Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:28, 16 March 2011

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.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, 380 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 410 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429, 430 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439, 440 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449, 450 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459, 460 461, 462

This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Is this article a worthwhile source?

On Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement, I have added a citation from an essay by Matthew Feldman. He is a professor of 20th century history, and the editor of the academic journal Political religions.

The text added to the article reads:

In 1978, LaRouche's newspaper the Campaigner carried the editorial Zionism is not Judaism:

"The impassioned sophistry which the Zionist demagogue offers to all foolish enough to be impressed with such hoaxes is the “holocaust” thesis: that the culmination of the persecution of the Jews in the Nazi holocaust proves that Zionism is so essential to ‘Jewish survival’ that any sort of criminal activity is justified against anti-Zionists in memory of the ‘six million.’ This is worse than sophistry. It is a lie. True, about a million and a half Jews did die as a result of the Nazi policy of labor-intensive “appropriate technology” for the employment of “inferior races”, a small fraction of the tens of millions of others, especially Slavs, who were murdered in the same way that Jewish refugee Felix Rohatyn and others of his ilk propose to revive today.

Matthew Feldman said that LaRouche was portraying the accepted account of the holocaust as a hoax:

These may not seem, at first glance, to be egregiously anti-Semitic remarks, but they are part of a consistent – if systematically veiled – pattern of anti-Semitic conspiricism espoused by the LaRouche Organization. It is frequently mixed with a coded form of Holocaust denial, which is itself a microcosm of the sanitized language which is deliberately employed across the gamut of LaRouche publications LaRouche also claims that traditional understandings of the Holocaust are ‘hoaxes’.

Feldman also said that the notes which Jeremiah Duggan made at a 2003 Schiller Institute conference were evidence of the LaRouche movement's antisemitism.

There is a pernicious group—the evil oligarchs (the Jews)—who are attempting to impose fascist imperialism and world domination through nuclear war.

This evil group is fomenting nuclear world war and bringing the world to the brink of destruction.

Below this, Jeremiah’s chart features Leo Strauss in the centre of a circle and an arrow with the words ‘Jewish’ pointing to Strauss’ name. It is annotated: ‘Jewish leads to Fascism—leads to Cheney, Bush and Rumsfeld’.

The essay can be found here. It's presence in the article was objected to by a user who was later found to be the sockpuppet of a banned editor.

I was hoping other editors could offer there thoughts as to whether the above text is acceptable. BillMasen (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Only a partially relevant comment but isn't holocaustresearchproject.net blacklisted ? I remember tripping a filter just a few weeks ago when I tried to link to an essay on their site and being completely baffled as to why. I found a discussion but I forget where...hmmm. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, there might be an issue with the website that hosts the essay, but the author and the essay itself seem reliable. Was it ever published in another venue? Blueboar (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Aha...discussed here although that still left me somewhat baffled. I recall I was looking at something by Matthew Feldman too. Seemed perfectly fine to me as a source but I couldn't find it elsewhere. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The site is no longer on the blacklist. I understand it was added back in 2006, because some accounts were spamming it (NB this was before the essay concerned was written or published, and the disputes had nothing to do with LaRouche). Yes, I have also been unable to find this essay anywhere else. If anyone does find it I have no problem with citing it at some other location.BillMasen (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting and potentially good news. I tripped the filter on Feb 5th just over a month ago at Talk:Chetniks with this link. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

No filter tripped this time. Marvelous. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but my doubts about this site remain. It may not be blacklisted anymore, but that does not mean it can be used: So far, it seems that the site is nothing more than a blog and thus the article itself remains selfpublished under WP:SPS. If evidence is presented that the site provides any kind of editorial oversight, I'd gladly revise my doubts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.210.206.223 (talk • contribs)

The claim is not being made by the site, but by Feldman. Surely it is him who should be considered the source. BillMasen (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

According to SPS Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Feldman has previously published articles in academic journals about LaRouche. BillMasen (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I've sent an email to the "Holocaust Education & Archive Research Team" asking about their editorial practices.

As i still have grave doubts about the merits,reliability and publishing practice of this source, i would love to hear their response. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with BillMasen that Feldman would qualify as an expert, however we can't use the self-published sources of experts for comments about living people. WP:BLPSPS. If it turns out to be self-published, then we could use it as a source for the movement, but not for LaRouche himself, if I understand correctly.  Will Beback  talk  23:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with that. Blueboar (talk) 01:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

That's right, thanks Will. Feldman cites the Campaigner, and I've verified the quote; it is accurate. If there are other sources from within the movement writing about the Holocaust that accept the generally agreed figure of 6 million, then that might affect my views on how to handle this, but as it stands, Feldman's criticism seems fair to me. --JN466 01:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

JN, the "Views" article had, as a quick review of its history from 2005-2010 proves,always some paragraphs about different assessments of the Holocaust and featured LaRouches condemnation of Antisemitism. Those different views were deleted in 2010. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• The one thing that worries me about the text that has been introduced is that Feldman is reported as saying, "Matthew Feldman said that LaRouche was portraying the accepted account of the holocaust as a hoax." That's a subtle misquote of Feldman, and a misrepresentation of what the Campaigner argues. The Campaigner doesn't argue that the Holocaust didn't happen. What the Campaigner describes as a hoax is the notion that Zionism is a justified and necessary response to the Holocaust. It argues, essentially, that Zionists have used the holocaust to their own nefarious ends. I would delete the reference to "Holocaust denial" from the section's heading, drop the sentence ""Matthew Feldman said that LaRouche was portraying the accepted account of the holocaust as a hoax," and instead just use the actual quote of what Feldman said (including, if you will, his reference to a "coded form of holocaust denial"). Just stick close to the source. --JN466 07:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

But the campaigner quote does say that only 1.5 million Jews did die, through 'labour policies' which weren't directed at them. This is very common holocaust denial, and Feldman calls it so. See Holocaust deniers contend that the death toll of European Jews during World War II was well below 6 million. Deniers float numbers anywhere between 300,000 and 1.5 million, as a general rule." Mathis, Andrew E. Holocaust Denial, a Definition,

I have no objection to your suggestion of using a direct quote from Feldman. Thanks! BillMasen (talk) 11:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I have now changed it BillMasen (talk) 16:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. The 1.5 million figure does not work in the Campaigner's favour. Other LaRouche publications are more mainstream, however; here is one clearly referring to "the murder of 6 million Jews", and here is an essay by LaRouche in which he says, "Yes, Hitler killed millions of Jews", extols Mendelssohn as the saviour of German classical music (of which he is definitely a fan) and argues that Jewish contributions made German culture and science what it is. I think it's possible that his beef is with Zionists and certain Jewish financiers rather than with Jews. --JN466 04:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• FYI, I sent an email to the webmaster asking about their editorial practices and received an automatic reply saying they're too busy to answer emails.   Will Beback  talk  14:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Hans-Ake Lilja and AsiaCarrera.com

Hi. Is Hans-Ake Lilja, and his site, Lilja's Library, a reliable source for material on Stephen King? The site identifies itself as a fan site, however, Lilja has written a book, Lilja's Library: The World of Stephen King, which was published by Cemetery Dance Publications, which is not indicated in the Cemetary Dance Misplaced Pages article to be a vanity press or self-publishing company. The publication info for that book on Amazon indicates that the book includes over 40 of Lilja's interviews with King. Can Lilja's website be used as a source for articles on King and his works? Nightscream (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a bit confusing. There must be a huge scholarly literature on Stephen King. What sorts of things is this website being used for? Wouldn't the scholarly literature be a better source? It's not clear that this book from a small press qualifies him as an expert. I think we need to know particulars here — how the website is being used. TimidGuy (talk) 12:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The website was used for the material supported by footnotes #4 and 5 in this version of the article on The Dark Tower: The Wind Through the Keyhole.

As for "scholarly literature", the problem with this is that editors don't necessarily the perfect source that you would prescribe on hand. They are often limited by the sources that are available to them, which is why online sources may be favored in some cases. Let's not make the perfect the enemy of the good. Nightscream (talk) 13:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Because there are WP:BLP implications here, I think we need to do better in this case. It's not an article on a videogame. Jayjg 02:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The user who relied upon that site and wishes to continue using it, Jmj713, has explained that most of the info on that site is derived from King's official site, stephenking.com, and that the reason he uses Lilja's Library is because the bulletins on stephenking.com are not placed in discrete posts with individualized or archived permalinks, but scroll off the page as it is gradually updated. This is also a problem with the Bulletins page of Asia Carrera's official site, which is also something I've been wanting to address, as Ms. Carrera or her webmaster have not responded to my email queries about whether her site has the bulletins archived, and some of the material in her article is supported by past bulletins. What do we do when material comes from a subject's official site, but it is removed when the page is updated? Nightscream (talk) 03:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

In the specific example you give, the information that was added to WP doesn't really seem encyclopedic. It makes the article itself sound like a fan site. I guess I agree with Jayjg that we can do better. We don't usually use fan sites as sources. Also, I question whether there should be an article on this book even before it's out. I'm' not sure how to deal with the issue of material disappearing from King's site, other than to suggest that we use third-party sources. Any book that comes out is going to get covered in the media, and eventually in the academic literature. Note that Google Books can give convenient access to some of the academic literature. TimidGuy (talk) 11:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Refer to the official site but note that the info is archived on the fan site. If you didn't see it on the official site yourself then refer to the fan site and note that it claims to quote the official site. Just so long as anyone wanting to check knows where the info came from.85.133.32.70 (talk) 11:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, 85. Yours seems like a valid compromise, at least until third party sources become available. Nightscream (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Lowculture

Is http://lowculture.co.uk/ a reliable source in the context it being used for reception/critical analysis? Lowculture has a wiki page. On there there are three refs provided, BFI - Independent and The Guardian three reputable sources mentioned it in good faith. Think there is more on the net. Like I said, in the context it's used in fictional character's reception info as a source.RAIN*the*ONE 02:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

At Lowculture the site is listed under "external links" -- naturally enough. I gather you're not talking about that, but about some other page. Which page? Please provide a link. Andrew Dalby 12:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I just want to know if you would use Lowculture as a source anywhere on wikipedia.RAIN*the*ONE 15:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It appears to be a blog and a forum: those are negative indications. But really we need a specific case to comment on. Andrew Dalby 10:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Coconut oil

I added these two sources to the article:

• Norton, D.; Angerman, S.; Istfan, N.; Lopes, S.M.; Babayan, V.K.; Putz, M.C.; Steen, S.N.; Blackburn, G.L. (2004). Comparative Study of Coconut Oil, Soybean Oil, and Hydrogenated Soybean Oil. Philippine Journal of Coconut Studies 29 (1–2): 76–89.
• Kabara, Jon J. (1978). The Pharmacological Effect of Lipids. Champaign IL: American Oil Chemist's Society. pp. 1-95. ISBN 9991817697.

and they were removed. I do not see why they cannot stay. The Philippine Journal of Coconut Studies is a journal that turns up in the UN FAO's AGRIS International Information System for the Agricultural Sciences and Technology Database. The second is an expert writing a book for a professional level audience. Are they improper? Also in general I must ask is it proper to remove sources? Isn't that vandalism? Even a source that isn't of the most preferred kind imparts information. Removing sources unless they are terribly shoddy ones would seem to be inferior practice in comparison to supplying more sources representing the other side (if there is another side—something that is proved by supplying sources). Lambanog (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussed on the article talk page here and here. --Ronz (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The first study appears to be a primary study, which should be avoided per WP:MEDRS for sourcing health claims. I also note that the journal does not appear to be indexed in MEDLINE, which is a red flag when discussing biomedical journals.

The second is over 30 years old and would be only useful for medical information from a historical perspective (i.e. what was thought mainstream in 1978) - it would be inappropriate to be used for medical claims now (see again WP:MEDRS).

Removal of inappropriate sources and information from inappropriate sources is certainly not vandalism, it is an integral part of building a respectable encyclopedia. Yobol (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Lambanog, Ronz, please accept my apology for being slow to expound in Talk. Lambanog, if you had bothered to look at the history, you would have seen that there was a reason given (although brief) for each removal. — Jay L09 (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

In the case of Kabara, I noted "Remove statement not supported by the claimed reference." Perhaps I should have left the footnote alone as its own paragraph? Apart from the extremely novel claim in the removed statement that atherosclerotic plaques are caused by infection (microorganisms), a search of the book did not disclose any use of the term "atherosclerotic plaque." I did not look at the referenced page because you referenced pages 1-95 of a 199 page book. It appeared to me that the reference (and the statement it was alleged to support) were nothing more than vandalism. However, rather than drop a "V-bomb" in my summary, I gave a very brief reason. — Jay L09 (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

After removing the suggestion that only pp. 1-95 should be read, I have now restored the Kabara reference and moved it to "Further reading." — Jay L09 (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

In the case of Norton & al., I noted "Remove statement supported by advertising circular claiming to be a scientific journal." Ronz has already provided a link to my discussion in Talk of why I consider Norton & al. to be an "advertising circular claiming to be a scientific journal." Again, I apologize for taking so long to add the expanded discussion to Talk. In any case, the summary of Norton & al. and the reference appeared to me, after careful examination, to be nothing more nor less than vandalism. — Jay L09 (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It is a citation of a scientific paper. I do not see how adding it could be construed as vandalism—unlike its removal. I am troubled with the seeing ease with which editors remove sources which appear to me to be valid pointing vaguely at WP:MEDRS. In any event I have provided an update. Aside from the sources already in the article could you please give an example of three high quality sources about coconut oil that are in your view acceptable, so that I can have an idea of what will go unobstructed? For example would you oppose the other Kabara source that I have provided under Further reading if I was to use it in the article? Lambanog (talk) 12:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I am troubled with the seeming ease with which editors characterize specific observations of why an alleged scientific paper seems to be a hoax and of low quality as "pointing vaguely at WP:MEDRS." — Jay L09 (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• Norton 2004 is pretty preliminary, as was noted on the talk page. They mention that they'll do a final paper - better to look for that. It should be noted, however, that I think it should be cited when that final paper is found. I am not aware of any other RCTs on coconut oil, and Misplaced Pages would not be satisfying the level of detail that its readers expect if it did not mention the only RCT that has been done. It shouldn't be cited in therapeutic or disease articles, obviously, but a different standard exists when we're talking about the page of substance. As far as Kabara, I don't see why it was removed. People who actually read medical literature know that sources from 1978 are cited often, and scientists do not often repeat the basic research establishing certain findings. There's no evidence that it is incorrect. II | (t - c) 19:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I, for one, do not believe that Kabara even mentions the claim that any component of coconut oil kills microorganisms that cause atherosclerotic plaques. I would certainly remove my objection if a clear, short quote from Kabara (together with the page number), were included, which quote made it clear that Kabara was talking about coconut oil preventing atherosclerosis. — Jay L09 (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

As always, the reliability of a source is dependent on what facts it is supposed to be sourcing. The sentence that it is being used as a source for states matter-of-factly that microorganisms cause atherosclerotic plaques - this of course, is not widely accepted in the medical community (although there has been interesting but inconclusive research into Chlamydia pneumoniae as a possible factor in atherosclerosis). As someone who reads the medical literature on a regular basis, I know that citing a 1978 book for controversial (and largely incorrect) statements probably isn't the best idea. Yobol (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, yeah, I didn't read the diff carefully. There are two claims: medium-chain fatty acids have some antimicrobial properties, and microbes cause heart disease. I was talking about the former - the antimicrobial thing is something that I've heard a few times and is easy to study scientifically. I don't know much about it or whether there's evidence that it is antimicrobial in vivo or anything. The latter statement about microbes and heart disease, I agree, is dubious. Certainly the source can't be used without a specific page number. II | (t - c) 20:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Norton is, aside from it's other flaws, a primary source and shouldn't be used for any medical claims. Kabara is from 1978. That's 31 years old. If this information has merit, surely it has been extended and reported in more recent sources? WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 21:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it does seem a good idea to have a higher standard for sourcing when it comes to medical claims and to heed WP:MEDRS. Primary sources aren't completely disallowed under the guideline, though. TimidGuy (talk) 11:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Some new questions then in light of some of the statements made here. Would this source be acceptable?

• Kabara, Jon J. (2008). Fats Are Good for You and Other Secrets – How Saturated Fat and Cholesterol Actually Benefit the Body. North Atlantic Books. ISBN 1556436904.

Also would it be okay to start a new section about coconut oil/tropical oil controversy using the following as a source?

• McNamara, Donald J. (2010). Palm Oil and Health: A Case of Manipulated Perception and Misuse of Science Journal of the American College of Nutrition 29 (3) Supplement 1: 240S-244S

Lambanog (talk) 12:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

McNamara appears to me to be a good source (no, I have not yet read the entire article, so I could be mistaken) for a completely new Misplaced Pages article. But it should be joined with at least two other good sources reaching the same conclusions. — Jay L09 (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Yobol and WLU are removing the following source for no valid that I can understand except that it is old. But then it is also argued on the talk page there aren't many sources on the topic. I think it inappropriate to remove the source as removing it serves no purpose. It supports a statement by The New York Times on a non-medical claim although even alone on a medical claim it cannot be just removed.

• Kintanar, Quintin L. (1988). Is coconut oil hypercholesterolemic and atherogenic? A focused review of the literature. Transactions of the National Academy of Science and Technology (Phil.) 10: 371–414.

Yobol and WLU also prefer the statement

Due to its high content of lauric acid, coconut oil significantly raises blood cholesterol primarily through its impact on high-density lipoprotein ("good" cholesterol), though the implications of this for coronary artery disease are not known.

Which does not address what the exact "impact" on HDL cholesterol really is. Is it a favorable or unfavorable impact? Is HDL lowered or raised? Is the total cholesterol/HDL cholesterol ratio improved or not? The wording is needlessly vague on a critical point. In my preferred version that uses a direct quote from the meta-analysis source shows what the impact on HDL-C is:

It has been found that while lauric acid the primary fatty acid found in coconut oil raises total cholesterol—the most of all fatty acids—most of the increase is attributable to an increase in HDL "good" cholesterol. As a result, lauric acid has "a more favorable effect on total:HDL cholesterol than any other fatty acid, either saturated or unsaturated".

For easier evaluation the source is Effects of dietary fatty acids and carbohydrates on the ratio of serum total to HDL cholesterol and on serum lipids and apolipoproteins: a meta-analysis of 60 controlled trials.

Diff

Opinion on the appropriateness of the changes is sought. Thank you. Lambanog (talk) 04:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

A source should not be removed just because it's old. WP:MEDRS says this in regard to the recommendation that articles rely on recent research reviews: "These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or few reviews are being published." Those removing this source must show that it's been superseded by more recent research, and by reviews of that more recent research. If this meta-analysis hasn't been superseded, it can be used, and I would think that you would be able to quote from it. Regarding the book by Kabara, it could possibly be classified as popular media, and not allowable under MEDRS. I'd say it depends on whether it's evidence-based — that is, whether all of his assertions are backed up by published peer-reviewed studies. including citations to those studies. Regarding the article by McNamara, primary sources aren't completely disallowed under MEDRS. Secondary sources are better, but primary sources can be used, as long as they're not cherry picked to make a point and as long as they aren't obviously superseded by more recent research and research reviews. But an article should mainly be based on secondary sources. The impact factor of the Journal of the American College of Nutrition is good: 2.36. TimidGuy (talk) 10:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC) Note that if the article by McNamara is used, you'd need to attribute to him and include his affiliation with the egg industry. TimidGuy (talk) 10:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Mensin, the AJCN article linked above, also states that "Total:HDL cholesterol is more sensitive and specific than is total cholesterol as a risk predictor (8–10), but the favorable effects on this ratio by such factors as coconut fat, which is rich in lauric acid, do not exclude the possibility that coconut fat may promote CAD through other pathways, known or as yet unknown." Hence the far more equivocal statement. This is a discussion that should occur on the coconut oil talk page, where it is pretty clear that most editors do not think it is a good idea to present coconut oil as recognized as a healthy fat, or to portray it as unjustifiably maligned.

Though McNamara would probably be OK as a source (it appears to be a review article) the abstract seems to focus on palm oil. I'd like to see a full text. I'm concerned that the page is being used to promote coconut oil as a healthy fat when the scientific consensus doesn't clearly support this. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 11:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind if the above equivocation was deemed necessary as inelegant as it is, but there is absolutely no reason to remove the explicit findings on the TC/HDL-C ratio while still retaining the wording indicating lauric acid raises total cholesterol. Total cholesterol is an inferior risk indicator to the TC/HDL-C ratio; to be clear on the lower quality indicator but vague on the higher quality indicator is simply misleading. I'm concerned the latest information is being blocked for unfounded reasons. I do not object to presentation of evidence regarding coconut oil whether favorable or unfavorable—indeed I was the one to include the reference to the stand of the FDA—but it is incumbent on those who disagree with the indications of the presented evidence to provide evidence of similar or higher quality to support their views. Currently those who are disagreeing with me are resorting to the removal of valid sources or downplaying the significance of the results by obscuring key findings. I myself would be interested in finding the strongest opposing views based on science but in my own attempts to get to the bottom of the FDA's spiel on saturated fats I could not find anything that looked solid in light of the latest evidence. Lambanog (talk) 13:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This is the RSN though, it's meant to only discuss whether specific sources are reliable. Discussions on how reliable sources should be integrated and summarized should take place on the talk page of the specific article. It's too confusing to track this across multiple pages and the RSN commentors may not be interested in specifics of how the sources are summarized. You may want dispute resolution if you feel the talk page isn't addressing your points, but this kind of thing should really be brougth up at talk:coconut oil. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 16:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Walter John Raymond / The Dictionary of Politics: Selected American and Foreign Political and Legal Terms

Is Walter John Raymond's The Dictionary of Politics: Selected American and Foreign Political and Legal Terms a reliable source? It was published by Brunswick Publishing, a company apparently created by Raymond specifically to publish The Dictionary of Politics, which leads me to think no established publishers were interested in it. It's difficult to get any other information about Brunswick; Amazon carries no books by it, and it has no website (Google books has it as http://www.brunswickbooks.com/ , but that domain is for sale). Google books lists 8 books it published in the early 1990s, but the books have no other information about them, and appear to be short books of poetry, or short story collections. Jayjg 02:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

One-off publications like this are the hallmark of a self-published book. I'd say not RS. TimidGuy (talk) 11:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Articles on Nuclear accidents

Nuclear reactor accidents in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nuclear power accidents by country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These articles make heavy use of the following source:

Sovacool, Benjamin K. 'A Critical Evaluation of Nuclear Power and Renewable Electricity in Asia', Journal of Contemporary Asia, 40:3, 369 - 400

Available at: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a923050767

This is published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal. Nevertheless, i question its reliability and would like to hear a broader opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ] (] • contribs)

The article is a high quality reliable source. The author is employed as an expert at a world University (Energy Governance Program, Centre on Asia and Globalisation, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore, Singapore). The journal is refereed. The article is recent, and contained in the refereed section of the journal. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Per Fifelfoo, it appears to meet all the requirements of WP:RS. Do you have any reason to think it doesn't? Jayjg 18:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Poynder blog

Two editors with short edit histories are tag-teaming inserting a reference to a blog (see here) into PLoS ONE. I have removed this several times as blogs generally are not considered reliable sources, but despite all appearances, I don't want to call this vandalism (yet..), so I am hesitating to cross 3RR here. Perhaps some other editors can have a look whether this is an RS and whether its insertion into this article is justified. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Does not seem RS to me.Richard Poynder does appear to be an information and internet joouno. He has writen two books and for a number of publications. As such his views and blog may well be RS.Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• Well, perhaps Poynder is notable, but does that mean that his blog is an RS? After all, it remains an unreviewed thing, basically just the opinion of one single person. --Crusio (talk) 09:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

See WP:SPS which says: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, one should take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so...Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." Poynder has previously been published on related matters by third party publishers such as Derwent and O'Reilly and so his information, though expressed on a blog, would be reliable subject to the living persons limitation. Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• OK, thanks for that SPS link. One more question, though: in the current case, the blog is not used to source anything, it is given as an "external link". Is that acceptable? --Crusio (talk) 10:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

See WP:EL which allows, "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject". There is also a long list of external links to be avoided. There is something about self published external links that is somewhat differently phrased than the material from WP:SPS I quoted above. Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• As I read that, this seems to mean that the external link in the PLoS ONE article is inappropriate (not neutral; self-published, but not by the subject of the article), am I correct? --Crusio (talk) 11:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

As I read it, the relevant section would be "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc, controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Misplaced Pages's notability criteria for people.)" Since Poynder is probably notable by our standards, and has been published by independent third party sources, he may squeak by--but I say that very tentatively because I haven't been much involved in external links issues and haven't made a close analysis either of the PLoS ONE article or Poynder's article. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Bryan Haczyk

One editor recently claimed that the sources used in Bryan Haczyk (which I wrote) are are not reliable sources. The four sources used in the article are USCHO.com:, The Star-Ledger:, Collegehockeynews.com:, and The Nutley (NJ) Sun:. These all look to me like reliable sources, but I'd like to get some feedback on this issue. Thanks, Qrsdogg (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I see that it's been nominated for deletion. Newspapers can indeed be reliable sources, but the issue seems to be notability. Perhaps post here again if the article is retained. TimidGuy (talk) 11:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Part of the nominator's rationale in the AFD was that the sources used in the article were unreliable. I didn't mention that it was at AFD since I didn't want to come across as canvassing. I've used USCHO and Collegehockeynews.com on a few articles so I was curious whether I should remove them from others or not. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Those all appear to be reliable sources — recognized publications with editorial oversight. TimidGuy (talk) 11:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Line of succession to the British throne

I was wondering whether this self-published website is a suitable reliable source for the article Line of succession to the British throne? The website was made by (the late) William Addams Reitwiesner, and is the primary source for the Misplaced Pages article, which attempts to list all living members of the British line of succession.

If you have noticed that Reitwiesner's list (which is over ten years old), differs from the Misplaced Pages article, that is because several Misplaced Pages editors have updated the list themselves, based on new births and deaths which come to their attention. The Misplaced Pages article also differs from Reitwiesner because he included Roman Catholics in his numbering, while the Misplaced Pages article does not. Mlm42 (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Not reliable. It might have been a reasonably well regarded effort when initially compiled but it has gone out of date. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

If nothing else, given how out of date it is, it can't be considered reliable. Jayjg 02:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Is it a reliable representation of the succession on 1 January 2001? Yes I don’t see why not. Is it a reliable representation of the succession on 15 March 2011? No of course not. - dwc lr (talk) 02:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• We shouldn't be using a self-published source for material about living persons. As I understand it, it's being used to include details of illegitimate children, which would be a violation of the BLP policy. See WP:BLPSPS. SlimVirgin 18:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Bleacher Report

http://bleacherreport.com/ From what I understand it is user submitted articles which makes me think it it inappropriate. However it does have some attachment with CBS Sports. There are around 750+ links on Misplaced Pages with it.

Could I get a ruling? Crunk Cup (talk) 03:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't know too much about BR but our page on Bleacher Report says that "The purpose of the website was to provide a platform for bloggers and amateur sports writers to publish their work where visitors could find their articles easily". That doesn't seem to square with WP:RS, which says that sources should have "a reputation for fact-checking". After writing this I just realized I had linked to BR in an article a few months back. Down to 749 now. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Lyndon LaRouche

There's an RfC on the talk page asking whether the first sentence should say in Misplaced Pages's voice that Lyndon LaRouche "is an American political activist" or "an American political activist and economist" (emphasis added). Both versions of the lead end the first paragraph with " has written prolifically on economic, scientific, and political topics, as well as on history, philosophy, and psychoanalysis."

Uninvolved eyes would be appreciated as this has been raised several times over the last few years, so it would be good to get a clear consensus.

Arguments in favor: several reliable sources call him an economist, and he reportedly became known as one in South America. Arguments against: he has no qualifications in economics, has never been employed or independently published as one, and most reliable sources describe him in other terms.

The RfC is at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche#Should the lead say in WP's voice that Lyndon LaRouche is an economist?. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 15:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Correction; there is "Dialectical economics", published in '75 by Heath. The argument, that LaRouche never "independently published as is not valid.

http://www.amazon.com/Dialectical-economics-introduction-Marxist-political/dp/0669853089 81.210.206.223 (talk) 21:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

As I recall from my youth, LaRouche and his organization first made the claim that LaRouche is an economist. They also apply other labels to LaRouche, such as "statesman", "presidential candidate", and so forth. LaRouche does write (self-publish) prolifically on economic, scientific, political, historical, and philosophical topics, but he is free to write about anything he wants; doing so doesn't make him an economist, scientist, politician, historian, or philosopher, respectively.

I suspect those reliable sources (including the New York Times) who call him an economist do so because he and his organization advertise him heavily that way. I note that these sources give only a brief, trivial mention to that title. None of them, as far as I can tell, have actually given coverage of LaRouche as an economist. Are there any sources that go into detail about LaRouche's economic theories? Those would be the ones to use, not trivial mentions.

The question is whether a Misplaced Pages article should state the same thing in Misplaced Pages's voice. I'd say yes, provided a reliable source gives more than a trivial mention to the term. Surely, a reliable source can be found that discusses LaRouche's economic views, more than trivially mentioning the title "economist". Otherwise it isn't necessary to state that he is an economist. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

How's about "amateur economist?" Ian.thomson (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources? As I said earlier, if there are reliable sources out there that discuss LaRouche's status as an economist, or discuss his writings on economics, then it's fine for Misplaced Pages to label him that way. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• LaRouche's abovementioned work was published under his pen name at the time, Lyn Marcus. It was reviewed in the American Economic Review, by the American Economic Association. Here is a citation of some works of his, in a University of North Carolina Press book. There are more of those, but it's late here. --JN466 03:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to the overall question, but I don't think those links are convincing, JN. They show that he has published a book with a title that seems like the title of a book about economics, but that's all. Given the overall remit of The Party of Fear, I think we should wonder (Gbooks, for me at least, isn't giving access to the relevant page) whether he is being cited as an authority or as an example. Except in very rare cases - and I personally cannot think of anyone who it would apply to who did not die long ago - I think "economist" has to mean that the subject has been employed as an economist. --FormerIP (talk) 03:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right that The Party of Fear doesn't cite him as an economist; I was hasty there. Forget that one. :) But according to King, who's written a book-length (and fairly hostile) study of LaRouche, he became known in Latin America as "a serious economist and political strategist". That's repeated in a Department of Defense document (which cites King). He had meetings with multiple presidents in Latin America, advising them to take a course against the IMF, which they did to some extent. His writings had an influence on the Malaysian government in 1997/1998, according to the Wall Street Journal, and that government then also took a course against the IMF. If you end up influencing governments' economic policy, that makes you an economist, in my book.

I can only see snippets of the review in the American Economic Review, but it's a prestigious journal, so to be in there at all counts for something. The review begins:

"NEW Dialectical Economics: An Introduction to Marxist Political Economy Lyn Marcus, Chairman, National Caucus of Labor Committees March 1975 Cloth 544 pages An unprecedented approach to Marx's method and economic theory, this book explains, analyzes, and interprets Marxian economics through an interdisciplinary approach. ..."

That doesn't sound like they're thrashing it as the work of a rank amateur. It's got a few reputable citations in Google Scholar. --JN466 04:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

We've already discussed those Google Scholar cites on the article talk page. All that glitters is not gold.   Will Beback  talk  05:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaken. We did not discuss the Lyn Marcus book, nor its citations, nor its having been reviewed in the American Economic Review. The American Economic Review is a general-interest economics journal. Established in 1911, the AER is among the nation's oldest and most respected scholarly journals in the economics profession and is currently celebrating 100 years of publishing. It's not just an academic source, it's a rather influential one. The whole premise of denying him the label "economist" was the assertion that no one in academia had ever taken any notice of him; that's not the case. --JN466 05:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Just writing that a book was reviewed in an economics journal does not make one an economist. For one thing, we don't even know if the review was positive or negative. For another, we don't know if they only review books from recognized economists. There's no question that people in academia have taken notice of him, but being noticed does not make one an economist.   Will Beback  talk  06:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, among the six citations in Google Scholar to his book, which no one here is proposing as a reliable source anyway, two of them go to his own magazine, The Campaigner. The rest are apparently articles about Marxism. They might be used to suggest he's a noted writer about Marxism, but four independent citations are weak evidence for that assertion.   Will Beback  talk  06:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Rootsweb

Can someone tell me what the final result was regarding whether rootsweb.ancestry.com is considered a reliable source? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

A search of the archives brings up five results, but I don't see that Rootsweb was discussed in any of those threads.. Ancestry.com has been discussed. In this thread from last fall, the response was that it fails to meet the standard because it contains user-generated content. This discussion is from last September is also helpful.. TimidGuy (talk) 11:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks very much. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

ICorrect

ICorrect.com is a website where individuals pay an annual membership fee of US $1,000 for individuals and US $5,000 for companies to publically challenge posts on the Internet. ICorrect's http://www.icorrect.com/about_us describes itself as,

"ICorrect is the website to set the record straight. So far, the likes of Misplaced Pages and Google searches consist entirely of hearsays. ICorrect uniquely provides “words from the horses mouth”."

As detailed in the March 14, 2011 Misplaced Pages Signpost article

• In the news: Paying US$1,000 to correct a Misplaced Pages error; brief news

User:Whitepaw corrected the article on Sir John Bond on March 10, 2011 after seeing a December 7, 2010 request at ICorrect.com. ICorrect.com has other requests to correct Misplaced Pages. A. Is ICorrect.com as used by Whitepaw a reliable source? B. Is ICorrect.com a reliable source in general? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not a reliable source because we can't tell who writes the entries. But it is quite useful, because it can indicate where there might be an error in a Misplaced Pages article, and we can then look up reliable sources and correct the error if necessary. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. In a case such as this, where several apparently useful factual statements are made (some of which might not be easy to source), I wonder whether it would be a good idea to include a link to the ICorrect page among the external links on our John Bond page, titled e.g. "corrections to an earlier version of this Misplaced Pages page". Would others agree or not? Andrew Dalby 10:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It appears information posted on iCorrect is not checked by the site. All they do (or claim to do) is verify that the author is who they say they are. As such it is no better or worse than the users blog - an authotitative source on the opinion of that person.85.133.32.70 (talk) 11:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLPSPS says:

Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if: 1.it is not unduly self-serving; 2.it does not involve claims about third parties; 3.it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 4.there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; 5.the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Bond's correction of his birthdate, schooling etc. seem to be reliable under this section and a link to iCorrect would be appropriate. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

That all hinges on the belief that ICorrect's verification of identity is sufficiently rigorous that we can take these statements as being actualy from the people specified. I, for one, have some difficulty believing that Bianca Jagger, for instance, spends her time correcting minutia about her family. I would say that until we have some reasonable certainty that ICorrect's proffer of identity is factual, it cannot be a reliable source. Once we have sufficient assurances, then the statements can be used as statements by people about themselves in the manner quoted just above, but until then, they should be used as pointers to information that may need to be corrected through reliable third-party sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Their verification is probably through the credit card payment system. Paying $1000 just to post corrections is a pretty big deal, and the likelihood that someone would forge a credit card identity for Bianca Jagger for the purpose of paying money rather than stealing money seems slim. But you're correct, we'd have to know more about their verification methods. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, the chances are that Bianca Jagger did nothing of the sort. If she did anything, she told an assistant or her PR person to do it -- that's just not the kind of thing that celebs generally do for themselves -- so I wouldn't assume that there's a credit card slip somewhere with Jagger's signature on it to make this all kosher (although there could be a written authorization from her - we just don't know).

That's my speculation, of course, but it's reasonable speculation based on the way the real world actually works. If ICorrect is serious about being a conduit for necessary corrections for living people that have had information about them misrepresented, then it's up to them to publish specifics about their verification regime before we begin to take them at their word. (Online, no one knows you're a dog, and we have no idea who's behind those claimed real world identities.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

History of the board game Monopoly

A very long page using repeatedly a book by Ralph Anspach which is self-published (last paragraph) including as the first reference. Anspach is described as a fanatic ("We were fanatics," says Mr. Walker ) and has had major legal actions against the makers of Monopoly and website is still mainly an attack against monopoly and its makers ]

While the facts could be true, it clearly is not a RS and in my opinion should not be used as a source to verify facts but there is opposition to this.

The page has many other problems such as duplication and lines about Anti-Monopoly current trading status that is not well sourced and other sources regard as a self-published game.Tetron76 (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB would say its use would be problematic when it violates the rule that "it does not involve claims about third parties." Also troubling in the article talk page is the line "The court proceedings are available online." which would be original research to interpret them. Bagumba (talk) 02:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Facebook as a source for birth dates

On Rima Fakih, Facebook is used as the source for her birthday. I've noticed more and more users citing Facebook as a source for birth dates on BLPs. My question is: Is it ok to use Facebook as a self-published, primary source? My second question: If Facebook can be used as self-published, primary source for birth dates, do they have to be visible to everyone? The reason why I ask is becuse, in some cases, birth dates are only visible to the person's friends. Is there a guideline that deals with birth dates and facebook? Thanks in advance for any guidance on this issue. --John KB (talk) 15:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who uses a fake birthdate on my Facebook profile, I don't think it is OK to use Facebook for that information. Perhaps if a celebrity has an official Facebook page rather than profile where they show their birthdate, one could make an argument. II | (t - c) 15:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Would there be a need for a link between the facebook account and an official website to determine if they're the real official facebook page? I ask because celebrities have so many copycats, posting official Facebook pages, when they're not the actual person.--John KB (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I would agree. There is no way of kniowing how accurate the information is.Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

If the Facebook account is legitimate (as opposed to run by a fan or an imposter), it is an acceptable source per WP:SPS. However, Misplaced Pages has special rules for dealing with living people which favors privacy. If the account is only visible to friends, you cannot cite it for dates of birth, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, etc.. See WP:DOB. I'm not sure our policy states it, but I would not cite any private Facebook account for anything. I think that lives up to the spirit, if not the letter of WP:BLP.

Also, you only asked about dates of birth, but I want to point out that primary sources should be used with care. If the information is really worth including in an article, mostly likely a third-party reliable source will have covered it, and then you can just cite that. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. This is useful. --John KB (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This pretty much echoes what has already been said, but might as well pile on - in any circumstance that a reliable source has a birthdate (particularly if it's different birthdate) the facebook page should be outright replaced, not "supplemented" with a second source.

ImperfectlyInformed's states comment is also a good one to keep in mind - Dan Savage has given at least one interview in which he gave his date of birth as different from that reported in another source. He may even have said he did it to mess with his wikipedia page at another point. See here and here if interested. Underscores why SPS can be problematic and should be used with care. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 20:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Is "Zurf Military Aircraft" a reliable source for the "Free Libyan Air Force?"

This web news service, "Zurf Military Aircraft," is cited as the only source for a claim in 2011 Libyan uprising that planes from a a "Free Libyan Air Force" working for the Libyan rebels attacked 2 Libyan Navy ships March 15. I found no sources at Google News about a "Free Libyan Air Force." (Revied to add: I did finally ifind some mention of the reports elsewhere, but I still am trying to find out information as to whether thes website counts as a reliable source) Yet Zurf is cited in a number of Misplaced Pages articles:. Are they or are they not a sufficient source, by themselves, for a major development in the 2011 Libyan uprising, as compared to, say "Jane's Fighting Ships"? Edison (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I am a bit dubious. I have looked at the site and it looks SPS to me. No editorial team not by lines.Slatersteven (talk) 20:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I found where they said Al Jazeera had reported it, but I could not find it at the Al Jazeera site, though they might have said it. I found an AP wire service report that quoted the rebels as saying they had attacked the Libyan Navy, but that is a reliable source mirroring an unconfirmed claim by a partisan source. I could not find the name of the editor or reporter at "Zurf." Edits citing Zurf Military Aircraft in th 2011 Libyan uprising article were by User:AircraftZurf, who links to the website on his userpage, and who inserts references to Zurf Military Aircraft various articles: , , , , . I have notified User:AircraftZurf of this discussion. Edison (talk) 22:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the modifications there are sometimes subtle changes in the articles. In for example a line is added about commencing sea trials in 2011. and replacing Ka-31 will with Ka-31 may because China is also testing the Z-8 as an AEW aircraft as is shown with photographs (flying in the CAW-article and in Wuhan Naval Research Institute). We will only know which one is chosen when the aircraft carriers will appear at sea. --AircraftZurf (talk) 02:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

On March 9, concern was expressed on the talk page of 2011 Libyan uprising about whether this was a reliable source. See archive of that thread. I suggest that if User:AircraftZurf is the owner of the website he cites, then to avoid original research, he cites instead in his Misplaced Pages edits the original news sources he is getting the information from, and that those sources be cited rather than his website in the various additions if information to aviation related articles. If it is not his website, there is still a concern about whether it should be cited in Misplaced Pages, since links are not always provided to the source stories, just vague assertions that Reuters or Al Jazeera said something. Edison (talk) 22:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Zurf Military Aircraft I'm the editor of the article of Zurf Military Aircraft. The purpose of the article about the Libyan Uprising is to create an overview of all military aircraft related news in one article. In the timeline with the article its sources are listed. When the information is not confirmed it is mentioned in the article (On 15 March several sources (Al Jazeera and Reuters) reported ... Details and reliability of these reports are unknown.)

References are (which are present in the timeline):

• http://www.informationdissemination.net/2011/03/libyan-navy-attacked-by-fighter-jets.html for reuters/al jazeera and possibility of other countries Title: Libyan Navy Attacked by Fighter Jets - Updated
• http://www.libyafeb17.com/2011/03/march-15-updates/ al jazeera arabic news named Free Libyan Air Force Title:BREAKING: Ajdabiya is NOT in the hands of Gaddafi's forces
• http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/africa/libya-live-blog-march-15 Title:Libya Live Blog - March 15

Also some other snippets which weren't put in the timeline mentioned it. Original sources seem to be limited and originate mainly from the opposition website Libya al-Youm.

In the wikipedia-article Details and reliability of these reports are unknown were added because the reliability of the statements is doubted by us. It should be mentioned though, because the opposition has at least control over a Mi-24 helicopter (see bottom photograph of Mi-24 #854 and click to go to the source) and an attack by helicopters was mentioned in the articles above.

Zurf takes credibility and reliability seriously. To avoid confusion its probably better to list the references (similar to wikipedia) in the article on Zurf Military Aircraft?

I'm sure you do, I hope more do! However, given that this has had no play in any mainstream US or British medium, I would think we would do well to be cautious. I suggest inline attribution, and no "According to multiple sources", I say name them. I just have difficulty believing, given the tenor of the reporting which is (to put it mildly) bending over backwards to be fair to the rebels/insurgents, that if there was any credence to this, it would not have been trumpeted on CNN.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestions, but strange things are also happening there. I've also read reports that Egyptian soldiers are fighting with the rebels and I wouldn't be surprised if another country would even the odds a little without anybody knowing (by attacking beyond visual range) . The western media focus is now on Japan and Libya seems to be yesterdays story. --AircraftZurf (talk) 02:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do not cite yourself anymore in Wikipeia. That is original research and perhaps a conflict of interest. Just cite the original sources you have found when you wish to add the information to Misplaced Pages. I have no complaints about the information being accurate, but you cannot cite yourself as a reliable source, when the site is anonymous, and it has not been acknowledged as a reliable source by mainstream news media or book authors. Places where you have quoted your own website need to be converted to citations of the original sources. Edison (talk) 03:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Atheism

There is an RfC here about whether or not a study by The Barna Group is reliably sourced for the article on Atheism. Please comment there, not here. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Arxiv lecture notes

Julian Birdbath appears to be a sockpuppet account of A.K.Nole. A whole tranch of IPs was blocked by ArbCom on March 3rd just before this account became active, precisely because of this type of editing. The same checkuser on ArbCom who blocked the tranch of IPs has already been alerted to the new disruptive editing by this account, which I assume will soon be blocked. Since the editor is involved in some outing issues, which need not be spelled out, it is also likely that the edits above are oversighted. A.K.Nole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has had multiple accounts which have been followed by a checkuser on ArbCom. This posting is typical of the trolling and disruption he has caused in the past. The lecture notes were added by one of the most senior mathematical editors on wikipedia and in real life one of the world experts on these particular topics. I would advise any editors or administrators to leave this user alone until the checkuser on ArbCom and oversight has dealt with them. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 07:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Matthew Feldman, 'The LaRouche Organization As An Extremist Movement'
2. The Campaigner, volume 11, number 10, December 1978. page 3 http://wlym.com/campaigner/7812.pdf
3. The Campaigner, volume 11, number 10 December 1978. page 3 http://wlym.com/campaigner/7812.pdf
4. Matthew Feldman, 'The LaRouche Organization As An Extremist Movement'
5. The Campaigner, volume 11, number 10 December 1978. page 3 http://wlym.com/campaigner/7812.pdf

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution