Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:12, 29 November 2013

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.

Current large scale clean-up efforts

Large scale clean-ups/answersingenesis.com

Large scale clean-ups/evolutionnews.org

Large scale clean-ups/independentpoliticalreport.com

Large scale clean-ups/kavitakosh.org

Source for a translation of Voltaire

Any French speakers around? This question also possibly involves other policies than WP:RS, but to start somewhere...

Article: Teleological argument. Text: a translation of Voltaire's: L'univers m'embarrasse, et je ne puis songer Que cette horloge existe, et n'ait point d'horloger

• Currently in article, and being defended with reverts (bold added): I'm puzzled by the world; I cannot dream The timepiece real, its maker but a dream. Source: Harbottle, Thomas Benfield (1908). Dictionary of quotations: French. S. Sonnenschein. p. 101. ISBN 978-1-4212-5720-4. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• My translation as a Misplaced Pages editor (given that I found the above not good): The universe troubles me, and I can not imagine that this watch exists, and it has no watchmaker at all

The following alternatives were then offered by third party User:Myrvin:

• The universe perplexes me, and for me it is unthinkable That this watch exists, yet without a watchmaker.. Christianity Unveiled, Paul Henri Thiry Holbach, Hodgson Press, 2008, p. 285
• I canot believe that this watch can exist and have no watchmaker. A Pocket Philosophical Dictionary, Oxford University Press, 11 Aug 2011, p. 271
• this watch could be and watchmaker have none. Voltaire and his times. Authorized transl (Google eBook), Laurence Louis Félix Bungener, 1854, p. 462
• The Universe troubles me, and much less can I think That this clock exists and should have no clockmaker., From Aristotle to Darwin and Back Again: A Journey in Final Causality, Species, and Evolution, Etienne Gilson, Ignatius Press, 2009, p. 126

I believe all the 21st century ones look preferable to the 1908 dictionary of quotes? However, these were however rejected by the person who found the original translation on the grounds of accuracy (if I understand correctly) and they have suggested:

• The universe embarrasses me, and I cannot think That this watch exists and has no watch-maker. Man and God: a physiological meditation, tr. from the French By Jean Marie A. Perot 1881 ISBN-13: 9781279158883.

Personally I believe WP:RS does not need to dominate knowledge of French here, but I also think WP:RS and a knowledge of French would probably agree on the 2008 translation, but in any case neither the current one nor the last one proposed (they both just seem wrong to me, although I see how using a dictionary could lead to them)? (Keep in mind that the article we are writing is not about poetry, so it needs the real meaning of the sentence.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy with the 2008 one too. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Any other comments about either the French or the strength of sourcing?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, are suggesting that Jean-Marie Perrot used a French dictionary or an English one to translate the 1881 source? The fact that your hubris allows you to suppose that you can provide a more accurate translation than a French scholar is astounding. Let's just use my suggestion and cite multiple sources. You yourself have not stated which source you prefer, you've stated that you like your own translation better. I've said the 1908 (which was what was there before you deleted it) is fine, I also offered a second cited source, the 1881 Perot. Exactly what is the problem here?Tstrobaugh (talk)

• apparently Perot, Jean Marie Albert, 1814 wrote in French, the name of the translator is not available, but the author was involved in the translation.Tstrobaugh (talk)

Let's not worry too much about how the translation was done in 1881. We can discuss translations two ways (which are not mutually exclusive), under WP:RS as a sourcing issue, which is what this board is mainly for, and as a translation as such, just like any wording decision when editing (because actually we are not obliged to use published translations, especially if we only have weak ones). This board is of course also often helpful concerning wording, because nearly every sourcing question involves wording choice to some extent. This is my rationale at least: In terms of both RS and French, the two versions you want to use are very poor. I hope we can get broader feedback because this really shouldn't be so difficult.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Is anyone interested to be a third party in this discussion on the article talk page? It feels like a case that is stuck for silly reasons. It is in any case not a major crisis or complex issue, so should not take much time.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Update. The one third party opinion we got above has not led to closure. In summary:

• The 2008 translation proposed above is argued to be a poor source compared to the 1908 quotes dictionary or the 1881 translation which contains the clear mistake of translating m'embarrasse as "embarrasses me", because (a) it looks like Hodgson Press are self-publishers? and (b) the translation is claimed to be a 1761 source from Baron d'Holbach?
• The 2009 translation is also proposed to be a worse source because (to quote) "John Lyon is an Associate Professor of American and Comparative Literature, Lakeland College, Sheboygan, Wisconsin. So no I don't think "John Lyon" is an appropriate source for this citation." (I do not really get the point here, so I just quote.) It was also stated that this can not be considered a scholarly source because it is not peer reviewed.
• A new proposal has been made "In God's Defense: Writings on Atheism Voltaire (Author), Kirk Watson (Translator). To quote the proposal: "NB This is a self published Kindle only edition but thought more versions might help pinpoint our issues." The translation is The universe contains me: there's no way, This watch exists without a watchmaker.
• I think there might be issues of policy understanding, but anyone seeing the discussion will appreciate that my policy advice is not being treated as neutral given that I was the one who questioned the translation originally. A third party opinion is really needed.
• If there is a good forum for translation discussion, can someone please advise us? (But note that the discussion has so far been based on reliability claims.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

We, as Misplaced Pages editors, can translate this text. We don't need a source. It's only French, for goodness' sake. Lots of people on WP speak it fluently. We even have people who are true bilinguals. So we can do better than Google, and better than the older translators too, because we write modern idiomatic English, and use modern translation conventions. Thank you, Andrew, for taking the time to help us get this right. Translating quotations does not count as original research. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Beyond translations of words or phrases it is Original Research. Translating literary passages is not something that should be done by random Misplaced Pages editors. It's not true to say that an editor's translation of a literary or philosophical text would have to be better because "we write modern idiomatic English". It's not a good idea to re-cast historical quotes in the vernacular of any editor that is convinced they wouldn't miss nuances and context of that quote. An important translation should be reliably sourced, not manufactured from scratch. __ E L A Q U E A T E 08:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

"Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians". Misplaced Pages:NONENG People can argue over which translation published by a reliable source captures the essence, but shouldn't reject multiple existing reliable sources in order to create something from scratch. Also, a newer translation is not necessarily better than an older translation, just because it's recent. And the fact that this quote has been interpreted different ways by scholarly translators should make it clear that translating it isn't trivially easy or non-subjective. __ E L A Q U E A T E 09:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The last two posts are not relevant to the case involved where both original and published (but more modern) translations were being rejected in favor of very old and clearly quirky ones (which disagreed with other translations). But for the record, you should read the rest of WP:NOENG, which is considerably more refined.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how the points aren't relevant. I read the rest of wp:NOENG but it didn't say anything more on this subject of how to choose a translation, other than to prefer published over original when available; what did you mean "more refined"? It goes on to say that when it's original that the editor is not cited, but that isn't saying anything about preference of source. And it's simply true that a translation being more recent doesn't make it better or worse on that quality alone (see things like Beowulf in old and new translations in various degrees of quality). For what it's worth, I'm sure, when compared, your original translation "disagreed" with other translations as well as each other. It sounds like you decided what the quote meant and pushed for a translation that matched your interpretation, which is fine, but don't make it more than that. You decided one was quirky. Other people have similar or different opinions and we discuss. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think your FWIW is a correct assessment. I did not want to "make it more than that", but more was made of it and so I came here for the "we discuss". I have recently inserted a more recent, but also clearly higher status translation, and it seems resolved at least for now. I agree that the age of a source is not always a simple black/white criterium to use, but we are talking about odd 19th century translations versus a scholarly 21st century translation here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Murray Rothbard article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Murray Rothbard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

"Rothbard endorsed the 1991 gubernatorial candidacy of white nationalist and former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke."

The source is James Kirchick, "The Ron Paul Institute: Be Afraid, Very Afraid", The Daily Beast, 25 April 2013. Kirchick wrote that Murray Rothbard "published a separate newsletter with Rockwell that, among other Lost Causes, supported the gubernatorial candidacy of former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke." He provided no sources.

I assume Kirchick is referring to The Rothbard-Rockwell Report, published April 1990 to November 1998, as I can find no evidence that they published another newsletter together at that time. Here is a link to the newsletter. However there is no mention of an endorsement of Duke, although his campaign is discussed in the January 1992 issue in Rothbard's article, "Right-Wing Populism: A Strategy for the Paleo Movement." That article, which was written after Duke ran for governor, is already extensively discussed in the Misplaced Pages article.

While I disagree that Kirchick's article is an opinion piece rather than a news article, and therefore would not be reliable for facts, per the "Statements of opinion" section of the Reliable Sources policy, I would generally not use a news article for something that had occured over twenty years before the article was written and that only mentions Rothbard in passing.

The main issue is that the secondary source incorrectly reflects the primary source it is reporting. I would welcome comments on whether Kirchick's article should be used.

TFD (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Not reliable, for the reasons you give. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

TFD and Judith, could you each elaborate on the reasons for "I would generally not use a news article for something that had occured over twenty years before the article was written and that only mentions Rothbard in passing." ? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 00:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Not reliable. Find a decent academic or similar source that has made the point in the intervening 20 years. That's a long time to pass before some journo decides to make a passing remark - if it is of any significance then I'd expect it to have been referred to more recently. - Sitush (talk) 01:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, the standards for fact-checking in journalism are not as high as for peer-reviewed academic writing, partly because journalism operates under tighter deadlines, and also because journalists and their fact-checkers typically do not have the same expertise as people who have PhDs in the subjects they are writing about. Also, the less relevance of the topic of a source to the topic of a Misplaced Pages article, the less likely it is to be correct. For example a book called The Biography of George Washington is likely a better source for what his teeth were made of than a newspaper article called "Demonstrators gather outside Washington Monument" that mentions his "wooden teeth" in passing. Your user page says you have " published peer-reviewed articles in academic journals." Would you normally see those two sources as equivalent? TFD (talk) 01:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Not reliable. Kirchick clearly gets his facts wrong, as can be seen in the primary source. As intelligent Misplaced Pages editors we have the choice to ignore faulty sources. This is a case in which that decision should be exercised. Binksternet (talk) 02:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

So you're saying we have a reliable source, but we should ignore it because it conflicts with your own interpretation? MilesMoney (talk) 07:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

We have two reliable sources for what the newsletter said, the newsletter itself and a secondary source that reports what is in it, and must choose between them. TFD (talk) 07:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

We have the primary source for the words and we have a secondary source to interpret them. I don't see how Carol's personal interpretation should be treated as more reliable than that of our reliable secondary source. If that source really is wrong, why can't she find another secondary source to impeach it? This is the very worst sort of original research, where an editor just disregards sources. MilesMoney (talk) 01:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Two points: I think Kirchick's Daily Beast article is an opinion hit peice, not a news story, because it reports only on the most negative things possible about all the individuals he mentions in order to scare people out of giving an organization any credibility. I recognized the smear tactics against the people I was familiar with and have to assume there's a good degree of exaggeration about the others who I don't know, though I'm not going to go fact checking it.

The reason Kirchick is inaccurate is it says Rothbard "supported the gubernatorial candidacy of...Duke". However, anyone who verifies by reading the article sees Rothbard's talking about Duke's anti-government "populist" platform, that he also mentions a couple other "populists" who did well in elections, that he says that reformed Klansman like Robert Byrd aren't all that different than reformed Weathermen (wasn't a reformed one]], Bill Ayers in fact a major influence on our current president?), and points out the platform/campaign has issues "paleo" conservatives/libertarians agree with. (A wikipedia editor goes even further than Kirchick to turn the dubious "supported" candidacy into an OR interpretation, writing "endorsed endorsed the 1991 gubernatorial candidacy." User:Carolmooredc talk 15:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

If you're uncomfortable with "endorsed" and want to stick to the actual word used by our source -- "supported" -- then I wouldn't object strongly. But you can't just remove the whole thing just because some people would be bothered by it. MilesMoney (talk) 01:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

What's your non-Kirchick source for "supported"? Binksternet (talk) 03:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

To MilesMoney: I wrote: The reason Kirchick is inaccurate is it says Rothbard "supported the gubernatorial candidacy of...Duke" He's already wrong. Note that several higher quality sources that discuss the article, which I mentioned on the talk page, write only in terms of Rothbard agreeing with the "populist" platform. See NY Times, Slate and Reason; they do not mention Rothbard endorsing or supporting the campaign per se. And the platform already is discussed in the same paragraph, so it's both inaccurate and redundant. User:Carolmooredc talk 03:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

In terms of policy, I believe the community consensus has been that it is not a violation of WP:RS to decide to NOT to use something in a source based upon common sense editor rationales, such as that an isolated source contains an error or is not consistent with other sources. Indeed WP:RS never tells us we have to use any source, only which ones we can use. Sources commonly contain minor errors or points where they disagree with other sources, and such real world complexity needs to be taken into account when interpreting WP policy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the eminently sensible comment from an uninvolved editor. User:Carolmooredc talk 18:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

imdb as a source for credits

I recently discovered an imdb help page that is similar to Misplaced Pages's help desk. I found something encouraging. While a lot of the information on imdb is not reliable, I saw someone on that help page advise that before a certain person could be added to the credits, a person working for imdb would need to be shown a screen shot of that person's name in the credits. I should have saved a link to that information, and when I get to another computer where I feel safe going to imdb, I will do that.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

You don't usually need a source for credits; the work itself is a primary source. I use the IMDb to refresh my memory when I can't remember character names or other trivial details, but I prefer to use primary sources (poster, the credits sequence in the film, etc) for credits. When the IMDb credits are listed as certified by a union, that's pretty authoritative; however, once in a while there are discrepancies in minor areas, such as a producer listed as an executive producer (or vice versa). I don't have a problem with people referring to the IMDb when they're filling in an infobox, but they should at least use common sense as a sanity check and have the good sense to defer an editor with a more reliable source; Variety, for example, is a good secondary source. The IMDb is on my personal blacklist, and I usually remove any citation to imdb.com that I find, as it's either redundant (citation for credits) or notoriously unreliable (trivia, biography). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Here, here. Agree with NinjaRobotPirate. I'll interview actors, and they will have no idea why they're listed on IMDb as being in certain movies — particularly upcoming ones, but also extant films. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I tend to take a more blunt approach and don't see IMDB as reliable for sourcing facts. If it is listed on IMDB as a fact, it should be found in a reliable source acceptable to our standards.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I've used imdb many times for credits. If you know of a better place, I'd like to hear it. It may not be anywhere else. Looking for the actual credits is kind of a problem. Unless you have the DVD in your possession or something.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, as was stated the best source for credits is the primary source, not a site that allows anyone to edit any piece of inaccurate information.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't usually put imdb in a footnote. Most of the time it's just a filmography or something and they don't tend to have sources. I know of one time when imdb was the only way I could find when a certain actor first appeared on a show.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

This is the link I was given. I don't guess it proves anything, but it does establish that they go to a lot of trouble, most of the time, to make sure credits are accurate.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Memory of water issues

I have been interested in the memory of water debate from the start, having heard a lecture by Jacques Benveniste on his research even before the publication of his paper in Nature. As a theoretical physicist, I have been interested in the way fallacious arguments are frequently used in an attempt to prove that the claims are impossible. In an invited lecture in a meeting organised by the Foundation of German Business (SDW), I addressed a number of these arguments, demonstrating why they are incorrect. I think it would be good if some balance were given to the memory of water article by including a link to the lecture, which has been archived on our university's media server (the section dealing with memory of water begins at 6:55).

Re the reliability of this as a source, I note first my own credentials, e.g. as having a Cambridge Ph.D. in physics, being a Fellow of the Royal Society (UK), and having published in notable physics journals such as Physical Review Letters. On the verifiability issue, my discussion of flaws in the usual arguments is very straightforward, and comprehensible to anyone with a basic understanding of the issues involved (for example, I cite the difference between ice and water, a matter of common knowledge, to argue that one does not have to add molecules to water to change its properties significantly).

This reference would support a statement along the lines of

According to Josephson, many of the arguments used to dismiss memory of water out of hand are unsound.

. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

1. ^ http://sms.cam.ac.uk/media/1422061. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Don't think this is an RS question, since Josephson is presumably a reliable source for Josephson's view. The questions here would be around weight and neutrality, starting - I suppose - with a question about whether this view has been discussed (or otherwise expressed) in reliable, secondary, published sources. Alexbrn 16:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I cannot see how a short report of a lecture (oddly, in German) can be deemed a reliable source. Assuming that you are Josephson, you should be able to place your talk on a personal blog or website which would be identifiably yours, then it would be a matter of the notability of the view articulated, as Alexbrn says. Paul B (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. That is just what I have done -- look for the link to it in the last sentence of my first paragraph ('link to the lecture'). As regards notability, I see that there is remarkably little discussion in the article as it is at present on the question of whether memory of water is theoretically possible or not, only the red herring relating to networks that really should not be there. But I can say at least that the first point re water memory in my talk, that you don't need extra molecules for there to be an effect, is very well known to people in the field and there must be many references to it. The point is so obvious (except to the sceptics who keep bringing up the false argument) that I would not expect much note to be taken of my reiteration of the same point.

Again, I would guess that another false argument, the last one mentioned in this part of my talk, that if water had a memory it would remember everything it had come into contact with, must have been addressed in the literature, even if not with the precision that an experienced theoretician can bring to bear on such issues.

Even though the meeting was held in Cambridge UK, the audience consisted exclusively of native German speakers, so it is not that surprising that the summary of the meeting was published in German by the German sponsoring organisation. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I clicked on the wrong link. I'm listening to the recorded version of the lecture now. Paul B (talk) 17:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but for me this falls into the category of "expert outside his field of expertise". With regards to weight: the fact that some fallacious arguments are used by one side in a debate is not, per se, remarkable - I'd expect this for both sides in any discussion that involves more than a very small group indeed. I'd only include this if there is evidence that the criticism has been picked up as significant by some outside sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Outside my area of expertise? You are clearly the person speaking outside his area of expertise and I demand a retraction. --Brian Josephson (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

What we have here is (I suspect) a case of an editor who (for reasons I will not speculate on here) latches on to the fact that my comment suggests that I'm not that familiar with the literature on homeopathy (not my area of expertise), and wrongly infers from this that I am not expert in the particular technical issues that I am addressing in my comments. This kind of superficial analysis by editors is what gives wikipedia a bad name. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

You suspect wrong. You are an expert in physics. Water memory, on the other hand, is a pseudo-science - it may appear to use the apparatus of science, but it's not science. Dealing with this is a special skill different from physics, or indeed science in general. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, if you say that is not your reasoning. But the 'reasoning' you give above is a textbook case of 'proof by declaration', which is no proof at all. --Brian Josephson (talk) 12:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Let the people here judge whether or not the memory of water work is scientific. A lecture given by Benveniste at the Cavendish colloquium is available on the web. In what way is that kind of activity pseudoscience? Does Schulz consider that the mere investigation of a phenomenon that most scientists dismiss is pseudoscience as such? --12:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

As Alexbrn notes, the chief issue here isn't really one of "reliability" of the sources with respect to the attribution of the opinion or any quotes—there's not really any question that Josephson said what he says he said, when and where he said it. The question is whether or not Josephson's personal opinion on this topic is sufficiently noteworthy to warrant special mention in water memory. It would stretch WP:WEIGHT past breaking to juxtapose Josephson's personal opinion (commentary made at a – presumably un-vetted, non-peer-reviewed – speech to the UK chapter of the Foundation of German Businesses) and proper, published, high-quality, peer-reviewed scientific articles. As an aside, it also strikes me as disingenuous to wax eloquent about fallacious arguments and the narrowmindedness of the mainstream scientific community while ignoring completely the fact that the American Physical Society offered to fund and carry out (another) double-blinded test of water memory in response to a challenge by Josephson himself. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing sinister (as Randi and others try to make out) about the fact that the proposed test involving the APS never took place (by the way, you can't do 'double blind tests' on a system such as a sample in a test tube that doesn't know what is going on; 'blind test' is what you mean). Considerable negotiation about a possible test took place between Benveniste, and Park acting on behalf of the APS. The difficulty was that it was not enough just to 'do an experiment'; the experiment had to be such that if it gave a positive result sceptics would agree that the result was positive (and sceptics are very good at finding reasons for not accepting a positive result). Some proposals by the physicists were just not practical. Various possibilities were discussed and in the end Benveniste, who thought it of more value to investigate the phenomena further than to satisfy sceptics, announced that he did not want to proceed further. --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

...And I'm sure that that perceived lack of value or practicality had nothing to do with the fact that other properly-blinded trials attempting to reproduce his previous work were negative in their outcomes. But seriously, you're attempting to turn an article on a scientific non-phenomenon into a soapbox for your personal opinions on the nuances of scientific debate, and that just isn't what we're here for. Stephan Schulz hits the nail on the head up above. The fact that a few of the arguments made against 'water memory' as a plausible physical phenomenon might be specious – or might be interpreted in such a way that they become specious – is pretty much irrelevant to the topic. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with TenOfAllTrades comment of 23:27 19 November, this is a weight issue. Where is there any substantial discussion of the material from the suggested source? - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Just another vote for the "pseduo-science doesn't belong here" - as more than one comedian has noted if water had a memory, what about all the poo that's been in it? Does it forget about that?Smidoid (talk) 14:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The question is whether Brian Josephson is an expert in "water memory", as it's clear that the sources he wants to use are not reliable in themselves. This is very difficult to determine, as there is no agreement that there is a field there, at all. He has not established his expert credentials in the relevant areas of physics or chemistry, although he has established himself as an expert in some relevant aspects of physics. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

GERAC

1a) Three primary sources:

• Endres, Heinz G.; Diener, Hans-Christoph; Maier, Christoph; Böwing, Gabriele; Trampisch, Hans-Joachim; Zenz, Michael (2007). "Akupunktur bei chronischen Kopfschmerzen". Deutsches Ärzteblatt 104 (3): C101–C108.
• Endres, Heinz G.; Victor, Norbert; Haake, Michael; Witte, Steffen; Streitberger, Konrad; Zenz, Michael (2007). "Akupunktur bei chronischen Knie- und Rückenschmerzen". Deutsches Ärzteblatt 104 (3): C109–C116.
• Scharf, Hanns-Peter; Mansmann, Ulrich; Streitberger, Konrad; Witte, Steffen; Krämer, Jürgen; Maier, Christoph; Trampisch, Hans-Joachim; Victor, Norbert (2006). "Acupuncture and Knee Osteoarthritis: A Three-Armed Randomized Trial". Annals of Internal Medicine 145 (1): 12–20.

1b) One secondary source:

• Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss / Federal Joint Committee (Germany) (27 September 2007). "Zusammenfassender Bericht des Unterausschusses "Ärztliche Behandlung" des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses über die Bewertung gemäß §135 Abs.1 SGB V der Körperakupunktur mit Nadeln ohne elektrische Stimulation bei chronischen Kopfschmerzen, chronischen LWS-Schmerzen, chronischen Schmerzen bei Osteoarthritis" (in German). Retrieved 5 November 2013.

2.) German Acupuncture Trials
3.) These trials are notable because they led to acupuncture being reimbursable by the German statutory health insurances. The sources are being used throughout the article.

a) The primary sources are being challenged on the basis that according to MEDRS, primary sources should better not be used. As far as I know, that applies only to claims of medical efficiency or conclusions/results of trials. In this case, however, the primary sources are only used to describe the set-up and findings of the trials.

b) The secondary source has been challenged to be not reliable (no rationale for this assumption given yet).

Thanks, --Mallexikon (talk) 04:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• Assessment from involved editor. The primary medical sources can't be used for health related content per WP:MEDRS. The German Federal Committee are a reliable source for information about themselves, but not for health-related content. If they are to be used for information about what they've done, a secondary source discussing their actions should exist to establish weight. Alexbrn 07:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • WP:MEDRS doesn't ban primary medical sources, it just makes a big deal out of trying to make sure that they're not mis-used. I don't see how the use of these sources in GERAC presents a reliability issue. Podiaebba (talk) 11:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Using a primary study from six years ago to state (e.g.) "this implied both real and sham acupuncture being significantly more effective than standard therapy" is about a clear a misuse of a primary medical source as it is possible to get; even if this was a secondary source it would be getting to old for this per WP:MEDDATE. Alexbrn 11:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

In what way is that a misuse of the source , which states " Low Back Pain Improved After Acupuncture Treatment For At Least 6 Months. Effectiveness Of Acupuncture, Either Verum Or Sham, Was Almost Twice That Of Conventional Therapy."?? WP:MEDDATE is also not relevant since the article is about these specific trials - you can hardly apply the same standard of "recent publications preferred" as you would to the main acupuncture article. At most you could argue that the out-datedness is an argument for deleting or merging the article. Podiaebba (talk) 14:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a problem. The primary sources in this case are simply background information for the main point, which is that the German committee approved acupuncture for reimbursement. TimidGuy (talk) 12:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

MEDRS: "it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge"? This article takes the majority of its space relaying the findings of out-of-date primary sources which have subsequently been questioned by reliable secondaries. Alexbrn 12:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

This is an argument for deleting or merging the article, not for complaining about reliability of the sourcing as it stands. Podiaebba (talk) 14:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have nominated it for deletion. This thread was started by an editor wishing to defend the sourcing (and keep the article as-is). Alexbrn 14:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Using a source to describe itself is WP:OR / WP:DUE. We need sources independent of the subject matter. I share Alexbrn's concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Using a source to describe itself is WP:OR - no it isn't, and it's absurd to say so. It's a line of thinking which basically asserts not merely that primary sourcing needs to be used very carefully (and avoided if possible) but that it's banned completely. It's a tenable position I suppose, but not one supported by WP policy at all. Podiaebba (talk) 14:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

In terms of normal Wikijargon I think Podiaebba is right. This is a case of a primary source, and not what we would normally call an OR or DUE problem. Primary sources are not forbidden but we use them carefully.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The sources seem to support that there were trials in Germany that lead to approval of reimbursement. There doesn't seem to be an RS issue with that. It seems a due and notability issue. What source supports that this is notable? The claim of notability is a WP editor's statement, "These trials are notable because they led to acupuncture being reimbursable by the German statutory health insurances." that is an editor's opinion/OR. What source supports the statement that the trials are notable? Where is the due weight argument to support an article on such a narrow topic that is supported by outdated and disputed studies? This seems like it might warrant two sentences in the existing acupuncture article. Summary: Marginally RS for content no RS support for weight or notability. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Notability is not really a subject for this forum, but I would say notability is not normally a case of finding a source which directly says something is notable. Often it necessarily involves "common sense" discussion between editors, because notability is relative to what an article is about. If there is an article about government attitudes to acupuncture, then...--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Section break

See GERAC. Using a source to describe itself is obviously a gross WP:WEIGHT violation. We must use sources independent on the subject matter. The GERAC trial itself is being used in the article. Using a primary study from six years ago is obviously a gross WP:MEDRS violation. Editors think it is okay to use any source they like and continue to ignore policy. The primary sources in this case are being misused to describe in extreme detail about the trial itself, among other low level details. The article is littered with too many primary sources. For example, The Joint Fed. Committee is a primary source because they were part of the event. Even if the The Joint Fed. Committee was a WP:SECONDARY source there are now newer sources on the topic. That means The Joint Fed. Committee fails MEDRS and SECONDARY. The article should be mainly about how the results of the trial influenced policy in Germany. The trial itself in not what this article is supposed to be about. The details about the trials itself is not notable and not the direction of an encyclopedia entry. Editors have turned the article into their own personal WP:COATHOOK article. Here is the current discussion on the talk page. An editor thinks identifying a primary source is pointy. The editor's explanation on the talk page makes no sense. The source is indeed a primary source. QuackGuru (talk) 03:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Using sources to describe themselves is very common and accepted on Misplaced Pages. That does not mean there is no other problem here, for example perhaps the lack of MORE sources in addition to that. A very common warning made about using primary sources is not to ONLY use primary sources for any specific article. Is that closer to what you want to argue? OTOH, if there are now newer sources, the best thing to do normally would be to add them, rather than subtract something else. It is not necessarily a good idea to delete sources' own primary comments about themselves.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Using primary sources to describe unimportant low level details is inappropriate for inclusion on Misplaced Pages. The primary sources are used to discuss low levels details that are not about how a clinical trial impacted society and politics in Germany. The entire article is mess. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/German Acupuncture Trials to read comments made by other editors about the many problems. There are now newer sources, but the newer sources do not verify the low levels details that do not belong in the article. QuackGuru (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Unreliable sources are being dumped inside the reference section. QuackGuru (talk) 01:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I made this change. The low level details remain in the article for no valid reason. I propose we delete the entire section. See WP:WEIGHT. QuackGuru (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

No. It's reliably sourced material, and I don't see a WP:WEIGHT issue here. The article is about the GERAC. Check the title. --Mallexikon (talk) 02:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

You did not address the concerns made by other editors. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/German Acupuncture Trials. QuackGuru (talk) 02:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

What concerns? And why debate them here? --Mallexikon (talk) 03:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Federal Joint Committee source

• Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (27 September 2007). "Zusammenfassender Bericht des Unterausschusses "Ärztliche Behandlung" des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses über die Bewertung gemäß §135 Abs.1 SGB V der Körperakupunktur mit Nadeln ohne elektrische Stimulation bei chronischen Kopfschmerzen, chronischen LWS-Schmerzen, chronischen Schmerzen bei Osteoarthritis" (PDF) (in German). Retrieved 5 November 2013... This a review of the GERAC and several smaller acupuncture trials. There is a summary in English, on page 2.

QuackGuru and Alexbrn would like to throw this source out. Their rationale is that it constitutes a primary source regarding the GERAC, since based on their own report the Federal Joint Committee (Germany) decided to include acupuncture to the list of services that have to be reimbursed by the German statutory health insurances. Could I get some feedback whether the FJC source is permissible (as a reliable secondary source) to describe the background and set-up of the GERAC? --Mallexikon (talk) 03:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent what I have said. Given that the consensus is that this article should be about the event at hand (the granting of insurance eligibility to acupuncture in Germany in 2007), what I wrote about this source was this: "It's not independent of the events and so far from ideal except maybe for the most mundane facts, or things which are otherwise validated by good secondary sources; for anything in the biomedical space (details of the trials e.g.) it fails WP:MEDRS and cannot be used." The key concern here is about biomedical information; you are trying to use this source as a loophole in WP:MEDRS to admit health information boosting acupuncture into Misplaced Pages with is both outdated (per WP:MEDDATE) and explicitly refuted by subsequent high-quality secondary medical sources. As MEDRS states in its opening paragraph: "it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge". Alexbrn 08:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

No, you are misrepresenting the consensus. The article of course still is about the GERAC; it's just notable for the "event" you talk about and the article should take that into account (in regard to its content)... This source is not outdated (since it's not used in regard to its assessment about acupuncture in general, but only as a source to describe GERAC itself), and it clearly is an independent, third-party review. If the article's name was "The Federal Joint Committe's decision of 2007" - yes, you might have a point about this source being primary and not independent. But it's not. --Mallexikon (talk) 08:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The key point is it's not RS for the kind of dubious health information you want Misplaced Pages to include such as (in Misplaced Pages's voice) "This amounts to significant superiority of acupuncture and sham acupuncture over standard treatment, but no statistical significant efficacy difference between real and sham acupuncture". Even it is was a WP:MEDRS-compliant source (and it isn't) such statements would be inadmissible as they are out-dated and discredited. It's pure coat-racking. Alexbrn 08:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

You took this quote from the Knee osteoarthritis trial subsection - it's clearly not meant as a generalized assessment of acupuncture. I'm going to be more than willing to make sure this article doesn't dole out dubious health information. And I'd like to quote an editor from the AfD discussion: "I'll just point out that if I didn't like acupuncture, I might very well want the page to remain. The results suggest that the effectiveness of acupuncture is basically no more than sham acupuncture..." . You are misinterpreting my intentions here. --Mallexikon (talk) 09:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether the information is "pro-acupuncture" or "anti-acupuncture": we don't include dubious health information (such as that I quoted from the article) on Misplaced Pages through using unreliable sources for it, period. That means removing all the discredited primary biomedical material that has been laundered via this non-WP:MEDRS source. As far as I can see your intention is to keep this material in by having a loving detailed exposition (including tabular data!) from all these discredited sources. It would be a little bit like having a detailed explanation of the research behind supposed links between vaccination and autism in the Andrew Wakefield article (which of course we don't do). It's troubling. Alexbrn 09:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The bigger problem is this source and other sources are being used to discuss low level details. On Misplaced Pages we summarise the sources. The article is about the event. It is not an article about the trials itself. The medical information about the trials itself is coathook information. QuackGuru (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Bukharan Jews, lost tribes, etc.

1. Is the sentence

   Some ancient Jewish texts claim that during the reign of King David, in the 10th century B.C., Jews were already travelling to Central Asia as traders.

   of the source see p.75 of an associate professor at Columbia reliable for the following statement?

   According to some ancient texts, there were Israelites that began traveling to Central Asia to work as traders during the reign of King David of Jerusalem as far back as the 10th century B.C.E.

   I had revised the above sentence in the to more accurately reflect the sentence in the source so as to read

   According to some ancient Jewish texts, there were already Jews travelling to Central Asia as traders as far back as the 10th century B.C.E.

2. Is the sentence

   The Jews of Bukhara, in today’s Uzbekistan, have been speculated as hailing from the tribe of Issachar because the name Issachcaroff is common among them.

   of the source see p.84 by Amotz Asa-El reliable for the following statement?

   Among Bukharan Jews, there are two ancient theories of how Jewish people settled in Central Asia. Many Bukharan Jews trace their ancestry to the Tribe of Napthali and to the Tribe of Issachar of theLost Tribes of Israel who may have been exiled during the Assyrian captivity of Israel in 7th century BCE.

--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 16:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

At first sight your edit of the first sentence seems an improvement. Concerning the second sentence obviously other sources must be involved, and you are not pointing to any particular point of potential dispute, so harder to comment.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the second sentence, the only other reference is this webpage. I'm assuming that the webpage itself is unreliable to begin with, but there is no mention of "Napthali", for example, only an unsourced claim that "the Bukharan Jews themselves trace their heritage (to the 7th century BC when the Jews were exiled by the Assyrians(II Kings 17:6)". The webpage does cite a passage from the bible in relation to the exile by the Assyrians.

There are two academic sources, one a book by Parfitt and another by Benite. Parfitt's index has no listing for Bukhara or Central Asia, and it's been some time since I read it so I don't recall if there was any mention at all. This link is to a search of "Bukhara" in the book by Benite, and it can be seen to be mentioned almost exclusively with respect to a 19th century German Jew that converted to Christianity and became British named Joseph Wolff e.g., pp. 213-4-214.

So basically, the only other source cited doesn't appear to be reliable, and even that doesn't support all of the claims being made. In that respect the sentence in the article would appear to be WP:OR based on personal experience. The IP editor has basically identified himself as a Jew from Bukhara that has immigrated to the USA (Who is IP search), and he has rejected statements from another reliable source on the basis of his personal conjecture (see his comment on my Talk page and edit summaries, for example), basically. I filed this post after first filing a report at AN/I here.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 11:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Or it might be based on sources that someone had read but forgot to note. This does happen, and often it is a good idea to do a quick search for sourcing yourself before assuming the worst.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I've done a bit of checking, and there is the context of the claims of descent from lost tribes. There would appear to be only two academically published books by scholars in that field, as I mentioned. I have one and the other is available for preview on google books, as per the link above. I've done a fair amount of work to the Ten Lost Tribes and related articles, and there are few reliable sources on this topic because the lost tribes theories have been refuted by scholarship and genetics.

I did track down some pages on the Wayback Machine by the author of the text cited on the abovementioned webpage, but she is not a reliable source, and the text includes not references. This is a link to the relevant page, archived from 1998. The content is informative, but it only makes recourse to heresay regarding a supposed oral tradition that no scholars mention. And here webpages are cited as a source by this website also unreliable, I presume.

FYI, here is a Guardian article from a few years back, in which it is claimed that there are only about 300 Jews left in Bukhrara. Here is another article, from the Jerusalem Post stating

The Jews of Bukhara are an ethnic and linguistic group in Central Asia, claiming descent from 5th-century exiles from Persia.

If that is a reliable source, then I would think that the claim of "5th-century exiles from Persia" should suffice.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 11:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

That reasoning appears correct to me.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to go through some of this material. Since you've done so, please don't hesitate to contribute to the article after its unprotected. There would seem to be some gaps in the available information in the sources. For example, if that old synagogue is the only synagogue in Bukhara, then what about the purported population of Jewish immigrants from Russia? A google search returns almost no other results. This webpage has some scant information, but is of questionable reliability. It mentions two synagogues in Samarkand, but none in Bukhara.

There is a long history related to the topic of the article, but I arrived there checking advocacy of fringe theories related to claims of descent from "lost tribes", of which there is a significant amount at various articles. I've ordered the Benite book, incidentally, but it won't even be shipped to me for another couple of weeks. There may be something in that relevant to the article at issue.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 17:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I probably should register that I do not claim to have looked through these sources in detail in this case. My approach in this case has been to comment on the rationales and sourcing given, which all seems reasonable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

inter-disciplinary.net

I found this on google scholar posted on inter-disciplinary.net by Jacquelyn Bent, Theresa Porter, and Helen Gavin. Is it a reliably published source for use on their discussion of the cartoon character Elmyra Duff? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Just looking at the basics of RS, it doesn't look like inter-disciplinary.net (IDnet) has any editorial oversight or peer review (can anyone just post their OR without any review?), I don't see IDnet cited or discussed in other RS. I didn't find any other published work by the three authors elsewhere (any journal or magazine articles or book chapters in the field?) or citations of them by other RS authors nor did I find bio's of the authors giving credentials in the field. I have not yet checked the literary criticism databases so I may just not have found it yet. I don't mean to be hostile in any way just giving my 2 cents as a part of this noticeboard. My impression is this is non published OR by authors who are not experts in the field. If you have anything to show otherwise please post here for consideration, likewise if you have a reason why this source is important to the particular subject. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thats what I thought, but it came up in the google scholar search and I wasnt certain what criteria the scholar search used. Thanks! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

This is a non-traditional publishing model where professionals and amateurs work together with no distinction in status, and writers' credentials are not presented. I do not think the model meets Misplaced Pages rs requirements. However, we can assess each paper on its merits. In this case, two of the authors, Gavin and Porter are psychology professors who collaborated on a book published by Wiley-Blackwell. Hence the paper meets WP:SPS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." In this case they are writing about the psychology of a cartoon character. TFD (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I think TFD has a point. Evidence of publication of two of the authors lends credibility to the claim of established expertise in relevant field. I am not sure how established or how expert, are they full professors? Where? Is a single book enough to establish them as experts?

I am also not clear exactly how relevant the field is. I think we are talking literary criticism here not psychology. The field of expertise is clearly human psychology and the subject matter is definitely fiction. I think literary analysis is a clearly defined independent field with it's own publications and experts, how exactly do the authors qualify as experts in the relevant field for the discussion of a cartoon character? - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

You can read about Gavin's background here. The article provides psychological profiling of evil cartoon girls, which is within the competence of a forensic psychologist. In fact, Cleckley and other psychologists have analyzed fictional characters - Cleckley wrote about Iago and Edmond in Shakespeare for example.

Looking at Gavin's page, I found the paper in question has been published

Reflist

1. Bent, J.; Porter, T.; Gavin, H. (2011). "Sugar and Spice, but Not Very Nice: Depictions of Evil Little Girls in Cartoons and Comics". The Evil Body. Oxford: Inter-Disciplinary Press. p. 152-60. ISBN 9781848880740.
2. Bent, J.; Porter, T.; Gavin, H. (2011). "Sugar and Spice, but Not Very Nice: Depictions of Evil Little Girls in Cartoons and Comics". 3rd Global Conference: Evil, Women and the Feminine. Warsaw. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

I think that qualifies as RS. The listing of publications on Gavin's page do establish her as published on the subject of how women are portrayed. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Shoebat is reliable source for citing a sacrifice?

http://shoebat.com/2013/03/07/the-promotion-of-human-sacrifice-and-cannibalism-in-egypt/

That source would be reliable? It's from Walid Shoebat, containing different sourced information. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Not rs, because he is not an expert. Also, the sources he uses are mostly primary and probably could not be used either, unless their interpretation is supported by secondary sources. TFD (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

No - judging by his article he can't be considered a reliable source even for his own background. Podiaebba (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Hedy Lamarr - over emphasis on spread spectrum invention due to poor sourcing.

This is primarily about Hedy_Lamarr and the invention of Spread Spectrum - a claim that has been extended to include it's use in technologies including by not limited to CDMA, Bluetooth, WiFi and others.

I've done a lot of research into the claim that Lamarr created (along with George Antheil) a form of spread spectrum.

• What is not in doubt is that a patent (1941) exists and that Lamarr is credited as being one of the inventors.

• What is in serious doubt is the claim that this patent, in any way, formed a crucial part in the development of advanced signalling. A factor that forms a large section of the Lamarr page and implies that this single development gave us the above.

Prior to Lamarr/Antheil's patent (which made it impossible for enemies to jam control signals to remotely steered torpedoes) the technology had been invented and patented as early as 1903 Frequency-hopping_spread_spectrum#Multiple_inventors although this reference neglects the earliest attempts and the only reason we even know that this patent exists is because it was discovered during a routine prior art search - and Lamarr sued. Yet, even from Misplaced Pages's own sources, it's pretty clear that neither Lamarr (nor Antheil) had any claim to this technology. That hasn't stopped the PR machine from making a fair attempt at changing history. I should remind the casual reader that discovering/inventing something is not what counts, what counts is who invented it first. Had the military not classified the claim it's likely that a due-diliganace search would have shone light on this decades ago.

As to the reliability of sources surrounding this claim. Except for the patent that we know exists anything else is largely hear-say and based on flimsy evidence from two sources which have spread across the web over the years. Comparing any number of articles that make the claim or some reference to it, the same book or award pops up.

Hedy's Folly by Richard Rhodes and the 1997 EFF award for innovation spearheaded by David Hughes. Having spoken to Mr Hughes, he appears to be the single source of this claim since he was interviewed by Rhodes for that book. I haven't read it, but I'm assured that it contains a lot about George Antheil and comparatively little about Lamarr. And just for the record, he's damn nice chap. It's also worth mentioning that neither the EFF nor David had access to the information I have available to me today; and that's the difference.

As to those sources: I have been unable to find a single piece of corroborating evidence that cannot be traced back to misreadings or slavish copying of the Lamarr memoirs, Hedy's Folly or the EFF award.

Take a reference (13 as of this writing): http://www.insidegnss.com/node/303 - this states that "Today, No. 2,292,387 is considered the foundational patent for spread spectrum technologies."

Says who (I'll get to that)? The author of this piece, from the grandiose sounding "Gibbons Media & Research LLC" is non other than Eliza Schmidkunz who is co-owner of Gibbons Media and Research LLC. That is, as people are so fond of telling me, original research.

Perhaps Ms. Schmidkunz considers it so - I can't find anything else to back that claim up and it's central to the idea that Lamarr's patent gave us those technologies. The only expert in patents I can find is rather cynical about the whole thing, where he notes "Call me skeptical, but I suspect George Anthiel had other motivations for including Hedy as a co-inventor.

Now reference (14) http://people.seas.harvard.edu/~jones/cscie129/nu_lectures/lecture7/hedy/lemarr.htm (no citations) but the paper compares well with the facts distributed by David Hughes and expanded by Richard Rhodes in 2011.

Again we come back to David Hughes EFF nomination (and Lamarr's win) as the press release states: "Actress Hedy Lamarr and composer George Antheil are being honored by the EFF this year with a special award for their trail-blazing development of a technology that has become a key component of wireless data systems. In 1942 Lamarr, once named the "most beautiful woman in the world" and Antheil, dubbed "the bad boy of music" patented the concept of "frequency-hopping" that is now the basis for the spread spectrum radio systems used in the products of over 40 companies manufacturing items ranging from cell phones to wireless networking systems."

Yet we know, from earlier patents that the pair DIDN'T invent frequency hopping. The EFF award - and subsequent book - are based on flawed evidence (even if it was the best at the time).

A technique of frequency shifting is described in US Patent 1869659 filed in 1929 and granted in 1932 ; and there are others. It's a matter for others to decide why this prior art wasn't spotted by the examiner - my guess would be that the world was at war and folks had other things on their mind. But this IS prior art and the EFF Award, which is questionable at best, sets the precedent for everything that came after.

(Physics professor) Tony Rothman's 2003 book "Everything's Relative and Other Fables in Science and Technology" devotes a chapter to this myth - including SIGSALY and other mentions of using frequency switching - with citations to the material. Smidoid (talk) 03:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Need of inline Refimprove template

Hello,

Seasons greetings.

To express need of additional citations for verification english wikipedia has got multiple formats of Template:Refimprove, but all of them are box templates to be used for whole section or whole article.But I did not find any inline template simmiler to citation needed to fullfill need of inline template asking for additional citation for cross verification.Please let me know if there is one, or if some one can help in generating one would be a welcome step.

Mahitgar (talk) 05:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

How about {{Better source}} or {{Verify credibility}}? There are more in Category:Inline citation and verifiability dispute templates. bobrayner (talk) 00:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Paul dundas is reliable source?

Paul Dundas is a reliable source for citing about religions other than Jainism? His reliability has been questioned here at Talk:Jainism and Hinduism, due to the original research and false interpretation. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Bladesmulti's main reason for asking this appears to be his statement "Dundas is a pro-jain source, certainly lacking the account for writing about other religions." Writing about Jains doesn't make one anti-Hindu. And of course that he (Bladesmulti) disagrees with Dundas's view. He's reliably published academic and the only objection seems to be a disagree with his views (and a claim that he is fringe, which doesn't seem to have any basis). Dougweller (talk) 07:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Dougweller, I didn't called his claim to be Fringe, only questioned that if he's presenting wrong information about Vedas, it should be accepted? Like other user had pointed too. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Then attribute it. If other academics disagree, show their views also, attributed. Dougweller (talk) 08:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

In subjects where there are differences of opinion amongst experts, the best solution is normally to find MORE sources, showing the other arguments, not to try to delete the sources we have on the basis that they have a POV. In such cases, trying to argue that one source is more POV than another is often a never ending discussion, so not very practical.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Dundas is an established academic, working on Indian religions generally. Reliable for such topics Itsmejudith (talk) 23:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Dundas in many people's opinion may be a reliable academic but I find his knowlwdge of Hinduism shallow or he has not gone into depth of Hindu philosphy -

For example in article Jainism and Hinduism Dundas is cited as saying:-

The scriptures known as Vedas are the foundations of Hinduism. As per Hinduism, these scriptures do not have any author and are present since the beginning of the universe This position was countered by Jains who said that saying vedas as authorless was equivalent to saying that anonymous poems are written by nobody. Jain scriptures, on the contrary, were believed by them to be of human origin and hence had greater worth (citation given :Dundas, p. 234.)

The above line in article seems to be original research, as Vedas In Hindu tradition are the creation of Brahma. See search link - --- going by that can Dundas be accepted as a reliable source ??? I think Dundas did not research well before writing or his academic credentials are not worthy. Jethwarp (talk) 07:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

If Dundas wrote anything like that, I'm a Dutchman. (And I'm not, as it happens.) Based on your citation from our article, I think the first question is: what did Dundas really say? Can anyone verify? Andrew Dalby 10:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

@ :Andrew Dalby - I do not have resources to verify that as I do not have the book. But I had raised this same question at Talk:Jainism and Hinduism earlier and the editor, who is also creator of article said he has quoted same from the Dundas book which is available with him. That is why I raised the question that perhaps Dundas knowledge of Hinduism is shallow or poor. Jethwarp (talk) 13:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Also some of the claimed information from the book of Dundas certainly can't be verified either. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Using patents as reliable sources

The public (and from what I can see) Misplaced Pages seems to think that a patent is Reliable Source in the context of who did what and when. This is not the case - and I think we should be wary of using them. A patent grants rights to the inventor(s) to exclusively use their invention for gain for a set period. Many (most?) inventors assign their patents to other people/companies - often because they don't have the resources to exploit them. Some points worthy of note:

1. The person(s) named on a patent is not, necessarily the inventor. (I have personal experience of this.)
2. When, as is commonplace, more than one person is named as inventor, there is no way to be sure from that document who made what contribution.
3. Patent offices do not check to see if the invention works or is practical: just to see if something like it has already been "invented" (prior art).

I believe that these three points of patent law which are not well understood outside the field of inventors, are confusing enough to consider them unreliable witness for a Reliable Source.Smidoid (talk) 12:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Smidoid

Patents, in themselves, are "primary sources." That noted, they are reliable for the date of issuance (and, in some cases, of application), and for the wording of the claim made therein. Edison held many patents for which the credit should have belonged to his employees, but you are correct about how "work for hire" goes to the employer's credit -- just as it does for copyright, and awards for books. And Misplaced Pages accedes to the normal practice of crediting such authors and inventors as listed on the patent or authorship notice. Collect (talk) 13:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Collect except on the last sentence. If there's significant controversy about where the credit should go, Misplaced Pages would report the controversy using secondary sources, and would not rely on a primary source (such as a patent) on that issue.

But this board discusses specific cases. Is there a specific case to discuss? Andrew Dalby 13:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The issue here is how important Hedy Lamarr's frequency hopping patents are and whether they actually contributed to current use of the technology. Mangoe (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Mangoe is correct (I'm sure there will be other examples but this one has entered the public consciousness). Lamarr didn't invent frequency hopping; she won an award from the EFF and everything has snowballed from that. The original source material came from David Hughes who proposed Lamarr and Antheil for it. The confusion arises because of a bit of arcane patent law which we might see as a citation. Lamarr's "discovery" of frequency hopping was preceded by several others and at least one example in an early text book. IF Lamarr should be credited with anything, it's the technology designed to proven the jamming of WWII radio controlled torpedoes; and that's it. While we could argue about the level of her contribution until the sun dies and never get any further. The references to CDMA came from a patent prior art search which cites their patent long after it had expired. But the spread spectrum part of CDMA was invented separately and clean room - if it should cite anything, it should be siting the older patents - as far back as 1903. What appears to add to the confusion is that Lamarr sued - even though the patent had long expired; and was in the public domain.Smidoid (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Institute profiles/bios for views

• In Joseph R. Stromberg article at this diff removal of with special interests including United States foreign policy, and the "War on Terrorism". He has been a fellow for the Intercollegiate Studies Institute from The Independent Institute profile/bio here. Edit summary reads in part "Remove undue and non-RS content. "
• In Ralph Raico article at this diff removal of he writes about the history of liberty and the connection between war and the state. from Ludwig von Mises Institute bio here. Edit summary reads "Remove primary source description of vMI publications"
  

These are two bio stubs I just started beefing up and it seems views described by Institute sites are useful for providing a context for the article as well as a focus for further research. Thanks Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

For consideration, seeing as you 'just started beefing up' these articles, are these the only sources that make these claims or have you found more? AnonNep (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

It is not clear what you are asking for on this noticeboard. Per the instructions above, "This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context." But the two talk pages have developed very little/no discussion on the edits. I suggest the question be re-stated as a BRD on the two article talk pages. In any event, the straightforward institution descriptions of Stromberg & Raico should be considered RS in context. – S. Rich (talk) 23:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

As SRich knows so well the editor(s) in question are highly biased against the sources in question, and the subjects of the biographies, so given there are two similar incidents, it's a waste of time to hear the same biased arguments I've heard a thousand times from them on two different talk pages. And it would be against BRD for me to revert their edits.

To User:AnonNep: Really just starting and obviously better additional sources needed. I like to get a listing of all sources before I start adding more, so I start with easiest overviews like those. Unfortunately, the editor (and his close collaborators) keeps me and a couple other editors busy dealing with their activities on a number of bios of individuals they distain, i.e., deletions of NPOV material, threats of AfDs, adding of loads of questionable, often poorly sourced material that requires repeat visits to WP:RSN and WP:BLPN, etc. So it's a process of putting out the worst fire every day. With all the disruptions it's hard to get enough done given I'm just a volunteer with just a couple hours a day to spare.

Anyone know any way to get them to hold off for a while as we actually get some constructive addition of material done? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I was a bit nonplussed when I saw this. Stick with the processes and (how many more times?) skip the sniping, please, If people are being disruptive then get some admins involved. The sources s/b ok for basics such qualifications unless they are contradicted by other sources. I don't see any particular problem with using them for the quotes that you give but it probably would be better if you could find other sources because someone, somewhere might say that it is just publishers' spiel etc, the sort of stuff you see on the back cover of a book. - Sitush (talk) 00:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Striking whining. Thanks for advice. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you review the rest of your edits for the past week or so and strike the rest of your PA and other off-topic remarks. You have able collaborators here and your fellow editors are here to strengthen WP -- even when you disagree with, or do not understand, their thinking. SPECIFICO talk 01:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Stepping away from the nonproductive personal sniping, what is the supposed problem with the sources here? In both cases it appears that the sources in question were previously used in each article and continue to be used after the reverts. @SPECIFICO:, since you mentioned "non-RS content" in one of your edit summaries, can you explain what the concern is? Superficially the claims don't seem particularly controversial, and for non-controversial content an organizational bio seems acceptably reliable. If they were making claims of stature, like "widely renowned" or "recognized expert", then I would think differently, but that's not happening in these edits. --RL0919 (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing us back on topic. My original posting gives the edit summaries but the editor or deleted the material has not chosen to defend them here. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello @RL0919:. I think the primary-sourced bio text about special interests in whatever is gratuitous. These bios frequently contain promotional or boilerplate items. Presumably if Mr. Stromberg specializes in these areas we can find publications to add to his pubs list and secondary independent RS discussion of his contributions in these areas. Thanks for the question. SPECIFICO talk 04:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like a concern about the reliability of the sources. I would think an institutional bio page should be reliable as to what types of topics the subject works on. Whether the mention of that is gratuitous or promotional is a legitimate question for discussion, but it isn't a matter of source reliability. My two-fold suggestion is 1) for User:SPECIFICO, don't say "non-RS" in edit summaries when the concern is really POV/due weight, because it confuses the issue; and 2) for User:Carolmooredc, do try to use the article talk pages, because discussion there would have refined what the dispute was, so that even if it didn't resolve it, you could have escalated to a more appropriate forum. --RL0919 (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. My understanding of RS is that it relates to our confidence in the truth of what the source states. I have found in general that primary sources which describe various institutions, their affiliated individuals, or their programs may stretch the truth or state subjective views and evaluations as if they were fact. If the site stated that an associated writer is 6 feet tall or that he was born in Detroit, or some other verifiable/falsifiable fact that seems easy to accept. When the site states here are his interests or here's what he's noted for or some other subjective statement, even when its not intrinsically extreme or controversial, those statements seem problematic. I wouldn't have a POV/weight problem with stating his specialty if I were sure that independent sources considered it to be as identified. I agree with you, RL, that there was no reason to jump the gun and post this RSN to sort out a straightforward issue about a simple statement. Should we agree to close this and move back to the article talk page? SPECIFICO talk 20:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the claims in this case are particularly subjective (as I stated above, I would have a different position if the wording was evaluative/promotional), but I agree that this should go to the article talk pages. --RL0919 (talk) 00:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Because this is similar edits related to two articles and because SPECIFICO, the editor who removed the material, even objected to almost a dozen WP:RS ], it seemed like a waste of time to discuss it on the talk page since the discussion was predictable. No one has made a substantive comment on the talk pages since I posted notice of this. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Doc Halo page

Sources: John Lynn (2013-03-28). “HIPAA Compliant, Secure Texting Doc Halo App Lands Key Contract with Premier Healthcare Network” (http://www.emrandehrnews.com/tag/doc-halo/). EMR, EHR & HIT News. Retrieved 2013-11-05.

Joanne Maly(2013-09-27). "Doc Halo Reports That Omnibus Implementation has Healthcare Organizations Scrambling for 100% HIPAA Compliance for Secure Messaging" (http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/9/prweb11164305.htm). PR Web Retrieved 2013-11-05.

• These sources and the majority of the content were deleted from the Doc Halo page by an editor. But I believe them to be reliable, legitimate references and informative content.

Article: Doc Halo

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Doc_Halo&diff=582291368&oldid=582289527

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Doc_Halo&diff=582289527&oldid=582288153

25.35 (talk) 14:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

demographia.com

http://www.demographia.com/

We really need some viewpoints on this. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Note reliable. Here is a link to an article about them in Vancouver Magazine. It is run by Wendell Cox's company, and its objective is to promote automobile use and road construction. TFD (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

If this isn't considered reliable, then the UN urban agglometation data and the CIA country population data should be removed as well in my opinion. Just because they are considered reliable sources, that doesn't mean that they area reliable. I've already worked to disprove that the CIA is a reliable source at User:Elockid/Source Comparison. The UN's World Urbanization Prospects, is a poor source and was so poor in fact that it was nominated for deletion. Demographia's data in my view is much reliable than the UN. First off, unlike the UN, Demographia has a consistent definition that can be used to compare entry by entry. Since there is no universal definition of what a metropolitan area/urban area/agglomeration is, other lists become problematic since they employ different methodology for each entry. Probably the best one I've heard is the London vs. New York argument. The common argument is that if London had the same definition as New York, the population would be X million. At least with Demographia, there's an explanation of their methodology and in doing so, readers can actually compare between entries. Even with an official data available, the UN has grossly underestimated data for some entries. Demographia has some consistency with official data. See below for some examples:

City	Official	Demographia	CityPopulation	UN
Jakarta	23,308,500 (2000)	26,746,000 (2013)	26,400,000 (2013)	9,769,000 (2011)
Osaka	19,342,000 (2010)	17,175,000 (2013)	16,800,000 (2013)	11,494,000 (2013)
Seoul	25,721,000 (2012)	22,868,000 (2013)	25,800,000 (2013)	9,736,000 (2011)

There are other entries where the UN grossly underestimates data. Comparing it to the sources available, Demographia has more consistency than the UN. Elockid 03:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

UN figures are lower because the use the population for the city rather than the metropolitan area. They say they get their info from national governments. However Democraphica says (p. 4) that it gets its information national governments too, when it is unavailable they make their own estimates or use UN estimates. Citypopulation also says it takes its figures from government sources. There is no reason to use Demographia, you just need to decide whether to use city or metropolitan figures. TFD (talk) 05:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

For major cities we surely need to give all the main population estimates, explaining any discrepancies. All this stuff is in the public domain. Each country publishes its census results and these publications are reliable. The UN estimates are also worth mentioning. I can't see that this website adds anything. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

After running into a problem while trying to edit an article that had had deleted material Wendell Cox/Demographia, I was kindly directed to this discussion. How bad is the spamming of this disputed resource? And I agree that if there are (reliable) conflicting population estimates that they should be included.24.0.133.234 (talk) 12:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces (talk · contribs): That is blatantly not true. No source will tell you that Tokyo has a CITY population of 35+ million. I can go on and will take more than a page. Elockid 14:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Not following you. Demographia says that the "Tokyo-Yokohama Metropolitan Area had a population of 34,472,000 in 2005, while Tokyo prefecture had a population of 12,571,000." They provided Japan Statistics Bureau and Statistics Center as a source. The UN provides a total of 35,622,000 for the "urban agglomeration" of Tokyo. Most of the difference is accounted for by Demographia excluding Yamanashi. In any case, why would we cite Demographia, when they get their numbers from elsewhere? TFD (talk) 15:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I've had a look at the links I've removed and I can't see any evidence of them showing their sources or their calculations. If their sources exist, it would be nice to review them and perhaps see if we can reconsider, but at the moment, I don't see how it's possible to consider Demographia a reliable source. That's ignoring the potential conflict of interest that exists as it's not really an information resource but a consultancy with various business interests. Nick (talk) 17:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

UN figures are lower because the use the population for the city rather than the metropolitan area. How does that exactly hold true when you just stated the UN provides a total for Tokyo for "urban agglomeration" rather than city? There are plenty of data where numbers are not readily available for metropolitan areas/urban agglomerations/urban areas. Chinese cities (they don't come up with a metropolitan area figure and even just counting the urban cores for those cities leads into SYNTH/OR problems). Pakistan (their last census took place in 1998 and I have yet to find their metropolitan areas/urban agglomerations/urban areas), and Egypt, Russia are some examples where metro/urban/agglomeration data is not available. Even if they were available and we were to use solely official, we would get back to the London vs. New York debate. Elockid 17:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

This is taken directly from the UN site: Population of urban agglomerations with 750,000 inhabitants or more in 2011 (thousands) Urban agglomerations are not cities and it's common knowledge that they are not the same. Common perception of what an urban agglomeration is that they are similar or to but not necessarily the exact same as a metropolitan area or urban area. They are also often interchangeable. Are you saying that despite the UN having a vastly different number it is still a reliable source despite the fact that the official source for Seoul puts the metropolitan area at 25+ million or the fact that other sources say otherwise? While I agree that it's important to include disputed numbers, but when the data is just obviously wrong not even remotely matching that from the established data or other comparable data, then common sense dictates that it's not reliable. Elockid 18:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

@Nick: it's in page 5 (page 7 if viewing pdf) of the report that I linked above in the table. Elockid 18:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not we should use UN statistics is not particularly relevant here; the key is that Demographia is not a reliable source. I pointed to a number of reasons on User Talk: Jl2047a, foremost among them being there is clearly no editorial oversight with a history of fact-checking. The grammatical quality of the document indicates a non-professional production. And it is known that the author is an advocate for a very specific form on city planning which presumably would/could be affected by population statistics. Finally, there is no reason to believe that Cox's definition of the urban area is equivalent to Misplaced Pages definition, especially since he explicitly states that he's making his own decisions based on satellite imagery. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

It's entirely relevant. What I am pointing out is that if you consider Demographia to be unreliable then the UN is just as if not more unreliable. Why should we consider them reliable? Because of the perceived notion that they have editorial oversight? I suppose you even say that the CIA population data is reliable for countries such as Turkey or the Phililppines? No they are not. It's quite obvious that the large disparity in data even comparing to that of official sources blatantly shows clear lack of editorial oversight or a lack of effort at fact checking. What I am getting that is the data presented by Demographia is more reliable and of which I've already outlined above. If you guys say the data from Demographia is questionable, then prove it by showing data that's says otherwise. Elockid 00:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Elockid, the UN figures you linked to in your table represent the city population while the figure of 35M for Tokyo you just threw out represents the metropolitan area. So the UN provides both, you must choose which to use. Or use another reliable source, just do not use Demographia.. TFD (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Not true again. The Osaka figure is not that of the city population. Like I said in my expanded comment, those are data for "urban agglomerations". Elockid 00:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The UN data for Osaka shown above is Osaka Prefecture, while the numbers from Demographia are for the Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto region (Keihanshin). And guess what else. The UN's figures for New York City will probably differ from Demograhia's figures for New York State, and vice versa. Why on earth does any of this matter? TFD (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not correct again. Kobe is in the Hyōgo Prefecture which is included in the UN figure. This matters because there's source bias at present. In any report, paper, article, etc. the most important thing you do is always check your sources. Even though there are considered reliable sources, they are perceived notion, not actual reliability. The most logical approach is to see if really in fact the source is reliable. I said previously that the metropolitan/urban/agglomeration data is not released by all census authorities. In situations like these, why shouldn't Demographia be used? People have stated that the UN should be stated but why? I am under the assumption that because of source bias, in these type of situations, the UN data despite the number inaccuracies/inconsistencies, will be preferred by those saying that Demographia is unreliable while also considering that the UN is. What I am trying to get at is that we are not really doing our jobs in determining the reliability of a source but using source bias instead of concrete evidence to do so. There's not a comprehensive review of which I mean looking at other sources to help determine the reliability of the data. I do really appreciate that you tried to find concrete evidence to support your stance and prove that Demographia is unreliable. Elockid 21:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I said that Osaka was in the Osaka prefecture, not that Kobe is in the Osaka prefecture. Still not following your logic. If the UN figure for Hyōgo Prefecture is accurate, what does that matter if one of their lists provides the population for that prefecture? TFD (talk) 06:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

When you said, The UN data for Osaka shown above is Osaka Prefecture, I assumed that you meant that the UN figure I listed above is based on Osaka Prefecture. I am saying that this is not true because Kobe is not part of the Osaka Prefecture. Kobe is included in the figure shown above. So the figure can't be based on Osaka Prefecture. In other words, the 11 million figure given by the UN neither matches the official nor is it with agreement with other sources. It's not the Osaka Prefecture or Osaka + Hyogo. Furthermore, going back to the statement you made above how the lower figures are attributed to the city population being used, how reliable is a list then that uses a metropolitan definition for one, a city definition for another, or an urban agglomeration definition according to the UN, etc.? I don't care that this the UN. What I care about is that they are 1) consistent with the official source, 2) consistent with other sources or 3) have some methodology/consistent definitions. In any comparison study, if the definitions for data are different for each entry, then that would not be a reliable study. The UN source fails at 3. Not all the numbers are bad or inaccurate as seen in cities like Tokyo. But the fact that point 3 is lacking means that it is not reliable. Readers want to compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges. At least with Demographia, there is consistency with definition/methodology.

I am saying that source reliability shouldn't be based on reputability. Not everything a source publishes or releases is reliable. All sources make mistakes. No source is perfect. This is why it is important to take information from multiple sources. However, the UN has consistently published data that doesn't match the criteria I listed above. Just because it's the UN, it doesn't mean that we should include it (there is an argument above that they should be included) especially when multiple editors/readers have highlighted the problems with the urbanization study. However, disqualifying Demographia on the basis that it adds nothing extra, wouldn't the UN not add anything extra either? Basically, treat the sources fairly. Elockid 14:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I was directed here because my edits to the Wendell Cox, which is also the redirect page for Demographia page, were reversed. I'm still waiting for clarification on what if anything that has to do with this matter.

Also, there is quite a bit of information which explains exactly where Cox is getting the Demographia numbers from in the pdf. yearly report which btw contradicts what some of you have been saying here about the data. Such as the fact that satellite is used. Yes it is used, but the reasoning is explained that satellite photos are not being used to count or estimate population but to find areas that were otherwise not mentioned. Copied from the 2013 Annual Report are the sources from where the information is derived--Sources for Base Population & Land Area Estimates A: National census authority data agglomeration data (land area or population). B: Demographia land area estimate based upon map or satellite photograph analysis. C: Demographia population from lower order jurisdictions, including reduction for rural areas. D: Population estimate based upon United Nations agglomeration estimate. E: Demographia population estimate from national census authority data. F: Other Demographia population estimate. L: Demographia population estimate from local authority data. N:Combined urban area using national census authority data http://www.demographia.com/db-worldua.pdf a comprehensive listing of urban area (agglomeration) population and densities (edited to add24.0.133.234 (talk) 01:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)) I'm not totally convinced that the data is bad even if Mr. Cox has some kind of contentious or unpopular, or self-serving, agenda. And I'm not convinced that the editor who was adding Demographia numbers and info. to the multi-infoboxes was operating under a COI either. Is it possible that those numbers/info-headings are available on international Wikipedias and that the editor speaks another language? I'd like to see if that editor returns to answer questions or comment on what it was they were trying to do there. Although they were asked to please slow-down, and they are a single issue account I'd like to assume good faith here until proven otherwise.24.0.133.234 (talk) 01:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think the editor will be coming back. I strongly believe that this user was editing under good faith and was blocked harshly. While the massive additions may seem like spamming, they definitely were not in my view. I would even venture to say that anyone who is involved with demographic statics would agree with me that they were not spamming. We're not the only project that uses Demographia. We have some of the largest projects such as Spanish,French, or Italian projects also who use Demographia. If they were really spamming, believe me as someone who blocks a number of spam accounts, I would have taken action or intervened myself (I had already noticed this user adding Demographia before the issue was brought up with the editor). Elockid 02:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't able to access the Vancouver Magazine article earlier but now I can (this was mentioned above). From what I can see, there's some strong or at least elevated liberal bias/anti-conservative bias in there. Even non-neutral sources can be reliable but news articles should strive for neutrality. The bias in the article leads me to believe that there is at least some liberal agenda in the article. In my opinion, this article reads much more of an editorial. Elockid 02:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have a consensus of this board. Not reliable. The UN and CIA issue is a red herring. A city's area (administrative) is determined by its national government. The area of its agglomeration is determined by geographers and demographers. Its population is ascertained by a census. There may be inconsistencies across countries; we have to live with them. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, no one (with the exception of one) has given any strong or reasonable proof why it's unreliable. They have neither given evidence to disprove the reliability of the source. Rather personal analyses were presented without any links or evidence to prove why it's unreliable. The only user who was obtained any sort of concrete evidence was TFD. Elockid 21:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, we don't have to give proof. It doesn't add anything to what is already known about city populations. It just crunches stats that are already available in reliable sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say this, Elockid, but I think it's the other way around. We need "strong or reasonable proof" that it is a reliable source. I think Qwyrxian hits the nail on the head with his above post starting with "Whether or not we should use UN statistics is not particularly relevant here...". There are just too many indications that this is not a good source. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

@Judith: not giving proof is ridiculous. In any debate, you must have proof when you are questioned. If you insist on saying that Demographia doesn't have anything to ask, would you mind please finding me then the metropolitan/agglomeration/urban population (not the city, county, prefecture, province, etc.) of Cairo or perhaps Karachi from the official sources?

@Anna: I am going to be in disagreement. I have attempted to prove that the data is reliable by showing that it is reliable using other reliable sources. In any debate or argument, like statements made in an article, you must show support for statements with evidence. What are these indications? For example, what exactly in the source (specific passages) would make people agree that it's not a reliable source. What is written in the passage that leads to question the data? Part of a debate or argument is for everyone to give concrete evidence, not for one to. If the opposition can't come up with evidence or even refute the data I have presented, then I see no basis for the arguments being made by the opposition. Elockid 23:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we have to prove that it is unreliable. Strong indications that it is unreliable are enough to disqualify it. We have to trust a source beyond a reasonable doubt. There is doubt, by several editors, for several reasons.

You say that it is reliable because some figures seem to make sense. Well, an unreliable media source may get the facts in lots of stories right, but that doesn't mean we should consider it a reliable source. We have to examine such factors as the source's agenda, the presence of editorial oversight, and yes, the grammatical quality. Would we really trust an online newspaper that failed in those respects? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

No source can be trusted beyond a reasonable doubt. Even "considered" reliable sources fail at times. U.S. cities even challenge the Census bureau sometimes and wins. Also, the fact that the CIA has been on this noticeboard multiple times further shows that "considered" or "perceived" reliable sources are not trusted beyond a reasonable doubt. This is why you merit other factors such as comparison between other sources when able.

I can also argue that there are strong indications that the source is reliable with no willingness to show proof either. But that doesn't really give any basis to my argument. The Urban Area Report grammatical quality is far from terrible, unprofessional, or a source with elementary grammatical skills. I don't see anything in the publication that has a negative agenda. I don't see any indications of spam or promotion either. If we were to discredit sources based on source agenda, then sources such as MSNBC or FOX would qualify. But the source agenda doesn't disqualify them as unreliable for a number of people (Personally, I think both these sources fail in more than one areas of what a qualifies as a reliable source). I'm sure there are other similar sources out there. If the facts or data are wrong then there isn't much of a presence of editorial oversight. However, there is information that is believable and correlates with that of established data. It's not like the data was pulled out of thin air either. Please note that 24.0.133.234 mentioned about the sourcing above. Elockid 02:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

As explained, the source has an agenda - it opposes public transit. Also, it gets its numbers from somewhere else. The oil companies that support the site do not visit all the cities of the world and count inhabitants. TFD (talk) 06:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmmmm, you do make good points, but I still think there are too many indications that it's a bad source. I think we should err on the side of caution and select alternate sources. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

@TFD: How does a source that opposes public transit make it a bad agenda? Also, this was taken from 24.0.133.234 above. "Also, there is quite a bit of information which explains exactly where Cox is getting the Demographia numbers from in the pdf. yearly report which btw contradicts what some of you have been saying here about the data." It's not like the data is made up and it's quite evident that they're not.

@Anna: The problem is that there are not many alternate sources. In many cases, from what I have seen, official sources can be difficult to find due to a language barrier. Sometimes even if there is an English version, they are not as comprehensive or lacking in information that would be in the country's native langauge(s) or they simply do not release a figure for metropolitan data/agglomeration/urban. Even though some official sources like China release urban core figures, and suburban figures, combining figures can be construed as OR or SYNTH as they are not official definitions. A study done by Forstall gives examples of other available sources out there which are WorldGazetteer, CityPopulation, Mongabay, and CityMayors. The links for WorldGazetteer are dead, Mongabay uses Misplaced Pages as a source and CityMayors use UN data for an agglomeration list (it's essentially a mirror). There was previously another website that published similar data but they have gone through an extensive revamp and they do not have their data publicly online. We could use Forstall's study but many editors have pointed out that the figures are outdated and there are many other cities missing from the list (it only goes to top 25). If were to not use Demographia, CityPopulation and the UN would be really be the only sources available. Readers like to compare cities and get an idea of how big a city is. So another one of the points why I included the UN is that readers are unable to compare cities. We really don't have alternate choices to choose from. Elockid 16:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Readers like to compare cities, yes, but the info may simply not be there. The EU has defined a Larger Urban Zone and we could cite area and population for those using Eurostat. In other areas the work on ensuring comparability hasn't been done, except by the UN. It isn't a one-off website that is going to get that comparability. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

At the risk of being repetitive, let me summarize. You have provided no evidence that Demographia is reliable. And your evidence against the UN is based on comparing figures for different population areas.

Let's look at one example in Demographia: "the Toronto, Hamilton and Oshawa metropolitan areas...are combined into a single combined urban area." It also says "Toronto, ON, Canada: Includes Hamilton and Oshawa." Since they provide a population of over 6 million, they are clearly referring to the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTA). The description is however a little misleading, because both Oshawa and Toronto are part of the Greater Toronto Area. Of course using the GTHA makes sense for Demographia, because the area is served by Metrolinx, a public transit authority. But other than providing the population for the GTHA article infobox, what use is it? Even then it is problematic because it does not actually say it is describing the GTHA. And it does not provide the population for the GTA, Toronto, Hamilton, Oshawa or any of the other municipalities inside the GTHA.

TFD (talk) 19:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Non-open wiki

Can the Ohio History Central wiki be reliable for topics within its purview? See its Lazarus Bonham article and how I'm using it at Hunting Lodge Farm. I'm guessing that it's reliable because:

1. The main website, ohiohistorycentral.org, is the official website of the Ohio Historical Society, which is scholarly and definitely reliable
2. It's a closed wiki; see this page's history and look at what happens when you try to edit the page
3. Check the about page; it's written by history professionals

Against all of these things, I need to stack the fact that it's still a wiki. Can wikis ever be reliable sources? Nyttend (talk) 02:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

A wiki is just a tool, like Microsoft Word. In this particular article, the content was put in by a user called "Admin", so it would appear no less reliable than anything published by the Society on a normal webpage. If there were multiple users and all were professional historians given permission to edit by the Society, that would be something like a collaboratively-written book where every contribution is traceable to a particular person - which arguably ought to give more confidence in the result. Podiaebba (talk) 10:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. The authoritative authorship made me guess that it was acceptable, but I've never before seen a closed wiki that was written by scholars that I wanted to use as a reference, so I didn't know but that we rejected wikis as RS 100% of the time. Nyttend (talk) 14:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm supposing it would be necessary to link to a specific version of a page, as otherwise you'd be pointing at dynamic content. Alexbrn 14:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Could you explain more in detail why you say that? Any page is dynamic in a sense, but as I included the date of publication and the date of access, anyone can use the page history to discover which revision was current when I viewed and cited it. Nyttend (talk) 17:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

If the reference includes accessdate and an archive of the page at or close to that date it should suffice. Linking to a specific version of the page is also appropriate. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Oral Citations (2)

Background info

• Related discussion from Dec 2012
• detailed investigation
• Wikimania 2013 slides

Request

I'd like to approach this noticeboard before actually adding any oral citations. There was a discussion in December about Achal Prabhala's (aprabhala) WMF-funded project. The community here wasn't very perceptive of the idea, partly due to concerns about intellectual property (uploading files on Commons to back up article claims), partly due to a general resistance to the idea.

My colleague Maja and I found several weaknesses in both the general approach of the en.wp editor community and in the particular roll-out by Achal. We pre-released a book chapter, and I gave a talk at Wikimania Hong Kong, both with the aim to re-activate the discussion. Roughly, we claim that:

1. Indigenous knowledge (IK) is knowledge
2. Misplaced Pages wants to be the sum of all knowledge
3. Misplaced Pages therefore should aim to include IK

and that

1. All knowledge is documented in reliable sources (RS) of some sort
2. IK is documented almost exclusively in non-written form
3. Therefore some non-written sources are reliable

I would be happy if some of you had the time to go through this argument and the supporting documents, and either prove us wrong or allow oral citations. If neither happens, which would somewhat be the expected result, :) we plan to put this to a test in 2014, taking a few topics for which no/little RS can be found, and develop content based on oral citations. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 09:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The question is too general for this board. Yes, there can be a tension between WP:V and our concern to avoid systemic bias. You should take this to the talk page of WP:V, because it goes to the heart of what Misplaced Pages is about. Either that or the village pump. Wherever you take it, giving some examples would be very helpful. Can you show that indigenous knowledge is not available in written (codified) form? Perhaps all knowledge is indigenous until it is codified? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Although I am sympathetic to the broadening of Misplaced Pages coverage, this proposal is problematic across numerous policies. In particular, oral sources are WP:PRIMARY, which means that the WP editor is effectively creating WP:NOR by selecting the source and content that is used. Wikipdeia aspires to include all human knowledge, not 'everything anyone has ever said'.Martinlc (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

In effect the aim of this proposal is to publish things for the first time, which is not the aim of this community, nor the way it is set up. It would require fundamentally different ways of working that would make the rest of Misplaced Pages difficult to continue. So the more obvious approach is to try to develop a new Wiki?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

@Itsmejudith: Indeed, the proposal is broad. I brought it here first because it was discussed here before. It touches WP:V --- the paper and the slide show referenced above argue that it is absolutely verifiable. A real-world example is difficult to give at this time because IK is just not available in writing. Template {{cite}} would also need adaptations. Hypothetical examples would be (Sorry, I have no idea how to restrict the {{Reflist}} template to just show the two relevant sources):

The village of Ovitoto was founded in the 1860s by Herero Chief Tjamuaha.

The OvaMbanderu people use the fresh leafs of Securidaca longipedunculata to heal menstruation pain.

1. http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0307742954
2. http://patentlawcenter.pli.edu/2011/12/05/the-truth-about-hedy-lamarr/#sthash.xGRGAHWA.dpuf"
3. http://www.google.com/patents/US1869659
4. Kauraihe Meroro, Deputy Headman of Ovitoto, speaking on the occasion of the centenary of Ovitoto Roman Catholic Church (14 December 2013)
5. Himeezembi Karokohe, medicine man of the Erindi-Roukambe community, speaking on the occasion of the annual Violet Tree leaf harvest (1 September 2013)

@Martinlc & Andrew Lancaster: Oral knowledge is published orally: A village elder delivers a narrative, other elders listen and correct him if necessary by telling their version of the narrative. It is not just something that happens to be said, it is a ritualised session of knowledge transfer, predictable both in time and content.

Generally, do you contest that Indigenous knowledge is knowledge? If not, do you contest that WP should be the sum of all knowledge? --Pgallert (talk) 10:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not the sum of all knowledge and never can be. See WP:NOT for some of the important things that we aren't. 99% of the important and useful knowledge that you and I have is tacit and uncodified, like how to get from my house to the greengrocers, or whether the light is bright enough for me to be typing at the moment. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

You're preaching to the choir. But the matter of the fact is that there is real knowledge out there that is not available in writing, and that's what I'm talking about. Did you check the examples in the documentation linked at the top? --Pgallert (talk) 12:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

RS issues at Genieo

There has been a slow-motion edit war at this page over whether this software company issues malware. One IP in particular has been insistent on deleting any reference to it as such. Other users have restored the changes but sometimes supported these statements with unreliable sources, like Apple forums. There are many others in the article that look more reliable, but I lack the expertise to make a definitive call. Please help me determine which of the following sources, if any, constitutes "reliable". Some are already cited on the page, and some are potential sources to cite.

• http://www.intego.com/mac-security-blog/another-problematic-softonic-installer-brings-adware/ (cited)
• http://www.thesafemac.com/malicious-genieo-installers-persist/ (cited)
• http://www.thesafemac.com/arg-genieo/ (cited)
• https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/d0e6dde42506f5d2f7e926de20e88c8f75a430d23e4f079d3f3bbd1919230e83/analysis/ (cited)
• http://malwaretips.com/blogs/genieo-search-removal/
• http://www.anvisoft.com/resources/how-to-remove-search-genieo-com-browser-hijacker-removal-guide/
• http://www.pcinfected.com/search-genieo-com-virus-removal/

--Jprg1966  19:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't consider the opinions of experienced volunteer helpers on Apple forums to be 'clearly not reliable' as you do. Why do you value your own volunteer efforts, & that of those whose opinions you seek here, over those at Apple?, when some of the helpers there very clearly have considerable experience & knowledge. That you in contrast to those references - even suggest sites like malwaretips, where the 'removal' instructions for Apple are almost non-existent & unlikely to have any useful effect, is disheartening as regards the quality of wikipedia. 146.90.240.199 (talk) 12:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The point here is not to find a good how-to guide for uninstalling malware. That's not what Misplaced Pages is. I'm trying to find a reliable, third-party source that can identify Genieo as malware (or not). The whole point of me bringing the list of possible sites is to get outside feedback on their usability. If people here say they're not reliable, I won't use them. Simple as that. --Jprg1966  19:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

& the point in discussing that 'how to remove' site - first suggested by you, is that it's not reliable. Why is the opinion of anyone who can set up a blog or website necessarily to be valued over that of experienced volunteers, just as you seem to be ?.146.90.240.199 (talk) 12:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Another two potential sources for consideration here

• http://www.intego.com/mac-security-blog/another-sketchy-genieo-installer-discovered/
• http://www.thesafemac.com/malicious-download-installs-genieo-and-gophoto-it-adware/

146.90.240.199 (talk) 12:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• https://www.virustotal.com/en/url/f00c717bff2b7b1734f36bf8498686fcc56f46c7dda948938e737f83b4bfb9be/analysis/

shows a malware/malicious rating from 7 sources, only one of which is common to both this and the other virustotal link suggested by Jprg1966 above. Also noted here, since the article is currently locked - a suggested source for the claim that Genieo includes targeted advertising.

• http://www.genieo.com/advertorials/

87.114.254.100 (talk) 08:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

another potential source :

• http://www.protectmac.com/news/index_files/77a450d61e46497cf6d456c2ae50c708-77.html

146.90.251.97 (talk) 20:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine: Trahelliven and Ykantor: Ruth Lapidoth and Moshe Hirsch

1 Source

Memorandum on the Future of Jerusalem submitted to the U.N. General Assembly by the Delegation of Israel to the U.N., 15 November 1949: pages 51 and 52, paragraph 10 (part): The Jewish Question and it Resolution: Selected Documents: Edited by Ruth Lapidoth and Moshe Hirsch: Document 15, pages 49-73: published by Martinus Nijhoff]

An edited version of the source is as follows:-

"10...The (Partition) Plan was overthrown by Arab violence on the field of battle, accompanied by unanimous and concerted Arab opposition in the General Assembly and the Trusteeship Council. In April 1948 (in fact 16 February 1948), the United Nations Palestine Commission, reporting its inability to carry out any part of the Plan, including the Jerusalem Statute, without large international forces, wrote:

"Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.".... "Armed Arab bands from neighboring Arab States..., together with local Arab forces, are defeating the purposes of the Resolution by acts of violence.”

The Arab onslaught described by a United Nations Commission in these terms began in the City of Jerusalem itself. The Arab world had taken up arms, not only against the establishment of a Jewish State, but also with equal fervor and greater success against the establishment of an international regime in Jerusalem. In the Trusteeship Council the Representative of Iraq said:

"It is my duty to show that the Plan for the City of Jerusalem is illegal... the people of Jerusalem who are not sacred should not incur political punishment because their City is holy. Neither the Iraqi Government nor other Arab States arc prepared to enter into the details or to participate in the discussion of the Plan."

A reference for the first half of the embedded quote has been added. I could not find a reference for the second half nor for the second embedded quote.

2 Article

United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine

3 Content

The Arabs were against the establishment of an international regime in Jerusalem too.: Quotation added 15:01, 31 August 2013

Is a contemporary Memorandum written by Israeli government officials a reliable source on the attitudes and actions of Arab leaders or government? Trahelliven (talk) 16:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

FOR EARLIER DISCUSSION SEE Trahelliven (talk) 09:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Primary source. This important history article should be written up from secondary sources, and mainly from histories of the UN. NB I have edited the article concerned. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Would people call these reliable sources?

How they are being used can be seen here I would argue that neither of these organizations have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and thus would say no. This user feels otherwise. Thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I am an editor of medical articles along with Doc James and follow many of the topics he, and WP:MED, follows.

I find nothing on any of the subpages of http://soars.org.uk that gives any indication of any of our usual measures of reliability, and this page is worrisome. I'm not sure this website meets WP:RS, much less WP:MEDRS.

Likewise, http://crouchfoundation.org/about-us.html appears to be an advocacy organization, and I find nothing on the page that indicates reliability by any of our usual measures.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

It is often very relevant to see what edits are being discussed. As a first step, I do not see anything especially medical about the edits I can see. These appear to be the two texts being sourced in our article...

• ...increasingly became the targey of satirical comment, such as the spoof advertisement in the 1839 Bentley’s Miscellany for a London Suicide Company or the Gilbert and Sullivan musical The Mikado that satirised the idea of executing someone who had already killed himself.
• Thomas More the English humanist, wrote in Utopia (1516) that a person afflicted with disease can “free himself from this bitter life…since by death he will put an end not to enjoyment but to torture...it will be a pious and holy action”. Other thinkers with similar views were John Donne, and Montesquieu.

My first impression is that in any case because these are relatively un-interpreted quotations of "primary" materials, which are well-known historical writers, it should in any case be easy to check if these quotes are verifiable. The more "secondary" non-obvious interpretation, the more important it becomes to have a strong secondary source.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I would like to see better sourcing for the history of suicide. There are umpteen sociology textbooks that present Durkheim's work, and those would be reliable, especially those aimed at postgraduates. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Is this reliable?

The source for the genre is from this link, , in which I think is a not reliable because the whole book is not about The Simpsons, nor if I think the book is completely fiction. The source is referencing this content:

The Simpsons is an American adult animated sitcom created by Matt Groening for the Fox Broadcasting Company.

As of that sentence is the first from the article is which is supporting the reference. The user who added it claimed that the source is reliable, in which I'm opposing to the statement that it isn't.
Blurred Lines 23:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't waste time over this. It's common knowledge that The Simpsons is appreciated by both children and adults. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

@Itsmejudith: Exactly, so does that mean the reference is not reliable? Blurred Lines 20:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind, by saying No in the edit summary, you were probably trying to say that it's not. Blurred Lines 20:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The book was published 1994 and it's categorised in Amazon as Crafts and Hobbies. Not reliable. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

That's what I thought, thanks for responding! Blurred Lines 20:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The non-fiction book: Fashion & Merchandising Fads (Haworth Popular Culture) by Frank Hoffmann and Beulah B Ramirez (Aug 11, 1994) is a reliable source and supports the information except for the "Adult" portion. I would say to exclude that or source it better to a specific citation. It has a reliable publisher (Routledge (August 11, 1994) ) and the authors appear to be notable for works on pop culture.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you on that one, because I noticed that something was wrong when I was looking at the adult part. Blurred Lines 20:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

25thframe.co.uk

• The source in question: 25thframe.co.uk
• The article: List of highest-grossing films in the United Kingdom

The above website is used to source the first chart in the article. I have reservations about this source because i) there seems to be a couple of corrections in our chart attributed to other sources and ii) I can find scant information about who runs this site, and the level of editorial oversight. I've been overhauling the list with an eye on FL promotion but I have concerns that the source in use would not withstand an FL review. So in a nutshell does this source pass muster or should I look for an alternative? Betty Logan (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Songkick.com

Is songkick.com a reliable source for concert dates, locations, and their opening acts? --Jpcase (talk) 00:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I will hazard a guess and say no going by what they say here: "Songkick was founded in 2007 by Ian Hogarth, Pete Smith, and Michelle You: three friends who thought it was way too hard to find out when their favorite bands were coming to town." It seems to be self-published by three friends, meaning there is no separate editorial oversight. Looks like a useful site but doesn't meet Misplaced Pages's RS criteria. Betty Logan (talk) 01:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution