Talk:Goji

Opinion, fact and POV

Can you provide a cite for the opposing views? If they're notable, they need included, but it does need to be shown they're notable. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I added some references but even w/o them, the text needs rewording because it is opinion not fact. ie "No published large randomized double blind tests for Wolfberry can be found in PubMed" is fact but "this regulation provides important safeguards for consumers" is opinion and must be presented as such. Cayte 01:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)Cayte

Tibetinfonet: The commercial legend of goji: selling a Chinese crop under the Tibetan flag

Useful perspective published June 29, 2007[1].

Quotes and highlights:

• "This Special Report shows that the purported Tibetan origin of goji berries is bogus... there are no indications that the berries that have swamped worldwide markets have actually been grown commercially in any Tibetan region"
• "Many companies distributing goji products appear to cynically take advantage of the naivety or serious health problems of western consumers, as well as of inaccurate Tibet images in order to market a Chinese crop as a Tibetan product without providing any apparent returns to Tibetans."
• "The example of the goji berry demonstrates that, unless transparent structures are established within and outside the PRC to verify the authenticity of Tibetan products, the name of Tibet is destined to be misappropriated as a convenient label that profits non-Tibetans."
• "...there is no mention of any name close to goji in Traditional Tibetan Medicine texts."
• "TibetInfoNet contacted the Prefectural Agriculture Department in Nyingchi and officials reiterated that there is no commercial cultivation of Lycium/wolfberries/goji in the prefecture to the best of their knowledge, although there is no doubt that Lycium chinense does grow naturally in Nyingchi, as in many other areas on the Tibetan Plateau."
• "All circumstantial evidence indicates that Tibet Authentic, and with them most other goji companies, buy their berries from producers who cultivate Lycium barbarum at the northern and eastern foot of the Tibetan plateau (ed: in China), but not in Tibet. With that, the claim that “Tibet Authentic’s goji berries are certified grown in the wild on the pristine Tibetan Plateau” appears to be completely bogus."

--Paul144 13:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

WorldwideWarning.net -- Exposing Goji Scams

Captivating reading[2][3]. Mentions Earl Mindell and the CBC Marketplace interview, FreeLife Himalayan Goji Juice, the Tanaduk Research Institute and Tibetan Goji Berry Company owned and managed by Bradley and Julia Dobos from their Orcas Island location in Washington state, USA and goji MLM activity.

The site purports to expose scams and just tell the truth, so is worthy for each person to read and make one's own judgment. --Paul144 15:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

telegraph.co.uk article

This article might be useful as a reference: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/gardening/main.jhtml?xml=/gardening/2007/10/12/garden-superfruit-superfood-goji112.xml --Ronz 22:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It's evident the author(s) of this newspaper article did not absorb information provided in the Wikipedia article. For example, the italicized excerpts below are baseless.

1. Goji berries scored a spectacular 25,300 per 100g, while prunes, which came second, had a mere 5,770 per 100g. According to Gillian McKeith, the presenter of Channel 4's You Are What You Eat, they have 2,000 more antioxidants and 500 times the amount of vitamin C per weight as oranges. They also contain beta-carotene (their ability to improve vision has been documented for more than 1,500 years in China).

An ORAC of 25,300 has not been published under peer-review; there is no objective source of this information.

Is Gillian McKeith a reliable scientific reference? I think not, as the 2,000 more antioxidants and 500 times the amount of vitamin C per weight as oranges are pure Mindellian fabrications. Such numbers are not even remotely credible.

How well could improved vision be convincingly documented in 500 AD?

2. ...claimed that they enhance longevity (a Chinaman, Li Quing Yuen, who ate them every day, is said to have lived to the age of 250).

Li Quing Yuen, a JK Rowling character created by the wave of a wand? What reasonable person would believe this? More misleading fable perpetuated by Mindell.

3. Most of the goji berries that are sold in this country are cultivated in China, but they also grow in Mongolia and on vines in the sheltered Himalayan valleys of Tibet and Nepal, where they have been eaten for centuries and are nicknamed "happy berries" because of the sense of wellbeing they are said to induce.

Researched, refuted and discussed, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfberry#Tibetan_goji_berry

--Paul144 17:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

No more links template

This article appears to be attracting more than its fair share of spam, therefore I have added the somewhat contentious No more links template (only visible when editing). Experienced editors, will I am sure, just be able to ignore it; as will -I think- most of the spammers but there we go. --Aspro 15:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Sales pitch?

What's up with the sales pitch under "Significance?" This otherwise interesting article and discussion suffers from it, I think. At least the title of the paragraph should be changed to Economical Significance if the main information provided will be marketing numbers. Remmelt (talk) 11:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

A good point. The purpose of the section is to create a perspective for people unfamiliar with a plant food mostly new to the western world. The current information covers historial significance in the first paragraph with economic significance in the second, whereas nutritional significance -- probably the main reason users would consult this page -- may need better emphasis in a separate middle sentence. Or perhaps economic significance should be provided only in the marketing section later. Thoughts? --Paul144 (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The lead paragraph (WP:LEAD), Significance section and data for commercial growth were edited today. Following Remmelt's comments, the commercial information was removed to the section on Commercial Products where it certainly has a better fit. --Paul144 (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Wolfberry Economics

Is there any information we could add about the cost of wolfberries? The price runs ~$15/pound US for individual pounds. Considering food imported from China tends to be quite cheap, is there a reason the price is so high other than the relatively low volume? --Karuna8 (talk) 23:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Label anything "natural/organic/ancient/magic/Tibetan...", you are out there to make big bucks. Although the berry itself is healthy and has many disease-fighting properties, blow it out of proportion to target stupid white hippies is the way to go. --cecikierk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.75.181 (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 11:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Reliable source?

Is this a reliable source? It looks like a commercial site to me. Badagnani (talk) 03:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The site derives from recycled Mindellian fabrications on the goji story, naturopathic nonsense on several other topics, and contains numerous spelling errors and bad writing. As it is a commercial site, I have removed it as spam. --Paul144 (talk) 11:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Self-published book

(copied from User talk:Fram to get more editors involved)

You reverted my removal of a self-published book from Wolfberry and other articles[4]. The problem is not that the book does not exist, but that it is not a reliable source. Anyone who is willing to pay the production costs can publish a book with BookSurge, and every book that is printed by BookSurge is available through Amazonand a number of other online sellers. Perv WP:V#Self-published sources, this is not an acceptable source. Fram (talk) 13:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

By those definitions, what book isn't self-published?

The book had independent editorial review by the publisher and is an accurate scientifically-based text, the only one available not associated with a commercial product. There is nothing invalid about this book.

Also, according to WP:V#Self-published sources, the author is an independent expert who has written for several other publishers.

Your objections are unclear. I can think of no book interpreting wolfberry science that has higher qualifications or more independence than this one.--Paul144 (talk) 13:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, have you actually checked what BookSurge is? It is a self-publisher[5], not a publisher where someone reads the books before they decide to publish them or not. No "independent editorial review" is done at BookSurge. Furthermore, a book on science should have reviews, being used in scholarly publications, and so on. This book has 21 Google hits[6], and no Google News, Books, or Scholar hits. The book has no qualifications whatsoever. Fram (talk) 13:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

An independent editorial review was submitted to Booksurge with the book manuscript. Given the subject of wolfberry is hardly in the view of American science (there are no US-derived publications on wolfberry at PubMed), it's no surprise scholarly reviews of this book haven't been done. Given its long history retained in China until recently, the subject is obscure to North American and European scientists. One wonders, who other than a scientist specifically interested in wolfberry would review a book about it? So with these conditions, it's difficult to meet the criteria of peer-review as described in WP:RS.

Looking at every book listed in the Wikipedia wolfberry article, all would be removed by your criteria.

Bottom line is that the book meets these Wiki criteria [7] and is recognized by other publishers as the authoritative text on wolfberry, making it a valid objective and comprehensive reference.--Paul144 (talk) 14:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

"An independent editorial review was submitted"? Either you are making this up, or you are very closely connected to the author... Wikipedia is not about American science, it is about science in general. If there are no good sources on the medicinal aspect of wolfberry, then the whole section should be removed as WP:FRINGE. If there are good non-American sources about it, use those. If the only good sources are in other languages, use those (sparingly). If the other books listed are not from reliable publishers, remove them. But this book is not a source "about itself": this would mean that the article is about either the author or the book, which it obviously isn't. Fram (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

As an experienced editor of many Wikipedia pages, particularly of the wolfberry article, I can say this article is well-referenced across subsections with science from many sources, and the books listed in the bibliography are acceptable sources of information. I don't understand your motivation which seems narrow, limiting and exclusive. The book in question is one I have researched extensively and it stands as the best scientific, non-commercial reference text available, easily meeting the needs of RS. It deserves to stay by all criteria. --Paul144 (talk) 15:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I've requested a third opinion on this. Fram (talk) 06:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment I am not going to spend too much time on this because the removal is based on a logical fallacy... Here is a simple brake down:

First sentence: “Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published then claim to be an expert in a certain field.”

If this statement is TRUE then there is nothing to prevent an expert from also self publishing. So far so good.
Second sentence: For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.

Wholly would admit no exceptions, however it states largely. This is a subjective value judgement clause and so requires a judgement to be made on each individual source regarding its suitability for inclusion. Therefore: Self publication is in itself not enough for automatic exclusion.

Editor Fram seems so confused as to the duties of a publisher that I'll leave that area well alone, but mention it to point out that his comments about what he believe they do only help to create a 'circular augment' that leads nowhere. This last point also includes the question about any independent expert review of this book and the reviews supposed purpose . Instead one must consider the books possible merits like any other book i.e, based on the academic standing of the author/s and his/their supposed competence (this aspect has already been addressed to some extent).

as an aside: Academics do self publish (for instance in Public Library of Science if they wish it to be peer reviewed etc). Why -one might ask- should they feel they need to self publish?

Ans. The advantage is the same as offered by Booksurge, in that you can keep all your publishing rights. It looks like that Paul Gross has done a review of the current evidence sufficient to give a qualified opinion of his own and wants to control publication of this work.

Fram say: “If there are no good sources on the medicinal aspect of wolfberry, then the whole section should be removed as WP:FRINGE.” This is absurd. The article repeatedly make the current lack of knowledge clear. Fram's conclusion would justify medical insurance companies making a lot of clinicians redundant, if they only paid out for medical treatments with “good” sources for effectiveness -and it would also prevent the introduction of any new advances on the bases that they were not yet main stream. See figure One at the bottom of:[8]

Also, Gross clearly does not make medical claims; instead he is reviewing the evidence so far: If we take this as an example of his work: The reasons for such strict regulations? In studies of foods, it's difficult – if not impossible -- to isolate the health benefit of a single nutrient (in this case, lycopene) when so many other nutrients may be at play following dietary intake, even in a well-controlled clinical trial. As a result, FDA concludes there has been insufficient credible evidence to support a link between tomato lycopene in any form (as a supplement or as part of whole food) and a lower risk of prostate cancer.

Likewise for currently marketed goji berries or juice, there is no health claim validated by acceptable human research criteria, as there have been no well-controlled clinical trials on goji, any of its nutrients or individual goji phytochemicals.

Bottom line: There's just not enough evidence to recommend that we eat tomatoes or goji to gain specific health benefits or prevent diseases. [9]
Therefore, it appears that bases for the objections to this book are confused and unclear.--Aspro (talk) 14:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll ignore your ramblings and reply to the conclusion; my objections are simple: why is this self-published book that is not reviewed (niether by scientific media nor by mainstream media), and is not used as a source by other authors, ... considered an acceptable source per WP:V and WP:RS? Fram (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Aspro does bring up a relevant point, Fram. If the book were being used as a source for one or two "claims" statements, it would be fair to include it. (I.e. XYZ has claimed that ABC.) But when I looked at the history of the page, I can understand why you don't feel this is relevant. It's being used as a source for several outright assertions. (I.e. ABC causes DEF. GHI is true. JKL and MNO have PQR benefits.) arimareiji (talk) 18:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

On the face of the arguments presented here, I'm strongly inclined to agree with Fram. But that could easily change based on the following questions, which haven't been answered: Is there any evidence of peer review, and is there any evidence that the authors are considered to be knowledgeable on the subject by their peers? I've seen a lot of utter tripe in self-published books. I've also seen extremely valuable information - but this is the exception, not the rule. Paul144, do you have examples of any of these?

1. Citations of this work in other works
2. Professional qualifications of the authors
3. Periodical (newspaper, magazine, etc) reviews of this work
4. Recommendations of this work or the authors by qualified professionals

By professional, I do not mean exclusively mainstream - I mean verifiable recognition of qualifications by a group with no obvious CoI. arimareiji (talk) 18:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

This discussion does have merit as it bears not only on the objectivity of self-publishing but also on all of the nutrient data mentioned in the wolfberry article.

First, two comments on objectivity.

1) Generally, only books that are solicited by a publisher, are a summary of a conference or are assembled by an editor would not be self-published. Would that be perhaps just 25% of all books on plants and nutrients? The Wikipedia definition of self-publishing[10] unfortunately has a negative connotation, implying that a self-published author only has self-aggrandizing motives for publishing. All of the books listed in the Bibliography appear to be self-published. I would assert that most book authors with credible credentials and sincere intent write to share their interpretations about a subject with the public. Each reader would make her/his own judgment about the validity of those interpretations.

Some of the Bibliography books are objective summaries of what is known about wolfberries, combined with scientific interpretation and no marketing intent, as in the Gross book. Others contain exaggerations, misleading statements or fabrications about health benefits with full intent for marketing, as in the books by Mindell (a former spokesperson for FreeLife, maker of Himalayan Goji Juice) and Young (owner/CEO of Young Living, maker of NingXia Red Wolfberry Juice).

Couldn't self-publishing be motivated by expedience and affordable cost, two factors important to most unsponsored authors? A solicited book defined as above might require one year to be published after the manuscript is submitted, at no cost to the author, but only by invitation. A self-published book can be printed within weeks of submitting a manuscript, but at a cost often reasonable to the author. The publisher in question -- Booksurge for the Gross book -- does do editorial reviews (if paid by the author), is owned by Amazon.com and specializes in "print-on-demand" publishing, meaning no physical inventory is kept (a prohibitive cost usually borne by the author), but rather prints a book from the digital manuscript when each new order is received.

2) Responding to Arimareiji's comments above

1. books that summarize literature and present tables of nutrients as done in the book by Gross et al. are outside the typical literature used in publishing new science on a plant like wolfberry. Other than by Gross, there seem to be no other authors interpretating wolfberry for the general public over the past two years. There have been numerous publications of research papers that cite other journal literature, as shown by searching "wolfberry" on Pubmed,[11] but these papers mostly cite other scientific publications, not summaries about science for the public.
2. The reader has to make this judgment alone based on credentials given in the author biographies.
3. In the functional food industry where books of this nature apply, there are limited reviews of published works. I have searched but did not find any book reviews.
4. Professional recommendations would fall under #1 above, but it's likely this type of book is not pertinent to the new research of basic scientists. Rather, it is written for general consumers, and may or may not be reviewed by the publisher's editorial staff.

Parts of the wolfberry book by Gross have been republished in online industry journals whose content is peer-reviewed and approved by an editor/publisher, e.g., [12](bottom article)[13][14][15][16]

In the final analysis, someone motivated to learn about wolfberry would have to read the self-published books listed in the Bibliography and judge for her/himself. Even in scientific journal publication of new research, however, findings and interpretations by one author may exist for years unchallenged by other scientists. Standing alone with that "self-published" idea does not disqualify the author from the scientific literature, as Fram proposes to do.

Comments on nutrient data. Nutrient contents of plant foods are not usually found in scientific literature but rather are generated from contract assays paid to third-party labs by growers or product manufacturers. All of the wolfberry nutrient data tabled in the article[17] came from either the Young book or the Gross book which are two of only four sources I know for wolfberry nutrient data. The other two are from private growers in China.--Paul144 (talk) 02:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to accept this as a rare exception to the strongly-suspect nature of self-publishing. The key word is nature - just as peer review is not suspect by nature but sometimes produces drivel, self-publishing sometimes produces information that's worthwhile, credible, and verifiable.

Looking through the links provided and doing some of my own digging, I see no compelling evidence for CoI. I sharply disagree that industry journals are evidence of peer review, but I'm willing to accept that there's been enough exposure that someone could have called shenanigans - and I can accept his credentials as legitimate. Last, on a gut level I don't smell bull5#!7 (i.e. someone trying to cover reasoning flaws or suspect motives with scientific jargon).

If this is only a toehold that later gets rapidly expanded with new claims, I'd suspect that my current opinion was a mistake. But the claims are not unreasonable, and I think there's a lot of reason to AGF here. Fram was absolutely right to suspect a self-published book and reflexively kick it back at first, but I think this one is an exception to the usual pattern and definitely a case for WP:IAR.

Support keeping it as a reference, though that conclusion surprises me. arimareiji (talk) 05:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your change of heart. This self-published book is not reviewed, not used as a reference, ... but because an editor claims it is good nonetheless, you AGF and let it pass? If there are no reliable sources for some information (e.g. nutrution contents, we should not include it). Take a sentence like "Soil origins in the Yellow River basin of Ningxia have stimulated interpretation about the exceptional nutrient qualities of the Ningxia wolfberry". This is sourced to Gross. It may be correct, but as long as we don't have a good source for it, we don't include it. AGF is about the motives of users, not the inclusion of material. Fram (talk) 08:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The reference to the Yellow River basin soil origins was corrected to the original source last week. If there are other references in question, you should either correct them yourself or post them here for someone else to do the work.

You removed the reference to the Gross book for the discussion of traditional medicinal applications of wolfberry. I am restoring that. Two coauthors of the Gross book are native Chinese, one of whom -- an MD trained in TCM -- contributed that chapter.

Your interpretation is counter-productive to the native knowledge, research and publishing intent of the Gross book. Native Chinese, long involved in the wolfberry growing industry and with insight only Chinese could have, wished to publish a book with an English-speaking physiologist able to interpret the wolfberry nutrient data and medical literature. This was a fresh perspective on an old literature still not actively interpreted or studied by western scientists.

It would be a mistake to dismiss the nutrient data used from the Gross and Young books, as only from sources like this would the public have access to such information. Likewise, throughout the Gross book, are insights from how common Chinese perceive wolfberry's value -- from TCM to growers and horticulturalists. Only from a self-published book could information like this be made public.

It's evident you haven't read the book. Before writing off resources having potential value for the Wikipedia article, it seems reasonable to first invest sufficient research of your own to fairly assess them.--Paul144 (talk) 10:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not the function of Wikipedia to make information public. It is our function to gather and summarize information from reliable sources, per WP:V. If the only information is in unreliable sources (not meaning they are incorrect, only that Wikipedia policies don't consider them acceptable), then we should not publish this information. Fram (talk) 11:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The criteria for WP:SELFPUB are met in the article's use of the Gross book.--Paul144 (talk) 11:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Just like I argued in my post below, you have a significant misunderstanding of both what is and what isn't a self-publisehd book, and of what is acceptable use of a self published book. Selfpub says: "Questionable sources, and most self-published sources, may only be used as sources about themselves": I repeat, about themselves, i.e. in an article or a section about either the book or the author. Not in an article on wolfberries... Fram (talk) 11:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The title of the Gross book is "Wolfberry". This discussion would go a long way toward improvement of the article if you took a constructive attitude and made edits or recommendations that actually enhanced what we know about the subject. This may require reading the book which seems like the logical place to begin before writing it off as a violation of WP:RS. --Paul144 (talk) 11:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you seem to be starting from a profoundly wrong point of vue: "Generally, only books that are solicited by a publisher, are a summary of a conference or are assembled by an editor would not be self-published." This is of coures not at all what is meant by "self-published" on Wikipedia. If you send your work to a scientific magazine, a publisher, ... and they accept to publish it after having read it, then the work is not self-published. If, however, yo sent it to some enhanced copycenter, where all they do is pack your stuff, make X copies, and list it on Amazon, all because you pay for this, then the work is "self-published". This is the case here. A work that is unsolicited by a publisher is not "self-published". Harry Potter was not solicited, but it was not self-published either. If I sent a paper to the Lancet tomorrow: it will be rejected: if I sent the same paper to BookSurge, it will be published, no matter how good or bad it is, as long as I pay for it.

Another thing you state: "The publisher in question -- Booksurge for the Gross book -- does do editorial reviews (if paid by the author)". Yes, they have authors like Ellen Tanner Marsh who write five-star blurb texts if you pay for it. So? This makes it less' reliable, not more so.

As long as you start from such a misunderstanding, I have a hard time accepting your conclusion. If all this book does is publishing an uncontrolled summary of previously controlled (peer-reviewed) studies, then we should not link to the uncontrolled summary, but to the original studies. Fram (talk) 08:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand... why request a third opinion if you're going to ignore both of the ones offered? I do agree that self-published books are almost invariably full of crap, but they keyword is "almost." The statements referenced to this one don't exceed the scope of its believable authority.

I'm already familiar with the arguments you're still making, and could amplify them with a number of examples I've seen myself. But I still believe that this is a rare exception; a situation where those arguments don't hold sway. arimareiji (talk) 22:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:3O is the starting point for most Dispute resolution, so that's where I started. That doesn't mean that the third opinion is in any way binding. However, since the third (and fourth) opinion did not agree with me, I did not remove the source again, but continued arguing those arguments that were incorrect (like the misunderstanding of what WP:SELFPUB means, or even the general misunderstanding about what self-published means). The third opinion was to me completely unconvincing as I failed to see any logic in its reasoning, yours was clearly better thought out but I did not share your interpretation of the policies and the precedence of them (AGF doees not trump WP:V). If multiple people come to a wrong conclusion because they miusinterpret some of our policies and assume too much good faith by just believing the statements made by the editor of the article, who has a clear conflict of interest wrt the book, then I'll continue arguing my point and look for advice from people with more knowledge of both reliable sources and conflict of interest. If this is to be an exception to our policies, then it will need stronger arguments than those yet given. I notice that meanwhile, two more people have at least expressed their doubts or reservations, so I am not the only one who still needs to be convinced. Fram (talk) 05:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary Section Break

A couple of comments by way of full disclosure, then a question for discussion on this. I saw this dispute posted at COIN, and have read through the article and the discussion on the validity of the Gross book. I agree with the sentiment that Arimareiji and Paul144 brought up, that the policy on Self Published Sources is worded in such a way that nothing is 100% excluded just by virtue of being self-published. I am open to the possibility that the book could be considered a reliable source, but the arguments above have not been sitting right with me, from a logic perspective. A lot of arguing the omissions in the policy, etc.

So, rather than poking holes in a deliberately non-all-inclusive policy, lets look at this the other way.

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers.

Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications.

This is from WP:SOURCES which is a policy and not a guideline as is WP:RS. Please explain how the book fits this criteria, specifically the parts in bold. Arakunem^Talk 23:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I go with that. The book is not automatically out, and its inclusion as a source should be considered entirely per WP:NPOV. However, if (as it strongly appears) Paul144 is one of its authors, that user (per WP:COI) should let others decide about its inclusion. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

What's the evidence of the asserted CoI that Paul144 is an author? I dug around a little myself when this was first posted at 3-O, and didn't find anything suggesting it. (But that doesn't mean that there isn't something I just didn't find.) Additionally, I'm curious - how many more forums has this been posted to since 3-O? Apparently COIN, but anywhere else? arimareiji (talk) 05:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

In this (old) diff[18], he states that he is a contributor to NPIcenter. As for other fora: I posted it on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (since the third opinion was in my view not adequate, and this noticeboard was the most logical for these problems), and another user posted it to COI noticeboard. As far as I know, that's all. Fram (talk) 07:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Responding to points requested by Arakunem

WP:SOURCES defines sources as having three related meanings: 1) the piece of work itself, 2) the creator of the work, and 3) the publisher of the work. All three affect reliability.

1. the book in question is a non-commercial summary of the status of wolfberry science dated to 2006. It was written as a nutritional source reference for consumers. Its contents include i) extensive nutrient data tables produced by independent contract labs, ii) discussion of all wolfberry phytochemicals published in the scientific literature, iii) review of all 81 studies reported about wolfberry on PubMed[19] as of early 2006, iv) a chapter on TCM written by a coauthor Chinese general practice physician with TCM training, v) the botanical origins of Lycium barbarum and vi) new horticultural methods written by Chinese scientists who permitted translation specifically for this book. As there were no promotional intentions for the book other than stating the extraordinary nutrient qualities of wolfberry, there is no conflict of interest.
2. two of the coauthors are native Chinese with extensive backgrounds on wolfberry and the lead author is a retired scientist now a freelance author -- Gross, whose record of scientific publishing in peer-reviewed scientific journals can be readily assessed using PubMed, search = gross pm. This is partial evidence for the author's fact-checking and accuracy for scientific and NPOV interpretation. The only other way to assess objectivity of Gross' writing is to read the book and numerous online articles, e.g.,[20](bottom article)[21][22][23][24].
3. the publisher, Booksurge, should be viewed with neutrality. Booksurge operates a GPS digital manuscript allowing low-cost, rapid editing and print-on-demand fulfillment, requiring no high-cost hard-copy inventory which is often a discouraging cost factor for individual authors. Because it is owned by and integrated with Amazon.com, Booksurge facilitates a published book to gain visibility via Amazon's online store and affiliations. Simple as that.

For this book, peer-review in the way we respect it works for scientific or other professional literature has not been and cannot be achieved. In the functional food or beverage industry, the book is one of three on wolfberry. The other two -- by Mindell or Young as listed in the article Bibliography -- were promotionally self-published to help sell products, violating WP:SOURCE and WP:NPOV. But they nevertheless do represent history on the subject of wolfberries possibly sought by Wikipedia users.

In the consumer industry since 2006, Gross has been the only author of science-for-consumer articles on wolfberry published online. Scientists would not seek this literature as reference support for scientific publications. One other author, Dharmananda, a PhD traditional medicine expert, has self-published an article for the TCM community.[25]

These articles do not receive the same desirable rigor of peer-review subjected to scientific papers, but they did receive scrutiny by the editors of those online journals confidentially using referees as 3rd party reviewers. The online journals that published Gross' articles such as NPI Center[26] and Natural Products Insider[27] are considered "mainstream" in their industry, as would Dharmananda's for TCM.

One would have to judge quality and objectivity of these articles and the book by reading them.--Paul144 (talk) 12:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

the book in question is a non-commercial summary of the status of wolfberry science dated to 2006 ... As there were no promotional intentions for the book other than stating the extraordinary nutrient qualities of wolfberry, there is no conflict of interest ... two of the coauthors are native Chinese with extensive backgrounds on wolfberry and the lead author is a retired scientist now a freelance author

We can start by calling bullshit on that? A quick Google finds the book was produced by a company which sells wolfberries and wolfberry products (here's their press release) and is copiously linked from the book's official site wolfberry.org. And it was just written out of sheer fascination with wolfberries? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

"...written out of sheer fascination with wolfberries?" By the lead author, yes. Cynicism and healthy skepticism have their useful place, but wouldn't it be fair to assume WP:AGF?

Except for the chapters on TCM (translation by X. Zhang) and horticulture (translated from Mandarin by Chinese authors), the book was proposed, planned, written and produced entirely by Gross, a freelance author who approached the Zhangs for wolfberry information. Also, as best as I know, the two Zhangs do not contribute to Wikipedia so are not part of WP:COI.--Paul144 (talk) 16:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice catch on the authorship and CoI, Gordon - I completely missed it, and CoI changes the entire basis for discussion. I still think the claims are relatively mild, and that it's still open to debate whether it should be included, but you appear to have the matter well in hand and I'll gladly defer to your opinion.

If you hadn't already noticed, I'm feeling kinda dumb about not having caught this gem of an insinuation and its counterpoint:

• "Native Chinese, long involved in the wolfberry growing industry and with insight only Chinese could have, wished to publish a book with an English-speaking physiologist able to interpret the wolfberry nutrient data and medical literature. This was a fresh perspective on an old literature still not actively interpreted or studied by western scientists." (earlier in the talkpage, from Paul144)
• "a Seattle-based importer of Chinese goji berries" (wolfberry.org/documents/ParryFruitlessSearchforGoji12-06.pdf) arimareiji (talk) 16:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm less concerned at this stage about the specifics - the book's reliability is open to analysis - than whether Paul144 has sufficient conflict of interest to not be making the call about its inclusion.