Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

List of archives

, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457

Additional notes:

• RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
• While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
• This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.

Start a new discussion

Scans of official documents

A new editor recently uploaded a series of scans of official documents authored by the governments of Timor-Leste, Vanuatu and Papua New Guinea showing statements of their respective recognition of the State of Palestine.

I have no doubts whatsoever about the reliability of these sources, but can they be used by themselves to make the claim that these states recognise Palestine?

As the uploader rightly points out, the nature of the countries (being small island-nations) means that records and information on their foreign policies are not widely reported, especially from the time the decisions were made (over a decade ago in the latter two cases). This makes it difficult to locate supportive sources.

The only supporting information found on the web is that they all share the same non-resident Ambassador, Ali Kazak, who is the head of the Palestinian delegation in Australia (see here). And Vanuatu is often included in lists of countries that recognise Palestine (example).

Any thoughts? Obviously it's not ideal, but can we use the scans with what little supportive sources we have available? Nightw 18:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Official documents are intrinsically primary sources. They can not be used to say anything other than what they explicitly state, and that not always in every type of article. Collect (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:RS guideline: "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research." [1] In this particular case, practical advice from someone better-informed and more experienced than Collect or myself would obviously be useful. Writegeist (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

So if the editors involved agree that the documents are explicit in regards to what we wish to claim, leaving no room for interpretation, they can be used given the lack of sources available? Nightw 20:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• I am with Collect on this. Firstly, the documents need to be transmitted invariant, intact, with a known transmission. Scans found on the web aren't suitable. Scans on the TL Government's Foreign Office website are fine. Scans found on Fred's Big East Timor Website, no. Scans on the University of West Wyalong's Timor Studies Centre page under Professor Sue Exampleson would generally be fine. etc. Secondly, the document needs to be unambiguous in its statement of fact. Any requirement for intepretation beyond the simplest semantic use of the words themselves—nope. The fact that the scans were uploaded to commons speaks against them here. Randoms are not archivists transmitting objects invariant and intact. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
• Primary sources must not be used for any contentious claim—if the official stand taken by a country is at all important there will be multiple reliable secondary sources. Examples of problems with a source such as the proposed scan include the cherry-picking, context, and currency of the statement (by picking particular pages to scan and quote, someone is performing WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH; background to the statement is needed for an encyclopedic understanding; how is it known if the statement was not revoked?). Finally, elaborate hoaxes are possible, and verification of authenticity is needed. Johnuniq (talk) 02:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Well the scans aren't the actual source, they're a copy of the sources. Scans are (in theory) able to verify (or not) the source. If there's a dispute over their authenticity then they shouldn't be used, otherwise primary source guidelines apply. Two other potential issues (a) are the original documents otherwise "published", ie available to the public? If not, they fail WP:V, scans or not(b) are they copyright? In which case they fail WP:COPYLINK

Well, the PNG one is a media statement, so I presume that it has been published, but then I can't find any news articles online that back up the statement. The others not so sure about. Nightw 09:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that's pretty conclusive. Thank you all for your contribution. If any of you have a spare moment, I've another thread on NPOVN with some sourcing concerns; having trouble garnering a response, so any input would be very much appreciated. Regards, Nightw 09:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marisol Deluna

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

Looks like she's been covered by at least a couple major Texas dailies[2]. TimidGuy (talk) 10:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.mlmwatch.org/

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

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

Interestingly, on the very same talk page is a discussion about a scientific journal article about an "mlm" product, and the article itself references a number of peer-reviewed published scientific articles regarding this particular companies products, so I'm not quite sure how Doc James makes his initial conclusion which is alarmingly lacking in NPOV. Numerous companies that use MLM are also heavily involved in publication and presentation of scientific papers in respected journals and conferences, so I'm afraid Doc James is wrong there as well. As to the case in point, the argument is over using Stephen Barrett's self-published "mlmwatch.org" website as a source for information regarding the past business associations of some people involved with the company Juice Plus[3]. 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[4]. The only real advice has been to use it with care on medical/health issues noting it is the opinion of Barrett in his area of expertise. In this case his other site is being used as a source for business, not medical or health, information and regarding BLP issues. Barrett is not a recognized expert on business or mlm and is clearly not an acceptable source in this case. --Icerat (talk) 02:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended content

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The thing is this had already degenerated into a Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Juice_Plus issue with little relevant merits on the actual reliability of the sources getting lost in the scuffle. Going over Barrett's [The Rise and Fall of United Sciences of America] paper and looking at the actual text involved [5] the material look reasonably good and a little digging produced Therese Walsh's "Juicing for fun and profit: taking a good thing too far" article (reprinted in) Gale Group's 1997 Nutrition forum: Volume 14 Prometheus Books pg 36-39 which states and I quote "Juice Plus capsules and many other dehydrated juice capsule products, including those from AIM and Juice For Life, are promoted as having enzymes that aid in digestion. These claims are just as false for juice capsules as for whole juice. Even the claim that juice capsules contain much the same nutritional value as the actual juice is unsubstantiated."--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So if Barrett started up "troutwatch.org" tomorrow, he's automatically considered an expert on trout? Give me a break. The site has barely been updated in years. It has it's own separate FAQ that makes no mention of peer-review (on quackwatch he at least states, essentially, "some is, some isn't"). The very header paragraph on the site is provably unreliable with 5 seconds on google scholar[6] and google books[7] 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 [8] and this [9] that there is no such consensus about quackwatch.--Icerat (talk) 01:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is MLMwatch.org a self-published website?

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

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

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

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

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

Document scan

Is this scan of a WW2-era US government document a reliable source? Is it a secondary source? It's proposed as such at Talk:Prescott Bush#Guardian cite, but I'd say that for the source to be reliable we'd have to know what document that page actually belongs to, especially as secondary sources like the Guardian suggest that the US government changed its stance on the issue, and this may not have been the final investigation result but just an intermediate report. Thoughts? Huon (talk) 14:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Note this is only part of the story - the scan is from HNN.US, which is WP:RS. The scan was linked from the main article, and listed as having been provided by John Buchanan. The page links are listed in full on the Prescott Bush talk page. Including an Internet Archive link to the original HNN.US pages. The material had been dscussed on the Prescott Bush talk page in the past, and discussed on RS/N. The current editor seems to think that HNN.US would use a "fake" document, of all things. Or somehow that Internet Archive ("Wayback") is unreliable. [10] shows directly that the documents had been hosted at hnn.us. I fail to see how the fact that we now have to use Wayback suddenly makes the document questionable -- hasn't Wayback been accepted now for some years? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Uninvolved commenters should note that Huon and myself, as involved parties, are arguing with Collect, also an involved party. My own take on the argument is that the document is not a reliable source for this purpose. I also believe that using a primary source document to inject a position into our article that's contradicted by secondary sources which also had access to the document is original research. That's all I'll have to say here, since this board works best when uninvolved editors discuss the case on its merits.  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm uninvolved. Archive.org is fine. In fact, it's used by thousands upon thousands of articles.[11] However, the document is a primary source. You can only use a primary source to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify. We are not allowed to analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source; instead, we're supposed to refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Given the topic and the length of time that has passed, it sounds like a very, very bad idea to cite that source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The source was provided to HNN.US by John Buchanan. As such, it is RS - a primary source reported on by a secondary source directly. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The document is a primary source, and can only be used to report exactly what is stated on the source. Any contextualizing or interpretation requires a secondary source. See WP:PSTS. Also, Collect, do not lie about other editors, Huon specifically says "I don't think it's fake" on the article's talk page. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The source is HNN.US. The proper issue is - is HNN.US a WP:RS for the claim that this document was provided by John Buchanan to them, and that it is a reliable copy of a US report? The editor wrote specifically:

If I put some effort to it, I could probably fake such an image in less than a day.

That is substantially different from your assertion that I lied. Saying one "could probably fake it" is a teeny bit different from "I don't think it's a fake." Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

However there isn't the teeniest bit of difference between Ian.thomson's recall of what Huon wrote and what was actually written [12]: "I don't think it's fake..." Huon added: "...neither is it reliable." Writegeist (talk) 21:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

As I did not say that, that is irrelevant. What I did say was that an editor wrote If I put some effort to it, I could probably fake such an image in less than a day. I take it that you do not assert that exact quote is wrong,moreover. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

What you said, and what Ian.thomson was drawing your attention to, was that Huon "seems to think that HNN.US would use a 'fake' document" -- an egregious misrepresentation of Huon's stated view ("I don't think it's fake"). "Irrelevant"? Please. Writegeist (talk) 23:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice if your retorts would be accurate. The issue was whether HNN.US was a reliable source for the document. Your interpolations to the contrary notwithstanding. And this noticeboard is not the place to engage in persal repartee. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

My reply was entirely accurate. And when one editor's post distorts another's viewoint so egregiously as to make it the factual opposite of what the other actually stated, it is as well to have the sophistry pointed out. I believe this is relevant to the discussion, and to the issue in hand, regardless of how you choose to dismiss my contribution. Writegeist (talk) 00:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

IOW, you are unable to say anything about the actual source, only that you wish to call me a liar as often as possible on this noticeboard <g>. Congrats - I think you are setting a record. Cheers, and enjoy the tea. Collect (talk) 05:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

If I wished to call you a liar here, I would do so. As I haven't, your accusation is rather queer. I simply pointed out that you employed a fallacious argument, which misrepresented another user's view: you said Huon "seems to think that HNN.US would use a 'fake' document" whereas in fact Huon had stated "I don't think [the document] is fake" - ergo Huon does not seem to think HNN.US is using a fake document. An altogether innocent error on your part, I'm sure. Writegeist (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Blackbeard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources for 12 Gauge album

Hello, I had a couple questions regarding a couple of sources used on 12 Gauge (album). It's an article on the Kalmah album and, at the time when the article was being expanded, sources were pretty scarce, compared to some of the more popular metal bands.

1. Angry Metal Guy

Because the article is currently under FAC consideration, I removed this source from the Critical reception section of the article because it hasn't had a clear consensus as to its reliability (see below). I figured I'd ask about it here, and if deemed reliable for how it is used, I would reinsert a variation of it. The citation—a direct link to the review included—is as follows:

"Kalmah 12 Gauge Review". Angry Metal Guy. March 3, 2010. Archived from the original on February 9, 2011. Retrieved May 27, 2010.

The paragraph of text that was cited as follows:

Angry Metal Guy considered Kalmah's sixth effort to be generic and straightforward. He stressed the lack of technical playing and "jaw dropping" appeal, but noted that this sometimes worked to the album's advantage. "Sometimes you just want some good melodic death metal to listen to while drinking a beer and banging your head, and that’s what Kalmah delivers in spades". Despite the short length of the album, which kept the album from "overstaying its welcome", the songs were "energetic, fun to listen to and cathartic." He added that 12 Gauge is "definitely superior to For the Revolution," but he still considered The Black Waltz to have more originality.

In May 2010, I asked about this site at WikiProject Albums, and an IP gave his rationale as to why is could be a reliable source, stating that it has been referenced itself by other reliable sites, including SMN News, Metal from Finland, and Blabbermouth. However, I'm still unsure about it.

2. Source Webzine

This is an interview, so I assume it's reliable, but just to double check, I'd like to run it by this noticeboard. The citation is as follows:

Teles, Falber (March 16, 2010). "Kalmah Interview". Source Webzine Brazil. Archived from the original on May 26, 2011. Retrieved May 24, 2011.

The reference is cited twice:

1. The title of the album was chosen by Pekka and Antti, who both enjoy hunting. They wanted to draw a comparison between the shotgun shells and the music, which Pekka described as having the same "crushing power".

2. The songs were developed during rehearsals, where each member added his own ideas.

Please note that both quotes are each augmented by a second reliable citation. Thank you so much! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to use the Angry Metal Guy blog. I'd leave it out. In regard to the webzine, it's hard to say. Generally at RSN we look to see if there's any indication of editorial oversight. (It doesn't seem like the best rule of thumb, but that's all we have to go by at this point.) There's no indication of editorial oversight in the About page. Even though it's an interview, it seems like we should maybe uphold this standard, especially in the case of a featured article. If you have a better source, I'd say prefer that and omit the webzine. TimidGuy (talk) 10:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate your response. AMG is out, then. As for Source, you're absolutely right, it looks like it's a one-man show, or at least, there's no editorial staff. I'll look for another source. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 14:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Son quotes Wikipedia article on father, is this reliable?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Jewish Week and its failure to fact-check

This isn't in reference to a specific article or statement under contention, but having a concern about the source's reliability, I thought it might be right to establish some sort of position on it before anything becomes contentious.

Anyway, reading as I do The Jewish Week, I've been noticing (for the past few years now) that they don't always fact-check so well. Things that would be easily fixed if they noticed or cared, like writing "Cape of Good Hope" for "Cape Horn." Now the question - particularly since this paper covers difficult (and sanctioned) topic areas, like the I/P conflict - is what to do about it. Is it worth saying "it's RS by default, but if a statement sourced only to the Jewish Week is challenged, it goes until a better source is found"? Other ideas?

Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Just because a source is accepted as a reliable source doesn't mean we have to throw our common sense out the door as to particular stories within it. Fox News is a reliable source for instance but not everything it says is accepted as gospel, er sorry Torah or whatever. Dmcq (talk) 03:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Roscelese—can you please document The Jewish Week's "failure to fact-check"? What other instances can you provide? Alexander Pope said "To err is human; to forgive, divine." Wikipedia has articles on Erratum and Correction (newspaper). Is there more than your alleged mistaking of Cape of Good Hope for Cape Horn? You may be right—but I think we would want to see a stronger case than you've thus far presented. Bus stop (talk) 03:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Now that I know I'm asked to make a list, I can try and keep closer track. Correction would be relevant if said corrections were made - and other newspapers make them, which is part of why they are reliable. (The issue with "Cape of Good Hope" is that it appears in no historical sources, that it is wildly illogical for a journey from Brooklyn to San Francisco and that, if it had happened, it would stand to reason that some mention would be made of the crossing of both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, not just the rounding of a cape. Assuming an error for "Cape Horn" makes a lot more sense, particularly in a publication with past errors of this kind.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I assume you are right about the newspaper making a mistake by using "Cape of Good Hope" instead of "Cape Horn", but I don't think that an error such as that (which appeared in an article about a musical play, not an article about South American geography) is the kind of thing that would necessarily lead me to believe that the newspaper was unreliable overall. Even newspapers that are generally considered reliable have been known to commit numerous errors (see [13] as an example). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Naturally (though as I mentioned, I would be less concerned about TJW's errors if they did correct them). I really just wanted to bring the issue of the paper's errors up on RSN before it got brought here with tempers raised over an I/P article. ;) I don't read it as regularly as (I realize now) my earlier comment might have given out, but I'll try to keep track, since I do notice something every time I pick it up. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

National Center for Science Education

An editor insists on using the National Center for Science Education, an advocacy/activist organization as a reliable source in a BLP (Stephen C. Meyer) to refute a claim of the BLP subject ("that those who oppose 'Darwinism' are persecuted by the scientific community and prevented from publishing their views"):

In their website refuting claims of persecution contained in the film Expelled (which featured Meyer), the National Center for Science Education states that, in contrast to the many new good scientific ideas that win out when they are proven to be sound, "Intelligent design advocates ... have no research and no evidence, and have repeatedly shown themselves unwilling to formulate testable hypotheses; yet they complain about an imagined exclusion, even after having flunked the basics."

Included on the organizations website is the motto: "Defending the teaching of evolution in public schools"; a major section of the website is "Taking Action: resources to help you defend the teaching of evolution," which includes such things as tips in writing letters to the editor; included on the small staff is a "religious community outreach" director; and the organization gives out an annual "Friend of Darwin" award. The organization publishes a journal, which itself may be a reliable source, but I'm having trouble seeing how the other things that this advocacy/activist organization puts out could be considered a reliable source. Drrll (talk) 12:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• In evaluating its reliability, you may wish to take note that its president is Kevin Padian, Professor of Integrative Biology at the University of California, Berkeley and Curator of Paleontology, University of California Museum of Paleontology, and at the academic credentials of its officers, directors and supporters. That it happens to have an agenda (one that just happens to be support of science, the scientific consensus and good scientific education -- hardly extremist) does not make it unreliable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 12:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• You may also wish to take note of List of scientific societies explicitly rejecting intelligent design. If NCSE's stance renders it unreliable, then you'd have to likewise reject pretty near the entire scientific community. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 12:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• I think it should be clarified that the main purpose of NCSE is to promote the teaching of evolution in schools and to keep creationism out of the science curriculum; that's what it was founded to do. [14] I happen to agree with their position on this. But that also means that they are not an unbiased source as to the issue of how supporters of creationism are treated in the scientific community. They may be right about that issue, but it's probably not going to be convincing to supporters of creationism/intelligent design, when they claim that their views have been suppressed by the scientific community, to tell them, "No, anti-evolution views are not being suppressed, and this statement from a pro-evolution organization proves it." --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

As always, having a bias doesn't make a source unreliable for use here (what source doesn't have any bias?). Viewing this through a prism of "what can convince a creationist they are wrong" is probably not very productive. Yobol (talk) 16:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Does NCSE have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" when it comes to representing or giving opionions on the positions of the people it exists to refute? If so, let's see some documentation for that. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that is necessary. The passage provided above characterizes the NCSE's view of a movie. Assuming that the passage accurately reflects the source, I see no RS issue, since the NCSE's website is a self published source and reliable as a source of the NCSE's views. That being said, I would advise caution--if the NCSE's website does not specifically mention Meyer, then I would suggest that use of this passage in an article on Meyer might be SYNTH. Meyer says that creationists are persecuted, NCSE says in reference to Expelled that creationists do not bring evidence to the table and are not scientific. Where is the 2ndary reliable source providing the link between these two statements? --Nuujinn (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The Sternberg peer review controversy, of which Meyer was a part, and in which context the NCSE is mentioned in Stephen C. Meyer, was prominently featured in Expelled, as an example of persecution -- so we're using the information pretty much in its original context. (also Meyer himself appears in the movie, though I'm not sure whether in the context of Sternberg, or otherwise.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The NCSE is clearly a reliable source for its own opinions. But they will need to be clearly attributed. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not just being used to state its own opinions. The sentence says unequivocally that the NCSE was "refuting claims of persecution." Drrll (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not think it is a reliable source for making apparently objective statements of that kind. "Reject" would be appropriate. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Reject. Just as a matter of common sense, I would be extremely surprised if the statement "...those who oppose 'Darwinism' are... prevented from publishing their views" was not true. I mean of course they are prevented from publishing their views in reputable venues, otherwise the editors of those venues are not doing their jobs. Right? The statement is a a subset of the statement "...those who oppose 'Darwinism', submit their work in crayon, or claim that space aliens from the planet Mongo did 9/11 are... prevented from publishing their views". (The question of "persecuted" is more arguable -- no one is burning these people alive, I hope -- but if by "persecuted" is meant "not considered for publication, not considered for employment, not invited to conferences, and generally dismissed with eye-rolling" then it would be extremely surprising also if this was not true.) So, since the statement seems by common sense to be extremely likely to be true, we would want very good, very neutral and disinterested, AAA-level references (probably multiple refs) to refute this. The suggested ref does not meet this standard. Herostratus (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

"Persecuted" would generally be considered to mean illegitimately and/or maliciously "not considered for publication, not considered for employment, not invited to conferences, and generally dismissed with eye-rolling". So I don't think that "the statement seems by common sense to be extremely likely to be true". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 18:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

National Center for Science Education is an advocacy organization and in-text attribution should be used. The phrase "refuting claims of persecution" should not be used in Wikipedia's voice unless secondary reliable sources also state this as fact.

But here's the thing that everyone is missing: the content in question is in violation of WP:COATRACK. Note that the disputed content is no longer discussing Stephen C. Meyer. Instead, it's discussing Expelled. The material should be deleted or moved into the article about Expelled. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

No, both Meyer's statement, and the movie Expelled, are part of a long-running ID propaganda campaign claiming persecution. In fact, the specific claims Meyer made in that statement are remarkably similar to the claims that the ID movement has made about Sternberg (unfairly "stigmatize[d] as religious 'creationists'") and Gonzalez ("deprivation of tenure"), two of the 'Expelled' featured in the movie. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 18:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Meyer's advocacy of ID and inclusion in the movie Expelled are already explained in sufficient detail in the article. By the time the article gets to the disputed content, it's lost its focus on the article's topic and instead switches over to the debate between evolution versus creationism. This is a clear violation of WP:COATRACK. If you think this information is worth retaining, consider moving it to the article on Expelled or some other article in the creationism topic-space. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Possibly, but that discussion belongs at the article talk page. This is the reliable sources noticeboard. Now, which source did you wish to discuss the reliability of? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, this brings up a persistent problem I think. Our policies and guidelines say that they should not be interpreted in isolation with each other. Yet our noticeboards are single issue. When a content dispute such as this involves 3 different policies (verifiability, biographies of living people, and neutral point of view) does it make sense to have 3 separate discussions on the appropriate 3 noticeboards? Or should the editors of the other noticeboards be invited to join the original discussion? I think I will start a separate discussion on one of the talk pages. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You may well have a point, but when the three problems you mention are verifiability, biographies of living people, and neutral point of view, then the reliable sources noticeboard seems like an odd place to centralise the discussion. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Considering that we currently have (counting this one) four BLP issues here it seems what there is a serious problem with editors understanding which noticeboard to bring issues to. Perhaps a chart like the one I suggested a while ago might help.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

What's next, disallowing material from avowed round-earth advocacy organizations such as the American Geophysical Union? Or disallowing material from NASA because they refuse to discuss the theory that the moon is made of green cheese? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The question is whether NCSE is reliable for discussing the treatment of certain other groups which it exists to oppose. Let's wait for those entertainingly hypothetical cases to arise before we discuss them. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• What better source for scientific matters than a group of scientists? To reject this would be absurd. You could pretty much invalidate any scientific source on these spurious grounds. Gamaliel (talk) 17:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The point is that the assertion about the treatment of their opponents is not a scientific matter. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

How is the statement "Intelligent design advocates ... have no research and no evidence, and have repeatedly shown themselves unwilling to formulate testable hypotheses" not "a scientific matter"? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly! Who better to weigh whether or not something meets the standards for appropriate research, evidence, and testability than scientists? Gamaliel (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Because it's a statement about the behaviour of people. An idea and its advocates are different sorts of thing. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The statement quoted by SBHB is a discussion of the science. A claim about why they do not formulate testable hypothesis (fraud, stupidity, etc.) would be a statement about the behavior of people. Gamaliel (talk) 17:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

We clearly disagree about what constitutes "behaviour". The assertions which this organisation's views are called on to support are:

In their website refuting claims of persecution contained in the film Expelled (which featured Meyer), the National Center for Science Education states that, in contrast to the many new good scientific ideas that win out when they are proven to be sound, "Intelligent design advocates ... have no research and no evidence, and have repeatedly shown themselves unwilling to formulate testable hypotheses; yet they complain about an imagined exclusion, even after having flunked the basics."

their website refuting claims of persecution -- that is, they are taken as a reliable source for the way ID advocates are treated

ID advocates have no research and no evidence -- a statement about the behaviour of this group of people, that they have or rather have not done certain things

ID advocates have ... shown themselves unwilling to formulate testable hypotheses -- again about their behaviour and the reasons for that behaviour

ID advocates ... complain about an imagined exclusion -- again about their treatment and behaviour

Is NCSE a source with a reputation for reliability and fact-checking on these subjects: I doubt it. Is there any evidence? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 18:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)From memory, the NCSE's "reliability and fact-checking" provided a significant portion of the evidentiary basis for the plaintiff's (successful) case in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (they lent their library of Creationist materials and some researchers), so I think you'd have difficulty in finding fault with it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 18:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no difficulty with evidence. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

NCSE may have been the most important player in the celebrated evolution case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. Despite the fact that the ACLU is commonly regarded as the moving force in the suit against the Dover school hoard, the truth is that the ACLU had insufficient staff, litigation funds, and sci- entific expertise to conduct the case, so the ACLU's Vic Walczak called the NCSE before accepting the case.

NCSE provided biologists, paleontologists, philosophers of science, mathematicians, and a host of other consultants and expert witnesses. The NCSE also granted the ACLU full access to its archives, covering more than two decades of creationism cases and Intelligent Design arguments. Most important, NCSE referred Walczak to an attorney, Eric Rothschild, at the prestigious international law firm Pepper Hamilton. After Pepper Hamilton's pro Bono panel endorsed entering the case, Rothschild and his colleague, Steve Harvey, entered the case as lead attorneys, along with the ACLU's Wolczak.

— Toxic mix?: a handbook of science and politics, p225

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 19:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, now that I think about it, I think that this is also a WP:BLP violation. You can't use an WP:SPS for claims about a third party. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

As always, where opinions are used, they should be specificaly cited as opinions. They may be the "truth" or they may not be the truth - makes no difference. Let readers weigh what is written on their own and not have us state "this is absolute truth" on any topic. Collect (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Except that the publications of a respected and prominent science advocacy group does not count as "self-published" -- and certainly does not resemble (even by analogy) the types of publications discussed in WP:SPS. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 18:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The rule about opinions has nothing to do with SPS. WP:SPS has nothing to do with the fact that opinions should always be cited as opinions. Wikipedia is better served by factually identifying opinions as opinions, and not asserting that some opinions are the WP:TRUTH. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Can any supporter of NCSE as a reliable source show from WP:IRS how an advocacy/activist group qualifies as a reliable source? Drrll (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

"The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint." The NCSE is chock full of specialists and recognized experts on science & science education. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 19:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

So therefore something like The Cato Institute's division of Energy and Environment would qualify as a reliable source (which by the way, while an advocacy group, is not an activist group like the NCSE)? Drrll (talk) 19:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The Cato Institute has a reasonable reputation for doing serious scholarship to back up their advocacy, so I wouldn't dismiss them out of hand (and would be more likely to take them seriously than many other think-tanks). As to the Energy and Environment division, I would note that only one of their 'experts' (Patrick J. Michaels) appears to have any particular depth of scholarly expertise, so I might tread a bit more carefully in that particular area. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 19:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Cato has a reputation for pushing fringe ideas, so it can be a somewhat dubious source. NCSE has no such reputation. Guettarda (talk) 20:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

You may be right on science-related matters -- the positive comments I've seen have been on economic and social issues. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The question that matters: who uses or recommends NCSE or NCSE publications? That's one way to attest to their reliability. Here's one example where the National Academy of Sciences does just that. Guettarda (talk) 20:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

While the NCSE's journal Reports of the National Center for Science Education may be a reliable source, what's at issue is their website Expelled Exposed--not a production of the journal. In addition, the page you linked to simply shows a favorable review article on a page selling a book, not a citation to the NCSE within a NAS publication. Drrll (talk) 00:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

No, the link I gave is a link to the National Academies Press, which allows you to download a National Academy of Sciences book for free. And the book does not use RNCSE as a source, it recommends a website published by the NCSE. Guettarda (talk) 01:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec)The NCSE is a reliable source not because it is an "advocacy/activist" group, but because it has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. It is associated with the American Association for the Advancement of Science, one of the largest scientific organisations in the world, it has many prominent and respected scientists among its members and supporters, and its publications have generally been favourably received by mainstream science and education organisations. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, does their website material actually have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking? Drrll (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the NAS book actually recommends an NCSE website. Guettarda (talk) 01:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

And this article in Evolution: Education and Outreach gives the 'Expelled Exposed' website itself positive mention. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

(edit conflict)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another potential source for the Wishology article

Is this following source from grantt.trigcola.com [15] considered to be a reliable source? I would like to know whether I can proceed adding it to the "Reception" section of the Wishology article, especially when I plan to promote it to FA or GA eventually. Thanks, 89119 (talk) 19:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Given WP:SPS's "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."(sic) requirement and what WP:NOT says I really don't understand why this is needed as a reference when clearly better ones exist.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I completely understand that this reference is indeed not reliable and that better ones exist; it's just for an article I would like to nominate to the FAC, I would like to find as many references as possible. Anyways, thanks for your comment; I will not use that source. Besides, the article has about 30 (more-reliable) references already, which is plenty in my opinion. ;P 89119 (talk) 09:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Alarabiya, reliable or not?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tamil cinema history...

Would Millennium 3 Chennai be considered a reliable source?

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:The Dating Guy

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

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

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

Max Blumenthal

I added a link from the Max Blumenthal website as proof that the Israelis retracted their claim that there were mercenaries aboard the Gaza flotilla.User:Plot Spoiler has deleted that claiming that Max Blumenthal is not a reputable source.Max Blumenthal is an award winning journalist and a best selling author whose articles have appeared in The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Daily Beast, The Nation, The Guardian, The Huffington Post, Salon.com, Al Jazeera English and many other publications. He is also writing fellow for the Nation Institute.

This is the piece here where the link was placed.Gaza flotilla raid

Here is the link I added as evidence.Scrutiny, IDF Retracts Claims About Flotilla’s Al Qaeda Links

So does a journalist who has written for many reputable main stream media outlets somehow become an unreliable source because he is writing on his own website?This seems to be part of User:Plot Spoiler argument, here Max blumenthal is not an WP:RS by ANY means. It is his personal blog. and here [16]

Thoughts please.

His personal/website blog does not comport with WP:RS. Neither do his opinion pieces published in reputable sources. Only if it is fact-based news article/analysis published in a reputable source would it be a WP:RS. It is also important to keep in mind that Blumenthal is a highly partisan commentator on issues related to the Arab-Israeli conflict as well as U.S. politics. It doesn't matter if he is an award-winning journalist or yada yada yada. His work needs to be vetted in a reliable source, which is not done in his personal website that lacks an editorial board. Please review WP:RS. Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I think his work is fine and being as the story on his website that I linked to is also in the Guardian we can say that it is a reputable story and he was telling the truth.[17]Owain the 1st (talk) 04:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not about him telling the truth... it's about it being a reliable source. Please review WP:RS. You apparently to refuse to do this. Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Well this is why we are here and I will let other decide if he is a reputable source or not.Owain the 1st (talk) 04:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

When the reliable source is wrong

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

iTunes sales charts as a reference

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

Are these little blue numbers reliable sources?

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

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

Personal web site as a reliable source

Discussion [19] centers around whether a web site [20] created and maintained by David Orme Johnson,:[21] is a reliable source for the a TM movement article, and per Wikipedia:SPS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publication." Discussion refers specifically to comments about the relationship of Transcendental Meditation Movement and cult. Orme Johnson is a PhD in Psychology, a researcher of the Transcendental Meditation technique, and a teacher of Transcendental Meditation. Some argue Orme Johnson as a highly published Psychologist, a TM teacher and TM insider, is expert in the field of human beahviour and its relationship to TM and the TM movement, relevant to understanding cult and its relationship to TM and TM movement. Others argue Orme Johnson's training and background is not specific enough, and too generic for comments related specifically to cult behaviour, and to the relationship of cult to the TM Movement, the topic of the article.

• The comment, recently removed in good faith, pending agreement. (third paragraph) [22] is inline attributed.
• Recent publications:[23]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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