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

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[1]. 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[2]. 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 [3] 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[4] and google books[5] 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 [6] and this [7] 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)

WhatamIdoing - I'm not quite sure I agree with your definitions there. A publication about Coca-Cola, published by Coca-Cola, is a self-published website. It's about themselves. It is however perfectly usable as a source about themselves. To be non-self-published requires editorial oversight that is (a) independent of the subject (b) not the author. Quackwatch.org is clearly a self-published website, most certainly for Barrett's articles, arguably for non-Barret articles (he's the editor), but Barrett gets a pass primarily because they consider "he's an expert". Technically he doesn't actually pass since he doesn't qualify under "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Barrett became considered an "expert" because of his website, not because of any prior publications in the field. My own view is that, for wikipedia's purposes, Barrett's websites shouldn't be used as anything other than a pointer towards other sources. Still, with regards the current discussion the question is about using him as a source for information about a person. WP:V clearly states Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. This would be violated even if we were talking about quackwatch.org. But we're not even talking about quackwatch.org. We're talking about mlmwatch.org, a website affiliated with quackwatch, but it's not quackwatch. For a start, it doesn't have any editorial oversight apart from Barrett. The idea that when Barrett launches a new website and he is automatically beconsidered an "expert" and a reliable source on the topic is simply absurd - and very dangerous. mlmwatch.org is a self-published website. Barrett is not an expert in MLM nor business. The site is being used as a source for information about a person. The fact there is even a discussion over this is quite an indictment over how even well-established wikipedians can essentially ignore policy when it suits their POV. --Icerat (talk) 21:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

See "idiotic" in my description of the actual SPS definition. You and I and anyone who knows anything at all about publishing will say that Coca-cola.com is a self-published website, but I've got more than 100K of text in the WT:V archives that prove (using that specific example) that certain Wikipedians reject that common-sense definition. According to them, Coca-cola.com has so many lawyers (=actual reasoning) that their website is non-self-published and therefore perfectly acceptable for BLP-related statements about anyone.

On the specific example, how do you know that there is no editorial oversight at MLMwatch.org? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Since when has the standard been "assume editorial oversight unless you can prove otherwise"? There is no evidence to suggest any editorial oversight and the site is full of factually incorrect or misleading statements. You'll note for example there's not a single mention of acknowledged experts like Professor Dominique Xardel or Professor Charles King or Professor Kent Grayson, all of whom have actual work published in the field by independent publishers and academic journals. Instead he does things like quote alleged "analysis" of a court affidavit by the likes of Robert FitzPatrick - but seems oblivious to the fact the court rejected the affidavit because they didn't consider FitzPatrick and expert! Or he cites an investigation into MLM by the FTC as part of a proposed new business opportunity law - but neglects to mention that their investigation led them to remove MLM from the new law as there were so few problems with legitimate MLM companies (eg DSA members) - and those that weren't legitimate were already covered by existing fraud laws. Who has "oversight" of this website? Nobody except Barrett I'd suggest. --Icerat (talk) 11:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, it's Barrett's reputation we want. He's the noted consumer advocacy expert. His point of view, opinion, and (in my opinion) bias are precisely what we're after, since he is the individual that many have gone to to ask for such information. A bit circular, perhaps, but we reflect the reputations of sources in the real world not just in our world. I agree Barrett can be a bit loose, one-sided, and doesn't always get the whole story right, but there's much that he does well in terms of situating products and their histories, explaining practices and their deceptions, and laying out patterns of fraud, and when we find these claims, we should go about using them, in context, with attribution. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's a bit of confirmation bias going on there with folk I think, but I simply don't agree that Barrett get's an exclusion from WP:SPS - Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.. Remember, that's what this particular dispute is about. Not Barrett's comments on a product and the science (or lack of) behind it, but Barrett being used as a source for implied (synth) criticism of a person. Right now a number of people are essentially claiming (a) WP:SPS does not apply to Barrett as a source and (b) the (disputed) consensus on quackwatch.org is inherited by mlmwatch.org, despite having no recognized "expert" advisory, editorial oversight, or even expertise in the topic of the website.

Icerat, I asked about how you know, because your statement above ("For a start, it doesn't have any editorial oversight apart from Barrett") is a clear, direct statement of fact. If you'd said something like "I see no evidence of any editorial oversight", then I wouldn't have asked. This statement is either true or false; I don't know which it is. I'd like to know whether or not you have any evidence to support this statement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Are all sites by Stephen Barrett considered Reliable automatically?

WhatamIdoing hit one of the first points being discussed here above, ie is mlmwatch.org self-published. The other major point being argued by "supporters" is that mlmwatch is considered RS because it's affiliated with quackwatch.org, and it's considered RS. Now, leaving aside the point I don't think blanket approval of quackwatch has ever achieved consensus, this idea that all of the quackwatch affiliated sites (covering everything from insurance to mlm to dentistry to advertising) is an extremely dangerous one. --Icerat (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Editors use their discretion and evaluate sources in the context in which they are used. Not only are QuackWatch and its associated sites one of the most prominent consumer advocacy site in this area (for better or for worse), but the information we are using from mlmwatch is almost entirely fact-based. It's dates and associations and names. There's barely any opinion or judgment involved, and where there is, it's about organizations not people, and where it touches on people it is covered by Barrett's expertise as a consumer advocate. Let me be clear. I partly disdain Barrett's approach, but that's got nothing to do with this, and policy is not supposed to be interpreted rigidly or without considering the context and usage of a source carefully. We don't need to be conservative in this instance because WP:SOURCE, WP:SPS, and WP:BLP leave room for expert self-published websites to be used to address less controversial aspects or aspects within their realm of expertise, especially for individuals who have a public role in which they can expect to be the focus of criticism. If you can find better sources, please do so, but mlmwatch is good enough for the way it is being used. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 02:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

No, there's absolutely nothing automatic about reviewing sources, as the multiple, lengthy discussions attest. --Ronz (talk) 02:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the debate above, and on RS/N on the same topic, a regular refrain in defence of mlmwatch.org is "Quackwatch is RS!", ie these editors seem to think any consensus over quackwatch.org is inherited by mlmwatch.org. --Icerat (talk) 11:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Is quackwatch.org the same as mlmwatch.org? Most editors above seem to think so. Is quackwatch.org/mlmwatch.org equal to Stephen Barrett? Most editors above don't seem to think so. Is quackwatch.org/mlmwatch.org reliable (per RS). Most editors above seem to think so. I think there is CON on this matter. Shot info (talk) 02:27, 6 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)

Simpson doesn't need to be an expert, because the book is published by a reputable publisher. Source means three things, and the rule is that the publication or the author or the publisher needs to be reputable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources says 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. I mean, if Britney Spears made the same claim in her autobiography which is published by a respected publication company, would it still be a reliable source? It possibly would be for the claim itself, but not its treatment as a fact or even a myth in a serious article on the subject. In view of the context in which it is to be used I'm still voting no. Betty Logan (talk) 12:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Britney Spears' hypothetical assertions about Blackbeard's beard, or any other passing mentions, would be "reliable" but not usable as an assertion of fact (rather than as an assertion that Spears said something). That hypothetical source fails the content policies for being inappropriate, not for being unreliable. WP:V says, "all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question". It is not enough for the source to be "reliable".

By contrast, a source that is about the actual subject in hand is generally taken as an appropriate sort of source. The sources given here are (more or less) reliable and (more or less) appropriate. They may not be WP:DUE, but that's a separate question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:38, 6 June 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)

This is wrong. Sources are never required to "quote a real primary source", or even to list the sources in a bibliography. This is another very clear example of Wikipedia not following the standard practice among academic historians. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I concur. A book published by the academic press of a major university should be considered a reliable source. An article published in a peer reviewed journal by a professional historian would arguably be a better source, for example, but how much weight to give various sources and how to express the conflict between them is a matter for the article's talk page. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thirded. Andrew, you're applying your academic rigour to an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a history textbook. --Dweller (talk) 11:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

(More's the pity.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:39, 6 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)

In the real world, yes. But Wikipedia has artificially restricted itself on this point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Notability and reliability are two entirely different concepts: it is entirely possible to be a notable liar (though I'll refrain from giving examples). With regard to this particular issue, I'd suggest that if a son has to reference Wikipedia for information regarding his father, one might doubt the son's qualifications as 'reliable'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:45, 5 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)

I agree with Blueboar. --Dweller (talk) 11:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I susgested exaclty this a couple of days ago. I agree this is what we should do.Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 7 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 [8] and Martin [9]are multiply science published.

Additionally and separately; Martin has published on [10] 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." [11] 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)

WP:MEDRS: "This guideline supports the general sourcing policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability with specific attention given to sources appropriate for the medical and health-related content in any type of article, including alternative medicine. Sources for all other types of content—including that in medical articles—are covered by the general guideline on identifying reliable sources rather than this specific guideline." From this it appears that Hooper's self published work on the history of the CHAT trial MAY fall outside WP:MEDRS as it is historical rather than medical in nature?

But Hooper's primary thesis is explicitly medical: namely, that HIV/AIDS was spread by contaminated polio vaccine. MastCell ^Talk 23:38, 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.” [12]

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)

AndyTheGrump—you are saying that there are "contentious issues" but the only contentious issue is when two sources are in contradiction with one another—there is nothing inherently contentious about Jewish identity, and it wouldn't matter if a Jewish source supported that an individual was Jewish except if another source supported that the individual was not Jewish. No source—a Jewish source or a non-Jewish source—can be found saying that either Miliband or Yanofsky are not Jewish. News organizations are in competition. They would not hesitate to contradict one another if they had good quality information at variance with what their competitors were reporting. Bus stop (talk) 03:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Just trying to make sense of this, but if this is a case of two competing sources it does not seem like much of a contest. Please check my understanding:-

• Comment to be sourced must specify being Jewish by "religion"?
• Person concerning who this must be sourced is on record saying he is not religious.
• The source which is supposed to disagree with him does not actually say he is religiously Jewish.

Are these three points a correct summary?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Yup - though there is a broader issue of whether the Jewish Chronicle uses a loser definition of 'religion' than we should necessarily accept. A lot of the difficulty comes down to people using words (i.e. 'Jewish') without making clear what they mean. As our What is a Jew? article indicates, this is a complex question, hence the confusion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how that particular broader issue can be a relevant issue, if the JC does not actually give a clear statement about Milliband being religiously Jewish? If there really was a competition between two sources saying clearly opposed things, which apparently there is not, then I would still find it a bit weird that any normal media, Jewish or whatever, is going to trump the individual concerned as a source about something this personal. But let's say we had the New York Times and the JC (two reasonable media sources) saying two clearly opposed things about something personal, then yes, that would be a difficult case of how to get the wording of the article right. But if my 3 points above are correct I see no WP:RS question worth discussing?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree entirely. The problem is that some contributors seem to want the Chronicle declared an automatic 'reliable source' for each and every Jewish-related article, contrary to policy. Others have suggested (perhaps not using the best phraseology) that the JC is inherently unreliable when it comes to statements about ethnicity, faith etc. Again, this isn't what policy states. Instead, we should be looking at each case on its merits, while acknowledging that (a) the Chronicle probably has more knowledge on the subject than other sources, but (b) it also has an inevitable tendancy to support the perspective of its readership - which is 'inclusionist', and tends to emphasise Jewish links where other sources may not see them as particularly significant. That the Chronicle suggests that Miliband is 'religiously' Jewish seems to be an indication of this 'inclusionist' tendancy. There may be very good reasons for this within a Jewish cultural context, but that can't really be the measure by which we determine things - we can only use terms like 'ethnicity' and 'religion' in their more conventional sense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

See, I think this amounts to the view that the JC is not a reliable source when it comes to this particular Jewish topic. You disagree with their perspective -- but that does not make the source unreliable, not even on this topic. At this point, though, I think it's time to say "whatever", since you are the only person actively expressing that idea in a general way. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

O.k. - "whatever" - nothing really settled here.... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary -- you are the only person trying to make a general point about Jewish sources not being reliable for Jewish topics. Clear consensus here is that the JC is a reliable source, and one editor's objections don't stand in the way of that. I agree that this doesn't make things automatic -- there can still be disagreement about whether a particular use of a source is appropriate for a particular claim (including this Miliband business) -- but I see no one else arguing here that the JC is anything other than a reliable source. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

If that general point is truly being argued by anyone then I agree it would be wrong. But it does not appear relevant to the sourcing question here, which is (if I am following correctly) concerning a specific claim about "religion" which the JC does not even make? I get the impression that many people posting here, on both sides of the discussion, do not want to focus on the one real case at hand? I think other JC related cases need to be discussed separately, case by case, if there are real RS questions. But this one seems like a red herring because the JC does not actually make a clear statement about "religion"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity, read WP:NEWSORG, and then explain how an unequivocal assertion can be made that 'newspaper X is a reliable source for Y' can be made? It clearly cannot: "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". And furthermore, your claim that I am proposing "Jewish sources not being reliable for Jewish topics" is totally misleading. I am not referring to 'Jewish sources' in general (whatever they are...), but the Jewish Chronicle, a particular publication. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—when you use the term "conventional", as in "we can only use terms like 'ethnicity' and 'religion' in their more conventional sense", how have you determined what is "conventional"? I'm sure that you do not wish to introduce bias, but just how have you determined conventionality as concerns these topics? If this is merely your hunch I think such presumptions would be something we would want to be cautious of. So can you please explain to me how you have determined what is "conventional"? Bus stop (talk) 23:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: I am ignoring Bus stop's postings, per WP:SHUN. I advise others to do likewise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:54, 6 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)

Paul, I suggest that you go introduce yourself at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial arts. The page is a meeting place for editors interested in martial arts. I believe you would be very welcome, and WP:WikiProjects are usually a great place to get advice and answers to questions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:47, 6 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)

Press releases are reliable self-published sources; that's what {{Cite press release}} exists. You may cite them as evidence, for example, that the company issues press releases, that they held a position, that they announced a product line, that they hired a person, etc. You just shouldn't pay too much attention to them, exactly like you shouldn't pay too much attention to the company's website. Both are written and published by the same company and the only reason either exist is to benefit that company. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I am confused by your statement. You say its reliable, yet we should ignore it? Am I reading that correctly...? Phearson (talk) 15:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Editors need to ignore reliable sources all the time; otherwise, we'd never write neutral articles.

You may use these sources, but you are not required to use these sources merely because they exist. You should not give these self-published sources more weight than the WP:Independent sources. You can treat a press release from a company like you would treat a page on their website. After all, both the company's press release and the company's website were written and published by the same people.

If you want a more specific answer, then you need to give us a more specific context: What sentence(s) are these press releases alleged to support? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It's fair to note that I was speculating that it was a press release. The report in the newspaper sounded like a standard press release, but we don't know that for sure. Since the article in the newspaper didn't sound like reportage and didn't carry a byline, and since this is a disputed fact, I suggested that a stronger source is needed. TimidGuy (talk) 10:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Dan Savage and Santorum (neologism)

The article has included an unverified (and probably unverifiable) claim that the definition in question was suggested by a reader of Savage's column. The claim is ultimately sourced to a collection of supposedly anonymous emails to Savage himself, with no means of verifying either the actual source of the proposal or the "outcome" of the "reader vote" that selected it. We don't generally treat satirical columns as reliable sources for factual information, and I've never found a Wikipedia article which has accepted a source of this nature as a reliable source for BLP-related content. When I raised the issue in editing the article itself, the response has been that unverifiable claims are allowed unless there's a source challenging them, which stands WP:V and WP:RS on their heads. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Find a source that questions Savage on this point and quote it. Until then, Savage's own account is accepted by the existing sources. Your concern does not belong here unless you have a question about a specific source. The article's talk page is where to take this concern. Binksternet (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

That's utter nonsense. The question is whether a particular assertion by Savage is a reliable source for a claim about the accuracy of Savage's statements. That is precisely the sort of question this board is for. And how about citing some substantive policy or guideline that says BLP-related content is preserved unless there's a source challenging it, even in the absence of a reliable source supporting it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with Binksternet. What we should say is that "Savage says that he got the idea from...." Unless reliable sources specifically state that "(Savage) got the idea from...", we cannot say that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Arthur, Liz Spikol wrote in Philadelphia Weekly that "the regular Savage Love readers wrote in to the column" to suggest meanings for the proposed neologism, and that one of the suggestions was voted the winner. Spikol took Savage at his word, accepting his version of events, and no source has challenged him. (A series of Savage Love columns in May–June 2003 shows the evolution of the story: [13][14][15]—all of these are in the article as sources.) Spikol is in the article as a source to support Savage's retelling of the story. No source questions Savage's version of what happened, and no source questions Spikol's support for Savage. The Philadelphia Weekly is reliable as a source, so that takes care of this entry to the RS/N.

Really, I don't see what the BLP question is. Is the concern for Savage or Santorum? There is no change in the BLP problem for Santorum regarding whether Savage really did accept a reader suggestion, and accept a reader vote of the winning entry, or whether Savage made the whole thing up. Either way, Savage promoted the hell out of the issue and Santorum became the victim of a Google bomb, all of which is very carefully documented in the neologism article. If the concern is for harm to Savage, I must return to the Spikol-written story which supports Savage's version of events. Nobody questions whether Savage fabricated the reader entries and the voting, so we don't worry about it. Binksternet (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Putting aside the question of whether "Philadelphia Weekly" is an independent source about the accuracy of its own columnists, the article appears carefully written not itself confirm Savage's account. The relevant claims are presented as quotations from Savage, not as the publication's own reporting.

Savage is, in part, a satirical/humorous commentator, and it's a convention of the form that not all of the claims, especially of the an-anonymous-reader-wrote-to-us, are to be taken as literally factual. If David Letterman makes up a "Viewer Mail" letter, if Jay Leno rehearses a "spontaneous" bit with a member of his audience, or supplies them with "questions," it's hardly a sin; it's nothing like fixing a quiz show. Did Savage take this "definition" verbatim from a reader suggestion, or did he soup it up, or concoct it entirely? Was the "reader suggestion" really signed "Wipe Up That Santorum, Anal Pokers"? (For that matter, does everyone whose comment is quoted in Savage's column really come up with a clever acronym for their signature? That's a pretty clear signal of editorial involvement.) Wikipedia shouldn't be presenting material of this sort as unquestionably factual. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Spikol is a reliable source for the assertion that Savage made that claim, not that the claim is true. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Following a bit of editing earlier today, the relevant section of the Santorum (neologism) article says the following: "Savage requested readers to suggest definitions in his column Savage Love, and announced the winning definition to be"... This wording appear to satisfy whatever RS/N concerns we might have had, bringing the matter to a close. If I am missing a further improvement that can be made to the article, let me know. Binksternet (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

With all of this forum shopping, some people must have really huge wallets. Active Banana (^bananaphone 19:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it's an example of what happens when a controversial article comes under sustained scrutiny from a lot of people. Many aspects are likely to be questioned at various boards. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 20:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that 'forum shopping' is an accusation more correctly leveled at a single editor who is consciously trying to get a different answer each time. The mere fact that this issue has been raised in multiple forums by multiple people does not, to me, construe anything like forum shopping. WP:FORUMSHOP speaks to the reader in second person, implying a personal responsibility, not a community requirement. Elizium23 (talk) 00:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice

User:Minphie continues to add material based on the above journal [16]. The ref is described as a "internet sites posing as open-access, peer-reviewed scientific journals". Per here [17] it appears that this user has been pushing this agenda for a while. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I see that DGG investigated this journal a few years ago.[18] And here's an article on Pubmed published by the Canadian Medical Association that gives some info.[19] It seems like it would depend on how it's used. We don't automatically disallow a source because it has a point of view or an agenda. Since there's evidence of editorial oversight, I don't know of a guideline that would proscribe it. We should probably look at a specific instance. TimidGuy (talk) 11:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's a recent RSN discussion.[20] TimidGuy (talk) 11:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The Uralic languages by Denis Sinor

Please comment:

The book by Sinor, Denis (1988). The Uralic languages : description, history, and foreign influences. BRILL. p. 10. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) says

Concerning the basic terms of "Uralic" and "Finno-Ugric" I opted for these forms, (used mainly in the United States versus "Uralian" or "Finno-Ugrian" preferred by the British) simply because more was written in American than in English on Finno Ugric topics.

yet an editor removes the source from the article by claiming "This has never been so differentiated" [21], and "There is no such distinction in terminology between British and American English" [22].--Termer (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem that the above editor fails to mention is that he wants to draw a firm line between American English "Uralic" and British English "Uralian". The above quote does not support that. It supports what is in the article now: "Uralic...(sometimes called "Uralian")", not a firm distinction between British English and American English. Indeed, British authors writing for a wider audience almost always use "Uralic" instead of "Uralian" and Sinor offers no real evidence for this distinction which he makes. Simply finding a personal opinion as a quote does not pass for usage or necessarily as a reliable source for a bright line that no one else draws and the facts don't support. If one looks at Google Books, "Uralic languages" is found more than 7000 times from authors around the world including British authors. "Uralian languages" is found fewer than 500 times. Thus, the best wording is not a distinction between "American uses X and British uses Y", but the current wording "Uralic (sometimes called Uralian)". Termer wants to draw a bright line that neither the facts, nor Sinor draw. --Taivo (talk) 19:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Taivo, although I can see the logic of the original proposal. Let me try to parse it:

• Yes, there is a source quoted here which says there is a term used in Britain, but not so common.
• Taivo is saying, and I think he is right, that it is even less common than the source thinks. Most British writers also use the terms this source calls American.
• Critical point: we do not have to say everything that can be reliably sourced. We only select what is most notable. Even the original source being discussed here says the terms which that source does not prefer are not commonly found in published form. So I see this as a question about WP:NOTE and I see no reason to make any special effort to mention these rare but fairly transparent name variants.
• I think there would probably be no objection to giving quick mention to the variant names, BUT this is not the same as saying that they are somehow standard British.
• I think there would be no objection to creating redirects for the rare variants, just to catch them on the odd occasion someone goes looking for them.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Taivo, that's not "what I want". What "I want" is to ensure Wikipdia articles are based on WP:RS, not on what anybody might think is true. In the context since its clearly not such common knowledge, therefore I believe it would be interesting for wikipedia readers to know that's spelled out by Sinor so clearly. For the rest I can only offer speculations like you did. The reason why many British scholars choose to use "Uralic" lately maybe it has something to do with the fact that Sinor's book is often considered the foundation of modern Uralic studies. Maybe in 50 years the British are going to use the word "Zip" code more instead of "Postal". It doesn't change the facts Sinor has spelled out.--Termer (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Read Andrew Lancaster's comments, Termer. They are right on target. "Uralian" is a somewhat rare variant, but addressing these as "American" and "British" is not appropriate and certainly not what the source says. --Taivo (talk) 18:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Termer, just to make sure you are not fighting a windmill, I did say that I think the only point I would not consider worth argument about is the comment that this spelling is somehow standard British. That it is a variant that exists seems worth noting. Whenever we call anything a field standard or a field consensus on Wikipedia we have to expect that we might be asked for stronger-than-usual proof. But usually there is no need to argue that something is a strong standard or consensus. Just mention the variant as a variant and leave it at that?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Sinor is talking about "standard British" as there's nothing standard about how a specific narrow term gets used by a small group of linguists in any given country. Sinor says British scholars have used the term "Uralian languages" at the time when Americans went with "Uralic languages". This was back in 1988, and I completely can buy that as of 2011 this is no longer the case as any language is a living thing and things usually change. That's not the point however, the point is that according to Sinor the form "Uralian languages" originated from how the British linguists traditionally used it vs. "Uralic" that was used in the States back then. So you think that's not a fact worth mentioning in the article? Or Sinor got it completely wrong?--Termer (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

This comparison of Uralian languages versus Uralic languages might help. FYI "Uralian" appears to have been most popular for the Uralian mountains prior to the 20th century as compared the more modern and simpler Urals. Since both terms are used, both should be mentioned. Any further distinction (British versus American) is pointless. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

In the article, we already say, basically, "Uralic (sometimes called Uralian)", so we mention the alternate name. But, as both Andrew Lancaster and Vecrumba have stated, distinguishing between American and British usage really isn't supported by the evidence. --Taivo (talk) 21:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Sinor may be completely correct, but I'd look for additional confirmation. In the end, I don't think it adds much value as it's only the nuance of word form that differs as opposed to having two distinct names for the same thing, in which case it would be more of an issue to call out to notify the reader. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Paul Revere ringing bells to warn colonists

Template:Image Numerous sources have quoted former Alaska governor and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin as having said that Paul Revere rang bells to alert colonists during his famous midnight ride; obviously it's a gaffe but several article owners are deleting discussion even on the talk page including pictures. It is a topic of national importance; the article has HUGE readership as a result (55K readers in ONE day). People should look in to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomwsulcer (talk • contribs)

How is all of this "a matter of national importance"? She said something stupid... not the first or the last time a politician has done that. Blueboar (talk) 17:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

She may be president of the US someday.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

This is the reliable sources noticeboard. What are you asking the reliable sources noticeboard to do about this? If people are removing comments from Talk:Paul Revere, they are doing so either appropriately or inappropriately. If it's appropriately, we don't need to worry about it. And if it's inappropriately, then restore the removed comments and give the remover an appropriate warning ({{uw-tpv1}}, {{uw-tpv2}}, {{uw-tpv3}}, {{uw-vandalism4}}), and if they exhaust their warnings, report them to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'm not sure about whether the content deletions on the talk page were appropriate vs inappropriate. Several pictures and captions were deleted which I thought were relevant to the discussion.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

One of those warned was the pastor of the church at Lexington, and Revere did cast church bells, so the gaffe is not quite as absurd as made out. [23] states that the bell was tolled at Lexington, so all this is much ado about nothing by political types who do not read quite enough. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• I see another griefer at work again. Where are the heavyweight Admins when we need'em? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 21:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with others that this is not relevant to this noticeboard. There is no problem sourcing this stuff, so whether to put it in an article depends upon notability etc. Bad talk page behavior is not for this noticeboard.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

is astro databank reliable?

Would appreciate a second opinion on what can be considered reliable sources for articles on astrologers. We currently have a problem with that on Talk:Dennis_Elwell_(astrologer). A source I am questioning is astrodatabank. Other editors correctly pointed out that it is not an open wiki and on a reputable website, but does that make it reliable? I am contending that it is only a tertiary source and secondary sources are more reliable. Also there is a problem that articles on ADB have not rarely copied materials from WP (sometimes without mentioning it). I can see the possible case where unreferenced material from WP got used into ADB, and later this material on ADB gets cited as a source on WP. How is this being avoided? MakeSense64 (talk) 06:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

From their mainpage: "We are now forming a community of volunteer data collectors and maintainers, who will expand and maintain this uniquely valuable collection of astrological information in the future", so almost certainly not. jorgenev 07:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

As a source of astrological data it's not just an acceptable source but a preferred one. Astra databank is an industry standard, trusted within astrological fields. Indeed, references to the databank, and the Rodden ratings it gives, are usually required by astrological journals and magazines, as an indication of properly sourced data. This is because the Rodden rating it includes gives an indication of how reliably sourced the data is. So it shows whether the data can be trusted or to what extent it needs to be held in suspicion. It seems bizarre that someone who is a member of the WikiProject Astrology should by questioning this.

Another editor has already commented on this saying:

In the first instance as stated before Astrodatabank is not an open Wiki. It has become a surprisingly well established resource. It was originally created by Lois Rodden as an online progression from a series of books (not self-published) containing chart and biographical data... (Also see that editors comments here: Diff)

I suppose, now that Wikipedia is getting more and more influential, there is the concern that the published sources we cite have gathered some of their research information from Wikipedia to begin with, but no reason to suspect Astrodatabank of this more than any other. Bottom line, it's treated as a reliable source in published works off-Wiki, so has to be accepted as a reliable source here too.Clooneymark (talk) 12:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Old source current claim

Is a 60 year old source sufficient for a claim that is made in the present tense (i.e. "is"/"are" not "was").

• The article in question is: Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The claim is: "By convention in academic journals, the texts within this volume are numbered and the title is contracted to ANET, e.g., "ANET 355" and so on."
• The cited source is: "As explained by Cyrus H. Gordon in his review of this book in American Journal of Archaeology, Volume 56, Number 1 (January 1952, page 93)."

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 13:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Unless the text was specifically altered at some point (for which it appears no claim is made) the present tense is fine. Collect (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC) -

(ec) It can be in a field that does not change quickly. But if editors looking at the evidence and being reasonable do not all agree that the field has not moved on, then such a present tense is probably not worth arguing over, and a vaguer "tense" can be used. I am not sure that we can have any real rule about this though, and I am not really sure it would come under WP:RS if we would.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I did a quick survey of pieces (mostly articles, but also one book) that cite this book that are available online. Two just used the book as a general reference, so just gave the full title. One used the ANET abbreviation, but gave page numbers, not text-numbers, one cited by 'Pritchard' & page number, one cited by full title & text-number. Admittedly a small sample, but not particularly supportive of the continued usage of this "convention". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 15:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

See [24] from 1994, [25] from 2004, etc. Collect (talk) 15:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Reliable third party sources and fictional characters

I have to believe that claims such as are being made [26] and [27] attempting to establish "WP:N tells us that independent of the subject excludes self-published work, promotional material and the like. The sources here [published by the franchise that created the fictional character] are thus acceptable because they were obviously not published by [fictional creation] themselves and are not promotional in nature." (ie that because a book was not published by the fictional character it counts as a third party source to establish notablity for the fictional creation) are not at all accepted as official Wikipedia interpretation. Or am I completely off the deep end. Active Banana (^bananaphone 15:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• This relates to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons). "Lamia" are a type of creature in the fictional universe of the Dungeons & Dragons game franchise, which may be half-woman/half-lion, half-woman/half-deer, or other combinations like that. Most of the sources in Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons) are to publications from TSR or Wizards of the Coast, the former and current publishers of the Dungeons & Dragons game. Someone is apparently claiming that those publications are independent of the subject because the books were not published by lamia. That's absurd. If we followed that logic, any fictional character or species published in any work would be considered to have independent sources, because the novel/film/videogame/comic/etc. they are described in was not published by the fictional character or species themselves. As I see it, independent sources for establishing the notability of lamia would be published by entities other than TSR or Wizards of the Coast. For example, this article from Salon says, And when you pore over uploads of the endearingly amateurish artwork from the 1977 edition of the "Monster Manual," it's an easy leap to that memory of hours spent in your room, lying on your "Star Wars" bedspread and gawking at pictures of kobolds, owlbears, purple worms and that hot, half-lady, half beast, the lamia. While that brief mention would probably not be sufficient to establish notability, it is, at least, an independent, reliable source. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Canadian government whitewashing it's own entries again

IP user who seems to have some connection to Toronto has reversed my edit about Canada's reputation in the world: Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade

So I ask, what exactly is a reliable source for a nation's reputation in the world? It's not like a GNP number that can be objectively counted. Any comment about the subject must be somebody's opinion, especially when they discus what reasons may lay behind a change in national reputation. Hcobb (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Solid references suggest the point is right. Restored.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Is unaccredited school's handbook sufficient sourcing for extraordinary claim of transferability of credits?

This is in regards to Weimar Institute which operates an unaccredited bible college as part of its organization. A number of editors have insisted on including the following information following the standard boilerplate text from the template for unaccredited schools:

However, college-level courses taken at Weimar College can be cross-transferable to other
accredited Adventist colleges, which gives students who start at Weimar a method for
earning credits towards an accredited degree.

Is a college bulletin from a unaccredited school sufficient to make an implausible claim that accredited schools would accept all credits from a specific unaccredited school? bW 03:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

One thing I have learned having transfered between two colleges is that it's the school you're transfering to that you check with. The school you're transfering from will lie even when presented with the other school's list of accepted credits. A source from Weimar.edu is only enough to say that they claim their courses are accepted elsewhere, however, it'd be wise to phrase it as "only they claim their credits are accepted elsewhere" unless some other university can be found to accept their credits. Even still, accredited schools accepting credits from an unaccredited school doesn't make the unaccredited school accredited. My high school had some classes that could be transfered as college credit, but this did not make my high school a college. I could also have taken private Spanish lessons off-campus and tested for credit at USC, but that would not have made those private lessons into an accredited college. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

To answer the question as a matter of principle: no, of course not. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

You have to understand the context here. Whoever originally posted this, did so with very poor context. The claim is not that "any schools will take the credits". The claim is rather than the school has an affiliation with Griggs University which then provides credits transferable to other colleges within this specific denomination (Seventh-day Adventist). It is only the SDA schools that will accept the credits as far as I know, but Weimar does have a relationship with Griggs and they even have a policy document where they spell this out where Griggs provides credits which are accredited towards a a college degree. This can be confirmed by speaking to any person who has transferred from Weimar or speaking to the admissions officials at accredited SDA institutions. There is also a letter from the dean of Weimar College which spells out the situation in detail. Fountainviewkid 10:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Then the phrasing in the article (as quoted above) is too vague. If it can be documented that Griggs has agreed to provide credits, the article could say exactly that, and cite a document. If that fact can't be documented, it isn't (yet) reliable information. "Speaking to any person" and "speaking to the admissions officials" is no use in the Wikipedia context. Andrew Dalby 10:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I know a number of people who transferred credits from an unaccredited college to accredited universities. Typically the universities would look at curricula and syllabi and make a decision on a case-by-case basis. The way the text s worded seems appropriate: "can be cross-transferrable to other accredited Adventist colleges..." (Though it seems like "other" should be deleted.) Perhaps add attribution: "However, according to the Weimar Institute bulletin, college-level courses taken at Weimar College can be cross-transferrable to accredited Adventist colleges..." TimidGuy (talk) 10:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Please stick to WP:RS issues. There's no way we're going to accept a document from the school itself as a WP:RS for claims about accreditation. If nothing else, it falls foul of WP:SELFPUB. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any "claims about accreditation" in this discussion, merely claims about some institutions "can" accept credits from this institution. In the absence of contradictory information, this claim doesn't seem extraordinary. I don't see a problem including it in the article provided it is worded and attributed correctly. ElKevbo (talk) 11:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I can say that "X can jump 100 miles" and that says nothing about the abilities or proclivities of X. We should not accept claims from a SPS for anything the least bit controversial, and the value of credits earned at one institution to another institution is far from clear and a source of some contention in other articles. The statement as presented is too vague, and should be tightened up and attributed in line to the source if nothing else. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it needs to be tightened and attributed as already discussed. But in the absence of contradictory information the idea that specific religious colleges often accept some transfer credits from a particular bible college of the same religion doesn't seem extraordinary. ElKevbo (talk) 11:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Weimar's stated (in their Bulletin) affiliation with Griggs University is important to the article on Weimar. This affiliation provides a means for students to attend Weimar and earn credits transferable within the Adventist university network. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 11:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

BW asked:

Is a college bulletin from a unaccredited school sufficient to make an implausible claim that
accredited schools would accept all credits from a specific unaccredited school? 
bW 03:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I heard once that Harvard is unaccredited. I wonder. Note that the Weimar College Bulletin does not make such an implausible claim. They are very careful in their counsel about transferability of credit from Weimar to another institution. They also are very strong on the expectation of transfer of Griggs credits. Griggs provides the reliable link, it seems. Further to the Bulletin of Weimar College. I am impressed with their careful, rational stance. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

See here for Harvard. They're on the accredited list, right after Hampshire College and before Hebrew College. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see any claim in the Weimar catalog that "accredited schools would accept all credits" from Weimar College. The information about transferability can be found in the catalog, pages 47-48 (pages 59-60 of the PDF). The college says that some (but not all) of Weimar's courses are accepted for credit by Griggs University, which has some accreditation but not regional accreditation. (Regional accreditation is the "mainstream" kind of college accreditation in the U.S.) Weimar also says that "units earned at Weimar College may not necessarily be transferable" to other Seventh-day Adventist colleges and universities, and "[t]hese units are less likely to be transferable to non-Adventist colleges or universities." The Weimar catalog also says that "you may still be a freshman if you enter another non-Adventist college or university at some time in the future even though you earned units here at our school. In addition, if you earn a degree, diploma, or certificate at Weimar College it may not be recognized as a basis for obtaining a higher-level degree at another college or university." So the only "extraordinary" claim here is that Weimar's courses are accepted for credit by Griggs. And for that, as Ian.thomson implies, we would want to have a source from Griggs for confirmation of that. If Griggs says that they accept some Weimar credits, we can be pretty sure that that is true, whereas if Weimar says that Griggs accepts some Weimar credits, that is less certain to be true (because it is self-serving). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Nadia Ali references

Hi, I'm working on the article for singer-songwriter Nadia Ali and trying to bring it up to a Good Article status. The article is undergoing peer review at the moment and questions were asked about a couple of references. These are interviews with Nadia Ali but the nature of the websites was in question. Could someone please have a look at these links and suggest what I should do? Thanks! 05:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Richards, Lola (8 January 2010). "Nadia Ali: interview Article". Hipster Overkill. Archived from the original on 31 May 2011. Retrieved 7 May 2011. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

Carter, Daniel (February 2011). "Features - Nadia Ali". The House Dan Built. Archived from the original on 31 May 2011. Retrieved 31 May 2011. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)