Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 180

Hi Guy Macon - unfortunately the editing environment surrounding the Ukraine/Russia dispute is almost as rancorous as the political situation in southeast Ukraine. I've been involved in editing on the subject since the spring. Not surprisingly, Russian and western media have mostly lined up behind the foreign policies of their respective governments. This has led Russian media to place undue emphasis on far-right participation in the Ukrainian conflict, and western media to often deny it completely.

The issue in this particular case appears to revolve around the JIT secret treaty described by Elsevier, a Dutch paper, in August. Malaysia's exclusion from the secret treaty caused anger and disquiet in Malaysia (e.g. [46], [47]), where culpability has never been a foregone conclusion [48]. Furthermore, the authority of Ukraine (considered a suspect in the downing) to veto information in the final report caused an uproar in Holland [49] and Russia [50].

I don't know how the plane was shot down, but I really don't believe that western press should be given more credence than Russian, or vice-versa. "Conspiracy theories" may well describe dubious skeptics of science, but in politics the epithet is often a mechanism of shutting out opponent voices. This is a political issue, and unfortunately there are few clean hands to be found. -Darouet (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It's sort of looking like the Russian media vs, the rest of the world's media. But I am not sure yet -- I have only been studying this for a day, and most of that has been wading through the article talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

This has led Russian media to place undue emphasis on far-right participation in the Ukrainian conflict, and western media to often deny it completely. - this is completely not true. When the trouble in Ukraine started there were a TON of stories in Western media about some far-right groups on the Maidan side, like Right Sector or even Svoboda. But the facts of the matter are that these are actually pretty marginal groups (witness the results of the few last elections) whose presence has been amplified by Russian government media. Western media has NOT "denied it", it just, after a reporter or two actually figured out what was going on in Ukraine moved on to other, actually notable stories.

On the other hand, there is a TON of far-right and even neo-nazi groups supporting the Russian government here. The National Front in France, Jobbik in Hungary, and a whole assortment of far right fringe parties have squarely lined up to be the first to lick Putin's boots. Not surprising since by all accounts, Putin's been funding a lot of them for the past few years. And then you got folks like Aleksander Dugin or Alexander Prokhanov who are quite nasty anti-semitic/neo-Nazi characters and who pretty much epitomize Russian government's current foreign policy. So you've actually got it backward. It's the Russian media who's been downplaying the extremist nature of its own politics, while Western media... well, actually not there much either, although reliable scholarly sources are plentiful.

The idea that western press (what is that anyway?) should not be given more credence than pure propaganda outlets like RT or RIA Novosti (which are NOT synonymous with "Russian sources"), which have been caught red handed reporting fake news, photoshopped pictures and all, is silly. If we have a Reliable Sources policy then it has to mean something. And it means "reputation for fact checking and accuracy".

This has actually been discussed previously. To reiterate, whether a source is "Russian" or "western" (whatever that is) is completely irrelevant. Guy, as someone who's been around on Wikipedia for some time you should be well aware of that. There are Russian sources which are not reliable. There are ... let's say American, sources which are not reliable. There are Russian sources which are reliable. There are American sources which are reliable. The focus on the "ethnicity" of a particular source is completely misguided and signals a total lack of understanding of Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Even if we eliminate all Russian sources, there are plenty of Malaysian, Japanese, Irish, German and Dutch sources that report the same thing as the Russian sources. None of those are state owned. USchick (talk) 01:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

First, as I say above, nobody's talking about "eliminating Russian sources". Please stop pretending otherwise. Second, it is not true that Malaysian, Japanese, Irish, German and Dutch sources (aren't these, except for the Malaysian and Japanese, the same as "western sources"?) "report the same thing as Russian (government) sources". So stop pretending otherwise.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: There is not a single Russian source in the diff that is the basis for the DRN case in question. The sources in the diff/passages in dispute are all Dutch. Thus, as far as I can tell, the reliability of Russian sources is irrelevant to that dispute. – Herzen (talk) 02:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I find it amusing that Guy Macon came here for an independent view, but all he got were either parties to the DRN case, or people already heavily involved in the Ukrainian conflict. Stickee (talk) 02:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

lol, can we move on now? USchick (talk) 03:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that there are a number of prominent sources telling different stories, and a final decision has not been reached. The thing we normally do in such a case is to write the most representative and prominent versions of each story, and who supports each. If, for example, all the major sources supporting story A are from one country, we should make that clear. --GRuban (talk) 04:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

And the article does do that, but probably gives the minor view a bit too much prominence. It should probably be reduced. Stickee (talk) 04:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The incident we're discussing occurred well into a brutal propaganda war between the west and Russia. Media from all parts of the world was already playing its (sometimes unintended) role in that propaganda war. The plane's crash simply caused a massive escalation in that propaganda war. It's a time when almost all media must be consistently questioned. My recommendation has therefore always been for that article to ignore ALL speculation about the crash from anyone, along with all statements from politicians. Removing such content from the article would remove problems with sources, would do no damage to the genuine informational content of the article, and would make it overall a much better one that Wikipedia could be proud of. Right now it's a propaganda tool itself Of course the Russia haters among the self-appointed owners of the article detest my approach. One can only wonder why. HiLo48 (talk) 05:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Disagree, I'm afraid. Ten years from now, someone reading this article won't get a full picture of what happened if we don't write that there was a propaganda war. I entirely agree that most of the "expert speculation" and almost all of the politicians' statements, on all sides, are blatant misinformation. Unfortunately that misinformation is important to the story. We shouldn't leave it out, we should only make sure we are clear we don't consider it the truth. --GRuban (talk) 05:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Not sure who you were disagreeing with there, but I at least partly agree with you. We should definitely mention that there was a propaganda war underway when the crash occurred. However, I don't see the point of adding any of the propaganda nonsense and political statements to the article. It adds no information. And leads to some editors finding fault with every source that doesn't support their obviously strong views on who did it. (Or who they want us all to believe did it). HiLo48 (talk) 06:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• There is "a brutal propaganda war between the west and Russia... It's a time when almost all media must be consistently questioned." This is like telling: "hey, there is a brutal propaganda war between the
  Big Lie of Stalinist/Hitlerite/whatever propaganda and the rest of the world. It's a time to question all media". This is ridiculous and against all our policies. My very best wishes (talk
  ) 19:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Guy Macon. Good news sources are ones by independent and reputable journalists. There are very few of them in Russia, because independent journalists are killed and badly beaten on a regular basis. One of the best sources is
  RFE/RL (see this, for example) - a lot of contributors are Russian. My very best wishes (talk
  ) 05:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding "I find it amusing that Guy Macon came here for an independent view, but all he got were either parties to the DRN case, or people already heavily involved in the Ukrainian conflict." I am fully aware of who is involved in the the conflict and who the regulars here at the RSNB are. While I don't in any way discount or devalue input from the former, I have heard much of it already as I have been crawling through the article talk page archives. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I make very few contributions to discussion on that article these days. I don't enjoy the bullying, threats, and being shouted at. It's a very unpleasant place. Some editors who have posted here have followed me to my talk page to continue the harassment. Sadly, bullying and harassment seem to be guiding the content of the article. HiLo48 (talk) 10:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Without commenting on whether or not the above is accurate (as a DRN volunteer I need to stay strictly neutral). I can assure you that on

WP:DRN

there will be no hint of any such behavior, and in fact editors are not allowed to talk about other editors. Please feel free to join the conversation -- you can post a single comment and leave if you wish -- and help me in my attempt to resolve the content dispute. Your input would certainly be welcome.

You can ask an editor to stop posting to your talk page, and if he continues, you can go to

WP:ANI with the usual result being that that user is warned and then blocked if the behavior continues. --Guy Macon (talk

) 11:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I have said my piece. The problems with the article are obvious. The bad behaviour is obvious. The guilty parties are obvious. If the artificial boundaries of this process prevent anything being done about it and them, the POV pushers are winning again. HiLo48 (talk) 11:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

More generally, I'd like to point out that you can't ask about the reliability of "Russian media" in general. That's not what this board is for and that's not how we evaluate reliability of sources (by their nationality?). What you can do, is take specific sources and ask about them. Obviously, some Russian media will be reliable, and some Russian media will be unreliable. Just like some American media will be reliable and some American media will not be reliable. So you have to ask about or discuss specific sources not a blanket category such as this one. The question is ill posed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the main point of that post, that each outlet needs to be considered individually. I would also argue that the issue under discussion is also relevant. British tabloids are excellent sources - for soccer results - but not much else. (Maybe the date, and the price of the paper too?) Sadly, however, that post frames the issue as a US vs Russia one. As far as we know, the USA had almost nothing to do with this incident. (The plane was built in America?) Framing it as a US vs Russia issue is seeing it as part of the propaganda war, not a plane crash. The problems surrounding this article are highlighted yet again. HiLo48 (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

A blog [52] entry is being inserted as a source in several articles by

The "StephMac1981" username isn't actually registered? What articles? Where does this McEneny use the story? What? __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Stephmac1981. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is a registered account. The name is red linked because they have not created a user page. User talk:Stephmac1981.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

It was a capitalization error by Camelbinky, not a redlink issue. It's all understood now. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

− ::(edit conflict) x2 Actually they haven't edited their user page but the person is registered. There's a difference. I have now posted on their talk page about this discussion, so you can find them that way. I forgot to put User: that is my fault. The articles in question include, but not limited to- Fort Nassau (North River) which I have reverted, and Castle Island (New York) which I have not as I am waiting for this discussion. May also include other Albany, New York articles specified in the blog as articles that should be edited, and which the author states he may and that his blog should be used as the link as the reference source. McEneny uses the story in his book, Albany: Capital City on the Hudson.Camelbinky (talk) 21:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Stephmac1981 (talk · contribs).--Mark Miller (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Removing the challenged material (fort and no fort) until an independent RS can be found looks like the most appropriate thing to do. If editors decide that the blogger is considered an expert with a history of being published by third-party RS, then it might be okay, but someone would have to make that case (and preferably not the author himself).__ E L A Q U E A T E 21:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

His bio lists him as a PhD student who also helps manages the website with one blogpost. I don't think that qualifies him as an allowable "established expert" of reputation and history of being published, per

WP:SPS. __ E L A Q U E A T E

21:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

A few things: 1) I did not write that the French fort was actually an Indian fortification. I wrote that there is no reliable evidence that the French fort existed and that the likely source of this myth is woefully unreliable for reasons I explained in the blog post. My point that the island was likely named after the Indian fortifications is tangential to my main point. (I did not edit the Wikipedia article to say such a thing.) What I wrote was that Charles Gehring, who has 40 years of experience with such things, surmised that it was. I trust the reader to do with that information what he'd like. 2) Perhaps Wikipedia does have a policy that prohibits using blogs as a citation. The great irony here, of course, is that McEneneny's book is wrong. 3) I can't use my research as a source. Again, if Wikipedia has foolish policies, so be it. The blog post is an elaboration too long to put in the page. It has citations. Citing a statement does not give it validity. (Even if it is some awful 19th-century book from Google Books.) It gives it a basis that can stand or fall based on the reader's evaluation. 4) The myth is in the public memory as evidence by its presence on 3 (or more) Wikipedia pages. So at the least my assertion that the first European fortification was not French could have been changed to something like "The story that the first European fortification was a French castle is of questionable authenticity." Then one can site my blog post. If one dares. Stephmac1981 (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Your blog post won't, and can't, be used. Wikipedia has policies, and as an encyclopedia for good or for bad those policies include that third party sources are preferable, reliable sources based on peer review or published by major publications that put their reputation at jeopardy and therefore have editors or fact checkers, or peer review in magazines and journals. To do as you suggest as an alternative to use each of your individual sources on your blog post becomes original research (which is not allowed per

WP:OR. I'm sorry you either don't understand or accept our policies and guidelines, but over all they have worked to make Wikipedia work. For the most part. Continue your education (which happens to be at my alma mater) and publish your own book. Until then, yes McEneny's wrong book (and that's not the only thing he got wrong in that book) does get preferential treatment to your correct blog. And for the record yes it was an Indian village that lends the name castle to Castle Island.Camelbinky (talk

) 23:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

We could cite Charles Gehring, who does have a reputation as an expert, if his work on this is

published in any way that other readers could theoretically access (even if it was in an offline physical public archive), but not you at this point. I'm sure you're convinced of your own arguments, but we have to show that historical material is supported by sources with more of an established reputation. __ E L A Q U E A T E

23:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Which book presses are reputable? Just curious.Stephmac1981 (talk) 00:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Best are ones which specialize in books on the general topics at hand. Unusable are "vanity presses." All university presses, etc. are generally fine. Collect (talk) 00:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I get the policy, and I get why it exists. However, editor discretion should be permitted. But I don't want to get bogged down in that discussion.... I initially thought that my assertion that there was no French fort was removed. Fair enough. But then Camelbinky just reverted the page back to the old version that says that the French had a castle on the island, something that s/he knows to be false. It seems to me that the sensible thing to do would be to remove the reference to the French fort altogether. Stephmac1981 (talk) 00:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Generally when some thing is added that is not allowed one is to revert to the previous version. When I realized it was more than one article involved I took the issue here. As I stated above I have no problem with removing info about the fort until a reliable source that explains the historical aspect of the French fort myth can be added. Even false myths about a locations history becomes history because of how it shapes the resident's views. To simply dismiss it as ridiculous and force people to stop believing in it denies the fact that for 300 years people of Albany believed it to be true. As Karl Rove once said "It doesn't have to be true, I just have to say it enough times that people assume it is".Camelbinky (talk) 00:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

"For 300 years people of Albany believed it to be true." What's your source for that? Stephmac1981 (talk) 01:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Calm down there skippy, this is a noticeboard, sources for statements of hyperbole are not needed. We're having a friendly discussion, it's best if you're going to stick around rather than be a

single purpose account that you make some friends around here, since they can come in handy. As just happened when I took care of an editor who reverted your removal of the French fort information because he thought you may have been vandalizing an article or accidently deleting sourced material because you are new. Having some one who knows more about Capital District history on your side can help more than if you piss me off.Camelbinky (talk

) 01:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I thought you might have had a pearl of information hidden in your lecture to me on public memory. I've spent enough time worrying about Wikipedia. Take care. Stephmac1981 (talk) 01:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:BITE, calling someone Skippy and warning someone about why they shouldn't "piss you off" is not collegial on someone's first day editting. __ E L A Q U E A T E

Sorry, but a

WP:SPA whose own POV agenda is spelled out right on the blog gets under my skin a bit more than it should. I apologize and have given a bit of advice on their talk page, and have as I state above protected this editor's further edits from good faith reverts.Camelbinky (talk

) 01:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

At SWAT, the only source used in the lead, and the only source providing a general description of SWAT police, is a children's book called "Police Swat Teams: Life on High Alert," a part of the "Extreme Careers" series [53]. The Rosen Publishing Group explains,

Twenty Attention-Grabbing Career Titles Guaranteed to Get Your Middle Schoolers Thinking About Their Future This compelling new series for the middle school reader is designed to appeal to the thrill seeker in all of us. Each book includes information about a different extreme career, with a focus on safety and training. Readers will learn what it takes to get into these professions and what to expect when embarking on one. These volumes also provide information on the exciting aspects of these extreme careers and highlight the possible dangers and risks involved. Colorful photographs and informative sidebars help to make these books an invaluable resource for those young readers looking for a thrilling and fun-filled profession.

I have found two academic textbooks on police or policing and a dictionary of law enforcement that describe SWAT police [54][55][56], and another academic book specifically about SWAT police [57], all describing SWAT police and policing in quite different terms. These books were all published more recently than the children's book. There's a lot of resistance to using different sources or language however, and my edits trying to remove the children's book have been repeatedly reverted. Advice would be appreciated. -Darouet (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Juvenile titles are rarely "best sources". Use best source - which means the academic ones here. Collect (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

At Talk:SWAT we've been having a discussion about trying to provide reliable sources for the SWAT article, which is mostly unsourced at present, except for some part of the "history" section and for content describing SWAT armaments.

One question which has been raised by

• It has been two days, any evidence of inaccuracies or errors in the guides or features that show poor editorial control and writing? Otherwise I think it apt to assume that it is a reliable source. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I checked that site, and as a source, it depends on the material in question. It may be a reliable source for some aspects, and not reliable for others. Blanket statements about a source like this are not useful; editorial judgement and discretion still applies. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

• www.lonesentry.com
• StG 44
• [64] being used to support this [65]

This personal website is run by an individual and is advertising supported. It contains photographs and text that the site claims are reprints of government documents, but there is no supporting information such as a scan or photostat for this particular source of the original document text, just the transcribed text. There are scans of images and I assume that since its a government publication that its in the public domain and thus not a copyright violation.

This site itself carries a disclaimer, "DISCLAIMER: The following text is taken from the U.S. War Department publication Tactical and Technical Trends. As with all wartime intelligence information, data may be incomplete or inaccurate. No attempt has been made to update or correct the text. Any views or opinions expressed do not necessarily represent those of the website."

Granted, other areas of the site do have scans or images of the original documents such as these, but not the series of source articles referenced above.

I am not disputing the information, assuming it was taken from the original government document, but without any means to verify what is posted, how can all portions of this site be considerable

Scalhotrod refuses to accept reference that refutes his point of view and makes unreasonable demands.

User:Scalhotrod is apparently on a crusade to eliminate U.S. War Department publication "Tactical and Technical Trends No. 57, April 1945, Machine Carbine Promoted" from http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt07/stg44-assault-rifle.html because it completly refutes his point of view. The lonesentry.com site is a well establish internet resource proving digital copies of government documents. A simple Google search reveals that it is widely used as source material in many articles, books and other publications (with approximately 80,000 hits). I then composed a list of the first 25 books that popped-up using lonesentry.com material as sources. Scalhotrod rejected the list, denounced the writers stating that "Authors want to make money too" and demanded that I produce additional evidence. I now believe that Scalhotrod is toying with me and that no evidence will satisfy him.

Also, it should be noted that many "personal websites" are routinely used as references on wiki. One http://world.guns.ru/index-e.html is a website run by one man. This website also uses..."Site mission satement (yes, statement is misspelled) and legal disclaimer 1. I do not sell or buy any weapons. This site is for education only! 2. In no case I shall be liable for any damage or harm, caused by use or misuse of any information, facts and opinions, placed on this site. 3. All information is gathered from the open sources" He offers no supporting documents whatsoever for his facts and opinions. Whereas, lonesentry.com simply proves digital copies of government documents. User:Scalhotrod, has provide no evidence that lonesentry is manipulating the data other than to claim that its own legal disclaimer somehow invalidates the information provided on the website. Below is a copy of the relevant conversation on the StG 44 talk page.--RAF910 (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

RAF910, it is neither necessary nor helpful to copy-paste large quantities of text from the talk page - particularly when much of it doesn't even seem to refer to the matter in question. The only question we are addressing here is whether the LoneSentry site is an appropriate source for the material cited. And concerning that question, I'd have to agree with Scalhotrod that the website appears to be a personal one - and accordingly per

Well, I have already provided a list with 25 books that use lonesentry as source, how many more do I need to provide? With ~80,000 hits on a Google search, I could probably provide a 100 more in the next day or two. How much time do I have?--RAF910 (talk) 02:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

MG 34 and MG 42 Machine Guns By Chris McNab

The Infantry's Armor: The U.S. Army's Separate Tank Battalions in World War II By Harry Yeide

The Legacies of a Hawaiian Generation: From Territorial Subject to American ...By Judith Schachte

The Infantry's Armor: The U.S. Army's Separate Tank Battalions in World War II By Harry Yeid

Soviet Submachine Guns of World War II: PPD-40, PPSh-41 and PPS By Chris McNab

German Automatic Rifles 1941-45: Gew 41, Gew 43, FG 42 and StG 44 By Chris McNab

Faith and Fortitude: My WWII Memoirs By Ronald Bleecke

Unforgettable: The Biography of Captain Thomas J. Flynn By Alice Flynn

Steeds of Steel By Harry Yeide

West Point '41: The Class That Went to War and Shaped America By Anne Kazel-Wilcox, PJ Wilco

Tragedy at Dieppe: Operation Jubilee, August 19, 1942 By Mark Zuehlke

The Infantry's Armor: The U.S. Army's Separate Tank Battalions in World War II By Harry Yeide

4th Armored Division in World War II By George Forty

A Cause Greater than Self: The Journey of Captain Michael J. Daly, World War ...By Stephen J. Ochs

The Sky Rained Heroes: A Journey from War to Remembrance By Frederick E. LaCroix

The Generation that Saved America By Bettye B. Burkhalte

Dig & Dig Deep By Richard Arnold

World War II By Walter A. Haze

Hero Street, U.S.A.: The Story of Little Mexico's Fallen Soldiers By Marc Wilson

Letters Home: From a World War II "Black Panther" Artilleryman By Philip M. Coons, Harold M. Coons

Savage Lies: The Half-truths, Distortions and Outright Lies of a Right-wing ...By Bill Bowman

One-of-a-Kind Judge By Joan Cook Carabin

Operation Thunderclap and the Black March: Two Stories from the Unstoppable ...By Richard Allison

Going for Broke: Japanese American Soldiers in the War Against Nazi Germany By James M. McCaffry

Hard Times, War Times, and More Hard Times By London L. Gore

Saving Lives, Saving Honor By Jeremy C. Schwendiman

• Plus...

• Combat Medic: Nonfiction, None Needed By Vernon L. Parke

• The Box from Braunau: In Search of My Father's War By Jan ELVIN

• World War II: The Last War Heroes: From D-Day to Berlin with the men and ...By Stephen Bull

• Same War - Different Missions: WWII Memories and Letters Home By John Foertschbeck

• The SS Hunter Battalions: The Hidden History of the Nazi Resistance Movement ...By Perry Biddiscombe

• M3 Medium Tank vs Panzer III: Kasserine Pass 1943 By Gordon Rottman, Ian Palmer, Giuseppe Rava

• Střední tank M3 vs Panzerkampfwagen III - Průsmyk Kasserine 1943 By Rottman Gordon L. (in German)

• Massacre in Malaya: Exposing Britain's My Lai By Christopher Hale

• Hell Hawks!: The Untold Story of the American Fliers Who Savaged Hitler's ...By Robert F. Dorr, Thomas D. Jones

• Given Up for Dead: American Gi's in the Nazi Concentration Camp at Berga By Flint Whitlock

• Scouts Out!: The Development of Reconnaissance Units in Modern Armies By John J. McGrath

• The 784th Tank Battalion in World War II: History of an African American Armored Unit in Europe By McFarland

• In the thick of the fight: York County, Pa. counters the Axis threat in WWII By James McClure

• The SS Hunter Battalions: The Hidden History of the Nazi Resistance Movement 1944-45 By Alexander Perry Biddiscombe

• Battle Exhortation: The Rhetoric of Combat Leadership By Keith Yellin

• The Deserters: A Hidden History of World War II By Charles Glas

• The Generation that Saved America By Bettye B. Burkhalter

• Target Patton: The Plot to Assassinate General George S. Patton By Robert Wilcox

• Shelldrake: Canadian Artillery Museums and Gun Monuments By Harold A. Skaarup

• Mollie's War: The Letters of a World War II WAC in Europe edited by Mollie Weinstein Schaffer, Cyndee Schaffer, Jennifer G. Mather

For the record this is extremely time consuming. I will continue to add books when time allows.--RAF910 (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Please don't. A list of books with no further details isn't going to tell us anything we don't know already, and nobody is going to look through that list themselves for the necessary information. And I have to agree with Glrx below that 'Tactical and technical trends' doesn't appear to be a particularly appropriate source to be using anyway - primary-source documents on the enemy's ordnance created during wartime are inevitably going to be based on incomplete information, and of questionable merit as an accurate historical assessment of the weapon. That wasn't their purpose. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment

(e/c)

The discussion above seems to slightly miss the mark in several ways.

The source whose reliability is in question should be the 1945 article and not the reliability of republisher, LoneSentry. There appears to be a concession that if an image of the article were published, then it would be accepted as a true copy of the 1945 source. Frankly, it seems unlikely that the republisher would have changed content. I could expect some small transcription errors, but I would not expect gross content changes.

To put it another way, if the citation just identified the 1945 article (and did not link to LoneSentry.com), then would there be any debate about the reliability of the source?

The disclaimer about accuracy on the webpage seems to be the republisher denying responsibility for the original content. That does not impugn or praise the content of the 1945 document. The statement does further the belief that the republisher is providing an accurate copy: "No attempt has been made to update or correct the text."

Reading the document at LoneSentry (and assuming it is a copy of 1945 document), it appears to be a primary source with a significant bias against the weapon: "cheap stampings"; "dents easily and therefore is subject to jamming"; "Germany's unfavorable military situation"; comparing weight to the M1 carbine (how about Thompson's weight); "may have been intended to be an expendable weapon and to be thrown aside in combat" (really? what does the soldier have left to shoot?). I might use the 1945 article for some statements, but I would not give its opinions about the weapon much weight. They do not seem to be founded in any significant tests or research.

Also troubling is that in the

Glrx (talk) 03:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• http://www.worldcat.org/title/tactical-and-technical-trends/oclc/36536250
• http://www.biblio.com/book/tactical-technical-trends-number-57-april/d/721486831 USA
• http://www.abebooks.com/Tactical-Technical-Trends-57-April-1945-ebook/1064688951/bd UK
• http://www.military-info.com/Aphoto/Ttt3.htm (states title is "Machine Carbines Redesignated"; price $0.50)
• http://archive.org/search.php?query=subject%3A%22Tactical%20And%20Technical%20Trends%22 (does not have 57)
• http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/003929101 (does not have 57)
• Glrx (talk) 06:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

More trouble. I cannot find the Musgrave book cited in

fails verification}}. I can find Musgrave and Oliver, German Machineguns, 1971 + 2nd rev 1992. Given author's pubs, I would accept Musgrave as an authority if the statement can be found. Glrx (talk

) 06:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Added by an IP editor(diff) a good while ago. Bromley86 (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

If I'm doing this right, no book was registered with the US Copyright Office in 1985 by Daniel Musgrave.[66] Bromley86 (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment, favoring use of "Tactical and Technical Trends" material

The LoneSentry.com transcription of the War Departments Tactical and Technical Trends should be accepted as a reliable copy of that government publication unless and until some other editor has accessed a printed or microfiche copy of that same publication and reported some error in the transcription of the document. It is unreasonable for an editor to object material that has been converted into an electronic format for the Internet. The verifiable rule means that other editors have the opportunity to verify. The burden for the editor objecting to this material is that he or she should find a copy of "Tactical and Technical Trends, No. 57, April 1945," and if he or she finds that the material quoted in the post is inaccurate, then and only then should that source be disputed. -GodBlessYou2 (talk) 04:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The LoneSentry transcription is not trustworthy. The book by Joseph Balkoski called From Brittany to the Reich cites the Tactical and Technical Trends article announcing the promotion of M.P. 43 to Assault Rifle 44, but Balkoski writes in his book that the weapon had an effective range of 300 meters, while LoneSentry says 400 meters. Furthermore, Balkoski is dismissive of the U.S. assessment which gave the reader the incorrect impression that the weapon was not very effective, which is patently untrue, since the weapon "fundamentally alter[ed] the way armies fought in the postwar world", according to Balkoski, who says the weapon led to the AK47 and was thus foundational in reshaping conflict. So not only does LoneSentry show the possibility that they got the effective range wrong, modern thought on the weapon has superseded that contemporary assessment which was in any case biased against the weapon. I say throw out the TaTT 57 source and instead use more recent books which discuss the weapon. Binksternet (talk) 05:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Or retain the TaTT 57 assessment as a historic curiosity, shown to be inaccurate and biased. Binksternet (talk) 05:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The question is not whether the the information provided in the U.S. War Department publication "Tactical and Technical Trends No. 57, April 1945, Machine Carbine Promoted" from http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt07/stg44-assault-rifle.html is inaccurate or biased. The question is...if it's a TRUE transcription of the original U.S. War Department document. It seems that User talk:Binksternet comments and evidence (be it unintentional) suggest that it is indeed a TRUE transcription of the original document. Also, User:Glrx comments above suggest that he also believes it to be a TRUE transcription of the original document.--RAF910 (talk) 05:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

No, you missed the discrepancy I pointed out between the effective range figures of 300 meters vs 400 meters. That number may be wrong in the LoneSentry transcription, so I don't think the whole transcription is reliable. The parts that are confirmed by other authors can be accepted as reliable. The LoneSentry version of the TaTT article should not be used as a source, only later authors who quote it. Binksternet (talk) 06:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

And the bigger picture is that we are writing an encyclopedia. We should follow the most modern consensus found in the literature rather than make extensive quotes of biased and outdated sources. Binksternet (talk) 06:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

On range, you're misquoting. Tactical and Technical Trends says 400 yards, which is 365 metres. Balkoski says "about 300 metres". So they're not that far off. Bromley86 (talk) 07:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Right, I see that now. But Balkoski cited the study, and yet he wrote 300 instead of the closer 400, which causes me to think that LoneSentry may not have transcribed the old text perfectly. And it doesn't solve the larger problem that some editors here want to quote an old, biased source extensively despite it being proven demonstrably wrong in light of the succession from Stg 44 to AK47, and in view of the fact that the Stg 44 was extremely effective—a game changer. So let's drop the silly kerfuffle about the old 1945 article and instead go with modern observers. Binksternet (talk) 11:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems I was misquoting as well, as TaTT also says about! Anyway, what seems likely is Balkoski took his 300m from a different source. No need to suggest that the Lone Sentry page is not a faithful reproduction of the TaTT article, especially as effective range is clearly not a precise art (look at the range cite in the StG 44 infobox; I've seen other sources state similar things, e.g.[67]). That said, it has been convincingly argued that it shouldn't be assigned much weight - the article currently contains a paragraph that deals with Allied reaction to the StG 44, including a sentence that should use the TaTT source as its cite (A late-war U.S. assessment derided the weapon as "bulky" and "unhandy", prone to jamming, and meant to be thrown away if the soldier could not maintain it.). We just need to find a modern reliable source that addresses the fact that this was (a) likely propaganda and (b) reflected the US military's dislike of an intermediate cartridge (and if it could also deal with the British 1948 objections, that'd be useful). Bromley86 (talk) 14:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, The question is not whether the the information provided in the U.S. War Department publication "Tactical and Technical Trends No. 57, April 1945, Machine Carbine Promoted" from http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt07/stg44-assault-rifle.html is inaccurate or biased. The question is...if it's a TRUE transcription of the original U.S. War Department document...As for the idea that Joseph Balkoski's book From Brittany to the Reich is indisputable and trumps all other sources of information is nonsense and irrelevant to this discussion.--RAF910 (talk) 05:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

That's not the RS question for me. Let's assume the transcription is TRUE. The problem is the TaTT's article (1) is a primary source and (2) is apparently not reliable. LoneSentry exercises no editorial judgment when it transcribes the source; LS cannot turn an unreliable source into a reliable source merely by quoting it. If it is the case that the weapon system was flawed, then it should be easy to find many (secondary) reliable sources that say that. Glrx (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Assuming, the transcription is true...It accurately reflects the U.S. military opinion of the StG44 in 1945. It is also the first time the term "assault rifle" is used in an English source. As such it is an important historical document. Yes, over the next 20 years the U.S. military's opinion of the StG44 changed and by 1970 the "M16 Rifle Case Study. Prepared for the President's Blue Ribbon Defense Panel. March 16, 1970. By Richard R. Hallock, Colonel U.S. Army (Retired) http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/09/02.pdf" opinion was that "The principle of this weapon -- the reduction of muzzle impulse to get useful automatic fire within actual ranges of combat -- was probably the most important advance in small arms since the invention of smokeless powder." However, going back to the subject at hand. If this source is rejected as unreliable, then it can no longer be used on Wikipedia for any reason. The source may be deleted wherever it's used and anyone attempting to add the source in the future will be considered a vandal. This action will give some editors the ability to deny historical facts and impose their point of view on other editors. Which is in fact the reason, that we are discussing this issue in the first place.

If this is the case, then it needs to be clearly explained in the body of the article. "In 1945, the U.S. Government's stance on the StG 44 was that it was..." "By 1970, this assessment changed. Retired Colonel Richard Hallock stated in his "M16 Rifle Case Study" (prepared for the President's Blue Ribbon Defense Panel) that the "The principle of this weapon -- the reduction of muzzle impulse to get useful automatic fire within actual ranges of combat -- was probably the most important advance in small arms since the invention of smokeless powder." or something to this effect. We can't go around using Wikipedia's voice to state opinions as fact. --

(Talk)

☮ღ☺ 16:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

We are not on this noticeboard to discuss the content on the StG44 page. We are here (at your request) to declare the lonesentry TaTT information an unreliable source and to ban it. If you have changed your mind and want to withdraw your challenge, then do so.--RAF910 (talk) 06:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

To the contrary, this is the reliable sources noticeboard, and we can and do comment on what is or isn't an appropriate use of a source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree ^^ Not every source is reliable for every content. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I also agree with that...The source was used in the article because it was the first time that any English source used the term "assault rifle". Which User:Scalhotrod rejected as an incorrect translation of the german word "Sturmgewehr". The source was also used to explain the U.S War Department opinion of the rifle in 1945. Which User:Scalhotrod also rejected.--RAF910 (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Source: [68] Article:

"Around 25,000 Jews were expelled from Egypt that year (1956)"

The article states that the entirety of the Jews who left Egypt in 1956 were expelled. No source was provided. Two other sources (Mainstream British newspaper and an Israeli college academic) agree that a minority of the Jews in Egypt - estimated at 500 - were expelled in 1956. The Algemeiner has therefore introduced an extreme POV, grossly distorting the best historical indications.

Previously I had come across other publications by The Algemeiner which I found to be dubious at best. Some examples are: º Calling Norman Finkelstein a "Holocaust defamer" (Finkelstein is the son of a holocaust victim) - http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/02/14/harvard-needs-some-schooling-on-the-middle-east/ º "During the Mandate, “Palestinian” referred to the Jews, while the Arabs were simply Arabs." - http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/11/28/failure-of-the-two-state-solution-a-reply-to-ian-lustick/. In reality (see "Survey for Palestine" Jews are referred to as such; Arabised Palestinians are referred to as Arabs; and citizens of Palestine are referred to as Palestinians. º "(Falk) blames America and Israel for the Boston terrorist attacks" - http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/05/03/princeton-university-must-fire-professor-richard-falk/. Nowhere in his article does Falk use the work 'blame'. He mentions Israel exactly 5 times, and never in the context of responsibility for the Boston bombings.

Is this patern one of a disturbing propensity by The Algemeiner to massage the historical facts? Erictheenquirer (talk) 10:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The sentence "Greenpeace responded with apologies, claiming that demonstrators took care to avoid damage, but this is contradicted by video and photographs showing the activists wearing conventional shoes (not special protective shoes) while walking on the site" is sourced to [69].

I think a raw primary video can't be used to support a specific secondary interpretation of what the video means or signifies without it being textbook

WP:OR. The video is not directly saying they are "non-protectve shoes". The claim may be true, but the extra interpretation can't be supported only by a video. __ E L A Q U E A T E

15:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Neither the evaluation of the shoes nor the effect of the shoes is evident from a video. Nor would even a direct statement on the shoes by a RS necessarily contradict the original statement - they may (or may not) have taken other measures to avoid damage (e.g. choosing where to walk). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I note that kirkusreviews.com is currently cited by around 290 of our articles, and have to question the wisdom of using this source - they appear to publish reviews in return for a substantial payment from the author/publisher. [70] Am I right in assuming that (a) such payment means that they are not an independant source, and their reviews cannot be cited as evidence of notability, and (b) such payment is sufficient reason not to consider them worth citing at all? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Kirkus has two business models: unpaid and paid. If it appears in Kirkus Indie, it's a paid review, and, as such, can't be counted as evidence of notability. If it appears in the main Kirkus review site, it's reasonable evidence of notability.

As for whether Kirkus Indie is worth citing at all, that's more debatable. Kirkus uses the same business model as their competitors in the paid review industry: they do not guarantee a good review. If, after buying the review, the author decides that he would be better off not letting that review be seen, he has the choice of not approving the review. Kirkus doesn't change the review, but won't print it, either. That means that, at least in theory, a positive review in Kirkus Indie is a legitimate positive review by someone that doesn't have his compensation dependent upon writing a favourable review.

I'm experienced with the paid review industry, but haven't ever gone through the cycle of getting a bad review that I needed to reject. I can't speak to how often it happens. I do know that Kirkus has a reputation as a premium paid reviewer, and their ridiculously high price reflects that. I think their business model depends upon making certain that favourable reviews are only given to good books.—Kww(talk) 17:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

This recently came up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dmitri Borgmann -- it seems a lot of editors here are confused about whether and when reviews from Kirkus are acceptable to cite here. As you can see from the AfD, my assessment is pretty much the same as User:Kww's -- any Kirkus reviews published between 1933 and 2009 are reliable and can be used as evidence of notability. Starting from 2009, however, the journal introduced a split business model: while it continued to produce independent, unsolicited reviews of traditionally published books, it began to offer reviews to self-publishers for a fee. It's therefore important for us to distinguish between reviews from these two streams; we should never use a Kikus Indie review as evidence of notability, though in some circumstances it may be acceptable to cite one for some other purpose. Psychonaut (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Location (talk

) 19:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

If there is a distinction, it isn't obvious. How for example are we to judge whether this [71] is a paid-for review or not? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I see "Kirkus Indie" at the bottom, but I agree that it is not obvious. -

Location (talk

) 19:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah - I'd missed that: thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Do contemporary Buddhist teachers (with no western academic credentials in studies related to Buddhism) count as primary or secondary sources?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 02:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

If these are only two options, then it has to be considered as primary. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 03:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The question, of course, relying on the word "if", and it has not been clearly established that is the case. John Carter (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)My guess is it depends on context. If the Buddhist teacher is saying "this is the dharma," it's probably primary. If they're saying "according to lama (someone else), this is the dharma," it might be secondary. It's possible for texts of such nature to be alternate between being a primary and secondary source even within the same sentence (e.g. "according to lama (name), this is the dharma, but that also means that is the dharma").

Going outside Buddhism, a papal encyclical would be a primary source, but Pope Francis commenting on an encyclical by a previous pope would be a secondary source. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Ian is completely right. And remember primary sources are completely ok to use despite some people's wrong belief that only secondary and tertiary sources are ok to use in an article.Camelbinky (talk) 03:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Primary sources are OK to use, but we need to be careful not to rely on any original research and attribute primary sources as only what that document says (if there are additional sources to support it, then we have secondary sources and don't need to cite the primary). Ian.thomson (talk) 03:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi folks, there is an ongoing discussion of this topic on the Wikiproject Buddhism page. Please see :See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism. Your input on the RFC would be greatly appreciated. There seems to be a great misunderstanding on the meaning of a secondary source, and it has importance consequences for all of the articles on Buddhism. Regards, Dorje108 (talk) 05:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes just to say - recommend the RfC. The thing is, that it is not a question about teachers who are just religious teachers. But the Eastern equivalent of our theologians, who are trained in Eastern institutions of learning in Eastern methods of scholarship. E.g. is it appropriate to use some of the best Thai, Sri Lankan and Buddhist scholars as secondary sources, when they have had a training in their own traditional methods of scolarship? For instance Tibetan Buddhists have a degree course of about ten years duration you do, as a qualification. And examples would be the Dalai Lama who is widely regarded as knowledgeable about the Tibetan texts, not because he is the Dalai Lama but because of his training and his recognized in depth understanding of the texts. Another example would be Paryudh Payutto, a brilliant Thai scholar, but not trained as a western academic. But they use modern methods, is just that they were not originally trained in the West seems to be the issue. More input to the conversation and RfC greatly appreciated there! Robert Walker (talk) 12:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Is this then symptomatic of a bigger issue that Wikipedia is too Western-centric (for lack of a better word) when it comes to what we treat as authority authorship? Should a bigger more generic question be dealt with at the village pump, possibly with new wording in our policies?Camelbinky (talk) 14:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I think it might be reasonable to say that in cases like this, which are topics which are substantively covered in reference works and overview works which are often written by authors who are not themselves within the tradition in question, I would say myself that any work cited as a reference in a long work or included in a reference in an encyclopedic or other short article would reasonably qualify as a preferable source. I am myself not sure whether that would necessarily be something which requires address in policy or at the village pump. John Carter (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Ian is completely correct: it depends on context. As an additional question though, why on earth does the fact that they don't have western academic credentials in studies related to Buddhism matter? Why was it even brought up in the first place? Whether or not someone has academic (or any other sort) of credentials speaks towards reliability, not whether someone is a primary or secondary source. And even then it wouldn't discount the source - there are plenty of reliable primary and secondary sources whose authors have no formal academic credentials in the field whatsoever, and plenty who have no formal credentials at all. Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Wholehearted agreement with the above. In some areas, particularly those dealing with the subject of non-Western religions or philosophies, what we consider "academic" training is alien to that culture, and more or less by definition those "academic" standards need not be applicable, or even relevant.
• Also, I rather question the apparent insistence on the differentiation between "primary" and "secondary" sources in general. In topics of major world religions, there are no lack of overview sources and reference sources devoted to the topics involved. That being the case, the more effect way to my eyes to deal with such topics is, like I said, to look at the relevant topical overviews and/or reference works and see what sources they use, and more or less follow their lead where that seems reasonable. John Carter (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Kevin Gorman! There has been tremendous misunderstanding of these issues among some of the editors of the articles on Buddhism. We are trying to clear up the misunderstanding, but it has not been easy. Regards, Dorje108 (talk) 03:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

It does, indeed, depend on context. The context here is the overusage of quotes. Dorje has a habit of editing by piling up quotes, presenting them as "In Buddhism, [follows a short statement, and then two or more quotes, most of them from Tibetan teachers]." For the past year-and-a-half several editors have expressed their concern about this, without avail. The discussion on "primary" or "secondary" is side-tracking this problem. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi All, I made two posts above asking about the viability of WSJ and children's books as sources, and haven't gotten any comments yet. Just a request for someone to look before these go to archives! -Darouet (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

A link would be helpful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It has been proposed on electronic cigarette that the following text be added:

"A 2014 review stated that tobacco and e-cigarette companies interact with consumers for their policy agenda. The companies use websites, social media, and marketing to get consumers involved in opposing bills that include e-cigarettes in smoke-free laws. This is similar to tobacco industry activity going back to the 1980s, showing coordinated 'vapers' like coordinated smokers. It was concluded that the companies used these approaches in Europe to minimize the EU Tobacco Product Directive in October 2013.^[1]"

based on the following source:

^[1]

Convenience link to PDF here; relevant material in first paragraph of page 1982. It is published in the medical journal (Circulation, probably one of the top two or three most read and respected cardiology journals in the world). A question of reliability of this as a source has been raised that since this is a medical source and the text being added is not strictly medical in nature. Comments on the reliability of this source for this text is appreciated! Yobol (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• It's a review article in a peer-reviewed journal. You can't really get higher quality in terms of reliability for content in general. It would seem kind of odd if someone is opposing this because it's in a medical journal. It appears the paragraph you mention is not based solely on author opinion as they are citing examples and documenting some occurrences, so it would seem this could be place pretty solidly as content based on a high quality secondary source. If it appeared to be more just the unsourced opinion of the authors, then I would call that content based on a primary source (within the review), but that doesn't not appear to be the case here. Seems pretty cut and dry that it should be fine. While the journal may be medical, it is commenting on a related topic and is nothing like a sociology journal commenting on astrophysics where we'd say the scope of the journal isn't in a relevant field either. I don't see any issues here in terms of reliability.
  talk
  ) 21:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The question is dealing with this section link The overall consensus of the editors who are discussing it is against inclusion because the medical journal is being used to make claims outside its expertise. Per

WP:MEDSCI tells us to "Be careful of material published in a journal.... that reports material in a different field.". A side note of concern is that some the sources the review used to come to these opinions are studies by the authors of the review. If this had WEIGHT suitable, non medical sources should be easy to find. AlbinoFerret

21:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Except this is a related field, which is what I was commenting on above. It is often the job of scientists to be a sort of balance against industry when they're out of line in a respective field. As an example in my area, if a pesticide company was pushing a particular unneeded pesticide formulation on farmers, we'd not only report in an agricultural journal that it wasn't needed, but also what tactics were being used that are problematic in pushing it. That's what scientists do. In this case, a journal like this would be the venue to discuss such things. It's not directly on medical information, but it's within the scope of such a journal and such a review.

talk

) 21:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I still have concerns that the medical journal is basing its opinions of medical studies by the authors of the review. I would like a different source. That would also prove it has sufficient weight. AlbinoFerret 21:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I have concerns about your comprehension of RS/MC, which says "Being a "medical source" is not an intrinsic property of the source itself; a source becomes a medical source only when it is used to support a medical claim." It does not say "a medical journal article is only a reliable source when making medical claims". It says "if it's not making a medical claim, then it's not a medical source (as far as our sourcing rules are concerned), even if it's a publication that often makes medical claims/is often used as a medical source".

As usual, if you've been supplied with any (one) reliable "source that [another editor] believes, in good faith, to be sufficient," and you want a better/different/additional source, then the burden for finding another source is on you, not on the other editor.

WP:BURDEN requires the editor adding the source to supply exactly one source that s/he believes to be sufficient. If you want more sources or other sources, then you get to find them yourself. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 22:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I would perfer a source that isnt based on its own authors previous work. That should factor into reliability. AlbinoFerret 22:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Every source is good for supporting some kind of content; no source is a "blank check" for all kinds of content. In my view the source you bring is very reliable for anything health-related. But the content you want to write is about politics, and this source is no better, and possibly worse, than high quality news sources like WSJ, NY Times, etc. As an aside, I find it bizarre that anybody would be challenging the statement much less its sourcing. This is like "the sky is blue". Everybody lobbies, even Mr Rogers. And that includes astroturfing. the sad state of the e-cig article, i guess. Jytdog (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I should clarify that I'm talking about reliability above. In isolation, the proposed text is fine with the source, but including it within the larger article becomes a question of weight where there could be more of a political tinge to a section rather than scientific. Weight's not the purpose of this noticeboard and isn't really something I'd like to delve into in the e-cig article at all either.

talk

) 22:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• • more sources for same content: NY Times, NPR, WaPo, Bloomberg, public interest groups like center for public integrity... so many! the sky is blue. Jytdog (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

All of those sources except one, the NYTimes article are addressing companies lobbying efforts, not getting consumers to push an agenda. The NY Times article has a very questionable link to a website ran by a previous employee, only mentions one company, and no mention of tobacco companies in the past doing similar things. But the center for public integrity puts the lobbying in perspective, e-cigarettte companies are mostly small businesses that are not lobbying or pushing any agenda. Placing the activities of the few against that of the many is questionable. I also question if the lobbying is any different than any other company, like say a pharmaceutical company. AlbinoFerret 22:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• This entire text is arbitrary and prejudiced
  WP:CAN. Mihaister (talk
  ) 22:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually, it's impossible for a discussion here to violate the canvassing guideline. On the question of UNDUE weight, if it's undue, then why are there so many sources (see Jytdog's links) that mention this? DUE means we pay as much (or as little) attention to the issue as the reliable sources do. If a lot of them mention this, then it's DUE for us to mention it, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

But it can be canvassing if instead of notifying the other parties, a location is chosen to inform uninvolved editors.link AlbinoFerret 22:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

"a location is chosen to inform uninvolved editors." That's where you are. It's not canvassing by that very definition, and is entirely appropriate when there has already been discussion going on at the article's talk page already. Part of that involves potentially notifying relevant Wikiprojects if it's in their topic area. That's the whole point of this page when questions can't be resolved at the article.

talk

) 22:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Re: Jytdog's links - the first 3 and the last are about e-cig or tobacco companies hiring lobbying firms, a practice which is common and legal. The Bloomberg link is actually about Pharma doing the same thing. None of them provide support for painting tens of thousands of politically-active e-cig consumers as Big Tobacco shills. Mihaister (talk) 22:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Re painting tens of thousands of politically-active e-cig consumers as Big Tobacco shills-- I do not get that the proposed content based on the source is saying this, at all. Zad68 03:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

So what is it saying then? The claim is that vapers are opposing regulation because e-cig and tobacco companies are enrolling them to do so, and this simply isn't true. More e-cig companies supported the EU TPD than campaigned against it; it's users who are angry.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 08:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The source is merely saying the companies are recruiting consumers (in thus and such a way, and toward thus and such ends, etc.) It is not saying that everyone who's active was recruited. Cloudjpk (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

But it's saying that based on a newspaper article, which is hardly

WP:MEDRS.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles}

13:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Per the last bit, not particularly. If it was the consultant self publishing something then there would be issues, but since this is published by a peer-reviewed journal, there's enough separation to call it reliable. Now if you were looking between this and another identical source that didn't have the consultant, the latter would be a bit more reliable, but both would still meet a minimum reliability threshold. In this case, the editor and other scientists in the field have vetted the article, so that is supposed to remove author conflict of interest concerns for the most part.

talk

) 00:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Review articles are high quality sources for both medical and none medical content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• Clearly reliable, especially for the very basic and unsurprising content it's supporting. It is very normal and well within the expected range of coverage for a high-quality review article to cover political and regulatory topics, so the idea that it's a "medical journal ... being used to make claims outside its expertise" is simply unfounded. Zad68 03:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Since the review paper provides a summary of expert opinion, it should be included. My one concern is the equivocal wording. "A review study stated that" waters it down, and there should not be

in-text attribution except for direct quotes. TFD (talk

) 06:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's a strong source and it findings can be simply asserted, unless there are correspondingly good sources that give us reasons for doubt.

COI

12:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: except of course that the review paper doesn't do a summary of expert opinion in this particular section of the paper. This particular information is cited in the paper to a The New York Times article (ref. 112), not to an academic review, examination, summary or likewise. It is purely the opinions of the authors of the paper, just as the policy recommendations given in the paper is the same. --Kim D. Petersen 03:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Kim, actually, in the paragraph the content is summarizing, Grana is using four sources. Two sources, one from JAMA and the other from Tobacco Control, cover the background of marketing by tobacco companies using "astroturfing". The third is this, a recent research article from the BMJ titled Promotion of electronic cigarettes: tobacco marketing reinvented?, and that covers the online marketing and lobbying. Source 112 is the fourth, and it is indeed a New York Times article (any reason to think that wouldn't be a reliable source?) which covers the lobbying in Europe as plain fact, not opinion. Zad68 05:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@Zad68: that is actually incorrect. You are confusing tobacco and e-cigs.

Ref 22 (BMJ)[72] is about e-cig marketing/advertisement, not lobbying/collusion/grassroots.

Ref 110 (JAMA)[73] from 1991, so can't be about e-cigs but is purely about tobacco, and to top it, it is written by one of the authors of Grana (Glantz).

Ref 111 (Tobacco control)[74] is also about tobacco alone as well, and is written by 2 of the authors of the Grana paper (Grana & Glantz), where the only mention of e-cigs is "In 2012 NCPPR was continuing efforts, such as its ‘Occupy Occupy D.C. Smoke-in’ to protest about taxes on smokeless tobacco and e-cigarettes".

Ref 112 (NYT)[75] which is the only one about collusion between tobacco and e-cig grassroots and that is the one i mentioned. A newspaper article!

So no, this is not a summary of expert opinion - it is based entirely on an NYT article, and the authors opinions. --Kim D. Petersen 05:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

When I worked as an analyst one of the things we were most wary of was "circular corroboration", when an apparently well-backed source turns out to be essentially backed by itself. What we have here is a clear example of that; the work of Grana and Glantz is solidly based on the work of Grana and Glantz. Ethics aside, we shouldn't rely on a "review" that couldn't find any independent support and was reduced to citing the work of its own authors.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 06:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It is not up to us to question the accuracy of reliable sources. We use reliable sources so that we do not have to conduct our own original research. Of course an expert in a field can write a review study that mentions his own work. The publisher sends the paper out to peer review and people far more knowledgable about the subject than us determine if the reference is circular. Similarly expert sources can use less than expert sources. Their writers have the judgment to determine what is believable and what is not, something else that Wikipedia editors cannot do.

The only way to show that the facts in a paper are wrong is to provide an equally or more reliable source that presents a different set of facts. That has not been done. If the paper is wrong, that is unfortunate, but the guiding principle is verifiability not truth. If you disagree, then get the policy changed.

TFD (talk) 03:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@

WP:RSCONTEXT tell us. This source is reliable and highly useful within the context of medical and pharmacological information - but not within the context of policy, history economy and sociology. Thus to determine the point-reliability we must examine the information given, and here it falls short. Editing is specifically about assessing the reliability and accuracy of sources within contexts and weight given to it in respect to other comparative sources. --Kim D. Petersen

12:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:CONTEXT has no relevance here. Is the source about the safety of electronic cigarettes? Yes. Then it can be used as a source for the safety of electronic cigarettes. It if were a passing reference to the safety of electronic cigarettes in an article about an unrelated subject then it would fail context. If we are going to question the scientific literature on electronic cigarettes, why stop there? Maybe everything the scientists are telling us is wrong. TFD (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@

WP:RSCONTEXT is relevant. --Kim D. Petersen

17:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. But the same point applies. The discussion in the paper about what the vaping industry has done is not so far removed from the safety issue. There is no reason to think that the authors lack the competence to provide a factual explanation of these actions. And if they are wrong, then you should find another rs that provides a different set of facts. It could be that the industry does not interact with consumers for their policy agenda. It does not use websites or social media to oppose anti-vaping laws. TFD (talk) 18:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps in reverse we can get lawyers and politicians to make medical claims! After all they should be able to figure it out. AlbinoFerret 18:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces:No, the same point does not apply. You do not cite a mathematics paper for medical claims, or political science paper for mathematics, etc etc. As for your "then you should find another rs that provides a different set of facts" that is a requirement to prove a negative. --Kim D. Petersen 19:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

One does not cite a mathematics paper for medical information because it is too tangential. Public health is cloesly related to health. And I am not asking you to prove a negative. All you have to do is provide a reliable source about how the vaping industry responds to attempts to restrict it. TFD (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Thats asking to prove a negative. Because the vaping industry isnt the few manufacturers of cigalikes, but thousands of small buisnesses that do nothing but make things and are not political. This points out a problem of medical experts commenting on political action, they have no idea of the industry, yet make comments based on a few players. AlbinoFerret 20:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

TFD, you hit on the one argument that keeps coming up for some reason. This source is not too tangential for the proposed content, but I'm not sure why that isn't getting across even after all the time this thread has been going. Aside from being closely related fields as you said, if someone is an expert commenting on a particular product, it's generally going to be within their expertise about general marketing practices on it as well.

talk

) 05:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually it is quite tangential, since it is not about marketing (which i btw. can't see why medical researchers should be experts in either), but is instead about a conspiracy/collusion claim about astroturfing. Something like that is an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require better sourcing than normally. And all of the evidence presented in the paper is based upon a single NYT article, not on thorough research by experts. --Kim D. Petersen 08:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors here believe the source is reliable for the claim. There was a discussion on the talk page. See Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 19#Proposed compromise. QuackGuru (talk) 03:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Erh? Not from what i can read above. --Kim D. Petersen 12:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Even if some uninvolved editors agree with you, and I am not conceding they do. The claim has other hurdles like weight, and consensus of the editors of the article before inclusion. That short list should not be thought of as all inclusive either. AlbinoFerret 18:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Both Kim D. Petersen and AlbinoFerret are involved editors. Please respect the opinions of uninvolved editors. The source is clearly reliable for the claim. Please read the comments by other editors again. QuackGuru (talk) 05:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I was going to this mention more than a week ago, but hoped things would fizzle out. In this case though, it looks like it would have been better if all the involved editors would hold off on commenting so much at RSN. Obviously folks are entitled to post here regardless of involvement, but it's very difficult to see what uninvolved editors actually gauged of things. It looks like the contentiousness at the article and enthusiasm of the editors has spilled over here. So far, posts by uninvolved editors (as much as I can tell at first glance) include: WhatamIdoing, Jytdog, Doc James, TFD, Alexbrn, and myself. All state to some degree or another that the source is reliable for the proposed content or that there are other sources that do the same as it is from experts in a journal commenting on a very closely related field. Best to use that to inform your work over at the article talk page.

Except that Doc James[76] is a very involved editor on electronic cigarettes, and several of the others are involved as well (alexbrn[77],jytdog[78])... so there isn't really a consensus of anything. And afaict we haven't had a single non-med/e-cig editor to comment so far. --Kim D. Petersen 07:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

To me, every editor of the medical wikiproject could be considered as an involved editor in defending medical sources. AlbinoFerret 11:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see mention of a B-47 that crashed on Goose Bay Labrador around Feb 11 1959 The aircraft was from Witman AFB, enroute home from

Europe, landed for fuel, and failed to lift of in time catching an outrigger wheel in a snow bank, flipping the aircraft killing all aboard

How do I know this? I was in the Air Police stationed there, and had to work the site. Leo McCauley McNabb, IL.

Hi Mr McNabb. Was it in any local newspapers that you may have seen? We need what are called

talk

) 05:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I have added a mention of the 11 February 1959 accident to B-47E 53-6215 at

List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (1955–59) referenced to http://b-47.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Boeing-B-47-Losses-and-Ejections.pdf but could do with a better reference if you have one. MilborneOne (talk

) 20:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I find it difficult to believe that a) these illustrious people would not have been alerted if the claims are fraudulent, and b) that they can all and cumulatively give support to an organisation that publishes unreliable data - IN GENERAL - so I am going to conclude that the website is WP:RS in general. I fully appreciate that on individual specific issues it may contain errors, as does the NYT. Erictheenquirer (talk) 09:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It's an advocacy group, with a self-published website, so no, not a reliable source for facts.

talk

) 01:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)