| Revision as of 14:26, 25 February 2014 editTutelary (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers17,196 edits →#3 Not a reliable source - Academia links?: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:27, 25 February 2014 edit undoSineBot (talk | contribs)Bots2,556,126 editsm Signing comment by Ging287 - "→#3 Not a reliable source - Academia links?: new section"Next edit → | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
| ''Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others.'' | ''Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others.'' | ||
| The website in question, renewamerica.com is an extremist site that calls for Obama's impeachment, claims that he is encouraging drug trafficking, uses sensationalizing headlines and provides almost zero sources for these claims. I propose that this source be removed as it is not a reliable source per Misplaced Pages:Verifiability | The website in question, renewamerica.com is an extremist site that calls for Obama's impeachment, claims that he is encouraging drug trafficking, uses sensationalizing headlines and provides almost zero sources for these claims. I propose that this source be removed as it is not a reliable source per Misplaced Pages:Verifiability <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | ||
Revision as of 14:27, 25 February 2014
This article is not in proper Misplaced Pages format because it's just an empty page waiting for translation of the French entry on its subject. Rosieredfield (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 | This article contains a translation of Marthe_Gautier from fr.wikipedia. |
I've made a start by adding a translation of one section from the French entry. --Zeborah (talk) 03:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Nice work. For anybody interested, the Nature article is here: http://www.nature.com/news/down-s-syndrome-discovery-dispute-resurfaces-in-france-1.14690 and a very interesting interview with Dr Gautier here: http://www.newengelpublishing.com/randy-engel-interview-with-marthe-gautier/ Cloning jedi (talk) 14:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Could the translator add a translation of the rest of the French page?
Hi Zeborah. Will you be able to translate the rest of the French entry? We're still missing all the biographical information about Dr. Gautier before she worked on the Down syndrome chromosomes, and all the information about what happened to her after this discovery. Rosieredfield (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I am going to translate some parts - however an English native speaker will need to proof read the translated text. christophe (talk) 17:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Neutral POV at this point
@ 92.26.125.228 - we are still expanding this article so quite a few expressions and statements are not yet fine tuned. Once the translation part has been completed we will try to review the English version to make sure the final text is POV neutral - which might currently not be the case. --christophe (talk) 10:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
#3 Not a reliable source - Academia links?
Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others.
The website in question, renewamerica.com is an extremist site that calls for Obama's impeachment, claims that he is encouraging drug trafficking, uses sensationalizing headlines and provides almost zero sources for these claims. I propose that this source be removed as it is not a reliable source per Misplaced Pages:Verifiability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ging287 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Category: