Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 14

Weasel words
Why is this article in the weasel words category? --Blue Tie 14:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Because of a comment by Itayb about half way past the page, where he cites another editor and points out a lot of alleged weasel words and POV in the citation. Not a very good reason, I suppose, but there you go.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In the guideline itself or on the talk page? If it is on the talk page, I don't see the tag as applying... we can be a weasly as anything on a talk page... different rules apply. Should we delete the tag? Blueboar 17:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This talk page. Scroll up a bit or do a text search. I suppose it shouldn't be categorizing this page, to say the least.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In which case, I will remove the tag. I really don't think such tags apply to talk pages. Blueboar 13:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see the problem... Solved by adding "no-wiki" formatting to his flags.

Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan) exceptional claims
On the Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan) article an editor is using the "exceptional claims" provision to exclude information that was published in Metropolis (English magazine in Japan). The removed claims are here: Talk about the claim is here:. In this case my position is that the removed claims support the major claim that Baker lied to the public, and that the removed claims are not exceptional claims in their own right. Another way to put this is: do supporting claims on a BLP also need multiple sources?

I have had some confirmation that these claims are not exceptional before but the issue keeps coming up and I would be very grateful some more advice and comments. Thank you. Sparkzilla 06:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This item has been moved to an RFC on the article's talk page. Talk:Nick_Baker_%28prisoner_in_Japan%29 I appreciate your comments. Sparkzilla 02:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

If the...FBI and GAO don't write Government Reports... who does?
The past two days have seen some pretty strange editing on List of groups referred to as cults in government reports with different editors giving different reasons why this is not a government report: CRS Report No. 79-24 GOV 1/23/79 and why the ...FBI and GAO don't write Government Reports... I'm sorry but that is a very odd statement, on top of odd logic implying it was my idea to remove them. I've been asking this editor and some others to explain why CRS a division of the LOC isn't WP:RS or WP:V. Can someone explain why it isn't a RS? (Granted it should not be used to imply that all groups in the report are still even in existence and those that are may have changed so it needs to be qualified.) I realize WP:V is discussed on that page, so I'm not bringing it up except to say that they are pretty easily verfied. Anynobody 09:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Couldn't read much of it without my eyes glazing over. Seems to me like much ado about nothing – an inability to distinguish between a "government report" and a "Government Report". I've read a great many U.S. "government reports" of a wide range of types, but I cannot recall ever coming across one called a "Government Report", per se. Usually if it is produced by a U.S. government organization or agency or employee (writing at the direction of a government official) and printed by the GPO, it's considered a government report. Perhaps those arguing against the contested "government reports" being "Government Reports" can provide a link to a U.S. Govt. site that defines what is and what isn't a formal "Government Report". All that nonsense aside, it's hard to credit the CRS and FBI as not being "reliable sources" as WP:RS defines them. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with your definition of a government report, and have asked them to provide some examples of their definition of a "Government Report". Their main contentions are that it should represent the opinion of "the government" and hold it's Imprimatur. They have also indicated a belief that CRS is a "private" arm of the LOC. The example provided of what they consider it to be was a Congressional report. When I pointed out that a Congressional report fails their own definition (it only represents Congress) it seemed to make no difference.

I've tried explaining that their are no reports which express the opinion of the entire federal government. Such a report would need to be from all three branches (Executive, Legislative, and Judicial) and that's not really possible because the Constitution, the only official document which affects all three, makes no provisions for it.

The whole situation is almost surreal because if they are right, all the articles citing anything produced by the government has gotta go. Anynobody 01:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have dealt with the CRS from time to time. They are not a "private" arm of the LOC; more like they're the "dedicated" research arm of the Congress. They are supposed to be non-partisan, and their analytical products are certainly more respected than, say, those of the GAO. You are correct that the three branches of the U.S. government publish separately. I've never heard of an imprimatur for the U.S. government. I've only heard of the Roman Catholic church using it. We're a democracy, so we don't need to have such a thing. If there were, then there would be a formal government organization tasked with the duty to prepare, vet and promulgate a document reviewed and approved by all three branches, as well as to maintain the "official version". If the critics you're dealing with cannot identify this organization and provide a link to its website that confirms its charter, then it doesn't exist. End of story. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Government Reports are reasonably reliable sources, from any branch. I would not say that CRS is more respected than the GAO, but if either of them were less respected, the lesser respected service would still be a reliable source. There should be no problem using them as sources. --Blue Tie 03:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I really appreciate your input, Askari Mark (Talk) and Blue Tie. Do you know if anyone has ever doubted the reliability of this type of information? I found that there isn't much said about gov't sources, probably because it's assumed most people "understand". Anynobody 04:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There are good reasons to doubt its REAL reliability SOMETIMES, but from WP:RS perspective, there is no reason to doubt it. If someone objects, they probably do not like what it says. In that case NPOV comes into play and they can find another source that presents a different perspective.--Blue Tie 04:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Anynobody 04:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. As one of those doing what Mr. Anynobody calls "pretty strange editing", I asked the Director of the CRS whether he writes "Government Reports" and I got a very enlightening response from his Coordinator of Communications. Please see Talk:Groups referred to as cults in government reports. Here is the interesting part:"CRS, like the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Government Accountability Office (GAO), as parts of the Legislative Branch, serve the Congress but do not “speak for it.” Only documents provided by these agencies pursuant to specific statutory mandates might be said to be “official government reports” – an imprecise term. Even those documents, however, cannot necessarily be said to “carry the weight or tacit approval” of the Congress. CRS reports represent our response to congressional legislative needs and in no way represent “what the legislative branch of government says” on a given topic. The 435 members of the House, the 100 Senators, and the delegates and committees that together make up the Congress have no single voice, save through legislation, nor has the Congress vested in CRS the authority to speak for it on any matter."So, do they write good reports? Probably. Are their reports respected? Probably. Do their reports "speak for the government"? Absolutely not! Their reports are no more "special" than the reports of any expert or academic. Remember please where Anynobody et al would use these reports. In an article entitled Groups referred to as cults in government reports and since we already have the more general article, List of groups referred to as cults, the opposing editors want to reserve the former for actual reports that bear the seal, literally or figuratively, of the issuing government. The CRS reports clearly do not fit in that category. --Justanother 00:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that you're going through some logical gymnastics to try to exclude something you don't happen to agree with. I've received lots of communications from government functionaries, and that reply is typical of the way these guys qualify everything they say. If we followed your reasoning to its logical conclusion, very few government-produced documents would be allowed as sources. For example, the reports of the Warren Commission or the 9/11 Commission would be excluded, because we couldn't say definitively that those reports "speak for the government", because I am sure there could be found a congresscritter or two that did not agree with the conclusions. - Crockspot 01:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Crockspot. That's one of the things I've been saying. Anynobody 01:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No one is disputing that these reports are reliable sources that can be used in Wikipedia articles. They are, of course. The dispute is about the labeling of these as "Government Reports", as if they represent the view of the government or an official commission. When asked, the Coordinator of Communications of the CRS responded with this unequivocal statement: ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I would think that there is no agency of any sort that provides a report of the position of the whole government. They provide reports of the position of that agency.  These are still government reports.  But I do not think there is such a thing as a report from the whole government. The US has 3 branches of government and sometimes reports from one branch are intentionally created to counter a report from another branch.  This does not make either of them unreliable for purposes of RS. The FBI will issue a report that is contradicted by the CIA.  Which one represents what the "Executive Branch" says?  Maybe neither.  But they are still government reports. --Blue Tie 01:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I would argue that calling these "government reports" is misleading to our readers. The obvious connotations for a reader would be that a "government report" represents the view of the government, or an official commission appointed by it, particularly when such documents are placed alongside other documents from other governments reports (such as from France, for example) that are indeed official government reports. That is the dispute, Blue Tie. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It appears that List of groups referred to as cults in government reports is a redirect to List of groups referred to as cults in government documents. So what's the problem? Maybe it should further redirect to List of groups referred to as cults in government-produced documents? This is hair-splitting to the extreme. Come up with a name for the list that suits everyone, and move on. - Crockspot 01:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, somebody messed up trying to undo a move... A suitable article name for its contents is surely the way out. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Next! :) - Crockspot 01:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Do I disagree that a 28-year-old report by an agency that does not speak for anyone has been cherry-picked to be included as something that appears to be the position of the United States government? Especially when it specifically is NOT the position of the United States govenement as regards Scientology, my area of interest. Well, yes, I guess I do disagree. And there is little point in renaming to "documents" as we already have the more general article. So what is the point? But we will sort it out. Your'alls help is welcome. --Justanother 02:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Attacking the source as outdated is a different ball of wax, and one you may have better luck arguing. Views do change over decades. - Crockspot 02:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The issue Anynobody wants it to be is whether CRS writes WP:RS. The real issue is the definition (or implication) of government reports. A government report, (at minimum suggests that it), represents the view or opinion of a government, or an official sub-section of a government which is authorized to release reports and opinions. The Congress would write and release Government reports for that sub-section of the Unites States government. The CRS works for the Congress and per an email from the CRS, it is not authorized, without specific statutory mandates, to write official government reports. The only question is whether or not the wiki-LIST implies the word official. I submit that a goverment report implies official. Lsi john 02:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem I see with interpreting the above e-mail in this way is that it suggests that, essentially, there is no such thing as an official government report, other than via direct legislation. This is clearly a meaningless distinction; if a phrase is being used without specificity and it can refer to two different things, one of which is exceedingly rare, I would say interpreting it in the broader sense is usually the correct thing to do.  Specifically, the sense of "official government report" used in the e-mail above is a very restrictive one.  The e-mail even goes so far as to suggest that the term isn't a particularly useful one.  Why we should then interpret another term as meaning it by implication is beyond me. JulesH 10:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Justanother has a point about the age of the list report in question, which is why I've been saying it needs to be mentioned because indeed the groups may have changed. As a historical document though, there is no reason it should be excluded (discussing the phrasing of a source is all that's needed. Removing it is overkill and actually is against WP:NPOV. Anynobody 07:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * These emails are unverifiable and therefore completely moot to the article and the argument. I would think Jossi you'd be the first one to point that out.  The arguments based on the emails would, if used to modify the article in any way, go against our policy. If the agency were willing to *post* their responses to their own verifiable website that would be a different situation.Wjhonson 19:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Curious question. Would it be considered WP:V if they wrote an email to wiki staff, objecting to the use of their report being cited as a government report? I have no idea if they would do this or not, I'm just curious, mostly for curiosity sake. Lsi john 20:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The essence of verifiability is that any editor *could* independently confirm that the attribution is accurate. None of us can confirm that wiki staff got an email.  Just like none of us can confirm that you did.  And none of us can confirm who sent it.  Any of us however *could* confirm public records, newspapers, books, etc.  Sometimes it might not be easy to do, but we could.  However with private emails we cannot. Wjhonson 04:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The verifiability or otherwise of the e-mail is not an issue. It is not suggested that it be included in the article, as far as I can tell, so I fail to see where WP:V (which applies only to articles) comes into it. JulesH 10:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

My recent Edit
Lsi john added this to the guideline: ''It is important to note that, while 'Reliable Sources' is a guideline, and verifiability is a policy, neither should be used to justify including (or keeping) material in an article. Regardless of how well sourced an item is, satisfying the criteria for reliable source and verifiability alone does not provide sufficient reason to include material in an article. Common sense must be applied, and editors should ask themselves if the material being cited is both relevant and noteworthy.''

Lsi john 03:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * - the following was originally to Anynobody's userpage, and was relocated here by him.
 * Anynobody, with all due respect, I do not appreciate being followed to WP:RS. Due to our past history, I believe it is inappropriate for you to revert my edits in unrelated articles.


 * I will be making a slight change to my edit and putting it back. There are numerous editors and admins who watch that page and it would be more appropriate for them to revert my edit, if a revert is necessary.


 * As there are a sufficient number of other editors who watch that page, I believe your revert is COI and borders on stalking and harassment. Please leave the edit for someone else to handle.


 * Thank you.
 * Peace in God.
 * Lsi john 01:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Lsi john, I was actually editing there first so "following" somehow fails to describe the sequence of events. As I said in the edit summary, your edit should have been discussed on the talk page first. That being said if you do add your comment to the project page, without discussing it on the talk page, I'll revert it again. In a WP:3RR situation it's up to you to prove a consensus when adding new material. Anynobody 01:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Anynobody, as I said on your talk page (which you moved here), given the large number of people who watch this guideline page, your immediate revert was unnecessary. Regarding discussion first, the page says do not make major changed, it does not say 'do not make any changes. My change was not major.


 * Given our edit history, it was COI for you to revert my change here. There are a substantial number of other editors and admins who can revert if my edit is not in keeping with wiki policy or guidelines.


 * Wiki says be bold and I was bold.
 * Lsi john 02:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a guideline that says "It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow." Your addition was not bold, it was presumptuous. A single user should never assert what is "generally accepted". Please revert it and start a discussion since it plainly is not a minor edit. 2005 02:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not see this as a major change. It does not have any impact on what WP:RS is. It does not change or affect what can be included in an article. It merely clarifies that WP:RS is not justification to include something. The material being cited, must also be relevant and notable. I have opened a discussion about this below. Lsi john 02:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Adding a full paragraph to a fairly short document is obviously a major change. If it's not a major chnage, you'll easily get a consensus. The world won't catch fire in the next few days while is is discussed. 2005 02:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * To clarify, as I said below: if you disagree with the statement I added, then you are saying WP:RS IS justification solely by itself to include or keep material. That would imply that you would agree to including citable plumbing facts in sewing articles, solely on the basis of WP:RS. Lsi john 02:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please focus on the issue. You should not make a major change to a guideline without starting a discussion.  Whether or not it is a good idea is irrelevant.  Discuss it, then if it gets agreement it will be in the document because it DOES represent a consensus, rather than an unsupported edit by a single editor. 2005 02:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2005, I apologize for projecting the Anynobody situation onto you. I have no problem with discussing at all. In fact, my post to Anynobody clearly stated that a neutral editor was welcome to revert me. Based on my frustration at being reverted by someone with COI, I responded to your post with frustration and that was improper. As i said above, I have opened discussion below. Lsi john 03:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm honestly not trying to hassle you Lsi john, after all I didn't say it couldn't ever be added just that it needed discussion as 2005 is saying. Are you forgetting that even though it's a guideline the entire wiki will be using it? WP:BOLD applies to articles, not policies and guidelines. If it did, I could boldly remove all of them and cite it as an excuse. Anynobody 04:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Is RS sufficient justification for including (or keeping) material in an article?
In my short history at wikipedia, I have witnessed a large number of editors revert with edit comments like: "the material is highly sourced", "do not remove sourced material", "highly sourced".

To me, these seem to be falacious and circular arguments. Based on the fact that so many of these arguments are presented in edit-comments for reverts, it seems to me that there is a general misunderstanding and misapplication of the WP:RS guideline.

For example, if WP:RS is justification for including material, then we could include the fact that a second stage scuba mouthpiece works at roughly 100psi, in an article about the mating habits of the North East Woodpecker.

Because so many editors are using WP:RS as a reason to include or keep material, it seems that there is a general misunderstanding of what WP:RS is and what it is not.

By giving a definition for what is acceptable, it is basically a guideline for what not to include.

It is not a guidline for what to include. And does not provide justification for including material solely on the basis of WP:RS.

I believe that it will be both beneficial and helpful to the wiki community to include a brief paragraph on this in the guideline.

Lsi john 02:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Answer: Yes, with very few exceptions1, one of which I will discuss. The ONLY time a WP:RS should be automatically excluded or removed is if it has nothing at all to do with the article.


 * Example of appropriate removal: Removing a NASA report on space debris from an article about Napoleon.


 * Example of inappropriate removal: A CRS report outlining perceived cults operating in America and abroad circa the mid to late 1970's in an article discussing groups identified as a cult in government documents.


 * 1 There are probably other exceptions I haven't thought of. Anynobody 06:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Anynobody, this really has nothing to do with that article or that debate. My question is Is it ever appropriate to justify material solely on the basis of Reliable Source? Your answer contained the provision that it must also be relevant to the article, which is exactly what my proposed wording says. Not meeting RS would be a reason to remove something, but simply meeting RS is not sufficient justification to include or retain it. Lsi john 22:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * My question is Is it ever appropriate to justify material solely on the basis of Reliable Source?: Actually sounds more like you're asking if WP:RS should ever be allowed to trump WP:V or WP:OR concerns. There are several policies and guidelines which could conceivably affect the worthiness of a source for inclusion. (For example, a source for an article on a living person must also meet WP:BLP concerns.) I must also point out that the clarification you provided probably should be added to the section title in order to replace the question that's already there.


 * Is RS sufficient justification for including (or keeping) material in an article?: Yes, with very few exceptions. Anynobody 04:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion to modify WP:RS Lead
Specifically I suggest the following wording be added as a 3rd paragraph:
 * "'It is important to note that, while 'Reliable Sources' is a guideline, and verifiability is a policy, neither should be used as sufficient reason to justify including (or keeping) material in an article. Regardless of how well sourced an item is, satisfying the criteria for reliable source and verifiability does not provide sufficient grounds, by itself, to include, or retain, material in an article. Common sense must be applied, and editors should ask themselves if the material being cited is both relevant and noteworthy.'"

Lsi john 03:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, this seems a bit pointless to me. WP:RS and V are about what types of sources it is appropriate to use, relevancy is another question altogether and it would seem to me that it's already self evident that material added to a page must be relevant to the article topic. Gatoclass 07:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Gatoclass, to be honest, I agree so much that I would have used the word silly rather than pointless. To me, the difference between relevant and reliable is clearly obvious. In the same way that WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are obvious, yet both of those exist in order to guide editors toward resolution.
 * I see 'numerous' editors cite WP:RS as the sole reason for restoring material, even when the reliability is not being challenged. Perhaps it is isolated to the the area of contentious articles where I edit, but it is done often enough that I believe a paragraph here might help clarify the issue and thus help to reduce edit warring. Which is, afterall, the purpose of guidelines.
 * [Here]is one quick example where an editor (whom I do not know) uses WP:RS as the reason to keep an article. There are countless others but I did not feel a litany of examples would be productive. (I can produce a quick dozen or two if anyone requests). At the very least, it won't hurt to include this text. And at its best, the wording will help remind editors in highly contested articles to address and discuss the issues rather than using WP:RS as 'justification' for reverts and edit warring. Lsi john 12:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Your example is a non-example. Several editors have commented that the article is noteworthy independent of there being RS or not.  There being RS is a requirement, but not the sole one, and it's not the sole reason for Keep votes on the AFD either. Wjhonson 20:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I didn't explain very well (that happens with me too often) I wasn't debating the value of that article. I was only referring to this one specific reason given for keep:
 * "'*Keep. This death was discussed in reliable sources, so it should be included'"
 * With the multitude of other reasons s/he could have cited, s/he chose WP:RS. This speaks directly to what I have seen numerous times. It demonstrates that people use WP:RS as a justification, which it isn't. WP:RS is a requirement, not a justification and just because something meets WP:RS does not mean we must include it.
 * Specifically, rather than look at my example, what is your opinion of the wording I have proposed? Lsi john 21:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't like it. And I'll tell you why.  Once an article has passed muster to be in Wikipedia at all, trying to fall back on noteworthiness for each detail would basically say, we can't include the birthdate unless it's exceptional, we can't mention their occupation unless it's unusual, we can't say where they were born unless it's extraordinary.  It's not the material in the article that must pass noteworthiness, it's the *subject* of the article.  Once that bar has been passed, the material of the article should only be required to pass undue weight. Wjhonson 04:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You raise a good point. Specifically I'm speaking about articles that have not 'passed muster' but are still under development. I used the AfD as an example, but I see WP:RS cited far too often in regular article editing rather than addressing the objection to the material which was deleted. To me, citing Notable or Relevant would at least address the issue. Citing RS doesn't. And, even for articles which have passed muster, it would be just as easy (and more correct) to cite notability or relevance. Lsi john 19:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * For example, in the article on Anna Nicole Smith we can mention that she had a daughter. Not because having a daughter is noteworthy, but because the article is meant to be a biography and children are part of your life story. Wjhonson 04:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Lsi john are you assuming that the article in your example is failing some other policy or guideline?. If it isn't, WHY NOT cite the reliability of the source? A bible is WP:V but not a reliable source on science or anything of a concrete nature that can be reliably quoted by it. Anynobody 04:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Anynobody, I'm not assuming anything at all about that article. RS is a requirement for material to be included. Relevantce or Notability would be justification. Using a requirement as justification is an invalid and circular argument.
 * Arguing to keep information on the mating habits of the raccoon, in an article on airplanes, based solely on the fact that the information is reliably sourced, is obviously absurd and everyone sees it. However, in less obvious examples, it seems that some editors believe RS is justification. When material is deleted based on Notability or Relevance, the specific objection is ignored and RS is cited as justificiation for a revert. It is simply a bad and circular argument.
 * My desire to add wording is for clarification, not to change how anything works. Lsi john 19:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a problem with this proposal--the link to WP:N creates a circular reference, because there it says:


 * ...These guidelines do not specifically regulate the content of articles, which is governed by other Wikipedia's guidelines, such as those on the reliability of sources...

I would also avoid referring to that guideline anyway, as it has been perpetually disputed. I think the point about relevance is valid, but such a long winded lede is over-the-top. A brief mention in the body, or a footnote should suffice. Dhaluza 10:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not hung up on how it gets worded. I just believe that some clarification should be included in order to preclude using RS as justification (see above). Lsi john 19:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * We could just add the word relevant to the opening sentence:(Changes in bold)

 Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable and relevant published sources. This page is a guideline, not a policy, and is mandatory only insofar as it repeats material from policy pages. The related policies on sources are Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Neutral point-of-view. Anynobody 01:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

We could, except that doesn't really address my concern and would raise additional concerns by tying relevance into RS. I'm suggesting a disclaimer statement which clarifies' that RS is a requirement but is insufficient as justification. Lsi john 01:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You do understand that this guideline refers to the sources used in articles, if you're concerned about WP:RS being used as a justification to keep an article in a WP:AFD you really ought to be voicing these concerns on Wikipedia Deletion Policy. Up until now I assumed you were talking about sources which WP:RS covers, justification to keep an article is not what WP:RS is about. Anynobody 01:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your suggestion, but you have misunderstood and misstated my concern. Lsi john 01:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please correct me where I've interpreted your proposal and example incorrectly. Anynobody 01:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Per your request I have corrected your interpretation. Lsi john 02:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You are saying that WP:RS is not justification on it's own to add or keep a source in an article. There is no policy or guideline that can be used on it's own to justify inclusion though. A source that is only WP:V does not justify inclusion, no more than a a solely WP:RS source would. Anynobody 02:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep. Now you've got it. And, since quite a few people do cite RS as justification, I believe we need something here to let them know that its insufficient. Lsi john 02:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That goes back to what I asked about your earlier example, as long as a source also meets WP:V and isn't WP:OR why not cite the nature of a WP:RS? If the source in your example didn't meet WP:V, then one could point that out to an editor arguing for the source's WP:RS. Anynobody 02:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed. And to help prevent editors from incorrectly citing WP:RS as justification in the first place, a short comment on the WP:RS page which better explains that WP:RS should not be used as justification. How about giving a hand with the wording? Lsi john 02:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think such a statement would be too restrictive. There are probably times when WP:RS shouldn't be cited, but there are many more times when it would be acceptable. Suggesting it should not be cited assumes the exceptions define the rule. Anynobody 02:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Name one single situation when WP:RS alone, by itself, is sole justification (not permission) for adding or keeping a citation, where no other reason applies. Lsi john 03:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Now you are misunderstanding me, if a source meets WP:V, WP:RS, and is not WP:OR citing the WP:RS as a particularly strong point in favor of the source is fine with me. If a source doesn't meet WP:V, but is a WP:RS and isn't WP:OR and an editor argues the WP:RS is strong; All you need to do is point out that it can't be verified per WP:V. Anynobody 03:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I asked you to give an example where WP:RS can be used as the only reason for including material. You added WP:V, which I'll concede. Are you willing to stand by this statement unconditionally, without bringing in any other requirements? A simple yes or no will do.
 * "'If a source meets WP:V, WP:RS, and is not WP:OR citing the WP:RS as the only reason for including or keeping the source is fine with me.'"
 * Lsi john 03:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Which again goes back to the example you tried to use and my question about whether it failed other relevant policies and guidelines. No single policy or guideline by itself can justify a source. As long as it meets all necessary requirements, citing one requirement as an especially strong reason to keep said source is ok. Your idea about saying people should not cite WP:RS ignores that aspect and is too restrictive. Anynobody 03:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Why do you continually change my words? I never once said that people could not cite WP:RS. I said that WP:RS cannot be used as the only reason for adding or keeping something. But people are using it as the only reason. My suggestion doesn't change anything. It clarifies exactly what you and I are both saying.
 * Hopefully someone else can explain this to you, because I really don't know how to explain it in any other way. I'm sorry. Lsi john 03:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, never mind. I think your claim that WP:RS, alone, can be used to justify including material only further illustrates the need for a statement here. WP:RS is not justification. There are lots of reliably sourced things which are not relevant, not significant, and not important.

Justification is a reason, which stands on its own merits and needs nothing else to support it.

WP:RS only means that the person who said it is qualified to make the claim. WP:V means that the information is verifiable. If material isn't WP:RS then we can't include it. But just because it meets WP:RS doesn't mean we must allow it, and thus WP:RS isn't justification.

I really can't explain it any better than that. Perhaps someone else can. Lsi john 03:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Lsi john I think a table may make explain my point better: (Relevance of sources is assumed in this table)
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Source !! WP:RS !! WP:V !! not WP:OR !! cite WP:RS?
 * 1 Most situations
 * [[Image:Green check.png|18 px|]]
 * [[Image:Green check.png|18 px|]]
 * [[Image:Green check.png|18 px|]]
 * [[Image:Green check.png|18 px|]]
 * 2 Exception (rare)
 * [[Image:Octagon-warning.svg|18 px|]]
 * [[Image:Green check.png|18 px|]]
 * [[Image:Green check.png|18 px|]]
 * [[Image:Octagon-warning.svg|18 px|]]
 * 3 Ineligible
 * [[Image:Green check.png|18 px|]]
 * [[Image:Green check.png|18 px|]]
 * [[Image:Octagon-warning.svg|18 px|]]
 * [[Image:Octagon-warning.svg|18 px|]]
 * 4 Ineligible
 * [[Image:Green check.png|18 px|]]
 * [[Image:Octagon-warning.svg|18 px|]]
 * [[Image:Octagon-warning.svg|18 px|]]
 * 5 Ineligible
 * [[Image:Green check.png|18 px|]]
 * [[Image:Octagon-warning.svg|18 px|]]
 * [[Image:Green check.png|18 px|]]
 * [[Image:Octagon-warning.svg|18 px|]]
 * }
 * Numbers 3, 4, and 5 are ineligible so editors should not be citing ANY of the policies or guidelines it does meet.
 * Number 2 is an exception, since WP:RS is a guideline it is conceivable that a source which doesn't meet it could be included.
 * Number 1 represents most of the sources included. In situations like this, citing the especially reliable nature of the WP:RS is perfectly acceptable. (Note: I don't mean to imply citing compliance with WP:V or WP:OR should not be done, I'm just not mentioning citing either of them as justification because this would be the wrong forum for it.)
 * [[Image:Green check.png|18 px|]]
 * [[Image:Octagon-warning.svg|18 px|]]
 * }
 * Numbers 3, 4, and 5 are ineligible so editors should not be citing ANY of the policies or guidelines it does meet.
 * Number 2 is an exception, since WP:RS is a guideline it is conceivable that a source which doesn't meet it could be included.
 * Number 1 represents most of the sources included. In situations like this, citing the especially reliable nature of the WP:RS is perfectly acceptable. (Note: I don't mean to imply citing compliance with WP:V or WP:OR should not be done, I'm just not mentioning citing either of them as justification because this would be the wrong forum for it.)
 * Number 1 represents most of the sources included. In situations like this, citing the especially reliable nature of the WP:RS is perfectly acceptable. (Note: I don't mean to imply citing compliance with WP:V or WP:OR should not be done, I'm just not mentioning citing either of them as justification because this would be the wrong forum for it.)


 * The only time what you're suggesting is true and WP:RS should not be cited as a reason to keep/include a source is during exceptional situations like Number 2: Remember the last three are invalid regardless of which valid policies/guidelines are cited. For example, saying Number 4 is WP:V would be irrelevant because it's WP:OR. The same would apply to Number 3 when citing WP:RS, since that source is also WP:OR it's invalid so NO policy or guideline it does satisfy could save it.


 * Proposing that an exception scenario can invalidate the majority of situations is too restrictive which is what you are saying should happen: Because WP:RS can't be cited in each and every case it should not be cited at all. I am saying that it can more often than it can not, therefore restricting it's usage is over reacting and places restrictions which are unnecessary on editors. Anynobody 22:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Anynobody, I see no reason to continue going back and forth. You keep rewording my point and then arguing against your version. Your table doesn't show any case where WP:RS is the only argument. Lsi john 11:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, Lsi john I never said WP:RS by itself (without passing WP:V and WP:OR concerns) was enough justification to add or keep a source. This is why I've asked several times if your statement is assuming a source that does meet all requirements or not, see above table for specifics. I guess I just figured everyone understood that a source has more than one requirement to satisfy.

The irony is by claiming that I am saying only WP:RS needs to be satisfied, it is in fact you who are trying to change my words. Anynobody 22:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Misuse of online voting
CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and other news sites regularly have online votes on a whole range of issues. Although these news sites are generally considered reliable sources, these online votes are completely unreliable. The news sites even state that they are unscientific polls. The problem is that online voting contains very significant self-selection bias. Some political campaigns specifically email supporters and ask them to go the the news sites and "vote for candidate X" after a political debate. I believe Wikipedia needs to clearly state its policy regarding the use of unscientific online voting. These unscientific poll results are already being used in the some of the articles about Presidential candidates. --JHP 07:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * See How_to_create_policy Jeepday (talk) 12:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * We are discussing deprecating "how to create policy", because frankly, we don't. Instead, just discuss with people. In the case of these polls, if there are no better sources, you may have to make do with those polls, but you should attribute them. People can probably decide on the reliability themselves, though you could add a note or so if you want to be really sure. --Kim Bruning 21:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

A follow-up: The reason unscientific polls should not be used is because they are not reliable. To quote the Wikipedia article on the subject, "A voodoo poll is an opinion poll with no statistical or scientific reliability and which is therefore not a good indicator of opinion on any given issue. A voodoo poll will tend to involve self-selection, will be unrepresenative of the 'polled' population, and is often very easy to rig by those with a partisan interest in the results of the poll." --JHP 03:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent issue with reliable sources
Recently a number of experts testified that there might be some issues with our reliable sources guideline, at Articles for deletion/James D. Nicoll (2nd nomination).

While many wikipedians interpret this guideline as saying that this article is either "non-notable" or has no "reliable sources", experts in the field have been so kind as to point out that this is a notable person who deserves an encyclopedia article.

--Kim Bruning 18:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Kim Bruning, can you point to a diff there that illustrates your claim? I see lots of discussion and opinion about whether or not the sources met WP:RS, but I didn't see that issues with the guidelines were raised. Whether or not the sources that are cited in that article meet WP:RS wouldn't necessarily affect the guidelines. I'm not sure that I'd agree with some of those editors who were saying 'not reliable source' regarding some of the sources.
 * Are you suggesting a change to the WP:RS guideline? Lsi john 19:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, Let me provide a link on the AFD, so interested folks can drop by, and maybe explain for themselves :) --Kim Bruning 19:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the problem in this case was that an Usenet source on this subject was not seen as reliable, as per the guidelines when in fact this was the primary source and highly relevant to the article in question. The guidelines as they currently stand promote a mistrust of Usenet as source for anything, without considering the context. For example, Usenet can be a good source for things that happened on Usenet --Martin Wisse 19:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the main issue most people had there was that many editors were disputing the acceptability of usenet sources to substantiate that the subject of the article is, essentially, a usenet celebrity. Clearly, this kind of source ought to be considered acceptable, as it is the medium such sources are most likely to be published in. Other issues were the recent removal of a number of self-published sources from the article that had provided key biographical details about the subject. Clearly, again, these should be accepted. There is little or no doubt that they were originally written by the subject, and if he isn't authorititive on (e.g.) his own date of birth, I don't know who would be. See, for instance the comment by User:121a0012. Also see User:Shimgray here and User:Pnh (Patrick Nielsen Hayden) here (although his comments speak more to notability requirements than reliable sourcing requirements). Also see Shimgray here and User:Bth here.

The other comment is that when we're writing an article about a subculture that doesn't get discussed in traditional reliable sources in very much detail, the type of source you need to use is likely to be non-traditional. This doesn't mean it's unreliable; in this case the reliability of the sources wasn't questionable, only whether or not they conformed to the rules. Frankly, that's not how this project is supposed to be run and there's a good reason for that. One of Wikipedia's strengths is that it can harness all of these unusual sources to provide coverage that is much broader and much deeper than any other encyclopedia ever has. We can cover the personalities of online science fiction fandom if we want, because there are authorititive sources that talk about them. Unfortunately, the rules we have here (and, to a lesser extent, at WP:V) tend to get in the way of that. JulesH 20:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * JulesH hits the nail on the head, particularly about "traditional reliable sources". The "printed matter uber alles" attitude of some editors risks Wikipedia missing the opportunity to give useful, notable, verifiable information on subjects that people might well expect to find here, simply because they're not of interest to print media.  I've recently changed my user page to explain a thought experiment on just how silly this is; anyone interested can go and have a look.
 * I was particularly irritated in the particular AfD we're discussing here by the assertion in the nomination that LiveJournal links weren't acceptable as a source. WP:BLP states that a subject's blog can be used a source on the subject given certain conditions, all of which are satisfied by the James Nicoll's blog, which happens to be hosted on LJ. I'm fairly prejudiced against LJ myself, as it happens, but that opinion is irrelevant to the sourcing question.
 * Having said all which, the fact that these things keep seeming to come up over and over again every time I get within a mile of returning to Wikipedia has crystallised my disenchantment with the current state of the project. I don't feel I have the time, patience or emotional energy to fight this fight myself.  I wish the best of luck to those clear-sighted people who have kept their eye on the main goal of Improving Wikipedia as opposed to sticking to rules for the sake of sticking to rules. --Bth 20:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * See also WP:SELFPUB Lsi john 20:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, I tend to think that WP:SELFPUB might need some tweaking, if we are going to go by the letter of the policy. There are clearly otherwise going to be blind spots if we decide to categorize stuff that goes on in non-traditional media as part of the sum of all human knowledge. We may wish to tweak the policy about reliable sources if we wish to report on things that happen in contexts that sources traditionally regarded as reliable just don't report on. Are there, for instance, traditional reliable sources that talk about the Green Card Lottery spam incident on USENET in a reliable way? How about any other source but the Village Voice for the Rape in Cyberspace (LambdaMOO)? There's stuff that happens on the fringes that might be important that may or may not have reliable sources, but which we may decide in consensus we want to/should keep around for posterity, right here. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 20:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No doubt. But then there is always WP:IAR. heh. I'm not saying that I don't think improvements can be made. (See my [discussion] above.) But in the end, I think that it comes down to common sense. Lsi john 20:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * We've dealt with many USENET-related articles, including some about UENET celebrities. See Articles for deletion/alt.romath and Articles for deletion/Romath, for example. Likewise we get articles about radio personalities full of assertions that can be verified by users who were listening to the program on a certain day. Again and again we return to the principle that if a topic is hard to source using proper means then the answer is not to bend the rules but rather to question whether the topic is truly notable. Someone who is known only within USENET is probably not notable in a general encyclopedia. I should also mention that using USENET as a source is also problematic becuase it is a primary source and subject to misinterpretation, fraud, omissions, and other sourcing issues. ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 21:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Usenet may be either a primary or secondary source, depending on the exact post you're talking about. I see no reason it should be treated differently to a blog in this regard.  In some cases it may be difficult to verify who posted the information, but for cases where the identity of the poster has not been called into question I see no reason not to use it. JulesH 22:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * IAR when used for unique or very rarely occurring special situations is a good way of avoiding rule creep. For things likely to repeat frequently, it has to be considered emergency first aid: it will deal with the article immediately at hand in a reasonable way, but after that it's an indication that we need to adjust the definitions or interpretations of the guidelines. Articles on web phenomena or things or people documented only on the web are not a rare phenomena. We need a consistent way of dealing with them, so the encyclopedia-worthy among them can be kept, and the unnotable one deleted, without arguing it all from the beginning each time. What we need to adjust is RS and WP:WEB. Some of us saw the need before, but it seems to have been  necessary for a really unequivocally indisputable example to all to see  the absurdity of the present situation.
 * We're building an encyclopedia, and the ore principles hold. Everything else should be interpreted to lead to the goal--building an encyclopedia, not arguing about what to put in it. Will would have us adjust our common-sense definition of notability until it matches the existing rules. With all respect, he's wrong this time. We should adjust the rules to match what the editors and the readers recognize. Primarily the readers, because we're not building an encyclopedia as an academic exercise, or primarily to improve our own skills at writing and argument, but to be used. Perhaps useful is the real foundation of the principles and the rules.  DGG 21:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason that notability is tied to sourcing is that anybody who is notable should have already been noted, and without reasonable sources we can't write NPOV articles. The policies all fit together. In this case it appears we have a single expert, who is apparently an acquaintance of the subject, asserting with no evidence that the subject is notable and should have lots written about him. While the expert may be right that the subject should be notable it isn't our job to correct the errors of society by noting him. If we begin to say that inadequate sources are sufficient to establish the notability of people we know in our hearts to be notable then we have no longer have useful standards. ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 22:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify what you mean by "single expert .. asserting with no evidence" in this regard? Looking at the AfD I see multiple professionals in the field (PNH, Scalzi and Stross) speaking on Nicoll's behalf, along with attributions to multiple published works quoting him. The fact that he gained his notability thru Usenet suggests that those wanting to learn more about him will want to reference Usenet sources. LisRiba 22:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The issue here isn't one of a single expert with no evidence to back him up. The issue is that there is a whole swathe of sources about this subject that are being disregarded for no good reason, other than the technology that was used to publish them.  Every single statement in the article in question can be sourced to one or more usenet posts.  Additional statements not currently in the article (e.g. that he is a leading SF blogger) could be sourced to blogs (which would require a stretch of the circumstances where they are acceptable sources, but I think a reasonable one).
 * Furthermore, if an expert asserts that a topic that he is not directly connected with is notable, why do we need any more evidence than this to keep an article? Yes, delete an article if it cannot be sourced (which clearly isn't the case for this article), but don't say that it is because it isn't notable. JulesH 22:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I wasn't aware that user:Scalzi is an editor, and co-worker with user:PNH. Even so, being friends with prominent SF editors or being quoted in multiple blogs is not a sufficient basis for notability. While Usenet sources may help readers learn more about subjects (so long as we can be sure that the Usenet postings are legitimate) they are not reliable sources for establishing the notability of the subjects in the real world. Having friends in the blogosphere does help recruit supporters, though.   ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 23:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What happens if notable persons make public statements saying "This dude is notable" ? ;-) --Kim Bruning 23:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought this was supposed to be a discussion about sourcing, rather than notability. Nonetheless, if you want to talk about "standards for Wikipedia", one question is -- is this person(or thing) somebody/something people will want to look up? In this case, the subject is well known for a quote -- well-known enough to deserve a page in Wikiquote, and people trying to source the quote want to find out more about the author. Furthermore, since the quote has often been misattributed (including to a historic figure of the same name) then within the Wikiverse there's a need for further information. Does that make sense? LisRiba 23:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The definition of notability incorporates the definition of a reliable source by reference. I think this part of the argument is best handled over there; my guess is that the best solution is to use a less-rigorous definition of reliable source for this purpose.  But we would still be able to delete articles as unverifiable if there were no reliable sources by the definition there.  Which is normally interpreted to mean the same as the definition here.  JulesH 08:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Who determines what "in the real world" criteria? There are numerous entries in Wikipedia on subjects that are not very well known to the world at large.  How many people outside Usenet or some portions of the Internet know (or care) about Ed Conrad, Alexander Abian, Joel Furr or Kibo?  The fact that Nicoll is well known to a good portion of the online science fiction community, to the point where people will object to the removal of his article, is in itself sufficient proof that there should probably be an article.  Given the lengthy articles on fictional people, some of whom are minor characters in novels, films and TV shows, that people complain about a real person seems a tad absurd.Keith Morrison 00:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Will, why does "notability of the subjects in the real world" enter into the question? Why shouldn't WP include articles on subjects that are important to a particular subculture (in this case the Usenet community) on the say-so of members of that subculture alone?  (Assuming the subculture is, in itself, notable.)  I think the heart of this is stating: for information on a subculture, prominent members of that subculture should usually be regarded as reliable sources, however they choose to publish (whether that be in magazines, newspapers, blogs or usenet comments).  This applies equally, in my opinion, to sourcing (non-contentious) statements within an article and determining whether or not that article is notable. JulesH 08:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The thing about noticability is that it always has to be considered in context. Wikipedia is supposed to be the ultimate encyclopedia, not just a replacement for a general knowledge encyclopedia like the EB; which means that for every suject mentioned in here that everybody has heard of (e.g. history of Rome, or George W. Bush or whatever) there will be zillions of subjects most users and editors will not have heard off. To judge whether one of them is noticable enough to keep, you need to look into the context of such an entry, rather than deciding because it has never been mentioned in the NYT it's not noticable.--Martin Wisse 13:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the notability angle, this also highlights a problem with approaches to verifiability: over-zealous (and selective) insistence on policies intended to improve the accuracy of articles can actually have the reverse effect. I'm afraid this comment turned out longer than I'd intended...

Let's start with a bit of heresy: notwithstanding BLP, it is absurd to insist that every bit of data - even in a living-person bio - can or should be cited, and not a single Wikipedia editor actually does so. Looking at George W. Bush, the first paragraph alone contains half a dozen uncited facts. No citation is given for his birthdate, that he's the oldest brother, that he's the 43rd President rather than the 42nd or 44th... I could go on, but you get the idea, and you will find similar uncited material in any BLP worth reading.

This is not for want of scrutiny; it's because applying that standard of citation would make it so tedious to write new material on Wikipedia that nobody would do it. Further, even if we could do it without effort, waving a magic wand at the article to get everything cited, it wouldn't actually be an improvement. The only thing we'd achieve is to bury the article content under an unreadable mess of citations.

So let's agree that this is not a desirable or achievable goal (I may change my mind on this if somebody can show me even one featured article where all facts are cited). Let's also agree that as far as controversial information is concerned - anything where there is a reasonable likelihood somebody might be upset by what the article claims, anything where two editors in good faith maintain a disagreement about a fact in the article, anything that puts a significant positive or negative light on somebody - cites are in order.

Those two points acknowledged, it's time to take a more pragmatic attitude to uncontroversial information, and in particular to first-party sources. On controversial points, first-party sources are unsatisfactory for reasons that don't need explanation. On uncontroversial points - minor biographical details, etc - they are probably the most reliable sources we could look for.

As an example, the article on James D. Nicoll (best known from USENET) listed his birthdate, citing a USENET posting by Nicoll as the source. Leaving aside the point that most birthdates given in WP have no citation at all and this doesn't seem to bother anybody, it is absurd that this sort of citation should be rejected without some evidence to the contrary. Is there a reason why somebody else would impersonate Nicoll and lie about his birthday? Is there a reason why Nicoll would lie (or be mistaken) about his birthday? Is there any risk of Nicoll suing WP for defamation in the event that it is mistaken about his birthday?

If not, then perhaps we should be treating this sort of information as more reliable, rather than less, on account of its source. (And I would suspect that most of the 'reliable' sources we customarily accept as authorities on such things just take the subject's word for it anyway, unless they are known to be untrustworthy; I don't know of a lot of journalists who go around checking birth certificates as a matter of course.)

Here's another example: the article on Patrick Nielsen Hayden, a well-known SF editor. On January 27, an editor added a large chunk of material to Hayden's bibliography; along with a lot of correct information, it contained an error: it listed 'Yolen and Greenberg' as editors on a book where it should have listed Yolen alone.

The error sat there undetected for two months until Pnh - i.e. the subject of the article - corrected it. In response, he was asked not to do this sort of thing, but to go through the more roundabout path (and less obvious to a newcomer) of posting on the talk page to ask that somebody else do it.

If he had been posting about awards he'd won, sure. But on a minor point of fact which the guy can be expected to know? At best, this attitude encourages people to correct their own entries anonymously, or nudge a friend to do it. At worst, it hurts accuracy by discouraging those who are best placed to correct this sort of detail from doing so. These are hardly isolated incidents; every time something like the Nicoll AFD kicks up a discussion about this somewhere, I hear half a dozen stories about people who've given up on trying to correct uncontroversial data in their own articles - like, say, the spelling of their name - because of the opposition to first-party edits. It's hardly going to stop the unscrupulous ones, who'll just create a sock.

When Wikipedia started out, this sort of thing was less of a problem. Put simply, anybody who was notable enough to be mentioned in WP probably had better things to do than edit it; when somebody did edit their own entry, it was often for bad-faith reasons. With WP's growing profile and importance, there is more and more legitimate reason for notable people to take an interest in their own articles. While acknowledging the potential for bias on certain types of information, we should welcome proofreading of uncontroversial data by the people best qualified to do so. --Calair 02:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Footnote: As I should've noted before, WP:BLP does allow some circumstances in which first-person sources may be used, but these would still exclude both the examples I gave above. The first requirement is that the information in question "is relevant to the person's notability" - which rules out things like birthdays and the exact spelling of somebody's name - and the third is that it "does not involve claims about third parties", which the Hayden example does. --Calair 04:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Reliable Source
I invite comments from expert members on this forum about defination of reliable source in context of forced divorces there is a discussion about a blog of a person who has stated that he was forcefully divorced by a cult group, this however is not accepted as reliable source by some editor's. Wiki say's clearly that blogs are accepted incase they are from reliable source, can anyone explain who can be a reliable source incase of forced divorces other then the person himself ?

--Shashwat pandey 09:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * First, I think you are not correct on blogs... blogs are generally considered unacceptable. There may be rare exceptions, but this does not sound like one of them (an expection for noted journalists and experts in an accademic field has some consensus... but is not yet part of Policy).  Second, you definitely should be hesitant to use someone's personal blog... Such a source clearly falls under the "Self-Published" clause of WP:V and WP:RS... it might be useable in an article about the person claiming to have been forcibly devorced, but not in a general article on the topic.  What I think you would need is a reliable third party report, such as a newspaper, that repeats (and has fact checked) the person's claim. Blueboar 12:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Tnx for the info.

--Shashwat pandey 13:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

If blogs are unacceptable, why do we have an article on Groklaw? --Kim Bruning 23:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC) I wonder if I'm violating WP:BEANS, WP:POINT and several as yet unwritten metapolicies by mentioning that ^^;;


 * If neo-nazi forums are unacceptable, why do we have an article on Stormfront? Because not everything with an article is an RS. Hipocrite - « Talk » 23:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Other wikis
Would infromation from another wiki (not from Wikimedia) be considered a reliable source or not? Ashura96 19:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Depends on who the author is. Hipocrite - « Talk » 23:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In the vast majority of cases, no.--tjstrf talk 23:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, I just wanted to make sure. Ashura96 23:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Revision/Addition to WP:RS
I'm proposing a clarification for WP:RS. The problem that seems to arise is that the policy, as it is now, allows for agenda-pushing. A good example of this is what has been happening for months on the Georg Cantor article. The debate is whether or not it is correct to categorize/refer to Georg Cantor as "Jewish." It seems that some sources write off Cantor directly as "Jewish." They're mostly Jewish-culture oriented websites, sometimes newspapers or magazines. However these sources seem to leave out the whole story, and when you read into Cantor's biographies you learn that his father was Lutheran, his mother Roman Catholic, his family somewhat anti-semitic, and only an ethnically Jewish grandfather to qualify him as "Jewish." In other words, he was neither self-identifying nor substantially of ethnic descent. A frequent excuse used to during the debate is that anyone who removes the categories/qualifications is being a vandal because they're removing sourced information (even though there is OTHER sourced information contesting it). This debate extends to many other articles and also is closely related to WP:BLP issues.
 * My proposal for a solution is to modify WP:RS so that a "hierarchy of sources" exists for biographies of people. Ones that are higher on the hierarchy are seen as more reliable for categorization and listing purposes. The hierarchy would be something like:

Is there any way we can get something like this into WP:RS? --Tellerman
 * 1) Quotes and Statements from Person
 * 2) Official Published Biographies
 * 3) Newspaper Articles, Magazine Articles
 * 4) Reliable Websites
 * Per WP:V The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Jeepday (talk) 04:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * With a viewpoint like that, it's no wonder so many people consider wikipedia unreliable. All you need is someone pushing an agenda and looking as deep as possible for a source that could be called borderline reliable, and voila you get potentially misleading information. Newspapers and websites tend to ignore the specifics and just simplify details on people to a poor degree. I, and I think everyone should, apply WP:IAR to that part of WP:V. --Tellerman
 * For better or worse, I don't think there's any substitute for careful editorial judgment in these cases. Sometimes direct quotes are more reliable then biographies, sometimes the reverse; sometimes a (reliable) website or newspaper article may in fact trump all other sources because of being based on more recently-discovered data. -- Visviva 04:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But if it's important recently-discovered data, it will appear in other more reliable places eventually. If it's only trivial, it's probably not even worthy of being mentioned on wikipedia. --Tellerman
 * Quotes are of course the most reliable for the person's opinions, but not really for anything else. Objective biographic sources are probably better for accomplishments, and I wouldn't rank "official" ones very high in the case of, say, political figures. Even for opinions, you can't use use any quote at all--by selecting the quote you can affect the meaning--it's a well-known art.   But V not truth means or should mean that we do not have to prove its actually true, but that doesn't mean we should take something published which is likely to be false. There is no way to avoid the need for good judgment. DGG 06:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Remember the person's opinion on themselves is usually one of the most important aspects of their biography. To entertain the subject, let's say scientists somehow biologically prove a person to born a homosexual, if that person then says they're not, we shouldn't put them in an LGBT category. If there's relevance, it can be said "scientists said this and this" but the direct references should still stay off, whether the person is dead or alive (WP:BLP). If there is contradictory information, it should still be said, but not highlighted. Sorry, I might be doing a poor job of explaining. --Tellerman


 * Per WP:RS Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. In the example given you appear to have multiple reliable publication, placing a person in a category you do not agree with, there is nothing saying the person can not be in more then one religious category. Jeepday (talk) 13:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Visviva: “For better or worse, I don't think there's any substitute for careful editorial judgment in these cases.” As well-intentioned as Tellerman’s proposal is, there are just too many exceptions to the rule to make it uniformly applicable.  In the particular case of Georg Cantor, you’ve encountered an issue that can’t even be resolved in Wikipedia:  Who is a Jew?  Is it someone who practices Judaism or is it an ethnicity – or both?  And who gets to decide the qualifications?  Even for ethnicity there are religiously based differences of opinion on whether someone is ethnically Jewish – is it determined by having either parent a Jew or only through matrilineal descent?  Ironically, some Jewish culture-oriented sources you mention will include as Jewish a person who is non-professing, although of solid matrilineal descent (such as an adoptee), and yet won’t touch a Messianic Jew of solid matrilineal descent.  And what about someone like Bob Dylan who converted to Christianity but is no longer apparently a professing Christian (and may or may not have become a Lubavitcher)?  About the only thing one can reliably and accurately say is “Oy vey!” Askari Mark (Talk) 01:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Dark Tea/Carleton Coon
I am currently involved in what is becoming an increasingly tiresome and long running edit-war with user:Dark Tea over material related to the mid 20th century anthropologist Carleton Coon, whose works DT seems to hate with a passion. I would be glad of some input, since DT keeps quoting WP:RS regarding Coon. It is worth nothing that some editors do treat Coon as a current "reliable source" on racial categories (see Nordic race for example). This is problematic to say the least, but the issue concerns inclusion of his work in accounts of the history of racial theories, as for example on the Australoid article. DT seems to want to delete all reference to the history of the theory (except, oddly Thomas Huxley) on the grounds that early theorists are not Reliable Sources. As far as I am concerned this is as barmy as deleting all references to Aristotle in accounts of the history of physics or biology, because Aristotle is no longer a reliable source on these subjects. Paul B 15:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that such a rationale is "barmy". I would think that early theorists would be the most reliable sources on what they believed/wrote. Imagine writing an article on Mein Kampf without being able to refer to anything it says. Editing out unpalatable or unfortunate "history" does not make it "go away" and is itself nothing more than trying to make and enforce a particular point. However, perhaps you could encourage Dark Tea to take the issue to the talk page, instead of both of you continuing with edit-warring and personal attacks. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that my comments on Australoid may seem intemperate, but I have been over this in detail with Dark Tea on the Talk:Mongoloid race page. When she can't answer, she goes silent then repeats the same claims on another page. I'm not trying to scapegoat here, I just want some consensus to be established. Paul B 21:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Just looked into her edit history and she seems to be calling anyone who doesn't have a politically correct view on race a racist and using this as an excuse to remove them from wikipedia. Sounds like an extreme case of POV pushing to me. Carleton Coon is most certainly a reliable source by any definition of the term. Now certainly some of his views may seem obsolete decades later but all scientific view points get revised over time and there are certainly experts today who still believe in a lot of his ideas. And the notion of removing him from a historical discussion of human races is ludicrous.  Secularrise 14:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. While I would add the caveat that references to Coon and his views should always be placed in historical context, the fact that he is obsolete is no reason to exclude him. Blueboar 16:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's right. I'm also not aware that too much research has been done since along the lines of Coon's - instead it seems to me (I'm no expert, so correct me if I'm wrong) that the whole line of investigation was dropped as politically suspect. What is current is population genetics, which using a different methodology, addresses the same underlying questions. That the word "race" is unmentioned or even attacked is superficial response to politically poisonous but intellectually insubstantial line of criticism.Proabivouac 20:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * His theories are so thoroughly irrelevant that I do not think he is a RS except in an historical context: I am not sure you could find any current mainstream support. DGG 07:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * From what I gather, that is how he is being used... in an historical context. As such he is reliable. Blueboar 12:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Blogs and web forums as reliable sources?
For articles about web topics, many of the most reliable sources are published online. Online magazines often call themselves "blogs," even though they have paid editors and reporters. We should not be biased by the publication media; our criteria should be editorial review and fact checking.

We do allow self-published sources for experts commenting in their field of expertise. We also allow self-published sources as primary references. As such web forums and personal blogs can sometimes be reliable sources, in some situations.

My concern is two-fold: (1) Can we improve our policies and guidelines so people understand these fine distinctions? (2) User:SandyGeorgia suggested that I start a thread here to draw more attention to Featured article candidates/Search engine optimization, a situation that needs comments on the reliability of online sources. There is a concern about promoting this article to WP:FA because it relies on web sources, but those are the best available sources for this topic. How do we resolve this? Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 16:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Jehochman, I'm going to be very busy IRL over the next few weeks, and may lose track of this; please ping me if you get any resolution. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've moved this over to Reliable sources/Noticeboard for further discussion. Jehochman  Talk 01:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

whilst the strict "no blogs" rules are laudable, especially since it prevents linking to blogs that were set up last thursday (and are then never updated), this rule falls apart when we are dealing with the early blogs which now have 5 year (or more) archives. since a lot of political discussion is happening on the blogs right now, then to ignore the impact of blogs is a weakness in wikipedia entries. For if a story breaks on a blog and then ends up in the MSM, the wiki narrative only shows the MSM "reliable source" and not the blog that broke the story. Maybe, rather than the "no blogs" rule, might we have a "age rule" , where only blogs that have consistent archives going back 5 years are considered as a ref links? It is a difficult one to square I admit - as this could open up the floodgates and break the NPOV attitude of wikipedia. But it is becoming increasingly hard to ignore. What do others think about this? Joflaitheamhain 21:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

School newspapers reliable ?
We could use a weigh in at Requests for comment/University High School (Los Angeles, California).

The article in question is protected after an edit war and we're now attempting to get consensus on whether or not school newspaper articles are RS. Until such a time... Miss Mondegreen talk  00:42, May 24 2007 (UTC)


 * I have restored this discussion after seeing User:Will_Beback incorrectly (imho) chastise Miss Mondegreen for Spam and canvassing, and after he pointed out that this RFC is already at WP:AN/I. I feel that is inappropriate.  RS issues are discussed here, not an AN/I.  A user should be quite free to post RFC's on RS issues right here and not be attacked for doing so.  That is one of the main reasons for this discussion page. Wjhonson 02:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Reliable or not?
I'm involved in a dispute over whether any, all, or none of the following sources can be considered reliable. Any comments or opinions are appreciated. - Crockspot 17:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Counterpunch.org
 * MediaMatters.org
 * The Raw Story
 * Salon.com
 * [ http://www.worldnetdaily.com/ WorldNetDaily.com]
 * MediaMatters usually includes transcripts or other sources as the basis for its articles, although it may be preferable to cite the primary source for a highlighted incident. Also, some of the cited content (such as radio shows) is ephemeral, or the MediaMatters site may most clearly summarize the situation. The other sources you list are prone to generate arguments about the source tangential to the content, so if there are less controversial sources you might want to use them instead.  If there aren't any other sources, how about handling it case by case? --Sgorton 04:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I also think MM is a good resource for their video and transcripts (which appear to be accessible long after the story is no longer 'the news of the day'. They are undoubtedly reliable in this respect.  I'm aware of their leanings though, and I don't think we should advance their POV (care must be taken to keep the overall wiki article NPOV).  Traditional media should also be referenced (wrt transcript and video) for as long as it is available.
 * rawstory (for the most part I think) reprints stories available elsewhere, although they do have some original reporting which may require a direct cite from them. I think they've also made a move to increase their original reporting, which means their organization may come up more often in the future.  In any case, I think they're reliable, so if the work is original to them, cite them as often as is relevent and needed, if it's a posting of somebody else's work, cite the original (AP, CBS, . . . etc.)
 * Haven't seen a whole lot of Salon. . .case by case basis where relevent I suppose. I think they're reliable, I just don't know. . . how often they would be needed in wiki-articles that don't concern themselves.  disclaimer: I contribute to the Glenn Greenwald (Salon columnist) wiki-article.  R. Baley 17:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily is famous for having a heavy bias, and they have a tendency to report stories not picked up anywhere else. I'd try to find a second source to corroborate anything they post in less inflammatory terms. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Media Matters is extremely biased. It doesn't just identify itself as liberal but rather as out to expose conservative lies. How much more biased can one be. When an article relies heavily on Media Matters as a source, it can be assumed that any other sources are either non-existent or other left wing hit sites. Media Matters is useful as a flag that anybody citing them is committed to promoting a POV at all costs.
 * I am unaware that WorldNetDaily purports to be NPOV.JoeFriday 03:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Reliability noticeboard
Per, and to answer questions just as that above, I would like to create Reliable sources/Noticeboard, where editors could post questions about whether given source(s) are reliable, and editors interested in reliability would answer. In essence it would be a non-binding RfC for reliability and a place to gather all discussions about specific sources, freeing this talk page to more theoretical discussions.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Good idea; might help solve an old edit war or two that flare up every now and again. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk problem solving 20:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I also like the idea. I've created the page with your nutshell statement of it's purpose.  It would be good if you could add a link from the main article directly to that page, and also we should put a link at the top of this Talk page as well. Wjhonson 02:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Unclear status of Reliable sources/examples
This useful page - linked from here - seems partially forgotten, and has no clear status, I have labelled it with 'proposed'. See also my comments at relevant discussion page.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Also a good idea.  If this is an orphan page, it should be linked from the main page and also linked at the top of this Talk page as well I'd think. Wjhonson 02:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Just for the record... much of RS/Examples page was copied and merged into the WP:Attribution FAQ... not all of it, but a large chunk. I see that there is a proposal to (sort of) "undo" that merge and bring the material back to the RS/Examples page.  This is fine with me if that is consensus, but personally I think it is useful to have duplication of the examples in both pages. Blueboar 12:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Blueboar I'd recommend linkifying the examples off WP:Attribution FAQ to the RS/Examples page. That way we don't have competing example-wars. Wjhonson 13:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As opposed to competing policy/guideline wars? Perhaps what we need is a single joint examples page, that both RS and ATT point to. Blueboar 14:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Make it so! I refrained from saying "Pikachu I choose you!"Wjhonson 14:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Not to do
Do not include the "tag" characters "<" and ">" in your comments. I just archived a piece of this page and those characters were in it, and totally whacked out Wiki when followed by something I suppose vaguely looked like a command or ambiguous expression. Well by "totally whacked-out" I just mean it cut off the rest of the page and threw-up some weird error in the text body.Wjhonson 14:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Anyone know exactly where I can report something like this to the Wiki-coding-monsters so maybe they could find a way to Wikifix the Wikimachine? Wjhonson 14:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Conservapedia?
Do we consider Conservapedia a WP:RS? I've noticed it's been used in some articles (e.g., ). My instinct tells me a tertiary source -- especially one that is self-declared as having a non-neutral point of view -- should not be considered a RS for objective information. Raymond Arritt 00:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say no, Conservapedia is not a reliable source. I should note, though, that both of those article links listed Conservapedia under external links, not as a citation. --Alabamaboy 01:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikis are not considered reliable sources. The main reason for this is that one can never predict what one will get when they load a page. A reader could get a page that had been vandalized a few seconds earlier. As for the EL issue, WP:EL states in "links to be avoided, #12, Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. I can't think of another open wiki besides WP that I would consider qualifying by this criteria. Certainly not conservapedia, dkospedia, or any other wiki that has an openly POV editorial policy. - Crockspot 01:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed... I would not even put WP in this category. But it comes down to this... Conservapedia is not a reliable source. Blueboar 12:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Pot calling the kettle black and blue--RCT 17:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, it's not a reliable source by any normal standard.--Svetovid 13:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I was going to ask whether it is possible for any wiki to be considered a reliable source here.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 09:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Al Jazeera
Is al Jazeera considered a reliable source? Thanks in advance, --Samiharris 16:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the answer is "it depends." Raymond Arritt 17:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about its usage at naked short selling, where a program on the subjet was listed under "media coverage." --Samiharris 18:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The statement being sourced is that they reported on it, at least at the moment. They are a reliable source for that.
 * And in general, why not? I'm sure we've cited the Daily Mail. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Al Jazeera is seed funded by the Emir of Qatar how does that make it "reliable" over an individuals blog? Is it the case that Al Jazeera just has more money pumped into it over the individuals zero-cost blog, so therefore money infusion makes it more "reliable"? In other words, being a bilionaire buys you "reliabilty" on wikipedia?
 * They do have an editorial structure and a reputation for fact-checking and correcting errors. However, I agree with Raymond above and suggest that the source be named in the text, not just the footnotes, for controversial material. &larr;BenB4 22:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Isn't this particular article concerned with the reliability of sources cited to support article material rather than with the character of the material in support of which sources are cited? Taking a step back from the point under discussion in this section, I looked at the article intro to find out what this article declared that it intended to cover, and did not find that info there.


 * IMHO, whether/when a supporting source needs to be named inline in the material citing the source is a matter to be covered in WP:V and/or WP:CITE, not here. IMHO, there is already too much blurring of the lines separating the territory covered by various WP guidelines and policies, and too much conflict between separate guideline/policy articles regarding points which are addressed in multiple independently-crafted and independently-maintained guidelines/policies. -- Boracay Bill 00:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Opie & Anthony
Another question: What about using the Opie & Anthony radio show, in the context of the "Criticism" section of Tucker Max?--Samiharris 18:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Sri Lanka related sources
Due to the conflict in Sri Lanka, we often experience edit wars centered around the reliability of Sri Lanka related sources. Earlier this year, WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation started a section Classification of sources, which was largely respected across the spectrum of Sri Lanka related editors. Since these were only recommendations, it was inevitable that some day some editors would ignore them. This happened lately, which lead to a long, fruitless discussion on WP:ANI#Removal of RS sources. I pointed that discussion here because I believe this talk page is a more appropriate place for deciding if sources are reliable. &mdash; Sebastian 18:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I propose to split the problem in two (or more) parts:
 * What kinds of a source do we want to distinguish?
 * What kind of a source is Tamilnet? (Or other sources - maybe that should be discussed at Reliable sources/Noticeboard) &mdash; Sebastian

What kinds of sources do we want to distinguish?
This guideline distinguishes two kinds of sources: Reliable and unreliable sources. For Sri Lanka conflict related sources, unfortunately, this distinction is often practically impossible. The reliability of many sources is constantly under dispute between the two factions. Compliant with the Wikipedia policy for Attributing and substantiating biased statements, the members of WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation therefore decided unanimously to recommend a third option, which was called "Qualified Source" (QS). This option allows citing QS only with explicit attribution and an agreed qualification, such as "The pro-rebel Tamilnet.com reports that ..." (see details). This has been successfully implemented in many articles. However, the problem is that it is not an official WP guideline, so there are some editors who only respect this recommendation when it fits their partisan agenda.

Therefore, I hope that QS can become a guideline for Sri Lanka conflict related articles. &mdash; Sebastian 19:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. If all the articles in the scope of SL is to use this as a guideline it would benefit everyone. If this recommendation is not used by all parties who edit SL related articles then we will go back to the problem of distinguishing which is RS and which is not. Watchdogb 16:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think Sebastian’s ‘QS’ concept is a good first step toward at least clarifying which sources are “reliable” for at least the unexceptional fact, but subject to bias in certain circumstances and subjects; however, I suspect it may be too simplistic to be broadly practical.


 * Whenever the question “Is this source ‘reliable’?” is asked, it needs to be responded to with another question, “With respect to what?” Otherwise, the answer can only be “It depends.”  Fundamentally, sources are reliable or unreliable with respect to their ability to provide an informed and objective treatment of the issue or fact in question.  For instance, is Mein Kampf ‘reliable’ for Wikipedia’s purposes?  It is a RS for Hitler’s political beliefs or a testament to Nazi philosophy, worldview and perspectives; it is not a RS for Jewish history or culture or belief systems or even for an unbiased (or even clear-headed) analysis and rationale on the causes and consequences of the First World War and Germany’s defeat therein.


 * To follow the ‘QS’ approach, I think we have to say it has at best limited applicability and only in those circumstances in which it is a significant resource in of itself. Mein Kampf would be a ‘QS’ for certain subjects related to WWII, the Nazis, German history, and so on, but it would be neither a ‘QS’ or ‘RS’ for anything having to do with Sri Lanka, for instance.


 * With respect to news media, at the trivial level, when it comes to incontrovertible facts like “2 + 2 = 4” or general news of no political significance, a source like Tamilnet (or German mass media publications under the sway of the Nazis’ Propagandaministerium) can be just as “reliable” a source as any other of the same type. (Keep in mind, though, that for Wikipedia, “reliable” does not necessarily mean all of the source’s products are “unbiased”.)  It’s whenever events or issues are of political significance, or value judgments are being expressed, or opinions or interpretations are being presented (e.g., op-eds) that such sources become quite uncertain in their ‘reliability’ – except, of course, as sources for quotes representative of their “side’s” particular biases or as examples of propaganda statements regarding the topic.


 * Basically, if there’s no value to the publisher (or the government looking over their shoulder) to do so, there’s no reason to go to the effort to slant the story. Contrariwise, if publishing the story is likely to cost the publisher, then the reliability of the information sourced might be quite credible indeed.  In short, rating a source as always being on one side of the “reliability” line or the other is a simplistic approach which WP:RS has taken for the sake of, well, simplicity.  The better question to ask is, “Is XYZ a reliable source for this information in the given context?” Askari Mark (Talk) 02:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's only reliable for telling us what the LTTE and other pro-Tamil groups think, and not for what factual event occurred or did not occur, or if some other people said something (or did not). Just like "a video was posted on a pro-Al-Qaeda website... stating some event/policy change, declaration, etc. This conflict is heavily covered globally and there are many, much more reliable sources.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The point is local media covers extensively about local events. We can not expect BBC international to cover all the events say in Tamilnadu which are important to local people. This is like saying we should only use BBC international as source for Tamilnadu related events and not Dinathanti (a local newspaper) Praveen 15:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, these are good points. In particular, I agree with the point of the Al-Qaeda and Nazi examples that sources can be reliable, but biased. I now realize that the concept of QS as we defined it may not be optimal because it lumped together reliability and bias, and we may need to distinguish between the two. However, this distinction opens a new dimension of complexity. Few cases are so black/white as Al-Qaeda and Mein Kampf. To stay with the example of Nazi Germany, and to illustrate the other extreme: Suppose, it's 1944. The Nazis successfully fooled the world. Suppose, a Jewish organization had published detailed reports of concentration camps, and one of our editors quoted from that. The Nazis, of course, would denounce the Jewish organization as "biased". Would we have to remove that information?

But let's move away from Nazi Germany, which was an extreme case. There is a wide range of uncertainty between these extreme examples, which probably is part of why we saw continuous edit wars (at least until we we defined QS). WP:RS curently does not address this dimension, so we need to spend some thought about how and where to draw the line. I now lean towards only allowing reliable sources, but distinguishing between: The experience of SL conflict related articles shows that that would work as a guideline. I don't think we need to explicitly specify certain contexts of applicability; that was never a point of contention in the conflicts so far. (Presumably because it would be strange to contest a claim such as "party X killed civilians of party Y" with the argument that it's not pertinent to an article about terrorism and massacres.) &mdash; Sebastian 05:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * unbiased sources
 * sources that may be seen as biased (or partial). These sources would only be allowed to be used with proper qualification ("pro-X").


 * Yes, I employed the Nazi example because it would be well-appreciated across a wide range of cultures (and to break away from the emotionally charged connections to Tamilnet in this particular instance). The “1944” scenario is interesting, but – assuming the Nazis hadn’t won the war, in which case there’d be no Wikipedia (or likely an Internet, for that matter) – Wikipedia can only draw from published sources perceived to be reliable; infallibility is not our standard, but rather correctability.


 * I would encourage you to please not abandon your ‘QS’ innovation, because it’s a useful tool in certain cases. I think the ‘QS’ technique can be useful in especially contentious situations and narrow application as with the SL/LTTE. If editors from a broad range of viewpoints can be brought together to form a consensus on the degree of reliability (in Wikipedia terms) of various commonly used sources, that’s a real boon in that you don’t have to keep arguing the RS issue over again and again and again and …, but instead have something to point them to.  Bias does play into the reliability factor, but the “X says Y; however, Y says X” formulation helps us to deal with that.  In fact, if you think about it, identifying and responsibly and appropriately employing ‘QS’ sources helps show that we are accurately capturing the full range of viewpoints; in short, it can be a tool to ensure NPOV, not just reduce time wasted in edit warring.
 * I don’t think we can usefully sort reliable news sources into “unbiased” and “biased/partially biased” bins. All sources are “biased” in some way, wherever subjective evaluation comes into play.  I think what you mean to catch is something more like the following:
 * Automatically RS: neutral or disinterested sources – those without a “brand in the fire” which neither benefit nor suffer from one side or another being “right”.
 * QS (Sometimes RS): partisan sources – those which have a reputation for generally following mainstream journalistic practices except with topics where their obvious/admitted bias is “aroused” or “at stake”.
 * That isn’t perfect wording, but I think you can catch what I’m reaching for. ‘QS’ sources can then be handled as a provisional RS – where no better RS has yet been found – for non-contentious material, but as a “pro-X” (or “anti-Y”) quasi-RS regarding material that “resonates” with its bias.  (This captures the ‘contextual’ side of the source’s reliability.)  Thoughts?  Askari Mark (Talk) 03:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds perfect to me Taprobanus 14:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I can agree with the idea of a QS... but not with your definition of RS. A source can have a "brand in the fire" and still be reliable. I see what you call QS as a subset of RS, not as a separate item.  A qualified source can be reliable ... if nothing else, it is reliable as a source for what a particular group or individual says. Once again, we are dealing with the difference between a source that is reliable for factual statements vs. one that is reliable for statements of opinion. Both are reliabile ... but the second needs to be attributed in the text of the article. Blueboar 15:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems everyone agrees in the intent and the only disagreement seems to be in how to name what we mean. Blueboar is right that RS should be a superset, or put differently, all sources that are allowed in Wikipedia need to be RS. Now the distinction we need to make is simply that some RS may need attribution while others don't. The latter are what Askari called "RS", maybe we could better call them "RS/n" (where the "n" can stand for "no attribution necessary" or for "neutral or disinterested"). For symmetry, the former, which Askari called "QS" could be called "RS/a" (for "attribution necessary"). &mdash; Sebastian 18:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, Blueboar, I agree fully. I wasn’t really trying to define ‘RS’ as much as winnow out the neighborhood of ‘QS’.  What I was trying to do was lump non-contentious sources as automatically and unequivocally RS (inasmuch as unbiased sources are a moot point for this discussion), while defining QS sources as potentially and conditionally RS sources, depending upon how they are used (i.e., context).  A QS source would be certainly be “reliable” as a source for what a particular group or individual says – but not necessarily so with respect to how they represent their opponents’ positions.  If you don’t mind, I’m going to slightly redact (in bold) what I wrote to make it clearer. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As I understand, the general position is that QS attribution be used only when any source is used to reference content, that maligns its 'perceived' opponents. One problem that we have to consider is how to find the perceived opponents... Praveen 14:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ‘QS’ would not be a broad application, but rather a tool to allow a broad range of editors to come to consensus as to how to treat certain contentious sources – especially newspapers and other news media – as potentially reliable sources, despite perceived bias, in terms of the context in which it is to be used. This is particularly helpful where several related articles are not only drawing upon the same sources, but in such cases only one side’s sources are available (like those in a guerrilla-controlled area).  Based on the discussion here, ‘QS’ would be applicable to a  source that is either notably biased against or a partisan toward another party under discussion.  On non-contentious topics and on topics reflecting their side’s viewpoints, QS sources could be treated as RS, while on topics where their bias may prohibited a neutral and fair-minded treatment, they would need to be handled on a “X says A” basis – following which it would be fair to say “but Y claims B” for a balanced perspective.  It’s a tool being experimented with at WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation; what we’re trying to do here is see if we can’t evolve it into a more formally described and practical tool for such disputatious cases for which few useful neutral, unbiased RS can be found.  In these cases, a more subtle approach is needed than WP:RS offers – it basically tells us to march straight through the minefield, the torpedoes be damned. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not think we should see this as fixed categories. I do not think you could propose examples where there would be a sharp distinction. Even newspapers: the WSJ news section is one thing, the editorials another. The various NYT columnists are not of equal standing. BBC does very reliable news, and it also does a moderate degree of sensationalism. Even the worst source from a unreliable organization will tell us who the president is and when they were founded (though I can think of exceptions). "Nature" has published some pseudoscience from time to time, to maintain a show of impartial coverage, and has erroneously published some very obvious frauds as well. There is no way of avoiding individual analysis of the difficult cases. We do not need a straight-jacket. DGG 06:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * DDG, we’re looking at QS as a tool (not policy) to “remove straightjackets” through capturing a stable consensus of “individual analysis of the difficult cases” among related articles where a source may actually be useful (or even essential as one of the few sources available) and that source may be reliable for some uses but obviously subject to bias in others. Just like we don’t give carte blanche to WSJ or NYT op-eds, there are sources for which they’re “reliable” in some ways and unreliable in others.


 * In a recent posting in the section following this one, Nishkid64 succinctly and clearly captures the “traditional and proper” RS approach:


 * “Personally, I don't think if neutral reputable sources such as Reuters and Associated Press label Tamilnet as "pro-LTTE", then the site should not be used as a reliable source. Given that the website itself is called Tamilnet, and only reports on news regarding Tamil people and LTTE, I think there will sometimes be a COI in the news material the website publishes (which can be seen in some of the material the news website publishes). With a COI and a reputation of being a pro-LTTE news website, I would disapprove of Tamilnet being kept as a reliable source in these articles. Neutral sources that are not biased should be best used in these type of situations. I think the fact that there has been so much discussion about this speaks for itself. Not everyone agrees that the website is a reliable source, and given its controversial nature, we should avoid using it as a source.”


 * One of the problems with LTTE-controlled areas is that the LTTE doesn’t normally allow “neutral” reliable sources to wander around freely – even for general news that has nothing to do with the LTTE or Tamil-Sinhalese relations; Tamilnet reporters can, and sometimes it’s the only available source for what’s going on in Tamil areas. The “traditional and proper” approach is unquestionably the way to go in most cases; however, it leaves unaddressed how to deal with these exceptional “difficult cases” – other than constant warring over what sources are or are not “reliable” and then each time something is “settled”, have to start all over again with the next new editor joins the fray or turmoil in a related article boils over into “adjacent” articles again.  WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation is an experiment in trying to resolve source issues in a central location and contain the RS issues there, while allowing the affected articles to progress in a more constructive and less contentious manner. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "One of the problems with LTTE-controlled areas is that the LTTE doesn’t normally allow “neutral” reliable sources to wander around freely – even for general news that has nothing to do with the LTTE or Tamil-Sinhalese relations; Tamilnet reporters can, and sometimes it’s the only available source for what’s going on in Tamil areas." - I disagree. For starters, I am not too sure of the veracity of that claim and secondly, we do not need info coming out of LTTE held areas 24x7x365.  We are not a news service.  We are an encyclopedia.  As an encyclopedia, we are only keeping track of the notable issues.  If something is notable, I am sure BBC and Reuters will pull all stops and publish it.  BBC and even the Indian media has covered the conflict extensively and I cant think of any notable issue that they've missed.  Tamilnet otoh might publish every gunshot fired and grenade hurled, but we're not interested in that because, regardless of what else we'd use it for, I'd shudder to think of using it as a source to establish notability.  To put it simply, if the absolutely reliable and reputed sources like BBC and Reuters and The Hindu, The Indian Express etc., are not reporting something that tnet alone is cooking up, then we also should not be allowing it on Wikipedia.  The BBC, Reuters, Hindu, IE etc., have no axe to grind in the conflict and can be taken as impartial observers with impeccable credentials.  tnet, otoh is a brazenly biased source with questionable credentials.
 * Almost every dispute on the Sri Lanka project traces back to these dubious sources. You flush out these sources and several of the disputes will settle themselves.  First they use dubious sources like these and then they open wikiprojects just to keep track of the disputes!  I've never seen anything quite like this on wikipedia.  Sarvagnya 21:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

What kind of a source is Tamilnet?
I believe Tamilnet is a reliable source and it does not violate WP:RS because it has


 * 1. Editor (See source)
 * 2. Editorial board ( See source)
 * 3. Thorough review of information from reporters and removal of any suspect material.(See source)
 * 4. It is extensively used by news agencies such as Reuters, AFP and news organizations such as BBC, CNN as a primary source for information from Sri Lanka that is usually censored. (See source)

But it is also a biased source hence, it should be used with attribution. Following are the views of 3 neutral editors about this news site.

Thanks Taprobanus 17:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Black Falcon’s view here
 * FayssalF’s view here
 * Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington’s view


 * I believe that Tamilnet is a RS. This is simply because it has all the qualifications for it to be a RS.
 * After the discussion on the ANI other neutral editors have said that Tamilnet is a RS. The discussion is here. Watchdogb 16:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No there isn't. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you have any information regarding it's Editor and it's Editorial board, Taprobanus? -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪  walkie-talkie  21:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks and did it 20:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.201.162.1 (talk • contribs)
 * :D Sarvagnya 23:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Even though news organisations quote Tamilnet they quote Tamilnet as a mouthpiece of the LTTE. the fact that they do not regard Tamilnet as a reliable source is shown by they always add to the bottom (Neither Governemnt nor LTTE (in this case claims made by tamilnet)claims can be independently verified))Dutugemunu 13:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

In response to Taprobanus' points, the People's Daily also satisfies 1 and 2. In respect to 4, many things that are not RS are used as primary sources by all sorts of reputable information. Otherwise where do all the journalists get all their leaked CIA reports, cabinet reports etc from...from backroom bureaucrats leaking bits and pieces. These guys do not then become reliable of their own accord.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as ANI goes, there is consensus by "neutral editors" that it is not RS. By neutral you obviously mean to exclude people from the ethnicities involved in the SL conflict(Sinhalese and Tamil). If that's what you want, then the only person who wants these websites is FayssalF. For those who think that these are lobby groups, we have Y, Dineshkannambadi, Sarvagnya, Nishkid64, Blnguyen, Sir Nick who are not of the conflicting parties. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Come on, dont put words into my words, I meant by neutral non Indians and non Sri Lankans, that mean excluding you and me who had the difference opinion to begin with, one neutral editor said it was RS with reasons another said it was not without any reasons. Because it was a negative from a neutral negative, I have invite him. Views from India centric editors such as you included is not neutral either way. It is biased one way or the other, further this is not a contest of numbers but ideas. Let us argue with citations not just our opinions.Thanks 17:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow! so it is you, an invested party to the dispute, get to decide who is neutral? That's logical and fair. Praveen 15:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Even the People's Daily seems to be better. They have editors and journalists who have the moral courage to attach their names to their stories.  Not backroom zombies operating in anonymity and writing whatever trash they want with no accountability.  For that matter, I might have a blog and I am its editor and editorial board.  huh. Sarvagnya 02:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't count Sarvagnya as a "neutral editor", having shown his bias against anything Tamil. But, back to the point, the one suggestion I can think of is if we intend to disallow tamilnet.com because of its partisan content, we should disallow the pro-sinhala sites too, irrespective of whether they have an editorial board and what not. Lotlil 04:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And nobody cares what an obvious sock of somebody thinks of an established editor like me. In all humility, my contributions to wikipedia are way more honourable than yours.  All that you and your buddies Aadal and PP have ever done on wikipedia is stalk and troll me.  Do you have anything else to show for yourself?  Sarvagnya 06:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The biggest anti-Tamil, Kannada troll thinks itself as an established editor... What an irony! way to go ... Praveen 15:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Go for it. When did I ever say that Lankaweb or Sinhalanation etc were any good. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying you said anything about Lankaweb etc. All I'm saying is, if there's consensus among neutral parties that tamilnet should be disallowed, only because of its partisan content, we should use the same yardstick for all pro-Sinhala sources on the Sri Lanka related articles. This is just my opinion. Lotlil 05:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point. It relates to the example I just wrote at the end of the previous section. &mdash; Sebastian 05:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Tamilnet is not only partisan but it is invalid as a source for wikipedia purposes because it is not even a bonafide news service or website(flimsy pdfs that prove nothing notwithstanding). It is claimed that it has an editor and editorial board, but we arent told who they are. Nor has anybody demonstrated that they are affiliated to any 'official' press bodies and the like. In other words, I am not sure if we should be putting all 'partisan' sources in one basket.

For example, Times of India may be biased in some cases... they even have plagiarised from Wikipedia(Blnguyen's own content).. they are loved and they are hated.. but at the end of the day, we cannot wish them away as a bonafide source. They have editors and journalists accredited by relevant press bodies working for them and all the right affiliations. So we can be sure that there are checks and balances. We can be sure that they are held accountable by someone somewhere. Same with FOX. And CNN. And BBC and The Hindu, Deccan Herald(all of which have covered the Sri Lankan conflict and are as neutral as neutral can be in the affair). The same cannot be said of Tamilnet. Tell me, what is the difference between Tamilnet/tamilnation etc., and the random blog? Yes.. tnet and tnation may get a gazillion hits. But that can only make them "notable" not "RS"

Another reason why tnet and tnation are useless as sources for wikipedia is because, they blog about nothing but Tamil. Tamil-this, tamil-that, tamil, tamil, tamil. Nothing else. And afa Tamil is concerned, we dont believe them. Period. Not even with truckloads of salt. Is there anything other than Tamil related stuff on those blogs that we could salvage? I looked. But I didnt find any! Sarvagnya 06:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Your pathetic arguments continue... Is there any rule that if certain website speaks about only certain things, its not reliable? All local news channels cover local events only... Does that mean they are not reliable? There are independent thesis/reports made on reliability of Tamilnet. Do you have anything concrete or only your opinions? Praveen 15:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Just for the convenience of editors who did not follow the discussion on ANI, let me restate the evidence/independent research papers on reliability of Tamilnet.com.
 * A PHD thesis of Kasun Ubayasiri, Central Queensland University covers extensively Tamilnet. This is the conclusion that it derives.
 * "It can also be argued the Tamilnet success as internet based news service has been largely attributed to a unique position it has created as the only ‘independent’ provider of a reliable alternative view in the Sri Lankan theatre, one designed to counter the states rudimentary propaganda machine. Tamilnet has also adopted a reportage style closely resembling a wire service feed identified by western media practitioners as viable and reliable media. The prompt coverage of news both in the government controlled regions and those under the LTTE control has placed the a Tamilnet in the unique position of the being a news service with the widest coverage – a defining attribute in a media theatre dominated by Colombo and south centric media.Therefore it can be argued that Tamilnet’s strategy of providing pro-Eelamist news without any overt LTTE connections has yielded results and coupled with its reporting style and content, paved the way significantly wider coverage in both the internet and through international mainstream media, when compared with any other web based media Sri Lankan media product." here is the link
 * Same goes for Tamilnation.org. A simple search in google shows that tamilnation website is used as references in conference papers and other research papers. Associate press & BBC uses these websites as reference too. Praveen 16:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Just because the website covers news about tamils it does not make it a non realiable source. How about news that cover only Canadian/American/Indian news ? Are they not allowed to be used ? Pathetic. It is also noted that Tamilnet has fired some of its editors as soon as they became activists for the LTTE. Why would a propaganda site do such ? Because its not a propaganda site. It just covers what has happend. Tamilnet gets source from both the LTTE and the SLA. For instance if an attack happend then Tamilnet states "According to LTTE..." and then it also states "However, according to...". Another thing is just because another website that has editorial board and blah blah balh is not used as RS does not mean that Tamilnet cannot be used. Taprobanus said that because to show that it Passes WP:RS. Furthermore the fact that Tamilnet has an editorial board proves that it indeed goes thru fact-checking. Since it has all the requirments as a RS I can say that it is RS Watchdogb 18:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Also please take a look at Undueweight. Watchdogb 19:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * hmmm could you give some examples for kicking out their editors with evidence? -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪  walkie-talkie  20:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I can indeed. Here is a achiever of the paper released my Whitker a well known person who studied tamilnet and the murder of one of its editers. It has also information of the displeasure by LTTE towards Tamilnet because Tamilnet has put LTTE in "bad light". Watchdogb 23:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The PDF that taprobanus is showing doesn't really prove anything. What it's really showing is that TamilNet is just "notable". It doesn't prove that it is  reliable or that it is neutral. And please, Praveen should stop harping that the TamilNet has been "referenced". It might have been referenced a few dozen times in the last 10 years(as the PDF says). That is hardly anything. Also, BBC is a news service and works very much differently than an encyclopedia. And yeah, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. No encyclopedia which talks about truth uses sources like these whose only purpose is to spread Tamil nationalistic ideologies. Gnanapiti 06:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Gnanapiti, I think you are confusing WP:RS with WP:NPOV, where does RS says that the source has tobe neutral ? they have to be reliable but sometimes we have to use biased sources to neutralize articles hence Tamilnet becomes very valuable in making articles neutral. Anyway, every body who is arguing here has a known position so this is not going to go anywhere unless we follow the wiki process where truely neutral people can weigh in such as through rfc, rfm and rfa. Thanks Taprobanus 12:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * (reply to Gnanapiti:) Do not create rules on-the-fly to suit your regionalistic ideas... Since when did number of times a source got referenced has to be taken into account? If that is the case, then regionalistic propaganda sources such as Kamath's pseudo-history books would have never seen the light in Wikipedia... BTW: Read the underlined portion in my previous reply. Praveen 13:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * (reply to Gnanapiti:) The way Watchdogb just dropped a link to a whole document is indeed not very helpful to prove his point. However, I found the following on page 27: "none of the backers and editors of Tamilnet.com are members of the LTTE, and when one became an activist for the LTTE he was asked to leave his job as a sub-editor, and did." That seems to answer Lahiru's question precisely. &mdash; Sebastian 17:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * (reply to gnanapiti:) Yes, as Sebastian has pointed out it is to give answer to Lahiru's comment Watchdogb 18:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Are we now going to synthesise sources to establish reliability? Sorry.  I dont buy it.  Like Gnanapiti says, the pdf doesnt establish reliability in the least.  It is at best only an 'academic' study of a very popular website(and hence the study).  And whether its editors are members of the LTTE and whether they fired such people or not is really besides the point.  The question here is really of RS.  Not that of COI on the part of tnet.


 * It is one thing for Reuters, BBC etc to use this source a couple of times a year and a totally different thing for us to use it as a source for an encyclopedia.  And even Reuters doesnt use it as a routine/regular "reference"/"source".  They only use it(very infrequently) to indicate what the extreme-Tamil view of the situation is.  This whole specious argument that "hey.. it is good enough for BBC.. its good enough Reuters.. so it should be good enough for us" is bogus.  First of all, we are not BBC.  We are an encyclopedia.  Second of all, "its good enough for BBC" is a lie.  Sarvagnya 18:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sarvagnya, the pdf was there for many reasons


 * First off its there to show that Tamilnet is not a Arm on LTTE and neither is it there as a propaganda for LTTE. Remember that they indeed have put LTTE in bad light. They have also been criticized by the LTTE.


 * For tamilnet to fire its editor because they became an LTTE activist shows that it does not tolerate anyone who might bring the hardcore LTTE stand to the news. If they wanted to spread propaganda then they would have kept the editor.


 * PDF shows that the because Tamilnet had "subeditors" it must then go through the editorial process as any other news sites out there. Watchdogb 18:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

(reply to sarvagnya) We are not synthesizing the source. What I have written is verbatim reproduction of independent research. Not my research. OTOH, all your points are baseless claims without any attribution. Praveen 15:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

random break - tamilnet discussion

 * Folks, we are getting way off topic here. The original question was: is Tamilnet a reliable source?  And the answer seems to be that it is... allbeit (perhaps) a biased one. What you all seem to be arguing about now is a further question: is Tamilnet reliable for a specific statement?  That is a debate that should take place on the article talk page, not here.  One option to consider: change the text of the article so that it includes a text attribution, as in "According to Tamilnet...." (ie change the wording so that you are giving a statement of opinion rather than a statement of fact). In any case, I think we have reached a stage where you need to move the discussion back to the article talk page. Blueboar 15:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Great, will follow that reccomendation. Thanks Taprobanus 15:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Blueboar there is no consensus among the editors here that Tamilnet is a reliable or unbiased site. furthermore the evidence in the public domain is overwhelming that Tamilnet is unreliable, biased and is simply the official website of the LTTE.The purpose of Tamilnet is to disseminate LTTE propaganda , not news. Almost every report Tamilnet makes about major battles is later proved to be unreliable. This is the simple statement of facts which you are welcome to verify by using Google to check the bona fides of this propaganda website Dutugemunu 13:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Blueboar, maybe tamilnet is a reliable source in Wikiality. According to one of Indias largest papers The Hindu (http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/thscrip/print.pl?file=20070615004904600.htm&date=fl2411/&prd=fline&)
 * "TamilNet (www.tamilnet.com) is the unofficial mouthpiece of the Tigers in English. It is a kind of news agency chronicling the conflict as perceived by the LTTE. The site is a `must hit' for any serious Sri Lanka watcher. A senior official in the Presidential Secretariat told Frontline, "My first port of call on the internet is TamilNet. Though it is brazenly pro-Tigers, it is a good guide to know the mind of the Tiger leadership tucked away in the safe havens of the Wanni jungles."
 * Tamilnet frequently reports lies propagated by the LTTE which are later disproved.It os about as reliable as any terrorsit website usually is Dutugemunu 12:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Blueboar, please see the AN/I discussion. There were a number of editors (not just one) who did not think Tamilnet was a reliable source (some neutral editors, as well, such as myself). Nishkid64 (talk)  23:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ANI is not the place for the discussion of WP:RS, and people have been invited to bring their arguments forward here. The discussion on ANI has become very long and drifted off in personal attacks and an unrelated discussion; we can't expect everybody to read that discussion. If you see any points in that discussion that have not been mentioned here, how about listing them here? &mdash; Sebastian 01:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, here are the views I posted at AN/I:
 * I have been a reader of Tamilnet for quite a while. I've always had an interest in the actions of Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam  in Sri Lanka. Anyway, now that you know my background, I wish to give my whole take on Tamilnet being a reliable source. Personally, I don't think if neutral reputable sources such as Reuters and Associated Press label Tamilnet as "pro-LTTE", then the site should not be used as a reliable source. Given that the website itself is called Tamilnet, and only reports on news regarding Tamil people and LTTE, I think there will sometimes be a COI in the news material the website publishes (which can be seen in some of the material the news website publishes). With a COI and a reputation of being a pro-LTTE news website, I would disapprove of Tamilnet being kept as a reliable source in these articles. Neutral sources that are not biased should be best used in these type of situations. I think the fact that there has been so much discussion about this speaks for itself. Not everyone agrees that the website is a reliable source, and given its controversial nature, we should avoid using it as a source.
 * Then in response to being labeled as an Indian sub-contient Wikipedian who shouldn't be in the debate I am not an Indian sub-continent Wikipedian. I live in the United States. I also rarely edit India-related articles (actually, the only one I really edited was Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale). Given that I have no history of participation with Tamil-related articles or India-related articles for the most part, then I don't see why my opinion is not valued.
 * I was later branded as a biased editor because I am Indian, which makes absolutely no sense. In response to a question about why TamilNet fails RS, I said: At WP:RS, it says "The relevant policies on sources are Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Neutral point-of-view." I do not think Tamilnet provides a neutral view, which in this case, would fail RS. Also, the policy says, "their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." Nishkid64 (talk)  18:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Basically, the two pro-TamilNet users here have been telling Indian editors that their opinions are biased because they come from India. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and it makes them look like hypocrites. They're Tamil (I presume), and yet they are tellings Indians that they are biased. What bias do we have? We're expressing the opinions here, as are you (Lustead and Taprobanus). If you consider us biased, then you must consider yourself biased and abstain from the discussion. If you really want to hear the opinion of the community, ask neutral editors who have no affiliation to any Sri Lanka or Tamil-related articles, such as myself (like I said, I only have edited a few Indian-related articles on Wikipedia; most of my work is American sports and history) and other people, then that's fine. Nishkid64 (talk)  18:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, thank you. I remember reading this, and wondering what you meant by the double negation in "I don't think if neutral reputable sources such as Reuters and Associated Press label Tamilnet as "pro-LTTE", then the site should not be used as a reliable source." I assume you mean you do think so?


 * Two words about COI: Unfortunately, WP:COI is one of those guidelines that are most often cited by people who either don't understand it or use it to further their own agenda, instead of Wikipedia's best interest. This guideline clearly only applies to Wikipedia editors and not to sources. Of course, for any topic, whether conflict or not, we need to use information from interested parties. The same guideline is a bit fuzzy about what kind of "contributions" it covers. The way I see it is that it only applies to edits in article spaces. I therefore think that it's wrong to cite WP:COI to exclude an editor from reasonably participating in a discussion. Please let's not expand on this here, though. I only wanted to mention it briefly. (The right place for discussing the policy is WT:COI, and for discussing if certain users abuse this policy you may want to use their talk page, or you could create a section on WT:SLR.) &mdash; Sebastian 22:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My usage of "COI" was not about Wikipedia editors, but about the people who write newsstories for TamilNet. Nishkid64 (talk)  22:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As people here suggested, we can use Tamilnet without qualifications when there are no other sources. If there is alternative view available (say from Lankanation etc), we will qualify both sources with 'pro-LTTE' and 'pro-SLGOV' respectively as per existing guidelines in Srilanka Reconciliation project. BTW: See my reply above for the claim that if certain sources covers extensively about local things, they can not be used as RS. Praveen 02:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be a step backwards. For four months, we have successfully followed the recommendation of citing Tamilnet with the attribution. Plain and simple, without conditions. This has never been questioned. In the contrary, the reason why we have this discussion is because some editors questioned whether Tamilnet should be allowed at all. I understand that you're trying to turn the table on those who questioned Tamilnet, but the point here is not who can push the other side better from the table, but to stay at the table together and work out our differences. There is no reason to change a recommendation that is working well. &mdash; Sebastian 02:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not understand how COI applies outside of wikipedia. Clearly the COI of wikipedia is for the editors of wikipedia. It does not mention anything about RS and COI. Besides how can you say that there is COI with the writers of tamilnet? It is allready established that Tamilnet is not an arm of LTTE. No proof has been shown to say that Tamilnet is a propaganda sight either. Watchdogb 15:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Then please explain why TamilNet has been labeled as a pro-LTTE news website by many, many other neutral sources like Reuters or the Associated Press. COI is not a Wikipedia-only term. The term also carries meaning in the real world, and that's how I am applying it. Nishkid64 (talk)  16:06, 10 June 2007(UTC)


 * I agree with the statement of Blueboar – "A source can have a "brand in the fire" and still be reliable. .......... Once again, we are dealing with the difference between a source that is reliable for factual statements vs. one that is reliable for statements of opinion. Both are reliable ... but the second needs to be attributed in the text of the article".


 * My answer to Nishkid64 is, you yourself proclaimed – "I have been a reader of Tamilnet for quite a while. I've always had an interest in the actions of Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in Sri Lanka. Anyway, now that you know my background..........".


 * The way you expressed your background only made me to say – you are biased, because you are an Indian, though you haven’t edited much the issues of India related.


 * You are saying Tamilnet is not providing a neutral view, then how did they manage to publish the Sri Lankan President's interview at Al Jazeera television here, where he heavily slammed LTTE.


 * Tamilnet, because of its name-sake and the way it is carrying the news might be biased, but that doesn't mean that that is not a reliable source. Then for the name-sake, we can assume The Hindu is anti-Muslim or anti-Christian and also we can assume The Hindustan Times is ant-Pakistan. But that is not the case there.


 * I like to high light some of the views from User:FayssalF, a Moroccan nationality - "I see that TamilNet respects our policy on RS. These are my reasons:


 * TamilNet has been cited and used as a reference in both notable media outlets such as BBC, CNN and news agencies such as the notable Reuters. It has also been used in academic papers and still being used in government websites such as the Canadian immigration and refugee board website. (Based on the links provided by participants above).


 * Saying a pro-X is biased and unreliable is just like saying that opponent pro-X is biased and unreliable. Defence.lk reporting on TamilNet having lied is not a totally unbiased reporting. They are both partisan websites. In our case here, we only have one partisan side having a say in wikipedia. It is against our core policy NPOV. The article should be balanced. You are talking about "state terrorism in Srilanka" but the main accuser is silenced…




 * The argument that says that TamilNet lied once is just not a perfect one. In the list of journalism scandals you'd find almost every universally notable media. Who doesn't remember the Sorry, We were hoaxed story about the fake abuse photos of prisoners in Iraq? Daily Mirror is still considered notable. Newspapers and media in general sometimes lie intentionally and sometimes unintentionally. You can't be sure about that.


 * NPOV = Work for balance, that is: divide space describing the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources. And, when available, give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner".


 * I also agree with the conclusion of Blueboar that Tamilnet seems to meet the WP:RS –  "..........is Tamilnet a reliable source? And the answer seems to be that it is... allbeit (perhaps) a biased one.............". Lustead 16:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I also like to mention here, the Reuters or the Associated Press are not the accreditation institutions for world media.Lustead 16:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The only reason why I mentioned my background is because I know you and Taprobanus would say I was biased because I am Indian. Are you biased because you support Sri Lanka? No one's ever said you were biased because of your belief, but yet I see you accuse only Indian editors of a predetermined bias. That's just absolute nonsense. Getting back to what I said earlier, I still feel TamilNet is biased. Unlike others who just targeted the bias of the website, I showed why I think it fails WP:RS. Also, you say Reuters and AP are not accredited institutions of world media. Then, tell me what media sources are? Clearly, these two are known for neutral and accurate reporting, worldwide. They are not centralized in particular regions, and they report the news, in an unbiased manner. If you really think it's an RS, then I would only accept it if you say, "According to TamilNet, ....". By doing so, you're providing a disclaimer to readers who may not be familiar with the opinion of many regarding TamilNet. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Again you fail to show me how COI of Tamilnet would make it not RS. Please point out to a statement in WP:RS that complies with your statement ? I agree that the NPOV news sites like Reuters say Tamilnet is "pro rebel" but thats primarily because


 * Say for instance there is a clas between LTTE and SLA. Tamilnet gets the first hand information from the LTTE as in "X amount of SLA has been killed and Y has been injured-LTTE". This does not make tamilnet Pro rebel. Tamilnet just states what the LTTE states. If you follow tamilnet as you claim to then you know that each statement from ltte is attributed TO LTTE. Tamilnet does not present what LTTE say as fact. If you read a little above you see that none of the Tamilnet editors are LTTE.... None of them are activists for LTTE (one got fired as he became an activist).... Tamilnet has put LTTE under some bad light and has

been critized by LTTE. The argument that Tamilnet covers story from "Tamil Eelam" does not make in not RS.


 * BBC, though mostly covers the conflict neutrally, has showed some bias against the LTTE sometimes. Does that make BBC not RS ? Sure it doesn't... So just because some news seem to be bias towards one side does not make the source not RS. Watchdogb 01:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't say COI of TamilNet did not make it an RS. I said earlier, "In response to a question about why TamilNet fails RS, I said: At WP:RS, it says "The relevant policies on sources are Verifiability, No original research, and Neutral point-of-view." I do not think Tamilnet provides a neutral view, which in this case, would fail RS. Also, the policy says, "their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." Nishkid64 (talk) 01:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I kindly ask you to check WP:NPOV. And please provide revelent paragraph which would make Tamilnet fail RS. About "their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.". Definitely the tamilnet writers ARE "authoritative in relation to the subject at hand". Also they are trustworthy... Do you have specific proof that they are not trust worthy ? On one occasion they released a "mistake" of news. However, one incident alone does not permit the source to be untrustworthy. Other RS have sometimes published "mistake" news. Watchdogb 14:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I really think this discussion needs to be moved back to the article talk page, or perhaps to WP:NPOV. It is clear to me that the consensus of non-involved editors here is that Tamilnet is indeed reliable.  Yes, it may be biased towards a POV but, if nothing else, it is reliable for expressing that POV.  This bias may restrict how it is used, but not if it can be used.  Now, there may be other issues (such as undue weight) that come into play in a given article... but those are issues that should be discussed in other places.  Here, we simply focus on general reliability, and I think we are safe in stating that the question has been answered - it is reliable. Further debate here is pointless. Blueboar 16:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. From the arguments brought forward on this page, it seems obvious to me that the people who disagreed with this did so because of a false understanding of Wikipedia policies, above all WP:NPOV and WP:COI, neither of which are a policy about sources. &mdash; Sebastian 20:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

(unindenting) I don't think anyone would doubt that the sources argued over above are biassed; one of the open secrets of jounralism is that all newspapers, radio, television & internet sources are biassed to some degree. The trick is whether a given source will overcome their innate bias sufficiently enough to report the truth -- even if it unfavorable to them.

The problem is that in many parts of the world, the reporting is (to put it one way) polemical: if the truth isn't good enough, the reporters are "encouraged" to improve on the truth. There aren't any reporters who could observe, report what they see, & get it splashed over the front pages of every newspaper in Europe & North America in these parts of the world. So we end up with accounts where one party claims one thing, & the opposing party claims its complete opposite: one -- or both -- of these two sources is obviously lying. This is where NPOV comes into play: we report what both parties say (on the assumption that even a blind pig finds the occasional acorn), & leave it to the reader to figure out the truth. (And if a better source comes along to present an account that more accurately rflects the truth, hopefully there will be an editor with the skill & wisdom to integrate this POV into the article.) -- llywrch 02:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That is exactly what I try to do, I know Tamilnet is a POV source but it does not violate RS principles, hence I don’t ever use it to establish a fact that without attributing it. When I use it to establish a fact, I usually use it along with other sources which pretty much tell the same but not in the same detail as Tamilnet but in general agree with Tamilnet. For example in Sarathambal article which has been reverted number of times now based on removing Tamilnet as a source. I used Tamilnet to give details about a funeral that everyone accepts happened. No one can make up the fact the funeral happened and Tamilnet helps to provide details about the number of dignitaries from all communities who attended it. It also provides details about the protest that is also corroborated by a journal research paper. All these details are mundane details that makes the article encyclopedic without making it POV as an article. I just dont understand the agenda of some editors who keep removing it only making the article violate NPOV, I just dont know. Thanks Taprobanus 15:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Take the debate elsewhere please... the consensus on this page is that Tamilnet IS essentially reliable. Whether it violates NPOV, or some other issue is to be debated in other forums. Further arguments for and against are getting tiresome and will not lead to any additional resolution. Blueboar 16:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks and sorry for pro-longing the discussion Taprobanus 19:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, there is consensus from here and the related ANI thread that TamilNet or TC or TNation is not RS. It's as obvious as can get, since Taprobanus said that "neutral parties" only. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I no longer care... as long as there is consensus, great... go follow it. My point was: take it elsewhere. Blueboar 19:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)Blueboar - There is no need to take it anywhere else. And blueboar, dont simply keep repeating that there is a consensus that tnet and other such sites are reliable. There is NO such consensus either here or on ANI. On the contrary, there IS a consensus that they are NOT reliable sources. tnet is a self styled news service with no affiliations and no accountability. It is an out and out advocacy site. Its views are radically different not just from those of the SriLankan government, but also other 'definitely' RS sources like BBC. For example, neither the BBC nor the mainstream Indian media or any respectable news source uses terms like "genocide", "ethnic cleansing" etc., to describe what is happening in SriLanka. Tamilnet and its clones on the other hand use such terms 'matter of factly' all the time. And what are the credentials of those running these sites? We dont even know who the editor is. Tamilnation, for example is run by one of the terrorists' lawyers who says on his site that "he bows his head humbly to those leaders"(sic).

The question here is not of NPOV at all for us to take it to WT:NPOV. NPOV is established by using reliable sources. You dont bring NPOV to a USA vs Bin Laden article by citing some pamphlet by Taliban or some other Islamist fundamentalist group. Some people here are talking as if NPOV can be used as an alibi to circumvent RS! No. RS is non-negotiable. Whatever NPOV you want to achieve in the article will have to be sourced from RSes. And a source doesnt become RS simply because they have a slick website or a high traffic website. A non-RS is non-RS even if it got a billion hits a day.

In the case of the Sri Lankan conflict, though the Sri Lankan military cannot be taken as totally unbiased, their site is a RS(simply because they are a bonafide organisation whose owners(the SL govt.,) is accountable to fora such as the SAARC and UN). So, if editors use the SriLankan military site as a source, in the interest of NPOV, I'd expect them to a) filter the 'commentary' out b) double check what a 'neutral' source like BBC or Reuters or The Hindu or Indian Express says about the issue and factor it in while writing the article. That is the way to achieve NPOV. Not by citing propaganda pamphlets and advocacy sites and claiming that you're 'balancing' it! Sarvagnya 21:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "You dont bring NPOV to a USA vs Bin Laden article by citing some pamphlet by Taliban or some other Islamist fundamentalist group." - actually a Taliban or some other Islamist fundamentalist group pamphlet can, in some cases, be a reliable (if limited) source... it can be used as verification for the fact that the Islamist group actually said what the article quotes it as saying. It can be used as a statement of opinion as opposed to a statement of fact.  It should be attributed so readers know that it might be biased... but it can certainly be used in certain specific circumstances.  I would assume the same with any POV source, including Tamilnet.  But all that aside... if, as you say, there is consensus not to use tamilnet, then fine... don't use it.  Harping on the topic here is simply beating a dead horse. I don't see you convincing anyone to change their opinion on the matter. Blueboar 00:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There is consensus among uninvolved neutral parties that TN is a RS albeit a biased one. The baseless claim by involved parties such as Blungyen & Sarvagnya will not change it. It is interesting to see that they never provide iota of evidence/references for any juvenile claim that they make. It is all based purely on their whims and fantasies. Give us a break, will ya? Praveen 16:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * whatever. Blueboar 17:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a consensus in the media (BBC, Hindu, AFP, Reuters) that Tamilnet reports what the LTTE wants it to report. "Therefore it cant be neutral since the LTTE is a terrorist group and websites of terrorist group are hardly known for their neutrality. Next you will be quoting Hamas, IRA, ETA and Hezbollah sites as independent news sites.
 * Look at this quote from a Sri Lanka analyst in the Hindu (http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/thscrip/print.pl?file=20070615004904600.htm&date=fl2411/&prd=fline&) "TamilNet (www.tamilnet.com) is the unofficial mouthpiece of the Tigers in English. It is a kind of news agency chronicling the conflict as perceived by the LTTE. The site is a `must hit' for any serious Sri Lanka watcher. A senior official in the Presidential Secretariat told Frontline, "My first port of call on the internet is TamilNet. Though it is brazenly pro-Tigers, it is a good guide to know the mind of the Tiger leadership tucked away in the safe havens of the Wanni jungles."Dutugemunu 12:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I am going to try to explain this one last time... I don't contest that Tamilnet is biased, or even blaitantly partisan. But being biased or partisan does not automatically exclude a source from being considered reliable. Reliability, as used in Wikipedia, does not equate to "respected" or even "factual"... it is an offshoot of "verifiable".  Tamilnet really falls under the heading of "questionable source"... reliable for statements of opinion but not for statements of fact.  As long as you give it proper attribution (ie you say: "According to Tamilnet...") it can be considered a reliable source for quoting the statements and opinions of Tamilnet and those it represents.
 * Now, this does not mean that you can quote Tamilnet in just any article... there are many other policies that affect whether you can include a statement by Tamilnet (WP:NPOV for example). These are issues that are better discussed in other forums (such as the NPOV talk page). My point is that, if you do quote what Tamilnet says, you most certainly can consider it to be a reliable source for that quote.  An analogy would be citing a Pro-Islamist website to back a statement of the opinion of Islalmists.  There is a serious question as to when it is appropriate (or even allowable) to include such a statement in an article, but... once you do, the source where the statement is found becomes reliable.
 * I doubt anything I have said will change anyone's opinion (this seems to be too political an issue for people to view with dispassion)... but as a neutral third party, I felt it nescessary to express my opinion on the matter. 'nuff said. Blueboar 15:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I actually saw this comment just now. I guess what wasnt clear was your definition of Tamilnet as reliable source. Most people here thought when you said Tamilnet is a reliable source, that you meant it provides accurate news about events in Sri Lanka.However your above comment does clarify what you meant . Thanks for that.I agree that Tamilnet is reliable for statements of opinion by the LTTE but not for statements of fact. Dutugemunu 09:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Need for reliable sources\
I'm pretty sure that reliable, published sources are necessitated for compliance with WP:V ("Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.") and WP:NOR ("Articles should only contain verifiable content from reliable sources without further analysis."), but the question of what constitutes a reliable source is left up to guidelines to decide. I think the lede of this piece should be changed to point out that reliable sources are mandatory, though this is only a guideline on what constitutes one. Am I missing something? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The long-term resolution of this issue is presently under discussion. &mdash; Sebastian 06:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

A list of unreliable sites?
Is there any possibilty of there being made a list of sites that are "unreliable", thus making it a rule not to use them? What I'm aiming at is that many history-related articles are propaganda-infested by sites with a clear inclination towards Historical revisionism, far right attitutes and so on. As it stands, anyone can simply write some massacre didn't happen and then link to a far right source that confirms that claim. Shouldn't there be a mechanism to prevent this? -The Spanish Inquisitor 09:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No... because the same site might be perfectly valid in the context of some other article we can not make a list of "unreliable sites" based on their content. Unfortunately, you need to battle these citations out article by article.  The first thing I would suggest is that you insist on text attribution... ie that the article states something along the lines of "According to the revisionist history site www.pseudohistorynutjobs.com the massare did not happen". This at least lets the reader know who is making the claim.  Beyond that, there are several other guidelines and policy statements that can be used to cut the really fringe stuff ... If you have not already done so, I would suggest that you familiarize yourself with WP:V, WP:NPOV (especially the section on Undue Weight), WP:FRINGE and WP:NOR. Blueboar 19:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Government databases as reliable sources
I had occasion to cite a public records database of Los Angeles County as a source. Another editor reverted this with the comment "Database searches are not reliable sources; as I said, we need something that is not ephemeral." The database is an official public record; that's how the county publishes business license information. Are public records databases reliable sources? --John Nagle 18:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It is far, far better to use reliable secondary sources. We want to avoid articles that are based entirely on database sources like the one you describe, because the article would then fail to demonstrate that its subject is notable enough to warrant a WP article.  And even assuming the article cites secondary sources, are you really also citing the type of facts that are found in a database (like co. owners, founding date, address, etc.?) This information is not typically cited, in my experience.  UnitedStatesian 19:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's one of those things that resulted when another editor added tags which had to be answered.  Notability wasn't the issue; there were other sources for that.  It was the relationship between related organizations which was controversial. This sort of thing tends to come up with lobbying organizations, where the organization would prefer not to have too much information disseminated about who's behind them. --John Nagle 20:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, public records are reliable sources. SchmuckyTheCat


 * Agreed. Some editors seem to confuse "reliable source" with other factors. Not every source must "indicate notability"; even self-published sources don't have to say why the fact is notable, they just are not to be used to include non-notable information (e.g. the SPS for "Bob likes cats" doesn't have to say why Bob's preference for felines is notable, but if that preference is not notable for Bob's article then the whole statement should be removed from the article no matter that we have a source). Not every source must be permanently online, although WebCite can be used to preserve "ephemeral" sources. And while secondary sources are required for critical commentary and proof of notability, primary sources are ideal for establishing simple facts and should be used without hesitation for that purpose. Anomie 20:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Database searches are not verifiable, as the contents of databases are ephemeral. Jayjg (talk) 23:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether or not the database itself is ephemeral (which isn't always true; for instance, http://www.nationalbridges.com/ is just a front-end to a database published once a year by the Federal Highway Administration), the actual records can be checked by anyone going to the county offices. --NE2 00:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please quote the part of WP:V that supports your statement. Thanks. Anomie 01:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Government databases, like any database, sometimes record things transiently and sometimes archivally. The individual nature of the source must be considered. We continually use directory type databases that record things as of a certain date, and our edits reflect it. that's the very purpose of giving the date when it was accessed. The same is true of essentially everything we use. If WP was intended for the scholarly preservation of information, we would record and freeze he state of every source we use--but we '- this is a level of certainty and proof that is not the function of a general encyclopedia. We are a merely a convenient tertiary source, of no greater reliability than our sources and how we use them. DGG 07:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The database he is talking about is archival. It brings up text versions of business records, I prefer the one from Florida, which gives you direct document images . SchmuckyTheCat
 * For that matter, WebCite can be used to preserve links that may "go dead". Anomie 12:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

John Nagle has misstated the issue; the issue was original research, as was plainly stated many times - the edits summaries were consistently "remove original research", e.g., and I said the same in the Talk: page comments:  True, in my final comment I accidentally used the phrase "reliable source" rather than "original research", but the issue has been clear from the start. It's baffling why John would try to present the issue this way now. Jayjg (talk) 23:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

nycsubway.org
The relevant discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation. http://nycsubway.org/ has opening dates for all stations, but many of them are incorrect. Can it be cited for other stations where we don't have another source? --NE2 22:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Would you have numbers? How many out of how many checked dates were incorrect, and how far off were they? &mdash; Sebastian 23:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd guess about 1/2 to 2/3 of the dates before about 1915 are off; it's a lot more accurate after that. --NE2 00:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Is it possible to ask the website owners which sources were used to cite the dates? Tinlinkin 03:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I would say that the site can be used for those situations where no other sources for a station opening date are available ... however you might consider adding a text foot note to the reference citation, cautioning the reader that the source is known to contain occasional errors. Obviously, if a more reliable source is eventually located you should then replace it. Blueboar 13:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Best sources, not just Reliable sources
I recently tried to trace down the sources of some dubious statements in an area that I know something about -- the history of medieval astronomy. After spending some time on line, searching the bibliographies, and getting books at the library, I identified what seems to be a common factor underlying such dubious claims.

These dubious claims tend to cite tertiary sources written by people with little historical expertise -- sometimes web-based articles, sometimes popular printed books, sometimes books and articles published by little known publishing houses and journals. The replies to the claims tend to be by qualified historians and usually appear in well respected, extensively documented books and articles published by well known publishing houses and scholarly journals with well-established reputations.

The key here is that we can find an indicator of the dominant scholarly opinion by comparing the quality of the rival sources. What I'm getting at is that when there's nothing better, we have to rely on whatever sources are available. However, when there is disagreement among the sources, the "best sources" carry more weight. At some times we can even use the "best sources" to justify dismissing the fringe point of view presented in sources of lesser quality that might formally qualify as "reliable sources".

Shouldn't this article -- or a related one -- address the concept that meeting some technical standard of reliability isn't always an adequate criterion for inclusion? There are a lot of sources out there; we're writing an encyclopedia; so we should use the best available sources. --SteveMcCluskey 01:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You may want to read the Undue Weight section of Neutral point of view as well as WP:FRINGE - both make a stab at dealing with this issue. Blueboar 16:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I find the same as SteveMcCluskey; but I am not sure how the guideline can cover that. The Verifiability page says that verifiability is the threshold, and I take that to mean that verifiability is just the start and that verifiable information can be superseded by superior information from superior sources. Good editors will use the best sources and avoid the worst; but the difficulty is that for popular subjects—say, the history of the Holy Grail legend—the bad sources can outnumber the good ones and put high-quality editing at a premium. I fear that we don't have enough academically trained editors to make sure that any more than a minority of articles are comprehensively discerning about sources. At the moment there is much scope for people, in the best of faith, to add information and say, "Look, it's sourced; job done". qp10qp 15:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I have seen a similar problem as to what Steve describes in articles on the Greco-Roman world, which I have a bit of background in. There used to be quite good descriptions of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources here in WP:RS that have been moved to WP:NOR. It strikes me, however, that WP:NOR aims at quite a different thing: excluding the loopy, weird, and/or novel. But the emphasis here should be on having a resource that helps us educate editors about how to make articles better. semper fictilis 13:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

MySpace
Don't use MySpace as a source redirects here, but there's nothing in the guideline that says so directly. Could this be changed? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * My first thought was that the implications should be obvious. On reflection, if someone is foolish enough to even consider using MySpace as a source they probably need it to be spelled out. Will try to think of something. Raymond Arritt 04:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, what SatyrTN is pointing out is a growing problem: increasing numbers of celebrities & other people are preferring to open a MySpace account & maintain a presence there over creating their own website. Grrr -- why can't these people recognize that MySpace is a cesspit & stay away from it? That would make our article-writing much simpler. -- llywrch 19:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there any way to verify that the person on MySpace actually is who they claim to be? Someone claiming to be e.g., George Bush or Angelina Jolie couldn't get away with the ruse for long.  On the other hand, might it be possible for someone to fake the identity of a minor celebrity? Raymond Arritt 02:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I would assume that the person in question told the public (in a manner that was hopefully verifiable) that the MySpace page was their home page. For example, a band who otherwise qualified under notability, & the back of their album states that their web presence is a page on MySpace. (Not where I would have my web page, but then I'm not a 20-something performer.) The problem comes when the only proof that could be offered is that numerous people heard the subject state in an ephemeral form (e.g., heard on the radio) that the celebrity created the MySpace account. -- llywrch 21:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This would be covered by WP:V, the last of the criteria listed being the kicker in this case. - Crockspot 03:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That policy was created to combat the claim that a person can claim notability by having a MySpace account -- which is not what I am saying. What I'm saying is that there is a problem when the most reliable source for a person who is otherwise notable is their MySpace account, & that this problem will be growing in the near future. (Or do think that any given person is entirely unreliable about all details concerning him/herself, including date & place of birth, education, & marital status?) My comment about MySpace is based on my (admittedly subjective) impression of a series of radio interviews I've heard over the last few weeks: people who want a web presence are turning to MySpace in increasing numbers. I find this development disturbing, because I'd prefer that we maintain the status quo & not link to MySpace at all; however, denial is not a permanent solution for this problem. -- llywrch 21:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I really don't like this. But, if we do start chipping away at the "No MySpace" rule... I would suggest being very strict and demand a double citation... first a citation to a reliable source that establishes that the subject of the article indeed created the MySpace page, and then a citation to the MySpace page itself.  Also such citations should definitely be restricted to "articles about themselves" situations. On the other hand... there is the argument that anything notable about someone will have been reported by a reliable third party source, and so there is no need to cite to the MySpace page. Blueboar 12:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds really dumb. If there is a problem with a bogus myspace account, remove anything cited by it.  Don't make people jump through procedural hoops because some bad sources exist, just remove the bad sources. SchmuckyTheCat 22:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we're going to need to develop some specific policy on this, per llywrch. MySpace has a mechanism to allow celebrities to thwart impersonators, but I haven't noticed any system by which outsiders can confirm the supposed celebrity is who they say they are. That's only half of a proper editorial overview, one that allows insiders to know about themselves, but preventing outsiders from being able to rely on claims. Could we, as an 800-lb (400-kg) Internet gorilla, ask MySpace to provide a confirmation mechanism, like an on-page seal that they (not the user) control, or a central list of identity-confirmed users, that outsiders can use? This would be a win-win-win, since it would increase the confidence outside sources have in (some parts of) MySpace, protect the celebrities, and probably be highly desired by the MySpace community. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * On this topic, we've run into a dispute on the Talk:Cloverfield page. Cloverfield is a film in production that is using a viral marketing campaign.  Several of the character's names have been revealed on the official website.  The characters can be found on myspace; their pages were created and updated before the names were released, making it reasonable to assume that the pages were created by official sources.  Furthermore, there are numerous pictures (not seen anywhere else) that undeniably identify them (same people seen in the trailer).  Because of the secrecy of the whole marketing campaign, it makes it impossible to ensure that information is 100% "official," and causing verifiability disputes. --ElectricZookeeper 14:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Newsmax
Is Newsmax considered a reliable source? I'm not familiar with them. They've been used in some articles, and whenever I've followed up the references their coverage often is strongly slanted. Raymond Arritt 02:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There are a number of "slanted" news sources that are used quite a bit on wikipedia, NewMax, WorldNetDaily slanted right, MediaMatters, and Raw Story slanted left, to name just a few. I've tried to get consistent treatment of these sources, to no avail. It basically comes down to the editor's own biases. If an editor leans left, then he probably thinks that NewsMax and WND (and maybe even Fox News) are unreliable sources, and MediaMatters and Raw Story are worthy of Pullitzers. Flip that if the editor leans right. You have to work it out in the trenches of the individual articles. And don't be shocked if you see an editor arguing one way in one article, and another way in a different article. Good luck. It's a shame that it has to work this way. It would be nice if we had a magic list, but then  there would be a battle over the contents of the list. - Crockspot 03:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, maybe we need to insist that for each cite from Newsmax there has to be one from Mother Jones, and vice versa... only half-joking here. It would indeed be nice to segregate common sources into reliable, reliable but partisan, etc. with caveats for each category, but as you say there would be lots of contention over which source belonged where. Thanks for your response. Raymond Arritt 03:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

point for discussion
Are BBC, CNN, New York Times etc. 'reliable sources'? Because the evidence shows them to be unvarnished liars when the Establishment demands it (the killer point being that they contradict *their own reports* when this becomes politically necessary)

One glaring example: http://www.hirhome.com/yugo/milospeech.htm

PS, I'm being slightly facetious in my question -- I know full well what the conventional answer is, but I think it sucks (and is inaccurate) that Wikipedia gives Establishment media a 'carte blanche' for accuracy.

Mind you, I can probably predict a response that *not* to do so would open a 'can of worms' -- there probably is something to this, but I think it ought to be brought to people's attention that, as is shown by the above article, Establishment sources are not always reliable sources.

Cheers everyone -- feel free to discuss this issue on my talk page if this isn't an appropriate forum. Jonathanmills 14:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As you guessed, the answer is that they are reliable. However, that does not mean that they are always accurate. There is a subtle difference.  Any reliable source can get their facts wrong on occasion.  Good article writing and sourcing means that you don't take anything for granted... you check your sources to make sure that THEY got it right.  It may well be that for a given statement, in a given article, a specific citation to the NYT or BBC might be inaccurate.  In which case, you can argue on the talk page that the specific citation is unreliable for the given statement (be sure you have at least one better and more accurate source to back up your argument or it will look like you are just trying to POV push).  This guideline deals with generalities and not specifics.  In general, mainstream media outlets are considered reliable.  Much of the time they are accurate as well. Blueboar 14:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi there, thanks for your response. I'm wondering if you read the article I linked to, or just dismissed it out of hand? (You seem to suggest it comes from a poor and inaccurate source). I'm honestly not trying to sound smarmy or be argumentative here, just asking a question -- if you have criticisms to make of the article, I'd be interested to hear them -- because it seems to me the article (backed by evidence) proves a much stronger case than what you appear to be suggesting (ie, that mainstream/Establishment sources 'get their facts wrong on occasion'.) It appears to me the article proves that such sources will *consistently (and deliberately) fabricate* things where and when it is deemed politically necessary (for the purposes of war propaganda, for example, as in this case). Given that, I think deeming them inherently reliable (excepting occasional minor errors) is inaccurate.


 * I know this is a big issue, and again, I don't mean to get into any sort of ill-tempered argument, but this is probably the one thing that concerns me most about Wikipedia policy, so I thought I'd tackle it head-on. Cheers Jonathanmills 16:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I looked at it... and Francisco Gil-White is entitled to his opinion (it is obvious that he has an agenda... which is not bad in itself, but the agenda should be recognized). It is borderline Fringe... I would certainly not base a condemnation of all mainstreme media on his research.  Again, it might play into a discussion about a specific citation in a specific article, but not for a general statement on the overall reliability of mainstreme media. Blueboar 12:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well Jonathan, there is much truth in the old saying "History is written by the victor." The challenge is to overcome that hurdle & to present a fair account. If you can do that in a Wikipedia article, & not violate WP:NPOV or WP:NOR, then you've done a great job. Otherwise, we try to give each party the hearing they deserve & leave it to the reader to sort it out. -- llywrch 21:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi guys, thanks for your responses.


 * I agree that one article would be a very tenuous basis with which to discredit the entire mainstream media. The thing is, it is just one example -- a powerful and compelling one, in my opinion, but certainly not the only one. A few others I can pull off the top of my head:


 * The democratic nature of the Sandinista government in Nicaragua (1979-1990). Whether or not one sympathises with their politics, the mainstream media -- particularly in the US -- systematically distorted the fact that the Sandinistas were holding democratic elections (one in 1984, which they won, and then another in 1990, which was long-scheduled, but portrayed as a concession by the Sandinistas!)


 * The 1976 Arab (including PLO) offer to Israel for a 'two-state solution' to the Middle East problem -- ie, a 'Palestinian state' in the post-1967 Occupied Territories. (I might note here that I am not particularly a partisan of the Arab/Palestinian cause -- simply that in the overwhelming majority of mainstream media accounts, this important event never occurred).


 * Routinely referring to Slobodan Milosevic as a 'dictator' -- again, one need not be a fan of Milosevic to accept the fact that he was in fact repeatedly elected. (Ironically, this fact was brought up by NATO when necessary -- 'the Serbs voted for him, so they should pay')


 * Claiming that Saddam Hussein 'kicked out' UN weapons inspectors in 1998 (in fact, they were withdrawn after the US made it clear they were about to begin bombing Iraq (see http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1750 for a brief rundown on this). This is in addition to incredibly misleading coverage of Iraqi cooperation (portrayed as intransigience) with UN inspections (see http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1025).


 * I could honestly go on. This is not even going into the somewhat different level of bias which sees Establishment claims routinely treated as fact, rather than the claims of the Establishment -- eg, taking at face value US military claims who is behind the death squads in Iraq (see http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=1230 for a different, and in my view far more compelling, view -- also http://www.cryingwolf.deconstructingiraq.org.uk/sceneselection.html (this is an annotated version of a film viewable by clicking the link in the top left corner)


 * I'll stop giving examples now, anyway! Just wanted to show a bit more evidence than one article. (I might add also that I bear no particular anti-US animus -- just that American media, like everything else, dominate Western discourse (and are held to be 'reliable sources')


 * The basic point is, as Llywrch points out, 'history is written by the victors'. Moreover, one would expect (or I would, anyway :-) that information will reflect the national bias of its outlet -- in the same way that one would probably be sceptical of Establishment Russian or Chinese reporting of topics sensitive to them, one should (I submit) be similarly sceptical of Western media on topics sensitive to them. (This can be as simple as unconscious patriotic bias). I know that it is said that we have a 'free' media and thus are immune from this dynamic, but I believe the evidence contradicts this.


 * Thus I can't agree with the idea that a source should be discredited merely because it shows 'an agenda' -- *everyone* has an agenda, conscious or unconscious. (I know this wasn't exactly what was said in the comment above Llywrch's (Blueboar?), but it appears to be the underlying idea). It is clear from the evidence (well, it is to me anyway :-) that mainstream Western media systematically distort information in order to conform with the needs of Western power, thus they have an agenda. In addition, if one's 'agenda' is to expose lies and uncover the truth (whether or not this applies specifically to Gil-White), I can't see a problem with that.


 * That said, (almost finished now!) the irony is that most of my examples of media distortion themselves rely on the accuracy of the mainstream media, in that they compare claims to previous and/or downplayed information from the same sources. So I'm not suggesting for a moment that the mainstream media simply make stuff up routinely (Jayson Blair aside :-) -- rather, they distort (and, yes, even fabricate) facts when the agenda of power dictates (I know it sounds like crude 'conspiracy theory', but I don't know how else to describe it)


 * In conclusion, I agree with Llywrch about presenting both sides -- it's the only workable option (having been on some controversial-issue discussion boards, things would probably be even more unworkable than they already are if no sources were taken at face value -- that's the 'can of worms' I referred to in my original post). So I guess my main suggestion -- and I know this is huge, and very unlikely to be implemented :-) would be to make some sort of mention of the potential inaccuracy of *all* sources, based on the fundamental principles already discussed.


 * Well, that's it! Sincere apologies for the length of the post -- I know it is against Wikipedia style, but I wanted to make my position clear (and as compelling as possible). Thanks again, guys, for your responses. Incidentally, Blueboar, if you are still following this, it appears we have something in common -- a love for English pubs! I've just moved to London actually, so if you're ever in town, maybe we should meet up at one and hash things out over a pint :-)
 * Cheers everyone Jonathanmills 10:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately that would be a bit difficult... I live in New York (not a decent pint to be found!). But thanks for the invite. Good luck with your editing. Blueboar 12:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, you poor b*stard! I always remember the Monty Python joke about American beer being like making love in a canoe boat -- it's f*cking close to water! :-) Jonathanmills 12:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Nah... its worse. More like making love in a stable... close to horse piss. Cheers. Blueboar 13:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * First, while Jonathan understands me correctly about presenting both sides to an issue -- the official story & what appears to be the actual truth. However, there is a caveat here, which has slipped into policy for understandable reasons: all too often someone who claims that she/he is only "presenting the truth" is in fact either presenting original research ("I have incontrovertable proof that George Washington was a woman, but mainstream historians have suppressed this information") or attempting to get visibility for crank or lunatic fringe theories that don't deserve space on Wikipedia (the LaRouchies being the first group to attempt this on a significant scale). To anyone who finds that she/he must surmount this barrier, I'd suggest (1) make sure all of the facts & conclusions are adequately cited, & (2) be sure to have at hand a persuasive argument that the side you are reporting is a notable one. I figure that one could get the most obnoxious & lunatic-fringe POVs represented in a Wikipedia article if they were presented in a satisfactorily entertaining manner (e.g., some famous person actually believed that George Washington was a woman, & include that person's reasons why they believed that silly idea.)


 * About beer: both of you need to visit the Pacific Northwest. Speaking as someone who has sampled the beers in Germany & Britain as well as my native Oregon, the local brews here are comparible to almost anything brewed in those countries. Sadly, I find I'm always in a struggle with the local waitstaff to tell me the offerings from that part of the list & omit the American commercial stuff (e.g., Budweiser, Miller, Coors, etc.) -- llywrch 19:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice, Llywrch (on both topics). Actually I have a friend living in Seattle at the moment, so if I go for a visit I'll check out those local brews :-) Jonathanmills 16:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Imageshack images as sources
At, added a bunch of awards and accomplishments for La Toya Jackson (see this edit) with the sources being a bunch of scans and photos to Imageshack. How does this stand in terms of reliable sources? I removed them because I don't feel that they are too reliable, especially since you can barely read some of the awards in the photos. In my opinion, these are not reliable sources and that these statements should be sourced with some sort of news coverage or press release of the organization giving the award that states she received it. Thoughts? Metros 13:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Use of Google as a RS???
If you want to have some fun cleaning up an article, take a look at the "references" at the Royal Rife article! -- Fyslee/talk 12:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's clearly full of Google refs, which presumably you know is not allowed. So, why haven't you removed them? Lsi john 12:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I did it for him. Blueboar 16:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Sentence removal
I just removed the following sentence "When sourcing, be careful not to attribute a statement to a source that may have itself originally taken the same information from Wikipedia (either with or without acknowledgement). This applies especially to self-authored third-party websites;" the sentence was recently added by anon IP 86.136.194.161 without any discussion on this page. While I agree with the sentiment, I have no idea how an editor is supposed to avoid this "circular sourcing," so I think the sentence obfusctates more than it clarifies. Any efforts at a clearer guideline are welcome. UnitedStatesian 13:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What if we expand it a bit... something like: "When sourcing, be careful not to attribute a statement to a source that may have itself originally taken the same information from Wikipedia. A source that credits Wikipedia among its sources for the information in question should never be used.  If no credit is given, such "circular referencing" may be more difficult to determine. One good indication would be if the language used in the source is substantially similar to what appears in Wikipedia articles related to the topic.  If you suspect that a sourced statement contains a circular reference to a Wikipedia article, you should raise the issue on the article talk page." Blueboar 14:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I originally added this. As Wikipedia itself becomes used more and more as a source this is a potential danger. Many articles were originally written with no references or inadequate references. There now seems to be a drive to tighten this with many "citation needed" tags appearing. The temptation is to look for web references via Google as they're easiest to find, but there is a danger that the information on the web page that you find was itself taken from Wikipedia. I fear a kind of circle of bogus validation. I think it's worth alerting people to this problem, just so it's in the back of their minds, even if we can't give a foolproof way to tell. Matt 01:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC).

One Question Was the articles of the columinst from a news sources reliable or not?
--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 05:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I assume you are asking if an op-ed collumn is reliable. It is reliable - with the following caution: an op-ed collumnist is writing his or her opinion on matters, and not necessarily a factual article. So, any citation to such a collumn should be expressed as the author's opinion and not as pure fact. It is best to attribute statements the collumnist makes... example: "According to New York Times collumnist Thomas Freedman..." Blueboar 18:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks,and another question,why we must or not cite one commentary，if the commentary only represent his or her own view,as you know,there are millions in the world daily publish countless views,so if we had cited one commentary,why not cite them all?--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 18:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, one collumnist may be considered an expert on the topic, while another may not be... so the opinion of the first is more notable. Also, a third collumnist may represent a fringe view that is not worth mentioning in the article.
 * Deciding which views to include in an article is up to the authors working on any given article. Ideally we should include all significant views on any given topic (See the Neutral point of view policy), understanding that we should not give "undue weight" to any one view.  But that is really not a discussion for this page.  All we can say here is: Op-Ed articles (at least those appearing in major newspapers and the like) are reliable sources - but, being opinion, it is best to attribute the author in text as well as cite them.  Hope this helps. Blueboar 19:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * thanks a lot,your answer is very helpful.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 19:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Modern flags of early medieval countries
Lots of fancy flags have already been deleted, but the problem has surfaced again. Image:GokturkFlag.png is taken from an unreferenced Flags of the World page purporting to depict flags of the "Sixteen Great Turkish Empires", the vast majority of which are fanciful and uncited. No scholarly reference is given for this flag. I have a hefty monograph on the Gokturks which mentions in passim that the war standard of the Gokturks contained the image of the golden she-wolf, but this data is not referenced as well. Briangotts nominated the image for deletion on Images and media for deletion/2007 June 11. The discussion has been inconclusive so far, but User:Quadell suddenly removed the ifd tag from the image with the edit summary "not deleted", claiming on his talk page that the picture is "sourced". I would welcome input from those people who understand our RS policy better than I do. --Ghirla-трёп- 14:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Government documents via second-hand sources
Government documents (e.g., court filings) often are not easily accessible from their official sources, but may be available second-hand from web pages that discuss related topics. What's the view on convenience links to such sites? And what if the web site has a point of view on the matter? Even in the latter case, I'd think it would be unlikely that anyone sane would forge legal documents given the legal liabilities of doing so. In case anyone is wondering the specific matter I'm interested in is here. Raymond Arritt 20:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Given that the hosted documents are PDF files of the official court records (complete with the court's stamp recording its filing) I would say that the documents are definitely reliable (They would be admissable in most courts if you printed them from the website). The host site, on the other hand, is a blog ... which would not be reliable for anything it says on the matter.
 * Thus, I would take care to only talk about what is stated in the documents themselves and not discuss any commentary from the blog site. Your citation should run something like: Blueboar 20:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. Yes, I plan simply to link the documents as such and not to include what Desmogblog says about the case nor to make any comment myself on what they contain (to do so would be WP:OR, in my view).  An interesting twist on this case is that Desmogblog says the lawsuit has been dropped, but I haven't been able to confirm that with other sources. Raymond Arritt 20:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

AlterNet
Some Roman Catholics say AlterNet is not a reliable source and keep reverting edits. What do you think? --BMF81
 * Like other sources, it depends on what they are used for. They are a politically oriented news source, and they admit it, and you can therefore figure out what to accept. I'd be reluctant to accept their word as definitive about any controversial situation, but I wouldn't be at all reluctant to cite them for their opinion. That's about what I feel about most other sources too. This can be discussed more usefully with the actual questioned material.DGG 03:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Opinion sources vs. Fact sources
We continue to have a lot of questions of the "is X a reliable source?" variety... and in the vast majority of cases these have been answered with ... "it is reliable for a citation to back a statement of opinion, but not a statement of fact" Often advising the editor to include a text attribution as in "According to noted person Y: 'quote of Y's opinion'". It would be very helpful to have a section in the guideline that discusses this "grey zone" of reliability (with an example or two) that we could point to in answering such questions. Thoughts? Blueboar 12:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Since I've commented on this, I'll give it a try. (I think there's some material on this in WP already, though I'll have to look for it.)
 * But, let me ask: I'm accustomed to a practice where the preferred way of giving someone's opinion is always a quotation from the source, normally in italics. It has the advantage of accuracy, though of course one can still manipulate it to be unrepresentative. This doesn't seem to be done around here much, with the exception of displayed quotes, using the blockquote or cquote templates. I doubt it's concern over copyvio, because for an inline italicized quotation only a sentence at most is ordinarily used, while some of the displayed quotes use whole paragraphs or multiple paragraphs. Can anyone enlighten me here? DGG 03:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree: For a short (one or two sentence) quotation, it is best to use an inline attribution and quote (ie using quotation marks and a footnoted " ") is ideal... and for a longer (several sentence or paragraph length) quotation, editors should use block quotes (followed by a footnoted citation).  But that is an issue for a style guideline.
 * The issue I am raising is more fundamental than that... a lot of editors don't seem to understand when to state something as an oppinion vs. stating it as a fact. I would even go so far as to say that may don't seem to understand the difference between a statement of opinion and a statement of fact... both need to be referenced, but the reference involes a different aspect of reliability. We get a lot of questions on this, and it is becoming more obvious to me that we need to address this issue in the quideline. Blueboar 13:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

A bit that I find questionable.
A sentence used to say: Wikipedia relies heavily upon the established literature created by scientists, scholars and researchers around the world. Items that fit this criterion are usually considered reliable. However, they may be outdated by more recent research, or controversial in the sense that there are alternative scholarly explanations. Wikipedia articles should point to all major scholarly interpretations of a topic. After this edit by SlimVirgin, with the edit summary "tidied writing, removed bits that made little sense or stated the obvious", the meaning is very different: Wikipedia relies in part on material written by scientists, scholars, and researchers around the world. These may be outdated by more recent research, or may controversial in the sense that there are alternative scholarly and non-scholarly treatments. Wikipedia articles should therefore ideally rely on all majority and significant-minority treatments of a topic, scholarly and non-scholarly, so long as the sources are reliable.

Do we really need the "non-scholarly" part? I think scholarly treatments should always outweigh non-scholarly ones. A "significant minority" (who decides how significant it needs to be?), or even a majority could say anything, and be opposed to anything that modern science has established. Dinosaurs did not evolve, they were created on the sixth day; blacks are born criminals; Sumerian evolved from Ukrainian; Hitler was really a nice man; alligators dwell in New York City's sewers. The "so long as the sources are reliable" bit doesn't help that much, because the current definition of "reliable" only requires that the author should be "generally regarded as trustworthy" or "authoritative" (if "generally regarded" means "regarded by everybody", the criterion is unsatisfiable, if it means "regarded by most", it is unfalsifiable). The "peer-reviewed" criterion was a lot easier to apply. --Anonymous44 14:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * SV's edit simply is a reflection of reality, i.e., Wikpedia's growing hostility toward expertise and competence. The acknowledged logical fallacy of appeal to authority has somehow careened off into the idea that experts are inherently untrustworthy, and that the ravings of the village idiot deserve the same careful consideration (if not more) as peer-reviewed publications by someone who has devoted their life to a topic. That's regrettable, but that's the way it is, so the edit should stay. Raymond Arritt 15:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you are over reacting a bit, Raymond... I support SV's edit because we were having situations where knowledgable and highly reliable sources were being dismissed simply because they were not "scholars" - ie accademics. The change allows for the knowledgable (expert or near expert) amature to be cited.  Obviously, accademics are reliable... and in some topics they will be the best, most reliable, sources of information... but they are not the only reliable sources. Blueboar 18:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The proposed wording puts peer-reviewed journal articles on an equal footing with op-ed columns by people with an axe to grind, conspiracy theorists, interviews with cranks on sensationalized TV "documentaries", and well-connected lunatics -- as long as they can get their way into a non-self-published venue. While that's certainly common enough in practice, institutionalizing it will be one more blow to the increasingly shaky credibility of Wikipedia. I doubt that's your intent, but experience has taught me never, ever to assume that people will make the reasonable and logical interpretation when an otherwise-preferred interpretation is remotely plausible (ref wikilawyering).
 * An example from my own experience is the repeated attempt to use material by Christopher Monckton in articles about global warming. Monckton is an amateur with no disciplinary training, and much of what he has written has been shown elswehere to be wrong. But because he's a former government official and his "scientific" analysis of the global warming problem was published in a major British newspaper, people are arguing that it's a WP:RS just as good as journal articles or reports by major scientific bodies. The wording proposed here says "yes, it is." If that's what we want, go for it. Raymond Arritt 18:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Alas, 'tis not a "proposed wording"... It's been here since April, though it obviously passed with practically no discussion.--Anonymous44 21:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Blueboar, could you give me an example of these "knowledgable and highly reliable sources" who were not academics? Anyway, I can see how mainstream media, investigative journalists etc. are or may be reliable sources, but I think this should be restricted. The current wording explicitly endorses non-scholarly views when they contradict the scholarly ones. It's on the verge of saying: "You and your group may not like the mainstream scholarly treatment/view about something. Feel free to add an alternative non-scholarly treatment/view that suits you better, provided that you find its author trustworthy." My impression is that "alternative non-scholarly treatments/views", aka cranks, are among the greatest dangers for Wikipedia's reliability. --Anonymous44 21:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree strongly with this rewrite and am disturbed that it occurred with no discussion and such a misleading edit summary. I propose the more accurate version:
 * Where available, articles written by scientists, scholars, and researchers are the preferred source material in Wikipedia. Articles should use such sources to summarise all majority and significant-minority treatments of a topic, while following the appropriate policies on a WP:Undue weight.

Does this sound reasonable? TimVickers 02:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's better, but I'd rather make it clear that we give primacy to peer-reviewed literature. One problem that we're seeing is use of popular-press commentary, especially by people with marginal scientific qualifications. Partisan editors are fond of things like stating "Professor X said in the New York Times..."  Prof. X as an "expert" because he wrote a single paper on a vaguely related topic in 1983, and of course the New York Times is a reliable source, so his offhand comments to the Times reporter ought to be just as valid as a National Academy of Sciences review. Or so the argument goes. Raymond Arritt 02:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Changed it to Undue Weight, which deals with that problem. TimVickers 02:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to get much involved in this discussion, but it seems to me that this page has two signficant problems. First, it should somewhere acknowledged that articles can always be improved with regard to their sourcing. Second (and more importantly), it probably aims at something that is not realistic: a single guideline about sourcing for all subjects. It seems to me obvious that the rules about what sources are best for an article about the Peloponnesian War will be completely different from those on abortion or pokemon or Hillary Clinton. Now, I think scholarly-vs.-none-scholarly is not a helpful division when in comes to Hillary--sourcing will be main-stream-media and opinions are those of notable commentators. But for the Peloponnesian War, we should be able to aim for peer-reviewed history articles and books in university presses, a standard that would be completely unrealistic for pokemon articles. I have no concrete plan of action, but I wonder whether WP:RS shouldn't be blown into a dozen different guidelines: one for ancient history, another for popular culture, another for contemporary politics, etc., etc. semper fictilis 04:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem with peer-review as a standard is that not all peer review is created equal. For instance, the Journal of Scientific Exploration and the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (JPandS) are "peer-reviewed", technically, but they promote fringe ideas nonetheless. I share Raymond's concern; I edit primarily medical articles, and I can tell you that there is a huge problem with quality of sources. It's not like we have so many good sources that some are being unfairly excluded by WP:RS - quite the opposite. There are already far too many questionable sources forming the basis of articles here. If you got your health information from Wikipedia (which people do, despite the disclaimer), you could be forgiven for believing that vaccines are deadly, that their link to autism is scientifically proven, that statins are poison, that HIV doesn't exist (nor does AIDS), or that most human ailments can be prevented or cured with megadose vitamins or the right proprietary brand of supplements. This is fundamentally inconsistent with Wikipedia's stated goal to summarize and present the current state of human knowledge. From where I stand (granted, probably a different vantage point from those who changed the guideline), we should be tightening WP:RS and being more demanding with our sourcing here, not less so. Wikipedia is inundated with promoters of fringe scientific/medical ideas, despite WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT, and weakening WP:RS to vaguely endorse "non-scholarly" sources will worsen that problem. MastCell Talk 05:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It would be very helpful for specialist Wikiprojects to work on developing guidelines on sourcing for their topic area -- guidelines which are close enough to the topics in question to be relevant, and far enough from specific content disputes to be reasonably stable. Once those guidelines develop and mature it would be sensible for RS to defer increasingly to them.  However, at this point there has been remarkably little work in this direction...  -- Visviva 09:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There are a number of topics that don't have peer reviewed accademic journals to rely on. Take the topic of "railroading" for example: In an article about a train line, or a type of locomotive, we have to rely on amatures... hobbyists who wrote books on the topic or articles in railroad fan magazines.  Some of these hobbyists can become well regarded and very expert on their narrow field of study, but they are not usually thought of as being "scholars".  Under a strict interpretation of the pre-SV edit, it could be argued that they were not "reliable".  Blueboar 11:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Many good points. I've made the following revision in attempt to take these into account:
 * "Wikipedia welcomes material written by scientists, scholars, and researchers, particularly material published by peer-reviewed journals. Such sources are preferred in subject areas where scholarly work is commonly performed, such as the natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities, but may not be available in other subject areas (such as topics related to popular culture). Wikipedia articles should represent all majority and significant-minority treatments of a topic, so long as the sources are reliable."

Clarifications, corrections, etc. of course welcome. Thanks to all for thoughtful discussion of this important topic. Raymond Arritt 13:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I've shortened this a little, and removed the restatement of WP:UNDUE, which is unnecessary - we don't need to highlight one other policy to follow as we should follow all the other policies. TimVickers 13:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia welcomes material published by scientists, scholars, and researchers, particularly publications in peer-reviewed journals. Such sources are preferred in subjects such as medicine, natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities. However, alternative sources can be used when scholarly publications are not available - such as in topics related to popular culture or current events."

I don't much likes "wikipedia welcomes". How about "The best articles rely on material published…"? semper fictilis 14:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * True, what about focussing on reliability, which is the core of the issue:
 * "The most reliable material is published by scientists, scholars, and researchers, particularly publications in peer-reviewed journals. Such sources are preferred in subjects such as medicine, natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities. However, alternative sources can be used when scholarly publications are not available - such as in topics related to popular culture or current events." TimVickers 14:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I like that. The "welcome" bit was left over from before. It gives the wrong impression -- "we're willing to accept it" rather than it being preferred. Raymond Arritt 14:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

In many technical fields the academic journals only cover leading edge technology. These scholarly journals are unlikely to report on the early commercial products that used this technology. The technical trade press, manufacturer's brochures and product service manuals, taken together, are reliable sources in tracing the history of a technology's introduction to the real world. What did a typical mini computer cost in 1970? What was the feature set? What types of semiconductors were used? Who was the leading supplier? This is the history of engineering and science, not popular culture or current events.

Moore's Law was published in  Electronics, a trade magazine, not a peer review journal. Does someone want the tag the article as having dubious sources? -- SWTPC6800 19:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you feel this is adequately covered in the proposed new wording with "However, alternative reliable sources are used when scholarly publications are not available"? Tim Vickers 22:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And if it had stayed only an article in Electronics, we wouldn't have an article on it - or if we did, it should be deleted as non-notable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll to assess if consensus has been reached

 * Version 1 - Wikipedia relies in part on material written by scientists, scholars, and researchers around the world. These may be outdated by more recent research, or may be controversial in the sense that there are alternative scholarly and non-scholarly treatments. Wikipedia articles should therefore ideally rely on all majority and significant-minority treatments of a topic, scholarly and non-scholarly, so long as the sources are reliable.


 * Version 2 - The most reliable material is published by scientists, scholars, and researchers, particularly publications in peer-reviewed journals and academic presses. These sources are preferred in subjects such as medicine, natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities. However, alternative reliable sources are used when scholarly publications are not available - such as in topics related to popular culture or current events.


 * Note - this second draft of version 2 contains two changes suggested below by Raymond Arritt and Semperf Tim Vickers 22:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Version 1

Version 2


 * 1) Tim Vickers 22:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) With friendly amendment - insert "reliable" after "alternative" in the last sentence of v.2, i.e., "However, alternative reliable sources..." Raymond Arritt 14:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) But suggest adding "and academic presses" after "peer-reviewed journals", since in some humanities fields books are just as important as articles as scholarly venues. semper fictilis</b> 14:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) I do like this version better (and would agree with adding "academic presses". The Clinical Medicine Wikiproject has been developing medicine-specific RS guidelines (see WP:MEDRS), which might solve one of my major objections to version 1. However, I'm not clear on how these would interface or take precedence over the parent WP:RS guideline. MastCell Talk 16:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) v1 doesn't make much sense: just because old scholarly research is superseded by new scholarly research doesn't mean we turn to non-scholarly research, and they're all still useful to report any controversy. –Pomte 19:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Version 2 flows well, sounds reasonable and is appropriate.  I reserve judgement on the suggested additions mentioned above until I see them in a paragraph. Jeepday (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Definitely version 2. Where available, peer-reviewed writings supercede non-peer-reviewed.  Non-peer reviewed may be used where they help to explain ideas, details or jargon, but not to contradict (per undue weight).  Also agree with Arrit's edit ('reliable' insert) and Semperf's comment about 'academic presses'. R. Baley 22:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * These are some good observations and perhaps should be included in the text. The expansion "Non-peer reviewed sources may be used where they help to explain ideas, details or jargon, but not to contradict peer-reviewed sources" is especially helpful. Raymond Arritt 15:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Version 2, definitely.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) with "alternative reliable sources" wording. --Aude (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Which version would be adopted by a reputable academic reference work? That's the one we want: version 2.Proabivouac 17:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Only if something like the following is added: "This is not an invitation to add material with uncertain sources; if there are no sources that are reliable per other aspects of policy, the material should not be included." I agree that the scholarly/non-scholarly wording makes no sense as it stands, but this can't be a backdoor means of creating a pop cult exception. Marskell 21:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Version 2; and we should consider moving it to WP:NOR, where more eyes will see it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have added the new consensus wording on the page. Thanks to everybody who participated. Tim Vickers 04:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I tried to add the same material to Verifiability, since WP:V and WP:RS are supposed to be consistent with one another. It was summarily reverted. Oh well. Raymond Arritt 04:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I like the second version better, but I disagree with its assertion that scholarly sources cannot be found for "popular culture". There is good, scholarly material out there about all sorts of popular culture, and we shouldn't imply that there isn't. Therefore, I have no !vote. — Brian ( talk ) 04:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point. There certainly are scholarly works on my favorite pop culture topic, for example. We could replace "such as in topics related to popular culture" with something like "as may be the case in some topics related to popular culture." Raymond Arritt 04:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be better, yes. I think scholarly coverage of pop culture often just takes time. It's hard to find scholarly material on characters in current popular fiction, for example, but more information tends to appear as time passes. I've just finished researching an article on an obscure Merrie Melodies cartoon that's been banned from distribution for decades, and I was floored by how much had been written about it! — Brian ( talk ) 05:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't particularly like either. But I think they both miss important points. Anyone can call himself a scholar or researcher. The practical test is whether other scholars think you are one or are writing scholarly level material. They overemphasize the place that something is published - saying that the most reliable material is ... published in peer-reviewed journals and academic presses implicitly belittles works not found there. Again a better test is whether the person or theory is taken seriously in such places. Examples of non-academics in the sciences who are taken seriously by academia are Julian Barbour and James Lovelock. A major category of exception is journalists who write academic level works e.g. reviewed in scholarly journals and used as standard histories - e.g. the late Ze'ev Schiff "just a journalist" writing on Arab-Israeli conflict, who often wrote histories with another journalist Ehud Ya'ari. It is hard to think of any scholar of the subject who was more respected across the board.John Z 09:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The version now on the page incorporates your suggestion, Brian and Raymond:
 * "The most reliable material is published by scientists, scholars, and researchers, particularly publications in peer-reviewed journals and academic presses. These sources are preferred in subjects such as medicine, natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities. However, alternative reliable sources are used if scholarly publications are not available - which may be the case in topics related to popular culture or current events."
 * Substituting the wording from WP:verifiability is unhelpful, since it simply states that we should use "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." This is a circular definition, since this definition of a "reliable source" is only that it is a reliable source. This is the page that must define precisely what these words mean. As to exceptions, yes John, there will be a few exceptions to this general rule. This is a guideline, rather than a policy - some exceptions are expected. Tim Vickers 12:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * John Z makes a good point, and I think that we were trying to recognize this principle in the last line concerning popular culture and current events. Perhaps this can be clarified.  <b style="color:#008000;">semper fictilis</b> 12:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As I noted above, the last line in the newest version has been changed, do you think this covers the concern? Tim Vickers 12:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How about something like this:
 * "For many articles, the most reliable material is published by scientists, scholars, and researchers, particularly publications in peer-reviewed journals and academic presses. These sources are preferred in subjects such as medicine, natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities. However, alternative reliable sources are used if scholarly publications are not available - which may be the case In other articles, especially those related to popular culture or current events, sources must be found elsewhere."
 * It seems to me that what is important is that the guideline recognizes that different kinds of articles have different sources and makes this clear. <b style="color:#008000;">semper fictilis</b> 12:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

We have to move this discussion to Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability. That's the policy page; this one isn't. Note that every attempt to change the wording based on what's decided here is being summarily reverted, because it conflicts with WP:Verifiability. And when anyone tries to change WP:V, it's summarily reverted because the discussion was here, not there (which is reasonable). So the discussion has to be moved to Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability or we're simply wasting our time. Raymond Arritt 12:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the appropriate place to discuss the evolution of a guideline is here, on the guideline page. If something here contradicts a policy, obviously it needs to  be changed.  But it is perfectly appropriate (and necessary) that a guideline will provide more guidance (hence "guideline") than is found in a policy.  WP:V tells us that articles must depend on WP:RS.  An improved guideline should help editors form judgements about what is good enough, better, and best in different kinds of articles.  <b style="color:#008000;">semper fictilis</b> 14:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, but unfortunately that doesn't matter because WP:V is the policy page. Anything we do here will be summarily reverted (and has been, several times) on the grounds that it's inconsistent with WP:V. Since WP:V is the mothership everything we do here is being dismissed out of hand. If we continue here, we're wasting our time. Raymond Arritt 14:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing here can conflict with WP:V as the verifiability policy does not define reliable sources. All WP:V says is that reliable sources must be used. This is the page that must define reliable sources. Tim Vickers 16:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Time to relocate?
The discussion above has been useful, but Verifiability is the actual policy page. It's disconcerting that the words "peer reviewed" appear nowhere on that policy page, much less the relevant merits of peer-reviewed and non-peer reviewed sources. To all who have been involved in this discussion, shall we continue continue at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability? Raymond Arritt 01:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Good idea; we'd get more eyes on it, for one thing. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 02:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Inline tag?
Is there a tag similar to the [citation needed] tag that can be placed inline in the article when a more reliable source is needed? Wrad 16:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is. At the moment we simply have to raise the issue on the talk page.  This is a very interesting idea... I could see something along the lines of [Is there a better source?] or [more reliable source requested] ... something non-confrontational, but stating that the source used may not the best available. (Editing in History related articles, I could use something like this when I come across a citation to - for example - a History Channel documentary... which is not nescessarily an unreliable source, but is often not the best source available.) Blueboar 18:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have run into a few cases where this would be very useful. As it is, this is one of the most difficult issues to point out on an article, because ref numbers change so often as an article is edited.  I have a bit of knowledge about creating such templates. I'll see what I can do about it... Wrad 19:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I was about to create one, but it already exists at rs. I wonder why it isn't mentioned on this page?  That would be very helpful. Wrad 19:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well... sort of relates... but it seems to be a level of confrontation higher than what I was talking about.  It questions whether the source is reliable at all, not whether there is a more reliable source that can be used. Blueboar 11:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. You're right.  I like your [more reliable source requested], personally.  I also think that all of these templates should be mentioned on this page (Once they're created, of course). Wrad 15:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If you are good at creating tags, why don't you create a proposal for it... in the meantime, I am going to mention this at a few other places (such as the talk for WP:V, and perhaps at the Village Pump). I think it is worth gaining more imput. Blueboar 22:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm confident I can make the tag, but am unsure where to propose it... Wrad 22:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Would this be based on Refimprove maybe? Call it it ir (Improve reference) or nar (need additional reference) suggested text " needs additional references " kind of like or or fact signed Jeepday (talk) 23:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this is a very good idea. There's a lot of stuff that's sourced to some random webpage, when we really should have good sources on that topic.  If the opinion is that rs is too harsh, it might be a better idea to just tone it down a little rather than creating a whole new class of tag (it's only being used on one article now anyway).--Pharos 00:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * rs has a useful purpose... it is for challenging whether a citation is in fact reliable. We should probably use it more often. However, it is more accusatory than what we are talking about.  I like "Improve reference" or even the " needs additional references " (which says you can keep the so-so ref, but should find another one to bolster it).
 * I also think we should make it clear in some way that this tag is not a "challenge" (ie the statement should not be removed if another citation isn't found)... it is for situations where the original reference is on the reliable side of the line, but a better one should be found.Blueboar 02:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I just think it's a bad idea to have tags around that nobody's using. And if something really does have only a very bad source, the usual course is just to remove it.  So, it might be preferable if not to change the existing RS tag, then at least to redirect it to whatever new thing we brew up.--Pharos 03:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Great idea! Another example: claims sourced only to newspaper opinion columns, not to news items. For non-confrontational language: perhaps "stronger source requested"? Cheers, CWC 02:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's how this whole thing started. I'm part of a group of editors trying to get William Shakespeare to FA status.  We decided that we wanted the most reliable sources we could find, although the article's sources are for the most part ok, but not great.  I wanted to find a tag to put on problem refs, but couldn't find one, and this was proposed. Wrad 02:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

There used to be a template "betterfact". It might be useful to read the WP:TFD discussion and see if those concerns can be addressed.Gimmetrow 07:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pointer, Gimmetrow. Here's a list of problems people had with "betterfact" in that TfD:
 * "very large and intrusive marker"
 * "typographic travesty" (?!)
 * "'Better' is a matter of opinion ... could be used to push a POV in cases where someone doesn't like a particular reliable source for whatever reason"
 * "no established criterion for when the [tag] should be removed"
 * Another good point from the TfD: in articles using &lt;ref&gt; footnotes, our proposed tag should go inside the &lt;ref&gt; so that is appears in the footnote, not the article body.
 * Here's an possible wording to kick around: [stronger citation preferred]
 * Cheers, CWC 07:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

New section
I added a new section to this page: Frequently used sources that do not qualify as reliable. Feel free to edit it, improve on it, or remove it and discuss it here. Cheers.  Sala Skan  11:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * How about ranking sources from least to most reliable, as an example?


 * 1) Anything the average Joe can edit: (wikis, blogs, discussion forums)
 * 2) Poorly written or constructed websites that don't site their sources
 * 3) Tertiary sources which summarize material such as encyclopedias, Sparknotes, etc.
 * 4) Primary sources are excellent unless cited to support original research
 * 5) Secondary sources discussing primary works are excellent, especially those coming from academic, peer reviewed sources

Something like that. Most people don't know what is and isn't reliable. We should explain it. This is just a start. Wrad 15:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

wikiprojects and subject specific reliability guides
The idea of including wikiprojects is a good idea. But in practical terms how do we see this developing? Presumably the guidelines will develop on a wikiproject page or subpage. But once it reaches consensus, how would it be linked back to WP:RS? <b style="color:#008000;">semper fictilis</b> 12:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)