)" post (where I was going to use the names "Kaldari and Minor4th" but opted for "others") that you agree with me as far as WP:Due weight in this case goes. But as for WP:MEDRS, we clearly disagree. The difference is that I have medical sources and medical editors (other than myself) to back me up on the fact that WP:MEDRS apples to "domestic violence statistics and studies." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay thanks to all editors who have added input. So far there appears to be a clear consensus that it definitely is a reliable source. No question about that. Where it is used/placed in the article is however still undecided. I agree that it is probably misplaced in the second paragraph and shouldn't be used to make sweeping claims about domestic violence. Okay so these are the parameters. It also needs to be said that this reliable source is not an outlier, by any means, so should be included somewhere in the article, but needs to be properly contextualized. Am I on track here so far?Charlotte135 (talk) 23:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

You got it. Minor4th 06:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

There still clearly appears to be significant disagreement as to whether WP:MEDRS applies or not to the domestic violence article? Fler 22reborn is convinced it does, and cites other medical editors who agree, I think? However it seems other experienced editors who have taken part in this discussion disagree and believe it doesn't. It has therefore been left open-ended which provides no real guide for future edits. Can others here please give their understanding of the consensus if any, after all comments above are considered? How is this decided anyway if there is such conjecture? Does it mean primary sources cannot be used in this article?Charlotte135 (talk) 13:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Minor4th is the only editor in this discussion who has stated or indicated that WP:MEDRS doesn't apply to "domestic violence statistics and studies." Either way, WP:MEDRS is not preventing the content in question from being added to the Domestic violence article. I've been clear that I took issue with how you added the content and where. I was also clear that "n the Violence against men subsection, we have the following: 'A 2014 study of intimate partner violence by the British Psychological Society concluded that women are more likely to be physically aggressive in domestic scenarios than men.", which means that what you want to add, even though not the Archer source, is already addressed in the article. I've been clear that if your Archer content is to go in the article, it should go there in that section that is already reporting on that aspect. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

And as for primary sources, primary sources should be used sparingly regardless of whether or not they are WP:MEDRS-compliant; this is per the WP:Primary sources policy. Domestic violence is a health issue, which is why it is covered by so many health/medical sources, and is widely subject to medical studies; so the idea that WP:MEDRS does not apply to it holds no weight. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

That's not true Flyer22reborn, Rhoark also said the reliable source "...would meet the recommendations of WP:MEDRS, though that's irrelevant since it is not being used to support a biomedical claim." So it was not just minor4th who questions the applicability of WP:MEDRS in this article. And there obviously is further criteria for adding reliable sources if it is applied to the domestic violence article flyer 22 reborn.Charlotte135 (talk) 22:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

It is true; where did Rhoark state or imply that WP:MEDRS does not apply to "domestic violence statistics and studies"? That is why I stated that "Minor4th is the only editor in this discussion who has stated or indicated that WP:MEDRS doesn't apply to 'domestic violence statistics and studies.'" Unlike Rhoark, Minor4th has claimed that domestic violence is not a medical topic. I was already clear above that Minor4th's dismay that "WP:MEDRS is a factor for information such as this is well-documented, as seen by this discussion and the ones following it when scrolling down." If you think that it should be a question as to whether or not WP:MEDRS applies to the topic of domestic violence, I have no problem listing sources, including the World Health Organization (WHO), showing and/or stating that domestic violence is a health/medical topic. It should not even be a question. And I've told you that "Either way, WP:MEDRS is not preventing the content from being added to the Domestic violence article." If you want to debate the application of WP:MEDRS, then take it to the Domestic violence article talk page, and we can start a WP:RfC on that if you so desire. Whether I start it or someone else starts it, I'll be sure to list an abundance of quality sources showing and/or stating that domestic violence is a health/medical topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay. cool. So, unless any other editors believe it not to be a WP:MEDRS applicable article then I guess that's pretty clear cut, done and dusted. I think that I must have misinterpreted this comment made by Rhoark ".....though that's irrelevant since it is not being used to support a biomedical claim." Anyway will let them comment further if they wanted, rather than my interpretation of their comment. I was really just trying to get an idea on where the group consensus on this actually was?Charlotte135 (talk) 09:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

While Domestic Violence may be reasonably considered a Public Health issue, I do not concur that it is reasonably considered Biomedical content. Accordingly, I would consider that WP:MEDRS does not apply. Hope this helps. - Ryk72 10:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Correct. Minor4th 15:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Ryk72, considering that "biomedical" includes physical and psychological issues, which are medical issues and are aspects of domestic violence, and considering that health/medical sources classify domestic violence as a medical issue, why would you state that "WP:MEDRS does not apply"? Are you stating that WP:MEDRS does not apply to the source in question? Or are you stating that WP:MEDRS does not apply to domestic violence at all? If it's the latter, you are certainly incorrect, for the reasons I and other WP:Med editors have stated. WP:MEDRS does not only apply to biomedical content; medical editors made this clear at Talk:Domestic violence against men when arguing against Minor4th, who was looking to add poor sources to that article. Furthermore, you seem to to be defining biomedical strictly. Look at the Biomedical article, which is titled Medical research, and see what its scope is. Again, domestic violence concerns physical and mental harm; those are medical/biomedical topics, and is exactly why domestic violence is listed as or called a medical topic by various medical sources. Your and anyone else's commentary encouraging the use of sources that are not WP:MEDRS-compliant for domestic violence material encourages poor sourcing for this health topic. So it does not help. We do not use any and every type of source for the Domestic violence article. News sources are generally a no-go, per WP:MEDRS and per WP:Identifying reliable sources#Breaking news. Domestic violence is not simply a cultural topic, nor simply a legal topic. It is a medical, legal and cultural topic. If the content is legally or culturally-based, then WP:MEDRS is not likely to apply. If the content is health-based, then WP:MEDRS does apply. Simple, really. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I've taken this mater to Misplaced Pages talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Clarifying "biomedical". A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, With respect, I feel there's a fair amount of equivocation in the reasoning provided here. It seems a bit like "WP:MEDRS applies to biomedical information, which is kind of the same as medical, which is kind of the same as health, which is, you know, public health, which includes domestic violence; so it's covered by WP:MEDRS". It may not be the intent, but that's how it comes across - all just a little too tenuous a link.
I think the essay WP:Biomedical information, which is linked from WP:MEDRS, is probably as helpful as anything else that we have; and putting that together with WP:MEDRS, I cannot, in good faith, conclude that a source on the rates of domestic violence is biomedical information, and therefore covered.
There may be other discussions to be had around WP:NPOV and WP:DUE, but I don't think that WP:MEDRS is the hook to hang the hat on here. - Ryk72 12:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Ryk72, in this case, there is only "equivocation" to editors who do not understand how health/medical topics should be sourced, and/or those trying to push a specific POV that is not widely supported by the medical literature. Like I stated above, I've taken the matter to the WP:MEDRS talk page. Hopefully, some WP:MEDRS editors weigh in on it. Then again, they might feel that they don't need to, per what I and other WP:Med editors have stated about domestic violence and its medical/biomedical relation. I can't agree with you because it makes absolutely no sense to me to state that a topic that deals so much with medical/biomedical issues (just look at the topics in the Domestic violence article) is not in the domain of WP:MEDRS. Then again, it seems you are now only stating that WP:MEDRS doesn't apply to epidemiology (rates of domestic violence). If you recognize that some aspects of domestic violence require WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing, then good; I can assume some good faith on your part here. But either way, with the exception of GregJackP (mentioned in the aforementioned section at the WP:MEDRS talk page), the only editors so far to claim that domestic violence doesn't require WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing have been men's rights editors and those involved with the Gamergate controversy article; I doubt that's a coincidence. It's common for such editors to want us to forgo high-quality medical sources for obvious POV-pushing reasons. It's interesting that you argue that the WP:Biomedical information essay supports your view, when I stated the opposite in the aforementioned section at the WP:MEDRS talk page; I stated, "The main dispute for whether 'biomedical' applies to domestic violence is the epidemiology material. I've stated that epidemiology material should be WP:MEDRS-compliant; this view is also currently supported by the 'What is biomedical information?' and 'The best type of source' sections at the Misplaced Pages:Biomedical information essay." We'll see what WP:MEDRS editors state, if they state anything at all on this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, I must respectfully request that you do not use straw man arguments or genetic fallacies. Topic spaces in which editors may have participated are not germane to the reasoning that they provide for opinions here. I do not assert that WP:MEDRS doesn't apply to epidemiology; I assert that WP:MEDRS does not apply to prevalence rates for domestic violence, on the basis that domestic violence is not a medical condition. I also do not mention prevalence rates to indicate that they are an exception; I mention them because that appears to be the subject of the discussion at the Domestic violence page which was linked above.
I am also not POV-pushing here, I have made no statement as to the inclusion of any material in any article; simply that I don't think WP:MEDRS applies in this case. As above, there may be WP:NPOV or WP:DUE reasons which apply. I agree with both you and Minor4th that additional, reasoned, opinions would be useful - and concur that an RfC might be useful. The question was brought here, seeking opinions. I've opined. - Ryk72 13:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Ryk72, I must respectfully request that you learn about sourcing medical issues before you comment on what type of sourcing a medical issue should have. Also read up on what epidemiology entails, if you think that it doesn't include statistics and that a violence topic such as domestic violence doesn't fall under epidemiology. I disagree with everything you've stated in this section, except for WP:NPOV or WP:DUE concerns and the suggestion of a WP:RfC, and the reasons why are noted above and below. For example, if "Topic spaces in which editors may have participated are not germane to the reasoning that they provide for opinions here." was at all true, the Domestic violence article talk page would not be tagged with Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. Such editors have repeatedly plagued gender-related articles, and the way they think on topics such as these are very much a concern. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I must admit to being very disappointed - "request that you learn about sourcing before you comment" is incredibly dismissive and rude, and quite the personal attack. We owe each other better. I have read fully & absorbed WP:MEDRS and WP:Biomedical information, other than these what additional materials are considered necessary & sufficient to opine?
Given that I have opined - the crux of which is WP:MEDRS applies to biomedical information; "Domestic violence" is not a medical condition, so prevalence rates are not biomedical information; and therefore WP:MEDRS does not apply - will there be a substantive response to this reasoning? From this side of the keyboard it feels like the response has been a mix of logical fallacies and personal attacks; which, to be honest, would seem to undermine the contra opinion rather than strengthen it.
As for statistics, I agree that both prevalence rates for domestic violence and epidemiology make use of statistics; but so do Mean Time Between Failure rates for mechanical components, and they are not necessarily biomedical. It seems a bit "fowls lay eggs; fish lay eggs; fish are fowls" unfortunately.
What say we put together the RfC, see what comes out of it? - Ryk72 13:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Ryk72, even though I don't care if you are disappointed in me, especially given what I have observed of your short history editing Misplaced Pages (that is, if you are indeed a WP:Newbie), my "respectfully request" comment was no more rude or a personal attack than your "respectfully request" comment. You are acting like "biomedical" only refers to what you call "a medical condition." So it's safe to state that your understanding of WP:MEDRS very much contrasts mine and that of many other WP:Med editors. As for the rest of your "13:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)" reply, it's already clear that we are at an impasse, that I disagree with you; I see no need to continue any further discussion with you on this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I am not a "men's rights editor" and I've never had anything to do with the gamergate controversy. Nor am I POV pushing. That is a tremendous assumption of bad faith on your part, Flyer 22. Minor4th 12:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Consistently misrepresenting your view? In this section, did you not state "Ozzie, this is not a biomed article, so I don't know why MEDRS is brought up. In any event, the sources that Flyer22 keeps trying to remove do comply with MEDRS, even though this article does not have to meet that requirement."? In that same discussion, did you not also state "From what I see, this article has no bearing on WP:MED. This is a sociology issue."? You made it seem like domestic violence against men is a sociological topic only, as if none of it concerns the medical realm. And you were/are wrong on that. This discussion was the only discussion where you seemed to acknowledge that some aspects of domestic violence against men concern WP:Med/MEDRS; you stated, "1. Application of WP:MEDRS - from looking at recent comments, I think we all now agree that MEDRS does not generally apply to every part of the article, but issues directly related to health and medical information should be sourced according to the guideline."

As your definition of sociology, I just told you that epidemiology is not simply a sociological matter; it is a medical matter more than anything else. I stated that reporting on statistics for domestic violence is not much different than reporting on statistics for suicide, which is reporting that requires WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing. As for your claim that you are not a men's rights editor, I'll leave it at that: Your claim. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: That was way over the line. You need to strike that. Painful as it is to say that was a full on gendered attack. Also, if you truly want input from other editors you should stop badgering everyone here. Your opinion on the matter is known - let others chime in without further expansion of this wall of text. Thank you. Jbh 15:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Jbhunley, we clearly have different definitions about what is "way over the line," what is a "gendered attack," and what is "badgering everyone." If someone replies to me or makes a comment relating to me, I should not have to quit responding. Same goes for someone making a comment on something I feel they are incorrect on. And my text in this section is hardly any more "wall of text" than others' comments in in this section. Thank you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: First, I want to be very clear the "you" in the following example is generic. Let me replace one word in the statement you made above - 'As for your claim that you are not a men's rights feminist editor, I'll leave it at that: Your claim.' - they are equivalent, in fact yours is worse because the Men's rights movement is a rather odious thing whereas being a feminist is not. Beyond that whether one is a men's rights editor or a feminist editor has no bearing on the matter and to bring it up is a personal attack.

In re 'wall of text'; you have been here long enough to know that is is not always productive, and is often counter productive, to respond to every comment. I addressed my comment to you because you have been going after every editor who expresses an opinion counter to yours and are calling them 'inexperienced' or denigrating their input because they are not WP:MED editors rather than addressing the substance of their arguments. That is not proper. Jbh 16:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Jbhunley, I reiterate: "e clearly have different definitions about what is 'way over the line,' what is a 'gendered attack,' and what is 'badgering everyone.' If someone replies to me or makes a comment relating to me, I should not have to quit responding. Same goes for someone making a comment on something I feel they are incorrect on. And my text in this section is hardly any more 'wall of text' than others' comments in in this section." As for men's rights editors, I've been clear above that the Domestic violence article talk page is tagged with Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. I stated, "Such editors have repeatedly plagued gender-related articles, and the way they think on topics such as these are very much a concern." If you feel it is a gendered attack to note the problematic men's rights editors that have plagued the Domestic violence article, and that they should be of concern because of the type of content they continue to try to push on that article, then I'd rather not discuss anything with you. Your definition of a gendered attack is flawed. Also take note that I do not identify as a feminist, but, even if I did, the Domestic violence article is not under a feminist probation. And your assertion that I "have been going after every editor who expresses an opinion counter to and calling them 'inexperienced' or denigrating their input because they are not WP:MED editors rather than addressing the substance of their arguments." is wrong. What you are doing is, for some "mysterious" reason, giving me a lecture that I do not need. You are not helping; you are unnecessarily inflaming the situation. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, the OP has given no exact statement for which the source is supposed to be cited. They should read the format given at the top of the page. Reliability is always in context. Reading the rest of the discussion is a bit more illuminating, though also confusing. My opinion is that WP:MEDRS does not apply here. Of course this is a biomedical matter, but that is not the only thing. It is also a psychological and social matter, this is why a journal like this is investigating such things. The source is generally reliable, but its conclusions should not be overdrawn, and due weight should be given. It is hard to be more specific than this without seeing the exact statement which this source is used to support. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Kingsindian, I appreciate the comment, especially since you noted "Of course this is a biomedical matter, but that is not the only thing. It is also a psychological and social matter." This is similar to my "04:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)" statement that "It is a medical, legal and cultural topic." Psychology, though, like psychiatry, does partly fall under "biomedical. Still, this discussion has gotten off track by focusing on WP:MEDRS; this is why I tried to steer it back on track when I told Charlotte135 above (my "14:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)" post) that "WP:MEDRS is not preventing the content in question from being added to the Domestic violence article. I've been clear that I took issue with how you added the content and where." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, Kingsindian, this link shows the statement the source was used to support; I noted it in my "22:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)" comment above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the exact statement. Firstly, there is the issue of weight, which is not a matter for this noticeboard, but for the talk page. Usually it is better for stuff to be entered in the body of the article first, and then summarized in the lead. Secondly, the source looks fine to me for the statement cited. As I stated above, WP:MEDRS is not relevant for this, since this is not talking about biomedical matter. It is a short statement from the abstract, summarizing the results of the study. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The "General" section under Domestic_violence#Gender_aspects is the section that pertains to gender ratios in commission of domestic violence. It would be appropriate to include Archer in that context.

Regarding MEDRS, it is not a monolith. There are several factors.

1. First of all it defines criteria for identifying the highest quality sources on any scientific topic, not only medical ones.
2. It gives guidelines on balancing due weight between sources of different quality. All else being equal, it is good to follow those recommendations even outside medical topics.
3. It identifies as special class of biomedical claims, which is more stringent than merely relating to health.
4. It then identifies particular ways that lower quality sources should not be used in relation to biomedical claims.

Within the topic of domestic violence, there can be claims that are biomedical, merely health-related, or neither.

• An example of a biomedical claim in the article is that domestic violence increases the likelihood of HIV transmission.
• Psychological claims can be biomedical, for example that clinical depression may contribute to or be exacerbated by domestic violence.
• Demographic statistics, especially about who commits violence, seems at best tenuously health-related.

Finally, Archer rates among the highest quality sources according to the MEDRS rubric, especially considering it is sociological rather than in the hard sciences. Rhoark (talk) 15:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• Archer (2000) looks to pass MEDRS so whether MEDRS applies is moot. Since the issue has been brought up and is contentions it is worthwhile to examine if MEDRS should apply to domestic violence. In short, it is my belief that domestic violence slips through the definition of 'bio-medical' as it is defined in Misplaced Pages:Biomedical information unless we take the way over broad claim of "Biomedical information is information that relates to (or could reasonably be perceived as relating to) human health." to be the test. That said domestic violence is considered as and, most importantly, studied with the same rigor as the subjects contemplated in Misplaced Pages:Biomedical information. So whether or not it fits the strict criteria it should be subject to the same sourcing requirements as biomedical information. Jbh 16:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Glorified blog?

This site has been used as a source for an addition to List of surviving silent film actors. This source appears to me to be self-published and therefore no more reliable than anything in IMDB. Am I correct that this fails WP:RS? DerbyCountyinNZ 07:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Does not seem like a reliable source to me. I agree that it looks self-published as well and probably shouldn't be used. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 16:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Unfashionista - Tim Hunt

Someone has added the article in Louise Mensch's blog unfashionista as a source to the Tim Hunt article. It is potentially quite significant information which contradicts some of the earlier reports which were found in national broadsheet newspapers such as The Times, therefore I think it is important to decide whether it is sufficient reliable in consideration of the status of transcripts of Hunt's contentious speech. See source --ℕ ℱ 22:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the reference is necessary. My understanding is that that news articles are always preferred over blogs as references on WP (see ). The fact that it is an ``approximate reconstruction" is obvious. The recording by Natalia Demina has been reported in many other news sources. This smells of someone trying to promote the blog. I say remove the reference. I have left a few other remarks on the talk page. Danski14 22:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Ishkur's Guide to Electronic Music

This site is widely used on electronic music articles, such as UK hard house, but appears just to be a personal website. Can we get some opinions on whether this should be used as if it is a RS please? Please note the disclaimer (which states it is for entertainment) available from the tab on the front page of the site and the WP page about the site at Ishkur's Guide to Electronic Music. Thanks--SabreBD (talk) 12:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hah, I believe I may have placed a few of those references, many years ago. I personally believe it is a *useful* reference. The problem is its hard to find scholarly references on the names for different genres of of trance/house music, etc. Ishkur's guide is well known and frequently referenced on places like listology / DI.fm forums and various amateur online guides to electronic music genres. As to whether this counts as a 'reliable source' I'll defer judgement to the experts. Danski14 23:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

UKGameshows.com

I was directed here from Template:Did you know nominations/One Hundred And Eighty but this request pertains both to it and Template:Did you know nominations/Safeword (game show).

The source, generally, is UKGameshows.com. I have added this source to a number of game show articles over the past six months, including (from memory) Benchmark (game show), Freeze Out (game show), Rebound (game show), Decimate (game show) and most recently of all Pick Me!, many of which to supplant the game play sections and for other assorted bits of information (e.g., "Pick Me! was developed by Possessed, a production firm owned by Glenn Hugill"). In One Hundred and Eighty's case, this is just one statement (that nine-dart legs win £1,000); for Safeword, this is at the time of writing the entire gameplay section due to the length of which the DYK nomination dragged out (I may trawl YouTube for relevant clips - but see below). These have recently been removed by an IP address citing WP:IMPORTANT (along with the entire background section of One Hundred and Eighty - make your own mind up).

I would argue that the site is reliable because, as copied from Template:Did you know nominations/Safeword (game show), "UKGameshows.com is primarily edited by David J. Bodycombe, a man who has 25 years experience in the field of game shows and was responsible for bringing the nation The Crystal Maze. I consider him a reliable source." Yes, it is a wiki, but it is not freely editable - you need an account, and very rarely are they issued. My request was rejected. (There's no need to worry about circular referencing - we tend to be described as 'that other wiki' by the site.)

I would also like clarification on two other sources: Weaver's Week, a weekly review of 'the latest happenings in game show land' (this week's is an excellent example), and the shows themselves. I ask for clarification in these instances as they are borderline self-published and original research respectively.--Launchballer 18:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Though the UKGameshows.com Misplaced Pages article is almost entirely unsourced, it does say at the moment that the site was updated and edited by Bodycombe until 2004, when it was re-launched using mediawiki software. This strongly suggests that any content after 2004 has been added by a variety of editors, in a similar fashion to Misplaced Pages. Sionk (talk) 21:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The list of editors can be found here, where it seems a number of editors were involved before the site converted to MediaWiki software, which would lead me to believe it was converted to facilitate those editors. Bodycombe remains the editor/project manager.--Launchballer 00:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The 'elephant in the room' question is why you are so keen to rely solely on UKGameshows.com to source your edits, when there are always recognised reliable sources available for notable TV programmes (e.g. newspapers and news websites). Sionk (talk) 20:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I read the site's TV Guide and Weaver's Week columns every week anyway. Nowadays, very rarely do the mainstream media come out with anything chunky.--Launchballer 23:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Linking to a Misplaced Pages Article

Someone is linking to a wikipedia article to be used as a reliable source. This doesn't seem accurate to me, but I thought I should ask here to get the 411! --MurderByDeadcopy 19:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages articles are by definition not a reliable source for Misplaced Pages articles. Feel free to mention the articles in question, though. LjL (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Original article is Institutional racism and the article used for sourcing is . --MurderByDeadcopy 21:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay I think they meant to link to this instead. MurderByDeadcopy 22:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

References

1. http://www.researchgate.net/publication/256079484_No_evidence_of_racial_discrimination_in_criminal_justice_processing_Results_from_the_National_Longitudinal_Study_of_Adolescent_Health

That's not a Misplaced Pages article, that's a journal being cited, see this diff. The fact that the journal has a Misplaced Pages article about it is not a problem, obviously. LjL (talk) 22:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Family member's unpublished account in Roy Furmark

1. Source. Noted as: "Immediate Family member of Roy M Furmark described info pertaining to his death {Sources: Dr. David Roberts, Chief of Neuro Surgery at DHMC, in Lebanon, NH. Springfield Health & Rehab Ctr 105 Chester Road, Springfield, VT ; where Roy died.Mr. Yeyah El-Komi of Cairo, Egypt, who Roy was with.Younger son/RMF Wife, can attest to the Facts.}"
2. Article. Roy Furmark
3. Content. Roy Furmark#Death

The entire section about the subject's death, a lengthy description about his ordeal while suffering from cancer, was added by a new editor who states that he is the subject's son. I believe I know the answer here, however, dealing with family members is always a touchy subject. Maybe someone more experienced can have a look. Thanks! - Location (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

@Location and Eurostyle: Unfortunately for that section of the article, Misplaced Pages articles must be verifiable by any reader. This means that they must cite reliable published sources. Eurostyle says "if u dont believe, look them up, and call them yr self", however that does not make them verifiable. Those people that Eurostyle wants us to call will not live forever, they will die themselves, moreover they probably don't want everyone who looks at the article calling them and asking them to confirm gory details of his death. Published material, on the other hand, will continue to be verifiable by cite checkers for a long time, and is not annoyed by many people reading it. Hence, unpublished first hand information doesn't meet Misplaced Pages's standards for verifiability and shouldn't be included. Eurostyle, are there published accounts of his death anywhere that can be cited? ~ ONUnicornproblem solving 18:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Google Maps and Streetview

I'm pretty sure they can't but I just wanted to make sure. Can Google Maps and Streetview be used as reliable sources? Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 01:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

For what information? Mangoe (talk) 02:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Colton Haynes

There is speculation about this actor's sexuality. Until he confirms he's gay or a RS decides to write about his love life in a non-speculative manner, the current content doesn't belong in the article. I removed the poorly sourced material recently added by an IP, but the IP has reverted.

The sources in question:

• Moviepilot (link) - Most of this website's material is written by fans. The guy who wrote this piece has the tagline "Everything Marvel Studios, and then some. All the rumors, all the news, all the hype.™" So he admits to posting rumors and the section about Haynes includes (???) after his name, meaning he can't confirm anything.
• The Only Way is Gay (link) - The whole piece is just confirming rumors exist. It's being used to confirm that Haynes dated Zachary Quinto. But it includes Haynes' quote: "Although I support homosexual rights, I date country girls that are out of the spotlight, my friend Holland knows my long term girlfriend, and Zach and I were just actor buds."

This is a clear case of using non-RS for contentious material about a BLP. APK whisper in my ear 05:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Removed, watchlisted. - Ryk72 10:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Start Class

Can I please get some additional input regarding the reliability of this source? It's being used in this article to make a straight forward claim that "As of 2015, USC is the #22 Ranked Research University on StartClass." The website includes some information at the bottom of the page where sources for the information are listed and they include Misplaced Pages although it's not clear what information from Misplaced Pages is included. The website's about page doesn't seem to provide any helpful information. (I also don't think that the source passes the due weight hurdle but that's a slightly separate question.) ElKevbo (talk) 15:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• From a certain standpoint, citing the publisher of rankings for that ranking is almost certainly permissible under WP:SPS; several of the U.S. News and World Report rankings are cited to that publisher's own material, in comparison. It is not reasonable to expect that every entry in every published set of rankings will be independently included in third-party coverage, after all. So, here, the big question is less about reliability sourcing as it is about due weight, as you observed. StartClass is one of many "research engine" products of Graphiq. I'm unconvinced that it represents a significant viewpoint (and share the concern about several of the sources in the same paragraph); if retained, it should probably be identified as "Graphiq's StartClass" or something of that nature (in parallel to the Niche product, although I'm not much less dubious about it). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

southbendtribune.com

I'm trying to figure out how reliable a news source "South Bend Tribune" currently is. It appears to have a news staff with editors, so I imagine it's more than an advertising handout. It is currently being used to establish notability in the new article NTA (company), though the article being cited reads like a press release. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)