Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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. Additional notes: 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. Start a new discussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marisol Deluna

The discussion at this AFD boils down to gaging the reliability of the few local sources mentioning Marisol Deluna: La Prensa, San Antonio Magazine and North San Antonio Magazine. Are these 3 sources, as currently used in the article, to be considered as stating a fact or expressing their author's viewpoint? To what extent do they establish the notability of Mrs Deluna? Racconish ^Tk 20:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks like she's been covered by at least a couple major Texas dailies[1]. TimidGuy (talk) 10:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, your query returns no hit for me. What did you find that you deem reliable? Racconish ^Tk 11:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

That's odd. When I click on the link it returns a list of 11 articles in Google News archives. They include articles about her in the San Antonio Express-News and Austin-American Statesman, as well as an item in the NY Times about her wedding. TimidGuy (talk) 09:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Have them now. Really odd I did not before. Thanks, Racconish ^Tk 11:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The San Antonio Express News, a Hearst Publication and the Austin-American Statesman have covered Marisol Deluna and her charitable designs through editorials, not simply mentions in nine articles from 2002-2010 as shown on the provided link by TimidGuy. Do either of you know how to reference the full articles under "Google-News-Archives" without payment for other Wiki editors to reference? Many of these could be used as sources of verifiable information. However, I have one other question: Why is her hometown of "Alamo Heights" being questioned on her article? It is clearly stated in the Austin-American Statesman in 2002 and the "San Antonio Magazine" as recent as January 2011. San Antonio and Austin, TX are not small news circulations. Additionally, I noticed a Girl Scouts of the USA posting on the "Marisol Deluna New York" FB page that again states "Alamo Heights" a suburb of San Antonio as her hometown. Thanks, NancyB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.252.182.132 (talk) 16:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Often if you go to the website for the newspaper itself you'll find free access to their archives. Also, you could go to a library and access a service such as LexisNexis. TimidGuy (talk) 11:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

http://www.mlmwatch.org/

many of the comments added to this discussion have either not been about the section in dispute, nor about the source being queried. Can people please make the effort to familiarise themselves with both the section in dispute and source before commenting. The edit being challenged is not about the product (ie a health issue), it's making claims about people. --Icerat (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

As the scientific community ignores most alt med and mlm claims there are few sources to use to balance these articles. There have been efforts to remove material referenced to http://www.mlmwatch.org/ from Juice Plus. Comments?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly, on the very same talk page is a discussion about a scientific journal article about an "mlm" product, and the article itself references a number of peer-reviewed published scientific articles regarding this particular companies products, so I'm not quite sure how Doc James makes his initial conclusion which is alarmingly lacking in NPOV. Numerous companies that use MLM are also heavily involved in publication and presentation of scientific papers in respected journals and conferences, so I'm afraid Doc James is wrong there as well. As to the case in point, the argument is over using Stephen Barrett's self-published "mlmwatch.org" website as a source for information regarding the past business associations of some people involved with the company Juice Plus[2]. Self-published sites should only be used when someone is a recognized expert on the topic. Barrett's Quackwatch site has been the subject of much debate on RS/N, with no real consensus on it's use as a source ever being reached[3]. The only real advice has been to use it with care on medical/health issues noting it is the opinion of Barrett in his area of expertise. In this case his other site is being used as a source for business, not medical or health, information and regarding BLP issues. Barrett is not a recognized expert on business or mlm and is clearly not an acceptable source in this case. --Icerat (talk) 02:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Groan. Vigorous use of WP:PARITY and WP:REDFLAG are the only defenses that I know of in cases like this. Will watch article but enthusiasm low... Johnuniq (talk) 02:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

While mlmwatch.org certainly has a "fringe" approach to this business model a watch isn't needed so much as a view on the particular issue so we can move on to other stuff :) --Icerat (talk) 02:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

To spell out my previous comment, it is extremely likely that a company featuring "natural alternatives" will find various means to promote their product, and it is extemely unlikely that any other organization will be motivated to respond to the claims. Accordingly, if promotional claims are warranted in an encyclopedic article, and if there are reasonable statements on a well known anti-quakery website with a proven record on such matters, then WP:PARITY requires that MLMWatch be used to balance the promotional claims. Johnuniq (talk) 02:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

With respect, have you actually read the edit in question? None of what you're saying seems to be at all applicable. Neither for that matter does mlmwatch have any "proven track record". Indeed it promotes "fringe theories" that are contrary to the vast majority mainstream academic and official publications. --Icerat (talk) 02:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to add, WP:BLPSPS clearly states "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject" --Icerat (talk) 03:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

mlmwatch promotes fringe theories? You are claiming that Juice Plus is main stream? Provide me the review articles on this product... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm claiming MLM is mainstream. mlmwatch.org, a website which I note hasn't been updated in years, promotes fringe material the business model which is not mainstream (such as the writings of Taylor and Fitzpatrick). The section under discussion is not about Juice Plus's products, it's a claim about people. As you are a wikipedia admin you do not have ignorance as an excuse. You are currently supporting the use of self-published material for information about living people. This is a clear violation of WP:BLPSPS. --Icerat (talk) 03:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It is NOT a BLP it is an article about Juice Plus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to information added to any wikipedia article, not just biographies. I am surprised that you are ignorant of this, it is very clear in the very first sentence of the policy. --Icerat (talk) 03:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Extended content

This smacks of the nonsense User:Ronz tried to use regarding comments about Stephen Barrett in the Weston Price talk page (see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive97#Noticeboards.2C_source_criticism_and_claims_of_BLP_issues and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Problem_on_BLP_noticeboard. The argument didn't work then and it isn't going to work now.--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Paragraph looks WP:V and WP:NPOV. We have had a lot of issues with we assume people who sell this product attempting to remove any information critical off it. Wiki is not an advertising platform. If you get support for your position I will not have a concern. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you disputing my interpretation of WP:BLPSPS? Even if the other sources support the claim they need to be verified. Can you do that? In the meantime BLP material should be removed. It appears the other sources used where simply taken from Barrett's piece, not independently verified. If you can show they state the same as Barrett (doubtful without the Tardis) mlmwatch should still be removed as a source. Inclusion of such POV/SPS sources in wikipedia only contributes to giving them a sense of respectibility. --Icerat (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

A much greater concern at this point is much of the rest of the article are health claims supported by primary research. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Since when has standard discussions like that trumped WP:BLP? But of course feel free to raise those issues. Personally I'm wondering why the product has it's own article at all rather than being rolled into the company article. --Icerat (talk) 03:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

What I don't understand is that WP:MEDRS is pretty clear that health claims should be largely supported by research reviews. If there are research reviews that conclude that studies on this product have shown its effectiveness, then these can be used as sources, and a self-published website isn't really adequate as a source to counter the research reviews. If there are no research reviews that have discussed studies on this product, then perhaps these claims shouldn't be in Wikipedia. If it's a matter of not knowing how to find research reviews that may have included studies on this product, let me know. I can show interested parties how it's done. TimidGuy (talk) 10:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

While you're largely correct TimdGuy, in this current dispute the source isn't even being used with regard health claims. The source is being used to support a claim of a tenuous link between staff of an older failed company and this product/company, ie BLP claims. --Icerat (talk) 12:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with TimidGuy. Basically 90% of the article needs to be deleted as health stuff is being said without research reviews. A Wikipedia unlike the FDA considers stuff like "supports the immune system" a health claim...Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there's too much in the article on research claims, at least relative to the entire article. I suspect that's developed as a result of a back and forth between supporters and opponents of the product. Having said that, WP:MEDRS doesn't define what a health claim is, let alone that it's different to the FDA. It's also quite clear (apart from the sentence which contradicts WP:RS and Doc James objects to changing) that primary source research is fine for straight factual statements. In any case, irrelevant to the current discussion. We still have BLP claims based on an SPS being used in the article.--Icerat (talk) 14:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

This is starting to get ridiculous. Icerat's flippant remark about a Tardis as his comment about Taylor and Fitzpatrick reflects COI iterated in Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_49#Amway_Australia. As explained way back in 2009 (see Talk:Multi-level_marketing/Archive_2 Taylor and Fitzpatrick were shown to be reliable because of their use in peer reviewed publications such as the Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal, Journal of Business Ethics, Western Journal of Communication, Journal of the American Board of Sport Psychology, System Dynamics conference papers, McGeorge Law Review, South African Mercantile Law Journal, a book by Juta Academic ("Juta is respected as South Africa's pre-eminent academic and law publisher), and so on. In some way this seems to be a rehash of the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_58#FitzPatrick_.26_Reynolds.2C_False_Profits issue we had a while ago.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Due to COI issues maybe Icerat should be restricted from editing articles on MLM as this seems to be an ongoing issue... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

And the usual BS starts to flow. Perhaps Doc James should be restricted from editing articles on nutritional products due to his clear COI? Your position as a medical doctor is a far stronger COI on this article (a financial one) than any interests I have. You, like Bruce Grubb, clearly do not have an NPOV on these types of topics and are struggling to maintain one in your editing. Right now you're allowing your POV to affect your judgement, which as an admin should be better. This is a clear case of a Self-Published Source being used to support BLP information. I suspect the fact you keep trying to change the topic, and now attack me rather than the issues, means you know that too and are suffering a little cognitive dissonance. By wikipedia terms, a COI is when your editing outweight the interests of wikipedia. Right now your editing is clearly working against Wikipedia policy. --Icerat (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It is not BS to show that you have a long history of COI when it regards MLMs. As I said to Ronz WP:BLP is not a magical censorship hammer for for any point that an editor disagrees with but that seems to be the way it is being used in this case. I will be the first to say that Stephen Barrett has problems but he is not the only source here!

Stare, F.J. (1986). "Marketing a nutritional "revolutionary breakthrough". Trading on names". N Engl J Med. 315 (15): 971–3. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Young, E.A. (1987). "United Sciences of America, Incorporated: an "optimal" diet?". Ann Intern Med. 107 (1): 101–3. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Renner, J.H. (1986). "Science or scam?". N Engl J Med. 315 (15): 971. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)Holden, C. (1986). "Scientists get flak over marketing plan". Science. 234 (4780): 1063–4. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

"USA: The strange rise and fall of one MLM". Money (June 1). 1987. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) are also used!

The New England Journal of Medicine is a reference and Icerat says one of the most respected medical journals in the USA is not reliable simple because Barrett says something similar?!? Does anyone else see the total insanity of this position?!?--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

oh for crying out loud. I have NO history of COI issues when it comes to these articles. There's a history of people like yourself accusing me of COI when trying to defend inclusion of materials contrary to wikipedia policy. Again, Doc James has a MUCH clearer potential COI here than any I'm accused of having. I'm not resorting to the tactic of trying to get him banned from the articles. As for the other sources - none of them support the claims being made. Have you read the edit in dispute? Have you read the sources? For god sake the other sources predate the thesis being pushed! It's like you're trying to use a source from 1989 to support a claim that Mt Etna erupted in 2011, it's prime facie ridiculous. But since you and Doc James believe it's supported by the other sources anyway - please, rewrite the section excluding the disputed mlmwatch source. Then we can take it from there? --Icerat (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

No history?!? Come on, Icerat one only has to read User_talk:Insider201283/Archive_2, Talk:Multi-level_marketing/Archive_2, User_talk:Insider201283/Archive_3#Conflict_of_interest, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_58#FitzPatrick_.26_Reynolds.2C_False_Profits, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_58#Quoting_an_RS_source_citing_non-RS_sources to see the apparent COI that does back a long time. I would like to point out you claimed "Just a note, the Cruez article is not peer-reviewed." and wound up with egg on your face when I proved it was peer-reviewed...as I originally claimed (Talk:Multi-level_marketing/Archive_2). This just appears to be the latest in a very long line.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

At least *three times* I believe the likes of yourself and others have tried on WP:COI/N to get me banned from editing these articles based on an alleged COI, and *every time* your attempts have been rejected. This constant harassment because you don't like it the MLM industry is tiresome. I again state - if the text is supported by the other sources, then the source in dispute is not required. Rewrite it if you believe this to be the case, focus on the issue, improve the article, and stop with the personal attacks, which in your case are verging on stalking--Icerat (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

This is the reliable sources noticeboard. Discussions about the article, or the underlying topic, are not needed, and comments about the behaviour of other editors are exceedingly unlikely to be helpful. This discussion has reached the point where it may be necessary to take action all round. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Could we please get some input on the matter actually raised. --Icerat (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The thing is this had already degenerated into a Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Juice_Plus issue with little relevant merits on the actual reliability of the sources getting lost in the scuffle. Going over Barrett's [The Rise and Fall of United Sciences of America] paper and looking at the actual text involved [4] the material look reasonably good and a little digging produced Therese Walsh's "Juicing for fun and profit: taking a good thing too far" article (reprinted in) Gale Group's 1997 Nutrition forum: Volume 14 Prometheus Books pg 36-39 which states and I quote "Juice Plus capsules and many other dehydrated juice capsule products, including those from AIM and Juice For Life, are promoted as having enzymes that aid in digestion. These claims are just as false for juice capsules as for whole juice. Even the claim that juice capsules contain much the same nutritional value as the actual juice is unsubstantiated."--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• mlmwatch is a tertiary source, and should only be used when secondary sources are not available. That said, the author of the website is something of an expert on multilevel marketing, especially with regard to the health claims of a number of products. As far as his perceptions of the organizational staffing of certain MLMs, it would be his sources that need to be examined. If he doesn't cite sources, then the staffing data is not particularly certain. To the extent possible Wikipedia is not the place for mere allegations, unless they are presented as such. E.g. "It has been alledged^{FN FN} ... The manufacture has denied ...^FN" --Bejnar (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Could you please explain how you come to the conclusion the author of the website is "something of an expert on multilevel marketing"? As far as I know he has no published work in the field outside of the website in question, and that website (albeit alongside some legitimate "health" related commentary, which is his area of expertise) promotes fringe views of the industry. --Icerat (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Sigh, as was stated before the mainstream view (ie reliable sources like Wiley, Sage, CNN Money, USAToday, The New Zealand law journal, etc) portray MLMs in a negative light. Taylor and Fitzpatrick have been cited in several works across four disciplines (anthropology, business, law, and psychology) and yet no one on the other side with similar referencing has been presented.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Bruce, could you please stick to the issue here? (1) mlmwatch is a self-published source (2) the author is not a recognized expert on the issue he's being used as a source for (3) WP:BLPSPS explictly says third-party self-published sources should NEVER be used for BLP material, which it is here. Why is there debate? This is all very straightforward, can people please stick to those issues, particular point (3) --Icerat (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

As Sergeant Cribb stated "This is the reliable sources noticeboard"; this constant drifting into BLP is NOT relevant to this board. Doc James doesn't seems to see any BLP issues, TimidGuy's comments were all regarding MEDRS, Johnuniq seemed to leaning to MEDRS, and I don't see BLP issues. Heck, John A. Wise's own biography says much the same thing and it presents Forbes (2006), Journal of the American College of Cardiology (2003), Journal of the American College of Nutrition (2004), The Skeptic (2000), Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (2010) in addition to Barrett. Also since Wikipedia not a forum stop with the bumping we are seeing in Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Juice_Plus--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

(1) Neither yourself, nor Doc James are uninvolved editors.

(2) TimidGuy's and Johnuniq's seemed to be under the incorrect impression the disputed edit had something to do with JuicePlus's product - as you yourself just noted, its a BLP issue.

(3) None of the other sources you mention support the claims, no matter how long you keep claiming they do. If they did then the section could be rewritten without mlmwatch and this discussion would be over.

(4) mlmwatch.org is a self-published website.

(5) WP:BLPSPS explictly says self-published sites should never be used for information about living people

(6) mlmwatch.org is being used for information about living people in at least two articles - Juice Plus and John A. Wise

(7) No consensus has ever been established that mlmwatch.org, a self-published website that hasn't been updated in years, is a reliable source for information on anything, let alone mlm companies or people involved with mlm companies. Semi-consensus has been achieved that barrett's other website (quackwatch) may be used, with care, for health related information under certain circumstances. This discussion is not about quackwatch as a source, nor is it about health related information.

(8) There has been very little uninvolved commentary here, with instead, alas, the usual pack of well-known anti-mlm wikipedians instead entering the fray.

--Icerat (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Barrett and Quackwatch are notable and have been repeatedly been found to be reliable sources for online consumer information, especially for a skeptical viewpoint. --Ronz (talk) 00:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Sigh Why don't people read the actual request? This RS/N request is about mlmwatch, not quackwatch, and the edit in dispute is about BLP, not consumer information. If you can, please advise where mlmwatch has "repeatedly been found" to be RS for BLP information. --Icerat (talk) 00:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

mlmwatch is part of quackwatch, one can figure this out just by reading the page. Thus what applies to quackwatch also applies to mlmwatch. Also once does not get to claim that all those who disagree with you are "involved" A bunch of us do not agree that mlmwatch is selfpublished Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

So Icerate did come here afterall and didn't get the answer he liked. Explains a lot. Shot info (talk) 00:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agree with Jmh649 Sorry, but I didn't think I needed to say that mlmwatch has the same overview, fact-checking, scrutiny of sources, etc as Quackwatch. I'd think this would be obvious from Quackwatch. --Ronz (talk) 00:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

In other locations Icerat has used Quackwatch in his examples, so he knows full well the MLMwatch has the same creditials. I'm noticing that he is engaging in some time worn TE tactics and I'm wondering if it's AN/I time... Shot info (talk) 00:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

So if Barrett started up "troutwatch.org" tomorrow, he's automatically considered an expert on trout? Give me a break. The site has barely been updated in years. It has it's own separate FAQ that makes no mention of peer-review (on quackwatch he at least states, essentially, "some is, some isn't"). The very header paragraph on the site is provably unreliable with 5 seconds on google scholar[5] and google books[6] and promotes essentially a conspiracy theory that the hundreds of academic and reliably published books on the topic are somehow under the influence and control of the MLM industry. BTW, this is pretty much the first time in this whole discussion that someone has simply said "mlmwatch is not self-published" and "mlmwatch is considered a part of quackwatch" rather than just mindless repetitive "quackwatch is reliable". At least now we're getting to a disagreement that actually makes some sense. Can you support the assertion that Stephen Barrett's articles on mlmwatch are not published by Stephen Barrett, and that they are independently fact checked and have a reputation for accuracy? --Icerat (talk) 00:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I do find it amusing that when one asks a question from multiple editors and when he receives the answer which he doesn't like, he asks the question again, and again, and again, and again...Shot info (talk) 00:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Shot Info - the problem is I continually got no answer at all. People kept referring to Quackwatch, which is a different website to the one I was referring to. I am *stunned* if wikipedia consensus is that mlmwatch.org is a reliably source of fact-checked information, no matter whether it has anything to do with Barrett's area "expertise" or not. Now at least I have a handle on the issue here. The Barrett supporters essentially consider all of Barrett's websites reliable, non self-published sources and that no matter their name they are "quackwatch". I need to rethink my atheism. This fellow is apparently God. That is frankly astounding, but at least the difference of opinion is obvious. --Icerat (talk) 00:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I see from discussions like this [7] and this [8] that there is no such consensus about quackwatch.--Icerat (talk) 01:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

No it is NOT regarding Barrett as god but showing his information is factually inaccurate as was the case with his comments regarding the work of a man long dead) The wikipedia biography on Wise has additional sources that show in this case Barrett's information is correct:

"Natural Alternatives International Inc: DEF 14A (1/8/01) [SEC File 0-15701; Accession Number 1095811-0-4161]". SEC Info. Retrieved 2007-08-21.

"Executive Profile: John A. Wise, PhD". Businessweek. 2011. Retrieved 2011-05-30. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Plotnick, Gary; Corretti MC, Vogel RA, Hesslink, Jr. R, Wise JA. (2003). "Effect of supplemental phytonutrients on impairment of the flow-mediated brachial artery vasoactivity after a single high-fat meal" (pdf). J Am Coll Cardiol 41 (10): 1744-9.

Kiefer I, Prock P, Lawrence C, Wise J, Bieger W, Bayer P, Rathmanner T, Kunze M, Rieder A (2004). "Supplementation with mixed fruit and vegetable juice concentrates increased serum antioxidants and folate in healthy adults" (pdf). J Am Coll Nutr. 23 (3): 205–11. PMID 15190044.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Smith MJ, Inserra PF, Watson RR, Wise JA, O'Neill KL (1999). "Supplementation with fruit and vegetable extracts may decrease DNA damage in the peripheral lymphocytes of an elderly population". Nutr Res. 19 (10): 1507–18. doi:10.1016/S0271-5317(99)00107-4.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Inserra PF, Jiang S, Solkoff D, Lee J, Zhang Z, Xu M, Hesslink R, Wise J, Watson RR (1999). "Immune function in elderly smokers and nonsmokers improves during supplementation with fruit and vegetable extracts". Integr Med. 2 (1): 3–10. doi:10.1016/S1096-2190(99)00010-4.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

"Juice Plus+". Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Retrieved 2006-10-15. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Never mind that this piece by Barrett has 32 outside references covering the article--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

So self-published sources are acceptable in wikipedia if their factual accuracy can be established? Can you point me to the part of WP:SPS that supports this assertion? I also note that the Quackwatch article lists MLMWatch and other Barret sites as separate entities to Quackwatch, not a part of Quackwatch. The idea espoused throughout this thread that an alleged "consensus" over Quackwatch extends to Barrett's other websites is bogus. --Icerat (talk) 03:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Where identified and attributed Barrett's views have an acceptable( if not ideal) role in articles about his area of expertise. That's been the compromise/consensus due to Barrett's recognized public advocacy and the lack of better sources in this area. Also, in this article there are several critical sources which back up Barrett's perspective. For me that only bolsters the reasoning to use his article as it is in line with other reliably sourced commentary here. Ocaasi ^c 03:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

So you agree with the idea that self-published sources can be exempted from WP:SPS and WP:BLP if they can be demonstrated to be accurate? Can you point me to the parts of WP:SPS and WP:BLP that support this assertion? Right now they explicitly state otherwise. --Icerat (talk) 03:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Quackwatch does not equal Stephen Barrett and Stephen Barrett does not equal Quackwatch. Only POV pushers seem to have issues with that. People have pointed this out earlier and in other locations. Sure one can use OR to assert that they are the same, in which case editors should head off and alter the Quackwatch article to match the asserted reality. Shot info (talk) 06:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Again this is starting to look like a less extreme version of the BLP claim insanity we saw in Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive97#Noticeboards.2C_source_criticism_and_claims_of_BLP_issues and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Problem_on_BLP_noticeboard. In this case Stephen Barrett is on much firmer ground regarding Juice Plus then he was with his claims regarding Weston Price because he is doing more a connect the dots piece rather than making claims that didn't jive with the man's actual words.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I have used mlmwatch.org in my own research on MLMs - however this was to "point in the right direction" to find a RS for whatever claim might be in there. There are some similarities between Quackwatch and sites like Snopes.com. Reading Mr. Barrett's WP article, it would seem his expertise is in health (and more importantly, health fraud). This would give him the credibility on the aforementioned Quackwatch, but he doesn't appears to have the credentials as an expert in the field of MLMs (minus health products themselves). I would think the only reason to cite mlmwatch, is if he was talking about the specifics of a product sold by an MLM, of which his expertise would fall. And even then, I would prefer to use one of his sources if its RS rather than mlmwatch itself. Where there is no RS sourced by Barrett, severe caution in regards to WP:PARITY would be advised. So, even though I use mlmwatch for own my research into these articles, I do not agree mlmwatch is a RS. I'll stay out of the WP:BLP discussion since this is RS/N.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 16:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, it's not a self-published source. The site has overview, fact-checking, scrutiny of sources, etc.

The expertise that's relevant here is extensive articles on fraud, consumer information, and skepticism. --Ronz (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Ronz, can you explain and or cite Quackwatch/MLMWatch's review procedures? Ocaasi ^c 16:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe they've been discussed in the past and are the reason why they're used as reliable sources across multiple articles. I suggest starting with a search at this noticeboard. Given how often this comes up, it would be worth having a documented summary of past discussions. --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_32#Usage_of_Quackwatch_as_RS_in_medical_quackery] is one such reference and it was pointed out in Talk:Multi-level_marketing/Archive_2 http://www.mlmwatch.org has been used as a supportive reference regarding MLMs in Rethinking Our World (Juta Academic) and Sandbek, Terry Ph.D. "Brain Typing: The Pseudoscience of Cold Reading" American Board of Sport Psychology. In addition http://www.mlmwatch.org has been used as a supportive reference in Gale Group's Nutrition forum: Volume 14 and How to Smell a Rat: The Five Signs of Financial Fraud (Wiley). The complementary and alternative medicine information source book (ABC-Clio) points both the strengths and weaknesses of Barrett's web site.

The one problem with WP:RS right now is too many editors miss "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context" part resulting in a binary mode for the entire source. No matter how reliable a source generally is we still have to look at context because even the most reliable sources sometimes get things wrong and sometimes you wind up skirting WP:OR to preserve WP:NPOV in addressing the problem. In this case we have a entire article with loads of references and have found other sources supporting Barrett's claims.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the link to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_32#Usage_of_Quackwatch_as_RS_in_medical_quackery - and the discussion there seems sufficient that Quackwatch should be used in WP:PARITY issues when dealing with medical fraud and quackery. In Quackwatch's mission statement, they list all of the other websites that Mr. Barrett operates. I think we have rehashed the Quackwatch site sufficiently. However, I have issues applying that same level of SPS/PARITY across to all of his other sites by default. The site in question for this RS/N is mlmwatch.org. I would also like to know the answer to the question posed by Ocaasi on the review procedures of mlmwatch.org, and area that seems at face value to be out of Mr. Barrett's level of expertise (minus possible PARITY issues with mlm health products). Looking at all of his other websites, they are all health theme-based except for mlmwatch, since multi-level marketing is really a business model and method of marketing/distribution of a variety of of products/services. I'm assuming he started mlmwatch because several of the product claims he was reviewing in Quackwatch were from MLM companies that distribute health products. In that case, this would support the view of allowing mlmwatch with extreme use of WP:PARITY where he is specifically addressing health claims, etc, and not allowed for opinions outside his area of expertise (business model/marketing methods)  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 12:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

We are getting very far removed from the issue that precipitated this discussion. Barrett documented that Wise was responsible for product devlopment at USAI -- that it a fact verified by other reliable published third-party sources. Secondly, Barrett noted that Wise, while an exec at NAI, authored various Juice Plus studies -- that too is a fact verifiable in the studies themselves. I don't see how anyone could argue that Barrett noting these associations goes beyond his expertise. In fact, his expertise far exceeds what would be required to make such a simple, basic, easily verifiable observation. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Is MLMwatch.org a self-published website?

Much of this debate seems to hinge on this question. Icerat says it is; other people seem to be mostly ignoring it.

It is necessary to note at this point that Wikipedia uses a definition of "self-publishing" at WP:SPS that is both idiotic and undocumented (despite my best efforts).

When we say "self-published" in content policies, we actually mean "published without editorial oversight, especially if very few humans are associated with it". We do not mean what the dictionary does, i.e., that the author and the publisher are the same person or entity.

To give an example, the lawyers at Coca-Cola, Inc., would tell you that Coca-Cola, Inc. both writes and publishes the website you'll find at coca-cola.com. According to any sane definition, e.g., the dictionary, it is a self-published website (as are nearly all websites). However, several of our policy owners refuse to believe this. According to them, coca-cola.com is written by one set of employees, approved by a completely independent set of employees (supposedly the very same corporate lawyers who would firmly disagree with the Wikipedians about who wrote and published their website), and published by a third, also magically independent set of employees (probably some guy in the IT department) [thus proving that they have no real-world experience with these things], so that makes a corporate website "non-self-published", at least for corporations that have a minimum of two employees and an editor willing to assert that the employees don't do what their bosses tell them to do.

So given the idiotic (but relevant) wikijargonistic definition of SPS here, is it your opinion that MLMwatch is actually covered by the SPS policy? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that's what Ocaasi was asking - details about the review process (if any) for the mlmwatch subsite. Quackwatch mentions there are no employees, but there are volunteers. It's not clear to me looking through the site if there is any review/assistance on the mlmwatch site.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 00:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Blackbeard

Are the following sources reliable for the claim that Blackbeard used to tie fuses to his beard?

An editor on the talk page of the article has stated none of these are reliable The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

[1] and [2] are non-fiction books from reputable publishers. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking through the article (which I should've done first lol), Lee's book is already cited, including a note with a direct quote of the fuse. Since the article is featured, I'm not sure why any other sources are needed to be added; the fuses are documented as it is. (I've retracted my suggested sources). – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the first one is borderline; I'm not convinced Simpson is qualified to make historical observations since he is a professor of creative writing. The second one seems to be a book about books and probably doesn't analyse the material first hand, and in any case Baxter doesn't seem to be a qualified historian. The Telegraph is reliable for reporting news, but I think editors have the right to question its reliability in presenting historical analysis. I think in relaying historical obeservations, it is important for the author to be a qualified historian or a recognised authority in the field since the credibility of the material depends on their expertise in distinguishing fact from folklore. Betty Logan (talk) 05:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not they are reliable, their description of Blackbeard differs from that offered in other rs. Since these sources make only passing reference to Blkackbeard, they can be safely ignored. Note that the picture of Blackbeard in the article follows the description presented by most historians. There is in literature a tendency to exaggerate the appearance of pirates, and it may be that these sources confuse the reality with the legend. Not surprising when someone writes about children's literature. TFD (talk) 15:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

That is not a matter for this board, but for the talk page of the article in question. If reliable sources disagree then there is an editorial issue to resolve. The question here is whether those sources are indeed reliable. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 16:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

So are these reliable? Even to just say that he has been described as also having fuses in his beard? The Last Angry Man (talk) 09:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course they aren't reliable sources on the alleged fact, unless either of them quotes a real primary source. A reliable source on Blackbeard would be a biography of Blackbeard, documented from primary sources, or a history of his times, documented from primary sources.

They would be reliable on the lesser claim that this statement about Blackbeard has previously been made, if they cite a work in which it has been made. But if they do that, we should preferably check the citation, and, having done so, cite the work that previously made this claim.

If we don't know where the claim was originally made, we can't even judge its notability, let alone its reliability, and we have no reason to repeat it in encyclopedia space. I guess we could mention it on the talk page of the article and see if anyone knows more. Andrew Dalby 11:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Son quotes Wikipedia article on father, is this reliable?

This is kinda tricky. Obviously, it generally is not reliable if a blogger chooses to publish a wikipedia article on his blog. However, in this case, we have Luke Ford, a blogger notable enough to have a wikipedia article, publishing a notice about his father, Desmond Ford's new biography and including the wikipedia article in his post. Would the contents of the article at that time now be considered "reliably sourced" through Ford's son posting them? bW 01:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd say no. Firstly, whatever Lufe Ford cites from Desmond Ford's Wikipedia article should have been sourced there in the first place. Using Luke Ford's posting as confirmation might create a circle where we and Luke Ford each rely on the other to "reliably source" that content. Secondly, Luke Ford's blog is a self-published source, and per WP:SPS we should not use those in biographies of third parties. Luke Ford's blog should thus not be used for information on Desmond Ford. Huon (talk) 01:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but under WP:BLP, self-published sources about themselves are allowed if they are not unduly self-serving. This is about a Father, so how would that play in? bW 15:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Luke Ford is not his father; what he writes about his father is not about himself. Thus, the clause of WP:BLP/WP:SPS you mention is not applicable here. Huon (talk) 17:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a "reliable source", in the sense that the person (rather than the document or the publisher; "source" has three meanings under WP:V, and you only need one of the three to be adequate) is reliable for the information.

However, a blog in which you mention or describe someone else falls under WP:BLPSPS, so it's not actually usable. Perhaps we will chalk it up to the often overlooked phrase at the beginning of WP:V that says material "...must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question." WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

We don't seem have a link to the posting? Based on what's said above, it's hardly a reliability question. Given that they are both notable, the son's blog ought to be a noteworthy primary source about his father. The fact that he sources this information to Wikipedia throws his own primary-source status into doubt. Therefore, if the statement we're talking about is notable, the sourcing is notable too. Andrew Dalby 11:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Updated web pages that remove information - still reliable on archive.org?

If a web page is updated and information removed, is the archive.org version of the old site still considered a reliable source? I came across a situation this week where I looked at some references pointing to a website page and when I checked the page it did not support the claims made, so I tagged the references appropriately. Another editor has searched through archive.org and found an earlier version of the website that does support the claims made. Now, if an old page was simply removed, or a website dead, and it was originally indisputably RS I think there's no problem, but I'm curious about this situation, where the website page is still on the same topic, but they've removed a considerable amount of information that was there earlier. One could argue that by removing the information the source no longer necessary supports or agrees with it, ie it may no longer be reliable. On the other hand, when the information was put in the article it was reliably sourced and verifiable. Thoughts? Any precedents on this? --Icerat (talk) 20:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I would have thought it was a similar situation to a second edition of a book. If material is dropped in a new edition, one would tend to assume that the author no longer supported the older version. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Good analogy. Is there a reference to that situation in policies or guidelines anywhere? --Icerat (talk) 20:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Actually the analogy is poor as there are many other reasons to remove information on a web page--space limitations and site reorganization are the first that come to mind. Furthermore in the printing world (my parents were printers) many times it is the publisher not the author who decides on content--this why material by the same author has more "weight" in terms of WP:RS when it is printed by Wiley-Blackwell then by Penguin.

The printing analogy further breaks down as the later edition doesn't always have updated information. Weston Price's Nutrition and Physical Degeneration is a prime example as it is on it sixth edition (2003) but the information is for all practical purposes the exact same as it was in the first edition of 1939 and therefore horribly out of date.

Obviously a clear 180 on a position would mean we would go with the later source but without seeing the disputed references we can't tell if that is the case.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I gather from your post that this isn't an abstract question - can you provide the article, statement under discussion, source (and archived version) under discussion? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It was primarily abstract as I can see both sides of the (potential) debate. Based and experience raising the particular edit will likely end up as yet another flame war with the editor involved even though I have no intention of disputing the edit. I was simply after other perspectives and guidance (and, if possible, policy or guideline) for future reference. --Icerat (talk) 22:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that editors generally cannot work without an example (so we can research things like quality of publisher, expertise of author, and so on). Trying to do so without such an example reduces decisions to the level of a Pig in a poke--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I've never felt comfortable with the use of Archive.org. Sometimes content is removed because it's erroneous or libelous. I've seen instances of that. I can imagine, though, instances in which it would be obvious that the page no longer exists for reasons other than having been deliberately deleted or corrected. So it's hard to make a general rule. TimidGuy (talk) 11:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Alarabiya, reliable or not?

On the 2011 Iranian protests article, User:Kurdo777 made this edit, removing information about the secondary protests that the Arab citizens of Iran had started. Kurdo stated in the edit summary that Al Arabiya and this source in particular is not a reliable source. I am disputing this, so i'd like some outside commentary on the subject. Silverseren^C 03:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll go notify Kurdo of this discussion. Silverseren^C 03:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't imagine they wouldn't be, except perhaps in specific cases where explicit concerns about their coverage has been brought up in other RSes. They're one of the biggest middle eastern news networks, have an editorial board and all that other required jazz. For that matter, one of Obama's first interviews was with them - non-credible outlets don't normally get presidential interviews. Kevin (talk) 03:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the specific concern he brought up - there's no way whatsoever that al-arabiya can be categorically dismissed as a RS simply because they are sometimes accused of pro-saudi bias. In cases where other RS's report that al-arabiya's reporting is biased or influenced by the saudis those concerns should be included in the article, but you can't just categorically dismiss a news outlet simply because sometimes they are biased - if so, fox news and a large number of other outlets would go out the window. Kevin (talk) 04:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Al Arabiya is reporting facts in this instance and should be used to support the text about the "Day of Rage". The text is not trying to analyze or judge, so the bar is not very high in terms of WP:V. Al Arabiya meets WP:V and is not undue weight or fringe as was indicated in Kurdo's edit summary. Binksternet (talk) 04:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Per this discussion, I have reverted the removal of content from the article. Silverseren^C 05:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that Binksternet has been blocked previously for stalking me. So he is commenting here just because I am involved, no other reason. The issue should be left to neutral editors. Alarabiya belongs to and is financed by Saudi Arabia. I have seen many editors remove Press TV as a source, for the same reasons, it is an extension of the Iranian regime. This is no different. Also, Alarabiya has a histyory of making up news, and in this case, this supposed news has not been reported by credible news sources. Kurdo777 (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Press TV and other state sources can be used in articles just fine, they just have to attributed to those sources. Silverseren^C 21:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Can some more people please comment in this section? Kurdo states that Binksternet is involved, so he requires more than just Kevin's comment. I guess. :/ Silverseren^C 03:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• It has been my experience in the past, and I believe Binksternet's also, that information is often reverted from Iran-related articles no matter how reliably sourced it is. If editors are still having this problem in Iran articles, and it appears that they are, I would suggest taking it to ANI straight away and notifying me so I can weigh-in in the ANI thread. Oh, and the source in this case appears to be reliable. Cla68 (talk) 04:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Before I looked at the edit, my initial impression was that the news organization met our requirements but tat it is important for editors to not mirror POV. After looking at the edit it is slightly different: It looks like RS but if it isn't available from otheroutlets the it should be questioned. We are allowed some editorial judgement. If something looks clearly then we should not be giving it prominence. Hopefully another RS can be found. Of course, if another RS does not dispute it then seeking its removal will be very challenging and maybe even inappropriate. Cptnono (talk) 04:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The question of a reliability of the source and the opinion it is expressing is, of course, one of the reasons that an article has an associated talk page, so that editors can discuss it and come to a conclusion. It's harder for that to happen when editors revert war with each other. I hope that the editor who removed the text will in the future seek first to initiate a discussion on the talk page over the material in question. Cla68 (talk) 06:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I am a sysop on Persian wiki. As Cptnono has pointed out, Alarabiya is not generally considered a reliable source in pan-Arab issues, because its coverage is generally biased on these topics, sometimes outright false. Specially this particular news, which is in question here, and has never been confirmed or reported by other outlets. --Wayiran (talk) 03:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Al Arabya seems to have some issues (like so many other media outlets). That doesn't mean it can't be used as a source at all, but it needs to be used with special care. In particular when sourcing contested/controversial issues it might be a good idea to avoid using it and rely on media outlets with a better track record/reputation for unbiased, accurat, reliable and independent reporting. If something can only be sourced by Al Arabya that usually should already raise a red flag. For topics in the Arab World Al Jazeera often provides a better alternative, in particular Al Jazeera English, which in addition allows non Arabic speakers to review the source as well. As far as the Iranian protests are concerned there is no reason to resort to al Arabya in the first place as there are plenty of more reliable news sources out there that covered it.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

is widely patented example of Social Network wiki entry (subsection Patents) notable enough to merit an entry?

The Wiki Social Networks entry's Patent subsection mentions that "Only about 100 of these [Social Network] applications have issued as patents, however, largely due to the multi-year backlog in examination of business method patents." This statement unfairly associates legitimate published Social Network patents with the pejorative business-method-patents debate. I invented a Social Network technology during this time and succeeded in patenting it in the US (US Patent No. 7,124,362). I also succeeded in patenting it in Europe (European Patent No. 1 430 409). Europe is more strict than the US Patent Office in that they require that there be an Inventive Step. In the US, to successfully prosecute a patent, one must demonstrate that the technology be 1) Novel (the invention must be new), Useful (in my case solves the problem of group authoring without the need of servers or after-the-fact merging), and Non-obvious (my technology creates a new category, Cooperative Authoring, which is a subtopic of Collaborative Authoring). The European Patent Office rarely issues software patents, but it did so for my technology because I demonstrated that there was an Inventive Step. This is all public record.

Although my patented technology is not widely known, I submit that it is a notable exception to the public perception that all software advances are incremental. Especially in the Social Network topic area. I would like permission/acceptance to submit an entry for review on the Social Network technology and that it be linked, perhaps along with a few other examples of these 100 Social Networks patents the entry authors are referring to. The Social Networks -> Patents entry could then be extended with, "Examples of Social Networks patents are US Patent No. 7,124,362 (Hiveware), '<example 2 needed>' and <example 3 needed>. Refer to each patent for lists of references to prior art that the patent differentiates itself from."

Wikepedia must of course be wary of unnotable self promotion, but perpetuating bias like the "multi-year backlog in examination of business method patents" statement above is equally poor. A patent which always contains references to what an authorized institution determines is the relevant existing prior art, is quite notable in itself. I believe this ranks as knowledge as well. In the very least, if this forum doesn't accept my arguments that patents are knowledge, then I suggest that "in examination of business method patents" be deleted from the entry.

Robert Tischer Inventor of Hiveware — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.175.98.207 (talk • contribs) 09:34, May 31, 2011 (UTC)

I don't think is the appropriate place to discuss your concerns and suggestions. I'll copy them over to the Talk page of the article in question where you may receive relevant responses and help. ElKevbo (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

On the more general question, patents are considered both self-published and WP:PRIMARY for Wikipedia's purposes. (You wrote it, and you paid the publication fee and decided whether and when to publish it: that's wikt:self-publishing; it's primary because it's the first publication of the invention.) That doesn't mean that they can't be used; the inventor is obviously an expert on his invention. But it does mean that you need to be careful about how it is used. It could be used for simple, obvious, descriptive claims, like "Hiveware is patented software".

Whether this particular thing should be done in this particular article depends more on WP:DUE than on WP:Reliable sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Tamil cinema history...

Would Millennium 3 Chennai be considered a reliable source?

I can't find much information about the site itself (Wikipedia has no article about it, and there is no "about us" section on the website that I can see.

I can't see any indication of who wrote the article on the site (it's under "webmaster") or any indication of whether material is written by professional journalists, etc.

Any advice would be most welcome, as if it is considered a reliable source, it can possibly be used for citations throughout the Tamil cinema article rather than just the one sentence it currently references!

Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be more than a personal website, but one has no way of knowing how authoritative this particular anonymous article is. Perhaps be cautious about using it extensively as a source. (Though it's a bit ironic to be giving that advice, since much of the article is completely unsourced.) Thanks for working on this article and for looking for sources. TimidGuy (talk) 11:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk:The Dating Guy

Please see Talk:The Dating Guy. At issue: blogs, forums, and other self-published sources. In particular, are these sources considered reliable for plagiarism claims? And what exactly is the definition of a third party? Are these sources making claims about a third, second, or first party? Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• The sources provided so far are not enough for me to be convinced that the plagiarism accusations against the show are notable. If this develops into an actual lawsuit, it probably will be covered in more mainstream media sources, and then it can be covered in the article. As John Landis is quoted as saying in the Buchwald v. Paramount article, "Every movie I have been involved with that was a big hit had people suing the studio saying it was their idea. We live in a very litigious society. You can sue anybody for anything here." So I don't think it's a good idea for Wikipedia to seek out accusations of plagiarism from message boards and put them in articles about the allegedly plagiarizing works. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Did you read the discussion there? I'll repeat: at issue is whether these self-published sources are acceptable for establishing the facts of the dispute. Also, what is the definition of a third party in the context of WP:SELFPUB? Namely, are Sohmer's claims about Teletoon and The Dating Guy claims about a third party, a second party, or a first party in the context of his self-published websites? I encourage some editor to join in the discussion there because I am basically alone holding back a tide of meatpuppets trying to push their POV with unreliable sources. IMHO of course. Elizium23 (talk) 07:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

When the reliable source is wrong

This is slightly off topic here; sorry! I'm just inviting interested contributors to weigh in at this little-attended RfC that deals with precisely this issue in a single article: Talk:Phoenix Park#Europe's largest enclosed urban park. Nutshell: Encyclopedia Britannica makes an assertion about this park that is argued to be in error. Only three people are participating, and it is my hope that more contributors there may help resolve the issue. Please weigh in there if you have an opinion. :) (Note: I am standing aside as an uninvolved admin.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

EB is a "tertiary source" and any secondary reliable source should trump it. Collect (talk) 11:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be a matter of weight and consensus, rather than a matter of reliability. We need to remember that two sources can both be considered reliable, and yet disagree on specific facts. We deal with this by neutrally presenting what the different sources say, with attribution... applying due weight to each source. For example, we could say that "According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, Phoenix Park is the largest enclosed urban park in Europe. However, according to (other source) that honor goes to (other park)." Blueboar (talk) 12:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

iTunes sales charts as a reference

There have been a number of discussions here on iTunes but it looks like they were all around using album listings on iTunes as a reference. There is a discussion going on concerning the use of iTunes sales charts in articles (particularly song and album articles). Currently WP:BADCHARTS specifically disallows use of iTunes charts the discussion is on whether this needs to be updated or not. It would be nice to have some more discussion there. See Wikipedia talk:Record charts#iTunes sales vs. WP:Badcharts --RadioFan (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Are these little blue numbers reliable sources?

[9] Dougweller (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC) (ducks and runs)

Well... they would probably be reliable if the material was re-written as a statement of opinion, and not as a statement of fact.  :>) (BTW, nice find, Doug.) Blueboar (talk) 15:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Personal web site as a reliable source

Discussion [10] centers around whether a web site [11] created and maintained by David Orme Johnson,:[12] is a reliable source for the a TM movement article, and per Wikipedia:SPS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publication." Discussion refers specifically to comments about the relationship of Transcendental Meditation Movement and cult. Orme Johnson is a PhD in Psychology, a researcher of the Transcendental Meditation technique, and a teacher of Transcendental Meditation. Some argue Orme Johnson as a highly published Psychologist, a TM teacher and TM insider, is expert in the field of human beahviour and its relationship to TM and the TM movement, relevant to understanding cult and its relationship to TM and TM movement. Others argue Orme Johnson's training and background is not specific enough, and too generic for comments related specifically to cult behaviour, and to the relationship of cult to the TM Movement, the topic of the article.

• The comment, recently removed in good faith, pending agreement. (third paragraph) [13] is inline attributed.
• Recent publications:[14]

Input would be appreciated.(olive (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC))

As a general rule, I think that "relevant field" should be broadly defined. We don't want to limit our "experts" to people who have previously published work on (for example) a specific chemical or car; being a published expert on chemicals or cars in general is good enough. For example, I suspect that for TM, a rather inter-disciplinary subject, being a published expert who has previously written about psychology or religion or social groups (or several other things) would be sufficient.

On the other hand, anyone should feel free to propose even better sources. It's not like there's a distinct shortage of good sources at TM. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

As WhatamIdoing suggests, there is a wealth of highly reliable sources which address the issue of "characterizations of TM as a religion, sect, or cult", the issue at hand. There's no need to bring in self-published sources. The proposed source, David Orme-Johnson, spent virtually his entire career at the TM's Maharishi University of Management. Every single scientific study he has conducted has been on the topic of the TM technique, and every single one had a positive outcome. He may be a published expert on the narrow issue of certain aspects of the technique, but he has never published a single paper on the TM movement, which involves many elements and "technologies" besides meditation. He has, however, engaged in political and policy advocacy on behalf of the movement. The website in question, TruthAboutTM.org, is an extended defense of TM and the TM movement. I think that it's perfectly acceptable to use in his biography. However he is not a scholar of religion or cults, and so using his self-published sources to say "TM is not a cult because..." stretches expert exemption to the SPS policy too far.

Olive writes that Orme-Johnson is "expert in the field of human beahviour and its relationship to TM and the TM movement". I'd like to see evidence of that. No one has produced anything published by him about human behavior and its relationship to the TM movement.

It is relevant to note that some of the editors involved in the discussion have connections to the Maharishi University of Management, and it's possible that some are the friends or colleagues of Orme-Johnson. Despite prompting, none of the editors have admitted or denied a conflict of interest in promoting the use of this self-published source by an associate.

We should also note that the material from this source has been very contentious, being the topic of at least 21 talk page threads over more than four years.

• Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 9#Cognitive Section
• Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 9#Dr. O-J has authored...
• Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 9#Technique
• Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 10#Sethie's supposed "Control of the article
• Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 13#Cult Section
• Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 13#Cult Issues
• Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 15#Orme-Johnson
• Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 15#Continuation of thread... OJ
• Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 15#Towards consensus
• Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 15#Rewrite OJ paragraph
• Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 15#Working copy... Orme Johnson paragraph
• Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 16#Paranormal
• Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 17#Large deletions on a contentious article without discussion
• Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 17#COI and objectivity
• Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 17#OJ
• Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 22#Removal Of Orme Johnson Counter to claims that TM is not a cult
• Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 23#Cult and orm johnson
• Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 23#Shorten Cult Section
• Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 23#Proposed Rewrite of "Cult Issues" Section
• Talk:Transcendental Meditation movement#Inaccurate representation of a source in “Characterization as a cult, sect, or religion”
• Talk:Transcendental Meditation movement#Is the Maharishi Effect paranormal?
• Talk:Transcendental Meditation movement#Use of self-published sources

Since other sources are available, there's no reason to use this poor quality, contentious source from a biased partisan.   Will Beback  talk  20:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

@Will. I brought this concerns to a notice board so we could have outside input. You are presenting the same arguments here as you did on the article talk page, and if anyone engages you here we will just have another and likely identical muddled discussion with no solution in sight. I have linked to all of the pertinent information so editors commenting here have a compete view of the situation. I will remind you again that the issue is the reliability of the source and not further attempts, which failed during the TM arbitration, to implicate editors of COI who do not agree with your position. I won't engage you further and will let editors uninvolved in this article and in the TM articles and related discussions respond. I am not attached to this source one way or the other, but I am very attached to this and other issues being treated fairly.(olive (talk) 20:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC))

You're presenting the same arguments made on the talk page too yet you didn't link that page, as suggested on this page's instructions. You made what appear to be misleading or incorrect assertions about the dispute and the source. As for the ArbCom case, you misrepresent that too. It specifically called on editors with conflicts of interest to edit carefully in full compliance with the relevant guidelines and policies. WP:ARBTM#Neutrality and conflicts of interest. Pushing the inclusion of a self-published, partisan source written by a friend or colleague is not conservative editing. Anyway, now that both sides of the dispute are fairly represented I agree that we should leave this to uninvolved editors.   Will Beback  talk  21:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The talk page is linked. No COI was named in the TM arbitration. I described the controversy as carefully and as neutrally as I could. In fact, as you know, I removed the controversial source pending agreement. Your comments aren't accurate, and your attempts to deliberately malign another editor by citing false information on a Notice Board, a public environment, is worrying. Let me explain how this works. You can continue to make things up, but you'll be twisting in a wind of your own making talking to yourself.(olive (talk) 23:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC))

That's not really a civil comment. I'd still like to see evidence that David Orme-Johnson is an "expert in the field of human beahviour and its relationship to TM and the TM movement". If he isn't then there's little reason to continue this thread.   Will Beback  talk  23:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The comment is exactly civil as a response to someone who continues to mischaracterize falsely. You don't own this notice board. The thing is Will, I don't care about the source. I've already supported its deletion pending agreement, and I brought this here to openly and fairly to include other editors. I do care about fair and neutral process. I have to wonder why you are so eager to both remove the source, and to poison the well, and this discussion doing it. (olive (talk) 23:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC))

Again, what is the basis for saying that the author is an "expert in the field of human beahviour and its relationship to TM and the TM movement"?   Will Beback  talk  23:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see TM movement talk page discussion linked above were you will find that discussion. (olive (talk) 23:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC))

I don't see it there. If it was there this matter might have been settled long ago. Please post it again here.   Will Beback  talk  23:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

If folks want to argue about what to say here or how to say it, I would ask that they please pursue the matter at another more appropriate board. In regard to the SPS, it's a hard call, I think, but here are my thoughts. By way of full disclosure, I used to practice a variant of TM during the mid 1970s until the late 1980s regularly, and still do from time to time. The article is on the TM Movement, not the practice of TM by individuals, and in reviewing Johnson's list of recent publications, I note that his work seems oriented only towards the effects the practice of TM have on various medical issues. I do not see anything that qualifies him as an expert on the movement itself, other than than his personal experiences. He does have a psychology degree, but it appears from his publications that his orientation is towards physiology and neurology, not sociology, religion, or psychology of social groups. As he was a long time employee of a group closely associated with the movement, and because he disclaims any authority to speak for the movement, I think his web site should be viewed as a RS for his opinions on the movement only. His published works are primary sources, so even for the medical aspects we'd want to exercise caution, but he's clearly an expert on physiological effects of the practice of TM, even if perhaps a biased one. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Nuujinn that the purpose of this board is to receive community input on a sources' reliability. Will Beback's assumptions of bad faith and unfounded accusations of COI are not appropriate, and only serve to poison the discussion. Please step away and allow the community to comment on the source in question.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

It's appropriate, when using this noticeboard to propose using a disputed source, to disclose one's connections to the source or subject. Nuujinn did so.   Will Beback  talk  00:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion is to focus the question of reliability. If you want drama, I suggest ANI. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

OPV AIDS "proponents" RSes?

Are the websites of "proponents" of the OPV AIDS hypothesis RS - if kept explicitly within the bounds of WP:MEDSCI "Although significant-minority views are welcome in Wikipedia, such views must be presented in the context of their acceptance by experts in the field." Both Hooper [15] and Martin [16]are multiply science published.

Additionally and separately; Martin has published on [17] and made available in print "Louis Pascal, "What happens when science goes bad", Science and Technology Analysis Working Paper #9, University of Wollongong, December 1991. This was the first major published account of the theory." [18] Is this now considered published? Pascal's paper was replied to specifically in scientific press. ( "A startling 19,000-word thesis on the origin of AIDS: should the JME have published it?". Journal of Medical Ethics 18: 3-4. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=1376075&pageindex=1#page.)

Which, if any of these are RS? 122.151.96.51 (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC) SmithBlue (talk) 00:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It would, I think, depend on what their personal websites are used for. Any scientific claims or rebuttals made by the proponents would need to have been published. My feeling is that regardless of the fact that Martin and Pascal may be published experts, any claim they make must itself be published in order to be used as a source. Their websites might possibly be used in a limited way to describe the theory. I'd be cautious about using the working paper as a source. It seems like the JME article could be used, but being careful to use it within the ethical framework. TimidGuy (talk) 11:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - So what they put on their website is not considered published?

I am wanting to know if statements made only their websites can be used in an article as statements of the proponents of the hypothesis especially rebuttals of published mainstream science? Also are claims only on their websites, that are not addressed at science results but at historical, otherwise conflicting or un-evidenced, claims by scientists, RS? As in things like, "Ninane says he didn't use chimps but I have a audio recording of him saying he did use chimps, and that recording is on the "Origins of AIDS" (566) documentary"?

With Pascal - would it be reasonable to cite it only as in something like " In response to a paper(34) which was declined publication, (JME article author) says FJFUTFUVVEIY." Or just leave it unreferenced/uncited altogether? SmithBlue (talk) 00:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Just found WP:RS "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Which MIGHT appear, given their prior publication history on OPV AIDS, to put Hooper's and Martin's websites into RS. And THEN they can be used long as the relevant WP:MEDSCI "Although significant-minority views are welcome in Wikipedia, such views must be presented in the context of their acceptance by experts in the field." is abided by?

However how is "the relevant field" determined? One view is that the article defines the relevant field (OPV AIDS hypothesis) the opposing view is that if Hooper is rebutting HIV phylogeny then the field is "phlyogeny of HIV" in which case Hooper is not a recognised expert. What is your view here? I am increasingly of the view that a field is "phlyogeny of HIV" not "OPV AIDS hypothesis". Execpt in the field of "what is the hypothesis and how is it formulated?" in which case Hooper again seems a recognised expert. SmithBlue (talk) 07:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the controlling guideline here is WP:MEDRS: "Therefore, it is vital that the biomedical information in articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge." My feeling is that medical claims are a special case and that rebuttals would need to have been published in order to be cited. Have you checked to see if there were any published responses to the articles in Nature and Science? I don't understand your question about Pascal, but I do think the JME article can be used as long as you are faithful to its main point and conclusions. TimidGuy (talk) 11:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The Jewish Chronicle -- not reliable for Jewish topics?

Over the last several months I've encountered a highly puzzling assertion: the Jewish Chronicle (and other Jewish publications) are not reliable sources for religion-related issues (recent example here). I would have thought it's the opposite: people working at the JC can be expected to be highly knowledgeable about Judaism and Jews. I could get into the substantive issues if anyone likes (i.e., on whether it makes sense for the JC to view birth to a Jewish mother as determining) -- but I'm more interested in the more general notion that Jewish newspapers are not reliable sources on Jewish topics. Would we say that British newspapers are not reliable sources on British topics, or Christian sources on Christian topics? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

That seems like a ridiculous assertion. The national broadsheets often pick up stories from the Jewish Chronicle. --Dweller (talk) 22:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Jewish sources are just as reliable as those of other religions on most topics. However, as for the topic of whether someone is Jewish or not, the Jewish media uses different criteria (usually birth) rather than self-identification of religion as our BLP policy requires for living people. That is, they are much more likely to err on the side of inclusion where Wikipedia chooses not to err at all in articles about living people. Information that someone is "Jewish" without specifying in what way, ethnic, religious, tribal, etc. is very much useless for Wikipedia, as most of the Jewish categories are part of the religion category tree, while the of Jewish descent categories are about ethnic identification. Wikipedia is more strict in that inclusion in religious categories must be both self-identifying and relevant while the ethnic categories may simply be sourced from reliable sources. Really, ethnic identification should also be strictly via self-identification as well which would resolve the difficulties. Yworo (talk) 22:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Except that that is not actually policy. WP:BLPCAT applies only to categories, and only to religion. Attempts to expand that to other areas (e.g. articles, ethnicity) failed. Since we're talking about ethnicity here, the only thing that matters are the usual sourcing requirements, which is that reliable sources say it, not that the person self-identifies. And the JC is obviously both a reliable (and in this case expert) source. If you want to change WP:BLP to cover ethnicity and article text, please try that again,and then it will be policy - not before. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

If I ever stop laughing at this nonsense I will comment again - The Jewish chronicle in a very minor report - see here says Ed Miliband broke a glass at his wedding and User:Nomoskedasticity wants to use it to add to the infobox of his BLP that his religion=Judaism - because he broke a glass at his wedding....yea - lets all add it now.. Off2riorob (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, lots of other reliable sources took note of it too, so it's hardly trivial. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, so let's be clear on this. The Jewish Chronicle is a reliable source. As such, like all reliable sources, it needs to be used appropriately. WP:OR and WP:COATRACK are not appropriate uses of any source. --Dweller (talk) 22:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and in terms of additional clarification, reliable sources are not reliable for all assertions. I would suggest that the JC article about Miliband is not a reliable source for Miliband's religion. I note that the ceremony was a civil one, the article is a brief piece that does not go into details about how Miliband views his ethnicity or his religion, and while it labels him as Jewish and claims that he honored his religion by smashing a glass at the ceremony, there's no way to tell from the material in the article what his intentions were. For a BLP, our standards are necessarily high, and if there are no sources in which Miliband identifies his religious beliefs, we should not tag him with a particular religion. That he is ethnically jewish is, I think, established in the JC article, since it quotes from a public speech he made. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

There are other 'reliable sources' that (a) quote Miliband as noting his Jewish heritage, descent etc - I don't see any problem in suggesting that he is 'ethnically Jewish', and (b) stating that he doesn't believe in God - so he is clearly not of the Judaic faith. The JC's vague assertions change none of this. It is also woth pointing out that much of this debate over Miliband seems to have its origins on the far side of the Atlantic, and no doubt in Israel too. The British media have hardly commented on his ethnicity or (lack of) faith, and attempts by some contributors to include such matters in the article infobox etc have been pushing WP:WEIGHT beyond reasonable limits. A source may be 'reliable', but that is not in itself reason to include every last detail you can find in it in an article - though I think the evidence suggests that the JC isn't reliable regarding Miliband's faith in any case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think "self-identification" is required of material for placement in the body of the article. Can anybody show me policy calling for "self-identification" for material under consideration for placement in the body of an article?

TreasuryTag made this edit and Off2riorob reverted it.

The wording added to the article by TreasuryTag is as follows:

"His wedding was a civil ceremony, but he retained the Jewish tradition of breaking a glass."

The source provided, The Jewish Chronicle, contains the following wording:

"Labour's first Jewish leader has paid tribute to his religion by smashing a glass at his wedding."

I think The Jewish Chronicle should be considered a reliable source on material relating to Jewish identity as The Jewish Chronicle is knowledgeable on this topic.

The web site Judaism 101 has this to say: "A Jew is any person whose mother was a Jew or any person who has gone through the formal process of conversion to Judaism. It is important to note that being a Jew has nothing to do with what you believe or what you do."

The Jewish Chronicle probably uses a definition similar to the above, and as concerns material for placement in the body of a Wikipedia article the above description is often appropriate except when other reliable sources contradict a source such as The Jewish Chronicle. There is only a WP:BLPCAT requirement for "self-identification" for Categories and Infobox statements due to the space constraints of of those parts of an article. Bus stop (talk) 03:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

How to word the article is a content issue. This board is about reliable sources. But FWIW, I think TT's wording is quite appropriate. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Question for Nuujinn, re "the JC article about Miliband is not a reliable source for Miliband's religion". The assertion has been that the JC is not reliable in these matters because it is a Jewish newspaper. Your points about lack of details, etc., would seem to apply to any newspaper (or source), Jewish or not; in other words, it's not the Jewishness of the source that matters here, it's the lack of detail. What I'm getting at is that I think it's incorrect to say that the JC isn't "reliable" (per WP:RS) here -- it is simply not sufficient for e.g. WP:BLPCAT purposes. Is this what you mean to say? I push the point because this notion that the JC isn't reliable for Jewish topics (because it's a Jewish newspaper) really seems absurd and wrong, and I'm hoping that's not what you mean. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• I made my edit not to imply that Miliband is a religious Jew, but simply as an illustration of how he chose to bring religious symbolism into his (civil) wedding ceremony. Off2riorob (talk · contribs) has yet to explain why he feels that the JC alone was not an adequate source, but since then I found five or six other references for the fact. ╟─TreasuryTag►Acting Returning Officer─╢ 14:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity, no, that's not the reason why, I should have been more clear. JC may be biased in some area, but many reliable sources are biased. I'm sure that JC is extremely reliable in many areas, but it is my opinion is that this particular article in JC is not a a reliable source for a statement asserting the Miliband's religion is Judaism. It calls him a Jew in the opening, but does not specify whether that is meant in the religious sense, or some other sense, eg. ethnically Jewish, Jewish according to Jewish law or tradition, Jewish in some other legal sense, a non-practicing secular Jew, etc. As I tried to point out, perhaps unsuccessfully, that particular article in JC is, in my opinion, reliable for a statement asserting that Miliband is ethnically Jewish, since it represents his statement regarding his parent's background. In that case, Miliband is, in effect, self identifying himself as ethnically Jewish. Other sources may well support a statement that he's religiously Jewish, and it would be worth bringing these here for consideration. One aspect of the problem here is that there are a number of ways one can be Jewish, and we have to be careful to follow what the sources say. I hope that clarifies things, please let me know if it does not. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

From the London Evening Standard:

There was no religion at home and Mr Miliband confirmed for the first time that he is an atheist. “Obviously I'm Jewish, it is part of my identity, but not in a religious sense. I don't wish I had had a more religious upbringing but I have Jewish friends who were part of the Jewish community growing up, going to Jewish youth clubs and other things. I think I felt slightly jealous".

“My parents' community was the Left community.” [19]

AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

That seems reliable for a statement that Miliband's "religion" is atheism. Are there any reliable sources that claim that he is a Jewish in the religious sense? --Nuujinn (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Atheism isn't a religion - though Miliband doesn't explicitly describe himself as an 'atheist'. Still, I think that given his own statement on the issue, any 'source' purporting to claim he was Jewish in any religious sense would have to give very strong evidence. Frankly though, I think that the whole issue is rather peripheral to the Wikipedia project. Per WP:WEIGHT, the article probably currently goes into this in greater depth than would be indicated from the coverage given in the British media - his ethnicity and (lack of) faith are basically a non-issue - something that many contributors seem unable to accept. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

This is the usual content problem of Judaism is an ethnicity, a culture and a religion and may be regarded as one, many or none of those to anyone who might conceivably be regarded by others in other ways. All of this has nothing to do with sources per se and is not relevant for this board. The JC is as good a source as any other. Take it to another board please. --Dweller (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a discussion about whether the Jewish Chronicle is a reliable source for the wording "His wedding was a civil ceremony, but he retained the Jewish tradition of breaking a glass", or more generally a statement about Miliband's religious beliefs, based on an article saying "Labour's first Jewish leader has paid tribute to his religion by smashing a glass at his wedding." We do not in general class a source as reliable or otherwise based on whether or not we happen to agree with what it says. If there is significant evidence that the source is making a statement egregiously at variance with a preponderance of other, known reliable, sources, then we might assess the specific statement as unreliable, and this might cast doubt over the reliability of the source as a whole. (In the case of significant disgreement between otherwise reliable sources, we proceed differently: this raises editorial, not sourcing, issues.) But in general we assess sources based on their reputation for fact-checking and accuracy: mainstream news media like the JC start off with a presumption of reliability. In this case the wording of the JC article is quite easy to understand. As a person of Jewish ancestry, "his religion" is understood as Judaism, because that is the religion of the majority of his ancestors, and that ancestry is actually regarded by some people of that religion as a determining factor. In the given context, it clearly does not positively assert that he is a believing or practising member of that religion (although there might perhaps be a subtext that he ought to be). So, we have a source which is presumed reliable and a statement which is reasonably easy to understand knowing something of the connection between Jewish ancestry and religion. It does not represent a claim so egregiously at variance with other sources as to cast doubt over the reliability of this specific statement, against a background of assumed reliability for the newspaper as a whole: indeed it is not at variance with other sources at all. TT interpreted the statement correctly, and the source amply supports the wording. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. I do not think there is any question that Miliband is Jewish in the general sense. We have an apparently reliable source quoting him as saying he is an atheist. The statement that 'As a person of Jewish ancestry, "his religion" is understood as Judaism, because that is the religion of the majority of his ancestors, and that ancestry is actually regarded by some people of that religion as a determining factor' may be accurate, but it in no way opens the door for us to say that despite his own statements to the contrary, we can characterize his religion as Jewish. This is not an issue of agreeing or disagreeing with what a source says--the JC article does not say his religion is Judaism and it does not claim that he is a practicing Jew, and since we do have at least one source presented here in which he specifically says he is not Jewish in the religious sense. To argue that because we have a reliable source that claims he followed a Jewish tradition at his civil wedding ceremony that he is Jewish in the religious sense is a violation of SYNTH. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say that we could characterize his religion as Jewish, in the sense of personal belief: why would you think that I did? I'm trying to expand on the force of the phrase "his religion" as used by the source --- we are in fact in complete agreement on that issue. I'm precisely trying to focus the discussion on the only issue of interest here, namely, the reliability of this newspaper as a source. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The source is reliable in general, it's an expert source when it comes to Jewish matters, including whether or not individuals are Jewish. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the question being asked here is not just about Ed Miliband. I encountered this question in relation to Nikki Yanofsky for instance:

Example one: "Also, Jewish sources are biased and frequently attempt to include famous people in the "tribe" whether or not the person self-identifies as Jewish. Thus the source in this case cannot be considered reliable."

Example two: "If you can find a non-Jewish (i.e. unbiased) source that supports the fact that she identifies as Jewish, that I will accept."

Example three: "Jewish publications are not "mainstream", they are special-interest."

Example four: "Now, if you had some non-Jewish sources that state that she is Jewish and how this relates to her singing career or otherwise contributes to her notability, that would be different. Having the Jewish community note that she is Jewish doesn't really mean anything for the general notability of her alleged Jewishness. The fact that other, non-Jewish, sources don't even mention it means it is not significant to her notability. If it were, it would get mentioned in the non-Jewish sources."

Example five: "They are not reliable source for this particular piece of information because they are sources which have a bias with respect to that particular piece of information. So you have no reliable sources."

I mention the above examples to show the arguments presented against the sources involved. The two publications being referred to in all of the above comments are The Jewish Tribune and the Canadian Jewish News. What is the reliability of those two publications on questions relating to an individual (Nikki Yanofsky) being Jewish? It has to be pointed out that no other sources have come to light casting any doubt on the assertions of the two publications mentioned above. Bus stop (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Sergeant Cribb, I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding you, but this is the phrase I'm disagreeing with: 'As a person of Jewish ancestry, "his religion" is understood as Judaism, because that is the religion of the majority of his ancestors, and that ancestry is actually regarded by some people of that religion as a determining factor.' My opinion is that as an avowed atheist, he has no religion per se, even through he is ethnically Jewish. I understand that in the Jewish tradition, he will be viewed by many as Jewish, even in the religious sense, despite his atheism, because his mother is Jewish, but we do not follow the dictates, whims, predilections, desire or beliefs of religious or ethnic groups of any flavor. And we do not bless a source as inherently reliable on all topics--it is always best to determine whether a source is reliable for a given statement. See WP:NEWSORG, which states "whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article will be assessed on a case by case basis". The JC article makes no statement about Miliband's religious views, and thus is not a reliable source for any statements concerning same. It is a fine and reliable source for a statement that Miliband is of Jewish ethnicity, and that he honored Jewish tradition by breaking a glass in a civil marriage ceremony. So in short, my position is that while the Jewish Chronicle is a reliable source in general, but that the particular article brought up here is not a reliable source for any statement regarding Miliband's religion because it does not address that question directly.

Bus Stop, it is probably best to focus on one issue at a time, but I will say that I disagree with the notion that because a source is biased, it is inherently unreliable. My suggestion would be to start a new section here for issues of sources for assertions related to Nikki Yanofsky. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Though I share some concerns expressed by others about Bus-Stop's editing in this area, he is correct in saying that my concern in starting this section has to do with the fact that people have been arguing that Jewish sources are not reliable in relation to Jewish issues. I'm not trying to get "Jewish" added to Miliband's infobox, as some have alleged. I raised the question in the terms I intended, and I really think we need to put a nail in this notion that Jewish sources are not appropriate for use in relation to Jewish topics. It's absurd, and at times it has been pretty offensive. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I have seen some of that myself, and I agree that it is a problem. I have also seen groups of various types "appropriate" famous people to their group. Ethnicity and religion are touchy subjects and can be difficult to work through, and I think the only way to handle such issues in BLPs is to be very carefully to accurate attribute statements to the sources, and take into account the bias of the sources in terms of editing with due weight on a case by case basis. But yes, the notion that a source is biased and thus inherently unreliable is not supported by any policy of which I am aware. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity, though I agree that it would be offensive to argue that "Jewish sources are not reliable in relation to Jewish issues", I don't think that is what was said. Instead, the point was made that the Jewish Chronicle seems in this case to apply a broader definition of what constitutes being of the Judaic faith than seems reasonable, given the evidence: this may or may not be a more general trend, but in the circumstances people have every right to question its reliability in this particular case. We also need to bear in mind that this is not a 'Jewish issue'. Miliband's ethnicity does not make him somehow subject only to Jewish opinions etc when it comes to determining how he is to be identified. Indeed, I think the notion that because he is of a particular ethnic background, his identity is somehow 'fixed' by this is possibly more prejudicial than comments about the reliability of the Chronicle are. Wikipedia is a project open to people of all ethnicities, faiths etc, and the appropriate standards to apply regarding reliability of sources cannot be determined by the belief systems of one, simply because they see an article etc as referring to 'one of their own': this would be absurd. If it should apply, would it not then be open for the 'Left community' (in which he states he was raised) to claim 'ownership', and insist that they decided what was applicable. No, of course this is untenable: the only proper course is to apply the same standards to all. The fact that Miliband is ethnically Jewish does not make the Jewish Chronicle any more of an authority on his faith than other sources. He says he has no religion, so by the only standards that Wikipedia can apply (those which give no special recognition to particular groups based on claims of allegiance), he has none. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Andy, you keep talking about Miliband -- but I have said repeatedly this is not primarily about Miliband. The reason the JC is relevant in this context is not that Miliband is ethnically Jewish; the point is only that the JC ought to be considered reliable in relation to Jewish topics -- it not ought to be considered less reliable in relation to Jewish topics simply because it is a Jewish newspaper. This doesn't mean it trumps everything else (your ownership point is fine), but it shouldn't be discounted for being Jewish. You say you don't see that, but there are rather obvious examples in Bus-stop's list above. Anyway I think it's clear there is consensus here that the JC is a reliable source, and it's also clear that no-one here is actually saying Jewish sources are not reliable for Jewish topics -- so perhaps that's sufficient for now. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes - though the problem is that people tend far too often to use the phrase 'reliable source' as if it is a simple yes/no question, whereas, as the Miliband example illustrates, the real question should be 'should we consider source X reliable for statement Y?'. Particularly in regard to contentious issues (i.e. ethnicity, faith etc in BLPs) it is probably best to err on the side of caution and avoid using a single source, no matter how reliable in general it is. After all, if it is the only source to report something, one has to question whether WP:WEIGHT would indicate we shouldn't add it at all, and if it is of real significance, it will presumably get reported elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

What if you are a primary source?

With regard to the sport of kickboxing, I am either a primary or secondary source for the period 1970 through 1989. I ran the STAR System world ratings for professional kickboxing that was published monthly in up to 15 newsstand magazines and was recognized as the official rankings source for both the WKA and KICK, two of the three major sanctioning bodies of the day. STAR collected and archived fight scorecards and outcomes from those organizations, and was supported by approximately 250 eyewitness ring observers and officials around the world.

STAR also reconstructed and documented the ring records of many early champions.

I published magazine articles, wrote a sports column and authored books. Further, the STAR System ratings has a website that provides factual ring record information from that era: http://starsystemkickboxing.net/default.aspx

My published writings and/or the STAR ratings are periodically cited as a source on Wikipedia. Some of those references are out of context or do not reflect the final correct facts. In certain instances, particularly as pertains historic bout outcomes or misunderstandings about what I wrote or said, there are no other corroborative sources available. An example would be factually inaccurate mentions on the entry for Benny "The Jet" Urquidez.

May I contribute to Wikipedia and cite my own writings or the STAR website as a source? Paul Maslak (talk) 22:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for disclosing your conflict of interest.

I'd advise caution. If you see something you wrote already cited out of context, it should be no problem to make appropriate corrections. Just be sure to explain clearly in your edit summary that you are modifying the article text to reflect what the source actually says. If there's an issue about interpretations or misunderstandings about what you wrote, it would be a good idea to explain your reasoning on the talk page, disclosing the fact that you are the author of the cited source.

For cases where you want to add a source you authored to the article, I recommend proposing it on the talk page first. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I will follow your advice. I will cite alternate sources where I can and will disclose when I cannot on the talk page. Biggest issue concerns two observations by a wiki-editor: 1) that the STAR ratings dropped Benny Urquidez' loss to Billye Jackson, and 2) that the STAR ratings did not reflect Urquidez' muay Thai loss in 1978 to Prayut Srisontob. The implication of the entry seems to be that STAR was involved in a misrepresentation or even a cover-up. What that wiki-editor does not disclose is: a) that the WKA governing body officially transmuted the Urquidez' loss to Billye Jackson five years after the event, and b) that STAR never included muay Thai bouts in our ratings. We regarded muay Thai as a different sport, like boxing or wresting.

68.5.16.74 (talk) 06:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I would say please make known as many sources as you can. If they are by you or their use would be seen as a conflict of interest then propose them on the talk page for other editors to assess. But don't feel you have to suppress them! Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Good advice. Thank you. I'll give that a try tomorrow.

68.5.16.74 (talk) 07:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

menluri.info

Is this source reliable? This website use Bahasa Indonesia. αδζ ψακ φρψερ 02:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

In what context? Phearson (talk) 03:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Biography of Indonesia foreign minister. αδζ ψακ φρψερ 03:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to evaluate by someone who doesn't speak the language. But there doesn't seem to be any indication regarding who put the site online or whether there is editorial oversight. Is it an official site of some sort? Given the high standard set by WP:BLP, I guess I'm somewhat wary of this source, since it could be regarded as self-published, hence not allowed. TimidGuy (talk) 10:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

hanfordsentinel

We had an IP editor come in to the Talk:Vector Marketing page with several press release links. Two were dismissed as known unreliable press release sites, but we are not sure about this one:

http://www.hanfordsentinel.com/news/local/abab04e6-7caa-11e0-95d7-001cc4c002e0.html

I question it, simply because it has no author. And the subject of whether or not vector is Multilevel marketing or Direct Sales or Single-level is hotly disputed on the page. Phearson (talk) 03:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The fact that there's no author isn't a problem, since many news articles in newspapers don't carry bylines. But in this case, I don't think it's that strong of source. I appears that it's simply based on a press release. Newspapers will often run press releases nearly verbatim, without any fact checking or scrutiny, especially as it relates to local business. And in such a case there would typically be no byline. I'd say that if the issue is contentious, a stronger source is needed. (If someone continues to argue that this is reportage and that it shows that Vector is Direct Sales, then maybe simply email the newspaper and ask them if they reported this or simply carried a press release.) TimidGuy (talk) 11:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center

Would this source be considered to be reputable? Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center it is all over wikipedia in the Israel-Palestine conflict articles and I do not really see how it can be a reputable source.It has ties to the IDF and is basically a propaganda mechanism for the Israelis.Reading some of the stuff on their website just makes me feel that it has no ethical editorial at all.All it seems to do is spout dubious things about Syria, Iran, Hamas, Palestinians and Hizbollah.

It is headed by a retired IDF colonel.Thoughts? Owain the 1st (talk) 08:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The source is reliable but should be couched with language such as "according to xyz". Any organization can be biased in their own way, but that doesn't negate them from reliability. As I interpret the RS guidelines I see editorial oversight and accountability as key factors toward a source's use in the wiki, and this source appears to have such oversight. If there is conflicting accounts or study statistics you can always reference sources on both sides of an argument to make the article neutral.--Torchwoodtwo (talk) 11:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

OMG Facts

Hello everyone, I've recently read the Akon article here and one thing that made me wonder was the first reference in the article (for his allegedly superbly long name), which goes to "omg-facts.com". The link is not accessible, as the site appears to have been taken down. However, and now I might lump together, but let's say "OMG Facts" doesn't sound like a really reliable source. Furthermore, the section "Early life" each time only around three names. The edit adding these names is this one which makes clear that another reference had been removed. What do experts like you think about this? Cry wolf or really an unreliable source? Thanks for your help, --The Evil IP address (talk) 18:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The link to the omg-facts.com page works fine for me. That page contains a video interview in which Akon himself is asked to pronounce his own name, and he does so. I'd say that, beyond a birth certificate, that's about as reliable as you can get for what a person claims to be his name. A video interview doesn't validate the spelling of the name, however. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)