Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 99

Siliconera
Is Siliconera.com a reliable source? See the articles in this Google News Archive search such as this article. Is Siliconera a blog website, and if so, is it a reliable one? Cunard (talk) 00:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * From the Video Games WProject, we consider it to have of some reliability, usually in the area of Japanese games or more obscure titles, but recommend replacement from a more news-like source if possible. --M ASEM (t) 01:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How much editorial oversight does the website's content have? Would it be an acceptable source for a BLP (see User:AeronPeryton/Articles/Shinji Hosoe)? Cunard (talk) 01:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * For the type of BLP claims being made (basically reiterating credits), it likely is ok, but I suspect that it may still be challenged in mainspace, and from that standpoint, some may not see Siliconera as sufficient a reliable source if the only source present to keep the article.  That's about the strength of that website for this.  In conjunction with other websites it probably would be ok. --M ASEM  (t) 01:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the information about Siliconera. I haven't been able to find other sources in the Google News Archive search that allow Shinji Hosoe to pass GNG, so I don't know if the article can be rescued and restored to mainspace. Cunard (talk) 01:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The Uralic languages by Denis Sinor
Please comment:

The book by says

yet an editor removes the source from the article by claiming "This has never been so differentiated", and "There is no such distinction in terminology between British and American English" .--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. P ЄTЄRS 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. P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * On this tiny detail (in his extremely useful and reliable book) I feel Sinor was mistaken ... but his statement is carefully phrased: "preferred by the British". I'd suggest, most of the time, British authors writing in this field wrote (and still do write) for US and international publishers and journals, and might well adjust their terminology for a US and international readership. So how would one prove such a statement? "Uralic" is international usage, and I agree with those above who say that "Uralian" (if indeed anyone prefers it) is best just mentioned as a variant, not pinned down to a national group. And rew D alby  16:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Termer, I think an appropriate WP policy to consider is WP:NOTE. We all seem to have no problem with saying that the term exists, as a less commonly used term. There seems to be less consensus about how notable it is as a "British" term. I'd say that it is notable that there is an alternative term, but (at least with the sources mentioned or that I know of) going into a debate about the details of that alternative terms seems to be much less notable. If something is not notable, then there is no point stressing about its sourcing. If someone writes a popular and respected book about the history of this term maybe things will change! :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

acclaimedmusic.net
acclaimedmusic.net is apparently a self-published listing of the top 3000 songs and albums, compiled from smaller lists written by other sources. It has ample, prominent links to Amazon to buy the music. It is used as a source in over 200 articles. Sometimes it's to support the inclusion of the work on one of the primary lists used as sources. Other times it's as a thing in itself, as a source for them being on the top 3000 list. The last time this was discussed here, in 2009, the view was to mass delete the links. Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_50 That never happened but I'm thinking of doing it now. Any thoughts?  Will Beback   talk    11:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Previous discussion and looking over the site suggests its not a WP:RS, not from real music critics, but just a compilation of compilations, although music-seekers may find some use for it. The extensive links on the site pointing to one bookstore (Amazon) doesn't help its case much. Wondering how mass deleting of links can be accomplished? Is a bot needed? Wondering if there's a way to block any new links pointing to the site, so that if a WP contributor tries to save a revision to an article, the link to the site (in this case Acclaimedmusic.net) prevents a user from saving the article until the link is removed. What do you think?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's only about 200 links, I can do it with AWB. If the links keep returning inappropriately we could eventually get it added to the spam blacklist, but I don't think that's necessary yet.   Will Beback    talk    20:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Clearly not a RS. Feel free to AWB it. Jayjg (talk) 04:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

gay-news.com
Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands has a gay-news.com link as a reference. If you compare the article with the GALKOTCSI website, you will see that gay-news.com has just paraphrased/plagiarised the article: gay news article, GALKOTCSI website. However, User:Gimmetoo seems to disagree (see Talk:Gay_and_Lesbian_Kingdom_of_the_Coral_Sea_Islands). Is such copypasta really reliable?? --Surturz (talk) 12:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:CIRCULAR references are never acceptable. However, you have to settle the chicken and egg question, because sometimes it's the Wikipedia article that paraphrased the other website.  When two outside websites are doing this to each other, then this isn't automatically a problem, although it does make you wonder about the level of editorial oversight at the second website, and you might have a WP:LINKVIO problem.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The Gay-News link is definitely not circular - compare it to the version of the article that was current at the time the article was published, not to the current version. The same appears to be true of the version of the article that was current at the time of the Wayback Machine link for the GALKOTCSI website. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Water Fuelled references
In section Aquygen magnecules are defined a "discredited theory" and two references are added ref. 17 and ref 18. Three additional references should be added since two are from the same Journal of Hydrogen Energy and one from Cornell University arxiv and they are a comment about ref. 17. Volume 33, Issue 2, January 2008, Pages 918-921 International Journal of Hydrogen Energy Volume 33, Issue 2, January 2008, Pages 922-926 International Journal of Hydrogen Energy and Cornell Univ. http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0112066 Mine is not a discussion about magnecules but about correct referencing policy. Seeking assistance of editors. Plusside (talk)PlussidePlusside (talk)


 * What article are you talking about? What specifically is the problem? Please provide wikilinks and help others here understand what you're getting at.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

This is in the Water Fuelled Car under Aquygen" Originally developed as an alternative to oxyacetylene welding, the company claimed to be able to run a vehicle exclusively on water, via the production of "Aquygen", and invoked an unproven state of matter called "magnegases" and a discredited theory about magnecules to explain their results. " Hope this help. Plusside (talk)PlussidePlusside (talk)


 * On this encyclopædia, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
 * The Aquygen section over at Water-fuelled car looks relatively neutral at the moment - it doesn't give the concept too much coverage and doesn't pretend that it actually works. We don't need detailed individual debunking of every such proposal; that's why we gather them together into one bigger article. Aquygen in itself doesn't look particularly notable so I doubt we have a pressing need for more coverage or more refs, either positive or negative. bobrayner

(talk) 10:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC) Agreed completely so, since it is neutral I propose that the two negative references are removed and that the definition " discredited theory" with the references is removed. The "magnecule" will direct the reader to the appropriate section in the Ruggero Santilli page where the references are complete. This I think is what the policy on referencing requires.This will not give undue importance to a theory with only 3 articles, one negative and two in support.Nobody talks about anymore, so let it be. Plusside (talk)PlussidePlusside (talk)

Bob and Plusside, I've been watching this from afar and agree. Wikipedia needs to be balanced, like all theories some agree some don't. HELL some people still say the earth is flat. Since we have several conflicting publications we need to remove discredited and either reference all the good and bad to take them out all together.. IMO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.64.28.43 (talk) 14:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This IP is an obvious sock. We've been having problems with this sort of thing in these articles. Rklawton (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Use of internal records
There's a slight dispute on The Price Is Right (US game show) about the episode count. One user, who owns a particularly extensive fansite/forum (one backed heavily by many of the staff, who have also provided a great deal of info for it), has added an episode count on which I can find no external verification. His logic is that most sources related to the show are wildly inaccurate about the episode count and many other factors, but that Roger Dobkowitz' backstage records are accurate. In the interest of having the "truth" in the article, is there some way in which we could cite Dobkowitz' backstage records? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, said site has a wiki of its own, but it's a closed wiki that only Steve — who gets his info straight from the horse's mouth — edits. What about it? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you provide a link to the site? What are the sources for the counter evidence? TimidGuy (talk) 11:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * http://www.golden-road.net . Their wiki is http://www.golden-road.net/faq/index.php/Main_Page . Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 15:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No.
 * You can't cite the backstage records for two reasons: One, you didn't see the backstage records, and you have to WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT (rather than where someone else got it).  Two, backstage records are not WP:Published.  Reliable sources are always, without exception, published.  (Your source can cite unpublished records, but Wikpedians can't.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what "published" means, but elsewhere on Wik comments, it was stated after discussion that museum signage is considered a reliable source.Kdammers (talk) 08:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, museum signage is published (available to the public) and, yes, would normally count as a reliable source (though difficult for others to verify, unless it's online). But what's the relevance of museum signage here? And rew D alby  12:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

V-Jump
Would V-Jump magazines count as reliable sources?Fractyl (talk) 05:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Most likely. Is there a context to your question? Feldspaar (talk) 06:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Where V-Jump it is a reliable source is unimportant to the Digimon series. The magazine has published several of the Digimon manga, including the current Digimon Xros Wars manga, and is therefore not an independent source to establish notability of any particular character. —Farix (t &#124; c) 11:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Google News Timeline
I recently noticed that this is being used as a reference on Slutwalk to show a depth of coverage not being supported by reliable sources. I could see this being used as a secondary reference when a reliable source has mae the statement it is being used to reference, but on its own it appears to be being used to support an original thought. Due to the controversial nature if this article, I am seeking a second opinion prior to being bold and removing it. Feldspaar (talk) 06:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I see no major problem using google's statistical tools as a source, and I guess you also don't? What you seem to be concerned about is WP:SYNTH or WP:OR, and not the subject of this noticeboard which is WP:RS? I see no problem raising SYNTH/OR questions here in such cases because the boundary between SYNTH or OR and RS will sometimes be the point of disagreement needing discussion. However, you should then explain why you think an original idea is being synthesized. You do not mention what the original idea is for example, and what statistics were used to arrive at it. Could you give more explanation?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

chen-jiongming.com
In the article Chen Jiongming the website which is the name of the article is used as a reference. Is it in fact a reliable source?

Furthermore, can others check the Political view section for any POV issues. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I removed the 'political view' section entirely, as it was a political rant on current events that had little to do with the subject himself. Quigley (talk) 10:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Does a home media release count as a source for itself?
I've been working on the article for the film Manhunter, and finding secondary sources about its earlier home releases is pretty much a dead end. I can source the DVD releases, and have done so, but the laserdisc and VHS releases are not sourced or discussed (apart from one passing mention I was able to track down for the laserdisc). What I'm wondering is, if I can get hold of these releases from somewhere like Amazon or Ebay, can I use a citation template such as Cite video to cite the fact that they do exist? Using the actual product and its relevant notes (back cover, etc), I could mention the publisher, distributor, year, etc, which is better than nothing. But is this reliable, or is it too self-referential? GRAPPLE  X  17:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In our Wikipedia context, it seems to me a published item, e.g. a book or a video, is a primary published source for the facts surrounding its own existence as a publication. It (its title page, cover, etc.) would normally be highly reliable on these facts, and you will be citing it only for facts and not for interpretations, so that's OK. And rew D alby  20:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's welcome news. I'll wait for a second opinion before I go hunting it all down, though. Thanks! GRAPPLE   X  20:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree an actual video is a primary source about its existence and who published it and the date. Anything more than answering basic obvious questions like that you have to have a secondary source which raises the matter though. Dmcq (talk) 21:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * More agreement; a professionally published DVD, CD, tape, laserdisc &c is a really good primary source about itself. I'd go a step further and say that it could be used, carefully, for content (ie. saying that some scene was on an earlier release but edited out from a later one) as long as it's unambiguous and there's no wiggle-room for interpretation. Be careful, though, not to make assumptions about other releases or the lack of them. For instance, be wary of saying "Only released in format X" simply on the basis that Format X is the only one you can find on eBay... bobrayner (talk) 00:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

urbancinefile.com.au
Is it reliable? I want to cite a certain film review, but I'm not sure it's acceptable. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  21:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It would be reliable for an attributed statement of the reviewer's opinion... the real question is whether the reviewer is someone who's opinion should be mentioned (see: WP:Undue weight). Blueboar (talk) 00:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The Conversation (website)
I would like to use this news site as a reference in an article, however, I'm not all that familiar with it. Does it present any problems? As far as I can tell, it meets and exceeds the RS criteria. Viriditas (talk) 10:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, "Reliable source" isn't boolean. However, it looks like they're committed to evidence-based journalism and presenting solid research rather than editorialising &c so, generally, I would say "yes". Is the article (or edit) a controversial one, or is there any reason to believe that The Conversation might not be reliable for this particular article? bobrayner (talk) 11:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is the source:  I wanted to use it in the Climatic Research Unit email controversy article. Viriditas (talk) 22:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you could use that if the author of the article has been cited by independent reliable sources as an expert on sociology or politics, but the web site is not what I would call a reliable source. I started the process of signing up as an author, and in so doing was presented with a rather lengthy agreement which included this at the head: "The Conversation only publishes material submitted by registered users. We accept no liability in respect of any material submitted by users and published by us, and we are not responsible for its content and accuracy." The last phrase is the key one, my take is that this is a forum for SPS, although one with high standards, so questions of reliability should be resolved by looking at the author, not the site. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, you didn't complete the sign-up process. Once you do, you are presented with a message that says, "Listing your credentials helps us show our readers that you really do know what you’re talking about. You must be a member of an academic or research institution to publish with us."  On the third screen, it attempts to verify your institution affiliation.  After several other screens, it requests your credentials and personal information.  Once you finish the extensive sign-up process, you are presented with a dashboard that allows you to contact the editorial board to pitch an idea for an article. At no time can you simply write an article and publish it.  The terms and conditions stipulates that the author retains no editorial control over their work at all, and it is subjected to an extensive editorial board composed of professionals in the field of journalism.  You have to be an expert in the academic and research community to even get published ("an academic or researcher with relevant expertise") and your ideas for a proposed article must be approved by the editorial board before you can even begin writing it.  Even if you get the green light, there's no guarantee that your work will ever be published.  This is a professional news organization.  The standard disclaimer is also relevant to the user-generated comments that anyone can make in reply to a published article. Viriditas (talk) 23:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * All of which is well and good, but not really the point. They are vetting the authors, not the facts in the articles: "The views expressed are the personal opinions of the experts named." You cannot have a reputation for fact checking if you do not check facts. Hence my opinion that the articles may be considered reliable based on the reputation of the authors, just as if the same authors published a blog. It does look like a promising site worth keeping an eye on, and, if they vette authors as carefully as you suggest, demonstrating that a particular author is a reliable source shouldn't be very difficult. It would also help here if you could tell us what specifically you would like to source to this and the other article. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The facts are vetted. You are confusing a standard legal disclaimer that every online site has as part of their terms and conditions with their editorial board.  There is in fact no relationship other than the one you are creating.  Your reading of their terms and conditions has more to do with protecting themselves from the comments to articles that they don't control, just like any other news site that allows the public to comment.  They are also protecting themselves from being sued for something an author writes.  Nothing about this standard legal disclaimer makes them less reliable as a news organization. Viriditas (talk) 07:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You said above that you are not familiar with the site, yet you seem certain of their internal procedures and editorial policies. I'm on a lot of sites, been a netizen since it got started, and I don't often see a legal disclaimer like that. I also see no evidence on the web site that they vette facts, but I may have missed something. The site seems like a new approach, a combination of scientific social media and journalism, and I'm sure we'll be seeing more of this kind of thing as time goes on. I note that the content is from academicians. Even as experts in journalism, the editors are not in position to to vette the science as is the case in a peer reviewed journal. We generally consider news reports on scientific questions to be less reliable than peer reviewed journal, but then these are not news reports. Given that the site is neither fish nor fowl, and explicitly refuses to take responsibility for the content of articles (something I cannot recall major news outlets doing with their reporters except on the editorial page) my thought is we should, in general, treat this like an editorial page, a high quality blog run by identified experts, or a newspaper or magazine article on a scientific topic written by an academic, where the reliability of the articles rests more in the reliability of the author, rather than the publisher. It may be that The Conversation soon garners the required reputation for accuracy and fact checking, but I don't think they have that yet. I also think caution is advised, especially in the case of sourcing for a topic as controversial as climate change.
 * Now, if you'd like to follow the instructions at the top of this page and tell us exactly what statements you would like to source to these articles, we may be of more assistance, but for the moment, I seem to have misplaced my rubber stamp. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As a third party, I think that Nuujinn is the safest way to proceed in this matter, until the website is independently vetted outside our community by other reliable sources. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've refuted each of the points raised by Nuujinn, and the material on the website is independently vetted by an editorial board of the highest quality. As I previously explained, "the site uses professional journalists as its editors".  To summarize, academics propose a story, journalists and editors yay or nay it, the academics write it, and the journalists and editors then critically examine and evaluate the story before it is ever published.  Considering that every story is written by an expert in their field, the reputation for reliability is established, checked, and verified before an article is even published.  This means that this site has a higher standard of reliability than the mainstream media, who does not use experts to write their stories.  To recap, Nuujinn claimed the website hosted self-published articles.  In response, I showed that it does not.  Then, Nuujinn claimed the material wasn't vetted.  I showed that it was, by an editorial board of professional journalists and publishers.  Then, Nuujinn ignored these facts and claimed that the site doesn't have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, which is a gross misinterpretation of the RS guideline.  The Conversation is known for commissioning academic commentary and analysis from the research community, including the Australian National University, University of Technology, Sydney, Monash and the universities of Melbourne and Western Australia.  That this site has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking is supported by secondary sources.  The Conversation has also  been cited as a source by major news sources.  I'm afraid that both Nuujinn and RightCowLeftCoast haven't been able to show a single thing wrong with this source, nor have they acknowledged the refutations of their initial points.  Therefore, I would like to hear from other editors on this matter. Viriditas (talk) 04:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Meh. Viriditas, I would ask that you focus on the issues at hand, and reframe from characterizing my feelings and actions. I refer you to WP:NEWSORG:"For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports. News reports may be acceptable depending on the context. Articles which deal in depth with specific studies, as a specialized article on science, are apt to be of more value than general articles which only tangentially deal with a topic. Frequently, although not always, such articles are written by specialist writers who may be cited by name." If the same article were published in the NYT, I would still argue that the reliability of a source written by an academic and published in a newspaper or magazine is less than if the same article were published in a peer reviewed journal. Journalists do not have the expertise required to evaluate academic claims. In this case the publisher disclaims responsibility for the accuracy of the content. Also, you still have not said what you would like to attribute to this source, and we have to deal with these issues on a case by case basis. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Additional sources I want to use:

Toysnjoys
In terms of independent sources for Digimon, would Toysnjoys.com be acceptable in terms of merchandise? Fractyl (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you be more specific as to exactly what you want to use it for. Blueboar (talk) 00:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. I'm having an issue with recent made Digimon articles and was told I need third-party sources. Would this be such a good source?Fractyl (talk) 03:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What I mean is... before we can answer your question, we need you to tell us exactly which article you are (or someone else is) trying to use the source in, and exactly what statement in that article the source is being used to support (a link to a diff, or the talk page discussion would be fine).  The reliability of sources is rarely black and white, "always reliable" or "always unreliable"... we usually need context, to properly determine reliability as it applies to a specific situation. Blueboar (talk) 15:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Third Age - RS
Is this site an RS? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 00:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it RS for what? Like most sources it is probably reliable for some things and not for others. Blueboar (talk) 00:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah alright, in this case it was for this bit here. Only brought it up as the editor who put it in is someone with a history of anti-Israel bias in his editing as well as mistrust of most Western news sources (He also cited the Syrian News Agency and a Saudi one which was quoting Iran's Press TV in that same section). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 01:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not the right kind of source for a current affairs article. I see CNN is there, stick to what they say. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent sources added to Bilderberg Group
This article gets a lot of edits from those who see it as a conspiracy for world domination. Some clear vandalism today but just now a section added in a new section Bilderberg Group with some sources. I've posted to the talk page saying: Some of the references don't look reliable for the statements made, eg Wisnewski (correct spelling) is a conspiracy theorist who believes that the US moon landing was a hoax. Andreas von Rétyi if even more fringe, see this author's book list here:. I'd like some other eyes on this = I'm not sure about the rest of the section either, as it is based on just one event this month, not sure that's an issue for here though. Note that the article is BLP sensitive as whatever it says about the group applies to participants at its meetings. Dougweller (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah... with the Bilderberg Group holding a meeting this month, we can expect a spike in edits from the conspiracy fans who wish to push their theories. This will probably carry over to other articles as well.  We should probably alert the regulars at WP:FTN.  Blueboar (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

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

As the scientific community ignores most alt med and mlm claims there are few sources to use to balance these articles. There have been efforts to remove material referenced to http://www.mlmwatch.org/ from Juice Plus. Comments? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, on the very same talk page is a discussion about a scientific journal article about an "mlm" product, and the article itself references a number of peer-reviewed published scientific articles regarding this particular companies products, so I'm not quite sure how Doc James makes his initial conclusion which is alarmingly lacking in NPOV. Numerous companies that use MLM are also heavily involved in publication and presentation of scientific papers in respected journals and conferences, so I'm afraid Doc James is wrong there as well. As to the case in point, the argument is over using Stephen Barrett's self-published "mlmwatch.org" website as a source for information regarding the past business associations of some people involved with the company Juice Plus. 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. 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)


 * This smacks of the nonsense User:Ronz tried to use regarding comments about Stephen Barrett in the Weston Price talk page (see Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive97 and 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 Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_49. 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 Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_58 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!
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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, Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_58, Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_58 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 Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard 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  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 Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard--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 and google books 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 and this  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:

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.

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 Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive97 and 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 &#124; 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 Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_32 - 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 &#124;  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 &#124;  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. Ocaasit 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)
 * I think it's a reasonable assumption that given he mentions on quackwatch.org that some articles are reviewed, but he makes no such mention on mlmwatch.org, that there is no such review. Yes, it is an assumption but it's certainly a reasonable one (especially given the large number of errors on the website). From the perspective of wikipedia I think it could be taken as "fact" that the site has no editorial oversight. --Icerat (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Are all sites by Stephen Barrett considered Reliable automatically?
WhatamIdoing hit one of the first points being discussed here above, i.e. 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. Ocaasit 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)
 * I've looked over the site and the edit. The article on mlmwatch has extensive references and I believe it could be included as long as it is stated clearly that mlmwatch is the source of the information (as it is in the dif) and so long as the information in question is not undue weight on the opinions of mlmwatch. However, as a less controversial move you could attempt to track down the original sources of the information in the mlmwatch article's bibliography and use those sources instead. --Torchwoodtwo (talk) 07:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * To further explain, if Barret's opinion is important enough as to not be undue weight or somehow insignificant, I feel that it can be included so long as it is properly disclaimed. Are there any other sources that backup Barret's claims or discuss them in the context of Juice Plus?--Torchwoodtwo (talk) 08:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Undue aside, on what basis are you OKing it? Are you saying (a) mlmwatch.org is not self-published and/or (b) it's not being used for WP:BLP information? I've suggested several time to the editors defending the edit, who claim it is supported by Barrett's references, to use those references instead, but they've failed to do so. If you check the references it's easy to see why - they all predate the claim being made. --Icerat (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Dramaz needz MOAR BOLDS!!!!!!!! It's the most effective way to get editors to subscribe to your point of view :-) Shot info (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Depends on what you mean by “back up”. There are ample sources that back up the factual details of Barrett’s comments -- i.e. Wise was a senior exec at USAI and NAI, an insider shareholder in the company that manufactures Juice Plus, and an author on at least half of the Juice Plus studies, and the research has been criticized by third-party RS (if you'd like me to provide links to those sources, just let me know). I don’t see than anyone is contesting those facts. As for other sources that have drawn all the aforementioned aspects together, Rosemary Stanton (“a nutritionist and a consultant to the health departments of several universities and state agencies”) referred to Wise’s research as follows:


 * “For some products, sales people have been convinced by someone higher up the multi-level marketing chain that studies have been done…The same distributors were also given proof in the form of results of a pilot study on 15 people, with one of the researchers being a principal of the company selling the supplement. It was a particularly poor study with no control group, no blinding of researchers or participants and proved nothing except that the researchers did not seem to realise they would need to examine the participants’ diets. Had any of them eaten a meal containing tomato paste or carrots, the results claimed would have been invalid. Those who publish material in the journal in question-Current Therapeutics Research - also pay a publication fee per page printed.”


 * The researcher discussed as being a “principal of the company” is in fact John Wise -- the Juice Plus article from Current Therapeutic Research is the following (authored by Wise):


 * Wise JA, Morin RJ, Sanderson R, Blum K (1996). "Changes in plasma carotenoid, alpha-tocopherol, and lipid peroxide levels in response to supplementation with concentrated fruit and vegetable extracts: A pilot study". Curr Ther Res 57 (6): 445–61. doi:10.1016/S0011-393X(96)80053-1. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

As with Taylor and Fitzpatrick, Stephen Barrett's work has appeared in peer reviewed publications so he can be like them showed to meet reliable. If something similar to his comments regarding the work of Weston Price had been presented then this might have merit but instead all we have gotten is WP:CRYBLP.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think a reasonable conclusion would be that mlmwatch is a WP:SPS due to no apparent editorial oversight, but because of Barrett's expertise in medical issues a la Quackwatch, mlmwatch could be used carefully with WP:PARITY. Preferably, the better answer would be to seek out the WP:RS from which Barrett is making these claims.  Leef5  TALK &#124;  CONTRIBS 12:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Needle Exchange Review cited in EMCDDA Review of Reviews
I have had a Wikipedia contributor continuing to revert text on the Needle Exchange Programme and Harm Reduction pages on the rationale that a source I am quoting, which is one of four core reviews in the 2010 ‘review of reviews’ on the effectiveness of needle exchanges by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), is in turn sourced from a journal that, he asserts, is unreliable.

First, the EMCDDA is the official drug statistical and research agency of the European Union here. The source I am quoting is a review by Käll et al., one of four core reviews in the EMCDDA’s ‘review of reviews’ by Palmateer et al. in Chapter 5 here of their 2010 Monograph ‘Harm Reduction” here.

The EMCDDA Palmateer review clearly states that it relies on its earlier review of reviews published in Addiction 2010 May;105(5):860-1 but with the addition of one later 2007 core review, Käll et al, which was published after their selection of reviews for the Addiction article. The Palmateer selection process is described thus – “Selected reviews were critically appraised using a tool that considers the rigour of the methods used to identify the relevant literature, the appraisal of the primary literature, the quality of the analysis in the case of meta-analysis, and the appropriateness of the conclusions. Reviews rated 1 or 2 were included as high-quality (‘core’) reviews.”

It is clear that the EMCDDA Monograph finds a standard of rigour in Käll et al which merited core review status (only 3 out 43 MEDLINE/Cochrane etc reviews had attained core review status in the Addiction review of reviews). This, I believe, is enough to establish Käll et al as a reliable source. This other contributor, however, states that Käll et al cannot be cited on Wikipedia because their study is published in the Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice (JGDPP), which, he says, does not appear in the Pubmed list, citing WP:MEDRS. I cannot find anything in WP:MEDRS restricting reliability to PubMed only. Authors of articles in the JGDPP are very well represented in PubMed articles – Robert DuPont - editorial committee (120 PubMed articles), EA Voth - (25+), N McKeganey (64), AG Barthwell (10), EA Jacobs – editorial committee (67), H Ghodse (70), AS Reece (28), C Mangham (6) etc etc and the Scandinavian Käll et al team share 40 Pubmed English-language citations between them.

Any claims of imagined bias in this journal must explain why these authors are considered dispassionate in hundreds of PubMed articles, but biased if they publish in this journal. The assertion that the journal is funded by the US Justice Department appears to me to moreso yield to an anti-US prejudice, which should not influence content on Wikipedia. The assertion that the journal is not sympathetic to harm reduction does not demonstrate any bias in any specific article, just as the PubMed ‘Harm Reduction Journal’, with its paucity of prevention articles and which often demonstrably contains the view that prevention does not work, does not necessarily render its articles biased. Thanks for your time on this one. Minphie (talk) 07:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see how we can reject this source out of hand, given that it's considered a core review by the official drug statistical and research agency of the European Union. TimidGuy (talk) 11:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The study in question is the study explicitly criticized in this commentary in CMAJ.
 * Also as I am Swedish, I can also give the background story: The article in JGDPP is in reality an adaption of a booklet called "Sprututbyte : en genomgång av den internationella forskningen och den svenska debatten" that where given all members of parliament before they where to vote on NEP (they allowed it, although the counties have discretion over its implantation). Not surprisingly, the book annoyed more then a few scientists in Sweden. A few from Lund wrote a point-for-point rebuttal (in Swedish). Others took the booklet to the ethics committee of Karolinska Institutet as Ulric Hermansson is an employee of theirs. After a few months the commetee decided not to investigate as they felt out of jurisdiction, the findings was not presented in a medical journal nor in the name of Karolinska. Although they still felt compelled to conclude that the study, that didn't resemble a scientific review, might have harmed the reputation of Karolinska (in Swedish).
 * Given all this, I have a hard time to think that Palmeeter et al took the same care when selecting additional reviews for their EMCDDA article. And if they did, I assume they would comment on the critique other had levied at Käll et al. And there are no such comments in the EMCDDA article.
 * Also, dubble checking on if DuPoint, Voith and others Minphie allege are represented in PubMed. I can't find nearly as many as he does. None infact. But maybe I am doing it all wrong when I type "N McKeganey[Author]" in the PubMed search bar. Steinberger (talk) 18:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * We can immediately discount the criticisms of the Käll et al review deriving from the CMAJ which reported that the JGDPP 'contains a review of the research supporting needle exchange programs and declares that the “effectiveness of NEPs [needle exchange program] to reduce HIV among IDUs [injection drug users] is overrated;” it further claims that the WHO position on needle exchange programs “is not based on solid evidence.”' Yet the most prestigious review of needle exchanges in 2006, by the US Institute of Medicine, with a total of 24 eminent researchers and reviewers involved in the project, came out with the very finding that so shocked Wood and Kerr of the CMAJ, as is noted in the EMCDDA Palmateer review of reviews. The IOM review of 2006 downgraded its view of the evidence for the effectiveness of needle exchanges to 'inconclusive', most likely because Kerstin Käll was one of two presenters at the 2005 Geneva session of the IOM review along with WHO's Alex Wodak as is evidenced here. The IOM conclusions are published here with Käll's work cited in their review document. Further I don't believe too much credence can be given to the Wood and Kerr criticisms of the JGDPP in the CMAJ, seeing as they have an axe to grind against Colin Mangham's JGDPP critique of their flawed studies of Vancouver's Insite injecting facility, a critique quoted by the Canadian government when threatening its closure.  They are hardly dispassionate commentators. And I cannot attach any importance to the anecdotal evidence of Steinberger.Minphie (talk) 06:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Minphie is a WP:SP account which attempts to discount the evidence around the needle exchange program. Anytime one comes out with references that claims the WHO position is mistaken one has to look closely. The ref by the IOM look excellent. They conclude "Recommendation 3-1: Given consistent evidence that multi-component HIV prevention programs that include sterile needle and syringe access reduce drug-related HIV risks, such programs should be implemented where feasible." Has a good section here on Supervised injection facilities I do not seen in this report where the evidence was deemed "inconclusive". This issue with a number of sources this user is using is they simply misrepresent the literature and claims that good references make conclusions they in fact do not. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In a thread above, I asked to see (as the guidelines at the top of this page specify) an instance of how this review by EMCDDA is being used. It would be helpful to see how it is (or was) being represented in the article. Again, it don't know what guideline or policy would support exclusion of the EMCDDA review altogether as a source. So it seems a matter of how it's represented, or whether it's a minor point of view, and determining which WP policies or guidelines are relevant. TimidGuy (talk) 10:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with the The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction I just do not see where this user have sited evidence by this source. It states "We find that there is sufficient review-level evidence that OST [opioid substitution treatment] reduces HIV transmission, while the evidence in support of NSPs [needle and syringe programs] reducing HIV transmission is more tentative, and for DCRs [drug consumption rooms] currently insufficient." But what we need to keep in mind is that they only looked at review level evidence per "Chapter 5: Harm reduction among injecting drug users — evidence of effectiveness Jo Kimber, Norah Palmateer, Sharon Hutchinson, Matthew Hickman, David Goldberg and Tim Rhodes" Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 10:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Doc James, the conclusion is most certainly there in black and white on page 149 - "Conclusion 3-5: Moderate evidence indicates that multicomponent HIV prevention programs that include needle and syringe exchange reduce intermediate HIV risk behavior. However, evidence regarding the effect of needle and syringe exchange on HIV incidence is limited and inconclusive." No misrepresentation at all. Exactly the same conclusion as the Käll et al review, if you look at her JGDPP article's conclusion. Demonstrating that Wood and Kerr, in throwing mud at the JGDPP, were simply showing they were not current with the evidence. The IOM support for implementation of NSP does not alter the science either. IOM has long supported NSP - they had merely thought the evidence was more conclusive previously, prior to Käll's input in Geneva. So, Käll et al are in agreement with the 'inconclusive' conclusion of the prestigious IOM study (which appears as Tilson et al in Palmateer). This is the current state of the science and I am concerned that there are attempts to block readers knowing the current state of the science on clearly invalid grounds. Steinberger's concern, by the way, does not alter in the least that Käll et al is accurately covered by the wiki page text that he wants to keep deleting.


 * Also, Doc James, I am not making any point here about the use of the EMCDDA review of reviews on the Needle Exchange and Harm Reduction pages simply because Palmateer is covered. The EMCDDA publication, though, is relevant to this discussion about the reliability of the Käll et al review in the JGDPP. If Käll et al is a core review for Palmateer there cannot be any plausible objection to using this study on the needle exchange or harm reduction pages - it is crucial to a current understanding of the science and I can't see any reason why Wikipedia readers should be kept in the dark. Minphie (talk) 11:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Exactly what sentence(s) is this source supposed to be supporting? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is a diff where Minphie reenters a text supported by the article we talk about. In my view, the text does not make an article already in disarray any better. Steinberger (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * In response to WhatamIdoing, the text that keeps being deleted is saying that the Käll et al review has shown that the 2004 WHO review, which returned a highly positive finding re the effectiveness of needle exchange in preventing HIV, had serious errors which, when corrected, would change the WHO finding from positive to inconclusive. This is of crucial importance because drug prevention organisations have long been critical of a number of harm reduction interventions which have been marketed to politicians as highly successful, but where the science never supported such optimistic claims. The 2004 WHO review is an example, as are injecting room evaluations for Sydney and Vancouver. Drug prevention organisations have had enough of such blatantly unevidenced claims and have taken to exposing the false claims publicly for some years now, as rightly should be the case. Also, I am concerned by Steinberger's remarks above. I do not find it at all curious that Steinberger, as a Wikipedia contributor whose contribution record demonstrably shows an unequivocal defence of all harm reduction initiatives, would find my text which exposes the false claims for NSP, an improvement to the article. However, I am not adding it for Steinberger but for a dispassionate recording of the facts, as distasteful as this may be to some. Minphie (talk) 03:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * TimidGuy, here is the description you need on p 117 - "Our evaluation of the evidence is based primarily on the ‘review of reviews’, or tertiary level research method (Kelly et al., 2002). This is a systematic and explicit method to identify, select, and critically appraise relevant findings from secondary level research (i.e. systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses) into an evidence briefing. We have drawn substantively on our recent review of reviews of harm reduction interventions (Palmateer et al., 2008; Palmateer et al., 2010). Our inclusion criteria were English language systematic reviews, syntheses, or meta-analyses that examined the effectiveness of NSPs, OST and DCRs in relation to HIV and HCV incidence/prevalence and/or injecting risk behaviour outcomes. For this chapter we have updated our previous review of reviews (Palmateer et al., 2008) by searching for any new reviews published between March 2007 and August 2009 and by conducting additional searches for relevant English language systematic reviews, syntheses, or meta-analyses that examined the effectiveness of OST, DCRs and PND in preventing overdose." They further say p 126, "Evidence of the effects of NSPs on HIV incidence/prevalence was considered in four core reviews (Gibson et al., 2001; Käll et al., 2007; Tilson et al., 2007; Wodak and Cooney, 2004), which included a total of 18 primary studies with HIV incidence or prevalence outcomes." Minphie (talk) 05:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your responses. This is quite a detailed discussion and a lot to assimilate. I guess my feeling is that the Käll review can't be discounted, given its inclusion in the EMCDDA review. And Palamateer seems to take it into account when drawing conclusions. The Wikipedia article on the needle exchange program appears to reflect the tentative nature of the evidence and to note the criticisms. At this point, it seems more a question of weight. I don't think that Käll should automatically be deleted, but it's not clear the it merits a detailed critique, given the availability of the broader survey by Palamateer, which is the stronger source. I'd suggest either a compromise of a short statement saying that the Käll said there are errors in the WHO report, or taking this to WP:NPOVN. If the parties in the dispute were to agree to a compromise, your summary above is good and could perhaps be tweaked as follows: "A review by Käll et al said that the 2004 WHO review, which returned a highly positive finding regarding the effectiveness of needle exchange in preventing HIV, had significant errors which, when corrected, would alter the WHO finding from positive to inconclusive." TimidGuy (talk) 11:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Or even just "The 2004 WHO review has been strongly criticized". This is supposed to be an encyclopedia.  Encyclopedia articles, unlike white papers, do not contain point-by-point refutations of the claims and choices made by sources.  IMO that article would be significantly improved by shortening it.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I will take the advice of TimidGuy and enter a shortened explanation of the Drug Free Australia criticism. The suggestion by WhatamIdoing, although appreciated, would neuter the criticism too greatly, and TimidGuy's suggestion is wholly in line with encyclopaedia content. Minphie (talk) 22:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think WhatamIdoing is right in that the article would benefit from a through clean-up. I also think she is on to something in her recommendation where she whats to keep it very short. I can buy her line, but I really want to keep it even shorter though, as the WHO article is lacking from the article all-together. As one reason above all else. If we can't agree, WP:NPOVN is the obvious next step. Steinberger (talk) 22:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * And by the way, I assumed, Minphie, that you were aware of the relevant policy here (and the reason I suggested NPOVN). But in case you aren't, it may be an issue of WP:WEIGHT. TimidGuy (talk) 09:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * There are indeed things in the Needle Exchange page that do need cleaning up, especially in light of the Palmateer reviews. I haven't read the rest of the page in a long time, but recall that there were claims made for needle exchanges that are now negated by the current state of the science, and they need to be removed. The Palmateer reviews probably need more explanation in the main body of text, superseding the outdated claims.  As far as a neutral point of view in regards to the Käll et al and IOM studies, which need to be explained in the main text now, there could surely be no doubt. Minphie (talk) 11:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I'm late to the party, but I just saw this. I don't have time to respond at proper length now, but I don't consider this discussion over, either. I'm up to my ears in real life responsibilities, but I'll try to post substantively here sometime in the next day or two. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 09:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

NY Post
I know this shouldn't be a question, but am I right in thinking the New York Post should be regarded as a gossip rag and not a decent source for BLP stuff? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 18:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It is a published source which is reliable using the WP definition thereof. As always, contentious claims in any BLP should have more than a single source. Collect (talk) 18:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, NYP can be reliable for facts. It will normally be clear if the info is sourced or just gossip. If just gossip, omit. If sourced news, then it will probably be in another paper as well. For a better response here, post details of the article and the claim made. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, we must be talking about two different NY Posts. =p (Then again, I've hated them ever since the "Kids Get a Fair Shake" article  - only source I could find on that story) Here is the relevant article . Btw in the City of New York, sodomy is legally considered to be in both the mouth and the tukas (there's a part of the article that's about that). The writing style is sensationalist as always, among other things. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 03:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The important developments in the DSK story are covered in the regular print and broadcast media. Those should be our sources unless someone has a really good argument for using the NYP. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I agree. We can't say that we may never use this type of media, but we can say that if we have better sources available it makes sense to use those.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It's on the "tabloid" end of reliability for newspapers, but that doesn't mean it's completely unreliable. Jayjg (talk) 04:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * So use only as a last resort. Got it. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 06:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

100 years old history book
西巡迴鑾始末 is a book written about 100 years ago, it has detailed description of Manchu Imperial court day to day sessions around the time of signing of Boxer Protocol. The book is highly regarded by Chinese historians, and is often cited in Chinese historical books. The book had been entered onto wikisource. I have done some partial translation of some of the Imperial decrees, , , , ,  

I would like to know these translation are RS or not.  Arilang   talk  10:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no objection to citing Chinese sources. If you are using unpublished translations, then please make sure that you also also cite the original source so that what you say is verifiable.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment user Toddy. Arilang   talk  11:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * There is nothing wrong with citing old sources in fields where old sources can obviously be useful, such as historical fields. There might occasionally be concerns, especially when the source is secondary, in other words a comment about history, about whether old ideas have become obsolete. But it looks like this is primary material, and when primary sources are useful, which is again something quite common in historical fields, this concern is probably less relevant.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You have to be careful when citing more recent old histories (last 100 years and all or anything within living memory) that what they say has not been superseded by more recent ones. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 16:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed, and to add to what I wrote above, even primary materials can be superceded, for example if old versions were censored or incomplete. Not sure this is a concern in this case though.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Are we to assume good faith that the translations are valid? For sake of validity can this be checked by a second party?
 * As they are independent works, can someone interpret them as self published sources until independently verified? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The translations are not part of wikipedia, strictly speaking, so I don't think we have any judgement about their quality. I think for our purposes, the original chinese sources would the sources, and a link to the translations would be a courtesy. Given the age, I would suggest that the work itself is more of a primary source, and in general, we'd want to use the chinese historians' work about this text rather than the original. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The translations should not be considered a separate SPS source, but nor should this discussion be taken as an endorsement of the translations. If a fact sourced to one of these translations is challenged, confirmation should be sought from other Chinese-speaking editors, with a correction made to the translation if consensus deems it necessary. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I think there is a clear consensus on WP that translations are not automatically original research. Obviously there might be problems that come from this, but that is like any low level knowledge that is not shared by all editors, such as ability in maths, spelling etc. So I think the main issue on this noticeboard, for this question is concerning the pros and cons of primary document sources. That also appears to be what most others are saying.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

My thought is that old history books can (and I have) be cited for their facts. They should not be cited for their opinions without inline attribution. Obviously, in cases where something once thought to be historical fact turns out not to be, and that is generally accepted among historians, you don't cite it, but I would think such changes in beliefs would be the subject of comment in more recent books. There'd be exceptions to that, but that for me is a good rough guide.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Chinese/English bilingual user:CWH, who is a university lecturer according to his talkpage, has gave a positive comment:, as well as PHD candidate user:Madalibi's positive comment:Talk:Imperial Decree on events leading to the signing of Boxer Protocol, at least it is a good start. Arilang   talk  02:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

100 year-old history books are generally not considered reliable. Standards regarding history writing differed considerably then, and our knowledge of history has grown vastly since. Jayjg (talk) 04:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

：:To user Jayjg, Records of the Grand Historian was written 2000 years ago, History of Ming about 500 years ago,  Draft History of Qing about 90 years ago, are you telling Wikipedia editors not to use them as a source simply because these books are too old?  Arilang   talk  04:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Use modern historians, who are able to evaluate the reliability of these ancient sources, and weight their contents against modern historical, archeological, linguistic, and other findings. Jayjg (talk) 05:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Such books can be used in a rather restricted fashion as "primary sources" (for instance for illustrative purposes) from the perspective of the WP authors. But the primary content and assessment for historical events should come from relatively recent scholarly literature ("secondary sources" or "tertiary sources") to ensure that uptodate knowledge and standards of historical research are used.--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you user Jayjg and Kmhkmh for your comments, those Imperial decrees from 西巡迴鑾始末 should be seen as primary sources, per  Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them...A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. Wikipedia:No original research
 * My understanding of the above quotation is, primary sources material can be used, but with care. Tell me if I got it wrong.(This is not meant to be a sarcastic comment, as I am not a native English speaker). Arilang   talk  06:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's quite right. You said at the beginning that the book is cited by historians. Then it should be possible to find a more recent historian who draws from it. You can add a reference to this primary source next to it, and that will be helpful to those readers who are already quite expert in Chinese history. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks user Itsmejudith, I am still not 100% sure how it works out on the real life editing, but I shall try my best. Thanks. Arilang   talk  16:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

1900 National Upheaval
I know there had been a lengthy discussion at section: 100 years old historical book, the conclusion is that it is primary source. I like to take the opportunity to thanks all the editors who offer their valuable comments on the topic of RS of that book.

This is yet another book, of similar nature:庚子国变记(清 李希圣) is a book printed in 1923, also a book dealt with the history around the time of the signing of Boxer Protocol. The partial English translation(done by me) is here:1900 National Upheaval, and the relevant wiki article(created by me):1900 National Upheaval, my question is, is this book, which was published 20 plus years after the actual event, be classed as Primary, or Secondary source?  Arilang   talk  10:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Since the article in question is about the book... the book itself should be considered a primary source (indeed, the primary source). As such, is reliable (within that article) for descriptive statements as to what is contained in the book (ie a synopsis of what the book says).
 * For use as a source in other articles, it depends on whether the author was a witness to the events described and is discussing his participation in those events (if so, it is primary... if not it is secondary). Even if it is secondary, its age makes it highly likely that it is outdated.  I would recommend not using it for statements of fact concerning Chinese history (deferring to more recent histories that have supplanted it)... on the other hand, it would not be inappropriate to use it for a historiographical statement about how scholarship has changed over the years. In other words... its reliability depends on exactly what you are using it for. Blueboar (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say 1900 National Upheaval is secondary source, because there is no evidence telling us that he was an eye witness. The narrative is third person, not a first person memoir writing style.


 * 1900 National Upheaval was created 20 plus years after the events, it was not "created at the time", another proof that the book is a secondary source.  Arilang   talk  03:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * If it is a historical work, it would be a secondary source for the historical period. But I agree with Blueboar that given the age of the material, we would want to avoid using it and rely instead on more modern historians who have the benefit of this and other sources, plus the expertise to weigh them. But since the article is about the book itself, the book itself is a primary source and should only be used to briefly describe itself. As a side note, I think to demonstrate notability, the article needs some sources which discuss the book, ideally from historians who have analyzed it, or who have discussed the importance of this work. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * 1900 National Upheaval the original book is highly respected by many Chinese historians and used by them as reference at academic papers as well as history books. That alone should satisfy the notability criteria. Arilang   talk  10:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have proof of the above statement?
 * Even so, should we use the book over more modern sources? Consensus appears to be building that we should use more modern sources, that draw on more sources in their creation. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The proof is here:「神拳」義和團的真面目 By 侯宜傑, and I have created a wiki of the same book Divine Boxing: The real Yihetuan which was published only last year, and I can show you there are many modern academic papers that cite 1900 National Upheaval extensively. If you check the google book, you can see that Hou Yijie (Chinese:侯宜傑) quote 1900 National Upheaval many times in his book.  Arilang   talk  23:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Many academic papers? I got back zero returns. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Try conduct your search using Chinese name: 「神拳」義和團的真面目 . Arilang   talk  07:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That only brought up three hits, but I am unsure if they are significant in and of themselves.
 * Furthermore, I only have good faith to assume what I am searching for is what another editor says it is. That being said, no usage of citation in english language scholarly sources. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please have a look:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tsinghua University Cultural Revolution records:The memoir of a Red Guards leader, I believe if we put the book in question through a AfD, there shall be enough bilingual editors to help it to go through the process. Arilang   talk  08:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Roy Harter
Serious concerns about references: Find Articles; company promos; Amazon, etc. Article has mostly dubious references (although there are some which may be salvageable). I commented on the Harter talk page.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Other articles about sound designers with problems include: Walter Murch. References look flaky. Charlie Richmond -- more reference issues -- also possible conflict of interest as User:Charlierichmond was one of the contributors to the Richmond article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Unreliable Source Needs Removal
An opinion piece from a local newspaper entitled Ads for sex aids, gravestones gravely find their way despite spam blockers is cited in two places on Wikipedia and in my opinion the source is unreliable and needs to be removed because:


 * Only two sentences in the cited article relate to the WP articles it cites are: " Same goes for the upcoming inauguration of "His Highness Bob LoPinto as Raja of Potomac Vedic America aboard the yacht Celebrity."Really, Raja LoPinto? (An Italian raja?) I'd like to go but I can't because I'm too busy considering an invitation to "Real Movers and Shakers," a variety show featuring handicapped people scheduled for early October."
 * The cited article is clearly an opinion piece for entertainment purposes only
 * The publisher is a local newspaper with a circulation of 67,000
 * The text it supports is already cited by other sources

Do you agree that the source should be removed from these two articles?

NOTE: The complete text of the article in question can be viewed on this subpage or it can be purchased here for $2.95 --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 15:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments from Involved Editors
 * The Daily Breeze is a mainstream newspaper, covering a region of the Los Angeles metropolis. The columnist is reporting on various unusual press releases and email spam he has received, including one for the inauguration of a Raja of the Global Country of World Peace, a border-less nation created by the late Maharishi Mahesh Yogi to serve as the main arm of his Transcendental Meditation movement. Here is the material in context:
 * I had to delete 100 or so batches of 20 or more junk messages caught by a system that also manages to take out legitimate reader responses, which means that I still have to scan the deleted message lists for fear of missing something. ...I'm getting beaten to death by breathless announcements from a New England gravestone makers association. Just the ticket for a California columnist. Same goes for the upcoming inauguration of "His Highness Bob LoPinto as Raja of Potomac Vedic America aboard the yacht Celebrity." Really, Raja LoPinto? (An Italian raja?) I'd like to go but I can't because I'm too busy considering an invitation to "Real Movers and Shakers," a variety show featuring handicapped people scheduled for early October. Did you know that Epsom and Gateway are holding sales of computer stuff? I do because they told me 20 times. And don't forget Sept. 2, College Colors Day -- 24 hours set aside for idiots who never got over college. But wait! In October the manufacturers of diving equipment are hosting "the world's largest underwater press conference" in Las Vegas, which, as I recall, is located in a desert.
 * So he's simply repeating information off of an email announcement presumably sent to many reporters and newsrooms. Here's is what appears to be a copy of the announcement the columnist is commenting on: His Highness Raja Bob LoPinto to Be Inaugurated as the Raja of Potomac Vedic America
 * The fact being used for the article is the name of the Raja's domain, "Potomac Vedic America". Other Rajas include John Hagelin, Raja of Invincible America, Michael Dillbeck, Raja of Invincible Algeria,, etc. The assertion is not extraordinary or contentious. Everyone agrees that Bob LoPinto is a Raja. It's not clear why there is so much objection to thsi source. It was discussed last year on the article talk page. Talk:Global Country of World Peace.   Will Beback    talk    17:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * @Will Beback you've stated above "It's not clear why there is so much objection to thsi source." In my initial post above I have listed four reasons why the source is unsuitable, unreliable and objectionable and you did not address any of these objections in your post above. Instead you attempt to muddy the waters with speculation such as "what appears to be a copy of the announcement the columnist is commenting on" and "an email announcement presumably sent to many reporters". Instead of creating needless drama let's both step aside and give some uninvolved editors a chance to comment on WP policy, since that's the purpose of this noticeboard. Thanks,--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 18:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Point by point reply: #1. the fact that the article is not solely about Raja Lopinto does no make it unreliable. #2. It is not clearly on Op-Ed piece. It appeared on page A2 of the newspaper, which is not a typical location for an Op-Ed piece. It looks more like a columnist who writes about things of common interest. #3. 67,000 is a moderate circulation, for an avowedly local newspaper, but I don't see how that is a factor in its reliability. The paper is part of a media conglomerate, MediaNews Group, whose papers have a combined circulation of over 2 million. It's not a rag. #4. If other sources say the same thing then that would tend to increase the appearance of reliability. However I'm not aware of any other citations in the articles which give that title.    Will Beback    talk    20:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It hardly requires much speculation to see that the press release is the reporter's source since the text is the same. Since you object to using a mainstream newspaper as a source, would you consider using the press release itself? it's issued on behalf of the person about whom the reference is made, so there's no SPS problem.    Will Beback    talk    18:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * @Will Beback --Regarding your statement to me above: "Since you object to using a mainstream newspaper as a source". I am objecting to a specific article that clearly does not meet Wikipedia's requirements. Please do not mis-characterize my common sense, good faith, attempt to improve the encyclopedia by saying I have an objection "to using a mainstream newspaper as a source". Your mis-characterizations show bad faith and are disruptive to the WP noticeboard process. It would be very helpful if you could correct this tendency in the future. Thank you.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 20:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to be making assertions above that the newspaper is less than reliable because of its circulation is only 67,000. Is that correct?   Will Beback    talk    20:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment I highly suggest all involved parties refrain from commenting on each other or on each other's editing. This is not a behavioral noticeboard but a reliable source noticeboard. I think both of you have said what wanted to about the actual issue. Let's move on. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We're still working out what the issues are with this source, and with the possible alternative source, the press release. But thanks for giving your views.   Will Beback    talk    20:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you Griswaldo, your point is well taken and I will abide by your suggestion. Cheers!--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 21:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments from Uninvolved Editors
 * What it is used to support is fairly innocuous and non controversial. If better refs can be found just feel free to replace this one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This isn't a reliability issue as much as common sense The source does not actually verify any facts about Raja Lopinto, and the source does not pretend to do so either.  The columnist has simply copied the subject heading of a spam email he was sent.  People arguing for this source to be included can't be serious here.  Clearly there are better sources.  Remove the source and move onto more productive things.Griswaldo (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Opinion pieces in newspapers should not be used as reliable sources for facts, only for the opinion of their writers. TFD (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that many articles are not labeled as "opinion pieces". This one is not, for example. So it's just our own guess. WP:V and WP:IRS do not give guidance on how to determine if an article is an Op-Ed.   Will Beback    talk    21:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter. If it's a news article quoting some emails, those emails do not thereby become reliable sources.  The article needs to repeat the assertions in its own voice before it can be held to be endorsing them.  Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That gets into a primary/secondary source issue. Press releases are self-published primary sources that can be reliable within a narrow range. In this case, it's simply the title of the person being inaugurated. If we were considering a press release for the appointment of a Director of Human Resources, then an announcement from the company would be considered a reliable source. Having a secondary source take note of the announcement gives some indication of the noteworthiness of the fact, but you're right that it does not alter the underlying reliability of the announcement. In this case, there's no question about the asserted fact so even the original press release should be an adequate source. The mention in the Daily Breeze simply shows that the announcement has been disseminated.    Will Beback    talk    06:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought this section was for uninvolved editors? Cla68 (talk) 07:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Will are you being serious? What the author mentions in his piece is the subject heading of a "spam" email, and nothing more (not a press release, not an official title, etc.).  The mere mention of the subject heading of a SPAM email can be used for absolutely nothing other than the fact that the email had said subject-heading.  CASE CLOSED.  Please do not continue arguing over this.  It reeks of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT and is becoming disruptive.Griswaldo (talk) 14:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Summary: Keithbob, Doc James, Griswaldo, Seargent Cribb and TFD have all commented in favor of removal. Cla68 has made a neutral comment and Will Beback feels the source is reliable and should be kept. Therefore in summary, it appears there is a clear consensus to remove the source, yes?.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 14:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and changed the ref to the press release, which says the same thing. Keithbob hasn't objected to the underlying assertion, nor has he made any comment that the Global Country of World Peace is an unreliable source for its own personnel decisions, so I assume that's acceptable.   Will Beback    talk    19:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for recognizing the consensus and removing the unreliable source.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 20:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It could have been handled much more simply on the article talk page. Next time I suggest you start a thread there first.   Will Beback    talk    21:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Will, I am sorry to say that your attitude here does not give the impression that Keithbob would have had an easier job convincing you of the wisdom of removing that source on the article talk page, without the input of outside editors. -- J N  466  21:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Jayen466, so nice of you to go out of your way to make a personal comment about me. I can't say I'm surprised, as you seem to follow me all over Wikipedia. However I think your view of dispute resolution is not consistent with the community guidelines. We don't skip basic steps in dispute resolution simply because we think that we might not get quick agreement at those stages. As it happens, the questioned source could have easily been replaced by the press release if we'd discussed that on the talk page first. Maybe some editors prefer to grandstand on noticeboards, but I'm not making any accusations. ;)   Will Beback    talk    22:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Will, can we declare this noticeboard a nosism-free zone? Cla68 (talk) 01:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Will it appears that some other editors prefer to cause needless drama and disruption on noticeboards. This issue should have been over days ago.  Why are we still here?  Think about it and get back to me.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 01:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It was resolved some time ago. I'm not sure how the last few comments have helped anything.   Will Beback    talk    02:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I came to the noticeboard because the source was used on multiple articles and I did not want to have two parallel discussions on two separate articles. My post described the situation in a neutral and impersonal way and did not mention any editor's name nor did it imply any wrong doing on anyone's part. Just a simple question about a very questionable source. I thought it would be a very quick and simple discussion since it's common sense that the source is not reliable. My thanks to all those that participated. Cheers!--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 04:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It wasn't really complete or neutral, but that's why other involved parties usually add their views. And thanks to the truly uninvolved editors who've commented here.   Will Beback    talk    05:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Chris Turner's Snooker Archive
Article: Steve Davis Source: http://www.snookerarchive.co.uk/

The Steve Davis article recently failed its GA review on account of the Chris Turner source: Talk:Steve Davis/GA1.

The Chris Turner source is primarily used to source results in this section: Steve Davis. I guess the view taken here is that the Chris Turner source is WP:SPS which precludes it from being classed as a reliable source. However, I don't think this view takes full account of his stature in the sport. Eurosport regularly publishes content from his site on their own website: http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/15032010/58/week-birth-hurricane.html, http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/22022010/58/week-ranking-first-carter.html, http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/01032010/58/week-british-success-whirlwind.html and http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/08022010/58/week-white-becomes-brown.html. Many books on snooker consult him on facts and figures, such as "The CueSport Book of Professional Snooker" (which I currently have in my possession and is missing some of the stuff on the Turner website). I can appreciate why it would be undesirable for this source to be used to reference biographical content, but is it even still unreliable as far as stats and results go, when he's pretty much the "go to" man in the game for stats and figures from the 1970s and 1980s? Snooker's history is patchy at best, we're simply not going to find this stuff on the BBC site or in old editions of The Sunday Times. I appreciate it's a borderline case at best, but it's got to the stage where we either use this source or simply dump a whole load of results so I was wondering if the Eurosport citations convey a level of reliability on it? Betty Logan (talk) 18:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Betty, your argument makes sense to me from an RS viewpoint. Not sure if just being considered an acceptable source is good enough for the judges of what makes a "good article"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

International Society of Genetic Genealogy & earlier discussion
This was discussed last year in some detail and with some heat - see. I removed it from Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain on the 11th because I don't consider it a reliable source and the statement in the article was not in any case backed by the web page. It's now been restored in a modified form with the comment "If the source is considered reliable enough to be used prominently in the R1b article, there's no reason why it can't be mentioned here." It is used 4 times there, one instance being the same source as I reverted at the Anglo-Saxon settlement article. I still don't see this as reliable. Dougweller (talk) 12:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The prior discussion is several pages long so I only read the first few posts which summarize the source. At first glance I do not see that it violates the general spirit of WP:RS and so it would appear to be reliable, at least in some contexts, but maybe not so appropriate in others. It is not the strongest scientific source but it does have a review process and an editorial board (even if they are not highly qualified). So the source would seem OK for statements that are not contentious and/or do not conflict with other sources that are as, or more, reliable. I would also encourage that the source be ID'd in the text, (as it has here ) so that the reader is aware of the specific source and can judge for themselves whether it is acceptable to them or not.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 15:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the lack of relevant qualifications for members of the editorial board, and two of the three associate editors, mentioned in that thread, I would question whether the contents of this journal "has been vetted by the scholarly community" (per WP:RS) in any meaningful way. I would therefore consider it, at best, a WP:QS. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point, if the source is used in a strict scientific environment it may fall short. So context is important here.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 20:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it goes beyond that. Where used at all, its contents need to be presented as the (not-scientifically-vetted) opinions of the individual author in question. If the author in question has at least reasonable relevant qualifications, it would probably be okay for uncontroversial claims -- but no way would it pass WP:REDFLAG for claims that are in any way controversial. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Doug, I think you have mixed up some sources and people might not be looking at the right things. ISOGG is not the same as JOGG, so the old debate which you refer to is not strictly relevant. (Both are volunteer run by people with an interest in genetic genealogy.) ISOGG's website is a widely cited source in academia for its Y DNA phylogeny webpage and as far as I know, no one has any serious argument against it on WP for that use. However, for speculation about the origins of haplogroups etc, unlike some articles in the JOGG, those webpages were never intended to be anything more than short summaries from other sources. (I know many of the editors of those webpages.) It is better to find those original sources, and often that is not difficult. In this particular case there are good recent sources for the information being cited on the R1b article. So I suggest not deleting the material, but getting better sourcing from R1b.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Am I right in thinking that  should be replaced by better sources? It and other similar pages from the website are used quite a bit. I'm inclined to remove the references and replace with citation tags as I'm not an expert here. Dougweller (talk) 17:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, the R1b article has a table sourced to it which says ", and those so far recognized by the ISOGG website are summarized in the following table" and also says "Since 2008 it has become increasing necessary to refer to the frequently updated listing made on the ISOGG website.". I think this is giving too much credibility to the site, treating it as a completely reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Doug, concerning the Y DNA tree structure itself, these ISOGG webpages are cited by peer reviewed articles. I do not believe there is a better source for updated Y haplogroup phylogenies, and this aspect of those webpages is subject to all kinds of rules and reviews. That is the big but relatively simple task those webpages seek to achieve and I think they are recognized as doing it well within the relevant academic field, and not only amongst hobbyists coming from the genealogical direction. I believe your original question was about another type of use for them, and in that case I agree with your original proposal.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Company Newsletter
Would citing biographical information about a living person from a company newsletter be a reliable source? I have a company newsletter from CVS/pharmacy about the retiring CEO Thomas Ryan. The newsletter discusses his path to becoming CEO as well as his actions while in charge. The newsletter does not have a listed author. Also, it commemorates the former CEO, so I believe it might be somewhat biased in his favor. I would like to add information about the history of the company to the CEO's page as well as to the CVS Caremark page. Thanks! 吴顶 &#124; talk to me.  03:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you have the right idea: It's not the best source but it should be okay for non-controversial claims, particularly if it's attributed. ElKevbo (talk) 03:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks ElKevbo. Any ideas on which citation template I should use? 吴顶 &#124; talk to me.  03:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with ElKevbo, the source should be fine for basic biographical info like education, company position etc if better sources cannot be found. And I am assuming that the web site had editorial oversight, but can't confirm that since you didn't provide a link (something that would be good to do in future post). And by the way you sound like you may be relatively new to Wikipedia. If so, I welcome you and commend you on your willingness to use the noticeboards to get community input and feedback, and edit in a collaborative way. Cheers!--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 04:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * PS I would suggest using this sample citation as a guide: Hansen, James E.; Ruedy, R.; Sato, M.; Lo, K. (December 15, 2005). "GISS Surface Temperature Analysis Global Temperature Trends: 2005 Summation". NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/. Retrieved September 28, 2006.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 04:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I would follow the same procedures as for WP:SPS. TFD (talk) 12:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Brownlow's Whig
Much of this article was added at once on 2 July 2010. It is well written, but I have a question about how the editor used primary sources. For instance, in the following sections (could not pick up diffs, as most was added at once), the editor interprets what Brownlow wrote, based on quotes from the newspaper. As the paper is a primary source and the editor does not cite other sources, is this OR? I've been working a lot on history articles, and usually editors will cite third-party sources for such material. Certainly Brownlow provided vivid copy; it's the principle that I'm trying to understand. In many other areas, the article editor Bms4880 does use third-party sources. In others, the editor uses extensive quotes directly from the paper.

In the 1840s, as Northern and Southern Methodists argued over the slavery issue, Brownlow was offended by what he perceived as poor treatment of Southern Methodist leaders, especially Bishop Joshua Soule (who had ordained Brownlow as minister). When Northern Methodist leader Thomas Bond called for missionaries to be sent to the South, Brownlow warned that such missionaries would be lynched. "The people of the South," he wrote, "cannot regard such men, whatever may be their claims to the character, as true and faithful ministers of Christianity."
 * Examples:

Brownlow's anti-Catholic sentiment was present in the earliest editions of the Whig, and gradually intensified over the years. In 1846, Brownlow ran a multi-part series on "Romanism" in America, claiming that the Catholic Church had kept Europe in "mental slavery" for 1,200 years, and was inherently intolerant and opposed to democracy. Brownlow referred to Catholics as "lousy, sinful, obedient subjects of a foreign Despot," and warned of their encroachment into American government. Thanks for your assistance.Parkwells (talk) 19:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no absolute ban on using primary sources, and for basic facts it is even a good idea to use a few of them here and there. Of course for any commentary about basic facts, any opinion we will present as effectively being something Wikipedia "agrees with" as being the normal opinion of those in the know, it becomes more important to get the best sources possible. If there are no good ones yet, keep in mind the option of reporting an opinion from a questionable source, let's say a very old newspaper, or a controversial newspaper, but attributing it (for example "according to newspapers of the time") rather then letting it be an opinion Wikipedia simply treats as something generally accepted.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The article is primarily based on primary sources which is OR. TFD (talk) 12:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm confused by the question. A "primary source" is not the same thing as a "first-party source".  Similarly, WP:Secondary does not mean independent.  It is possible for the newspaper article to be both a primary source (it's closer to the event than it is to us) and third-party (if it was written by a reporter who interviewed Brownlow, rather than by Brownlow, or someone Brownlow controlled or paid).
 * So perhaps the information missing in these citations is the problem: Who exactly wrote those 19th century newspaper pieces?   WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * TFD, I do not see how you can simply jump to defining that article as OR. That seems an exaggeration at first sight.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * See WP:PRIMARY: "...article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source".  If an article is based entirely on primary sources then it is OR, because the editor must decide what is significant, and how passages should be read.  TFD (talk) 02:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see the article is not based entirely on primary sources, and not using synthesizing original conclusions from primary sources. Indeed the definition of a primary source is not always black and white. (Are old publications always primary sources?) So I think there can be reasonable doubt about describing this as a straightforward case as envisioned on the policy page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * TFD, your definition of OR is not the one found in the written policy. It is true that articles written entirely from primary sources often fall foul of that policy (because they misuse the sources), but it is not actually a given that an article that currently cites only primary sources is necessarily in violation of the policy.
 * Andrew, of course they are primary sources: Every source is primary—for something.  These newspaper pieces are certainly primary sources for questions like "What ran in that paper on the given date?" and "What's the title of the piece?"  More substantively, I think it reasonable for 19th century newspapers to be treated like primary sources by Wikipedians, regardless of how any particular piece might be properly classified according to academic experts.  Even if it's not really, truly, precisely a primary source for most purposes, its age means that we should be cautious in how we handle it.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Can a High School Yearbook be used as a "Reference"?
Hello. I am considering the use of a school yearbook to add verifiable information to a few articles. Is this considered and acceptable means of referencing? Thank you. ElizabethCB123 (talk) 04:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a difference of opinion on school yearbooks as verifiable info. After a brief search, I have noticed that most editors say that it is not acceptable. I have not yet found wikipedia's policy on this. Yearbooks certainly are reliable sources. I have not heard of any yearbook error where they claim someone was a student who wasn't. If there is a problem, it is in its verifiability. Yearbooks have a very limited printing. How can others verify the accuracy. So yearbooks are quite reliable but not very verifiable. I am rather new to wikipedia and don't represent the community's policy; just my thoughts. I look forward to other comments on this. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 15:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As with most sources... reliability depends on exactly what you are using the source to support. A high school yearbook would  be a reliable primary source for the basic statement that "(Notable Person) attended Smallville high school".  but not for much else.  (and there is a caveat... if there is any doubt as to whether the person in the year book is the same as the subject of the article, I would want to use some other source... for confirmation.) Blueboar (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Also a yearbook would confer absolutely no notability of any kind. So saying (Notable person) attended Smallville high school would only be reasonable with that as a citation if there was some other good reason for looking it up to check that. Otherwise it is uninteresting trivia. Dmcq (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If the person is notable, then it's not necessarily trivia. How much do you want to bet that our article on Winston Churchill says where he went to school?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I checked... it does... However, I will also note that the article does not cite a school's yearbook for the information. Blueboar (talk) 01:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Blueboar: Sorry if I was unclear. I was making a point about where someone went to school not being trivia, not on the source being used.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I would consider a yearbook to be a poor source for several reasons. It's a self-published primary source, not much different from the school's website.  Going to primary sources is essentially doing original research. If secondary sources - newspapers, books, etc - don't feel it necessary to include this information about the subject, then why should we?  We run the very real risk of tagging the wrong person anyway.  I have an uncommon name - but my third cousin has the same name and is the same age as me.  She and I both appear as seniors in my high school yearbook.  She's also listed as a senior in the yearbook for the neighboring school district's high school - because she moved partway through the year.  I would not include any info from one of these and would likely revert any I saw. Karanacs (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How did this become a discussion about citing a yearbook for where someone went to school? Maybe the OP wants to cite the yearbook for an article about the school?  The OP didn't say how they intend to use the source or for which articles.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I would consider a high school yearbook unreliable for information about the school. It's a self-published source usually written by high school students.  Karanacs (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Karanacs: Sure, it's self-published and usually written by students but it's also usually reviewed the school's staff before publication. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Basically all sources are reliable for some purposes, and a school yearbook is reliable for certain purposes. For example, the school yearbook is a perfectly reliable source for the name of the school's yearbook.
 * If you really want an answer, you're going to have to give us the specific sentences that you want to support with this source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I would consider it reliable for basic biographical information contained therein. The fact that Clark Kent (to carry on from the above)  was a member of Chess Club, FFA, and Disco Club, and that Lana Lang joined every club that Clark was in.  Oh, and that he was class of whatever.  Much beyond that, don't go.  I should add that a secondary source saying the same thing is greatly preferable.  The only other thing I would consider it reliable for is identification, that the guy with the zits and headgear is Clark as a freshman and that the shots of the gym establish what the Smallville High gym looked like in whatever year that was.  However, I agree with Karanacs, this should not be the sole support for his attendance at a school, especially where there is doubt.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we should be more firm and say that it should never be the sole source for where someone attended school. There are too many people out there who share names, and we cannot leave it up to Wikipedia editors to judge the merits of a primary source in this manner.Griswaldo (talk) 18:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that determining that the Clark Kent listed in the Smallville Highschool Yearbook is the same one listed in the article on the notable Daily Planet reporter is WP:Original research. Combine this with very poor (non-existent?) availability through bookstores, library interloan, etc. -- and they are a very poor choice of source. This is quite apart from determining their reliability (some I suspect would have quite tight editorial oversight, others quite lax -- with the possibility of hoaxes, etc.). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is all very theoretical. Until we find out which articles we're talking about and what the content is going to be, we can't give a firm answer.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I originally posted this question and am very pleased at your varied opinions. Basically, I would like to add some background information on a few articles of people that would link their early years to current on goings. A writer working on a school paper, a director and their school's drama department, an artist or designer involved with a school's creative activities, a politician serving on a school's student council, etc. I had hoped to reference yearbooks to accompany and support a few local publications that mention the same claim(s) and can be sourced at a local library. If these sort of things were in a national publication, fine. Yet to help support a smaller circulated publication... Maybe? ElizabethCB123 (talk) 23:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I have my doubts about the idea that WP can have any standard policy about "school yearbooks" because I do not believe they are all published the same way. The example of Winston Churchill is raised above. I am not sure his school would have an American style yearbook, but it may well have publications and these would then perhaps end up coming under any policy invented to cover typical American school year books. Do we really need a generalized policy for everything? We have the basic guidelines about what to look for in any publication - fact checking, reputation etc.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and if the information is only found in a yearbook, how important is it really? If there is local newspaper coverage, use that. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not sure I want to generalize in either direction. It is hard to foresee every possibility.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing details, Elizabeth, on what you are trying to do. I think that this is essentially original research - going back to essentially primary sources to find information about the person.  If it hasn't been reported in a more reliable source, then this probably isn't a good thing to do.  Karanacs (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Using a weak source does not constitute original research. If the information has been published, and you report nothing more than what the source said, then you have not violated WP:No original research.  It might well be a violation of WP:DUE—that policy concerns itself with whether something neglected by most sources is important enough to bother including—but that's a separate policy.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Elizabeth: If these people are really notable, are you sure other sources don't exist? Can you give us an example of a specific person that you want to work on?  If online sources exist, I can try to find some for you.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

How lovely. Thank you very much again for your comments from every angle. I truly understand and respect your opinions. Let me get the yearbooks in my hands (whereas I can see the publisher, etc.) and will outreach for help if needed! ElizabethCB123 (talk) 03:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

A deceitful book?
In the review "A deceitful book" by Rear Admiral Richard E. Young (which I downloaded a PDF of but now can't locate a link for...) calls in question the reliability of Robert Stinnett's Day of Deceit. It misrepresents the position of McCollum, mistates the number of intercepts, misrepresents the meaning of radio silence, & makes unsubstantiated claims about FDR's having seen an important memo, just to name examples offhand. It is also contradicted in its thesis by one of Stinnett's own sources, as quoted in his own footnotes. This doesn't sound reliable to me. TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  02:28 & 02:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Without the original source no one here can provide an opinion of whether or not the review is a reliable source. I guess the only time the source could be used is when citing Young's own opinion. But acting as a primary source? Not sure. If you can, please link the review here so other editors can see for themselves. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Professionally published book reviews are reliable sources for material directly concerning the book in question, but (with occasional exceptions) not much else. The review seems to be online here (rather oddly on the website of non-profit art-related organisation) as well as in a review Richard E. Young apparantly posted on Amazon.com here. Unless it's been professionally published or Rear Admiral Richard E. Young is a well regarded scholar on this kind of matter who has a good reason for not publishing the review in a professional source, I don't think that this is usable. Nick-D (talk) 11:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The Day of Deceit article references a few negative reviews of the book in magazines and journals, and states that it's been dismissed by historians (which I believe is correct). Nick-D (talk) 11:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Newport Pop Festival 1969

 * Arthur Lee & Love-- Played on Saturday-- Sang many songs from "Forever Changes" including "Bummer in the Summer"
 * Buffy Saint- Marie -- Played on Sunday-- Sang "The Universal Soldier" and quieted down a rowdy crowd tearing down a chain linked fence


 * What? Why does this belong on this page?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see this content on Newport Pop Festival, so I'm not sure which page you are asking about, or which source you are seeking to have evaluated as reliable or unreliable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

www.sahistory.org.za / author Stan Winer
Author Stan Winer is alleged here to be "clearly not a reliable source". I propose to cite Winer's article Ghosts of the Past as a source supporting either existing text or text yet to be added to the wikipedia article History of South Africa and/or related South African articles. The article which I hope to cite is published here at the official and moderated website of SA History Online.

This organisation is supported by the South African government Department of Education, and its resources are used widely for educational purposes in South African schools, among others. My specific question now referred for RS consideration is: Is the SA History Online site considered to be a reliable source, and is the author Stan Winer considered to be "clearly not a reliable source" in this specific instance.

The author is a wellknown, experienced and respected, veteran journalist / writer / researcher in South Africa, specialising in southern African affairs and international relations. His past and existing work has been widely published both in South Africa and internationally. Critical reviews etc of his work can be provided if necessary. Communikat (talk) 11:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have looked over the diffs and links you have provided and have concluded that a)South African History Online is a legitimate website with and editorial board and is a valid source in most cases but its usage could be debated in the case of facts or statements that are contentious. b)While Stan White may be an established journalist and author, the article by him, that you have cited appears to be an editorial rather than a news report or a history of events and I don't see it has a valid source for an article on the History of South Africa.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 16:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the article would be considered a reliable source. It is a website that invites contributions from the general public in order to create a people's history. I cannot see any sign of editorial oversight except with regard to the details of the submitter, and anonymous posting is permitted. Oddly, I can't even seem to reach the article via the website search engine or other screens about the content included. Is Stan Winer a historian with publications in the field and period from reputable publishers? In that case it might qualify under WP:SPS. A quick google search doesn't come up with much, but it seems that he is not a historian per se, and one venture into (? self-published) book about Intelligence, received this very critical journal review, which complains about his research, says he makes factual errors, says he is no historian etc etc. All in all, I don't think we can consider article meets the criteria here. Slp1 (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Slp1 for your comment. It seems we agree that the article by Stan Winer doesn't seem to be an RS. On behalf of the web site in general I wanted to point out that they do accept User Contributions but the webpage says:  "Please note- The information provided will be validated before we update the site."  and "Please include a section for your sources and references within your attached documents." So it may still qualify as a reliable source in certain applications due to its editorial oversight on user contributions.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 20:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw that, but it is not at all clear that the validation is anything more that validating that the basic info (name etc) being requested is genuine. They want to know who is posting, not promising to check out the content in any detail. Slp1 (talk) 22:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks to both of you. I'll take that as a definitive non-RS re Winer's Ghosts of the Past article. Your valued comments have helped me as a newbie to understand better the principles of RS. For the record though, since Slp1 has made reference to a book by Winer, it may be interesting to note the tortuous history of that work. The review quoted above by slp1 was actually in relation to a limited-edition, uncorrected inspection copy of the work, circulated for peer review purposes only. It was not intended for public consumption as such. But certain media somehow managed to get hold of it, including the intelligence journal cited above. At the same time, and by contrast, some mass media reviewers gave it glowing reviews, including one that described the work as an "unervingly convincing analysis" providing "evidence to explode so many of the received 'facts' of modern history." The inspection copy, after peer review, was subsequently revised, re-organised, corrected, retitled and published in London by an independent publisher, under the title Between the Lies, now in its second edition. An abridged version was, in turn, later published as a free online book at truth-hertz.net It has already been the subject of acrimonious dispute at various wikipedia forums, so I'm not suggesting here that it should be considered an RS. Communikat (talk) 22:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And thanks to you for your willingness to accept our responses and to explain a bit further about the book. Not sure that I would call the Morning Star newspaper a "mass media reviewer" myself, but it seems that it is a moot point. Slp1 (talk) 23:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The new editor Communikat is the writer Stan Winer. The rules of WP:COI apply. Binksternet (talk) 01:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm frankly not surprised that Communikat is Winer; however, the clarification makes me more appreciative of the gracious acceptance of the negative responses given here about his work. --Slp1 (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A COI referral last year failed with regard to the COI issue that Binksternet now tries to sneak in via the backdoor. I'm surprised (well, not really) that Binksternet is reviving a WP:DEADHORSE. Here we have a supposedly experienced editor flouting unashamedly the WP rule on "outing". He's also been stalking me for a long time, and I've grown accustomed to it. He's also tried unsuccessfuly to have me blocked permanently from editing. But never mind; if that's how he gets his rocks off, then so be it. WP:CENSOR has relevance. I can't be bothered to report him for disciplinary action. I have less tedious and more productive things to do with my time.
 * But to return to less mundane things, Re Morning Star online, I think defining mass media is no longer clear cut or simple. The explosion of digital communication technology has produced a lot of confusion on the subject. Meanwhile, if the Morning Star online review fails to impress, try Rhodes Journalism Review, (p.29 onscreen). This thread is now closed, far as I'm concerned. Thanks for your time and interest. Communikat (talk) 13:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The arbitration committee findings appear to disagree that there was no COI issue:
 * The examples linked above are often of Stan Winer's work. ( Hohum  @ ) 19:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The examples linked above are often of Stan Winer's work. ( Hohum  @ ) 19:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

To quote from my evidence at the Arbcom decision against Communicat " Winer’s work is published out of a London apartment and is not cited by scholarly works. The Guardian review of the book says "It's this sort of thing that gives conspiracy theory a bad name."" Edward321 (talk) 14:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Govtrack
Is Govtrack an RS, for the purposes used here (7th paragraph)? (I tend to be suspect of sites that, among other things, mis-spell words such as "preceded", as this site does on the referenced page). Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I would not call that reliable, and I would (as a side note) consider the material it is sourcing as trivial. It looks like a useful site and appears to be operating in good faith, but it is basically a data aggregator. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The Peopling of the Philippines
In the Background section of the article Filipino American there is a source from WordPress. It was added back in 2009, and was tagged appropriately at the time, but allowed by active editors (including myself) to remain. Therefore, I would like non-involved editors to see the source, and decide whether it falls within RS; otherwise the material will be flagged appropriately, with the possibility of removal per WP:BURDEN. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That does not look reliable to me. Personal blog by a self-describe journalist, not an expert in the field as far as I can see at first glance. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I shall take corrective action. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

name used by combatant

 * Sources (automatic translation by Google).
 * 1) The military wing affiliated to Hamas, Al-Qassam Brigades released a statement ... on operation they called "Oil Stain" Secondary source, Ma'an News Agency, Published Thursday 25 December 2009, English
 * 2) resistance In the context of what it calls the campaign "oil slick scorching" or "battle of the Criterion", revealed the Qassam Brigades, the armed wing of Islamic Resistance Movement Hamas, for the losses caused to the Israeli occupation since the start of the aggression known campaign "Cast Lead" in the Gaza Strip on 27 last December and until the announcement of the cease-fire in Jan. 17 في إطار ما أطلقت عليه حملة "بقعة الزَّيت اللاَّهب" القسَّامية أو "معركة الفرقان" ، كشفت كتائب القسام ، الجناح العسكري لحركة المقاومة الإسلامية حماس ، عن الخسائر التي الحقتها بالاحتلال الإسرائيلي منذ بدء العدوان الذي عرف بحملة "الرصاص المصبوب" على قطاع غزة في 27 ديسمبر الماضي وحتى الإعلان عن وقف إطلاق النار في 17 يناير . Secondary source, Moheet, Published 11 January 2009, Arabic
 * 3) Start of the invasion of Gaza and the resistance to address the «Battle of the Criterion» بدء اجتياح غزة والمقاومة تتصدى بـ «معركة الفرقان» Secondary source, Ad-Dustour, Published 04 January 2009, Arabic
 * 4) Battle of the Criterion ... Qassam killed nine Israeli soldiers in separate operations Primary source, Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, Published 04 January 2009, Arabic
 * 5) Battle of the Criterion (Hamas's name for the 2008-2009 conflict with Israel)  Secondary source, NOW Lebanon/Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Published 5 January 2011
 * 6) Dr. Khalil al-Hayya, a member of the political leadership of the Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement: "The enemy wants to be the battle of the Criterion, shame and humiliation of dignity of our people, but God wanted her to our pride and dignity and stable...   Secondary source, Mafkarat al Islam, Published 06/January/2009, English, reflecting on Senior Hamas leader Khalil Al Hayeh
 * 7) Prior to Cast Lead, Hamas made much of its military preparations for conflict with Israel. Since the conflict, it has claimed victory, in what Hamas leaders are calling “the Battle of the Criterion” (al-furqan). Khaled Mashal spoke in these terms on January 21, 2009: This is the first war that our people has won on its land—the first real large-scale war.... Secondary source   Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Published December 2009, English
 * 8) December 30 2008,  al-Qassam Brigades military wing of Hamas, it is expanding its operation, launched by the "oil spot" and the bombing of Mujahduha for the first time the city of "Beersheba" territory. Original text:	قالت كتائب القسام الجناح العسكري لحركة حماس إنها وسعت عمليتها التي أطلقت عليها "بقعة الزيت" وقصف مجاهدوها لأول مرة مدينة "بئر السبع" المحتلة. Secondary source   Palestine Today news agency, Published 30 December 2008, Arabic
 * 9) Since the beginning of   “the Battle of the Criterion” (al-furqan) launched warplanes Zionist attacks against police posts, killing hundreds, not overlooking Re-Qassam Brigades, Original text: فمنذ اللحظة الأولى التي بدأت فيها معركة الفرقان، بشن الطيران الحربي الصهيوني هجمات ضد مواقع الشرطة مما أدى إلى استشهاد المئات، لم يطل رد القسام، فرد سلاح المدفعية بقصف مواقع العدو، وأجبر الصهاينة على الهروب تحت الملاجئ ، ودب الرعب في قلوب الذين كفروا، فازداد المحتل في استهداف الأطفال والأبرياء، فقتل الأطفال والنساء والشيوخ، واستهدف المساجد والساحات، ليستر هزيمته. Primary source, Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, Published 02 July 2010, Arabic
 * 10) The Zionist entity gathered forces are enough to occupy dozens of countries, but we didn’t abandoned our land, our people stood with us in defending our land in the battle of the Criterion. Primary source, Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, Published 19 January 2009, English

Could we reliably say that The Gaza War named Operation Oil Stain or Battle of the Criterion by the Gaza resistance? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Probably not. You could say that it was named <original Arabic name>, and then provide a rough translation of that name, but you normally shouldn't that that it has an English-language name unless English-language sources are doing so.  After all, the English sources might decide that the campaign is called "Al-Furqan", just like they chose "Al-Qaeda" rather than "the base".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That seems good advice to me to. In other words use the original Arab name with a literal translation in brackets. This being because it appears there is no standard English name.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Sojourners
An anon has proposed adding material from Sojourners to various articles:


 * Hydraulic fracturing
 * The July 2011 Sojourners is another resource: "The New Ugliest Word" by Bill McKibben (author of The End of Nature, a 350.org founder).
 * Climate change mitigation
 * July 2011 Sojourners is another resource: "We have the Technology: Off-the-shelf renewable power can meet 100 percent of world need - if we have the will." by Lyndsay Moseley (a federal policy rep. with Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign), page 10 & 11.
 * Christianity and environmentalism
 * The July 2011 Sojourners is another resource: "Temptation in the Consumer Wilderness: What Matthew 4 has to say to the age of climate change", page 30-33 by Fredric L Quivik (a historian of technology at Michigan Technological University in Houghton, MI, and Good Shepherd Luthern Church member)
 * Christianity and environmentalism
 * The July 2011 Sojourners is another resource: "Temptation in the Consumer Wilderness: What Matthew 4 has to say to the age of climate change", page 30-33 by Fredric L Quivik (a historian of technology at Michigan Technological University in Houghton, MI, and Good Shepherd Luthern Church member)

Is this a "reliable source"? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Very broadly speaking, it's a political magazine, and I don't think we describe the reliability of those well. There's editorial control. I think there's probably some reputation for fact-checking, but if you can find any sources that describe Sojourners' articles as generally accurate that would go to resolve that point. It seems that the articles being cited are by notable authors, expert in one way or another. The only real problem is that the articles are, almost by definition, opinion pieces. Publication in Sojourners doesn't in itself rule an article unreliable, but it doesn't automatically rule it reliable either. Look to the qualifications and reputations of the individual authors, to the purposes of the particular pieces, and at what they are being used for. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Prosblogion
I'm just about to start work drafting an article on skeptical theism, an argument within philosophy of religion. I'm wondering if Prosblogion should be considered a reliable source. It's a blog and I know many find that a scary word, but according to their about page:


 * Our contributors range from advanced graduate students to senior figures in the field of philosophy of religion, and include theists, atheists, and agnostics.


 * Anyone working in the field who is interested in becoming a contributor to Prosblogion is welcome to contact me. Individuals interested in becoming a contributor to Prosblogion should have an established reputation in the field, a recommendation from a current contributor, or a history of contributing to the life of the blog as a commenter.

Some of the authors are well-respected experts in philosophy of religion including Linda Zagzebski, Michael Rea, Yujin Nagasawa and so on. Obviously, blog posts on a philosophy group blog shouldn't be given the same weight as books and journal articles, but it seems like it might be a useful and reliable source for a topic that has some published literature but is still emerging (most of the literature on the topic is post-2000).

Thoughts? —Tom Morris (talk) 23:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The kind of software they use to publish their articles isn't really important to Wikipedia. What matters is:
 * Do they exercise editorial control?  (Probably, given that somebody other than the authors is deciding who is being published.)
 * Do they have a reputation for fact-checking? (I don't know; do you?)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

As to question 1: yes. As to question 2: it's a philosophy blog. Facts aren't the issue. Relatively well-informed and reasoned speculation as to the ultimate nature of the universe is. They don't do "fact-checking" in the same way a newspaper should because they aren't a newspaper. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that you use the authors' reputations as philosophers as the determining factor--if they are established in the field, they are reliable for statements that appear in blogs. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Nuujinn, so you suggest treating articles differently depending on who wrote them? That sounds logical to me.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, exactly. We would do the same I think with blogs posted by reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We have three options for defining "source" on Wikipedia, and "author" is one of them. This is not an unreasonable approach.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Formosan Association for Public Affairs
Is the organization Formosan Association for Public Affairs a reliable source? Specifically, is the following document used in the article Taiwanese American to verify the 600,000 population statement a reliable source? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, no, but largely because it doesn't actually say that there are 600,000 Taiwanese-Americans. (It says 500,000.)
 * The source is an official statement by a Congressman during a legislative session, and should be cited as his words, not as a statement made by the organization. See Cite speech if the article uses WP:Citation templates.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have made changes to correct the use of the reference. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

TM Free blogg a RS?
Is the blogg site, TM Free, a reliable source? Specifically, the following post on TM Free used in the Tony Nader article to support details about his family? The material was added to the article by anon on 16 June 2011. --BweeB (talk) 08:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Involved editors

 * I searched for the text and found it on other websites as well. The actual source seems to be an letter from Bevan Morris, sent by the "The National Office of Communication" on behalf of the Maharishi Vedic Education Development Corporation. Here are more copies: Morris is Nader's Prime Minister. It is addressed "Dear All", so it appears to be an open letter. "The National Office of Communication" sounds like a PR department. It looks it was being used as a source for text saying that the subject has a wife and children. Considering that it's an official communication, and a non-contentious fact, it seems like an adequate source.    Will Beback    talk    08:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The source used for the text was . I am asking uninvolved editors if they consider this to be a RS. --BweeB (talk) 08:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Clarify sources cited as reliable sources for adequate verification of Bevan Morris letter: discussion forum

probable blog (olive (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC))


 * Note to posting editor: I was recently slightly involved in a discussion that has become so convoluted I actually couldn't tell what was happening and basically with drew. I set this page up so that its easy to see who said what and what their involvement is and so we can perhaps avoid the kind of mess I saw on the Sanotrum discussion. I hope this is OK. I realize its not the usual format, I don't think I've seen it used anywhere else, but it seemed to make sense to make this kind of division. I hope everyone is Ok with it. If the discussion gets long the alternative is a probable muddle. If there's a concern please revert me. (olive (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC))
 * Looks good to me. Thanks for your efforts. --BweeB (talk) 18:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Since Will included 'others' in his edit summary let me add this: The letter published in three different Wikipedia non reliahbe sources do not have oversight.Therefore the following points hold:
 * we don't know who the open letter was to.
 * we don't know if Bevan Morris actually wrote the letter
 * we don't know if the letter was altered and changed either minimally or substantially
 * we don't know if the letter was issued through official channels
 * if such a letter was written by Bevan Morris, and has been published on a blog or in discussion group forum with out his permission and I don't see permission given on any of those sites, it may very well be a copy right violation. I researched and did not find the letter in any public source and also did  not find the letter on any MUM. org site.

How does this add up to reliable?(olive (talk) 21:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC))


 * @WhatamIdoing: the other question is whether an open letter issued through official channels and published in multiple locations, can qualify as a reliable source. Here is a version of the letter with the fine print at the bottom intact, indicating its provenance. Any thoughts on that question?   Will Beback    talk    20:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It wasn't an open letter, it wasn't issued through official channels, and it wasn't published in multiple locations. It was a private, copyrighted email sent to TM teachers that was subsequently posted to two blogs and a Yahoo discussion group against the wishes of the copyright holder. If it had been an open letter, then it wouldn't be so difficult to find a source that doesn't violate BLP. TimidGuy (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The "fine print" at the bottom says:
 * Â©Copyright 2010, Maharishi Vedic Education Development Corporation. Distribution, redistribution, publication or reproduction of this communication in any form is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please advise us so that we can remove you from the distribution list. If you have received this communication in error we apologize, please dispose of it and kindly advise us at [mailto:communication@...] communication@.... This message was sent by: The National Office of Communication, 2000 Capital Blvd, Fairfield, IA 52556
 * I don't know anyone who places copyrights on their private, personal emails. It certainly appears that this was sent by official channels: "The National Office of Communication". The letter is prefaced as a "Summary Global Council meeting January 17, 2010". What indications do we have that it was a "private, ... email sent to TM teachers"? It's addressed "Dear All", not "Dear TM teachers".   Will Beback    talk    21:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The subject heading of the post in the Yahoo Group is "Message to Governors from Bevan." "Governors," as you know, refers to TM teachers. It's a private email from Bevan sent to them. It was likely copyrighted to discourage recipients from redistributing it -- and explicitly asks them not to. It's a copyright violation that it was posted to this Yahoo Group and to the blogs, and against WP policy to link to copyright vio websites. I think it's fine that Wikipedia says that Nader is married. I just don't feel comfortable using blogs or a Yahoo Group as the source in a BLP. I don't know what the solution is. I'd suggest putting the info in that he's married and then continuing to look for a source. TimidGuy (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That seems like a reasonable solution.   Will Beback    talk    22:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Per WhatamIdoing: We don't have a TM org website that has published this letter... That was my thought too that it could be compliant as part of the organization's literature about itself. I suggested on the talk page that saying Nader was married and had children was a commonly known fact, so I'd be fine including Nader information on marriage and children for now on that basis unless its challenged. I haven't seen rs sources that say he 's married so far.(olive (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC))

uninvolved editors

 * It doesn't matter whether it's "reliable", because blogs are prohibited by WP:BLPSPS as sources of any information at all (even non-contentious information) about living people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * On the second source: The "open letter" looks to me more like an e-mail message than the sort of classic open letter.  The groups.yahoo.com link does not prove that the source is WP:Published.  E-mail messages to a private list (or junk mail sent on paper) are not necessarily "published" as far as Wikipedia is concerned.  If it's not "published", then it's not reliable.  Whether it should be considered published depends on facts I currently don't have, like who exactly was posting it all over the Internet.  However, if you believe it reasonable to accept it as "published", then you might be able to Cite press release.  The important point here is my assumption that "Maharaja Adhiraj Raja Raam" is a part of the corporation that wrote and published the document.  That is, if Coca-Cola says that its CEO is married, then that's acceptable under BLPSPS, because the self-publishing source is talking about part of itself (more or less).  In an exactly analogous case, if MVEDC says that its religious figure is married, then that would acceptable under BLPSPS, because the self-publishing source is talking about part of itself (again, more or less).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Book on the Boxer Rebellion
I'm not sure exactly where to ask, so I apologise if I've come to the wrong place. Would an article on this book - Divine Boxing: The real Yihetuan - be considered notable enough for its own article, and if so, as a neutral source to discuss the Boxer Rebellion? I believe that it might have serious neutrality issues in regards to its interpretation of the Boxer Rebellion. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 00:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * And this is a notability issue, since it is not currently being used as a source on any articles except its own. The book, from the articles external links, only appears to appear on a few chinese language sites, making its notability and importance suspect.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 01:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Also the fact that the book has its own article doesn't make it a more acceptable source. If there are neutrality issues, the source should be dealt with carefully, perhaps by mentioning that it is a controversial book, or by ignoring it if it's clearly a fringe view. Laurent (talk) 01:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Since the book isn't notable, should there be an AfD discussion then, in that case? --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 01:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A search on the Chinese title returns quite a few results, so the book is likely to be notable. What's more worrying is that Arilang seems to be creating these book articles as a way to push a POV on various articles. It's like he cannot create an article about his POV, so he creates an article about a book supporting his POV, and links to it. He is working within Wikipedia's rules though, so I'm not sure we can do much about it. Laurent (talk) 04:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * But... is it notable enough to warrant its own article? What sets this book out from 400 other books written on the Boxers? Has this one won any particular awards? Is the author the CEO of Microsoft? Even if it is notable, the article doesn't demonstrate it. Also, the article isn't used as a description of the book (publishing, authorship, public reception, etc) like in other book articles, it seems like its only used as a content fork. It only describes information from within the book, which is something one would generally put into the Boxers article. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 05:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:NB for the criteria used to determine whether a book is notable enough for its own article. That said, being notable does not mean that the book is a reliable source on the Boxer Rebellion, especially if it expresses a view that is very different from the large majority of other sources on the subject. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 21:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't all these discussion be conducted on that article's talkpage? This is definitely the wrong place. Arilang   <sup style="color:blue;">talk  07:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Nein, mein freund. Das ist falsch. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 08:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't believe that Arilang is still pushing his POV on the Boxers despite severl ANI warnings. Anyways, that article is in serious need of a cleanup, since it currently reads like a chapter-by-chapter analysis.--PCPP (talk) 14:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing up this issue; interested efforts may therefore be interested in the following discussion regarding the Eight-Nation Alliance. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

A political movement's claims on religion
Is a political movements' website considered reliable for a religious claim? The following phrasing was used in many articles, "a large number of jurists have upheld Islamic ideas, concepts and texts to justify offensive jihad against non-Muslims...support their view with evidence from the Quran and the Sunnah, and from historical practice," using this link. Is it an acceptable source to use in the lead?   ~ AdvertAdam   talk  04:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The political movement by the way is Muslim Brotherhood . The statements are by Yusuf al Qaradawi], its also available on islamonline.com, i believe. The user AdamRce is only asking this, so somone says its unreliable so he can continue his whitewashing of Islam articles. This user has been removing content from Islam related articles. Many admin notices have been opened against him, you should check out the Geopolitical noticeboard to see what his up to.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I also would like to add that the user has been doing everything he can to remove statements from wikipedia that go against his idea. In the Caravan raids article User removed 2 references and added a synthesis tag here. Before being reverted by the user doc tropics, here All for a sentence which said “they were generally offensive in nature”. User then removed the same 2 references and added a citation needed tag here Before being reverted by me.

Then user added 2 unreliable sources tag here, i then added a third source from William Montegoary Watt, and the user stopped his game. User has been accused by doc tropics of twisting the introduction of the Offensive Jihad article to suit his own view, you can see his edit which was reverted by him here. Later the user DavidElah added the sentence which is in dispute, and for which this notice was opened for below:

Classically and in the modern era however, a large number of jurists have upheld Islamic ideas, concepts and texts to justify offensive jihad against non-Muslims.Most prominent of these among classical scholars is Imam ash-Shafi`i, and among modern-day thinkers are Sayyid Qutb and Mawdudi, who support their view with evidence from the Quran and the Sunnah, and from historical practice. User wanted to remove this, but couldn’t as it mentions it in the source. So instead he added a “by whom” tag after the name of each and every scholar in the sentence above, here.Then he added a quantify tag to the offensive jihad article here here, after the word "large". He wanted someone to add exactly how many people support the concept of offensive jihad, which is impossible. In summary, this person has been trying to white wash islam articles and is a defender of the truth, the user also joined the "wikiproject Islam" and said that he will help it by explaining the "peaceful truth about islam" on wikipedia here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misconceptions2 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well there seems to be a big difference between the two articles mentioned. Muslim Brotherhood is not a reliable source for history, early Islamic history or any other. For such articles works of academic historians should be used. For Offensive jihad, the current position of major politico-religious groups might be relevant; this would then Itsmejudith (talk) 14:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)be a primary source, but potentially usable.
 * Sounds fair to me. However, I'll need to move it to a section, considering it their claim; as they don't have the credibility to accuse a number-at-large, just to justify their-own history of violence. Some statements in the current phrasing were also exaggerated, which definitely needs to be fixed.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  16:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there is some misunderstanding. The article is not the opinion of the Muslim Brotherhood as such, but allegedly of Yusuf Qaradawi. After having researched a little more it seems it's a review of Qaradwi's book Fiqh al Jihad. - Davidelah (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Quote it (where you said it exists in Qaradawi's book)! As long as it didn't directly say so, then we use the content as a published writing from the official website of that political organization (especially when there's no author). We can't use assumptions based on WP:OR. Thanks for your input     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  03:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Sources for Tired Light
An IP has objected to the use of these sources, claiming that the authors are not scientists:


 * 1) Mamas, D.L.; http://link.aip.org/link/?PHESEM/23/326/1
 * 2) ^ Zaninetti, L.; http://link.aip.org/link/?PHESEM/23/298/1
 * 3) ^ Masreliez C. J.; Scale Expanding Cosmos Theory I – An Introduction, Apeiron April (2004)
 * 4) ^ Masreliez C. Johan (2005), pretitle=print pages 13-20 "A Cosmological Explanation to the Pioneer Anomaly", Astrophysics & Space Science 299, (1): 83-108, doi:10.1007/s10509-005-4321-6, http://www.estfound.org/downloads/pioneer_paper.pdf pretitle=print pages 13-20
 * 5) ^ Masreliez C. Johan (1999), "The Scale Expanding Cosmos", Astrophysics and Space Science 266 (3): 399-400, doi:10.1023/A:1002050702708

I do have some concerns about some of these, but others appear to be reasonable reputable sources. For what it is worth, tired light has not been and is not a current mainstream approach in cosmology from what I have read. I expect we'll be back to ask more specific questions later, in terms of what statements can be sourced to particular sources, and we'll have to weigh primary versus secondary sources as we move forward. What would be helpful at this point is opinions as to which of these sources in general may be worth using for this article, and which would not be worth considering. Sorry to be so vague, but there's strong disagreement among IPs on the topic, and this seems like the best starting point. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Let me explain some of my issues:


 * As a subject "tired light" is mainly of historical interest. The fact is that there is simply no "controversy" in the academic community about this subject and the sources were being used to try to "illustrate" that there is supposedly one. However, see the next point:
 * None of these sources are particularly high-quality high-citation journals. Aperion and Physics Essays should simply never be used on Wikipedia unless there is outside notice. They are low-impat journals notorious for publishing just about any nonsense that comes down the pipe (peer review in name only).
 * Ap&SS is a slightly better journal, but it was heavily criticized for publishing papers such as Masreliez's speculative and mathematically flawed theoretical cosmology that essentially ignores all astronomical data. In response to the outcry by the community that it was allowing too many cranks to publish, Ap&SS started a new policy: "Papers in mathematical physics or in general relativity which do not establish clear astrophysical applications will no longer be considered." That the publishers and editors themselves are disclaiming such papers to the point of saying they will simply no longer be accepted means that we must be especially wary of such papers that were accepted from before this policy was in place as that casts a pall on the reliability, factualness, or consistency of such works. Since Masreliez's ideas haven't received any notice whatsoever in the astronomical community outside of this fringe publication (Ap&SS is simply a low-impact astronomy journal, but in the case of "new physics" published before their policy was changed to avoid this problem, I'd argue it became essentially a fringe publication), it is highly irresponsible for us to claim that this somehow represents a "controversy" in astrophysics.
 * None of these people are actual scientists. Mamas and Masreliez are not active researchers of any sort and Zaninetti is a lecturer at the University of Turin (not a researcher). It is irresponsible of Wikipedia to use these itinerant and essentially un-noticed fringe scientists as an example of "recent controversy" about tired light.
 * (portion removed, see below) None of them mention the subject per se. Instead, it is clear to me that Mamas realized that without "other papers" on the subject, his paper would never past the muster for inclusion at Wikipedia. He's trying to pull the wool over our collective eyes and pretend there is a "controversy" so he can get exposure for his paper on Wikipedia. I think this is highly problematic posturing indeed.


 * In short, I think the best solution is just to let sleeping dogs lie and wait for the mainstream community to comment on the need or appeal of any "tired light" models in the normal astrophysics journals such as Astronomical Journal, Astrophysical Journal, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, or Astronomy and Astrophysics. Until the community recognizes that there is anything worth considering in these proposals, Wikipedia shouldn't be pedaling them.


 * 128.59.169.46 (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I removed part of your statement above, others should feel free to revert me if I am out of line. I think it is inappropriate per WP:OUTING and speaks mostly to motives, not content. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You can't really divorce motives and content here. There is an IP-hopping editor who is obviously the same person (use geolocate, it's a link provided for by the Wikimedia software) who obviously comes from the same place and has been spamming Wikipedia with links to his stuff for years. You can either pull the wool over your eyes that he's doing this or you can recognize his behavior and stop him. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 13:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We have procedures for dealing with these issues, and you are welcome to bring this up in the appropriate venue. If you have not read WP:OUTING, please do. And we do, very much on purpose, do divorce motives from content. Personally, I do not care who edits here or for what reason, so long as they follow policies. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Say what the venue is, and I'll be happy to bring it up. I already tried WP:COIN and they were utterly unhelpful. WP:SPAM is policy, it seems. Or, if you're into that whole Wikiality thing, it's at least a content-guideline. You should think about whether a person pushing his own WP:FRINGE paper into the encyclopedia should be left to do so without so much as a warning. If you don't want me to use his real name, fine. I'll refer to him by his banned Wiki-user name: User:Licorne. Happy? 128.59.169.46 (talk) 14:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps some administrator could just stop ips editing the article for 24 hours and hope they cool down. It is a ridiculous article for people to start warring over, I'd been wondering is there was some religious element to it or something. Dmcq (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Nah, there's no religious element. User:Licorne is simply spamming the article with references to his ideas and those of his buddies. And, although you may not think the article is worth wasting time over, there are in excess of 1000 hits a month to it consistently. That makes it worthwhile to me, an educator in astrophysics who would like to see these things gotten right here since students slavishly use this highly-ranked website. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 14:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I've asked for semi-protection so the ips can go off and have a rest rather than having to watch the article and talk page every second. Dmcq (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to harp on WP:WRONG or anything, but can someone revert the last edit of User:Licorne per WP:BAN? 128.59.169.46 (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's try this again
Can any uninvolved editors take a look at the sources at the top of this section and provide some guidance on whether or not they may be considered reliable sources in the general sense? --Nuujinn (talk) 11:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

ToyDirectory.com and TDmonthly
Could toydirectory.com, and in particular TDmonthly, their monthly magazine, be considered WP:RS? From their about pages it looks like the directory itself could be used as a primary source ("The information is supplied by thousands of toy manufacturers") but TDmonthly looks like it might fall under WP:RS. They have staff and editors, who have been quoted by other reliable sources. I used it to describe the origins of Silly Bandz. Does that usage look like it would fall under WP:RS? Siawase (talk) 10:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Use of Lakeside Country Club website
There is a RFC currently at WP:WikiProject Darts regarding the use of the Ulster Banner in articles to represent Northern Ireland. The Irish Manual of Style clearly states if the organisation uses no particular flag or banner, do not use any flag. Neither the British Darts Organisation (http://www.bdodarts.com/default.aspx) or the World Darts Federation (http://www.dartswdf.com/) use the Ulster Banner or any flags for that matter. User:Andrwsc has put forward this (a website for the Lakeside Country Club) as a Reliable Source to show that the organisations uses the Ulster Banner.

While I'm not questioning the reliability of the data provided concerning the the darts competition held there, I do question whether we can use it as a representation of the darts organisations. The website clearly states that it belongs to Bob Potter Leisure Ltd in the section on copyright. I can find no claim to affiliation with either the BDO or WDF. This is purely a venue used to hold the event. Bjmullan (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You have completely misrepresented my comments in that discussion! For those who feel the RFC discussion is TL;DR, here is a summary of my opinions (only the first is relevant to this noticeboard discussion):
 * I claim that http://www.lakesideworlddarts.co.uk/scoreboard.php is most definitely a reliable source for the 2010 BDO World Darts Championship article. The website is hosted by the sponsor and venue for the tournament, and sanctioned by the British Darts Organisation.  There are multiple links from www.bdodarts.com to www.lakesideworlddarts.co.uk.
 * I claim that darts is one sport in which the nationality of individual competitors is commonly noted by reliable sources, and "nationality" of UK-based people is given as one of England/Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland (similar to golf, for example) and not United Kingdom or Great Britain (similar to tennis, for example). Therefore, it is not inappropriate for darts pages on Wikipedia to also denote that nationality.
 * I claim that the choice of using either a flag icon or a country code (e.g. ENG, SCO, NIR, etc.) to represent that nationality is a style choice made by website designers (including Wikipedia) and does not represent any degree of "officialness" about flag usage made the the respective organisation.
 * — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a more reliable source for the championship would be the BBC. See here for the results without a flag in sight. Again I can find no flags relating to Darts on the BBC website. Bjmullan (talk) 18:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Flag usage is completely irrelevant to this discussion. With respect to this noticeboard, is http://www.lakesideworlddarts.co.uk/scoreboard.php a reliable source or not?  Is http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/darts/9185723.stm a reliable source or not?  I claim they both are, and the style used on each web page has no bearing on whether or not they are reliable.  I thought you were concerned about the ownership of the Lakeside website, but it seems as though your agenda is solely about the flags. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The underlying agenda is to remove the Ulster Banner flag from Wikipedia. Claiming non-RS on this website is just a part of that continuing action which is rapidly becoming disruptive. It's certainly bloody time waisting. WizOfOz (talk) 19:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

To respond to the claim that Bjmullan "can find no claim to affiliation with either the BDO or WDF", I refer to http://www.lakesideworlddarts.co.uk/index_general.php, which says "The World Professional Darts Championships have been staged and promoted by the British Darts Organisation since 1978 and Lakeside Country Club (established in 1972) has been the host venue since 1986, and the main title sponsor since 2004." I also note that http://www.bdodarts.com/ has direct mention of Lakeside on their main page, with a link to this release, which further expands on the relationship between BDO and Lakeside. Lastly, I find it utterly disingenuous of Bjmullan to characterize http://www.lakesideworlddarts.co.uk as the "Lakeside Country Club website" when it is clearly distinct from http://www.lakesidesurrey.co.uk/ (although obviously under the same ownership). — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Andrwsc, your use of the term I claim sounds a bit like OR to me. Bjmullan (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, for the love of God, "I claim" means that I am stating my opinions. On a talk page, of course.  It isn't article content.  We're discussing the merits of one particular website as a reliable source, and that discussion requires our opinions. Elsewhere, we're discussing Wikipedia's internal Manual of Style, which was created from the opinions of many editors. Opinions on a talk page are not what WP:No original research addresses. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Spanky and Our Gang & sources
I edited the Spanky and Our Gang recently and have run into a bit of a snag. User:Emhale previously stated on the article talk page that he is the brother of one of the band's members. His brother, Malcolm Hale, died in October 1967. Sources conflict on Hale's actual cause of death so I added two different book sources (removing the note to see the talk page discussion by Emhale regarding the cause of death which I feel is original research), and made mention of the conflicting reports. Emhale has recently removed one of the book sources claiming it is unreliable because it does not include external citations. I was unaware that book sources must include external citations and saw no problem with using the book as a source as it appears reliable enough. I'd like other opinions on the matter please. The book in question is The Encyclopedia of Dead Rock Stars: Heroin, Handguns, and Ham Sandwiches by Jeremy Simmonds published by Chicago Review Press (ISBN 1-556-52754-3). Thanks.  Pinkadelica <sup style="color:black;">♣  19:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * In judging the "on/off" reliability of the source you are correct... a book does not have to include citations for us to consider it reliable. However, when it comes to relative reliability (ie judging the reliability of one source on a scale of reliability, or in comparison to other sources) we do tend to look more favorably on those that include citations, and consider them to be more reliable than those that don't. Blueboar (talk) 20:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Merit Badge Field Guide
This book appears to be self-published. It is quite obscure, being held by only two libraries, both near the printer and presumably near the author as well. Amazon.com has never entered it into their system. The author has written other self-published books, including another on collecting BSA memorabilia and a history of a local BSA group. He has also written a short article in what appears to be a hobbyist's newsletter and catalog, the Journal of the American Scouting Historical Society. A local newspaper interviewed him about his collection. The book in question does not appear to have been reviewed or discussed in any other sources. It is the main source for an old featured article, which is now up for review. The question here is whether this book can be considered a "high quality" source, per WP:FA Criteria item 1C: "Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources ..."  Will Beback   talk    22:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Duersch Jr., Fred (2003). Merit Badge Field Guide. Downs Printing Inc.
 * History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America)
 * Upon preliminary review, the source (a book) appears to be of high quality and reliable with respect to the content which cited it and which was derived from it.  No material which cited it or which has been derived from it has been questioned or challenged.  The topic and material citing it has broad interest, is extensive enough to require a book containing a very large amount of detailed information, but little commercial or academic prospects of the type that would attract a book publisher; so it is likely that this a high and the highest available quality source.  North8000 (talk) 22:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Duersch has had several articles published in International Scouting Collectors Association and is a notable expert in the field of Merit Badge history in the Boy Scouts, as the reference above indicates, his work is a practical field guide for merit badge collectors, with a format "similar to Rick Hubbard's out-of-print Merit badge chronicle...the 'Field Bible' of merit badge collecting". Dreadstar  ☥  23:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: I have repeatedly asked North8000 and Dreadstar whether they have actually seen the book in question and neither has replied. I conclude that no active editor has any direct knowledge of this source.   Will Beback    talk    21:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note, editor Will Beback has apparently absolutely no knowledge in this area, no clue as to what a reliable source is for Boy Scout Merit badges, and is merely making unfounded accusations against other editors. Editors have indeed replied to Will Beback, but I don't believe any answer will suit him. Uninvolved editors are very much requested in this issue, because I don't feel any response will be sufficient for the accuser.  Dreadstar  ☥  00:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that Dreadstar or North8000 have ever said whether they've read the book. If I'm mistaken please post the diffs.   Will Beback    talk    01:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Per your comment below, who is "we" exactly? I just see you, and you are not the owner or Ringmaster of this discussion.  You've been repeatedly asked to raise this issue to the next level, yet you persist in attacking and falsely accusing other editors.  The sources given have been judged as reliable and the suggestion has long been made that you raise this to FA because you don't seem to feel reliability is sufficent.  Raise it to FA or leave it alone, no one wants to play your games here.  Dreadstar  ☥  01:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the source is reliable based on the author's reputation as an expert in this area. Despite the depth in coverage in the HJNews article, that would not be enough by itself to establish him as an expert, but I am swayed by the appearance of his article in the Journal of the American Historical Scouting Historical Society and the bio they give him in the 1999 publication. This is a narrow area, so I would expect any pretenders to expertise would be ignored. I also note that he is mentioned in passing in an Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (May 20, 2009) article: "Yesteryear's stalking badge, discontinued in 1952, becomes today's crime prevention, first issued in 1996. Goodbyes were said to grasses, legumes and forage crops in 1958. Rabbit raising might still make one feel accomplished, but there's been no merit badge for it since 1958, according to Fred Duersch's Merit Badge Field Guide", and also in a bibliography at PAXTU. There are also a large number of web sites oriented to scout memorabilia sites that reference the book. So I see a specialist journal publication and supporting evidence from two news sources and a specialist web site, which lead me to say that he seems reliable in this particular area. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. Just to clarify, we're not asking if this is a reliable source in the usual sense, but whether it goes beyond that to being a sufficiently "high quality" source to serve as the main source for a featured article. Do you have an opinion on that narrower question?   Will Beback    talk    00:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * My personal response would be that you have the question backwards--I think the source is reliable, and thus can be used (and others agree, and some of us don't often, fwiw). If the article's good enough to be considered a fine article, that's ok by me, but those kinds of things interest me less than getting it right, and if trying to reach fine article status you lose information sourced to this that editors agree is worth having, you've missed the point. This is not a crack against anyone else, just the way I look at it. Seems like the question of whether the source is of sufficiently high quality to prevent the article from reaching FA would be a an issue for an FA board. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Wise answer.   Will Beback    talk    01:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but it is really just my opinion. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Merit Badge Field Guide further discussion

 * North8000, can you explain what steps your review involved? Do you have the book?   Will Beback    talk    22:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see the first sentence of my statement for the answer to your question; you are apparently trying to ignore and re-direct from that. North8000 (talk) 00:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Upon preliminary review, the source (a book) appears to be of high quality and reliable with respect to the content which cited it and which was derived from it. 
 * Excuse me for being obtuse, but I do not see a description of how you concluded that the book is "of high quality and reliable".   Will Beback    talk    00:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * To use Binford's terms in the field of anthropology this is an explication not an explanation. An explanation is why the source is "of high quality and reliable"--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Why don't you let other editors comment, or do you own this discussion? Dreadstar  ☥  23:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm asking North8000 how he formed his opinion and whether it's based on actually reading the book. If nobody here has even seen it then that's an important factor in this discussion.   Will Beback    talk    23:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's good, you can do it separately here and not dominate the initial discussion you created here. This venue is where other opinions are solicited because the principals have failed to come to an agreement; it's not an opportunity to continue the original disagreement.  That time has passed.  Now it's time for others to chime in, and not let the original disputants attempt to poison the well by trying to dominate with their POV. Dreadstar  ☥  23:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't browbeat me. If you don't want to discuss it then stop posting here. I've asked a reasonable question of North8000 in regard to his assertion that this source is "of high quality and reliable". I'd like to see his response.    Will Beback    talk    23:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The quoted line is written by Duersch himself, and it simply says that he uses a similar format to a respected book. What articles has he published in  International Scouting Collectors Association?   Will Beback    talk    23:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure North8000 will respond. And don't try to kettle me with accusations of browbeating.  In response to your question, the author has written several articles, including the cover story in the November 2004 ISCS Journal. Dreadstar  ☥  23:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The ISCS Journal does not appear to have an online archive. What was the title of the article? Can you tell us anything else about it?    Will Beback    talk    23:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * PS: the ISCS Journal probably does qualify as a reliable source. Perhaps we could use article published there instead of the self-published Field Guide.   Will Beback    talk    23:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, guys: That's enough.  I request that Will, Dread, and North stop posting anything to this thread.  If you keep up this bickering, you're going to kill off any chance you have of getting any more outside responses.  If your only goal is to bicker with each other, then please take it to one of your talk pages.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've put very little here, mostly because it went off on the track of trying to spin me...I'm one of the participants, providing a little info, not one of the respondents.  But that's good advice and will do.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

High-quality reliable sources
So a trip through the discussion about the term's adoption produces the following information:


 * "High-quality" is acknowledged to be subjective. There is no definition or criteria by which editors can determine whether a source is actually "high-quality".
 * "High-quality" is relative to the subject matter. A celebrity magazine would normally be deemed "high-quality" for a pop culture article; it would not normally be deemed "high-quality" for a description of a mathematical concept.
 * Rather than having any specific or practical meaning, some of the editors supporting its addition to the FA criteria seem to think it primarily a sort of flag-waving exercise, i.e., a way of signaling that FA folks believe that "quality" is a Good Thing.
 * The predictions by its multiple opponents that it would be a source of frequent, time-wasting disputes appear to have been accurate.

IMO the FA folks should write an essay at High-quality reliable sources and define their terms (or directly declare that the phrase is meant to be subjective and ambiguous). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I totally disagree as IMHO there is criteria for determining if a source is "high-quality" if one actually reads WP:RS:
 * 1) It should be a secondary source.
 * 2) It should be an academic and peer-reviewed publication, scholarly monograph, or textbook
 * 3) It should be published by a well-regarded academic press or by the academic division of a well-regarded publisher (Wiley-Blackwell, Sage Publications, McGraw-Hill Higher Education, American Anthropological Association, Massachusetts Medical Society and Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers are some examples)
 * 4)It should be as current as is possible.
 * I think (or at least hope) the editors here are smart enough that they don't need to be spoon feed this stuff and pull this information out as I have.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)