Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:27, 15 June 2018

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

Additional notes:

• WP:RSN
• WP:RS/N
• WP:V/N

• RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
• While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
• This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.

RfC: Wound characteristics of military-style rifles

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Politics, government, and law Maths, science, and technology When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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 text

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.”

References

1. NYT-Wounds from Military-Style Rifles? 'A Ghastly Thing to See"-March 4, 2018

Background

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

Survey questions

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 poll

• 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages? 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.”

References

1. NYT-Wounds from Military-Style Rifles? 'A Ghastly Thing to See"-March 4, 2018

• 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. Neutrality 15:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break to minimize edit conflicts

• 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 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)

• • Was it Groundhog Day, Slatersteven? :) Deja vu.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• Pedantic No. The way "exponentially" is used in the cited passage shows that its author was not a scientist. Maproom (talk) 08:43, 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.

WP:MEDRS is our policy for biomedical information, and The New York Times is not a MEDRS-compliant source. See WP:MEDPOP.

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.

--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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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.

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 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 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 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 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 15:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

So then neither can eds on Misplaced Pages, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 15:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

Discussion

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. , (yes a presentation, but their paper is probably interesting and they have results in a nice chart), , , , , , .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 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)

Next steps

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 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 Misplaced Pages.)

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 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 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" ), 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  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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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  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)

The Hill, Fox News - Part II question

Would any of these sources be considered unreliable here? Would this be a proper way of summarizing?:

The National Council of Resistance of Iran, along with its political wing the People's Mujahedin of Iran, have been described as one of the main political oppositions to the current Government of Islamic Republic of Iran.

Thanks again for all the feedback :-) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

References

1. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/07/02/iranian-opposition-upbeat-as-trump-administration-talks-regime-change.html
2. https://www.ft.com/content/c6ace172-33f2-11e8-a3ae-fd3fd4564aa6
3. http://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/388723-in-taking-on-iran-and-north-korea-one-size-does-not-fit-all
4. Con Coughlin (2010). Khomeini's Ghost: The Iranian Revolution and the Rise of Militant Islam. Ecco. ISBN 978-0061687150.
5. Kenneth Katzman (2001). "Iran: The People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran". In Albert V. Benliot (ed.). Iran: Outlaw, Outcast, Or Normal Country?. Nova Publishers. p. 97. ISBN 1560729546.

• It's always context dependent. That said: (1) I would not cite Fox for anything politically contentious, due to the massive evidence of bias. (2) FT is paywalled, I have no idea what this says, but FT is normally RS, its reporting is dry as dust but solid. (3) Opinion pieces in The Hill have gone steadily downhill, descending into little more than propaganda rants, and I would not normally include them in any article now. (4) Coughlin is a reasonable source for journalistic opinion but in a distinctly right of centre context and this book is clearly advancing an agenda so handle with caution. (5) Searching for the author of the book, Albert V. Benliot, does not show any evidence that he is considered a respected authority, this appears to be the only book of his that has been discussed at all, and the publisher, Nova, has a questionable history and was arguably at its worst around the time this book was published. I would exclude this source. So, of the sources you are looking to include, only Coughlin is actually a reliable source for the claim you are trying to make, and given the nature of the claim I would hold out for much more compelling sourcing. If the claim is true then there will be substantially more robust sources. You appear to be quote mining to support what you "know" to be true. That is an exercise in confirmation bias. Guy (Help!) 08:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
• I agree with posting above more or less. Don't use Fox for anything regarding Iran in particular in the current climate that's highly contentious topic subject to a lot of misrepresentation in particular by outlets like Fox. On most Iranian topics it should be possibly to find scholarly sources or at least sources with a good reputation for (investigative) journalism. As a rule of thumb always check the author (is he an reputable academic in a field related to the topic, did he publish in academic peer reviwed journals, did he write positively reviewed books, did he publish with reputable academic publishers, etc.) and the publisher. JzG did appply that already in more details to the 5 sources above and the conclusion imho is that in doubt don't use any of them but look for better ones.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

And why not use Fox regarding Iran?Its like saying don't use BBC or NYPOST regarding Israel.Every newsorg has its own biases.Its no reason not to use it.--Shrike (talk) 09:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

No it's not. The BBC has a statutory obligation to balance and an independent complaints procedure for content. NY Post draws a distinction between editorial and hard news content. Fox was set up because in Ailes' mind the real villain of Watergate was the Washington Post and the "liberal media", and its editorial bias is pervasive throughout the vast majority of its content. Its bias is greater, its fact-checking is worse, and its record for separating fact from opinion is terrible. Guy (Help!) 13:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

°Comment. Shrike, at this discussion, you are challenging as not RS, a MPhil. thesis done under the supervision of a world authority on the Middle East in Oxford, which has been cited in the relevant academic literature (5 books), whose survey of newspaper reportage is not contentious, and which has had significant influence in its field, and yet here you are advocating we use Fox News articles on a contentious issue, known for their tendentiousness, and none written by anyone with Bagon's severe academic background, which requires meticulous source control and fact checking? Nishidani (talk) 09:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Again... when in doubt, attribute. There is a huge difference in reliability between: “The Iranians did such and such” and “according to a report by Fox News correspondent so and so, the Iranians did such and such.” Fox might (or might not) be reliable for the first statement (it depends on who reported it)... but it is absolutely reliable for the second statement.

this all said... I suspect that our WP:NPOV policy is the real issue here, not the reliability of the sources. If you have not read that policy, please do. Blueboar (talk) 12:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

No, Fox News is not a reliable source; if it ever was (arguably it was before 2016), it isn't any more. Maybe it's not WP:DAILYMAIL but it could be the index case for WP:PRAVDA when that gets written. I am alarmed that there are editors who deny it's an obvious fit for WP:QS; that seems like a WP:CIR problem.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• The question is moot because Fox News is not needed, nor are three others. The two book sources by people who either specialize in that field, or who have tertiary credentials in history, are sufficient for the statement (perhaps tweaked with 'most active' per Katzman), and these are (reformatted)

(a)Con Coughlin Khomeini's Ghost: The Iranian Revolution and the Rise of Militant Islam, Ecco Books 2010 p.377 n.21

(b) Kenneth Katzman, ‘Iran: The People’S Mohjahedin Organization of Iran in Albert V. Benliot (ed)., Iran: Outlaw, Outcast Or Normal Country?, Nova Publishers, 2001 pp.97-110 p.97

In short, sources of good quality don't need to be buttressed by newspaper junk.Nishidani (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I addressed Benliot above. That source should also be excluded. So now we have one source by a conservative journalist. I think that rather weakens the case for inclusion of this claim. Guy (Help!) 13:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't like either of those sources, but like has nothing to do with it. I'd have a reservation about Coughlin only if he didn't finish his degree under Simon Schama. But Benliot has nothing to do with this, except as editor of the paper by Kenneth Katzman who is a Congressional Researcher, and, whatever his spin, surely qualifies.Nishidani (talk) 13:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I neither like them nor dislike them. I do know, because it's a particular interest of mine, that Benliot's publisher has a very poor history of publishing badly reviewed and biased content, and Benliot himself has no reputation I can see, so that is a clear exclude. So we are left with a single right-wing journalist, for a rather bold claim. That seems problematic to me, especially since all the other suggestions to date have been differently reliable. I start to wonder if it is a thing that some people wish were true, but actually isn't. The dominant view appears to be that they are a terrorist organisation, a front for MeK. Guy (Help!) 12:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• This is what I've drafted based on Blueboar and Nishidani ’s suggestions:

According to analysts including British journalist Con Coughlin, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (along with its political wing the People's Mujahedin of Iran) constitute one of the most active oppositions to the current Government of Islamic Republic of Iran.

1. )Con Coughlin Khomeini's Ghost: The Iranian Revolution and the Rise of Militant Islam, Ecco Books 2010 p.377 n.21
2. Kenneth Katzman, ‘Iran: The People’S Mohjahedin Organization of Iran in Albert V. Benliot (ed)., Iran: Outlaw, Outcast Or Normal Country?, Nova Publishers, 2001 pp.97-110 p.97

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, 'Iranian opposition' would be necessary. The most powerful and active opposition to Iran comes from the Trumpian US-Netanyahoo-Israel geostrategic coalition. The NCRI is small beer in all of this. There's a problem with defining thePeople's Mujahedin of Iran as the NCRI's political wing: perhaps some source says this, but there are far more sources stating that they are one and the same thing essentially, with the PMOI using the NCRI as its Potemkin village political face, i.e. the other way around. I' m sorry if this is not too helpful, and appreciate your efforts to use this wider forum to iron out a problem. Good luck.Nishidani (talk) 15:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Stefka Bulgaria, can you stop adding this until you have consensus please? You have tried a handful of crappy sources for the same claim, you just included the unreliable Benliot book, and in the end you come across as scratching around for sources for what you "know" to be true, when if it actually is true, it would be trivially easy to reference from much more robust sources. You're trying to say this is one of, if not the, leading opposition group. That is the kind of claim which, if true, would be reflected all over the place, but instead you find only marginal stuff, opinions by a few people. This is a bold claim you seek to make, it's hard to believe it would only appear in books published through crappy publishers, right-wing propaganda sites and journalists' opinions. Guy (Help!) 12:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• Guy this excision is based on a deceptive, obviously false edit summary. Rereading the above, there is only a discussion about Fox and about attribution. You alone contest Couglin and Katzman, and now that I haves offered a compromise with new materials from Katzman, you still remove it because you can't pin down who the editor of the book he published his piece in is. The you removed two fresh RS as well, just to throttle the additions, feigning that they too had been or were under discussion here.
• Your edit removed
• Manshour Varasteh (Troubador Publishing)
• Con Coughlin published by Pan Macmillan an Imprint of HarperCollins
• Kenneth Katzman of the Congressional Research Service
• Isak Svensson published by the University of Queensland Press
• One of the two pieces by Katzman was published by Nova Science Publishers, and you suggest because the criticism page of the wiki article cites some problems and Bentiot is an unknown, it is invalid. If the author is authoritative, we cite him wherever he choses to add his pieces. Bentiot's book in anycase passes the reliable source bar because the work in question is frequently cited in the academic literature (google school) and scholarly monographs or research papers (google it.

If you are in a minority of one on all this, you have no right to remove material thart is the result of a compromise, that has been amplified by further good sourcing, and which contains material not discussed on this board.Nishidani (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

WTF? I am asking for a perfectly routine thing: for the editor seeking to include disputed content (and it is disputed: it's been removed several times by different people and he's tried a series of sources of differing but mainly marginal reliability) to gain consensus before including it. This is a bold claim and it needs robust sourcing and it also needs consensus to add it. We are saying that a terrorist group is the main opposition in Iran. Can you see how that is a problematic statement? Guy (Help!) 22:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Overlooking the fact that (a) the original disputed sentence has been remodulated to take in concerns (b) three new quality sources have been added to buttres the new formulation (c) we don't state 'a terrorist group is the main opposition in Iran': we state

Many commentators consider the National Council of Resistance of Iran and MEK, its paramilitary arm, variously as the most important or most active Iranian opposition group to the current Government of Islamic Republic of Iran.

And then immediately afterwards document that it generally considered to be a terrorist group. The whole passage has been thoroughly revised, and you are reverting as if there had been no progress or responsiveness to fair criticism of the original edit. Move on.Nishidani (talk) 07:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. The sentence mentioned above is not right. First of all, MEK is not the political wing of the NCRI, but vice versa. MEK is a political–militant organization, NCRI and NLAI are the political and the armed wings respectively. The organization tends to showcase itself as the "Iranian Resistance" or the "main opposition", however this is not a only rejected by other elements of Iranian opposition, but also from scholars. You can find a source or two that call them as such (mostly politically-motivated like Fox News), but that is not a even a strong minority view (RAND's policy conundrum on the group is quite a good secondary source pointing to this). MEK (=NCRI) is pretty unpopular in its home country. Pahlevun (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Take a look at this edit, which says: Many commentators consider the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (and the National Council of Resistance of Iran, its political wing) as the most important or most active Iranian opposition group to the current Government of Islamic Republic of Iran.

Citation overkill is used to synthesize and support the given sentence:

1. Varasteh (2013) is quoting a 2005 annual report from the German Office for the Protection of Constitution that describes it as "the most important opposition group".
2. Svensson (2012) is quoting from Abrahamian (1989), 'largest, most disciplined and heavily armed opposition group to the regime', talking about the early years after the revolution. It is not supporting this certain sentence in anyway.
3. Katzman (2001) says it is 'Iran's most active opposition group'.
4. Footnote from Con Coughlin (2009): "Marian Rajavi, the wife of Masud Rajavi, the leader of National Council of Resistance of Iran, the main opposition to the mullahs, is based in Paris while her husband's Mujaheedin organization is based in Iraq." I find this footnote to be wrong, firstly it wrongly writes Maryam Rajavi as "Marian Rajavi". Secondly, MEK was not "her husband's", the husband and wife were both "co-equal leaders" of the MEK since 1985 and Masoud Rajavi was dissapeared in 2003 during Iraq War, so leadership of the group has practically passed to Maryam. After all, Masoud is considered dead. Note that the book is published in 2009. Con Coughlin is a journalist rather than a scholar and I think his views should only be attributed to himself.

Consequently, I think these are not proper to support such a questionable claim in the lead. I suggest Stefka Bulgaria, who is the only user in favor of inclusion, to develop People's Mujahedin of Iran#Status among Iranian opposition. I think then we can come to a consensus over putting a proper sentence in the lead. Pahlevun (talk) 13:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

References

1. Steven O'Hern (2012). Iran's Revolutionary Guard: The Threat That Grows While America Sleeps. Potomac Books, Inc. p. 208. ISBN 1-59797-701-2.
2. Stephen Sloan; Sean K. Anderson (2009). Historical Dictionary of Terrorism. Historical Dictionaries of War, Revolution, and Civil Unrest (3 ed.). Scarecrow Press. p. 454. ISBN 0-8108-6311-1.

Taking a look at this fringe viewpoint added to the lead by Stefka Bulgaria, I just took a look at Manshour Varasteh's book, Understanding Iran's National Security Doctrine, is published by Troubador Publishing Ltd, which is

an independent UK publisher offering a range of publishing options to authors, from assisting independent authors with specific requirements (Indie-Go), through full service self-publishing (Matador), to partnership and mainstream publishing (The Book Guild Ltd). We also organize a range of events for authors, including the annual Self-Publishing Conference. We enjoy helping authors publish, and using our 25 years’ experience we strive to create quality books and to market and distribute them as widely as possible.

So, it is a self-publishing company and the book is not subject to scholarly peer review. Secondly, Varasteh is not a renowned scholar. I found that Varasteh is himself a member of the MEK, who pays tribute to the "martyrs of the resistance and PMOI (MEK)" and one of his books has been published by "Bonyad Rezaiha Association", which is an organ of the MEK (see p. 2). I find the source questionable. Last but not the least, this is a WP:FRINGE view that no reliable source supports. I have compiled a handful of the whole sack of sources that say exactly the opposite. Pahlevun (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@JzG, Kmhkmh, and Nishidani: I would appreciate it if you take a look at the comment I made above? Pahlevun (talk) 22:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I am convinced that this is a case of quote mining to support what an editor "knows" to be true, rather than a proper review of the sources holistically. We've seen an endless succession of crappy sources paraded. Nishidani thinks Katzman is reliable, I have no reason to disagree but if this is genuinely Katzman's view I would expect to see sources other than Benliot. We should not use the Benliot book, he has no evident reputation and Nova Publishing has a long history of publishing bollocks, and that was at its worst about when this book came out. The more you lok at the sources the more they come down to opinion by individuals. Coughlin, for example: an experienced journalist but a conservative. A claim this bold should be supported by sources like the NYT, WaPo and such, but it's not. It's quote-mined from sundry right wing journalists. Guy (Help!) 08:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

"It was the first Iranian organization to develop systematically a modern revolutionary interpretation of Islam. The Mojahedin played an important role in fighting the Pahlavi regime. The Mojahedin grew rapidly after the Islamic Revolution to become a major force in Iranian politics. Many foreign diplomats considered it to be by far the largest, the best disciplined, and the most heavily armed of all the opposition organizations." (a source thoroughly used throughout the article). I only keep providing these because you've objected the initial sources, not because I'm "quote mining". Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

References

1. Abrahamian, Ervand (1989). Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin. I.B. Tauris. p. 1. ISBN 1-85043-077-2.

I only quickly browsed the discussion after my post. My personal take is, that the sources together or rather the better ones among them (without the self published and fox) are sufficient to call them an "important" or "prominent" opposition group. That info should be in the article in doubt with a specific intext attribution ("according to .."). I'm kinda neutral whether is needs to be in the lead as well or just in the article's body.

So drop self published sources and fox, keep the rest probably with a more conservative/cautious formulation (import or prominent instead of most important) and an explicit intext attribution in doubt.

And of course consider better (scholarly) sources if available and use their description of the group instead or in addition.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• Also pinging Blueboar, Shrike, and Simon Dodd, who have contributed to this discussion and may want to add something else. Thank you :-) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

There is no substance to Guy's objections, save the query, confirmed with Pahlevun's note on about Manshour Varasteh's book being self-published. That by compromise can be removed. For the rest Isak Svensson, Kenneth Katzman (once in a book, the other in a book by Bentiot which Guy insistently says in invalid because the editor is invalid, - which is a stupid argument, not worth rebutting), Con Coughlin - again a source I dislike, but it qualifies whatever one's likes or dislikes being reputably published, and the journalist does cover that area. Pahlevun. It is quite immaterial to reliability that the page quoted for a view, has also other material on it. We quote it for a very straightforward statement supported by other sources, and this statement is not diminished by saying the context says other things as well. This started out questioning, rightly The Hill and Fox news. So we got rid of them. It said some other sources introduced, such as Manshour Varasteh, were self-published, so it is agreed to eliminate that too. I.e. one group of editors is negotiating a compromise, while another is insisting, by challenging a Congressional Research services scholar on the area, Katzman, and Svensson, that they get it all their way. This is not how we operate. We get consensus by compromise not by repetitive bludgeoning till one's POV is completely acknowledged as the only acceptable edit.Nishidani (talk) 09:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Virtually all academic specialists in the area will tell you that the MeK is a dishonest cult reviled in its home country for siding with Saddam Hussein during the Iran–Iraq War. As Pahlevun and JzG note, with this disputed edit Stefka Bulgaria is scraping the bottom of the barrel using self-published sources affiliated with the MeK and opinion pieces by tabloid journalists to force controversial content through via citekill. Of special interest is Coughlin's history of promoting false claims and conspiracy theories about the Middle East, most notably about Saddam's involvement in 9/11; relying on Coughlin for contentious "facts" stated in wikivoice is a nonstarter. Absent consensus, Stefka Bulgaria and Nishidani should really cool it with the edit warring. The only RS cited by Stefka Bulgaria is Abrahamian 1989 (although I note that he does not cite Abrahamian directly), but using a 1989 source to discuss the contemporary political situation in Iran three decades later is quite deceptive. Simply put, there should be no doubt about Misplaced Pages's preference for academic sources over tabloid and self-published sources.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

That (a) the NCRI is a family concern, and has a dubious record, is well-known. This is not incompatible with (b) the observation by analysts that it has engaged in intense media and lobbying efforts to get its name down as the fundamental Iranian diaspora opposition group. We only go by sources, and if multiple RS state (b) that does not cancel out (a) which is now mentioned in the lead and developed in the body of the text. As usual, editors are picking a POV fight to get their version in, when the obligation of NPOV is to get both versions in. Nishidani (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Stefka Bulgaria continues to edit war at National Council of Resistance of Iran despite a clear lack of consensus for his proposed change.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• Absolutely no substance to TheTimesAreAChanging's arguement, which seems WP:NOTTHERE. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Stefka rightly reverted you, TheTimesAreAChanging, because you ignored the negotiations here, and just stepped in to revert not what Stefka wrote, but what was written as discussions here developed, taking into consideration new materials and proposals. Don't walk into articles to revert war when you are absent from the page, and show no knowledge of the record.Nishidani (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

All one need do, is not squabble endlessly over a few words, but rather, read closely at least the Rand corporation paper. It only takes an hour, and has masses of detail which could be used for either POV. I see a huge concentration on POV hunting over a line or two, and near zero work on actually using sources to fleshen out an article whose volume could be doubled in a day's work, if any number of RS were read, digested and deployed here. As usual, people enjoy bickering, rather than rolling their sleeves up to do some fucking reading on the topic.Nishidani (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

You are arm-waving. I have provided detailed critiques of the sources, to which you apparently have no answer. Guy (Help!) 18:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. Without looking too much into context, the sources seem to qualify as WP:RS per policy. The disputed edit by SB seem to be OK in terms of content and sufficiently sourced. MeK is not a "cult", but a communist/Marxist organization, but this is not relevant. My very best wishes (talk) 00:27, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• There is a problem with the content, namely "current". Nothing is "current" in WP per WP:RELTIME. This is also vague. What does "important" mean? High quality sources that are aiming to describe history and not give news or opinion, would permit content that was anchored in time. Starting when did they become important? In what way are they "important"? (they get the most foreign funding, or some specific government (Russia or the US perhaps) is supporting them? They have the most followers inside Iran as far as anybody can tell? The content is problematic. Will comment on sources in a bit... Jytdog (talk) 00:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Nishidani: I'm not personally objecting reliability of Katzman, but I do insist that he only described MEK as the "most active". Svensson (2012), himself, does not state that the MEK is "the most important" nor "the most active" opposition. Svensson is quoting from Abrahamian (1989) that " by far the largest, the best disciplined, and the most heavily armed of all the opposition organizations". I still don't see the words "important" or "active". This is not right to pick cherries out of this sentence. Plus, the source is talking about the 1980s, I think this is fine to add the sentence to article in a section about the 1980s, but it does not belong to the lead per Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Lead section. I did not really challenge that Coughlin is a journalist who covers that area, but I insist that what he wrote is a fringe view and you don't put such a substantial claim in the lead, using the term Many commentators. So, these are not enough for the lead. Pahlevun (talk) 20:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Per Svension one can tweak the adjective to fit Abrahamian's 1989 description. But essentially when you state: 'foreign diplomats considered it to be] by far the largest, the best disciplined, and the most heavily armed of all the opposition organizations' you are endorsing the idea it is the largest most organized, armed, disciplined, and effective opposition, outstripping the rest by far, which in simple paraphrase means 'most important' in the sense of 'having a far heavier presence as an oppositional group than any other. It is true that these sources are valid for the period of reference, but it is not a fringe view to state that for decades the NCRI was the most media-canny anti-Iranian exile group. To state that, per sources, is not a substantial claim, surely, and, most importantly, I rewrote the lead to contextualize this remark, by adding it was a family business, manipulative etc. In assessing any sentence, which is grounded in good sources, one should see how it fits into the overall lead picture. If you do this, that statement of its importance can be read highly ironically.Nishidani (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Cointelegraph source

The source cointelegraph.com is overused in the article Dash (cryptocurrency). This source offers a press release distribution for a fee 1BTC, in USD about $8000. An upgraded distribution can be bought here for 2BTC, or about $16,000USD. That is a large amount of money. Is this really a press release distribution or is this paid submission? Thus I propose that this source be purged from cryptocurrency articles. Note for some reason in this edit Spintendo (talk · contribs) seems to remove two RS to replace those with cointelegraph.com sources. All looks dubious to me. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

As it is (in effect) a vanity publisher no it should not be RS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

It seems that not all articles are paid press releases. Any articles that are paid press releases are tagged with '#Press release' at the bottom of the article. Technoir2 (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Care to proved the link to the page that says this?Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

It isn't stated explicitly, however all press releases are listed on the https://cointelegraph.com/press-releases page, and each of those articles shows '#Press release' at the bottom. I've been careful not to use any of those paid press releases in the Dash (cryptocurrency) article. Cointelegraph seems to be a mixture of paid press releases and edited articles, their 'about' page lists an editorial team https://cointelegraph.com/about Technoir2 (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I cannot help bit note that not only is this not called an editorial team, but there is no mention of any editorial policy. Hell they even refer to themselves as an information market. I see nothing on that page that contradicts the idea they will just publish any old tosh as long as (in some way) it makes them money.Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Is a public editorial policy required for RS? I can't find editorial policies even for several mainstream newspapers that would definitely qualify as RS. Many media outlets publish paid content alongside their regular content, or make money from advertising, it shouldn't invalidate the unpaid content imo. I accept that Cointelegraph is not a top tier source, however I feel it is sufficiently reliable for the types of edit I am requesting, which are mostly uncontroversial technical statements Technoir2 (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

, no they are not always called editorial polices but most (so far all) reputable media have polices on quality and standards.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

That's fine, but some news organisations do not publish their editorial policies. Cointelegraph has three editors working for it and as far as I can tell has a good reputation - it is referenced twice in a peer reviewed journal article from Yale (http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1417&context=yjreg). Whether a specific article is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis - I assert that cointelegraph is sufficiently reliable for the statements I am attributing to it. Technoir2 (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Non RS - seems to be borderline a vanity publication / blog; not suitable for establishing notability nor for claims that "up and coming" companies would want to get into Misplaced Pages to justify an article. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
• Unreliable. Basically a fanzine. Guy (Help!) 00:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
• Not reliable Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Vietnamese Government document on Vietnam War casualties

This Vietnamese language document purportedly published by the Vietnamese Government here: is proposed for inclusion on several pages, notably Vietnam War, Vietnam War casualties and Body count#Vietnam War as WP:RS that the total North Vietnamese Army and Vietcong killed in the Vietnam War (1954-75) were 849,018 dead. I have a number of concerns with this document as follows: (1) it is WP:PRIMARY; (2) it has no official watermark, heading, date, etc., anything that marks it as an official document; (3) this document apparently contradicts an earlier statement by the official Vietnam News Agency that 1.1m died during the Vietnam War as reported in this AP story from 4 April 1995: ; and (4) the document does not appear to address the 300,000+ North Vietnamese Army and Vietcong soldiers still missing in the war: and .

If this document is accepted as WP:RS, how should it be presented? The Vietnam War casualties page contains a wide range of North Vietnamese Army and Vietcong killed, with estimates ranging from 444,000 to 1,489,000. The 1995 AP story noted that "During the war, North Vietnam played down its losses to boost morale at home and discourage South Vietnam and the United States". Vietnam has among the lowest press freedom in the world with all media controlled by the state and I have previously identified a number of pages previously where Vietnamese Government sources have been unreliable/completely false, see:

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Battle of Hoa Da – Song Mao based on this story:
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Battle of Pat To based on this story
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Battle of Chà Là based on this story:
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Battle of Đồng Dương based on these stories: and
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Battle of Hà Vy from this site: .

Accordingly I believe that on the topic of the Vietnam War, Vietnamese Government sources and state media are at best WP:BIASED and so this document and the 849,018 figure should only be presented as the official Vietnamese Government figure within the range of casualties from other WP:RS, so the Vietnam War infobox should state a range 849,018 (ref:Vietnamese Government figure)-1,489,000. kind regards Mztourist (talk) 05:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

A number of links are broken. The suggested document is not reliable for historical claims. The chief reason being that it is not a secondary source produced and published through a scholarly or equivalently rigorous peer review system capable of generating "historical knowledge". Branches of the Vietnamese government have previously published such material (or at least material with such pretentions), and made it available for scholarly review—such works are a far better location to seek official publications than web portal content, or "in house" newsletters. The quality of the Vietnamese contemporary press is not a concern: newspapers shouldn't be used for history articles. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The alternative cited article that Mztourist gives is an AP Article, and descriptions by Mark Woodruff, a non-scholar with arguably shady, POV points of view. The document that is linked is in reference to a nationally conducted survey, and has been standardly used prior to revisions by MZTOURIST, which instead cites a 1995 article about an alleged "news release" by Hanoi. This would be a much worse source to use than a document from the military department of the government of Vietnam, which describes an internal law. A bicyclette (talk) 12:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

AP is equally an unreliable source, for exactly the same reason: newspapers are not the way scholarly, or equally critical, attention is applied to accounting for death tolls. Woodruff's non-scholarly qualities, much like the Vietnamese press' freedom, is irrelevant. Newspapers aren't up to the task. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. These numbers can be cited, but they can not be trusted, just like similar numbers and "documents" produced by the Soviet KGB. One should also check (in publications) if the Vietnamese authorities have been engaged in intentional destruction of documents in their archives, so that no one could prove their fabrications. This is something KGB and their successor organizations did on a regular basis, even today as we speak . My very best wishes (talk) 00:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

The figures that are cited and established were meant for internal usage, not meant for "public relations" or whatever as MZTOURIST continues to believe. The figures from the document, found here , specifically here , were meant for an internal law searching for war dead from the periods 1945 to 1990. The breakdown is based on which component and sector, and the numbers are generally reliable given that these are compiled from internal sources and official record-keeping from the government of Vietnam. These are far more reliable than third-hand knowledge citing or speculating about what a vietnamese newspaper said as per the AP article. A bicyclette (talk) 07:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Lee Hsien Loong

My edit, quoted below, is being reverted by an Admin for being non-RS:

1) and 2) are factual statements verifiable from multiple sources. 3) and 4) are sourced from opinion pieces. Concerns in 3) is not new and has been raised years ago in here. 4) is factual and can be verified directly from MOM website and CECA annex

Concerns that have been raised regarding the controversial CECA deal could be found in links below. Of course, such unfavourable news would not be reported on the tightly controlled mainstream media. https://www.reddit.com/r/singapore/comments/3jrosq/127_ceca_listed_jobs_for_foreigners_to_work_in/?utm_source=amp&utm_medium=comment_list https://www.facebook.com/TAVSingapore/posts/1848075635253760 https://thehearttruths.com/2013/11/11/this-is-why-singaporeans-will-not-be-protected-in-our-jobs-by-the-government/ http://theindependent.sg/was-pm-lee-completely-outsmarted-by-the-indians/ https://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/govt-decries-ceca-violation-by-singapore-113021700123_1.html

Please help review if the sources within the quote are RS with respect to the proposed content. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jane Dawson (talk • contribs)

@Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington: You may wish to comment here. Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 12:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

There is not a lot to say here, Emir. The Online Citizen and REDWIRE do not pass the muster to be considered as reliable sources. The emphasis on the CECA deal on LHL's biographical article is WP:UNDUE. Based on a cursory examination of this user's talk page and their contributions, it appears that they have a rather curiously familiar penchant for using non-RS sources and original synthesis on Singapore related articles. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 14:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

References

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Lee_Hsien_Loong&diff=844725615
2. https://www.deccanherald.com/international/modi-discusses-bilateral-ties-singapore-pm-prez-672801.html
3. http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=179700
4. https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2018/06/02/enhanced-ceca-between-spore-and-india-officially-recognizes-indian-nursing-degrees/
5. http://redwiretimes.com/cow-beh-cow-bu/local-pmets-further-played-out-by-deepening-of-singapore-india-ceca-agreement/
6. https://www.allsingaporestuff.com/article/nurses-india-cleared-practice-spore
7. http://www.mom.gov.sg/faq/fair-consideration-framework/can-a-job-be-exempted-from-the-advertising-requirement-if-it-will-be-filled-by-an-intra-corporate-transferee-ict
8. https://ie.enterprisesg.gov.sg/~/media/IE%20Singapore/Files/FTA/Existing%20FTA/CECA%20India/Legal%20Text/Chapter%209/Chapter2092020Movement20of20Natural20Persons.pdf%20pg%2075,%20section%202(f)

1) I have read the policy on reliability and explained in detail why I believe it is RS based on verifiability.

2) Whether it is due or undue is a matter to be discussed separately on the BLP talk page itself after clearing RS.

3) I try to use multiple sources as far as possible, if you are familiar with issues pertaining to Singapore, you would be able to understand why good sources are hard to find. Nevertheless, I only use bits where they can be verified. Jane Dawson (talk) 03:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Oxfam

At Battle of Gaza (2007), a number of users have claimed that Oxfam is not a reliable source for material related to the Israeli withholding of taxes and the effect that has had on poverty in the Gaza Strip. The source is this brief. They have argued that Oxfam is a reliable source only for the opinions of Oxfam. So here the question I have is if Oxfam is a reliable source for such material or not? nableezy - 19:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

The above misrepresents what this was being used to source, which is this diff - which is not about poverty but rather calling this illegal, and saying this violated international agreements. While Oxfam might have expertise regarding poverty (but still would not be a RS), its expertise does not cover international relations.Icewhiz (talk) 21:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Um Icewhiz, you are incorrect. The talk page makes that clear. Please dont purposely misrepresent the issue, I am not challenging the removal of the statement to the UN that was used for "illegal". nableezy - 23:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree that calling this "illegal" in Misplaced Pages's voice is problematic. I'm not sure whether the legality of the withholding really matters for that particular spot in the entry anyway. It would be accurate (and maybe more relevant) to say that the PA was reportedly on the brink of financial collapse because of the revenue and aid being withheld. This might give some insight in to why the PA was so desperate to strike a deal. Nblund 23:52, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

The talk page makes nothing clear. In fact - "poverty" does not appear on the talk page.Icewhiz (talk) 05:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

You mean besides the part where I say Im fine with the wording right now and Oxfam wasnt used for illegal? Please do not purposely misrepresent my position, it is incredibly dishonest. nableezy - 05:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

You indeed said something along those lines on the talk-page,diff without using "poverty". Prior to that, you reverted the illegal language. A different user on the talk-page, after your post, posted a long post in support of use of this for "illegal". Icewhiz (talk) 06:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Not reliable source in this case: I think we can use Oxfam as a source for Oxfam's positions on an issue, but not for making a general claim unrelated to Oxfam. In general, press releases are not good reliable sources for this sort of thing – news items would be better. However, Oxfam itself is a political actor when it comes to Oxfam#Israeli–Palestinian_conflict, as demonstrated by the Scarlett Johansson controversy. Oxfam's claim should be treated like similar opinion pieces in newspapers – not entirely banned as reliable sources, but usable only for the opinions of an organization. OtterAM (talk) 00:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

In this case it a primary source and its reliable only for opinions of those organisations.If it views were notable that would be reported by WP:RS--Shrike (talk) 05:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

In what world is Oxfam an involved party to Israel withholding tax receipts from the Palestinians and the health effects that has caused? nableezy - 05:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

What is have to do with "involved"?Their views are just not notable on this matter--Shrike (talk) 05:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

You called them a "primary" source. Do you know what a primary source is? nableezy - 05:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• It should be considered reliable, but attributed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oxfam are an extremely well-respected charity who specialise in poverty. If they say act X has caused consequence Y based on their own long years of experience and feet on the ground in the affected area, it is almost certainly going to be true. However it does technically fall foul of our requirements for secondary sourcing, so it should be attributed, their reputation is such that even their *opinion* is noteworthy on the causes of poverty in a given area. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
• Not reliable source of the legality of a government’s actions. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 03:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC).

That isnt what it is being sourced for. nableezy - 05:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• Reliable. Oxfam is a highly-respected and highly-professional organization. It is hard to think of any better third-party source that has direct knowledge of the facts. Zero 09:01, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
• Reliable. per Zero, and per the universally known fact that Israel has throughout its occupation, constantly used taxation policies to threaten or punish the population, or intimidate the local authorities. Oxfam has intimate on the ground knowledge of these realities.Nishidani (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Nableezy looking at the discussion on the talk page, I'm unclear on what you're arguing for here. The edit in question appears to remove the claim about the illegality of the withholding - it doesn't say anything about the effects on poverty in the Gaza strip. If you wanted to add material about the effects of the revenue problems in Gaza, it seems like you could cite Oxfam alongside a few dozen other reliable sources that would be totally uncontroversial - so what's the point of this post? Nblund 15:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

David Cesarani at Psychology Press (Taylor & Francis Group) and Christopher Browning (W. W. Norton & Company)

The article in question is Jewish partisans, the content is this diff, and the sources in question are:

1. Holocaust: Responses to the persecution and mass murder of the Jews, edited by David Cesarani & Sarah Kavanaugh, Psychology Press, 2004, page 66 quote: to the Home Army, the Jews were not part of "our nation", and that action to defend them was not to be taken if it endangered its other objectives. Certainly the Home Army was not willing to absorb the Jewish partisan groups..... (... there was one exception, in Volhynia .... ) The Home Army was also not very willing to accept Jews as individuals, though here too there were exceptions
2. Remembering Survival: Inside a Nazi Slave-Labor Camp, Christopher Browning, W. W. Norton & Company, page 252, ISBN 978-0-393-33887-4, quote:While a few partisan groups ... would accept Jews, those associated with the AK (the conservative nationalist underground Home Army) usually rejected them. More dangerously, some AK units and especially extremist units associated with the notorious National Armed Forces (NSZ) would either rob Jews or simply kill them outright

Christopher Browning is a historian specializing in the Holocaust, Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, formerly (retired 2014) Distinguished Professor at Pacific Lutheran University and chaired at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. David Cesarani (deceased 2015, aged 58) was a research professor at Royal Holloway, University of London specializing in the Holocaust. Sarah Kavanaugh is a history PHD (2003) and has held a number of academic positions since 2004.Icewhiz (talk) 05:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC) Correction/Addition - the book chapter in the work edited by Cesarani is by Antony Polonsky - whose credentials in Polish Jewish history are quite established.Icewhiz (talk) 11:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, these are reliable (despite the fact that Browning does write some grade-A nonsense) but the question isn't over the reliability of these sources, it's over UNDUE. And your attempts to remove other reliable sources. Also, you're suppose to notify others who are involved in the discussion about these postings of yours.Volunteer Marek (talk)

VM seems to be notified. I will note that VM hasn't raised UNDUE as an objection (which is an odd objection here) in his reverts or on the talk page, but has rather challenged this as "dubious, as discussed elsewhere. Several Jewish individuals were part of AK's leadership", and has called Christopher Browning "garbage". The "other reliable source" is a document in Polish which doesn't seem to say what is sourced to it (though factually it is correct there were a few Jews in some parts of the Home Army despite its overall antisemitic outlook, and that there was limited Jewish-AK cooperation in some areas - despite fighting and persecution of Jews in others), that was published by an anti-communist lustration agency with various reputation issues - it is controversial, "is engaged not in protection of national memory but rather in activities that ‘destroy this memory’",, having a political role,, "a government agency and not a recognized Holocaust center" - with "worry due to its orientation" "the institute overall is influenced by the Polish right wing and operates in a nationalist framework that glorifies Polish resistance and non-complicity" "These incidents suggest IPN serves not merely as a historical repository but an institute that responds to slanders against the Polish nation and engages in Polish apologetics".. However regardless of all the doubts and reservations (in the academic literature) on the IPN as an institution - we have higher quality English sources which should be preferred per WP:NOENG.Icewhiz (talk) 07:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

1. Stola, Dariusz. "Poland’s Institute of National Remembrance: A Ministry of Memory?." The convolutions of historical politics (2012): 45-58.
2. Misztal, Barbara A. "Collective memory in a global age: Learning how and what to remember." Current Sociology 58.1 (2010): 24-44.
3. Wawrzyński, Patryk, and Ralph Schattkowsky. "Attitudes towards the Government’s Remembrance Policy in Poland: Results of an Experimental study." Politics in Central Europe 11.2 (2015): 73-94.
4. Waltzer, Kenneth. "Opening the Red Cross International Tracing Service Archive." J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 26 (2008): 161.

I don’t believe anyone disputes these are reliable sources.

However they offer very general and stereotypical sweeping statements. The Polish sources have more in depth analysis of the subject and more detailed information. We have in fact one dedicated source and two very general ones. Therefore sources aren’t of equal weight, as one is more detailed scholarly study of the subject. This is in fact a content dispute as Icewhiz wants to delete a more detailed information and present a very general pov statement based on cherry picked sources, which in fact is incorrect-for example Home Army and Jewish partisants cooperated in other areas than Volhyn--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:42, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Both English books are detailed works on the subject by experts on the field . The section from Browning is from the chapter on escapees. The chapter from Holocaust: Responses to the persecution and mass murder of the Jews is by Antony Polonsky, an eminent expert in the field, and is titled Beyond condemnation, apologetics and apologies: on the complexity of Polish behavior toward the Jews during the Second World War. Denying and dismissing the murderous antisemitism by the Home Army, as "stereotypical", when it is present in most serious unbiased sources is highly offensive. I'll note that the Polish language source from a government agency (which as per sourcing above "the institute overall is influenced by the Polish right wing and operates in a nationalist framework that glorifies Polish resistance and non-complicity") by a researcher not particularly known (though he has been in the press lately after the Polish government agency decided to remove him from research and bar publication of his habilitation thesis - - demonstrating IPN's bias) - does not seem to support the text it was sourcing in the article per my reading - however such a source from a highly biased government agency and in a language other than English is not appropriate when we have several high quality sources in English which we prefer per WP:NOENG.Icewhiz (talk) 11:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

"books are detailed works on the subject by experts on the field" - the second one certainly isn't and the first one is "detailed" about a different topic. So false.

And statements such as "Denying and dismissing the murderous antisemitism by the Home Army..." merely serve to show your extremist bias, and illustrate why you should have no business editing this topic area.

And one more time, drop the nonsense about IPN ("government agency"). It's reliable. It's academic. It's scholarly. It's reliable. You haven't been able to convince a single person otherwise. Live with it. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

And just because YOU haven't heard of a particular researcher, doesn't mean he's "not particularly known". On top of everything else, your persistent BLP violations and attacks on any historian who might disagree with your extremist POV are getting too much.

Finally, you try to bring up WP:NOENG again. Why weren't you bringing that up when you were trying to use Polish anti-semitic far-right sources in other articles (to commit BLP violations)??? This argument is just pure cynical hypocrisy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:01, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• After taking a look I agree with VM & MM here. The two other sources are very general in coverage VS a much more detailed one. As reliability of none of them is really in question, proper use would indicate using the detailed source for specific details, the general sources for general non-contradictory information. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The two sources Icewhiz mentions are above suspicion, and so cannot be removed. VM's point is also fair: detailed studies that deal with the nitty gritty are intrinsically more important than generic material, even from experts. In this case, if the generalizations are contested by the detailed studies, one should privilege the latter, and either in a note, or with attribution, succinctly cite the generalizations as a minority view.Nishidani (talk) 17:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Nishidani: one of the sources I am citing is a book chapter titled Beyond condemnation, apologetics and apologies: on the complexity of Polish behavior toward the Jews during the Second World War is by Antony Polonsky - this is a detailed study on the specific topic. The document VM is citing has not been reliably published in an academic setting.Icewhiz (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I will also note that the Polish government agency document is being mosrepresented - it actually mainly agrees with Polonsky. You can see it via google translate here. Some translated quotations:

1. The problem is wider. In Jewish historiography, there is a view that if Jews were admitted to AK units, they were only individual - they were few cases. In the article Poland after the Holocaust, Iwona Irwin-Zarecka wrote: "The Home Army, the largest underground organization, had some Jews, some were even officers, but did not reveal that they were Jews." According to this historiography, as wrote Yisrael Gutman and Shmuel Krakowski in Unequal Victims. Poles and Jews During World War II"Both the Office of the Delegate and the Home Army considered themselves authorized to represent and defend only ethnic Poles." .... Recently, also Polish historians have stated that the Polish Underground State "did not include other national groups", was "ethnic in some sense", or otherwise - "apart from certain exceptions - the state of Poles", but they derive it from a different reason than Jewish historians. For some historians, this was the result of poor identification or lack of links between some Jews and the Polish (underground) state, as well as the Polish authorities' lack of trust in the Jews because of their attitudes at the beginning of the war: The author goes on to discuss a roundtable of Polish historians at the IPN who mainly agree with him. He summarizes with Jewish units, as a rule, did not receive proposals to join the AK structures. The exception is probably a combat unit made up of Jews, subject to AK, which was formed near the Polish village of Hanaczów (in Eastern Galicia), where there was so-called self-defense.
2. It seems that the central bodies of the Home Army and the Delegation saw Jewish units as "bands" as "foreign" groups, and considered them to be communized. It certainly affected the way of looking at AKPs at lower levels. However, it had to be a conjugate process: the perception of "Jewish units" by local AK members shaped the "upstairs" perception. He goes on to list various examples.
3. The conclusion may be drawn that, although a Jew who was in hiding was not always considered a "bandit" at once, being in a partisan unit qualified by the Home Army as a "gang", he became such a person. The aforementioned Tomasz Toivi Blatt continued his conversation with a fellow Home Army friend: "» A true Home Army soldier, "Tadek replied," he does not kill Jews unless they are caught with weapons. "Although it may happen that some Poles who rob members of the Home Army are robbing and murder Jews. "
4. There are also known cases of AK co-operation with Jewish units in other occupied areas of the Second Polish Republic - in Eastern Galicia and in Volhynia. The AK and Jewish partisans approached the "common enemy" - partisan units of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army - which is the same exception noted by Polonsky.
5. conclusion of article: It seems, therefore, that the perception of Jewish troops by the Home Army and the Delegation as "band", "alienated" and "commmonised" has developed in a complicated, complex process and resulted from the way of thinking and strategy adopted, from prejudices against Jews, and partly from the objective phenomenon of banditry of partisan units.

In short, the Polish document does not contradict Polonsky, and in fact to a large extent agrees with him. This misrepresentation of this Polish language source demonstrates why WP:NOENG is policy - many editors will not vet a non-English source, leaving Misplaced Pages to AGF with those who introduce the source - which is not the case with an English language source which one can verify readily.Icewhiz (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I am very sorry, but the above passages and sentences have been severely mistranslated and nowhere even in this form can support a claim that Home Army were "murderous antisemites". Even here, they support what I already stated that they worked in other areas than Volhyn with Jewish resistance.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I shall note that a similar misrepresentation (or rather, more often and varying by document version, quotation from other sources cited via Puławski) of Puławski appears in a couple of WP:SPS documents by WP:QS Mark Paul discussed previously Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 241#The Holocaust in Poland: Ewa Kurek & Mark Paul.Icewhiz (talk) 19:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

That appears to put a decidedly different complexion on things. Icewhiz’s sources are from 2004, and 2011. VM‘s source, Adam Puławski writing for the Instytut Pamięci Narodowej, is from 2003. In short Browning one would expect would be familiar with Puławski 's work, yet made that generalization. Puławski is not regarded as a controversial author, as far as I can see. I.e. Joshua D. Zimmerman, The Polish Underground and the Jews, 1939–1945 Cambridge University Press, 2015 p.104 notes 54,57, and Michael Fleming in Paolo Giaccaria, Claudio Minca (eds.) Hitler's Geographies: The Spatialities of the Third Reich, University of Chicago Press, 2016 p.292 cite him, also on Jews, and this suggests to me Adam Puławski is eminently acceptable for by fellow Polish-history experts of any persuasion. One problem might be the institute journal he published his results in.

Adam Michnik On the Side of Geremek New York Review of Books 25 September 2008 cites a remark by Bronislaw Geremek regarding that organ, i.e., the Instytut Pamięci Narodowej, which runs (2008):

The Institute of National Remembrance, supposed to protect national memory, is today engaging in activities that destroy this memory. Today’s memory police resort to the hateful methods of the communist secret services and direct them at a victim of this very secret service. These policemen violate the truth and fundamental ethical principles. They do harm to Poland

So, while following earlier Only in death's usually acute and balanced judgements, it would seem, if the googled pieces Icewhiz cites are a fair indication, that Icewhiz has a strong point here. Since the document is one written in a language external observers like myself cannot verify, it seems clear that the editor using it is under an obligation to provide thorough translations of the relevant paragraphs, all those dealing with Jews, at a minimum.Nishidani (talk) 19:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The Geremek thing has more to do with the political infighting among the post-Solidarity camp in Poland in the 1990's and actually pertains to the subject of lustration (holding former communist officials accountable for any crimes they committed before fall of communism, and publishing documents on who collaborated and in what capacity with the Polish Communist Secret Services (the Polish version of the Stasi). Since IPN was in charge of the documents relevant to lustration, they came in for criticism from both sides (one side arguing they did too much, the other that not enough). So that criticism by Geremek, himself not a disinterested party, is about something else, not this particular topic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Nishidani. There is no problem with translating passages if required. Note that in the above quote block Icewhiz has wrongly translated several sentences that completely change their meaning and omitted several important paragraphs. For example Pulawski writes that Jews were accepted on "case by case" basis due to security risk some of them posed due to their involvment with Soviet affiliated units that were actively hunting down Polish resistance.It's not a problem to provide translations, and if there is a conflict about interpretation ask a neutral translator-there are many here on Misplaced Pages that can do this. Note that Pulawski, noted for his very crticial views about Polish attiude to Jews, is a far as possible from the claim that Home Army were "murderous antisemites"-he presents a much more nuanced and detailed view.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The additional twist on Pulawski is that in 2018 (15 uears after the article in 2003, and I will note that the 2003 IPN was much better regarded internationally than the 2008 or 2018 IPN) has been rubber roomed by the IPN due to his research on Jewish-Polish relations not being in line with current politics.Very worrying’ that Shoah historian forced from job by new Polish lawPolish historian says he was forced to switch jobs because of his Holocaust research. But in any event, his 2003 piece only supports Polonsky, though written from a Polish vantage point.Icewhiz (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

For the purpose of this discussion the question seems to be resolved.

Both sources are reliable and nobody disputes this. If Icewhiz wants to remove other sources and information then it is a question for completely different discussion. it is worth noting that here we have a situation in which the user seems to chase his own tail so to speak(for lack of better metaphor by this non-native English speaker). The source was first questioned as being from IPN and then defended as being criticized by IPN for being too pro-Jewish in views. I am afraid that this demonstrates if a source as pro-Jewish as Pulawski does go into detail and provides examples of cooperation between AK and Jewish Partisants it just demonstrates how radical and extreme the claim that Home Army were murderous antisemties is. Pulawski is critized as being pro-Jewish and highly critical towards Polish resistance and even he is attacked by Icewhiz for not being too radical in his assesments while using his figure to attack other Polish scholarly institution. However this goes beyond the scope of this discussion--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The content in question is The Polish Home Army provided some training to Warsaw Ghetto's Jewish Combat Organization, but generally did not accept Jewish groups (with the exception of Volhynia, where a Ukranian-Polish conflict raged and the Home Army was eager to cooperate with Jewish groups) and was reluctant to accept Jewish individuals. Antisemitism and killing of Jews was also an issue in the Home Army as made clear by Browning and most other sources - however that is not what we are discussing sourcing.Icewhiz (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, I did not "attack" Pulawski (who seems to be rather well like in academic circles outside of Poland per the support letters he received) - I asserted that the government agency via which this was published is a marginal source at best (with various severe political issues) - and provided sourcing for that assertion.Icewhiz (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

"I did not "attack" Pulawski" <-- You most certainly did, in fact you tried to dismiss him as "a researcher not particularly known" among other things, until it was pointed out who he was. Then you were like "oops, did I attack this guy? No, no, no, he's great! I never said the things I said, what are you guys talking about?". Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

That is factually accurate. He was a new phd in 2003, a cursory examination of citations and positions of Polonsky or Browning shows they are better known academically.Icewhiz (talk) 06:56, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Your own translation contradicted what you are saying.It says Jewish units within Home Army operated outside Volhynia. Please note that there was a Jewish unit in Warsaw uprising as well and Home Army also provided intelligence and military equipment to Jewish resistance. However this is isn't really that big part of Home Army's operations-Jewish resistance in Poland was very, very small and counted barely couple of thousands of Jews out of 3 million or so. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Pulawski (which a low quality source due to publication venue) also mentions Eastern Galicia which is in present day Western Ukraine and adjacent to Volhynia - with the same Jewish-Polish-Ukranian triangle (where Jews at times allied with the AK - this in contrast to Western Belarus where the AK collaborated, much of the time, with the Nazies) - which is a small geographic nuance. The AK did accept small amounts of surviving Warsaw ghetto fighters after the ghetto uprising. However - all of these limited instances of cooperation, as noted by any serious source, are exceptions to the rule, overshadowed by some AK units engaging in widespread killings.Icewhiz (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not a "low quality source". Quit making stuff up. The source is perfectly fine and so is the author. It's also complete and utter nonsense that "AK collaborated, much of the time, with the Nazies (sic)". You either absolutely have no clue as to what you're talking about, or you're purposefully saying offensive shit in an attempt to provoke other editors, maybe so you can then complain about incivility or something.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Government agency with serious reputation issues is an inferior source to an academic publication. And I said in Western Belarus, where this is well established there was Nazi weapon supply and coordination with the AK.. Simple fact, elsewhere AK's actions were different.Icewhiz (talk) 07:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

There's no "serious reputation issues" except in your head. And I have no idea what your source is or who the author is, but there's some grade-A stupidity and nonsense in it. The author seems to sincerely believe that a regional partisan commander (a colonel) and a Abwehr major had the authority to negotiate over Poland's postwar borders! WTF??? Where the hell did you dig this piece of junk up?Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Well this discussion seems to be settled then, since none of the sources mentioned in the headline are in doubt as reliable.If you have doubts about others, feel free to start a seperate topic.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, if so I shall cut out the non-representative examples from the article, as well as the serious misrepresentation of Pulawski and restore text sources to Polonsky and Browning.Icewhiz (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

We already have a much more in depth cover of this relationship, and with different sources.I see little value in replacing detailed information with sweeping and inaccurate generalizations. If there are any mistrepresentations of Pulawski-feel free to point them out on appropriate discussion page for the article. As this discussion has run its course I suggest moving your comments to the article talk page if you have any.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

To the contrary, sources making general stmts are preferred to anecdotes and OR based on them. The article severely misrepresents mainline sources (and following latest anecdotal additions is using non-academic sources) when it states Polish Home Army provided training to Warsaw Ghetto's Jewish Combat Organization, and included in its ranks Jewish individuals and Jewish units, such as Lukawiecki Partisants commanded by Edmund Łukawiecki and working under the umbrella of Home Army, and Jewish Platoon Wigry which took part in 1944 Warsaw Uprising. It also collaborated with Jewish units in self-defence operations - which per sources discussed here are rare exceptions to the rule, and are not presented as such. Finally, WP:NOENG and use of (yet more) low quality non-English sources is a RS issue.Icewhiz (talk) 21:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Let me say this again. Somebody - that'd be Icewhiz - who tried using Polish language far-right antisemitic publications in a BLP because it suited their POV, and tried to pass these off as RS, has no business bringing up WP:NOENG.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF situation.Icewhiz (talk) 06:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

And that's another falsehood. The source you used, prawy.pl was not BY the BLP subject, it was a commentary ON the BLP subject. And you know this of course, since it's come up previously. So why are you knowingly pretending otherwise?

As is adding yet more citations (or mis-citations as the case may be) that appear in Mark Paul's SPS A Tangled Web - e.g. Jewish Hit Squad: The Łukawiecki Partisans Unit of the Polish Armia Krajowa, 1941-1944 Przednia okładka Simon Lavee Gefen Publishing House Limited, 2015 - 308.Icewhiz (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I have to positively surprise you. I am not using Mark Paul, nor have I read him at all. Frankly I avoided being engaged in this discussion.If that person used the same source, good for that person.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Cesariani accuses the NSZ to be fascist, p. 67. It's not exactly academic.Xx236 (talk) 07:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Any underground is based on paranoia. The Home Army was infiltrated by Germans and Communists. Guerilla commanders executed foreigners rather than organised auditions. It's ahistorical to criticize 1943 people on the basis of 2018 knowledge.

The Jewish Combat Organization was leftist, it cooperated with Communists, which made the HA cautious if not hostile. There exists a controversy regarding Jewish Military Union.Xx236 (talk) 07:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Adam Puławski cooperated with and was accepted by the Center . Recently he has been removed from the IPN. Xx236 (talk) 07:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• Reliable for the statement listed. Recognised scholars in the field; professionally published. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Sources from Islamic websites

Hello,

I have been trying to edit the article Hadith of Najd by removing content from websites that clearly fail WP:RS. I would like confirmation that the sites are unreliable for Misplaced Pages. The sites in question are:

• ayha.org
• danielpipes.org
• en.islamtoday.net
• systemoflife.com
• ahlalhdeeth.com
• islamhouse.com

Most of the material for the article has been taken word for word from this page and seems to be a clear violation of WP:COPYRIGHT and also seems completely unreliable. Also, the author seems spurious (who on earth is Abu Rumaysah - hopefully not this guy). Thank you.2A01:4B00:88BB:E000:DCC7:6D14:2026:586D (talk) 09:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Legal problem on Mariano Rajoy's article

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 Misplaced Pages 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?

Hind Khoudary Middle East Eye

Two editors are removing (here and here) the following source:

• Hind Khoudary, 'My daughter was a target': Gaza grieves for paramedic killed by Israel Middle East Eye 6 June 2018

The content comes from an interview given to this Gaza-based reporter by the mother of Razan al-Najjar, concerning the life of her daughter before she was shot dead i.e.

According to her mother, Najjar attended every Friday event from 7am and 8pm, and would return home spattered with the blood of those whom she had tendered care to.

There are two arguments in the edit summaries against this, WP:Undue, and Middle East Eye is not RS. This board has never determined that. A brief discussion with one of the reverters took place here.

The source Hind Khoudary (22) is one of the few female reporters used by foreign media for what’s going on the ground there. (Hamza Saftawi and Miriam Berger To Be a Palestinian Journalist in Gaza Is to Be Always Under Threat The Nation 27 April 2018) She works as a translator and journalist for outlets like Kuwait’s national channel, RT News , the Electronic Intifada, Middle East Eye, Mondoweiss and Libération. There’s no doubt RT is viewed with a dim eye, and I would never use it. But as for the others, they are reasonable outlets for a journeyman reporter in this context, and her work on Gaza fishermen’s plight for the Electronic Intifada was recommended by The Jerusalem Fund; her work on Hamas-Fatah reconciliation has been cited in the Council on Foreign Relations daily news wrap up as a useful analysis; Libération also cite her for what’s going on inside Gaza.

I believe in strong sourcing where possible, but where conditions on the ground make coverage extremely difficult, and the material happens to be, in my view, innocuous background detail from a local reporter interviewing someone, then I cannot see good reason to exclude it. I would exclude MEE if we were dealing with extraordinary claims or otherwise unattested facts. Neutral third party input would be appreciated. For involved editors, please refrain from turning this into another I/P bagfight.Nishidani (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I will not comment on the source per your request but the undue question is for WP:NPOVN Shrike (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I dont think this is even the right question. Middle East Eye, here, is used as a source for an interview with the victim's mother. There isnt any indication that they did not faithfully and accurately report what her mother said. Even if one wanted to say that MEE is generally not a RS, which I would dispute, the idea that they shouldnt be sourced for an interview they had is absurd. What evidence is there that they did not conduct this interview? None, this is strictly an effort to deny a voice to the mother of the subject of the article. If I werent already so jaded from my years here ... nableezy - 18:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

This is a small fringe website with alleged links (per some Arab states and other sources) to the brotherhood. It does not have a reputation for accuracy. The question to be asked of the interview is not whether there is evidence it is bogus - but rather whether there is evidence it is legit. We do not source BLP stmts (the mother is a BLP, the subject a BDP) to questionable sources per BLPSOURCES.Icewhiz (talk) 18:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Unequivocally not true. Read WP:FRINGE, this is not that. And so what if people who work there are members of the Brotherhood. This isnt some McCarthyist paradise where only people whose politics you like count. And really, evidence that it is legit? How about the picture of her mother and the transcript of the interview? And what negative statement about her mother is in this source that you would remove per BLP? Get off it. nableezy - 19:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

And to the point on reliability, here are other sources citing Middle East Eye:

• NYTimes
• NYTimes
• BBC
• BBC
• Guardian
• Independent
• Independent
• Independent

This is a source often cited by other reliable sources. Nothing has been given as evidence that it is "fringe", that is a completely baseless claim, made only to remove what a victims mother said about her daughter. nableezy - 19:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Meetup

I am writing to ask someone to take a closer look at Meetup (website). Specifically, the part that says “and lacking the funds necessary to compete against rising competition.” I cannot find a cited source for that statement. The citation in question is here (https://www.wired.com/story/why-wework-is-buying-meetup/).

I've previously posted about this on the Talk page here

As indicated in my profile, I work at Meetup.

"Kristin hodgson at meetup (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)"

True Crime Books

Are “true crime” books considered a reliable source for biographies of mass murderers or serial killers? Obviously, these books are mostly factual, but contain a significant degree of fictionalization, mostly to add drama to the story, as well as to protect privacy and confidentiality, so they aren’t as reliable as academic/scholarly sources about the topic. Would they still be considered a reliable source?

Is Norman Finkelstein a reliable source on Gaza

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)

FBI file as a reliable source for basic background information?

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)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment