Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:19, 16 June 2011

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.

Additional notes:

• WP:RSN
• WP:RS/N
• WP:V/N

• 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.

Archives

Index 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, 458, 459, 460 461, 462

This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

http://www.mlmwatch.org/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_58#FitzPatrick_.26_Reynolds.2C_False_Profits, Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 paper and looking at the actual text involved the material look reasonably good and a little digging produced Therese Walsh's "Juicing for fun and profit: taking a good thing too far" article (reprinted in) Gale Group's 1997 Nutrition forum: Volume 14 Prometheus Books pg 36-39 which states and I quote "Juice Plus capsules and many other dehydrated juice capsule products, including those from AIM and Juice For Life, are promoted as having enzymes that aid in digestion. These claims are just as false for juice capsules as for whole juice. Even the claim that juice capsules contain much the same nutritional value as the actual juice is unsubstantiated."--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• mlmwatch is a tertiary source, and should only be used when secondary sources are not available. That said, the author of the website is something of an expert on multilevel marketing, especially with regard to the health claims of a number of products. As far as his perceptions of the organizational staffing of certain MLMs, it would be his sources that need to be examined. If he doesn't cite sources, then the staffing data is not particularly certain. To the extent possible Misplaced Pages is not the place for mere allegations, unless they are presented as such. E.g. "It has been alledged ... The manufacture has denied ..." --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 Misplaced Pages not a forum stop with the bumping we are seeing in Misplaced Pages: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 and google books and promotes essentially a conspiracy theory that the hundreds of academic and reliably published books on the topic are somehow under the influence and control of the MLM industry. BTW, this is pretty much the first time in this whole discussion that someone has simply said "mlmwatch is not self-published" and "mlmwatch is considered a part of quackwatch" rather than just mindless repetitive "quackwatch is reliable". At least now we're getting to a disagreement that actually makes some sense. Can you support the assertion that Stephen Barrett's articles on mlmwatch are not published by Stephen Barrett, and that they are independently fact checked and have a reputation for accuracy? --Icerat (talk) 00:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

"Natural Alternatives International Inc: DEF 14A (1/8/01) ". 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 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 Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive97#Noticeboards.2C_source_criticism_and_claims_of_BLP_issues and Misplaced Pages: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   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 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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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   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 Misplaced Pages 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) , so that makes a corporate website "non-self-published", at least for corporations that have a minimum of two employees and an editor willing to assert that the employees don't do what their bosses tell them to do.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are all sites by Stephen Barrett considered Reliable automatically?

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

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

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

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

Is quackwatch.org the same as mlmwatch.org? Most editors above seem to think so. Is quackwatch.org/mlmwatch.org equal to Stephen Barrett? Most editors above don't seem to think so. Is quackwatch.org/mlmwatch.org reliable (per RS). Most editors above seem to think so. I think there is CON on this matter. Shot info (talk) 02:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I've looked over the site and the edit. The article on mlmwatch has extensive references and I believe it could be included as long as it is stated clearly that mlmwatch is the source of the information (as it is in the dif) and so long as the information in question is not undue weight on the opinions of mlmwatch. However, as a less controversial move you could attempt to track down the original sources of the information in the mlmwatch article's bibliography and use those sources instead. --Torchwoodtwo (talk) 07:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

To further explain, if Barret's opinion is important enough as to not be undue weight or somehow insignificant, I feel that it can be included so long as it is properly disclaimed. Are there any other sources that backup Barret's claims or discuss them in the context of Juice Plus?--Torchwoodtwo (talk) 08:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Undue aside, on what basis are you OKing it? Are you saying (a) mlmwatch.org is not self-published and/or (b) it's not being used for WP:BLP information? I've suggested several time to the editors defending the edit, who claim it is supported by Barrett's references, to use those references instead, but they've failed to do so. If you check the references it's easy to see why - they all predate the claim being made. --Icerat (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Dramaz needz MOAR BOLDS!!!!!!!! It's the most effective way to get editors to subscribe to your point of view :-) Shot info (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean by “back up”. There are ample sources that back up the factual details of Barrett’s comments -- i.e. Wise was a senior exec at USAI and NAI, an insider shareholder in the company that manufactures Juice Plus, and an author on at least half of the Juice Plus studies, and the research has been criticized by third-party RS (if you'd like me to provide links to those sources, just let me know). I don’t see than anyone is contesting those facts. As for other sources that have drawn all the aforementioned aspects together, Rosemary Stanton (“a nutritionist and a consultant to the health departments of several universities and state agencies”) referred to Wise’s research as follows:

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

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

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

As with Taylor and Fitzpatrick, Stephen Barrett's work has appeared in peer reviewed publications so he can be like them showed to meet reliable. If something similar to his comments regarding the work of Weston Price had been presented then this might have merit but instead all we have gotten is WP:CRYBLP.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I think a reasonable conclusion would be that mlmwatch is a WP:SPS due to no apparent editorial oversight, but because of Barrett's expertise in medical issues a la Quackwatch, mlmwatch could be used carefully with WP:PARITY. Preferably, the better answer would be to seek out the WP:RS from which Barrett is making these claims.  Leef5   12:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Needle Exchange Review cited in EMCDDA Review of Reviews

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

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

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

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

Any claims of imagined bias in this journal must explain why these authors are considered dispassionate in hundreds of PubMed articles, but biased if they publish in this journal. The assertion that the journal is funded by the US Justice Department appears to me to moreso yield to an anti-US prejudice, which should not influence content on Misplaced Pages. The assertion that the journal is not sympathetic to harm reduction does not demonstrate any bias in any specific article, just as the PubMed ‘Harm Reduction Journal’, with its paucity of prevention articles and which often demonstrably contains the view that prevention does not work, does not necessarily render its articles biased. Thanks for your time on this one. Minphie (talk) 07:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how we can reject this source out of hand, given that it's considered a core review by the official drug statistical and research agency of the European Union. TimidGuy (talk) 11:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The study in question is the study explicitly criticized in this commentary in CMAJ.

Also as I am Swedish, I can also give the background story: The article in JGDPP is in reality an adaption of a booklet called "Sprututbyte : en genomgång av den internationella forskningen och den svenska debatten" that where given all members of parliament before they where to vote on NEP (they allowed it, although the counties have discretion over its implantation). Not surprisingly, the book annoyed more then a few scientists in Sweden. A few from Lund wrote a point-for-point rebuttal (in Swedish). Others took the booklet to the ethics committee of Karolinska Institutet as Ulric Hermansson is an employee of theirs. After a few months the commetee decided not to investigate as they felt out of jurisdiction, the findings was not presented in a medical journal nor in the name of Karolinska. Although they still felt compelled to conclude that the study, that didn't resemble a scientific review, might have harmed the reputation of Karolinska (in Swedish).

Given all this, I have a hard time to think that Palmeeter et al took the same care when selecting additional reviews for their EMCDDA article. And if they did, I assume they would comment on the critique other had levied at Käll et al. And there are no such comments in the EMCDDA article.

Also, dubble checking on if DuPoint, Voith and others Minphie allege are represented in PubMed. I can't find nearly as many as he does. None infact. But maybe I am doing it all wrong when I type "N McKeganey" in the PubMed search bar. Steinberger (talk) 18:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

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

User:Minphie is a WP:SP account which attempts to discount the evidence around the needle exchange program. Anytime one comes out with references that claims the WHO position is mistaken one has to look closely. The ref by the IOM look excellent. They conclude "Recommendation 3-1: Given consistent evidence that multi-component HIV prevention programs that include sterile needle and syringe access reduce drug-related HIV risks, such programs should be implemented where feasible." Has a good section here on Supervised injection facilities I do not seen in this report where the evidence was deemed "inconclusive". This issue with a number of sources this user is using is they simply misrepresent the literature and claims that good references make conclusions they in fact do not. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

In a thread above, I asked to see (as the guidelines at the top of this page specify) an instance of how this review by EMCDDA is being used. It would be helpful to see how it is (or was) being represented in the article. Again, it don't know what guideline or policy would support exclusion of the EMCDDA review altogether as a source. So it seems a matter of how it's represented, or whether it's a minor point of view, and determining which WP policies or guidelines are relevant. TimidGuy (talk) 10:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alright; I still don't have time to address this as fully as I'd like to right now, but I'll add some comments here shortly.  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

NY Post

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

It is a published source which is reliable using the WP definition thereof. As always, contentious claims in any BLP should have more than a single source. Collect (talk) 18:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, NYP can be reliable for facts. It will normally be clear if the info is sourced or just gossip. If just gossip, omit. If sourced news, then it will probably be in another paper as well. For a better response here, post details of the article and the claim made. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, we must be talking about two different NY Posts. =p (Then again, I've hated them ever since the "Kids Get a Fair Shake" article - only source I could find on that story) Here is the relevant article . Btw in the City of New York, sodomy is legally considered to be in both the mouth and the tukas (there's a part of the article that's about that). The writing style is sensationalist as always, among other things. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 03:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The important developments in the DSK story are covered in the regular print and broadcast media. Those should be our sources unless someone has a really good argument for using the NYP. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I think I agree. We can't say that we may never use this type of media, but we can say that if we have better sources available it makes sense to use those.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

100 years old history book

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

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

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

Thanks for your comment user Toddy. Arilang 11:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Agreed, and to add to what I wrote above, even primary materials can be superceded, for example if old versions were censored or incomplete. Not sure this is a concern in this case though.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Are we to assume good faith that the translations are valid? For sake of validity can this be checked by a second party?

As they are independent works, can someone interpret them as self published sources until independently verified? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The translations are not part of wikipedia, strictly speaking, so I don't think we have any judgement about their quality. I think for our purposes, the original chinese sources would the sources, and a link to the translations would be a courtesy. Given the age, I would suggest that the work itself is more of a primary source, and in general, we'd want to use the chinese historians' work about this text rather than the original. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The translations should not be considered a separate SPS source, but nor should this discussion be taken as an endorsement of the translations. If a fact sourced to one of these translations is challenged, confirmation should be sought from other Chinese-speaking editors, with a correction made to the translation if consensus deems it necessary. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. I think there is a clear consensus on WP that translations are not automatically original research. Obviously there might be problems that come from this, but that is like any low level knowledge that is not shared by all editors, such as ability in maths, spelling etc. So I think the main issue on this noticeboard, for this question is concerning the pros and cons of primary document sources. That also appears to be what most others are saying.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

My thought is that old history books can (and I have) be cited for their facts. They should not be cited for their opinions without inline attribution. Obviously, in cases where something once thought to be historical fact turns out not to be, and that is generally accepted among historians, you don't cite it, but I would think such changes in beliefs would be the subject of comment in more recent books. There'd be exceptions to that, but that for me is a good rough guide.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Chinese/English bilingual user:CWH, who is a university lecturer according to his talkpage, has gave a positive comment:, as well as PHD candidate user:Madalibi's positive comment:Talk:Imperial Decree on events leading to the signing of Boxer Protocol#A few quick comments, at least it is a good start. Arilang 02:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

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

：:To user Jayjg, Records of the Grand Historian#Reliability was written 2000 years ago, History of Ming about 500 years ago, Draft History of Qing about 90 years ago, are you telling Misplaced Pages editors not to use them as a source simply because these books are too old? Arilang 04:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Use modern historians, who are able to evaluate the reliability of these ancient sources, and weight their contents against modern historical, archeological, linguistic, and other findings. Jayjg 05:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Such books can be used in a rather restricted fashion as "primary sources" (for instance for illustrative purposes) from the perspective of the WP authors. But the primary content and assessment for historical events should come from relatively recent scholarly literature ("secondary sources" or "tertiary sources") to ensure that uptodate knowledge and standards of historical research are used.--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you user Jayjg and Kmhkmh for your comments, those Imperial decrees from 西巡迴鑾始末 should be seen as primary sources, per Misplaced Pages:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources,

My understanding of the above quotation is, primary sources material can be used, but with care. Tell me if I got it wrong.(This is not meant to be a sarcastic comment, as I am not a native English speaker). Arilang 06:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

That's quite right. You said at the beginning that the book is cited by historians. Then it should be possible to find a more recent historian who draws from it. You can add a reference to this primary source next to it, and that will be helpful to those readers who are already quite expert in Chinese history. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks user Itsmejudith, I am still not 100% sure how it works out on the real life editing, but I shall try my best. Thanks. Arilang 16:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

1900 National Upheaval

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

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

Since the article in question is about the book... the book itself should be considered a primary source (indeed, the primary source). As such, is reliable (within that article) for descriptive statements as to what is contained in the book (ie a synopsis of what the book says).

For use as a source in other articles, it depends on whether the author was a witness to the events described and is discussing his participation in those events (if so, it is primary... if not it is secondary). Even if it is secondary, its age makes it highly likely that it is outdated. I would recommend not using it for statements of fact concerning Chinese history (deferring to more recent histories that have supplanted it)... on the other hand, it would not be inappropriate to use it for a historiographical statement about how scholarship has changed over the years. In other words... its reliability depends on exactly what you are using it for. Blueboar (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I would say 1900 National Upheaval is secondary source, because there is no evidence telling us that he was an eye witness. The narrative is third person, not a first person memoir writing style.

Primary source: In the study of history as an academic discipline, a primary source (also called original source or evidence) is an artifact, a document, a recording, or other source of information that was created at the time under study.

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

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

1900 National Upheaval the original book is highly respected by many Chinese historians and used by them as reference at academic papers as well as history books. That alone should satisfy the notability criteria. Arilang 10:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you have proof of the above statement?

Even so, should we use the book over more modern sources? Consensus appears to be building that we should use more modern sources, that draw on more sources in their creation. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The proof is here:「神拳」義和團的真面目 By 侯宜傑, and I have created a wiki of the same book Divine Boxing: The real Yihetuan which was published only last year, and I can show you there are many modern academic papers that cite 1900 National Upheaval extensively. If you check the google book, you can see that Hou Yijie (Chinese:侯宜傑) quote 1900 National Upheaval many times in his book. Arilang 23:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Many academic papers? I got back zero returns. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Try conduct your search using Chinese name: 「神拳」義和團的真面目 . Arilang 07:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

That only brought up three hits, but I am unsure if they are significant in and of themselves.

Furthermore, I only have good faith to assume what I am searching for is what another editor says it is. That being said, no usage of citation in english language scholarly sources. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Please have a look:Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tsinghua University Cultural Revolution records:The memoir of a Red Guards leader, I believe if we put the book in question through a AfD, there shall be enough bilingual editors to help it to go through the process. Arilang 08:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Roy Harter

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

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

Chris Turner's Snooker Archive

Article: Steve Davis
Source: http://www.snookerarchive.co.uk/

The Steve Davis article recently failed its GA review on account of the Chris Turner source: Talk:Steve Davis/GA1#Close: Not listed.

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

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

Book on the Boxer Rebellion

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

And this is a notability issue, since it is not currently being used as a source on any articles except its own. The book, from the articles external links, only appears to appear on a few chinese language sites, making its notability and importance suspect.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 01:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Also the fact that the book has its own article doesn't make it a more acceptable source. If there are neutrality issues, the source should be dealt with carefully, perhaps by mentioning that it is a controversial book, or by ignoring it if it's clearly a fringe view. Laurent (talk) 01:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Since the book isn't notable, should there be an AfD discussion then, in that case? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

A search on the Chinese title returns quite a few results, so the book is likely to be notable. What's more worrying is that Arilang seems to be creating these book articles as a way to push a POV on various articles. It's like he cannot create an article about his POV, so he creates an article about a book supporting his POV, and links to it. He is working within Misplaced Pages's rules though, so I'm not sure we can do much about it. Laurent (talk) 04:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Unreliable Source Needs Removal

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

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

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

NOTE: The complete text of the article in question can be viewed on this subpage or it can be purchased here for $2.95 -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comments from Involved Editors

The Daily Breeze is a mainstream newspaper, covering a region of the Los Angeles metropolis. The columnist is reporting on various unusual press releases and email spam he has received, including one for the inauguration of a Raja of the Global Country of World Peace, a border-less nation created by the late Maharishi Mahesh Yogi to serve as the main arm of his Transcendental Meditation movement. Here is the material in context:

• I had to delete 100 or so batches of 20 or more junk messages caught by a system that also manages to take out legitimate reader responses, which means that I still have to scan the deleted message lists for fear of missing something. ...I'm getting beaten to death by breathless announcements from a New England gravestone makers association. Just the ticket for a California columnist. Same goes for the upcoming inauguration of "His Highness Bob LoPinto as Raja of Potomac Vedic America aboard the yacht Celebrity." Really, Raja LoPinto? (An Italian raja?) I'd like to go but I can't because I'm too busy considering an invitation to "Real Movers and Shakers," a variety show featuring handicapped people scheduled for early October. Did you know that Epsom and Gateway are holding sales of computer stuff? I do because they told me 20 times. And don't forget Sept. 2, College Colors Day -- 24 hours set aside for idiots who never got over college. But wait! In October the manufacturers of diving equipment are hosting "the world's largest underwater press conference" in Las Vegas, which, as I recall, is located in a desert.

So he's simply repeating information off of an email announcement presumably sent to many reporters and newsrooms. Here's is what appears to be a copy of the announcement the columnist is commenting on: His Highness Raja Bob LoPinto to Be Inaugurated as the Raja of Potomac Vedic America

The fact being used for the article is the name of the Raja's domain, "Potomac Vedic America". Other Rajas include John Hagelin, Raja of Invincible America, Michael Dillbeck, Raja of Invincible Algeria,, etc. The assertion is not extraordinary or contentious. Everyone agrees that Bob LoPinto is a Raja. It's not clear why there is so much objection to thsi source. It was discussed last year on the article talk page. Talk:Global Country of World Peace#Question on Sources.   Will Beback  talk  17:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

@Will Beback you've stated above "It's not clear why there is so much objection to thsi source." In my initial post above I have listed four reasons why the source is unsuitable, unreliable and objectionable and you did not address any of these objections in your post above. Instead you attempt to muddy the waters with speculation such as "what appears to be a copy of the announcement the columnist is commenting on" and "an email announcement presumably sent to many reporters". Instead of creating needless drama let's both step aside and give some uninvolved editors a chance to comment on WP policy, since that's the purpose of this noticeboard. Thanks,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Point by point reply: #1. the fact that the article is not solely about Raja Lopinto does no make it unreliable. #2. It is not clearly on Op-Ed piece. It appeared on page A2 of the newspaper, which is not a typical location for an Op-Ed piece. It looks more like a columnist who writes about things of common interest. #3. 67,000 is a moderate circulation, for an avowedly local newspaper, but I don't see how that is a factor in its reliability. The paper is part of a media conglomerate, MediaNews Group, whose papers have a combined circulation of over 2 million. It's not a rag. #4. If other sources say the same thing then that would tend to increase the appearance of reliability. However I'm not aware of any other citations in the articles which give that title.   Will Beback  talk  20:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

It hardly requires much speculation to see that the press release is the reporter's source since the text is the same. Since you object to using a mainstream newspaper as a source, would you consider using the press release itself? it's issued on behalf of the person about whom the reference is made, so there's no SPS problem.   Will Beback  talk  18:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

@Will Beback --Regarding your statement to me above: "Since you object to using a mainstream newspaper as a source". I am objecting to a specific article that clearly does not meet Misplaced Pages's requirements. Please do not mis-characterize my common sense, good faith, attempt to improve the encyclopedia by saying I have an objection "to using a mainstream newspaper as a source". Your mis-characterizations show bad faith and are disruptive to the WP noticeboard process. It would be very helpful if you could correct this tendency in the future. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be making assertions above that the newspaper is less than reliable because of its circulation is only 67,000. Is that correct?   Will Beback  talk  20:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment I highly suggest all involved parties refrain from commenting on each other or on each other's editing. This is not a behavioral noticeboard but a reliable source noticeboard. I think both of you have said what wanted to about the actual issue. Let's move on. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

We're still working out what the issues are with this source, and with the possible alternative source, the press release. But thanks for giving your views.   Will Beback  talk  20:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Griswaldo, your point is well taken and I will abide by your suggestion. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comments from Uninvolved Editors

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

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

Agreed. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Opinion pieces in newspapers should not be used as reliable sources for facts, only for the opinion of their writers. TFD (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that many articles are not labeled as "opinion pieces". This one is not, for example. So it's just our own guess. WP:V and WP:IRS do not give guidance on how to determine if an article is an Op-Ed.   Will Beback  talk  21:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. If it's a news article quoting some emails, those emails do not thereby become reliable sources. The article needs to repeat the assertions in its own voice before it can be held to be endorsing them. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

That gets into a primary/secondary source issue. Press releases are self-published primary sources that can be reliable within a narrow range. In this case, it's simply the title of the person being inaugurated. If we were considering a press release for the appointment of a Director of Human Resources, then an announcement from the company would be considered a reliable source. Having a secondary source take note of the announcement gives some indication of the noteworthiness of the fact, but you're right that it does not alter the underlying reliability of the announcement. In this case, there's no question about the asserted fact so even the original press release should be an adequate source. The mention in the Daily Breeze simply shows that the announcement has been disseminated.   Will Beback  talk  06:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought this section was for uninvolved editors? Cla68 (talk) 07:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Will are you being serious? What the author mentions in his piece is the subject heading of a "spam" email, and nothing more (not a press release, not an official title, etc.). The mere mention of the subject heading of a SPAM email can be used for absolutely nothing other than the fact that the email had said subject-heading. CASE CLOSED. Please do not continue arguing over this. It reeks of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT and is becoming disruptive.Griswaldo (talk) 14:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Summary: Keithbob, Doc James, Griswaldo, Seargent Cribb and TFD have all commented in favor of removal. Cla68 has made a neutral comment and Will Beback feels the source is reliable and should be kept. Therefore in summary, it appears there is a clear consensus to remove the source, yes?.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and changed the ref to the press release, which says the same thing. Keithbob hasn't objected to the underlying assertion, nor has he made any comment that the Global Country of World Peace is an unreliable source for its own personnel decisions, so I assume that's acceptable.   Will Beback  talk  19:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for recognizing the consensus and removing the unreliable source.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It could have been handled much more simply on the article talk page. Next time I suggest you start a thread there first.   Will Beback  talk  21:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Will, I am sorry to say that your attitude here does not give the impression that Keithbob would have had an easier job convincing you of the wisdom of removing that source on the article talk page, without the input of outside editors. --JN466 21:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Jayen466, so nice of you to go out of your way to make a personal comment about me. I can't say I'm surprised, as you seem to follow me all over Misplaced Pages. However I think your view of dispute resolution is not consistent with the community guidelines. We don't skip basic steps in dispute resolution simply because we think that we might not get quick agreement at those stages. As it happens, the questioned source could have easily been replaced by the press release if we'd discussed that on the talk page first. Maybe some editors prefer to grandstand on noticeboards, but I'm not making any accusations. ;)   Will Beback  talk  22:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Will, can we declare this noticeboard a nosism-free zone? Cla68 (talk) 01:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Will it appears that some other editors prefer to cause needless drama and disruption on noticeboards. This issue should have been over days ago. Why are we still here? Think about it and get back to me. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 01:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It was resolved some time ago. I'm not sure how the last few comments have helped anything.   Will Beback  talk  02:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I came to the noticeboard because the source was used on multiple articles and I did not want to have two parallel discussions on two separate articles. My post described the situation in a neutral and impersonal way and did not mention any editor's name nor did it imply any wrong doing on anyone's part. Just a simple question about a very questionable source. I thought it would be a very quick and simple discussion since it's common sense that the source is not reliable. My thanks to all those that participated. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't really complete or neutral, but that's why other involved parties usually add their views. And thanks to the truly uninvolved editors who've commented here.   Will Beback  talk  05:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

www.sahistory.org.za / author Stan Winer

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

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

The author is a wellknown, experienced and respected, veteran journalist / writer / researcher in South Africa, specialising in southern African affairs and international relations. His past and existing work has been widely published both in South Africa and internationally. Critical reviews etc of his work can be provided if necessary. Communikat (talk) 11:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I have looked over the diffs and links you have provided and have concluded that a)South African History Online is a legitimate website with and editorial board and is a valid source in most cases but its usage could be debated in the case of facts or statements that are contentious. b)While Stan White may be an established journalist and author, the article by him, that you have cited appears to be an editorial rather than a news report or a history of events and I don't see it has a valid source for an article on the History of South Africa.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Thanks Slp1 for your comment. It seems we agree that the article by Stan Winer doesn't seem to be an RS. On behalf of the web site in general I wanted to point out that they do accept User Contributions but the webpage says: "Please note- The information provided will be validated before we update the site." and "Please include a section for your sources and references within your attached documents." So it may still qualify as a reliable source in certain applications due to its editorial oversight on user contributions.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I saw that, but it is not at all clear that the validation is anything more that validating that the basic info (name etc) being requested is genuine. They want to know who is posting, not promising to check out the content in any detail. Slp1 (talk) 22:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

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

And thanks to you for your willingness to accept our responses and to explain a bit further about the book. Not sure that I would call the Morning Star newspaper a "mass media reviewer" myself, but it seems that it is a moot point. Slp1 (talk) 23:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The new editor Communikat is the writer Stan Winer. The rules of WP:COI apply. Binksternet (talk) 01:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm frankly not surprised that Communikat is Winer; however, the clarification makes me more appreciative of the gracious acceptance of the negative responses given here about his work. --Slp1 (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

A COI referral last year failed with regard to the COI issue that Binksternet now tries to sneak in via the backdoor. I'm surprised (well, not really) that Binksternet is reviving a WP:DEADHORSE. Here we have a supposedly experienced editor flouting unashamedly the WP rule on "outing". He's also been stalking me for a long time, and I've grown accustomed to it. He's also tried unsuccessfuly to have me blocked permanently from editing. But never mind; if that's how he gets his rocks off, then so be it. WP:CENSOR has relevance. I can't be bothered to report him for disciplinary action. I have less tedious and more productive things to do with my time.

But to return to less mundane things, Re Morning Star online, I think defining mass media is no longer clear cut or simple. The explosion of digital communication technology has produced a lot of confusion on the subject. Meanwhile, if the Morning Star online review fails to impress, try Rhodes Journalism Review, (p.29 onscreen). This thread is now closed, far as I'm concerned. Thanks for your time and interest. Communikat (talk) 13:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

International Society of Genetic Genealogy & earlier discussion

This was discussed last year in some detail and with some heat - see . I removed it from Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain on the 11th because I don't consider it a reliable source and the statement in the article was not in any case backed by the web page. It's now been restored in a modified form with the comment "If the source is considered reliable enough to be used prominently in the R1b article, there's no reason why it can't be mentioned here." It is used 4 times there, one instance being the same source as I reverted at the Anglo-Saxon settlement article. I still don't see this as reliable. Dougweller (talk) 12:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The prior discussion is several pages long so I only read the first few posts which summarize the source. At first glance I do not see that it violates the general spirit of WP:RS and so it would appear to be reliable, at least in some contexts, but maybe not so appropriate in others. It is not the strongest scientific source but it does have a review process and an editorial board (even if they are not highly qualified). So the source would seem OK for statements that are not contentious and/or do not conflict with other sources that are as, or more, reliable. I would also encourage that the source be ID'd in the text, (as it has here ) so that the reader is aware of the specific source and can judge for themselves whether it is acceptable to them or not.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Given the lack of relevant qualifications for members of the editorial board, and two of the three associate editors, mentioned in that thread, I would question whether the contents of this journal "has been vetted by the scholarly community" (per WP:RS) in any meaningful way. I would therefore consider it, at best, a WP:QS. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 16:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Good point, if the source is used in a strict scientific environment it may fall short. So context is important here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it goes beyond that. Where used at all, its contents need to be presented as the (not-scientifically-vetted) opinions of the individual author in question. If the author in question has at least reasonable relevant qualifications, it would probably be okay for uncontroversial claims -- but no way would it pass WP:REDFLAG for claims that are in any way controversial. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 04:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Doug, I think you have mixed up some sources and people might not be looking at the right things. ISOGG is not the same as JOGG, so the old debate which you refer to is not strictly relevant. (Both are volunteer run by people with an interest in genetic genealogy.) ISOGG's website is a widely cited source in academia for its Y DNA phylogeny webpage and as far as I know, no one has any serious argument against it on WP for that use. However, for speculation about the origins of haplogroups etc, unlike some articles in the JOGG, those webpages were never intended to be anything more than short summaries from other sources. (I know many of the editors of those webpages.) It is better to find those original sources, and often that is not difficult. In this particular case there are good recent sources for the information being cited on the R1b article. So I suggest not deleting the material, but getting better sourcing from R1b.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Brownlow's Whig

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

• Examples:

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

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

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

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

Company Newsletter

Would citing biographical information about a living person from a company newsletter be a reliable source? I have a company newsletter from CVS/pharmacy about the retiring CEO Thomas Ryan. The newsletter discusses his path to becoming CEO as well as his actions while in charge. The newsletter does not have a listed author. Also, it commemorates the former CEO, so I believe it might be somewhat biased in his favor. I would like to add information about the history of the company to the CEO's page as well as to the CVS Caremark page. Thanks! 吴顶 | talk to me. 03:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like you have the right idea: It's not the best source but it should be okay for non-controversial claims, particularly if it's attributed. ElKevbo (talk) 03:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks ElKevbo. Any ideas on which citation template I should use? 吴顶 | talk to me. 03:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with ElKevbo, the source should be fine for basic biographical info like education, company position etc if better sources cannot be found. And I am assuming that the web site had editorial oversight, but can't confirm that since you didn't provide a link (something that would be good to do in future post). And by the way you sound like you may be relatively new to Misplaced Pages. If so, I welcome you and commend you on your willingness to use the noticeboards to get community input and feedback, and edit in a collaborative way. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

PS I would suggest using this sample citation as a guide: Hansen, James E.; Ruedy, R.; Sato, M.; Lo, K. (December 15, 2005). "GISS Surface Temperature Analysis Global Temperature Trends: 2005 Summation". NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/. Retrieved September 28, 2006.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

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

1. Jonesborough Whig and Independent Journal, 29 October 1845.
2. Jonesborough Whig and Independent Journal, 25 February 1846.
3. Jonesborough Whig and Independent Journal, 25 March 1846.

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution