Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 9

message: Currently there are about 11000 links from wikipedia to YouTube.  Many of them are being used in articles about as sources.  I added a note about avoiding YouTube... but perhapses there is a better way to say it or a better place to put it? There's a big discussion about this on WP:AN right now. ---J.S (t|c) 16:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: YouTube is not a reliable source for 99% of its content for two main reasons: (a) most material that may be useful to articles will be most probably copyvios;  (b) it takes very little effort nowadays to alter a video, change the voiceover, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. In my small research sample I didn't find a single link to YouTube that was unquestionably acceptable. I only checked about 20, so it might not be representative. ---J.S (t|c) 17:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good change Jossi. ---J.S (t|c) 18:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I likewise concur.  I've also researched just a few of the links to YouTube and found lots of amateurish, ad prefixed clips that added nothing to the articles.  I like the approach that a video clip, just like one's own website, should never be used unless it can be reliably verified by a third party as to copyright availability, content accuracy, and value to Wikipedia users.  This would eliminate most of these links.  I also believe that with the Google acquisition, YouTube may be placed under more control.  However, what remains to be seen is how Google monetizes and exploits this high traffic media.  YouTube may be used as another advertising scheme by some members who simply want to generate ad revenue using these clips.  I've already seen Google Adsense ads on some YouTube pages and this will provide another motivation for spammers to place links on Wikipedia to drive traffic to their clips. Calltech 13:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  YouTube 2 

message: Reverted... actually some of the edits were quite good in my opinion, but taken as a lump I have to disagree.  Some of them i definitely disagree with.  For example, one of the things cut was the bit about Wikipedia itself (and by extension other wikis) not being a reliable source ... which I think is very important to include.  May I suggest discussing each change one at a time? Blueboar 23:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actually in there. (My working copy is here if anyone doesn't want to check the history.) Check the "#Tertiary_Sources" section.  I make a general plea not to use them, the general reason why and I even specifically mention Wikipedia under "examples" of bad sources.  My list of "Unreliable Sources" indicators talks about "unstable content" as well.  I'm was trying to make the entire format easy to read and it's intentions clearer.  Concise means more people read it and more people will understand it. (That's why I removed the warning from the definition section...) Was there anything else you didn't like? Was there something in it I could make better? ---J.S (t|c) 23:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  JSmith's recent BOLD edit 

message: *Option 1) Demote to Essay status:
#JYolkowski // talk 01:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll

message: Cross posted to WP:RS, WP:OR and Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. 
There is a dispute going on at Talk:Depo Provera#Disadvantages and side effects WP:NOR violations. One user found primary sources, reliable journal articles, that said depo provera may do certain negative things. Another user is disputing this, citing original research. The argument, I guess, is that the 1st user is interpreting the source, and drawing conclusions not published anywhere else. The studies only dealt with rats (not humans), and there is nothing in the patient drug information (or any other way to verify the claims outside of the studies in question). The logic goes that making a connection that a study dealing with rats may effect the use of this drug in humans as a contraception is original research.  Furthermore, it may be pushing a POV that this drug is unsafe by mentioning these studies (that are not verified outside of the individual study, and not mentioned in patient drug information). I feel like I am repeating myself, sorry. The counter argument is that a) citing primary sources is a good thing b) the claims are cited and verifiable and reliable, fulfilling almost every wikipedia criteria for inclusion. So I guess there are two issues. Is using the information in this  manner original research? And is it giving undue weight to a minority view by citing obscure studies like this? Sorry if I am missing anything or misrepresenting a side. Please direct comments to Talk:Depo Provera#Disadvantages and side effects WP:NOR violations. Thanks!--Andrew c 03:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I took a look at the journal articles in question.  They certainly meet the standard for being reliable sources.  I will not get into the POV and OR issues as these are better discussed on other pages. Blueboar 13:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Concur.  Sources are reliable; other questions fall outside the scope of this page.  I hope your cross posts at other pages are more fruitful.  You might also try WP:RFC. Durova 15:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy dispute regarding primary sources and OR (requested comment) 

message: There is an interesting discussion at Talk:Operation Minsk, where we are discussing what to do if  academic sources are contradicting each other. Comments about solution appreciated.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This one is easy... Assuming that everyone agrees that these are reliable academic sources, the solution is to keep the article NPOV and present both (or all) of the viewpoints. Blueboar 18:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Usually, yes, but in this case we seem to have majority of schoolars involved in in depth research of this particular issue in the past 2-3 decades increasingly saying 'A', while in the past they seemed to have been divided into 'A' and 'B'; further, encyclopedias like EB and scholars mentioning the fact in question in passing tend to say 'B'. Last but not least, common logic dictates 'A', but that's just my POV :) 'A' and 'B' refer to the start date of the war (Polish-Soviet War) - 1920 was the old 'B' variant, 1919 is the newer 'A' variant, and and the issue is should we have a footnote in every article which mentions PSW in 1919 that some scholars tend not to see those events as part of the war (because they completly ignore them or were unaware of them, as it appears). So modern experts tend to say 'A' and I think we should go with the modern view in subarticles and discuss the controversy only in the main article, without the need to footnote the issue in all subarticles (battles, etc.).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is really a WP:NPOV issue and not a reliability issue (I don't see any argument that the 1920 sources are unreliable... only that they do not reflect current thinking). But to try to answer your question, why not say something along the lines of: "In the past, academic sources such as A, B, and C have said that the war started in 1920 (citations to A, B and C) but, more recent sources such as D, E, and F have stated that the war started in 1919 (citations)." Blueboar 18:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said. ---J.S (t|c) 18:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it is reasonable to illustrate the development of academic thought on the subject, showing the convergence of the two schools over time.  I think that is a question of understanding the topic fully though and appreciate that not all editors can or will do that.ALR 14:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What sources are more reliable? 

message: I ran into an interesting situation recently that got me thinking.  Very often Wikipedia's most valuable role isn't merely telling us things we didn't know, it's also telling us which things we thought we knew about the subject aren't correct.  With that in mind, I'd like to ask:  when the point of discussing a certain claim is to identify that it is actually an urban legend, misunderstanding or misconception, should we require that that urban legend, misunderstanding or misconception be published by as reliable a source as we would require for anything we were presenting as true, or at least not debunked?
A true but simplified example:  Two Congressmen were censured by the House for inappropriate behavior.  One chose to face the main body of the House, thus turning him away from the Speaker of the House who was reading the censure.  The other chose to face the Speaker of the House who was reading the censure, thus turning him away from the main body of the House.  Memories of politicians being as subject they are to unconscious (and sometimes conscious) "reinterpretation", the second Congressman's action mutated from "faced the Speaker who was reading the censure and not the rest of the House" to "turned his back on the House" to "turned his back and ignored the censure as it was being read."  
Now, in this case, it was easy to find a reliable source -- contemporary reports from the New York Times -- to refute the idea that the Congressman had "ignored" the censure as it was read.  However, it was not as easy finding a reliable source which discussed the idea that he did do so!  It's a widespread belief but principally widespread among those whom Wikipedia would not regard as a reliable source -- highly partisan websites, and private blogs.  In a situation like this, it seems Wikipedia has three choices:
# Refuse to discuss the matter at all, since we cannot find reliable sources for both sides including the one that is in the wrong;
# Include the refutation of a popular misunderstanding or misconception when the refutation comes from a reliable source, but do not include mention of what the misunderstanding/misconception is;
# Include both the misunderstanding/misconception, even if we have only less-reliable sources discussing it, and include the information from reliable sources which refutes it.
I feel that the third makes the most sense. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Somehow, I think that if the so-called misinformation were supported by a reliable source, then we would have a problem saying it is wrong.  Of course, the refutation itself is a source that the opposing point of view does exist, but how much can we trust them to accurately represent an opposing point of view?  I guess what we are looking for (ideally) is a source that we can trust to accurately represent the point of view, but cannot trust to be right. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 15:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to take a look at WP:FRINGE.  While not completely discussing what you are talking about, it does uphold the concept that a refutation can be used as a citation that the theory it refutes exists. Blueboar 15:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Obviously, the best thing would be if a reliable source said, "The blogosphere alleged that the Congressman ignored the censure by turning his back on the House."  Finding such a source may require a lot of work, but in such a prominent case, it is likely to exist.  Failing that, just state what happened and note in comments or on the talk page why you think the detailed story is important.  We need to be very careful about living persons: repeating a falsehood even for the purpose of refuting it can cause damage. Robert A.West (Talk) 16:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the existence of misinformation require (as) reliable sources to document? 

message: What about something like slog, the blog maintained by  The Stranger? (The Stranger is a Seattle alternative weekly, probably the most important chronicler of the city's youth culture, and quite good on other culture and politics as well.) It would seem to me that the pieces in there that are signed by the newspaper's staff are exactly as attributable as items in the paper itself (so the usual blog issue of not knowing who wrote it is gone). On the other hand, they are probably less subject to editorial review than articles published in the paper. - Jmabel | Talk 08:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd think it depended on the context.  Blogs are usually not ok, but a few are boarder line. What exactly is it being used for? Since the blog is notable, I'd say you could make the argument that the opinion is notable. ---J.S (t|c) 10:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Blogs generally can only be RS as a primary source in an article about the blog, or its parent organization (to source claims about the blog or its parent org). Blogs belonging to notable organizations, such as newspapers, can be reliable sources, depending on the context and author. Obviously, something written and signed by staff (if it can be verified that they did indeed author it) would lean to the reliable side, a rant posted by a reader would not. It's a grey area that would need to be hashed out on a case by case basis. As far as using such a source to cite negative information about someone living goes, I do not think it would be a solid enough source. WP:BLP requires solid, unquestionable reliable secondary sources. - Crockspot 15:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do think we need to differentiate between a blog, an article posted to the online edition of a newspaper, and an online editorial posted on a reputable newspaper's website and written by a member of the newpaper's staff.  All three have different levels of oversight and fact checking.  Blogs are obviously not reliable.  An article placed on the online edition of a newpaper is obviously reliable (or at least as reliable as the print edition).  The online editorial is the grey zone ... half way between a blog and an online report.  While such are opinion, and not the reporting of fact, they do have the same level of reliablility as a printed editorial or op-ed piece.  I would lean towards accepting such as being from a reliable source ... with the cavets and attribution that would go along with any other editorial opinion piece.  The hard part is determining which of the three you are dealing with.  Blueboar 20:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because the article is in a print source doesn't mean we should stop thinking about the author/contents.  Letters to the editor aren't considered reliable sources either.  ColourBurst 14:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blogs, redux 

message: This guideline currently lists the IMDB as a reliable source for movie credits. I propose this be removed. IMDB credits are just as unreliable as anything else on the IMDB, and often user submitted. 6 years ago, I uploaded the full cast and crew of a Christopher Walken film called "The Prophecy 3: The Ascent" into the IMDB. As a joke, I added popular B-movie actress Linnea Quigley to the cast, credited as a "Hooker". The IMDB fully accepted my addition. Quigley is still listed on that page (although she has been downgraded to "uncredited"). This credit is now also listed all over the net. Quigley was even asked about the role in this interview: "You had a small part as a hooker in The Prophecy 3 in 2000, did you have any scenes with Christopher Walken and what was he like?
I don’t think unless they used old footage that I’m in Prophecy 3. I have to see it sometime but I wish I could have worked with them. Damn, if you have seen it and I’m in it let me know." Mad Jack 22:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: IMDB

message: At the same time that the discussions here are going on and the above rewrite by ALR is being done, also a replacement for WP:V, WP:NOR as well as WP:RS is being discussed on Wikipedia:Attribution.
Please give your opinion on that attempt to reduce the burden of an ever growing mass of policy. Harald88 07:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not so mucg being done by me, but I happen to specialise in knowledge management, so know more about the topic than many.ALR 08:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other new draft to simplify policies and guidelines 

message: Can , a roadgeek fansite, be a reliable source for the definition of a ghost ramp? If not, what happens if the poll on talk:ghost ramp finishes with a majority in favor? --NE2 19:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At a quick glance, it looks like a reliable site for such slang terminology.  Blueboar 20:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Majority isn't the same thing as consensus.... ---J.S (t|c) 20:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An amendation to my prior comment: the site you linked to (a subpage of AARoads.com) looks reliable... the other one you talk about at the poll - Gribblethingamy.bob (I don't remember the exact site name) does not.  I don't think you can state that all roadgeek sites, as a blanket group, are either reliable or not ... it is a case-by-case call with each cite. Blueboar 20:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would AARoads be reliable? It's a fansite. Should we use the term "neutered shield": "Those shields that do not carry the state name are referred to as "neutered shields" on AARoads." because they use it? --NE2 22:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fan-sites can be reliable.  They have a long history (10 years) and it looks like they have support from travaelocity (that might have just been an add? not sure).  I could be wrong, but if they are a respected website then they might be a RS under some contexts. ---J.S (t|c) 00:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They don't have support from travelocity; that's just some sort of affiliate program. This is literally a self-published fansite, with content written by a few people and reflecting their views. --NE2 00:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Advice needed on [[ghost ramp]]

message: On the Dave Ramsey page, someone keeps using this review of one of his books from Amazon.com as a source for all sorts of criticsms, some not even talked about in the article. Would a review from Amazon be considered a reliable source? I don't see why, but can I get a consensus?
: Such reviews can be regarded as reliable about themselves. But that is, if I understand well, not what that editor uses it for... Harald88 07:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only legitimate use for an Amazon review would be in a passage about a controversy involving that review (as when Rob Neyer received some media criticism for writing an anonymous, negative review of another author's work). Anybody who wants to post an Amazon review can do so, and a lack of editorial oversight prevents the use of their reviews as legitimate literary criticism. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amazon.com Reviews 

message: Some editors, including admins User:Fred Bauder and User:MONGO, have suggested that peer-reviewed academic publications from prestigious universities are not acceptable under WP:RS if the author subsequently becomes politically active in an area they define as 'disinformation'. 
The specific case is Dr Ganser of the ETH Zurich who wrote a peer-reviewed book on Operation Gladio. Two years later he also wrote a chapter for a book on 9/11. Does this make his previous work unacceptable under WP:RS? Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 20:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for once again misrepresenting my comments...I did not say this.--MONGO 08:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Unacceptable as what?  He is certainly entitled to his opinion.  He should be attributed when he gives it and his outrageous views pointed out.  In this case, he's an extreme leftist who almost certainly pushing a political agenda either through his leftist 9/11 Conspiracy BS or his leftist attacks on western countries and views during the cold war.  Under no circumstances should his opinions/conclusions be taken as unquestioned fact without substantial sources backing it up.   Use common sense.  --Tbeatty 22:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My question was whether his views and research can be quoted in wikipedia. Tbeatty - why do you say his criticism is 'leftist'? I found no trace of 'leftism' in his commentary, and I'm sure you have not read the book in question. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 22:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Once again, this seems to be a WP:NPOV issue rather than a reliablility issue.  In this instance, Ganser's work on Operation Gladio is POV but reliable (in that it was indeed peer-reviewed and published by an academic institution - ETH Zurich.)  I would say that he can be cited, but that this should be done as an opinion not as undisputed fact.  Blueboar 22:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Blueboar. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 22:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Common sense, Tbeatty, is that your frothing about "leftist" opinion and your refusal to acknowledge that it IS backed-up suggests that you want to transform the article into a whitewash. His "leftist attacks" were so outrageous that up to and including NATO invited him to speak at conferences. Your disrespect for sources contrary to your own opinions suggest that you are pushing your own POV here. Please do so in your own private blog or webpage. This isn't the forum for slander  nor politically motivated defamation campaigns. If he's ok for NATO, the Swiss government and the ICRC, then you are in no position to attack him. --OliverH 13:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Blissfully unaware of the situation, and thus unable to make statements that address the specifics, I can think of a handful of academics that have peer reviewed publications that are so discredited as to not really be citeable at all - the Bogdanov affair being the most obvious. I can also think of ones, including very important ones (Jacques Derrida) who are far from discredited, but are of sufficient controversy that virtually nothing they say can be stated point blank. Phil Sandifer 15:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can quote the views of someone like this, because the threshhold in Wikipedia is verifiability. But ""threshhold"" is another word for "minimum requirement" to be cited; a  further requirement, though, is the consensus of editors, and if other editors replace that quote with one from a less controversial source, the quote can be deemed not to have been worth having. For example, I should think that many of the facts in the books by David Irving, who was once thought a respectable historian, are sound and soundly sourced, but I suspect that most editors here would rather have quotations from less obnoxious historians than him. (I mean, if Titus Andronicus served it, I wouldn't even eat beans on toast.) qp10qp 17:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Use of Bogdanov-derived physics in any science article ought to fail to meet any acceptable test of sourcing. If it does not, then our sourcing tests are broken. Phil Sandifer 18:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on WP:RS and peer-reviewed acedemic sources. 

message: What do people think we should do with something like this? I have no reason at all to doubt a word this person is saying, but "My father translated and read the names and dates to me as I wrote them down in 1974…My father's mother, Teodora Vazquez Molenar Gonzalez was close to Pasqual as their mothers were sisters" isn't exactly what we usually accept. - Jmabel | Talk 02:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case we have what the antiques dealers call "Provinance"... a direct line of written documentation to someone who is reliable (a relative of the subject of the article).  This is not the same as reliability, but it is close.  In this case, I think you have to ask, is there a reason to think the material is inaccurate or faulty in some way?  If the the answer is no, and if the consensus on the article is to accept it... then this is a perfect example of a case where WP:Ignore all rules can apply.  Remember, this is a guideline and not Law.  If there is a good reason to ignore it, and no one objects, then do so. (did I actually just say that! 8>0 ) Blueboar 03:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's inadmissable. If it's true, maybe some reliable sources can be found for it. In my opinion, it should be placed on the Talk page, where it may give leads to future editors. The editor should, of course, be treated with the utmost respect and the information preserved as potentially verifiable. qp10qp 17:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The provenance argument actually militates against inclusion, not for it.  A dealer would want to see the diary, have it authenticated and translated by an expert, and only then would evaluate whether the claims in the diary were relevant to the provenance of the item being sold.  If a recognized expert had already opined on the subject, a dealer could take the expert's word, provided that there was no doubt about the authenticity of the opinion.  The first option is not available to Wikipedia for three reasons: the diary is unavailable, Wikipedia avoids original research and any expert hired by the family might (for all we know) be biased.  The second option is available only if the expert's opinion is verifiable: which means that it has been published so that future Wikipedians can check that it exists and check the expert's qualifications and reputation.  Robert A.West (Talk) 18:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Probably true, absolutely not "reliable" by our rules 

message: Oh, okay. We're not trying to meet academic standards for peer-reviewed journal articles. We're just trying to write the best articles possible and support them as best we can. Sorry; for a minute there, I thought we were serious about all this reliable sources bumf. 
If we're not going to try to reinvent the wheel and streamline the process of researching and verifying citations, then we can scale back to what is practical in an open community full of untrained editors. I made this suggestion before but it didn't catch fire. I honestly do believe people would rather play at academia and force some random collection of "rules" into policy, trying to cover the entire field of human knowledge with straight lines and wobbly restrictions. If I'm wrong, I'll try again. 
No matter what, every citation must be evaluated on its own merits. There is no bypassing this. No amount of huffing and puffing is going to result in a short, easy-to-read standard against which every citation can be measured. You may not like this, but yes, every single citation is an opportunity for a little bitty war. You say it's okay, I say it's not, we argue, we cite more sources to support our views. The merits of the individual citation in its individual context absolutely trump any project-wide standard. 
Not only that, we must face up realistically to the fact that some articles are going to be better sourced than others. Worthwhile articles can and should be written on topics where fair sources are all that are available. If we thrash out some high standard for "reliable" sources, we cut off all lesser ones. If we settle for a minimum standard, we fail to push for the best available when we have many from which to choose. The only thing crazier than trying to set one bar for the entire project is to try to set a zillion little bars, one each for every category of article -- here, in one central space. Most editors will simply ignore this effort. You take, for example, Classical Music. Editors who work in that area have no interest at all in this general effort; they will ignore it, too, if it conflicts with the system they have already settled upon. 
With this in mind, all that remains of general, project-wide interest is some sort of rudimentary source rating scheme. Having admitted that some sources are better than others, I propose a simple grading system: A, B, and C. 
* (A) - 
* (B) - 
* (C) - 
Go to articles one at a time; check sources given one at a time; and grade them appropriately if you think you have enough understanding to do so. Then move on. If somebody else changes the rating, let it go. In fact, I will say that if you are here, you almost certainly have a generalist bent of mind, which means that although you may have a better grasp of why it is important to have some sort of project-wide standards for sources, any specialist is probably a better judge than you are in his specific area. So let it go. 
There is no point at all in warring over a source's grade so long as there are hundreds of thousands of unrated sources in the project. When all sources have grades and you want to dispute another editor's change to one of your grades, do so politely; argue your case rationally and on individual merits. Do not hope to kill the entire beast on this one page in one week. 
That's all. John Reid ° 08:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would add a source code "F"... for when totally unreliable sources are used. (It does happen). Blueboar 13:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A B C 

message: Please note that WP:EL has been revised... there is one section that may impact this guideline or the various rewrites being drafted:
 
:Links normally to be avoided
:Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or is an official page of the subject of the article, one should avoid:
:2 Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources.
This is the first time that I can think of where factually inaccurate material has been discussed in such a explicitly negative way in a guideline.  OUR guideline certainly doesn't (nor the draft rewrites that might replace it).  Given this, Perhaps the time has come for us to address the issue of sources that contain factually inaccurate material as well.
I know that we have to be careful not to contradict the priciples expressed in WP:NPOV... but I think we could state something similar to what is on WP:EL.  I.E. any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research should not be considered reliable.  Any thoughts on this? Blueboar 19:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:EL]] revisions