Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:58, 24 September 2010

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

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

Additional notes:

• WP:RSN
• WP:RS/N
• WP:V/N

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

Archives

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

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

Sources for nutrition issue: Monosodium glutamate

Folded lengthy discussion that belongs at talk:Monosodium glutamate LeadSongDog come howl! 20:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Does typical WP practice demand "plagiarism lite", and does it matter?

I would like to ask if others are sometimes uncomfortable with the following, and whether anyone has any practical suggestions about it. The most common scenario is something like this made-up case:- "this online review article looks well-written and well-sourced, great, but because RS debate is possible you should just use its handy bibliography for what you wanted to put in and not mention what led you there". Sound familiar?

Even when people then get copies of the articles in said bibliography (as per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT) in many cases of course, what ends up being put into Misplaced Pages is structured and worded in ways which are inspired by the helpful author of the good but potentially questioned source. However, editors are effectively told not to say so. (Indeed many are presumably doing this the whole time and not talking about it.) Structuring of subject matter, simple observations, basic ways of explaining uncontroversial things, are often not "OR", raise no red flags, and their sources are hard to prove, so no one cares where they come from. But if such influences are so uncontroversial why is being honest about it considered such a no-no?

I was recently involved in an example where a sourced quotation which had been subject to some questionable RS debate was removed, and a re-written sentence openly intended to capture something in the old material was then inserted without sourcing. The wording change possibly improves the article, and is (and was!) obvious enough not to need special sourcing, but I don't feel good about the deliberate lack of attribution.

In academic literature one still sees authors who are correct enough to quote a source as something that they read in another source. Indeed this is often quite useful. In WP, it seems odd to see people on WP argue quite strongly sometimes that an apparently good source should be used indirectly and without attribution supposedly due to WP rules. In reality of course what people mean is that it is better to avoid a long RS debate about how the WP rules might apply, and to find a "path of least resistance".

Just trying to think why this is happening, it occurs to me that it is relevant that if you put words in an article without sourcing, then someone needs to actually look at the content and understand it before they can judge if they need more sourcing. Feedback is likely to be informed in such cases. OTOH, if you try very hard to mention all sources, you can expect "feedback" which is generalized and awkward to deal with: based not on any reading of the content but upon quick browsing for theoretical sourcing warning signs. Are the incentives wrong?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understand the question, so let me tell you what I'm hearing:

• You read Mary's paper.
• Mary's paper cites John's book.
• You read John's book.
• You write about the subject, and cite John's book.

This is 100% acceptable: It is not necessary to document how you found John's book, or how many other sources you read before writing a sentence.

What's not acceptable is to read Mary and then falsely claim that you read John. If you only read Mary, you must cite Mary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with WhatamIdoing. There's an unwritten rule when blogging to make sure to mention the intermediate steps (the ubiquitous "hat tip") but while that's of some importance to bloggers who are looking to take credit for their blogging, it is not an issue when assembling encyclopedic content. Having said that, if I felt that Mary's paper was the key to finding the info in John's book, I might try to find a way to cite Mary, if it could be done without compromising integrity.--SPhilbrickT 16:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the two responses are both looking at the most controversial type of example. I'll try doing a rewrite of WhatamIdoing's useful summary which is both based on real (but more messy) experience and also more designed to show how this can become more ethically dubious in more realistic and less extreme cases:

• You read Mary's paper. You consider it an RS.
• Mary's paper reviews works by 10 authors in a particular are of research, categorizes them in a neat uncontroversial way, and gives some neat comments about them which are not particularly controversial but handy nevertheless.
• You make an WP article citing Mary's paper as a source. You use Mary's neat way of summarizing the field, as well as some of her observations.
• Another editor arrives and a content debate ensues during which the editor claims Mary's paper is not a good enough RS. Let's say for example the field is a quite technical one and Mary published in a less technical journal (not a blog). Let's say the visiting editor cites WP:REDFLAG for example.
• After some circular discussions the two of you come to the practical compromise of getting around silly debate by simply pretending Mary is not a source, but instead the 50 authors. Direct quotes are simply reworded into new words that mean the same thing.
• When the visiting editor sees what the result looks like after simply deleting mention of Mary, they are satisfied there is now no sourcing problem because nothing stands out as the kind of thing you would tag as needing a source. Nothing adapted from Mary was controversial. (Yes, this raises the question of why redflag was incited, but in the real WP, people are not always that consistent and you have to get past an argument.)
• Let's say for the sake of making a clear example that you have actually read the 50, but the person who insisted on deleting mention of Mary has not and was basically a visitor to the article who noticed a perceived sourcing issue but does not really know the field.
• Let's say this editor is unable to debate what is really controversial in the field and so simply takes a hard line of saying redflag can be assumed to be relevant whenever an article in a less technical journal seems to be trying to review something in a more technical field.
• The implied defense of this compromise is that deleting mention of the source was OK because everything Mary wrote might have been arrived at by someone reading the 50 authors.

It seems to me that if an academic or student got caught plagiarizing and gave this excuse it would be laughable?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be, because the academic wouldn't have to deal with drive-by editors. We do. Our work is the product of committee, so we must make compromises. If you want to soothe your conscience, you can remind yourself that we are quite different from academics or students, because they are expected to do original research. We're specifically forbidden to. An academic who writes what would be a Misplaced Pages featured article as a dissertation will rightly be criticised because it has no original work or at least analysis. All our work is required to be copied, and we are not allowed to enter our opinion. That's a much greater difference from academia. --GRuban (talk) 23:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. But just considering WP's own statements "to itself" so to speak, isn't this also a case where we break our own "rules"? Consider WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Of course BTW I would not think this subject interesting if it was something that happened here and there at random. The pressures and incentives (including the way things like this noticeboard can work, or be worked, sometimes) appear to me to create a positive tendency towards this particular type of compromise at the expense of principles like WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. I'd even go one step further and hypothesize that there are probably people who have learnt from the same pressures simply to avoid sourcing as much as possible, as a way to avoid drawing attention from drive-by editors in the first place.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll call your hypothesis and raise: there are definitely people who have learnt not to edit the Misplaced Pages at all due to its multitudinous slings and arrows, and this one is by no means the most painful. But ... where does this lead? If you have a specific workable suggestion, please propose it. Just "say where you got it" doesn't work, because the article doesn't have just one owner/author, there is just the amorphous Misplaced Pages community, that can edit it at any time, and often do. Just because editor A got the information from source Bar by reading about it in Foo which references Bar, doesn't mean editor B can't get the same information from Bar directly. Does that mean that editor B isn't allowed to delete the reference to Foo, even though Foo isn't a reliable source, and the article now contains no information that directly depends on Foo, just because someone else who once edited the article once read Foo? --GRuban (talk) 22:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

People leaving WP no longer affect WP. I think you are missing the point that I am noting cases where WP accepted habits seem to be pushing people to break WP's own stated policy, on WP. Your scenario section seems to amount to saying that no one will normally notice the plagiarism?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

No, merely that I don't see a solution in which we can credit everyone on the chain of references. The problem is that our articles don't have a single author, so there isn't a single chain of where that author got it. "Say where you got it", doesn't mean what you think it does, it's the plural "you", meaning any editor who has ever edited the article, not the singular "you" meaning any one of them in particular. Let's look at your example from the other perspective. Joe read Mary's paper, which cites 50 sources, and then read the 50 sources. Frank read the 50 sources directly, he never saw Mary's paper. Should the way our article should be written really depend on whether Frank or Joe got to it first? Surely not, our articles don't have original and secondary authors.

Or let's actually quote WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT: "For example, a webpage may provide information that the page's author attributes to a book. Unless you examine the book yourself, your source is the webpage, not the book...It is often better to read the original source material yourself, in which case you can simply cite the original source." That means that, much as it may seem unfair to Mary, we don't cite her, we cite the 50 directly. --GRuban (talk) 20:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

question about interpretations made by sources

(also posted here, i'm not sure where is the best place for it) there are two cases i'm dealing with that are quite similar & interesting. the first one is concerning the Arab Peace Process. israel has never "officially" responded to it (official, written response), however - the prime minister has made few comments about it during a speech. the vast majority of sources do not title it as an "official response", however, one (acceptable) source does. so according to wikipedia policies - it should be written in the article that israel HAS officially responded to it, even though some sources would claim that israel has never responded. israel's official response or lack thereof is an important fact, and i think it might be represented in wikipedia the wrong way, just because a single source chose to title the prime minister comments as an "official response".

the same goes for Mahmud Ahmadenijad calling the holocaust a "myth". the dictionary definition of myth is

a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event,
with or without a determinable basis of fact.

so calling the holocaust a myth should probably not be considered as holocaust denial. myth is different from fiction - and most sources do not draw that conclusion - but some (acceptable sources) do! and in accordance with wikipedia policies, that is what would end up in the article - that it IS a denial, and he IS a holocaust denier according to that statement. Here, again - it just feels wrong. there is nothing to reflect that the vast majority of sources do NOT title that statement as holocaust denial. Is that really the right interpetation of wikipedia policies? Maybe there is a policy which addresses this absurd situation. If not, maybe there should be. Eyalmc (talk) 10:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

As to your first question, you will have to provide provide a diff to the challenged material. As to your second, you're fixating upon only one definition of the word "myth". There are many sources indicating that Ahmadinejad's various comments about the Holocaust constitute holocaust denial.--Cúchullain /c 12:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

what does it mean to provide a "diff" ? also - your sources confirm my point exactly. the word "denial" or "deny" appear only on the first one, and it is based on the usage of the word myth. but that's exactly my point. some will interpret it as a denial, while possible many more wouldn't title it that way (probably because they do not see it as a denial. after all, holocaust denial does make a good headline, but they chose not to draw that conclusion). how should it be represented in wikipedia? Eyalmc (talk) 13:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is a link to a previous thread about this for reference.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 13:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Torchwood. But still, Eyalmc is going to have to tell us what article he's talking about and what source he's concerned with. Eyalmc, please see WP:DIFF on what a diff is and how to link to them.

2)Again, on the holocaust issue, Eyalmc, you're being too pedantic about wording. The sources very clearly depict Ahmadinejad as asserting that the Holocaust did not occur in the way that is historically accepted. That is what holocaust denial means.--Cúchullain /c 13:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad certainly did not use the word "myth", as he was speaking in Farsi, not in English. There is a disagreement over the correct English translation of the term he used; having no knowledge of Farsi, I am not competent to judge who is correct. It seems to me that we should reflect this uncertainty, and neither assert nor deny that in this speech he denied the reality of the holocaust. RolandR (talk) 14:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

No, we should reflect what the reliable sources say, and these are all clear that he has, on several occasions, claimed that the holocaust did not occur in the way accepted by historians. We do not need to use the phrase "holocaust denial" to get that across. --Cúchullain /c 14:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Instead of just making assertions, please provide the sources you are discussing. Do they really say what you claim? Is the viewpoint you have articulated really the only significant viewpoint published by reliable sources? There is no way to judge those questions without actually looking at the sources. Dlabtot (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

what's this game you're playing? In his previous post, Cúchullain provided 3 such sources, the very first one, from the BBC no less, has as its headline "Iranian leader denies Holocaust": HupHollandHup (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

YourThe assertion was "he has, on several occasions, claimed that the holocaust did not occur in the way accepted by historians". The source you provided does not support that assertion. Anyway, I'm pretty sure that no one is denying that multiple reliable sources have reported that he called the Holocaust a myth. Is it a unanimous judgement of all reliable sources or do sources differ in their interpretation of his comments? Dlabtot (talk) 18:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

no, that was not my assertion, it was a claim by Cúchullain. The topic of this thread is whether or not Ahmadinejad can be called a holocaust denier. 3 ultra-reliable sources who make that claim were provided. Kindly stop playing games. HupHollandHup (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from accusing me of 'playing games' or other personal attacks. "The topic of this thread is whether or not Ahmadinejad can be called a holocaust denier." In that case, you are in the wrong place. This noticeboard is for discussing the reliability of particular sources for particular citations, in context. Determining The Truth™ is beyond its scope. Dlabtot (talk) 18:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

when someone provides 3 top-quality sources to support a claim, as Cúchullain has done, and your response is "Instead of just making assertions, please provide the sources " - you are playing games , and pointing that out is not a personal attack. You may be correct that this is not the right notice board - but that comment should be directed at Eyalmc, who started this thread , not me. I'm ok with closing the discussion and marking it 'resolved'. HupHollandHup (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Any comment on this noticeboard that has as its subject matter another editor is disrupitive and off-topic. The question posed was proper for this venue, although lacking in the necessary details for a resolution. Still missing from this discussion are the answers to the four questions I pose below. Dlabtot (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has gotten muddled. Eyalmc's initial claim was that Ahmadinejad shouldn't be called a holocaust denier, because he called it a "myth", and the definition of myth he chose to use was "a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact." Of course that's totally silly and pedantic, and he wouldn't have used an English word in the first place. What is certain is that any number of reliable sources, including the ones I've cited above (these: ), indicate that Ahmadinejad has, on several occasions, voiced the opinion that the Holocaust did not occur in the manner that is accepted by historians. Usually he claims that it was fabrication trumped up to justify the creation of Israel. In his poorly calculated 2006 letter to the German chancellor, he further suggested that it may have been trumped up by Britain to embarrass Germany. It is safe to say this is not what historians of the holocaust believe, and some sources go so far as to call Ahmadinejad a "holocaust denier" outright. Eyalmc hasn't responded usefully to this, so the discussion should be closed.--Cúchullain /c 12:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

What is the exact url of the source in question? In which article is the source being used? What is the exact statement in the article that the source is supporting? Where is the relevant talk page discussion, if any? Dlabtot (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

That's what's not clear. Eyalmc hasn't provided that information, and it doesn't look like they're going to. As such the discussion is effectively over.--Cúchullain /c 18:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing that bit of wisdom. Dlabtot (talk) 23:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You posted under my comments (twice) as if you were responding to it and seeking a response. I can't give you that answer, and it appears that the original querier isn't going to either.--Cúchullain /c 21:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, so you've stated, repeatedly. Thank you again for repeating yourself again. Dlabtot (talk) 00:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

If you want me to give you some other answer, stop asking me the same questions.--Cúchullain /c 01:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Although you certainly may comment when you don't have anything new to add, you are not actually under any obligation to do so. Dlabtot (talk) 20:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

If reliable sources differ in their interpretations, we report all significant viewpoints. You can see an explanation of diffs at WP:DIFF. The operative questions here are: What is the exact url of the source in question? In which article is the source being used? What is the exact statement in the article that the source is supporting? Where is the relevant talk page discussion, if any? Dlabtot (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I just did a quick search. Hopefully this adds helpful information. There seem to be several sources associating Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with Holocaust denial. This link shows books with his name and the phrase. Note that this one says "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is its most virulent and vocal champion". So there seems to be a lot of WP:RS that put him in that category. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Why did you post this as if it was a response to my comment? You seem to have completely ignored what I said, and don't appear to actually be engaging in a discussion. Dlabtot (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt that a book called "Icon of Evil" and co-written by Alan Dershowitz would be acceptable as a reliable source for such information. RolandR (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

really? Why is that? is there some wiki policy regrading titles of works that would disqualify them from being reliable sources? Or a specific policy that relates to Dershowitz and excludes him from being a reliable source? HupHollandHup (talk) 14:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

google "Ahmadinejad holocaust myth" - 157,000 results. and "Ahmadinejad holocaust myth -denial -deny -denies" - 63,000 results. so about 40% of the sources do not even contain those words (from the sources that does, many are using the words in other context). So it's not a battle between two different interpretations - it's a battle between an interpretation, and lack thereof. I don't think there is a proper way to represent that duality in wikipedia. Eyalmc (talk) 06:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Yet again, you're being pedantic over the wording and trying to read your own interpretation into it. Every source I checked in a Google News search for ahmadinejad+holocaust discuss Ahmadinejad rejecting that the Holocaust occurred in the historically accepted way. And he's done it on several occasions. Additionally, you've never told us what article on the mideast peace process it is you're talking about, and what the source you're concerned about it. I move we close this discussion.--Cúchullain /c 12:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Rejecting that the Holocaust occurred in the historically accepted way i sthe definition of Holocaust denial. HupHollandHup (talk) 14:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Eyalmc, you shouldn't look for reliable sources for such things in regular Google, but first try Google News and Google Books. While both have a significant number of unreliable sources as well, the percentage of reliable ones is much higher than in Google search. But even if you use Google, and you use your second search string, the first result is News.com.au, a reliable source, which clearly states "President Ahmadinejad raised the stakes against Israel and called the Holocaust a lie" Sourcse like this one, without containing the word "denial" or a variation thereof, make it very, very clear which interpretation of "myth" is used by Ahmadinejad, and that the rest of his statements also indicate that he is a Holocaust denier ("a show", "a lie", "an unreliable claim", "this claim is corrupt", ...). If you want to argue that there is a duality in the interpretation of his statements, then you have to present reliable sources which claim that he isn't a holocaust denier. It isn't sufficient to show (or to proclaim) that there are sources which don't explicitly label him one, you need sources specifically stating that he isn't one if you want to present that point of view in Misplaced Pages as well. Fram (talk) 12:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Reliability on genealogy websites

There has been some dispute over the reliability of either an accurate website of easy verifiability such as http://www.angelfire.com/realm/gotha/ and the biggest genealogy website in Portugal and perhaps in Europe, http://www.geneall.net/. Geneall.net, with more than a million entries, was part of a vaster project that was dropped by other countries, which prompted it to take the space others didn't want to fill. You can read about it on article here http://www.geneall.net/P/article.php?id=137 - a Portuguese translator is required. Such dispute is almost highly insulting to people in this environment who rely on them and are both qualified and this and other areas. This is something that should be cleared. LoveActresses (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The first is a WP:SPS by someone called Paul Theroff, I'll let our genealogy people tell us if he's an established expert in this area. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The second makes use of user generated content (I think from the submissions bit) but I'm not clear on the editorial policies. Since we currently use it on over 600 pages might be nice to sort that one out... I've removed both of these from BLPs (which is why this has ended up here) but will bow to the greater expertise on the matter. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The site has user generated content but nothing is added automatically nor without the consent and verifying of the author. Perhaps you should contact him through the webpage and he'll confirm it. LoveActresses (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

So I looked up a random person on geneall.net: George Darwin. The site claims that he married Martha du Puy, but also states that she married his brother Francis: she did not. The site lists one child for George: he had four. This isn't what a reliable source looks like. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I know it seems that just because you searched a random name and it had one or another flaw it seems like the whole website is equally flawed, but I can assure you as an everyday reader of that website that it's just a fluke. Errors like those I can find only very rarelly, if you can take a credit for my word. Check other lines if you have the time, please. LoveActresses (talk) 17:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Incomplete doesn't mean wrong, sometimes it only includes one line and not the collaterals, but the line itself is as accurate as possible. The site has some flaws, of course, but that doesn't make it absolutely unreliable because of it. Read the article I mention above: there the author of the site criticizes people who are destructive towards the effort of such a huge project. Misplaced Pages has flaws too. LoveActresses (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

That's one of the reasons why Misplaced Pages also isn't considered a reliable source. — e. ripley\ 18:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

PS: User:Caponer is an expert. I invited him to this discussion but he doesn't show up since September 1. LoveActresses (talk) 17:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• A website like this definitely wouldn't be a reliable source for anything but the opinions of its author. --John (talk) 18:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  • So we have A. A self-published website by a person of no established expertise or reliability? And, 2. A website that is added to by just about anyone? Both A and B are unreliable. The geneaology stuff is just a mess.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Well perhaps this shouldn't surprise us; genealogy is pretty much non-science or pseudoscience, as between 1 and 20% of each generation's biological father isn't who they think it is. (See Non-paternity event). It doesn't take many generations with this sort of error before the whole thing becomes an article of faith, a social construct more than a scientific one. Until this fundamental problem with genealogy is addressed we will continue to have problems in this area. --John (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Such low numbers, valid only for the present in which they were obtained but not for any epoch, make your statement irrelevant, they are clearly not enough to change whole ancestries, specially when the people who they cheat with are often people of a close environment and status, often with common ancestries, and sometimes even more or less closely related to their spouses. Specially when people have so many female lines with ancestries that often appear more than once. Plus, there is no matematical formula or average number for how many people cheat their spouses. And there are many cases when the actual father is discovered as being a famous lover. There were also ways of not getting pregnant from a lover since ages ago. And if tests can confirm the male line of old lineages, then female lines are even less susceptible of being false. In fact, if in the 12th century we have like more than a million ancestors are in our country the population back then was less than that, then the difference is not so huge. Also, if we see the physical and other similarities between parents and children we can realize that such claims are highly exagerated. LoveActresses (talk) 16:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
      • You are making a very "republican" point. This is however irrelevant. Genealogy is not about genes, but about family. As to the question about science, genealogy is not studied at universities. Reliable sources in genealogy are generally produced by amateurs. This however does not in any way diminish their reliability. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Genealogy is about ancestry, as it is perceived, that is, who are actually genetic ancestors. No one sees it in any other way. LoveActresses (talk) 16:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
          • Reliable sources are RARELY produced by amateurs. If reliable sources with a reputation for fact checking accuracy dont exist, we cannot cover the subject. Active Banana ( 19:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
            • An amateur can find solid elements and simply put them available. That doesn't make them unreliable. LoveActresses (talk) 16:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
        • So long as we are clear that we are talking about a faith-based belief rather than a scientific one, I agree with your first point. There's a school of thought that standards of reliability need to be even higher for pseudoscientific topics than for scientific ones. Amateurs, self-published sites and user-generated sites aren't normally considered as reliable sources. Why would be consider them to be in this case? --John (talk) 19:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
          • Just because some people have one or two children from another father it doesn't mean everyone is, and thus it doesn't make genealogy a pseudo-science. I don't know what the women you know do, but you seemed excessively biased. LoveActresses (talk) 16:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
          • What's faith, that 98% of our ancestors are real or that 2% might not be? LoveActresses (talk) 16:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
          • We may be speaking of very different things. I do not think genealogy exist in the US beyond Ellis Island records. On the other hand, in countries with church records, even ordinary people can trace their roots to the 16. century. Likewise, European nobility is well covered in printed sources. As to the amateur sources, I am not referring to web sites, but printed sources reliably published. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• Paul Theroff seems to be highly appreciated on the on-line genealogy community. Quoting from the Frequently Asked Questions file of soc.genealogy.german from 2005

This however does not quite make him a reliable source. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

But how seriously do we take the views of online communities? --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Was that a rhetorical question? Active Banana ( 19:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, let's take another random example. Adrian Carton de Wiart is said to have one child by his first marriage and then to have married a second time to Joan Sutherland. At Adrian Carton de Wiart we read that he had two children by his first wife and that his second wife was called Ruth Myrtle Muriel Joan McKechnie. Not quite as bad as George Darwin, but still problematic. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages article also says the second wife, Joan McKechnie, was "known as Joan Sutherland" – with rather bad sourcing. The original source for all of this seems to be The Daily Telegraph, 17 January, 2006, reprinted here. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Genealogies generally do not list all children. This does not make them unreliable. Indeed, infant mortality and the reuse of names in a family occurs often. Also sites such as LDS do not check data offered. Major societies do (Mayflower, DAR etc.) and are reliable. As are Debrett etc. Lastly, women marrying the borther of their first husband are not rare at all, though I do not know if this is the Darwin case. See Henry VIII. Collect (talk) 12:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. My point is that I looked at exactly two entries. The Darwin entries contain errors: Maud du Puy married George Darwin and she did not marry Francis Darwin. That error occurs in three places on the site: here, here and here. The de Wiart entry contains a serious inadequacy: Joan Sutherland's correct name was Ruth Myrtle Muriel Joan McKechnie and that should have been recorded. Both entries are incomplete in respect of the list of children. Collect's points are valid in general, but irrelevant in this case -- the facts of which show the site in question to be quite unreliable. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a Misplaced Pages article on the Almanach de Gotha. The last edition, printed in Gotha, is from 1944. On-line versions of the book are available at the Internet Archive, the latest version seems to be from 1922. These are definitely WP:RS but are of little help in WP:BLP. There is another publication from London with the same name from 1998–2004, but it has been criticized for unreliability. It may well be that Paul Theroff's on-line Gotha may in fact be the most reliable. I do not think this notice board can pass judgment on Paul Theroff. The issue should be discussed and decided in Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility or maybe Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Genealogy. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

As always, reliable for what purpose? Information in the Almanach de Gotha is probably reliable when it is dealing with people living at the time and their immediate ancestors and near relatives. The little historical sketches showing exactly how Prince Johannes Georg Ferdinand of Saxe-Saxe-Saxe is descended from Julius Caesar and how his family ruled X, Y and Z in the 12th century are not reliable in any sense since this kind of information is the province of historians. But in general, genealogical information which doesn't make it into plainly reliable sources probably isn't important and therefore one should not be looking for dubious sources with which to support it. An article without an ahnentafel or graphical family tree is usually all the better for that absence. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

None of the sites mentioned (http://www.angelfire.com/realm/gotha/ , http://www.geneall.net/ ) are considered reliable sources by genealogists. They are self-published, have no editorial policies, accept any drivel submitted by anyone, and as already stated, are not reliable sources for anything but the opinions of their authors/contributors. There seems to be some misunderstanding about the nature of genealogy and its sources. Genealogical sources are not created by genealogists; they consist largely of public records, (e.g., vital records, court records, censuses, ships' records, etc.) created in the past by public or governmental entities, and then cited as sources for the assertions of genealogists. Although genealogy is a mature field with well-established standards, none of these sites employ those standards in determining what is posted there. Further, a genealogist can be a reliable source for how to conduct genealogical research without being a reliable source on the family tree of any given family.

To the sites already mentioned, I'd like to add another: http://www.wargs.com/ . It is used as a source in over 500 articles, many of which are biographies of living people. Each family tree there contains a disclaimer by the website owner: "The following material on the immediate ancestry of soandso should not be considered either exhaustive or authoritative, but rather as a first draft." Doesn't sound like it meets WP:RS to me. ProGene (talk) 20:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

In my country, they are recognized as reliable, despite its flaws. As for the gotha one, if you compare with the actual Almanach of Gotha you'll see it's accurate. LoveActresses (talk) 16:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

A first draft essencially means incomplete, not wrong. LoveActresses (talk) 16:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It's still a Self-published source (as far as I can tell) and should not be used. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Whether first draft or not, anthing that has such a blatant "We do not stand behind the factual accuracy of the content you find here at this time" should not be used until they are willing to stand behind their claims. Active Banana ( 23:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Such a blatant nothing. You're putting those words on the mouth of the author and trying to fit them in the claim that it is just a first draft. You can't infer that from "first draft". If I say something is still at the beginning you can't jump and accuse me of having inaccuracies as if you were inside my mind and work. LoveActresses (talk) 15:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Does that mean it's OK to delete citations to http://www.wargs.com/ ? ProGene (talk) 23:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't see why not. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Blender Magazine as a source

Is blender magazine a valid source? They had some criticism of Emerson Lake and Palmer which I would like to include in which they named ELP as the second worse band of all time. ELP has been a much criticized band but there is no indication of that from ELP's page here.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 23:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Anyone? Buehler?--UhOhFeeling (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there anybody out there?--UhOhFeeling (talk) 00:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

From Terms & Conditions:

• "Dennis does not endorse or control the Submitted Content delivered to this Site, and Dennis has no obligation to monitor such Submitted Content. As such, Dennis does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity or quality of any such Submitted Content."

If the criticism is "Submitted Content", then it's unequivocally not a reliable source. Given that the site itself is published in blog format and has no statement of editorial process for the rest of its content, I'd think it extremely unlikely that it meets WP:RS anyway. --RexxS (talk) 03:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

http://www.blender.com/lists/67198/50-worst-artists-in-music-history.html so this article is no good?--UhOhFeeling (talk) 01:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI there are many notable and respected authors who contributed to the article including

Jonah Weiner - Currently a music critic for slate, John Harris (critic), J.D. Considine , John Aizlewood writer for The Sunday Times, The Evening Standard and The Guardian who regularly appears on the BBC, Clark Collis a writer for Entertainment Weekly, Rob Kemp a contributing editor to Men's Health and others.

I would say with this stable of authors this article should be considered a valid source.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 01:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Anyone? Any thoughts?--UhOhFeeling (talk) 03:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

HELLOOOOOOOO?--UhOhFeeling (talk) 16:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The stable of authors does sound imposing. I'm not sure if the list itself is supposed to be reviewed magazine content, or "submitted content", but if it comes from those authors, it seem reliable, per the part of WP:RS that says "established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". --GRuban (talk) 20:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Independent Political Report

Is the Independent Political Report a reliable source for news about minor political parties in the United States? Its website says it "is dedicated to covering America’s third parties and independent candidates, and providing a forum for the intelligent discussion thereof. IPR has been linked to by major sites like Politico, The Washington Post, Politics1, The American Spectator, Reason Magazine, and The American Conservative." TFD (talk) 14:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Not RS. Articles do not appear to be signed. Editorial control does not appear to be in effect. Articles are primarily reprints of other news sources verbatim. Signed articles by accepted specialists would be okay. Unsigned articles do not appear to have any indication of oversight, verification, or editorial control. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Per above, depends on who wrote it and/or if it also appeared in more reliable source. Case by case basis cause has good stuff and has unreliable tripe. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't look like it's reliable in and of itself, though it could be used to locate sources that are.--Cúchullain /c 21:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Polar codes, by Andrew Polar

The editor C-processor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), wants to add information about Polar codes, which he invented. His articles have been deleted for lack of notability; I recented removed a bit on it from Shannon–Fano coding (see Talk:Shannon–Fano_coding#Polar_codes). On my talk page, he tells me:

Original concept is published by myself Polar codes, it was found and incorporated by independent researcher into LZHAM data compressor. ... Polar codes are also mentioned by expert in industry Matt Mahoney in his Large Text Compression Benchmark. The site is long, search for Polar codes and you can find there an explanation. Explanation means recognition of novelty by industry expert. Mahoney do not explain other algorithms because they are known. I note that Polar codes is not an article. It is simple note in Wiki informing readers about one more way of entropy coding.

In which the "Large Text Compression Benchmark" is what looks like a personal web site: http://mattmahoney.net/dc/text.html.

I told him I don't think these meet WP:RS, but I'll be happy to hear alternative views. Anybody? Dicklyon (talk) 07:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The chances that anyone leave a message here are the same as winning lottery. The user who voted for keeping the article already exists. Here the link to discussion Sebastian Garth nominated article for deletion but during discussion changed his opinion after I provided reference to Mahoney test inventory. C-processor (talk) 16:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not clear what source Sebastian Garth accepted; is it the one we're discussing here, or is there any other? Dicklyon (talk) 05:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Polar Codes? Are we discussing the same thing as this and this? Silverseren 17:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

No, they all are different from mine and first and second are different between each other.

LTCB definitely does not qualify as a reliable source--it falls squarely under self-published sources. If you want to add info about polar codes, you need citations in reliable sources. The field of error coding, error fixing, etc. is widely discussed in a number of academic journals; if a citation cannot be found in an academic source, it's highly unlikely that the subject is important enough to merit inclusion in any article. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, from my search where I found the links above, I found an extremely large number of reliable sources discussing Polar Codes. I think they are indeed notable...just not C-processor's version. Silverseren 02:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Right, different topic; not what we're discussing, just same name. Dicklyon (talk) 05:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Etymonline.com

Is Etymonline.com considered a reliable source? It was used as a source on the Puck (mythology) article until just recently, when Bloodofox removed it, saying it was unreliable. The site was used to source the etymology of three words, but was not the main or only source. The etymologies given on the site looked legitimate to me. And, the site lists all of its sources. But, I want to know what other editors think. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the list shows a few dozen respectable sources, but individual entries don't cite them, so it is essentially impossible to verify which source was used for an entry. I'd have my doubts unless I saw some scholarly wp:reliable sources treating the website as credible. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The author appears to have written books on local history and worked as a journalist, but I don't see any particular credentials in this field. The page does, however, feature an image of an attractive woman draped in a thin silk shawl for some reason. I think there are probably better sources out there, perhaps we can use some of the ones he cites.--Cúchullain /c 21:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense. The article in question needs more and better sources all around. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

In this case the site doesn't give much more information than probably appears in a good dictionary. I'll check out the OED.--Cúchullain /c 01:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a long-standing curated site that I've been using since before I discovered wikipedia 5 years ago. I see no reason to not treat it as a WP:RS, even though as many note it does not always make clear what source applies to what entries, and it doesn't have a lot beyond what's in other sources. It's just more accessible. Dicklyon (talk) 04:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Bible

I am having a dispute on Authors of the bible. Can anyone tell me if they think these two books are reliable sources: and RomanHistorian (talk) 04:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, considering the first book's author has a wikipedia article, that one is likely reliable. Ditto for the second. Actually, the second author for the second book as well. I think both of those would count as reliable sources. Though other users are free to tell me if I am mistaken. Silverseren 04:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks like an area where there is disagreement in the sources; represent the alternative viewpoints fairly, with reasonable balance, and it should be OK. Fighting over which source to rely on isn't going to provide a resolution. Dicklyon (talk) 05:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I have done that but two other editors keep just reverting my changes to the mostly citation-less version and claiming that my sources are 'extreme' while citing no evidence or sources pointing to this. I thought that all legitimate sources were suppose to be treated the same, and no one was supposed to just ignore legitimate sources because they don't like what the sources say.RomanHistorian (talk) 05:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Zondervan is an "Evangelical publisher of Bibles" their academic publishing is in, "college and seminary textbooks". Now I'm assuming here that just because a press has a bent, doesn't mean that they subsume the quality of their publications to their bent, this is a reasonable assumption when they claim to publish academic works. So RS, but is it HQRS? Textbook publications only are not a good sign, textbooks tend not to convey original research as peer reviewed by academic readers prior to publication. The quality of the source would depend on the Author being a specialist, ie, having a research higher degree in theology, church history, history of the bible as a document. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

That is a fair point. But the article before had very few items cited. Are textbook citations not vastly preferable to no citations? Also, the books are not really textbooks but more of introductions to the Old and New Testaments written for amateurs. They are actually two of the best selling biblical criticism books on Amazon.com.RomanHistorian (talk) 05:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Citing any RS is preferable to citing no RS. The works status as High Quality RS in terms of FAC comes down to the specialist standing of the authors. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Can someone post their view of the sources on the discussion page of Authors of the bible? The other editors seem to not care what I am saying.RomanHistorian (talk) 05:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Note: I am extremely concerned about the other editors on the talk page, where i'm seeing things being thrown about like,

"You rely heavily on protestants who swore an oath to 'affirm agreement with the theological perspective presented in the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, the core doctrine of many conservative Presbyterian churches'. As a result, you removed all of the books that protestants don't accept!"

"RomanHistorian is quite ignorant of biblical scholarship"

"I don't think you can convincingly claim to be the champion of neutrality after removing all of the books that protestants do not accept in their canon."

"If you cannot recognize this distinction, perhaps you are too conservative to edit in a balanced manner."

These sorts of comments are deeply concerning me. Silverseren 05:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

There have been a large number of personal attacks against me, mostly by these two. They call me ignorant, extreme, and unreliable. I offer to compromise and they will have none of it. Every compromised version of the article I offer is rejected and reverted, and none of my arguments (like these two books being reliable) are accepted by them.RomanHistorian (talk) 05:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I opened a case on the issue I am having (Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-09-20/Authors of the Bible). If anyone can offer assistance it would be very much appreciated.RomanHistorian (talk) 05:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Natalia Zawidowski

Editors have created a "Quality of life" section in the Palestinian Territories article which is based upon statistics contained in an article titled "Blame It On The Occupation" credited to Natalia Zawidowski.

Zawidowski does not cite any sources for the statistics and has no credentials as a demographer. Scoop News credits her as the author of six columns or editorials:

• Blame It On The Occupation
• Zionism & Racism
• The True Arafat
• Trust The Claims Of A Massacre? Think Again
• Terrorism As A Way Of Life
• The 'United Nations', United Against Whom?

A quick plagarism check with Dupli Checker indicates that the information was copied verbatim from the now-defunct meimad.org Community blog Hasbara Central. For example Middle East Facts sources it to http://www.meimad.org/default.asp?id=8&ACT=5&content=128&mnu=8

In 2003 the Jewish Chronicle reported that Zawidowski was a student at London Metropolitan University and that she co-founded an anti-terrorism website with the "aim to educate people about different types of terrorism, particularly the raising of children to be suicide bombers."

The World Bank report contradicts many of Zawidowski's assumptions regarding the quality of life. See and harlan (talk) 06:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. By editors he means Wikifan12345. Done hounding me Harlan? Like I said in the original discussion, much of the edit is supported by other sources. The statistics aren't very controversial and if anything the section could be expanded. According to Haaretz, the Israel Civil Authority refurbished and built hospitals in Gaza and the West Bank. The cooperation between Israel/Palestinian since 1967 needs to be stated. I think this issue could have been resolved at the talk, but instead Harlan resorts the standard noticeboards. I'm so shocked. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

This thread isn't about Haaretz. They have plenty of articles about the quality of life under the occupation in the Palestinian territories. That isn't the topic of the article that you cited in any event. harlan (talk) 21:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Hang on -- the only source for this is Scoop, "New Zealand's Independent News Medisa", which says of itself "Scoop.co.nz is an online publication made up largely of what we call "disintermediated" news - that is news without a spin put on it by a journalist, published as its delivered to us. That makes Scoop unique. All content is delivered to you as the writer intended — leaving only you to make a judgement about what you read, not us". So it explicitly denies any editorialresponsibility whatever. There is no way this could possibly be acceptable as a reliable source for any article in Misplaced Pages. RolandR (talk) 07:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

If the information also occurs in good sources, as Wikifan12345 claims, then use the good sources! We don't need dubious sources like scoop.co.nz around here. Zero 09:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Deep Sea News

I've had a quick scan of the archives and, although I can references, I can't seem to find a definitive position on the reliability of blogs published on scienceblogs.com (maybe I've missed it?). I'm wondering whether the specific blog entry on Deep Sea News is sufficient to reliably source the claim that Lucernaria janetae is the first species of Stauromedusae ever described living on a deep sea vent. It's something of a synthesis on the part of the blog writer, since the original sources cited by the blog don't make the claim directly themselves (as far as I can see), although it does appear to be justified from the literature (WP:OR on my part). The authors claim to be Marine Biologists, have sourced their statements and credit various other scientists for the images that accompany the entry. I ask, in part, because I'm hoping the article will qualify for WP:DYK. Thanks Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 13:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Scienceblogs is generally reliable, in spite of the brief foray into Pepsi-land earlier this year. However, as a sole source for something like this? I'd much prefer a serious publication, not a blog. But are you sure the sources the blog authors used did not make that claim? Try emailing the blog authors. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 18:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Any of these help? This,this, and this. Silverseren 19:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice.  :) I had a sneaking feeling the response might be we really need a better source for this claim. I have access to all of the cited sources except Halanych 1999 and Voigt 2006, of which only Voigt 2006 could support the claim since the population discussed in Halanych 1999 is mentioned in the Collins and Daly paper as only "tentatively" being L. janetae. Unfortunately the paper linked by Silver seren doesn't explicitly claim this as the first Stauromedusan identified on a deep sea vent (only that its location is "unusual") and neither do the others cited in the blog. It's more of a synthesis, as I said. Lutz 1998 does claim the population observed in their paper is the first Stauromedusan population seen on a deep sea vent but Collins and Daly only "tentatively" identify this population as L. janetae as they didn't go back for samples. I should also say that not one of those papers (or any of the others I've read) contradicts the blog claim. If there were other vent dwelling Stauromedusae known I'd have expected some indication of this in the Collins and Daly paper. There is none. This could be one of those frustrating 99% certain it's true but since no one explicitly wrote it in a paper we can't "prove" it things. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 21:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are sometimes frustrations in working on a tertiary source. But take heart - eventually, someone who meets RS will surely publish. We can wait. :-) KillerChihuahuaAdvice 22:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Red Brown and Blue

Hey! Red, Brown and Blue is a publication from Victory Media Corporation. A sample article is at http://redbrownandblue.com/index.php/%E2%80%9Cfree-spm%E2%80%9D-movement-is-more-about-a-community-needing-to-face-the-music-than-it-is-about-freeing-an-icon

http://redbrownandblue.com/index.php/about is its about page.

Is this an RS? WhisperToMe (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless there is something substantial I am missing, no, this is not a reliable source. The one exception: if any of the authors are notable, an opinion piece by them might be acceptable for a quote to illustrate their views on a particular subject. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 17:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

"It features original research, news, analysis and opinion commentary." Most definitely not a RS. Silverseren 19:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

If I Die Young

I inserted a pararaph at If I Die Young that Sam Tsui has released a cover video to iTunes, but the edit was removed on the grounds that the source I provided (a link to the actual video, on Sam Tsui's official YouTube channel, and therefore not a copyright violation), is somehow not a valid source. Really? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, this has been resolved. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Five Gateways genealogy site

This URL and some variations have been added to many of the Roosevelt family articles, as an external link:

• http://sites.google.com/site/fivegateways/alphabetical-index-r/roosevelt Five Gateways Genealogy

To me, it looks like a self-published source, with fair scholarship but no author named, and all the cites piled up at the bottom. The person who publishes says "This site is new, and is being worked on currently. Over the next few months and hopefully many years, it will grow to encompass summary genealogies from my, now rather large, collection. ... I have no intention to charge for access to this site, either now or in the future." I'd like to believe that this source is good, but it does not have inline citations. Binksternet (talk) 07:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It's the personal website of a Swedish genealogy hobbyist, Mattias Engdahl, who has compiled the information on the site from secondary sources. Most of the sources he has used are very dated, and do not adhere to current genealogical standards. The site is a tertiary source, at best, using original research. Does that meet WP:RS? ProGene (talk) 14:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Fast Company

I did a search of the archives but could find no reference, so, would you say fastcompany.com is a RS? I can;t find anything much on their editorial policy, and they identify as a blog. But they are paid writers and have editorial staff. Thoughts? --Errant 09:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Fast Company (magazine). Yes, they are reliable. 98.180.30.146 (talk) 20:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Max's of Manila - a number of source issues including IMDB as a source for BLP

I tagged Max's of Manila some time ago because I felt it did not establish notability. At the time the entry was already tagged for having no sources, and for reading like an advertisement. Another editor came through and removed the tags without making any improvements, save for adding a couple of references, one of which, I don't think meets WP:BLP standards. I tried putting the tags back and removing the reference that was not satisfactory for BLP, while explaining on the talk page, to no avail. I don't want to edit war over this so instead I would like to know if the references are reliable in the manner they are used.

• The BLP information come from these two (another similar source was added since) -- IMDB, and IGMA.
• This text - Aside from its advertising, the story of how Max's Restaurant started has entered into popular culture. It was portrayed in the episode "Sino si Max?" of the long time running Filipino drama series Maalaala Mo Kaya. - goes to a Spanish language "tabloid" (the other editors description) that I just earnestly can't judge for myself.
• The history of the restaurant, which to me appears to be non-notable marketing materials, is sourced entirely to the company's own website.

Any input here would be helpful. Thanks in advance.Griswaldo (talk) 13:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The IMDb is not considered a reliable source. Their fact-checking is spotty at best, especially for any trivia and the like. (I have an IMDb listing myself , and most of what's in there was provided by me.) --Orange Mike | Talk 14:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I link to IMDB as an External link that can be used to confirm filmography info only. This works when the information is uncontentious - if there is a challenge to the filmography info, then a citation meeting WP:RS needs to be included. Personal info should never be sourced back to IMDB. --Jezebel'sPonyo 14:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

What about the other site - IGMA? Is this as unreliable as IMDB?Griswaldo (talk) 14:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Griswaldo you don't have the correct link. Here: http://www.igma.tv/profile/isabel-oli. That site is affiliated with the GMA Network. Maybe that will help. Lambanog (talk) 14:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see using the GMA website as an issue, it is a news network and the information that is being sourced using the GMA site is not negative or particularly contentious. That being said I removed the IMDB link and replaced it with a ref from the Manila Bulletin. --Jezebel'sPonyo 15:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Max's is quite a notable chain in the Philippines, at least. Backing up the entire article with online WP:RS sources might take some effort; here a few Pinoy and U.S. articles and reviews that might help, and a Google News Archives search reflects quite a few more news stories, although many of them are on pay sites or appear no longer to be available (and obviously not every article in a search of "Max's Restaurant" will be about this chain). As far as Maalaala Mo Kaya and Isabel Oli, I accept the concern about using IMDb for personal bio information (as opposed to credits), but is there anything actually contentious about this content as currently included in this article (or in hers)? There are certainly news stories and sources that mention the commercials and her and while the WP:RS nature of the Philippine tabloids may be debatable, is there anything here that's really suspect? --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks a ton. I do not think there is anything contentious about the material, it's just the principle of sticking with quality sources for BLPs that concerned me. I also brought this here hoping to get some help like this for the article, or else to figure out if such help was even possible. People often just drive by and remove tags from articles that need help simply because they know personally that the chain is notable instead of fixing the articles to comply with WP:RS and WP:N. It looks like Max's should now easily get the fixes it needs. Thanks for the help.Griswaldo (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• I went in and added some references to the article that clearly shows its notability. I think it's good now. Silverseren 15:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Can Blogs be used as valid sources for articles here on Misplaced Pages?

There are several theological articles here on Misplaced Pages that use this blog to source an opinion of the Roman Catholic church. It appears to be a personal blog and is self published and has no apparent peer review of it. Here are three articles that use this blog for sourcing. Hesychasm, theosis and Essence–Energies distinction use this blog to source a not so mainstream Roman Catholic opinion on Eastern Orthodox theology. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

This would involve WP:SPS. For the most part, yes, blogs are not reliable. While the creator of this blog appears to be someone who would have some credibility, there is no way to verify he is who he says he and, regardless, as you said, the information has not been peer-reviewed or even been considered by an outside, reliable person in the field. Silverseren 17:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Would it be OK to remove this source from articles that use it? Or would that be considered inappropriate? LoveMonkey (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please do. Be sure to clarify in your edit summary that the "sources" removed were blog posts, which fail WP:RS. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks LoveMonkey (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Single source for Operation Pike

The article Operation Pike has been tagged as "single source"

As I explained on talk, it would be great to find more sources, but it is a very obscure topic. The source used, Osborn's book Operation Pike. Britain Versus the Soviet Union, 1939-1941 is very well regarded. For example Keith Neilson (who himself is a Professor of history and author of several books on Anglo-Russian relations) reviewed the book in the academic journal "Diplomacy and Statecraft". He writes: "Osborn, an archivist for the American National Archives and Records Administration, has provided a very useful study of British policy towards the Soviet Union from 1939 to 1941 and, in particular, of the little-known Anglo-french plans to attack the Soviet Union in the period from September 1939 to June 1940." In conclusion, Neilson writes: "This is a very good book on a limited topic. It does not promise more than it deliveres, its documentary base is exemplary and its conclusions are judicious and carefully considered."

So given that this is an obscure topic with scant coverage and virtually no prospect of finding additional sources that deal with the topic in detail, and that a published Professor in History has reviewed the only comprehensive source on the topic as exemplary, judicious and carefully considered, is this "single source" deemed sufficiently reliable that this tag is unnecessary? --Martin (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

More than one source now, so I suppose the question is moot. :P But I would also advice that you use this to link to the specific pages you used in the book. That allows other users to verify the information. Silverseren 20:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, good advice, will do. --Martin (talk) 21:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Online article by Peter Chopelas

Is this article also considered a valid resource?

Here is a church website giving commentary on the article.

"An early draft of this article was edited by Archpriest Thomas Hopko, retired dean of St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary (OCA), and this final copy has the approval of His Grace Lazar Puhalo (OCA), noted theologian, retired archbishop of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, and abbot of New Ostrog Monastery near Vancouver, British Columbia."

The article also appears to confirm what is on the church dioceses webpage states as the church teaching on the subject here. The OCA website is maintained by the editor of the original article Thomas Hopko who is also a main editor on the Orthodox Study bible. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• I would say that the article is not a reliable source, just because of the website it is printed on and the lack of ability to verify the writer's truthfulness. The Preachers Institute appears to be, while slightly exclusive, still fairly inclusive in who it allows in, as long as you have written sermons and things and proved yourself to them. So I wouldn't trust that either. If you want to go with the information, unless you have an alternative source, I would say stick with the primary information on the OCA website until something better is found. Silverseren 22:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

OK will do. Thanks Again. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Does "fringe author" affect Reliable Source criteria?

Disclosure: I'm COI on the topic I'll bring, and I also contributed to the editing of the subject paper and am mentioned in it. I'm asking this to verify my impression of Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines as they apply to alleged "fringe" topics.

I pointed, on Talk:Cold fusion, to a very recent secondary source, a review of the field of Cold fusion, published under peer-review at Naturwissenschaften, perhaps the most notable of many secondary sources that have appeared in mainstream publications on the topic in recent years, after the 2004 U.S. Department of Energy recommended further research and publication, all of which may have reversed the presumption, previously properly held, that Cold fusion was Fringe science, as distinct from emerging science. No "negative" reviews under peer review have appeared since then.

An editor commented on the author as not "independent or neutral.".

My understanding is that we depend on independent publishers, to filter out fringe views and not allow them to be presented as being acceptable to the mainstream. Naturwissenschaften is solidly mainstream, published by Springer-Verlag, which is also solidly mainstream. The "neutrality" that we depend on is that of the peer reviewers and/or publishers, not the authors. The publishers will not, presumably, allow a fringe author to trample neutrality, for their reputation is at stake. If they are going to present a view that is fringe, for some reason, it will be tagged as controversial, not presented as a neutral review.

There is no doubt that at one time Cold fusion was widely considered fringe or even "pathological science." However, scientific consensus can change. We depend on mainstream publishers for determining what is "reliable source," and especially the publishers of peer-reviewed scientific journals, and most especially those journals when they publish secondary source reviews, which is our gold standard.

My concern here is the allegation that an author is biased, fringe, with the implication that everything the author writes is therefore suspect, even if accepted by a major mainstream journal, under peer review, as a review of the field. Do we expect that a review of the field would be written by someone unfamiliar with it? This attitude toward fringe is circular, for we determine what is fringe by preponderance of reliable sources, and if we, ipso facto, exclude any "fringe source," based on the POV it supposedly represents, or the identity of the author, we make it impossible to neutrally determine the actual balance.

I am aware of 15 reviews of the field, published in mainstream journals since 2005, see Wikiversity:Cold fusion/Recent sources. Their conclusions have generally been excluded from our article on this claim that the authors are "fringe." So this is a generic problem. The publishers involved are solidly mainstream. (On the Wikiversity page, I did not count as "mainstream" the Journal of Scientific Exploration, for obvious reasons. Unlike the others, they are deliberately not mainstream.)

So, my question: Is the recent paper reliable source? May facts and conclusions presented there be used in the article? This is a recent source, supported by many recent secondary sources. Does it therefore carry more weight than old responses from twenty years ago, when far less was known about the topic? Thanks for looking at this issue. As a COI editor, I will not be editing the article itself in any controversial way, but I want to be able to better advise the actual editors. --Abd (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Reliability when it comes to people is essentially a function of reputation. The reputation of an author directly affects his or her reliability as a source. When an author becomes known for supporting ideas that are generally considered fringe, we should not be surprised when that support negatively affects the authors general reputation. When the reputation becomes poor enough it carries over into the assessment of his or her other works. Blueboar (talk) 20:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, we're talking about mainstream science journals here, and opinions based only an ad hominem circumstantial in turn based on another opinion. The question is largely rhetorical. The policy is unambiguous on the matter. Kevin Baas 20:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

That's correct, Kevin, yes, I believe I know the "correct answer," per policy, but what if I'm wrong? Reputation of the author would be important for ordinary reliable source, outside of peer-review. In this case, yes, Blueboar, what happened was that writing about anything related to cold fusion, for years, was considered a sign that the person was deluded, and it didn't matter what they actually wrote, it might have been as sober and careful as possible, if it was seen as "supporting cold fusion," it was enough to besmirch reputations. Wikipedians simply picked up on that, and continued it, losing track of what was actually happening at the peer-reviewed journals. After all, why bother reading the actual sources, which can be hard to obtain and read, if you are sure that cold fusion is fringe and that anything that seems to support it must therefore be fringe. --Abd (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

cold fusion is totally discredited in mainstream's eyes, only a small group of scientists keeps working on the field, and it's still discredited. Abd, stop spreading misinformation and POV-pushing. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Cool, Eric, I like that, quoting your own evidence, which only shows two things, both of which I agree completely with: First, cold fusion was totally rejected, seriously so. Back then. Secondly, even when signs began to appear that it was being accepted, most notably with the 2004 review by the U.S. DoE, which didn't at all treat Cold fusion as if it were "fringe," people in the field continued with an assumption that they were still being rejected (and certainly in some areas, among those not informed about the evidence, they were). Further, it is still certainly true that it is being neglected, compared to the potential significance, hence the JSE publications last year.

Please point to specific misinformation above or elsewhere, or please retract your allegation. Your evidence doesn't contradict, at all, what I've written, which is about how the field developed after the 2004 U.S. Department of Energy review. However, this is all really irrelevant. It has no bearing at all on the reliability of this specific paper. I was merely establishing why some caution should be exercised.--Abd (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Keeping myself completely separate from the argument above, I would definitely say that that source is reliable. The author, the publication's own sources that it utilizes, and the place it is presented at all point to it being completely a RS. Whatever the issues with the "fringeness" of the subject, that source is most certainly perfect to use for info and content creation. Silverseren 22:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a scientific disagreement going on here. The proper place for the disagreement is in the scientific journals, not on Misplaced Pages talk pages. The vast bulk of the physics community is pointedly ignoring the whole topic of cold fusion, considering it a fringe line of enquiry likely to lead nowhere, but a few scientists continue to research it. One scientist, Kirk Shanahan, has published two papers suggesting that effects that have been found in the past may be due to measurement error. This puts the onus on those who think there evidence of nuclear reactions to rule measurement error out. The Storms paper discussed above rejects Shanahan's findings. Whether it does so effectively or not is up to physicists to judge. We have no subsequent papers to draw on, but Kirk Shanahan himself contributes to the article talk pages and says that the Storms paper has misrepresented him. As far as I can see, then, the debate is ongoing. The Storms paper is not an independent review of the literature but a salvo in the debate. It should be treated as one of the primary sources. There has already been a suggestion on the talk page to this effect, and I think it could gain consensus except for a couple of editors. As far as sourcing policy goes, we should note that the papers on both sides have been in scientific journals, but not the the top journals for new physics research. In our natural science articles we usually regard individual papers as primary sources. I am involved in the sense of having made some posts recently, mainly to try and unpack the disagreement. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

scientific disagreement? Where? Yes, the proper place for that is journals. The journals appear to consider the matter closed. But I have no crystal ball, some critical comment may yet appear. Shanahan's papers are isolated, and not confirmed in any secondary source, and Shanahan has been complaining that they won't publish further response from him. Storms does not "discuss" Shanahan's "findings," he, like others, simply rejects them with no more analysis (he responded to them four years ago). If this is a "salvo" in the "debate," where is the other side? That interpretation of a peer-reviewed secondary source, explicitly a "Review," confirming fifteen other peer-reviewed secondary sources over the last five years, as a "salvo" is completely an assumption, unbased in sources. It's not like Storms (2010) is some isolated freak. So, Judith, are you arguing that this isn't a reliable secondary source? Can you be specific about your reasons for that? I don't see how what you claim above relates to our guidelines. Yes, papers on both sides have been in scientific journals. But the "negative" side disappeared from PR secondary sources, somewhere before 2005. As to "top journals for new physics research," that's not a basis for rejecting a source, at all. What's appeared in those "top journals" and when? Naturwissenschaften explicitly solicits material like this, and they are, in fact, a "top journal", and they cover physics, they are Springer-Verlag's "flagship multidisciplinary journal." You are raising a balance issue, not to be resolved here. This is about a single paper, proposed as reliable peer-reviewed secondary source, vs. our guidelines on that. If this is a "primary source," as claimed, we have demolished our standards. --Abd (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

"Shanahan's papers are isolated, and not confirmed in any secondary source," neither are Storms' papers. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

That's totally incorrect, but this isn't the place. Itsmejudith raised Shanahan, proposing that his unpublished claim that Storms has misrepresented him somehow calls into question Storms as a source, which is giving far too much weight to an isolated opinion, not reflected in recent decisions of peer reviewers. The place to discuss this is article Talk, if and when it becomes relevant. Not here. Is Storms (2010) a peer-reviewed secondary source, a review of the field, in a mainstream journal? That's the question. --Abd (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I need an approval on a reliable source on Russia as a superpower

1.A link to the source to on Russia as superpower 2.The article in which it is being used is Russia 3.The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting down below:

The current writing is this: Russia is a great power and a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, a member of the G8, G20, the Council of Europe, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the Eurasian Economic Community, the OSCE, and is the leading member of the Commonwealth of Independent States.

text here quote next to superpower on approval to use source as: I would like to replace it saying this: Russia is percieved as a superpower and a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, a member of the G8, G20, the Council of Europe, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the Eurasian Economic Community, the OSCE, and is the leading member of the Commonwealth of Independent States.

The source is "Will Russia Be the Superpower That Will Stop Iran from Going Nuclear" - The Middle East Media Research Institute By A. Savyon July 29, 2010

There has been no discussion on this source so I am sending it here to get some views. I looked at this source as it list references in the source as Russia as a superpower and why Russia is considered to the world as a superpower world affairs, using the issue with Iran and the world over Iran, people are wanting and using Russia as the term superpower in its world influence. I think this is a good source personally, maybe not as lengthly but does title it and talks about it in the article and references in at the bottom, it also is written from an institute so it is also education institution source.

Please see if you can give me some views if this would be an accepted source to use or maybe one with a couple of more I could also use as daisey chain source to the subject as Russia being a superpower. I am would like to use this source to use as Russia being a perceived as superpower again or a superpower as I think it is important and I think it is a good source. Thanks--12.40.50.1 (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I did a quick search for "Russia" and "superpower" and the things I found (this, for example) stated that Russia is no longer a superpower, but is still considered a "energy superpower". Then I ran across this, which states that Russia is no longer an energy superpower either, so...not sure where that leaves us. Silverseren 22:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I did a quick search also too I found this on Russia for energy superpower here and here there seems to be positive evidence Russia accounts for being an energy superpower no doubt and especially with their new pipeline. I did a thorough search and I needed sometime on searching "Russia Federation superpower" and "russia as superpower" this is what I came accross here here here here here here here and here. I am sure I can find more of them but requires more time reading them yet each of these there is some positive evidence out there that Russia has a world view to the world as being a superpower by some important people. Whether as energy superpower or using it as a superpower request it is a superpower in my belief just in what I have read and they maybe some sources that may say different but the quick search pulls these first. Energy superpower is one thing but their nation as a world leader I can agree with that notion as them being a superpower on the world stage.--Globalstatus (talk) 23:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I had a look myself on this and here's something I found a creditable source may also be worth reading () written by Steven Rosefielde called the "Russia in the 21st Century The Prodigal Superpower" from University of North Carolina by a foreign relations professor. I have viewed a couple of these sources from a above has a lot to do what is in this book for Russia being placed as a superpower. This source you mentioned has some weight itself], maybe small form but does speak of Russia being a superpower including references is also counted as college material for adding as a verified source for any research paper so it is to me a reliable source. I will concur with you on it that's my take. Good luck.--24.205.238.10 (talk) 05:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• To my mind, when one has to search hard to find a single source that asserts Russia is a superpower, as demonstrated above, then I think the issue of WP:UNDUE weight arises. --Martin (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

RMS Titanic and Good as Gold

Conversation on the article's talk page seeks to add a new theory as to why the ship hit the iceberg, based on a story in the culture section of The Daily Telegraph: "Titanic sunk by steering blunder, new book claims". It turns out that the revelations are made by the novelist Louise Patten ("I was the last person alive to know what really happened on the night Titanic sank") to coincide with the release of her new novel Good as Gold, apparently dealing with financial impropriety by one of the passengers. In turn Patten had heard the tale from her grandmother who was the wife of one of the officers. My contention on the talk page is that this is hearsay and cannot be used as a reliable source for Misplaced Pages. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

RMS Titanic is a long article so the existing passage, with its supporting reference, is copied here:

First Officer Murdoch gave the order "hard-a-starboard", using the traditional tiller order for an abrupt turn to port (left),<reference: Butler (1988: 266) "In 1912, helm orders were given according to the tradition of the earliest days of sail; that is by the direction the tiller bar was pushed in order to turn the ship, not the direction the rudder was turned. Murdoch's order of 'Hard a starboard!' meant that Hitchens turned the wheel to the right...making the rudder pivot left. Helm orders on British merchant ships weren't rationalized until the mid-1930s.">

--Old Moonraker (talk) 10:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Putting it another way, a number of editors are seeking to include recently cited testimony that the family of Titanic's most informed surviving senior officer, Charles Lightoller, received information from him which they kept secret for generations until recently publicised worldwide. The question is not whether the revealed information is true (or constitutes "a new theory") but whether and how the Misplaced Pages article should report this spectacular episode and its two pertinent allegations in a manner that enables evaluation by all readers. I note that a parallel controversy has been created in the article on Lightoller. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 14:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE appears to apply. Active Banana ( 14:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Spectacular the revelation may be, but their first appearance on WP nonetheless seems to be undue with respect to the treatment of other topics in the article, and unsustained by its source. Although it opens with "Lady (Louise) Patten has suggested", substantially it was reporting the tale as fact. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Shiite propaganda sites

There is a simmering edit war at Sahih al-Bukhari with an editor aggressively adding Shiite propaganda to the page. On other pages, these has been somewhat of an agreement that most of the mainstream Islamic sites, regardless of sect, are unacceptable as most are simply not reliable sources. In this particular instance, the strong bias of the two websites in question, as evidenced below, add to that unreliability. I cut and pasted part of what I wrote at Talk:Sahih al-Bukhari#Textual distortion section regarding this issue:

Supertouch (talk) 10:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

First, the two sources. Answering Ansar is not a reliable source; as you said, it's self-published. But al-islam.org is a little more tricky. The site claims to be run by "Ahlul Bayt Digital Islamic Library Project", a 501c3 - and as far as I can tell, it's an actual organization (1, 2). Just because it's a propaganda site doesn't mean that it can't be used per se.

Now I'm pretty sure this is the edit in question. What you've got there is a case of original research and synthesis. The editor is using an al-islam source that is just a straight scan of a book to make the claim that "proves that the Arabic text of the hadith and the English equivalent are completely different" and then goes on to do a self-translation of the text. That's just flat out original research and should not be included. So while al-islam.org may be an acceptable source in some cases, the way it's being used here isn't. — HelloAnnyong 12:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for your prompt response. While I agree that perhaps the al-islam.org site is not necessarily a black and white case, how does its being operated by an actual organization affect its status as a reliable source? The sheer number of websites that criterion would therefore allow — specifically in Islam-related articles but also elsewhere — would allow anyone to say anything. Supertouch (talk) 12:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I meant it more as showing that the site doesn't clearly fall into WP:SPS. — HelloAnnyong 13:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Ahlul Bayt Digital Islamic Library Project, which is used as a source here,has been cited by the Columbia University here (as a main reference on Islam), the British Academy here, the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade here, the George Mason University here, Intute here, and is archived by the Library of Congress and so it can't be considered as an unreliable source. All can send comment, suggestion, information and ... to it, but it doesn't mean they will publish it. The text is verifiable, and I believe as the external link of translation exists in the article, it's necessary to have this section in the article. If a sentence, like what User:HelloAnnyong mentioned has problem, it's better to rewrite it or ask for citation, instead of deleting the whole text. I am ready to help to rewrite this section or a new article with user:supertouch or anyone else as I mentioned before, but for sure I will resist against the deletion of this important section as the text is verifiable and the sources are reliable.--Aliwiki (talk) 13:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

1. ^ "John Olney, M.D.", Alumni Interview, 2008, retrieved 2010-09-13
2. ^ Memantine (Namenda) for Moderate to Severe Alzheimer’s Disease, 2004, retrieved 2010-09-13
3. FDA Backgrounder: FDA and Monosodium Glutamate
4. ^ Geha RS, Beiser A, Ren C; et al. (2000). "Review of alleged reaction to monosodium glutamate and outcome of a multicenter double-blind placebo-controlled study". J. Nutr. 130 (4S Suppl): 1058S – 62S. PMID 10736382. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
5. ^ Tarasoff L., Kelly M.F. (1993). "Monosodium L-glutamate: a double-blind study and review". Food Chem. Toxicol. 31 (12): 1019–1035. doi:10.1016/0278-6915(93)90012-N. PMID 8282275.
6. Freeman M. (2006). "Reconsidering the effects of monosodium glutamate: a literature review". J Am Acad Nurse Pract. 18 (10): 482–6. doi:10.1111/j.1745-7599.2006.00160.x. PMID 16999713. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
7. Walker R (1999). "The significance of excursions above the ADI. Case study: monosodium glutamate". Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 30 (2 Pt 2): S119 – S121. doi:10.1006/rtph.1999.1337. PMID 10597625. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
8. FDA Backgrounder: FDA and Monosodium Glutamate
9. Freeman M. (2006). "Reconsidering the effects of monosodium glutamate: a literature review". J Am Acad Nurse Pract. 18 (10): 482–6. doi:10.1111/j.1745-7599.2006.00160.x. PMID 16999713. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
10. Walker R (1999). "The significance of excursions above the ADI. Case study: monosodium glutamate". Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 30 (2 Pt 2): S119 – S121. doi:10.1006/rtph.1999.1337. PMID 10597625. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
11. ^ "Regulation of the food additive Aspartame. Food and Drug Administration. Department of Health, Education and Welfare" (PDF), U.S. General Accounting Office (USGAO) report, 2008, retrieved 2010-09-14
12. Ann Pharmacother (2001), "Relief of fibromyalgia symptoms following discontinuation of dietary excitotoxins.", PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE, PMID 11408989 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
13. J Allergy Clin Immunol (1997), "The monosodium glutamate symptom complex: assessment in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study.", PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE, PMID 9215242 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution