Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 19

citing other Encyclopedias
I found this interesting thread: Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 5.

Shouldn't this issue be covered in this guideline?

The Transhumanist 19:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Unreliable until proven reliable
The onus on proving reliability should be on the user that adds the material, or claims a source is reliable, right? I've seen many users say "prove that the sources I'm adding is not reliable". But that is generally a difficult thing to do. For example, how do you "prove" someone doesn't have credentials in history? It's easy to show that someone does have credentials, by simply pointing them out (e.g. "XYZ was a professor of American history at the university of ABC").Bless sins (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not always that easy... but in general I agree. Blueboar (talk) 21:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd have to say, the idea that a source needs to be proven unreliable is rediculous and I'd sincerely hope it doesn't have to be explicated in policy. Anyone can start a website or small publication and claim to strive for fact-checking and accuracy, claim to exercise editorial review, and not actually do anything of the sort. So it should be obvious to anyone familiar with the spirit of verifiability that we presume a random new source to be unreliable whenever it makes a doubtable claim. And as for people with "credentials," it is similarly obvious that this is entirely insufficient, given the existence of cranks who have degrees from or even tenure at respected universities. The only real question is what constitutes proof of reliability. I think a good guideline is A1) Written by an expert who has previously published in a reliable source, or A2) exercises editorial/peer review, and B) that it is notable or at least cited by multiple sources of undoubted reliability. The absence of evidence of unreliability should also be required. Should that be made clearer in the guideline? Someguy1221 (talk) 22:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as "proof of reliability". A source can be proven to be less than reliable (by showing that it makes false claims). It can never be shown fully reliable (because it is always possible that an inaccuracy will be discovered).
 * There is always going to be some element of judgment call in this. Some types of sources we generally presume reliable until shown otherwise (peer-reviewed papers, books from academic presses) and, in fact, are given such a strong presumption that a small number of inaccuracies probably wouldn't disqualify them from being presumed "generally reliable". At the other extreme are sources that, no matter how accurate they appear to be, we would probably still consider uncitable (e.g., a "mail order bride" site that happened to contain a good description of the major cities of Ukraine). In between are, for example, newspapers. In general, we tend to consider most newspapers to be decent, citable sources of factual information (especially in uncontroversial areas), but there are newspapers that we certainly would consider as having low enough standards that we would be loath to cite them as sources of fact, especially where possibly detrimental statements about living people are involved (most UK tabloids; newspapers that are known to be organs of government propaganda in authoritarian countries; etc.) - Jmabel | Talk 00:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you be happier with "demonstrable reliability"? Semantic arguments are not really relevant here, and your groupings don't really have any bearing on the OP's question statement. While bunching sources by type is all well and good, the issue is over the demonstration of (un)reliability, which goes far beyond merely categorizing the source. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what "demonstrable reliability" would mean. Again, you can prove/demonstrate unreliability, but any presumed reliability is always subject to demonstration to the contrary.
 * What is an "OP"? What question are you talking about?
 * The burden is not entirely on one side or the other. This calls for judgment and balance. You cannot write an encyclopedia by blindly following rules and formulae.
 * - Jmabel | Talk 20:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright, I'll try and put this simpler (but I thought my first comment was clear enough). If there something that would make a reasonable person doubt a source (as examples: It contradicts another source, common sense, or the laws of physics), and there is no good reason to think the source "has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", then it's an unreliable source. This is not swearing off judgement or balance, or demanding strict adherence to rules; this is so we don't need to have endless debate whenever someone tries to use a random website no one's ever heard of as a source for something contentious. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with what you now are saying. - Jmabel | Talk 05:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia as a source
It seems to be accepted that Wikipedia cannot be used as a source. Here's one example: Reliable sources/Noticeboard. However, I can't find this rule stated anywhere. Shouldn't this rule be stated on the project page somewhere?-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 04:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What you are looking for is Verifiability, which is linked from Reliable sources. Vassyana (talk) 05:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, but if I may suggest it be more explicit. I'm seeing it used more frequently these days, and this is something that most editors might not realize. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 05:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The flat statement in an official English Wikipedia policy that (quoting) "Articles and posts on Wikipedia may not be used as sources" seems pretty explicit to me. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 05:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay. I was looking at the previous line "wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable." But the line that you pointed out probably suffices for "explicitness". :-) -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 06:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to comment about this. One of Wikipedia's aims is to obtain information from other versions of Wikipedia. In my case, I've been translating articles from the Dutch Wikipedia. This is sorely needed, because the wealth of information found there is often quite absent from English Wikipeda articles. Similarly, articles written by English speakers are inherently chauvinist and tend to ignore or downplay non-English-speaking aspects of human affairs. These Dutch articles provide specific information that belongs on Wikipedia (of any stripe). Also, sometimes the information is so obscure to English-speakers that it is simply worth having, regardless of lack of footnoting.

The problem is that the Dutch articles are often unreferenced. I don't know why footnotes are so lacking on the Dutch site. Dutch academics are very active and at the forefront in their fields, but perhaps they still look on Wikipedia more as a "people's encyclopedia". There simply is not a lot of footnoting on the Dutch Wikipedia. Wikipedia is enormously popular amongst Dutch people, but people accept it for what it is. I suppose it's not seen as the ultimate source of academically verifiable, footnoted knowledge. It helps that the Dutch media don't terrorise Wikipedia.

So this puts me in a bind: does Wikipedia want this information or not? Do I translate this unfootnoted information or not? If I do, I can only reference it as coming from articles on the Dutch Wikipedia.

Sometimes it's not a question of translating, but one of gathering the Dutch-related information that's already there, scattered around the English Wikipedia, and then adding it to the article so that the Dutch aspect is properly reflected. This "scattering" tends to happen I think because Dutch speakers want the information to be presented on the English Wikipedia, but they are reluctant to do it in a major way. Their English is not always perfect and they don't want to draw attention to what they're adding. They sneak it in in small articles (perhaps) and paragraphs here and there. Here too this information is mostly unfootnoted.

In a nutshell, this blanket policy of "no Wikipedia references" doesn't deal adequately with the enormous amount of work that is still needed to make sure that the information on the various Wikipedias properly infiltrates to other Wikipedias and articles. (Unless it's felt that such unfootnoted information should simply remain localised and isolated and not be spread around at all? I certainly don't agree with this because I would enjoy hearing what's written about specific cultures and in other languages, unreferenced or not. There's a wealth of information out there, not just the information that is of interest to English-speaking academics. Preferably it would be referenced, but if it's not - well I still want to be able to read it.Schildewaert (talk) 09:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see the problem ... "facts" in all articles need references whether they have been garnered from another language WP or not. There is a big danger in allowing unreferenced info from, say, the Dutch WP into the English WP (or indeed vice versa) because the very existence of a cross-reference citation tag would effectively say "It's Ok you can trust this because our Dutch colleages say it is so" which, of course, would be blatant nonsense (imho). Abtract (talk) 10:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

There should be some attempt at internationalisation and consistency between the various versions of Wikipedia. If a Dutch enthusiast writes a detailed but unfootnoted article on, say, Terschelling, is this not of interest to someone who wants to know more about the island? You're basically saying that footnoting is more important than internationalisation.

All I'm suggesting is that there be some understanding of unreferenced articles in this situations, or some way to reference other-language Wikipedia articles (esp. from other Wikipedia versions), or else you'll hinder this internationalisation process.

Isn't the whole idea behind Wikipedia that someone creates an article and then it improves through the dialectic of public review? How will that happen if we get restrictive at the start? One way to improve the breadth (if not the depth) of the various Wikipedias and to help them grow is for information to infiltrate from one version to the next. If some of that is unfootnoted or referenced to other Wikipedia's, is that a major problem?

You say that "facts need references", but with great respect that's not true at all. Without wanting to upset the faithful, this is primarily an academic point of view. This emphasis on "trusting" Wikipedia in the way you're suggesting is cultural I think. For many people throughout the world that's not what Wikipedia is all about. Perhaps in other cultures Wikipedia gets a more favourable press, people are more practical about Wikipedia, and perhaps accept it for what it is. It seems to be mainly Americans who are affected by bad press about Wikipedia.

I agree with the policy; I'm just trying to point out that we shouldn't let it become the be-all and end-all.

Another point: English speakers are not the only ones using the English Wikipedia. English is a second language for the rest of the world and they also rely on the English Wikipedia. They don't do it to find out just what English-speaking academics have to say.

Anyway, it seems to me that this guideline on not referencing Wikipedia is a minor point. Somewhat of a throw-in. Schildewaert (talk) 19:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * To stay in Wikipedia, content needs to be reference-able (WP:V verifiable), not already referenced at all times. There's nothing at all wrong with translating content from another language, already referenced or not, and putting it here; this works to reduce systematic bias and neutralize. The templates in , like Template:Dutch are there for this purpose. As Francis notes below, part of the dialectic of public review can include fact tags and removal of unsourced content.John Z (talk) 20:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Re. "dialectic of public review", this works this way: find suitable references. If not, remove what might seem dingy in the remotest way. This works the same for everyone here at en:Wikipedia, that's the only type of dialectics that works for a tertiary source. It's not as if we're going to find a new kind of truth by a dialectic without sources. What other wikis do is their case, insofar as not running counter foundation principles (that is: for the Wikimedia wikis).
 * No, not using ourselves as a reference is quite fundamental, for avoidance of systemic bias. I wrote an essay about it some time ago, User:Francis Schonken/Don't use internal sources for verification. You can translate an article from another Wikipedia. For copyright/GFDL reasons you would need to indicate where you got it, in the edit summary and/or on the talk page. Then, if there are no references (or you didn't bring them over while translating), don't be surprised if somebody adds a fact tag.
 * I don't live in an English-speaking country, English is not my native tongue, nor do I speak English all that often lately. For me that's OK, I mean these methods I described as being de rigeur at en:Wikipedia. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Offthetelly
Is http://www.offthetelly.co.uk/index.htm considered a reliable source? Thanks Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

first and second hand sources
I'm not sure this would be a necessary addition, but it might be useful to add a passage something like the following, for clarification:

I thought of this while I was editing Orgone, where I ran across an article by one of the original students of Reich that described the genesis of the concept and some of its characteristics. I wouldn't normally have considered the article a reliable source, but the author had first-hand knowledge of the topic which ought to be admissible for descriptive purposes. comments?


 * added it, and rewrote a bit. -- Ludwigs 2  03:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Clarity please...
In my opinion, the WP:RS and WP:VER articles don't clearly express what constitutes a reliable source. I would have preferred *one* detailed "and/or" list of specific conditions that must be met for a source to be considered reliable. --Phenylalanine (talk) 10:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate sources
We can read here that:

Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources require that information included in an article have been published in a reliable source which is identified and potentially available to the reader. What constitutes a reliable source varies with the topic of the article, but in the case of a scientific theory, there is a clear expectation that the sources for the theory itself are reputable textbooks or peer-reviewed journals. Scientific theories promulgated outside these media are not properly verifiable as scientific theories and should not be represented as such.

The fact that as a rule only reputable textbooks or peer-reviewed journals should be used as sources for statements about scientific theories should be spelled out explicitely. More easily accessible sources in addition to peer reviewed journals or textbooks can also be given, of course. But what we should avoid at all costs are statements in wiki articles about some novel scientific claims made in some newspaper when there are no peer reviewed journals to back up such claims. Count Iblis (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've suggested recently (on WT:V I think) that a line should actually go into WP:UNDUE that the reporting of claims in a newspaper does nothing to establish the significance of a viewpoint, and so does not justify presenting it alongside more reputably published viewpoints. There should also be a line, probably in WP:V, that a report that a claim has been made is not verification of the claim itself, I think I'll request that right now... Striking that as I see it's covered by NOR Someguy1221 (talk) 07:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I may be misunderstanding you, but are you suggesting that newspapers are "reliable sources" when noting "notability"? Or just certain ones? Or what? - jc37 07:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm suggesting that a newspaper report does not establish the significance of a scientific viewpoint, and probably other academic viewpoints as well. And this is purely because news sources undoubtedly give coverage of insignificant scientific theories in gross disproportion to their support in the scientific community. But of course, they establish the notability of their subjects. You could say the difference between notability and significance is the difference between having an article on Intelligent design and giving it even a sentence in Evolution. And this is in spite of the fact that the former has received quite incredible coverage in the press. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. Though I am guessing that (using the above example) a "mainstream" science-based newspaper/journal might still qualify? - jc37 08:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would not support adopting that language. Newspapers may well be reliable sources regarding scientific subjects, and a bright line rule excluding them would be a bad idea.  You simply have to be careful in evaluating them.  If a theory is challenged as being a fringe theory and its only backing is that it was reported in some newspapers, then it makes sense to scrutinize those sources.  However, if a respected scientist or journalist soberly reports, in a prestigious paper, that a researcher has announced something, then there is no reason to exclude it for not (yet) being published in a peer reviewed journal if it otherwise meets the criteria for inclusion.  Wikipedia is more than a journal abstract service.  Wikidemo (talk) 15:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd certainly say that the vast majority of time, The New York Times "Science Times" section by contributors including two-time Pulitzer Prize-winner John Noble Wilford, for instance, is certainly reputable and reliable. Wikipedia already has policies in place regarding fringe theories. That would seem offhand to cover undue-weight issues for material from newspapers. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There's a certain tension in many scientific and technical subjects between sources that are closest to the actual research and sources comprehensible by a lay audience. Sometimes the most reliable sources from the point of view of the community of experts are completely incomprehensible to outsiders and result in an incomprehensible article, while sources that are possible for a lay person to understand, written by more popular writers, may risk having errors or imprecisions. I don't believe there's any single one-size-fits-all way to address these issues. I believe the editors of each subject will have to determine the right mix of expert and popular sources that results in an article that is, to the extent possible, both accurate and comprehensible. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it is ok. to cite a New York Times article, but then one should also cite the original scientific articles on which that New York Times article is based on. So, this rule will ensure that you cannot write about theories, views etc. that can only be found in newspapers. Of course, very rarely do we see a major scientic announcement in a newspaper, or on CNN (e.g. Clinton and Blair reporting about the Human Genome project). But thse are exceptional circumstances. What happens a bit more often is that such news reports only happen when an article in, say, Nature has appeared. Or some preprint has already appeared.

The fact that we may have to deviating from the general rule in exceptional circumstances is not really a problem. I'm more concerned about POV editors gaming the rules to subvert articles, such as the article on global warming. How do we deal with fringe journals like Energy & Environment that was set up specifically to give Global Warming sceptics a voice? Of course, aarticles published in such a journal are nonsensical garbage, because they don't meet rigorous scientific standards. However, strictly speaking, the editor who is objecting to not allowing the E&E article may be correct when he says that it is a reliable source according to wiki policies.

So, the best thing to do is to simply "legalize" what has been the consensus on almost all wiki science articles: Only allow those sources that would be allowed in the leading peer reviewed sources themselves. Count Iblis (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Exceptions to sources
User:Yahel Guhan here has claimed that there is an exception to the policy of using reliable sources, when "people are barely notable". In other words, when writing about non-notable topics, we can use, Yahel says, non-reliable sources?

Is this true?Bless sins (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Almost completely false. There is something called parity of sources which allows us to use sources less reliable than normal in an article on a subject that is not adequately covered by sources in its own topic area. In case that didn't make any sense, parity allows us to use non-expert sources to write about a subject that is not accepted as plausible by relevant experts anyway. So this is based on the fringiness of a subject, and not its notability. If it's truly non-notable, then there shouldn't be an article. And even when arguing parity, the sources still have to be in some realm of reliability. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

See WP:SOURCEITORDROPIT. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hold on there. The article content says "Bill Warner writes that The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism, is an 'historic work.'" etc. To back up the inclusion of that statement of fact, he provided the link to the page where Bill Warner writes that. That's a valid cite. WP:RS says precisely so. - Keith D. Tyler &para; 05:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Nonscholarly books?
We're having a little dispute over whether or not a Naomi Klein book is a reliable source on the topic of economic theory or economic history, or whether it instead represents a "fringe" or "conspiracy theory" opinion, which is what it is generally considered by academic economists. Klein is a journalist and even her most "scholarly" positive reviewer said in his review that she is "not a scholar and should not be judged as one". Is reliability context-dependent or is a journalist's take as good as an economist's or economic historian's? Bkalafut (talk) 07:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * They have to be handled on a case by case basis, but no one should be under the false impression that a reliable source for anything is a reliable source for everything. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Where is this discussion? Incidentally, often a better source can be made for the same assertions. II  | (t - c) 04:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Album Leaks
Can information on an album leak be added to an article if there are no reliable sources (other than an actual download link (which i know can't be used)) reply on my talk page - - [ The Spooky One ] | [ t c r ] 22:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Government as a Reliable Source
When I look at some articles, it seems that the government is the source of all information. Is this reliable?

I'll give a hypothetical example that reoccurs often. Major news organization, reports that major government says, some someone did something. Wikipedia then cites major news organization, when the true source of the information is major government. I believe this is misleading. It leads the reader to believe that major news organization did some research, when they are just telling you what major government said. On top of this, ninety percent of an articles sources can be written this way. So, a reader will believe major news organization, major tv station, famous investigative reporter, and weekly magazine all did some independent research, when in fact all sources are quoting or citing major government.

So, does Wikipedia have guidance or policy on the originality of a source? Does Wikipedia have guidance or policy on using a government as a reliable source for an article? If not, would someone like to work with me in drafting such guidance or policy? —Slipgrid (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If that were the case, it would be a reasonable basis for discussion. However, it appears you're talking about 9/11, about which it is not the case that the major news media reports only government sources.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm talking in general, not particular.  I think this would be a good policy for the site.  I'm amazed that these often cited policy pages fail to mention the government as a source.  OK, I'm not that amazed, but I'm going to do something about it.  So, I plan on finding agreement on a way to mark a citation if it is from a government source.  Perhaps a tag for the whole article if an overwhelming percentage of the citations are government sources.  I imagine an image of Uncle Sam putting a stamp of approval on it.
 * If you agree, then please help. If not, you can help anyway by providing feedback:)  Regardless, I plan on moving forward with this, so please speak now.  I think if we work hard, we could have some good policy in place within the month.
 * Also, I don't believe that because one specific article doesn't have this specific problem, or because a good example of a bad article is not referenced, we should stop discussion on this. I believe this is a very important idea.  I'll be working on a draft in the next few days, which I will post here.  If there's still no useful decent or feedback, I'll make the change to policy alone and defend it.  I hope it doesn't happen that way.  I hope others see the importance of having guidelines and policy like this in place.  Cheers! —Slipgrid (talk) 01:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In general, I would expect government agencies to be reliable sources as to what that agency has decided. I'm not at all sure if a government agency should be considered reliable as a matter of course.
 * "Reliable" (as in WP:RS) does not necessarily mean that we (or a rational person) would believe it to be accurate. I'd like to see more discussion on this issue, as well.  There are a couple of articles in which NIH reports are clearly WP:FRINGE.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree when you say that a government agency can be a source as to what a government agency says, but that governments should not be relied on for facts, as they do rightfully have an agenda. —Slipgrid (talk) 03:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, stating clearly that reliable does not mean reasonable or rational people believe it to accurate might be a good idea. For instance, the NYTimes seems to qualify as a reliable source, though many reasonable people say they have a liberal bias, while some NYTimes journalist have admitted that other NYTimes journalist have worked for the CIA in Operation Mockingbird.  Perhaps this is a buyer beware statement that should be added.  It's a little harder to word this one correctly, but I think buyer beware is correct, and I do believe the policy should state reliable does not always mean truthful.  It's hard to state correctly, because it goes against my  conventional wisdom, though I believe it should be clear. —Slipgrid (talk) 03:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As a further aside, in my opinion, if RS A (say, the New York Times) quotes RS B (say, hypothetically, Salk, if he were still alive), we should attribute it to B, rather than to A. If RS A quotes non-RS B, we should only use it toward notability of the statement, not toward the accuracy of the statement.  This requires more effort than we normally put toward verifying sources, but it seems necessary.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with this. So, I believe we are saying, in the reference section of an article, when it links to RS A, it should be labeled as RS B.  In many cases, this seems to be what happens.  I just believe a transparent or clear policy would be useful.  Also, if RS A links to non-RS B, it should also be labeled as non-RS B.  Furthermore, non-RS B should not be used as a matter of fact.  I think these two suggestions are great, and perhaps should be stated as a policy. —Slipgrid (talk) 03:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * We cite the source we read so we cite the news organizations if that is what we read about what the government is saying. If we read a government document, then we cite the government document.  Right now I'm reading a book which is mostly the content of two other books; if I cite it, it will be as the book which I'm reading.  -- SEWilco (talk) 03:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is true, but we are saying that a source may not be reliable if the original source is the government. That is, RS-A quotes GOV-A as saying "they completed all requirements."  We cite RS-A, but in this case RS-A really is non-RS-A for knowing if the requirements were completed.  That is, they are a RS for reporting the GOV-A said "they completed all requirements."  They are non-RS-A for reporting GOV-A completed all requirements.  Source A is a source to what the GOV-A said, but not to what GOV-A did.  So, we do cite them, be we are talking about if they are reliable in the first place.  It depends on how they are used.  They are reliable to what the GOV-A said, but not what GOV-A did.  So, if we cite source A, it should be clear that they are reporting on what GOV-A said, and not what GOV-A did.  That can be done inline, or at the reference at the end, but it should be clear, or it is not an RS, and shouldn't be cited in the first place. —Slipgrid (talk) 03:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If we're going to ignore the RS status of the source, we can no longer consider any source RS. We have to judge whether the government, organization, corporation, victim, anonymous witness, or politician which is the source is reliable.  -- SEWilco (talk) 14:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Say, it's 2003. NYTimes quotes the government as saying Iraq has WMD.  NYTimes has no information about Iraq having WMD, besides a government quote.  The NYTimes is not a RS for Iraq having WMD.  NYTimes would be a RS for saying that the US government says Iraq has WMD, but nothing more.
 * This is how things should already work. Just because NYTimes has 1.9 Billion dollars in market capital, it doesn't mean they are RS.  This should be clear in the policy.  No source should have blanket RS status, regardless of how large they are.  Every source should be used in context.
 * At the same time, it makes it harder for someone to run a bot to update the reference section, but misusing a source can lead to major bias. —Slipgrid (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, it doesn't mean that no source is RS. You can read Newsweek for example, and in their articles, they will say something like, "Newsweek has learned" in a special typeface.  In that case, Newsweek is a RS.  They can be cited as reporting something.  In other cases, Newsweek will interview some government political appointee.  It's not fair to attribute to Newsweek the words of that political appointee.  Yes, Newsweek is publishing those words, but they are not saying its fact.  In the first case, when they say, "Newsweek has learned" in a special typeface, they are reporting something as fact, and that should be a RS.  But, we should not use media companies to magically turn government releases into fact. —Slipgrid (talk) 15:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Assume it's 2008. NYTimes quotes Ford as saying they have a new pickup truck which will be available in the fall.  NYTimes has no information about Ford having a pickup truck, besides a Ford press release.  The NYTimes is not a RS for Ford having a pickup truck.  So we don't cite NYTimes even though that's where we read the information?  Actually, if you want to cite a government report or a corporate press release then go find the original, read it, and cite it.  -- SEWilco (talk) 04:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Preliminary Proposals
We, or I, are, or am, proposing additions to this policy related to using the government as a secondary source. I realize these proposals could be huge, and I don't plan on acting on them for more than a month. I will update this list of proposals. Please add to it as you see fit. Please read the above discussion, as there seems to be some early agreement. Please add your feedback to the above discussion. In some days or weeks I will add a draft of the proposed changes. These are just the topics we are currently discussing.


 * Government agencies and government sources are reliable sources as to what that agency has decided or said.
 * Government agencies and government sources rightfully have an agenda, and for that reason they may or may not be reliable sources for matters of fact.
 * More guide is needed for when they are and are not reliable for matters of fact.
 * In general governments sources should not be used for matters of fact.
 * A reliable source does not require reasonable or rational people to believe them to accurate.
 * A government source or secondary source may be or is reliable for the "notability of the statement," though it may not be reliable fact.
 * We cite what we read, though if that source if quoting the a government official or agency, it is only reliable for the notability of statement. We should not imply a primary source reporting information, when they are just quoting a government official.
 * We should note the secondary source is a government, in the reference section, or inline.
 * We should not suggest that the primary source reported something more than notability of the statement, when they are quoting a government official or agency.
 * No source, company, publisher, etc., should be given blanket RS status. —Slipgrid (talk) 15:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That is, just because a source decides to publish a government report, it doesn't mean that source is standing behind the government report, or is validating that government report. —Slipgrid (talk) 17:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * One way of saying this is with the water into wine metaphor. A government report doesn't get the credit of investigative journalism, just because it's published in a newspaper.  A newspaper doesn't automatically turn water into wine. —Slipgrid (talk) 17:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * At the same time, a newspaper can stand behind a government report. —Slipgrid (talk) 17:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If a newspaper reports government findings as fact, then the newspaper is a RS, and the fact that the original source is the government does not need to be noted. Though, though the newspaper in this fashion may be a be a bad example of a RS, it would still be a RS. —Slipgrid (talk) 17:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposals added by Slipgrid. All may add to them. Please sign your additions, and discuss above, below, or inline as you see fit. —Slipgrid (talk) 05:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If we're going to ignore the RS status of the source, we can no longer consider any source RS. We have to judge whether the government, organization, corporation, victim, anonymous witness, or politician which is the source is reliable.  -- SEWilco (talk) 14:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe no source should be given blanket RS status. Or, better yet, no source has to the power to convert government releases into something more reliable.  That is, we can't mask a government release as Seymour Hersh's or NYTimes investigative journalism. —Slipgrid (talk) 15:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Although RS guidelines can be useful, given the wide variety of governments and government agencies that exist around the world and their many different degrees of perceived credibility, attempting a one-size-fits-all approach to their reliability may be problematic. Even the definition of a "government" source could be problematic. For example, a state university is often legally an arm of the government, but in most Western countries they generally behave fairly independently. Because government is an actor and source of opinion as well as simply a source of information, what governments and government officials have to say on a subject is often relevant whether or not people believe what they say is true. For these reasons, general statements about when government statements should or should not be considered reliable are likely to be problematic. It might be better to deal with things on a case by case basis. If there is a specific problem you've encountered, it might be useful to discuss the problem. Perhaps a narrower solution can be crafted that doesn't bind people who are trying to work in a very wide variety of contexts. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like guidance and policy on the very narrow case of a news source quoting a government source as stating something, and then the governments statements being attributed to the news source. Because the Times says the government says statement X, it doesn't mean that the Times endorses statement X or came to conclusion X.  We should have policy that states a news source reporting on a government statement doesn't magically mean the news source is reporting that statement. —Slipgrid (talk) 03:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I really don't understand the above. In my experience government sources are usually reliable. But I agree wtih Shirahadasha that government is many things. I hope for example that we would not have any problem with the UK National Health Service as a source. The BBC is also in a sense a UK government source. Many governments have public information pages that we cite, for example the French government provides a vast amount of information about how to rent or buy property in France, the rights of the householder, etc. To be sure of having the correct details of the education system in a country I would probably look at a government website. The list goes on and on. It is only in a very small number of cases that government information is contradicted by other sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * With my proposal, all those sources are fine. We should make sure that something the National Health Service says isn't attributed to the Times of London, unless it's clear that the Times of London is reporting the facts, and not just the statement of the National Health Service. —Slipgrid (talk) 03:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think we need these "rules" for what's reliable and what's not. The only truly reliable sources are those which have been peer-reviewed, and these are unavailable for most facts (e.g. ford releasing a new truck) and sometimes wrong themselves. Here's my suggestion:
 * Mark each fact needing a reference with a source, stating clearly what that source is
 * If a fact may be controversial, make it clear what part of it is a fact. e.g. "Ford plan to release a new truck in December" rather than "Ford will release"
 * If two sources contradict one another, but both may be reliable, make sure both points of view are noted in the article


 * So long as people can see where the information has come from, they can make their own minds up whether to believe it or not. If one source is wrong, there'll almost certainly be another one somewhere contradicting it! Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  06:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's the problem that happens. The US government says they will up armor their trucks in December, and the New York Times, and ten other sources, cover that statement.  Then there is a cite in Wikipedia that says the New York Times, and ten other sources, report the government will up armor their trucks in December, when in fact it was only that one government source. Do you see the problem with that?  One government source says something, and then it gets listed as if ten different sources independently verified the fact, when the ten different sources are just echoing the government.
 * You need some policy that says, don't imply the Times is reporting something, when they are really echoing something. —Slipgrid (talk) 12:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The question is: what exactly did the Times and other newspapers report? Did they report that "the US Government will up aromor their trucks in December", or did they report something like "Accoding to a US Government spokesman, the US Government will up aromor their trucks in December"?  In other words, did the media attribute the statement?  If they attributed it, then that should be reflected in what we write.
 * I don't think this is a case of whether the sources are RS or not RS... I think it is a question of how we write about the events. Defining how we write about things isn't really the purpose of this guideline. Blueboar (talk) 13:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If there's no reliable source suggesting that the US won't be armouring their trucks in December, then isn't it reasonable to assume that they will? And if there is such a source, then both views should be given appropriate coverage as per WP:POV. e.g. "Despite initial reports that the trucks would be armored in December (Ref: New York Times), they won't in fact be armored until March (Ref: U.S. Government report on truck armouring)"
 * Any reader who wants to check out exactly what the source says is free to do so! Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  13:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't think it is reasonable to assume that they will... we are talking about a future event here, and all sorts of things could happen between now and when the event is supposed to take place... things that could change the forecasted outcome. What is reasonable would be to say that, as of the date of the Times report, the US Government expected to have the trucks armored.  To say they will do so would be using a Crystal Ball.  But again, if you adhear to what the sources say, and repeat any attribution, then there is no RS issue. Blueboar (talk) 14:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * When you say, "did the media attribute the statement? If they attributed it, then that should be reflected in what we write," I agree 100%. The policy I propose is, if it is not written this way, then the source is not RS.  The policy would ensure editors write in this way. —Slipgrid (talk) 15:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * But in the senario you present, the reliability of the source is not the issue... The problem is with how Wikipedia discusses what the source says, not the source itself.  The solution to that problem is to edit the Wikipedia article to more accurately reflect what the source says, not to declare the source itself unreliable.  If there is a policy issue here, it relates more to WP:NOR and WP:NPOV than to WP:RS. Blueboar (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, let's see what news agencies are presently reporting from governments. We'd better get rid of the analysis of those unreliable newsmen and get the real meaning.  http://news.google.com/news?q=government -- SEWilco (talk) 03:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Private companies — but they're not — except when they are - Oh, commentary on an analysis of two government-supported companies. Just replace that with the mission statements of the two companies?
 * Democrats see drugmaker windfall from Medicare - Are "Democratic congressional staff" on "the government" side of the line?
 * Pelosi Statement on Bill to Free Our Oil From Government Stockpile - Is Pelosi the government?
 * A tarnished triumph - A cooperation agreement with America won a vote of confidence in the Indian Parliament. Is the agreement the only reliable source on the topic, or is The Economist a source for anything about the topic?
 * Government to Monitor UK Internet Use - Ignore any analysis of the government plan, citizen. Just read the plan.  Who approved that headline, anyway?
 * Iraq Gets Olympic Ban for Government Interference (Update2) - Two sports organizations squabble after a government altered one organization. Ignore the squabble, there is a government document involved, just cite the Iraq government decision.
 * Zimbabwe central bank promises currency reforms - Finally, Zimbabwe's currency will be repaired.

Is there a need for this proposal? Or is this one of those "solution looking for a problem" situations.-Wafulz (talk) 14:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Try replacing government with organization or company (or your favorite company) to see how much sense it makes to consider the government as being different from other organizations. -- SEWilco (talk) 03:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It depends on the context: If a government inspection team close a road bridge because it is unsafe, it is a very different issue from WMD in Iraq. It chiefly depends on if there are other reliable sources that take a different POV. If there are other reliable POVs Wikipedia already covers this with WP:NPOV, but if it is non contentious, for example an announcement of last years budget for the Metropolitan Police Force, there is not need to phrase it "the Times reported that xyz government department said that the budget for the Met was 123". Most government documentation is not contentious or considered biased, there is only a small minority which usually has adversarial political connotation and as such needs to be handled like all issues which come under WP:NPOV. It is a matter of editorial judgement not a matter for additional Wikipedia policy (instruction creep). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

World gazetteer: is it a reliable source?
Is World Gazetteer a reliable source?--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * To discuss reliability of specific sources, please go to Reliable sources/Noticeboard, as advised at the top of this page. Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  08:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Timothy Hodge
Those of you who rember/or know of R&B singer Timothy Hodge, would you please be so kind and get back to me --Daisy404 (talk) 03:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)daisy404--Daisy404 (talk) 03:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I see the article you've created about him is nominated for speedy deletion. You should put a  tag on there ASAP before it gets deleted, if you intend to improve it and find sources.  Look at WP:N and WP:BIO for the kind of sourcing you'll need.  There's probably a pointer within those to more specific rules for musicians.  This page is devoted to a different subject, how to write articles.  It's not really a place to figure out where the sources are.  This one I found is not a reliable source but if it's true that he's a "Legend" then you should be able to find newspaper articles, album notes, essays, etc., written by reliable third party sources (not blogs) to back it up.  Also, any awards?  Album charts?  In addition to finding sources you should say in the first sentence or two why he's notable, e.g. that he is a well known / popular / successful / critically acclaimed (whatever is true that you can back up) singer.  That's sometimes considered WP:PEACOCK but to avoid deletion you have to assert why he is notable and singers are primarily notable for being popular, successful, etc.  We really aren't equipped to be a social net or research service though.  A polite question in the right place is probably okay but you might also have luck with wiki answers, yahoo answers, some fan websites, or those old standbys, your local librarian, facebook or google.  You might check for his official site or label to see if they have press clippings, or even ask him directly if he knows of any news coverage.  HTH.  Wikidemo (talk) 14:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Now I'm curious.  From this I see he has a 9 1/2 shoe size and could stand to lose a few pounds.  You might see if you can get transcripts from some of his TV appearances.  TV reports can be reliable sources, they're just hard to track down.  I'd lay 50/50 odds that you could sustain the article as notable if you can find the right sources, but those sources will take considerable digging.  If he has charted anything or had major roles in TV productions and you can find sources to back that up, that's probably your best bet.  Good luck. Wikidemo (talk) 14:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

How to source the dialog of a movie
Hi, how can I provide a reference to some dialog in a movie? Will it suffice to just reference the movie itself (IMDB page). What happens if the article is actually about the movie? Thank you. --HighKing (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I assume you are referring to a documentary, which is the only type of movie that can have its dialogue used as a WP source, and it certianly should NOT be used as a source for its own article (WP requires independent sources). To cite documentary dialogue, you should cite how many minutes into the picture it takes place. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, that isn't correct. Movies can certainly be cited in an article about the movie itself... as it is the primary source for what appeared in the movie.  As with all primary sources, there are cautions and limits, but they can be cited.  For example, when giving a plot summary of a movie, it is assumed that the movie itself is the source.  You can also cite movies in articles on things relating to the movie... If you are writing and article about Jabba the Hut, it would be appropriate to cite the Star Wars movies.
 * As to how to cite the dialoge of a movie... I would suggest the following format: " " . The edition would be something like: "Theatrical release DVD" or "Extended Director's Cut".  Note: dialoge may change between editions... look into this. If the dialoge is different in some other version of the movie this should be noted in the article. Blueboar (talk) 16:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Might it be worthwhile to create a citation template along the likes of cite video game to deal with movie sources? --M ASEM 16:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've knocked up a simple cite movie template. I'd appreciate if someone could give it a quick look over and comment.  Also is there a testing I should also place on it --HighKing (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. Sorry to knock your hard work, but cite video already covers films (even if the name isn't the most descriptive). All the best, Steve  T • C 21:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries! I'll put it up for deletion.  --HighKing (talk) 23:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Question: re: Sales Catalogs
A question has been debated for over a month now at one article about the use of qualitative, opinion quotes in an interview appearing in a sales catalog, about a product being sold in that catalog.

My reaction, as a journalist, is that this material is akin to press-release or other promotional literature, and that the standard is that one does not quote a person's press-release opinion about their own work &mdash; particularly in an encyclopedia article.

An opposing view is that while the interview involves something being sold in the catalog, it is in a separate part and presented as a magazine-style interview. My feeling is that regardless, it is produced by a marketing department and has not been vetted by professional, journalistic editors to ensure standards of accuracy, balance and professional ethics, such as no conflict of interest.

Any thoughts on sales-catalog interviews as reliable sourcing? --Tenebrae (talk) 00:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I would say that the interview is reliable for statements about the opinion of the person being interviewed... but not for statements of fact. So (for example) you could say: "According to Joe Blow, 'the Amazo-widget will make your appliances opperate more efficiantly.' ", but you should not say "The Amazo-wiget makes your appliances opperate more efficiantly ." Blueboar (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So there's no difference between a journalist conducting an interview to professional standards, and vetting by an editor, and an interview conducted by a marketing person with a vested interest in selling the product under discussion? --Tenebrae (talk) 03:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, because the content of the interview still represents the unedited opinions of a single person, no better than a self-published source. And since the publisher, who may be a reliable source otherwise, has published an interview, we can't assume that the publisher actually supports the viewpoints expressed by the interviewee as facts. It's the same way that when a journalist states that some fact has been claimed, it is the claim and not the fact that is verifiable. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the post; I', not sure I'm following, but it sounds, reasonably to me, that a sales catalog is considered a self-published source. (I'd note this isn't a "publisher" in the accepted sense, any more than Home Depot is a publisher by creating a catalog of home-repair supplies.) --Tenebrae (talk) 13:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Scientific consensus vs consensus of scientists
I wish the section on claims of consensus made a difference between scientific consensus as published in reliable sources such as journals or official statements from scientific bodies, and consensus of scientists, typically sourced by editorials stating "what most scientists think". The former is reliable, the latter is not, because most scientists do not write in scientific journals on the topic at hand and are thus not subjected to peer reviews: they cannot be expected to be reliable. Wikipedia should represent the scientific consensus if there is one, or present the scientific question as unresolved until it is. It should state what most scientists think, but only as a sociological information, not a scientific one. Any issue with that ? Pcarbonn (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Am I correct that this relates to how we present Fringe/ pseudo-science topics? If so, the problem is that scientists often simply ingnore such topics as being unworthy of comment.  When the "consensus of scientists" is that the theory or topic is absolute rubbish, no one thinks it worthy of saying so in an accademic journal ... the rubbishness of the topic is taken as a given and the topic is simply dismissed.  So there won't be any published "Scientific consensus".  And yet, I think we do need to mention the fact that most scientists think something is rubbish, if most scientists do in fact think that. I fully realize that this can be contentious, but we have to be able to present the facts on the ground.  As long as a reliable sources state that a consensus exists within some group, we should be able to report on that consensus. At minimum we should be able to say that "according to, a consensus exists." Blueboar (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I follow your logic and agree with it when you apply it to obvious pseudoscience such as Timecube. It does not apply to controversial scientific theories that have been published in peer reviewed journals though, and that's what I had in mind.  The parity of sources should hold: peer-reviewed journals are better than editorials about what most scientists think.  If that distinction is properly made, would you agree ?  Pcarbonn (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily... so much depends on the theory, the reputation of the journal, the reputation of the source stating the consensus, etc. A claim about the consensus of scientists from the New York Times is probably more reliable than a "peer reviewed" article in the Journal of Paranormal Science.  On the other hand the NYT would be less reliable than a peer reviewed article in a more respected journal. This really isn't something that we can make clear cut policy statement about. Blueboar (talk) 16:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * One example why this distinction can be important is cold fusion: there are many reliable sources saying that it is not pseudoscience, while many scientists may think otherwise for historical reasons (not scientific ones). I believe that there are many more examples, such as hydrino theory, because most scientists cannot be knowledgeable in every controversial topic.  Wikipedia has a role to play to provide them with reliable information, not to echo what they already believe.  Pcarbonn (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact, the policy should state that we base articles on the most reliable sources that we can find on a topic. For some topics, as you suggest, our standard is lower, for lack of alternatives.  I'm surprised that the policy does not state something like that (or have I missed it ?).  A ranking of sources by reliability could be documented.  Pcarbonn (talk) 16:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a specific example might help. In the Bible and Biblical archaeology articles, a user has proposed that the "minimalist school" view represented by Israel Finkelstein and others, that archaeological evidence shows that Jerusalem had no substantial population in the relevant times and confirms that events such as Solomon's Temple never happened. As the Israel Finkelstein article notes, his view has been contested in the archaeological world, including by a group of Hebrew University-affiliated archeologists who have claimed to have come across some structures and artifacts from the relevant period. (there seem to be some debates about dating and such), My view is that in a case like this, as long as there is a debate within the academic community, we need a reliable source to make a strong claim like "consensus" -- that is, editors can't weigh the pros against the cons and say that one overwhelms the other based on their own research and without a source. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 03:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Political advocacy groups
A new section saying that entities categorized as political advocacy groups are not reliable sources except for articles about themselves. This could have a large impact on Wikipedia articles. Groups like the Anti-Defamation League, Hoover Institution, Federation of American Scientists, and the American Dental Association would be automatically prohibited. I think this is too sweeping. I don't see any discussion here about it. Any thoughts? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Obviously too sweeping, although I do think some cautions should be expressed about these groups. II  | (t - c) 05:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Policy is that “questionable sources may only be used as sources about themselves” I had assumed, maybe wrongly, that political advocacy groups where as a whole classified as questionable sources, meaning that as a group they have “a poor reputation for fact-checking.”; much of the time, maybe most of the time, they present their side of an argument as being undisputed while shortchanging any other. More to the point; that they have a direct interest in how Wikipedia articles handle issues that are relevant to the political positions they hold.


 * Now if someone can figure out how to throw out the bathwater but keep the baby, I am all for it; however, if the information is worth including in the first place, it should be possible to find a third party source for the same information. Brimba (talk) 11:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think we can lump all political advocacy groups together as "Questionable" sources. Some are highly reliable, some are significantly less so.  Even less reliable ones are, at a minimum, reliable for citing statements as to what the group says about something, which may be pertenant to an article that is not specifically about the group.  If a caveat is needed, it should say something along the lines of "Political advocacy sources are considered reliable for statements as to the opinion of the group in question, but should not be used to support statements of fact." Blueboar (talk) 12:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This would basically work from my standpoint:


 * "A political advocacy group is an organized collection of people who seek to influence legislation and public policy in a manner that is beneficial to the cause or causes they support. Such groups are considered reliable for statements as to the opinion of the group in question, but should not be used to support statements of fact." Brimba (talk) 12:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * When it can be independently established that an advocacy group is a major player on a subject and their opinion is significant, they are necessarily a reliable source for their own opinion (although for nothing else). One difficulty with our current reliable sources policy is that it acts as if the only considerations involved in reliability are facts. However, sources for opinions are reliable because their opinions are authorative. Restaurant critics don't become reliable because of fact-checking, but because their opinions receive a wide following. But this is just as true of scientists. In science it's usually graduate students who check the experimental data, numbers, and the cites in the literature. Famous scientists rarely do the fact-checking themselves (and often aren't good at it). They are famous not for fact-checking but for successful novel theories and research methods. Only in WP:BLP issues is fact-checking always an overwhelming concern, due in large part to legal concerns. This was the original source of the emphasis on that subject. But attempting to base the reliable source policy on the whole of Wikipedia on concerns that are really focused on WP:BLP has extended the model well beyond its proper domain. Attempting to craft a global solution in order to address a narrow, specific problem is a perrennial problem of bureacracies, and we seem to have gotten sucked in. On many issues, sources are reliable because their opinions are respected. And their opinions may or may not be based on facts or have anything to do with fact-checking. One needs independent reliable sources to establish that an advocacy organization's opinion on a subject is significant. But when this can be established, they are necessarily a reliable source on their own opinion, although for nothing else.  Best,  --Shirahadasha (talk) 13:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Technically speaking User:Brimba who made these changes is correct in many, but not all, cases. Perhaps if we change the language to "may be challeged" to leave it to editorial discretion and debate that would solve the problem. Also condensed the language and added important point about research/intelligence.
 * Suggested rewrite:
 * DELETE "see also|Category:Political advocacy groups by country" NOT an all inclusive list, even of wiki articles, and therefore misleading
 * A political advocacy group is an organized collection of people who seek to influence public opinion, public policy and/or legislation through research and collection of intelligence, public awareness campaigns and lobbying. Such groups often are biased, with a direct stake in how a particular issue is viewed. Therefore, political advocacy groups may be challenged as not being reliable, third-party published sources for statements of fact, especially regarding  biographies of living persons. However, they should be regarded as being reliable for statements about the group itself or about its opinions. Carol Moore 17:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}


 * Due we have a cler definition of what we mean by "political advocacy groups"? From the definition above it would include all think tanks and research institutes. In general, there's no requirement for sources to be neutral, only that they be accurate. This changes that and requires that source be neutral and not have any viewpoint of their own. That's a radical change to our sourcing policy. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I don't like these changes. This can be handled without putting something here, on a case-by-case basis. Think tanks, some environmental organizations, and similar organizations do not have a generally poor reputation for fact-checking, although some do. II  | (t - c) 19:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not about a source being neutral; after all no one and no source is ever absolutely and perfectly neutral; it’s about sources that are by no plausible definition “third-party”, neutrality is not the issue. WP:V and WP:NOR both require that sources be at least reasonably defined as “third-party”. I am not going to split hairs over the exact definition of “third-party”, but I will say clearly that political advocacy groups of any strip, including think tanks, are not by any definition that we would ever use “third party”.

I tossed around a couple of terms trying to find a clear definition, before deciding that "political advocacy groups" was the clearest. If someone else has a better definition I am all ears. Before finding that Wikipedia already had a category by the name, I was using as a working list while I was thinking this through. It was a think tank that got the ball rolling, specifically the Heritage Foundation and how they use one particular quote, selectively and taken out of context, as a battering ram. The problem becomes one of falsifiability, which is the recurring problem of anyone trying to disprove such assertions; anything that I or anyone else could produce as a rebuttal would arguably be original research because no reliable source that I could find had published a direct rebuttal to the assertion; if it exists it would like be yet another think tank or group on the opposite side of the political spectrum that would spend the time and money to research it and lay out a rebuttal. So here is the rub, we should not be using the Heritage Foundation as a source anyway, because its not a third party to the argument. I understand that, and I thought most editors would; it the same reason we do not use GM as a source for air quality, or Wal-Mart for labor relations. Of course its not spelled out anyplace, which leads us here. And no, this is not part of an ongoing dispute. This came to my notice some time ago, maybe a year and a half ago, it is however what planted the seed that led here. Brimba (talk) 03:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Does anyone object to removing the text while it's being discussed? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Moving here pending possible rewording:

'':A political advocacy group is an organized collection of people who seek to influence legislation and public policy in a manner that is beneficial to the cause or causes they support; notably through lobbying and conducting public awareness campaigns. Because such groups have a direct stake in how the public views a particular issue, political advocacy groups are not considered third-party sources. To be a third party source means the source itself has no particular stake in the outcome of any debate relevant to the article in which the source is used, or how a particular article within Wikipedia may influence public perception of an issue. All articles within Wikipedia should rely on reliable, third-party published sources. Political advocacy groups are considered reliable for statements as to the opinion of the group in question, but should not be used to support statements of fact.''

Brimba (talk) 04:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That's an improvement. I think we should incorporate the outlook that is written into the WP:FRINGE policy:


 * Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a subject appear more notable than it actually is. Since Wikipedia describes significant opinions in its articles, it is important that Wikipedia itself does not become the validating source for non-significant theories. Other well-known, reliable, and verifiable sources which discuss the theory first are required so that Wikipedia is not the primary source for such claims. Furthermore, one may not be able to write about a subject in a neutral manner if the subject completely lacks independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality.


 * The problem with advocacy groups is that they will be drawn to Wikipedia as a platform for their views, so we must be on the watch for groups or individuals who want Wikipedia to "become the validating source for non-significant theories." --Marvin Diode (talk) 06:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

This is CREEP. II | (t - c) 06:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, from comments on my suggestion, it's obvious I didn't quite get the differentiation. WP:RS emphasizes that third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The problem is not more specifically defining such groups, as I do below, but making it clear up front why SOME of those groups just are not reliable: a poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Of course, how one proves that, I'm not sure.


 * A political advocacy group is an organized collection of people who seek to influence public opinion, public policy and/or legislation through research and collection of intelligence, public awareness campaigns and lobbying. Advocacy groups which have a poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, often because they have a direct stake in how a particular issue is viewed, are not reliable, third-party published sources for statements of fact. However, they should be regarded as being reliable for statements about the group itself or about its opinions. Carol Moore 14:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
 * Hmmm... I tend to be sceptical of most political advocacy groups. The problem with focusing on groups with a poor reputation for fact checking is that it could allow those with no reputation at all. If we are going to amend the guideline (and I am not convinced that there is a need to do so),  I think we need to place the bar on the other side of the fence. I would say that, while all advocacy groups are reliable for statements of opinion, to be considered reliable for statements of fact the advocacy group must have a good reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
 * I see it as being similar to the "acknowleged expert" exception to personal webpages. Generally the webpages of non-accademic amatures are not considered reliable, but an expection can be made if it can be established that the amature is acknowleged as an expert by the mainstream. Blueboar (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Blueboar wrote: I would say that, while all advocacy groups are reliable for statements of opinion, to be considered reliable for statements of fact the advocacy group must have a good reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. That makes sense, except of course that some groups have ridiculous opinions that aren't encyclopedic :-)
 * So basically you would treat Cato, Heritage, Brookings, Antiwar.com, Political Research Associates, ADL, Jewish Virtual Library, Counterpunch, David Horowitz various outlets, etc. all as advocacy groups? Need to define then becomes even more important.
 * Fyi. Almost done with WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Links_to_reliable_sources_discussions, which this new policy might render partially irrelevant.
 * But some consistent way to figure out what advocacy groups are and are not WP:RS would be helpful, esp. when one constantly sees double standards applied.   Carol Moore 04:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
 * Yes, I would call all of the groups and think tanks you list advocacy groups. Since they all have fairly good reputations for fact checking and accuracy, I would say that they fall on the reliable side of the fence... but they are advocacy groups none the less.
 * As for rediculous opinions, if a group's opinion is considered rediculous, they probably will not have a good reputation for fact checking or accuracy, thus they would not be reliable for statements of fact. As to whether that opinion is encyclopedic or not... that is a matter of editorial judgement that needs to be decided at the article level, not dictated by policy (although the really rediculous would probably be limited by WP:FRINGE).  The point is, sometimes a rediculous opinion is notable and should be mentioned, sometimes it isn't and shouldn't.  It depends on the individual article topic and the individual opinion in question. It isn't something we can mandate. Blueboar (talk) 13:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

In all of the forms discussed this proposed language suffers from instruction creep. Any attempt to tightly define when advocacy groups are reliable or not suffers from several problems - the subject can't be defined that tightly; there are many exceptions; one cannot usually a priori draw up rules that correctly anticipate the situations. Often political advocacy groups lie, misrepresent, misdirect, or are just sloppy about facts, even facts like the years someone was born. However, some political advocacy groups are quite reliable on the facts. Also, an advocacy group is rarely a source. It may be a publisher of articles and opinions written by people, but those articles themselves are the source. For indicia of reliability you have to look not only at the publisher (where editorial oversight, fact checking, etc., are at issue) but also the author - are they an expert? Honest? An honest broker? And the specific piece. What is its purpose and tone? Setting down rules in place of our editorial judgment is probably not a great idea. I might support a caution about advocacy groups, though, and their operatives. That should apply whether it's on their own website or as a guest editorial or contributor to a respectable publication. A George Will essay on a Republican Party website is a lot more reliable than Richard Berman writing a guest editorial in the New York Times. Wikidemo (talk) 14:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My initial reaction is that the additional guidelines are not needed and that reliability needs to be determined using existing criteria (many of which have just been mentioned above). Debates already go on over the reliability of specific sources, and this proposed change does not seem to help.


 * In order to change my mind, however, I would be interested in how advocates of the proposed addition to the guidelines would apply those guidelines for two specific groups that come up rather frequently in articles that I edit. The first is the Southern Poverty Law Center (http://www.splcenter.org/index.jsp).  Its investigations on hate groups is widely used and accepted by newspapers and social scientists.  Yet it is frequently criticized by some editors as a liberal, advocacy group.  Would it be excluded, under the new policy, from being used as a source in articles about current hate groups (including the initial identification of that group as a hate group)?


 * The next would be LewRockwell.com. It provides articles which reflect a very clear political agenda.  The most troubling (to me) are those related specifically to a neo-confederate reinterpretation of history (i.e. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/lincoln-arch.html).  It is often seems to be used as a quick internet fix for editors who can't find the same material in published, peer reviewed, academic sources. Leaving aside the issue of whether it should be excluded for other reasons, would it also be excluded under the proposed new policy? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * First, so noted on ridiculous. Second, there are those of us who have exactly the opposite view on two sources above, that SPLC hires hatchet males (and occasional females) to smear people for profit and that LewRockwell.com brings together a lot of libertarian-oriented academics (among others) to opine on matters they might not find other outlets for because of bias in academia and elsewhere.
 * The problem is the total inconsistency in whether a source is considered reliable depending on who is editing what page. (Right now it is being claimed in Chip Berlet that a David Horowitz group is not a reliable resource to have its reply to a Berlet attack be even mentioned or linked in the article, not to mention quoted. In other articles Horowitz doubtless is God. I reject either extreme.)
 * As I mentioned before (and now bold in both places) I am finishing off WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Links_to_reliable_sources_discussions which is limited to these kinds of political sources, Israel-Palestine sources, and general categories of issues. However, since some sources already have 4 or 5 difference threads in Reliable_sources/Noticeboard archives and it's questionable if people who find their way to that page would look through all discussions. Even if they did, they might not know for sure what to think by the time they were finished.
 * It would be nice if there was some way to chart the most controversial and most frequently used sources with pros/cons, suggested uses etc. from the most unbiased editors. But that might be very difficult to do for lots of reasons. Carol Moore 23:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
 * Political advocacy groups may be reliable as sources about their own positions. For such position statements, they are primary sources. They should be referenced with quotes such as "XXX of the YYY said that ...".  That's usually not a problem.  We tend to get into problems on Wikipedia when an advocacy group makes what on its face is a factual statement, and other parties disagree with the facts as presented. (Casualty figures in wars usually suffer from this problem.) If there's disagreement, we should be looking for more reliable sources or consistency between news services. (If Al Jazeera and Fox News agree on something, it's probably good info.) Failing that, the positions of all relevant sides should be cited as positions. --John Nagle (talk) 00:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What is the difference politically between a "political advocacy group" and some NGOs who decides that Green Peace is not a reliable source, but Oxfam is? What about Amnesty International or International Association of Genocide Scholars? This would seem to me to be a very difficult area. What is the difference between a "political advocacy group" and a political party? If a "political advocacy group" puts up a candidate in a by-election are they then a legitimate political party like the Monster Raving Loony Party and not longer an "advocacy group"? If so for how long do they remain a party before becoming a "political advocacy group" again?  --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I just discovered the very relevant Reliable_source_examples which also might be tweaked to include a Political advocacy section - and perhaps emphasized in the Reliable sources article in bold. Carol Moore 14:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

What a Reliable Source Chart might look like
This would be a separate new page on WP:RS/noticeboard. It is just an expansion of WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Links_to_reliable_sources_discussions. It includes 1) links; 2) quick summary of discussion; and 3) whether there is a broad consensus, dissent from consensus, no consensus. (Examples only, not actual findings for these sources). I don't think this need be terribly controversial if there is a caveat this is just a guidelines and people should still use talk pages and the noticeboard - and if we can get a little cooperation and good faith going :-) It would include sources and issues likely to be debated repeatedly, as opposed to one shot wonders.

Links to/Summary of Specific Source Discussions

 * Antiwar.com: #1,  #2,  #3
 * Linked articles written by WP:RS for fact and opinion; Raimondo and other editorials for opinions only, not for WP:BLP (broad consensus)


 * Paul Bogdanor: #1
 * Whatever it says (no consensus)


 * Counterpunch.org: #1,  #2
 * Linked articles written by WP:RS for fact and opinion; editorials for opinions only (broad consensus)


 * New York Times WP:BLP: #1;   #1
 * Whatever it says (broad consensus)

Links to/Summary of General Issues Discussions

 * Academic works untranslated to English: #1
 * whatever says (dissenters to consensus)


 * Copyrighted external links (like RickRoss.com): #1
 * whatever says (no consensus)

Carol Moore 14:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk} -
 * Reliable sources blanked out cause "wrong": #1
 * Unacceptable without counter WP:RS  (broad consensus)
 * I would oppose trying to rank or chart out sources by their reliability. For one thing, a particular source may be highly reliable in one context, and completely unreliable in another.  These are issues that should be left up to those who know the article topic and the reputation of the sources. In other words, such decisions should be made at the article level.  This is too much instruction creap. Blueboar (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * While I understand that is a problem, I know from personal experience it also is a big problem for people who are not experts on various sources to figure out how reliable a source is. (Like in current Chip Berlet article dispute on a WP:RS of a David Horowitz group in replying to a Berlet attack. Even with links, it's a tough one to figure out and I haven't seriously tried yet.) I don't have a problem with there being a caveat like I just added above that these are not the final word but only a guide to what has been said.  And maybe just doing the links is as far as we should go ala: WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Links_to_reliable_sources_discussions  But FYI once that page is finished later today I'm going to put together an "advert" for people to put around on any talk or user pages they please so that at least that more limited resource will be available. Carol Moore 14:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
 * That is what Talk pages are for... Yes, sometimes you have to have the same discussions over and over again, and that can be frustrating... but it is not something we can or should "legislate" in a guideline or policy page. It's instruction creep and micro-management. Blueboar (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Blueboar here. The difficulty is that sources are never globally, absolutely reliable. Reliability is contextual and relative. Even very authoratative sources within their fields aren't reliable for statements outside it (Example, Richard Dawkins' depictions of religious beliefs aren't necessarily considered reliable by theologians and religion scholars, so on religious matters he often can only be quoted for his own unique opinion as distinct from being a subject-matter expert on religious belief.) Some sources are reliable only for rather specific information. I don't think a one-size-fits all chart can be constructed, even if it were possible to slog through and catalog all the many sources out there. You still have to read the source to know what it's reliable for. You can't simply slap on a tag or a keyword and expect it to work. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I just discovered the very relevant Reliable_source_examples which also might be tweaked to include a Political advocacy section - and perhaps emphasized in the Reliable sources article in bold. Carol Moore 14:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}


 * I agree that this would be helpful. This level is a bit more specific than the general guideline, hopefully enough to be useful but not enough to hamstring. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

WP articles citing other WP articles
I recall that WP articles are not supposed to cite to other WP articles, but I can't find language specific to that in my preliminary searching. Am I right about this? If so, could someone point me to where a policy or guideline talks about it? Croctotheface (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You may be thinking of WP:SPS which reads: Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.


 * Certainly community consensus has long been that other Wikipedia articles should be linked to, where appropriate, but not used as sources. As an open wiki it is not considered a reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 02:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This also means that every article should contain all its relevant sources and source citations should be repeated from article to article, so that one isn't asking the user to go to another article to look for a cite. Among other reasons, links to other articles aren't stable and the other article could always be reorganized with the relevant cite removed or moved to yet another article. --Shirahadasha (talk) 15:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:Reliable source examples
This page was recently updated to add a new section discussing and endorsing WP:Reliable source examples. It's currently classed as an essay. If this section and its endorsement reflects the community's consensus, suggest upgrading WP:Reliable source examples to a guideline. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 13:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Vauge RS guideline is deletionists', censorists', and white-washers' best friend
All too frequently these days, WP:RS is misused as a weapon by those seeking to have information excluded from Wikipedia. With no clear bar on which to base RS, disruptive editors trying to exclude information they don't like can shake "WP:RS" around and dispute nearly any source as "not reliable" without any reasoning, raising the source bar higher and higher until the targeted content has no sources (at which point, the tactic turns to WP:CITE).

There needs to either be a clarification on the use of WP:RS to attack sources, or on where the burden of proof lies, or a clear way to have the RS of a source be determined conclusively. If not, we will continue to have constant edit wars as those with an agenda will game the rules to hack and slash away at what they would rather not see in the encyclopedia. - Keith D. Tyler &para; 18:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * According to WP:V (the policy that this guideline falls under) the Burden of Proof lies with those who wish to add the material. In other words, if there is a dispute as to whether a source is reliable or not, it is up to those who wish to use the source to demonstrate that it is reliable, not the other way around.  Unfortunately, there is no way to "clarify" this issue.  It isn't something that can or should be legislated by policy.  The reliability of sources used in a specific article is best resovled at the article level, by forming a consensus of editors who are familiar with the the topic and the sources.  All we can do here is discuss the issue with a broad brush.
 * That said, if you need a neutral second opinion to resolve a dispute as to whether a source is reliable or not, you can ask about it at WP:RSN... a noticeboard set up to discuss questions of reliability. Blueboar (talk) 15:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem I see is that, outside of scholarly journals and major news operations, there is no positive criteria, only negative criteria (AUTO and extremist material). So unless you can show that your source is a scholarly journal (trivial) or a major news organization (also trivial), a neverending attack/defend war of attrition ensues. We can't expect the community to provide consensus on all sources, even those posted to RSN. - Keith D. Tyler &para; 17:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What type of source are you thinking of, in particular? &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 17:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that reliability is not always a black and white, always yes or always no issue. It is more of a specrum.  We can give scholarly journals and major news operations as examples because they fall on one edge of the spectrum... almost always reliable.  We discuss extremist and self-published sources because they fall at the other edge... almost always unreliable.  Everything else falls somewhere in between.  The question is: where?
 * We can not draw a clear dividing line down the middle. We can not say "from here sources are reliable/unreliable".  There are just too many variables.  For example, there are a lot of sources that are reliable for statements of opinion but not for statements of fact.  There are sources that will be will be reliable in one article, but not reliable in another.  Reliability can even depend on the specific statement being made, depending on the context.  So reliability has to be seen as being a spectrum ... with "solidly reliable" at one end, a large "maybe/maybe not" zone in the middle, and "definitively unreliable" at the other end.  Where you place a particular source (or even a type of source) in this is not something that can be set by policy.  It can only be determined by consensus.  If the editors of an article can not reach consensus, they should seek out neutral, uninvolved editors for second opinions. That's the best we can do. Blueboar (talk) 19:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Blueboar just about said it all. Like Keith, I  am concerned with purported unreliability of sources being used as a bludgeon against things one doesn't like,  but the problem is not in wikipedia's rules, but in reality. Determining whether something is reliable is a hard question, depends on the context of use, depends on how many facts one knows about a particular source, and can require research.  The poor souls who write rules on reliability try to make things as simple as possible, but not simpler.  There are only two things I can see that Keith can do - (a) If he finds there is a kind of reliable source which is being irrationally excluded, get consensus here to write a rule favoring it. (Rare)  (b) take the cases to RS/N every time and popularize it, especially when there's this kind of agenda-pushing.  There are a lot of editors, veterans and newbies alike, who simply don't know of the existence of RS/N, one of the most important places at Wikipedia, but the uninvolved opinions given there seem to be respected sufficiently to resolve most cases.John Z (talk) 21:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, reading this discussion, that's also something Google Scholar (see below) can help with. The other day I came across a discussion where one editor apparently wanted to build the article on Isha Upanishad on a commentary by A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, while another wanted to build it around a commentary by Osho. A Google Scholar search quickly showed that neither commentary had any standing in academic discourse on that text to justify basing this WP article on it. In cases like that, Google Scholar is a useful instrument to assess how relevant a source is to an article. Jayen 466 00:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * One difficulty here is that if guidelines were written as if they were criminal laws -- with precision to avoid the existance of any possible loophole assuming an adversarial relationship -- the whole function of a Wiki would break down. The Wiki process requires a certain amount of collaboration, trust, and use of good judgment. Guidelines have to be written assuming their audience is well-intended. Quite frankly, I doubt the specific content of policies is going to change problem users' behavior. I don't think it's realistic to think that if we simply defined things more precisely, vandals would stop vandalizing and soapboxers would stop soapboxing. They might change the arguments they make a bit, but I don't think their behavior really depends on what the policies say. Gearing the policies towards them, as if they were the audience, would hamstring our good-faith users and make the wiki editing experience a lot more miserable and the product a lot lower quality, with no benefit. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 05:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The key point is that, for any piece of information, the reader should be able to a) know where it came from, and b) be able to make a judgement on the reliability of the source. One of the primary purposes WP:RS should be to prevent editors from making an end-run around WP:V by citing a "source" whose content is effectively under the editor's personal control. Editors should focus on the questions:
 * Does the reader have a way to judge whether the source as reliable? (Not, "do the editors think the source is reliable?")
 * Is there a way to be confident that the source is independent of the person inserting the information?

Dpbsmith (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Blueboar wrote: "According to WP:V (the policy that this guideline falls under) the Burden of Proof lies with those who wish to add the material. In other words, if there is a dispute as to whether a source is reliable or not, it is up to those who wish to use the source to demonstrate that it is reliable, not the other way around."
 * I agree 100% with the editor.Bless sins (talk) 02:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources get responses on matters of controversy
What creates a de-facto reliability of a source is that if the source has some prominence in terms of readership (as opposed to a scholarly journal with 1000 subscribers and who knows how many readers). Readership on a matter of controversy is likely to bring out writers who have a different recounting of facts, or looking at the same facts come to a different conclusion. This happens in "Letters to the Editor" or it can be replied to in a politically aligned source when the original source refuses to print the response (i.e responding in the Wall Street Journal to a New York Times op-ed). The Wikipedia handles this is the ordinary scheme of things with presenting multiple points of view. The thing that can turn this into a deletionist's game is cherry-picking sources, for example, Media Matters for America is reliable, Slate is not, or vice versa.

To echo something mentioned above, we might regard a college newspaper as reliable for events happening on its own campus, but regard it as unreliable when it, and it alone, reports on a controversial event thousands of miles away a fact without corroboration in all the other major news sources covering the same event. patsw (talk) 16:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Why Google?
Why are we using Google as a guide to credibility? It is a search engine, not a respectable academic tool, nor will it give you much of an inkling of hard sources.--MacRusgail (talk) 13:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Where is someone using Google as a guide to reliability (which is what I think you mean)? A Google search might indicate a certain measure of notability, but it tells us nothing about reliability. Blueboar (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I reckon this is about the reference to Google Scholar: search result example (note the "cited by" results). A Google Scholar result merely showing a smallish number of academic citations may confound notability and reliability, but further research of the citations given in GS (do reliable sources cite the paper because it is notable – which could include scandalously bad – or because its content is deemed reliable?) can help to establish reliability as well. If a source has been around for a good number of years and has neither been reviewed nor cited by any scholarly works since, this would tend to indicate that it's neither reliable nor notable and thus, at first sight at least, not a good source for WP. If, on the other hand, Google Scholar shows dozens, hundreds or even thousands of citations, it's clearly a source that plays a significant role in the relevant academic literature. Google Scholar may not be the the most powerful citation index around, but it's the one that most editors have access to, and a good place to begin. Jayen 466 23:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, Google Scholar, Google Books, and even Google itself is a very good place to start... but it is only that, a place to start. For citation you need to see what the resulting hits actually say about the topic.  A source could be cited by  dozens, hundreds or even thousands of scholars... all of which might cite it in the context of debunking it, and saying that it is absolute rubbish.  Google is a great research tool, but it is not a substitute for doing the research itself. Blueboar (talk) 00:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and part of what I was trying to say above. Clicking on "cited by" gives a list of the publications citing the work; so editors can check these publications to see in what context it's been cited. For a well-cited work, there's also likely to be reviews online which may help. I think Google Scholar is still better than nothing, and certainly better than an editor wanting to use a book as a major source for an article just because they happen to like it, or have it, without checking its academic standing, and while disregarding other sources that are central to academic discourse on the topic. Would you agree? Jayen 466 00:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Google Scholar is often helpful, but no single test can be determinative, particularly in areas where non-academic views can be important For example, looking up Moshe Feinstein in Google Scholar shows that most of the notice he received in the academic community came from academic bioethicists due to his writings on medical issues. But the fact that this part of his scholarly work happened to get academic attention is really something of a coincidence which doesn't really reflect or permit assessing the scope of his reliability a source for religious views on other matters, or the extent to which religious circles would regard his work as authoratative and representative. Citations in religious commentaries and religious rulings, (mostly in Hebrew) among other sources, are to relevant to his reliability as a religious source. There needs to be a clear body of evidence, but no single test can perfectly capture all cases. It's a common mistake to take a tool that's often helpful much of the time and turn it into a one-size-fits-all decision rule. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

List
I am not sure if it already exists and also not sure if it has been discussed before. But I personally think we need to make a list of reliable sources for inclusions of materials which are contentious. Contentious material should be defined as anything even a single editor disagrees with. The list can be devided based on countries, newspapers, magazines, websites and publisher of books. We may even make a list of extremely reliable sources and make a guideline so as to suggest that a single publication in such sources is sufficient for inclusion. Therefore, such a list should serve to determine the inclusion of contentious materials while non contentious material may not necessarily have to pass this test. Is this likely to be any solution? Docku Hi 20:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not the Wikipedia way of doing things to constrain before-the-fact the choice of sources which are used for article creation and editing. Part of the editing process is evaluating the reliability of a source for the article in question. patsw (talk) 16:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I absolutely understand your point which is that each case is different and each case should be evaluated based on its merits. I sometimes wonder if WP:RS and WP:BLP are misused to keep genuine negative information out by agenda seekers (these agenda seekers also have plenty of time in hand to draw out the discussion long enough to get reasonable editors out). I know for the fact that the current state at which these policies stand, they can not be misused the other way (which is to keep ingenuine information in). Even an incomplete list of extremely reliable sources might help solve atleast some of the problems. Docku Hi 17:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The reason why creating a list of reliable or unreliable sources will not work is that any specific source can be considered reliable under certain specific situations, and any specific source can be considered unreliable under other specific situations. So much depends on the subject area, the article topic, the exact statement which the source is being used to support. The best people to make judgements on whether a specific source is reliable or not (given how it is being used in a specific article) are those who are familiar with the subject matter being discussed and the various sources involved.  In other words, the article editors and related project editors.
 * You might want to check out a wonderful essay called The rules are principles. The point of this guideline is to discuss the concept of reliability as a principal.  In doing this, we can discuss broad types of sources ... we can not and should not discuss specific sources. Blueboar (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Installation|
MediaWiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.171.115.221 (talk) 07:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

More on government as a reliable source
I would propose that the neutrality or good faith of a specific government could sometimes influence the reliability of that government's statements. For example, in the article about Huseyincan Celil, it probably would not be appropriate to report the Chinese government's opinion or judgment on this individual as a settled, incontrovertible fact — especially given allegations by other governments and NGO's which claim that he is in fact being persecuted by China for his political and religious beliefs. A government source could be reliable, however, as an indication of what that particular government's position is on the topic in question. Richwales (talk) 04:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

New policy proposal and draft help
Scientific standards

I have drafted a new proposal and would like help in clarifying, adjusting, adapting, and improving it. It is based on five years of work here at Wikipedia (not always the prettiest, I might add). I think it summarizes the opinions of a great majority of editors as to how to handle scientific situations. This proposal serves as a nexus between WP:NPOV and WP:RS for cases where we are dealing with observable reality. It is needed because there are a lot of editors who don't seem to understand what entails best-practices when writing a reliable reference work about observable reality. I don't pretend that this version is perfect, and would appreciate any and all additions, suggestions people may have for getting to some well-regarded scientific standards.

Note that these standards would apply only when discussing matters directly related to observable reality. These standards are inspired in part by WP:SPOV but avoid some of the major pitfalls of that particular proposal. In particular, the idea that SPOV even exists is a real problem. However, I think it is undeniable that we should have some standards for writing about scientific topics.

See also WP:SCI for another failed proposal that dovetails with this one. I hope this particular proposal is more in-line with the hole I see in policy/guidelines for dealing with these situations.

ScienceApologist (talk) 19:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS
There's an RfC open at WikiProject Medicine/Reliable sources on whether it should officially become a guideline for community-wide use on medicine-related articles. I know that with the agreement of a very small number of editors, I could have just declared it a guideline -- but it's traditional at WPMED to make the extra effort to get community feedback in cases like this. Please feel free to comment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Real estate listings?
If an article makes a point that a particular person lives in a particular historically important residence and that residence is listed as for sale on high end real estate websites (Sotheby's), does that qualify as a fact worth including and a reliable source? I'm specifically thinking about Danielle Steele and. Thanks! - Richfife (talk) 00:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To me, a real estate listing seems a primary, rather than the preferred tertiary or secondary source. Sotheby's is not a publication with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; it's an auction house. Dlabtot (talk) 01:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Claims of consensus a bit argumentative; I was bold and tweaked it
The section of this article previously entitled "claims of consensus" was more than a bit argumentative. It made some rather bombastic claims about how we "source" consensus. While perhaps prima facie true, it was narrow in scope and looked a bit like special pleading. I point out that in many cases where consensus exists, we need not even mention the word "consensus" since assertion of facts is often a better practice than attribution of opinion. Is there "consensus" on the evolution of the horse? You bet. Is there "consensus" on the astronomical unit? Yes. Would it be problematic if an editor who was summarizing a variety of sources for the distance to the sun summarized a "consensus" found in all of them? Quite likely, if it was WP:OR, but there are ways that one can use the word "consensus" without having found the words "the consensus of scientists is..." in any source and not have it be original research. I'm sure you can think of some examples on your own, but this is obviously not at all as cut-and-dry as the section tried to make it out to be. I tried to elucidate this point more clearly in the section. I took out the word claim too as being a very hostile word choice and quite unnecessarily mean to editors. Comments? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Your revised text states: The existence of a consensus within an academic community may be indicated, for example, by independent secondary or tertiary sources that all come to the same conclusion.  What this seems to leave out is the question of how it is determined that 'all' of the independent secondary or tertiary sources come to the same conclusion, and who makes this determination. In the rather specious example of the astronomical unit, it seems a moot point.  But on controversial topics, or in rapidly evolving fields, it seems that 'claims' or 'assertions' of consensus - use whatever word you'd like - should be sourced.  If it is a Wikipedia editor who is determining what the academic consensus is on a controversial topic, I don't see how that can be anything but original research. Dlabtot (talk) 01:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Blanket determination of all secondary/tertiary sources is impossible, obviously. However, consensus is also not unanimity. The wording about actual claims and assertions is still kept. The job of editing is not to determine whether consensus exists or not. In some sense, that's outside the purview of WP:ENC. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I certainly agree that consensus is not unanimity and that The job of editing is not to determine whether consensus exists or not  which is why I believe claims of academic consensus need to be sourced. Dlabtot (talk) 19:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is arguing that claims of academic consensus do not need to be sourced. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Consensus & Burden of Proof
Chiming in on a couple threads above.

Evidence of consensus requires more than a reliable source (as defined by WP), it requires reliable evidence, such as a poll of all experts in the field. But such polls are rare. Even an official recommendation on vaccines from the AMA represents just the official position of an organization, which should of course be reported. I have no problem reporting the fact that such and such claims that this or that is the consensus view. But that should not be used as "proof" that other views should be excluded or suppressed in an article.

Regarding burden of proof, once an editor has provided a source and any requested quotes from the source to support the claim that the source supports the statement in the article, the burden of proof shifts to those trying to exclude the material...and it should be a very high burden of proof. The goal of the project is to comprehensively gather information into a searchable data base, not to find ways to exclude information that some don't like.--SaraNoon (talk) 15:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this is more a matter of WP:WEIGHT than it is one of sourcing, but I see your point. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think one simple general rule is that nobody is a reliable source for a claim that their view is the consensus view. Such a claim has to come from an indendent source (although even such a source is not necessarily sufficient by itself). Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources not in English?
Not sure if this is the right place to ask about this, but what is the guideline for citing sources that aren't in English? I can't imagine that we can use automated translations, right? But if a major newspaper in another country publishes something, there's no reason I see that such information wouldn't meet WP:RS. I also imagine that such sources could be used to demonstrate notability, correct? Oren0 (talk) 23:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See: Verifiability for the policy on this. Blueboar (talk) 12:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

locatable?
A discussion of a type that sometimes comes up in technical (physics/mathematics) articles occurs when one person has access to a source that almost no libraries appears to carry. Is the fact that no or few libraries carries a book good evidence that it is a less reliable source? Pdbailey (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No. Consider an antique book, with very few known copies that have survived through the centuries.  Consider an extremely expensive book on an esoteric topic (How many libraries would spend a significant fraction of their budget to acquire something of limited general use?).  Consider a book that had a deliberately limited publishing run.  Consider a book whose printing has been suspended due to contract disputes between the author and the publisher.  Consider any very recently published book.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * WhatamIdoing, you appear to be arguing against it being proof, not "good evidence" as I asked. Certainly, many of these examples have good reason for low circulation. You didn't really answer my question, is it good evidence that the source is less reliable? Consider, i.e. a book that is not in the largest university library in a populace state. As far as a book on an esoteric topic that is expensive, you have to ask yourself, what was the publisher thinking, why would they publish such a book? It must be that the topic has a significant audience willing to pay for the book. Pdbailey (talk) 23:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No, as I thought I indicated with five examples of perfectly legitimate reasons why any given book would not be available at, say, the University of Maryland library, -- to which I will now add a sixth example, the unlikeliness of a library buying a book in a foreign language, and a seventh, the mismanagement of budgets so that a public university library may be the least likely place to find an expensive reference work -- the fact that a book is not easily available at some libraries by itself is not good evidence of a book being unreliable.  It is, in fact, almost as irrelevant a criteria as I can image.
 * Now if you could demonstrate that this particular book is widely unavailable for a reason that is relevant to its credibility, then that would certainly matter.
 * Ultimately, the question of how the ref is used matters more than the number of extant copies. (You could take your question to WP:RSN or to WikiProject Librarians if you wanted more opinions.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * WhatamIdoing, I actually think the Johns Hopkins library might be the library with the most extensive University collection in the state of Maryland, but I'm not sure. Certainly, the national archives and library of congress dwarf the two. In any case, I would ask you to remove your slanderous claim against the UMD library if you can't reference it, it's just not classy. The situation comes up many times (i.e. if University of Chicago owns the only library copy of a book, is it really a great reference if nobody but a UC student/alum can actually check the facts?) Pdbailey (talk) 01:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The number of copies of a book that exist has nothing to do with it's reliability as a source. What you seem to be discussing is the issue of ease of Verifiability.  On that issue... As long as the source is able to be verified, it meets our requirements.  Blueboar (talk) 03:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Paul, if the Free State hasn't tried to cut university budgets in response to the economic problems, then it is the only state in the Union to skip that easy target. You and I both know that capital budgets, such as for library acquisitions, get squeezed in tough economic times.   UMD has really never been comfortably funded in the first place, and it's worse right now.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(backdent) I think you two are being a little obstinate. The question I raise is this, "if this book is so great, why doesn't everyone own it?" If there are two text books on a topic conflict, one that every university library has in it's collection and one that even those with huge libraries (like Harvard) do no have, there are two problems. (1) only one editor will have access to the rare book, (2) the conflict must be resolved on which is more reliable. I as suggesting that the lack of interest library collection managers express in the book is great evidence on which is more reliable. Pdbailey (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You are making two erronious assumptions... (1) As long as a book is either for sale to the public or can be found in a library that is open to the public (not nescessarily a "Public Library"), then more than one editor "has access" to it. It may not be easy or cheap for the average editor to gain access, but it is possible for them to do so. (2) Actually, the conflict does not need to be "resolved"... if two reliable sources disagree, then WP:NPOV tells us we should discuss the conflict in a neutral way, and mention both views. Blueboar (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Why try to duke it out between these two sources? Why not find a third, fourth, or fifth?  Surely four textbooks that agree on a specific point will trump any one.  Any text could contain an error, no matter how easily available it is.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * WhatamIdoing, excellent point. Thanks! Pdbailey (talk) 23:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Special care on rumors
This is added in response to the clearinghouse for rumors that the Washington Post, CNN, and New York Times seem to have become in the case of Sarah Palin. I have made it as general as possible. In an ideal world, reliable sources would take the time to verify rumors rather than pass them along. patsw (talk) 01:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I did some copyedits to this well-needed additional section. I would suggest, however, that some allowance be made for rumors which, while still totally unsubstantiated, have been mentioned in a reliable source but also mentioned as having had a real-life effect on something else notable.  I am thinking of the John Edwards story, where the rumors were flying for some time, but at some point it was (reliably) reported that the rumors affected his asperations to his Vice-Presidential nomination, as well as his role in the party convention, without the content of the rumors having been verified at all (yet).  Clearly the level of impact justifying mention can be debated on a case-by-case basis, but this is a nuance which probably should be developed.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Update I made another edit to make the reasoning clearer as to this part of the guideline. In doing so, I admit that the caution has been weakened somewhat, and perhaps the wording should be tweaked again to strengthen it a little.  But surely the guideline as a whole is better for this new section.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Update 2 I made another couple of edits to clarify the language; now it means pretty much what I think it was intended to mean when I started, only now is (IMO) clearer. There is one ambiguity: The section asks for "special care" when reporting on (only) rumors, but then says we should include only verified material.  There is a subtle contradiction there.  My thought would be to loosen the only to elaborate exactly what "special care" means, similar to what I suggested in my first post in this section.  But in the meantime, since either interpretation option of this section is reasonable, I encourage further discussion as to the best way to clarify this point. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV if a major source reports a rumour, then it should be represented as the view of that source (and as a rumour, if that is what the source says). It is not up to us to pick and choose.  Ty  06:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This isn't a clear cut, black and white issue. The question of whether to include mention of a rumor in our articles depends on many factors... what sources report on the rumor? (Is it being reported by a tabloid or a high quality news outlet?). How extensive is the coverage? (Is this being reported by one newspaper, or has it been picked up by several outlets?) What do these sources say about it? (Do they report it as fact, or simply as an allegation?)  How do they discuss it? (passing remark? disparaging of the rumor?). If a rumor has been or is being discussed by lots of high quality sources, and they take it seriously, then we should indeed mention it (as a rumor)... if it is beng discussed by tabloids and scandal rags we should not.  Remember that this issue is at the core of WP:BLP.  If there is any doubt about mentioning a rumor, we should be conservative and not include it. Blueboar (talk) 12:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not very happy with the "rumors" text. Rumors may have news value, yes.  But Wikipedia is WP:NOT a news organization.  The issue of news reporting is mentioned several times in WP:NOT, using terms like "scandal mongering".  I think that we need to make a stronger effort to support WP:NOT here -- or at least to point the editors to the several sections of WP:NOT that are applicable.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Kolubarska bitka/kolubara battle
Concerning all the non confirmed data and doubts about facts listed, please consult for all the relevant data in the book Zivojin Misic "My memories" (unfinished because of Z.M. death 1921) and inclosed text by army historian Lt.colonel Savo Skoko. In this book the list of all relevant historical documents from most the world war historian library's are available to support every word in this Wikipedia page concerning Kolubara battle. Moreover, the details of this battle could be find as analytic subject (as a sample of unique strategy) on many World Army Academies's.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deleor (talk • contribs) 13:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Blogs, wikis and webforums
I've often seen it said (and I often say it myself) that blogs, wikis and webforums are not usable as reliable sources, but on coming to this page I find that these sources aren't even mentioned. Is there a page that specifies what internet material is suitable? I'd like to have backup for the debates I sometimes get into on this (eg here and here. If there isn't a page or section I'll write it you like. Totnesmartin (talk) 11:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The initial paragraph of WP:V, and the associated footnote. As with all things Wikipedia, this may change over time. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's great, now I know where to find it, cheers! 12:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Totnesmartin (talk)

What happens if a reliable source publishes an unreliable article?
This is particularly a problem with citations from newspapers, but what happens if a reliable source publishes an unreliable article? For example, if an article from a major newspaper quotes a census figure, but gets the number wrong? Is the "original research" of looking at the census data acceptable in this instance? Is it worth having a section on this problem in the project page? Even the most reliable of reliable newspapers have filler and wire articles where the standard of journalism is not as good as the rest of the paper. --Surturz (talk) 01:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it makes it a dubious source in that example. To give an example of a non-hypothetical instance, in the article on the Australian plebiscite, 1977 (National Song) the source for the plebiscite figures was clearly wrong with its numbers despite it being the Parliamentary Handbook, reprinted several times - see the annotation to  the References .  The citation wasn't removed altogether but qualified.  (copied my response from Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research ) --Matilda talk 01:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * First, we need to acknowlege that ANY source can contain an error... barring a deliberate misstatement of the facts, an error could be a simple typo, or due to faulty research on the part of the author. Reliable sources are those who keep such errors to a minimum.  Discovering an error does not affect whether the source is reliable or not.  However, discovering an error might affect whether the source should be used in support of a particular statement in a particular Wikipedia article.  Such decisions are a matter of editorial judgement... and have to be made at the article level.
 * Second, in your situation both the newspaper and the Census are reliable sources... so we need to ask, which is more reliable of the two. We need to search for collaboration.  What do other sources say?  If there are no other sources for the fact... the census is the more reliable of the two. Blueboar (talk) 14:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we need to look at multiple sources. We need smart editors who can identify mistakes and correct them. That's all we can do. AdjustShift (talk) 17:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Needs list of sample authoritative sources for medical articles
...that way, I can insert cites quickly without having to first determine what is an authoritative source. Medline is assumed to be okay by it's very nature. But e.g., what about an article on webmd? What about a university site? Yes, at first some good sources wouldn't be mentioned but over time a valid list would be built up - always a work in progress. My case in point: while reading up on Amicar, I came across a med animation at youtube. I see it as an illustration, rather than a reference, but the whole issue of what sources can be used is not obvious and I'd rather not spend a great deal of time in learning the ins and outs.

Or maybe what I'm talking about exists somewhere else here on wikipedia? If so, please point me there. Thanks. Kenmcl2 (talk) 01:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see Reliable sources (medicine-related articles). Eubulides (talk) 04:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That link is useful for me also! AdjustShift (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

JJ's restaurant
I have owned JJ's restaurant since 1991 & I dont remember Paddy Mcguiness working for me. Andy Thomas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.20.226 (talk) 10:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've copied this Talk:Patrick McGuinness. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Given the above comment, I removed the mention of his working at JJ's as it is unsourced.Blueboar (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Good job! False information should be erased as soon as possible. AdjustShift (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It is important to note what?
This edit inserted the following text into WP:RS :
 * It is important to note that some non self-published sources of the origins listed above can be used, if they do not break any other policy/guideline, with exceptions.

I'm sorry, but I don't know what that text means. It's trying to say something, clearly, but I can't make heads or tails of it. For now, I undid the change; perhaps someone can explain what's going on? Eubulides (talk) 06:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Basically the cite note on WP:V on self published sources that people seem to gloss over, miss, and indubitably misrepresent the policy, I've seen it quite often, and WP:V says that its a policy and WP:RS should be updated accordingly, so basically adding it, sorry, not good at wording. &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  02:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

About popular press and scientific facts
Ludwigs2 has repeatedly deleted text added eleven days ago by Eubulides that reorganizes existing information about news organizations and clarifies its applicability in several contexts.

In particular, it adds a link to WP:MEDRS, which is the crux of the problem, because Ludwigs2 is one of two people (the other a professional journalist) that objects to MEDRS's preference for citing scientific sources, such as peer-reviewed scientific articles and textbooks, instead of popular press reports. This has been discussed at great length at WT:MEDRS, but fundamentally the reasons are these:


 * Journalists make mistakes. It's beyond foolish to assume that every newspaper and magazine article gets every single fact correct, the first time, and every time.  On the common sense scale, this is not very far different from saying "Please check the original document instead of relying blindly someone's notes about the original document."
 * Journalists leave out critical information. Most news articles fail to discuss important issues such as evidence quality, costs, and risks versus benefits.
 * Some journalists simply don't have the necessary background. Around my house, we refer to some particularly dreadful newspaper stories as having been written "by someone that majored in journalism because science was too hard."  This results in things like every investigational new drug as the "discovery of the cure" of a disease.  They also tend to express risk in useless terms, leading people to believe, for example, that breastfeeding prevents childhood leukemia (and it might:  but you'd have to exclusively breastfeed four million babies for a year to prevent a single case of leukemia).

For these and other reasons, the editors at WP:WikiProject Medicine and WP:MEDRS have included a section in MEDRS that explains the relative strengths and weaknesses of the popular press. Overall, it prefers citing scientific sources for scientific facts (and non-scientific sources for non-scientific facts). This recommendation was appropriately and briefly summarized here as follows:

"For medical and scientific facts and figures, it is typically better to cite the scholarly research behind a newspaper story, rather than simply citing the story itself. Newspapers tend to overemphasize the certainty of results, and often fail to adequately report methodology, error, risks, and costs associated with a new scientific result or medical treatment."

Ludwigs2 has repeatedly deleted this information from this guideline today, and despite his assertion at WT:Consensus (where he discovered this addition) that he thought it should be discussed, I find no discussion here. So here's the explanation; are there any objections by anyone other than Ludwigs2? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No objection here of course. The change reflects consensus at WP:MEDRS, improves the structure of this page, and causes this page to reflect WP:MEDRS's contents more accurately. Eubulides (talk) 02:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Now that I'm on the same page, I still have the same misgivings about focusing on a single area when the problem is universal to academic topics. I agree with the other bullet points. I made another draft that I feel serves the intended purpose (User:Vassyana/news). Thoughts? Vassyana (talk) 07:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, a nice job of rewriting. Some minor comments:
 * "news media often fails" should be "the news media often fail", since "media" is a plural noun. Or, if that grates, say "news reports often fail".
 * It'd be nice to mention medicine as an example here, as well. One way would be to replace "information about academic topics" with "information about academic topics such as medicine". This would help to avoid giving the implication that scholarly sources are preferred only when talking about pointy-headed topics like philosophy.
 * Eubulides (talk) 08:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Revised per suggestions. I went with "physics or ancient history" for the examples, for the sake of breadth and variety. We want to be clear that this covers the whole spectrum of academic subjects, both "hard" and "soft". Medicine is used as the example in the other draft and medical treatment is mentioned in the closing statement. Physics and ancient history are both examples where fringe and pop understandings of the subject can be problematic. Any other tweaks you think it needs? Vassyana (talk) 10:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I would endorse this, it is an improvement over what we have. Jayen 466 16:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I also endorse. I like the "ancient history" (Wikipedia circa 2004, say?....). Eubulides (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the deleted text, and hope that we can focus on Vassyana's #Scholarship proposal now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

About Scholarship

 * Reading the summary version above, I was deeply wary of the change. Too much emphasis on individual studies (which can be often difficult to properly interpret and place in context, even for experts) was my primary concern. However, after checking the suggested version, I'd agree this is the proper direction. However, I do have a couple of misgivings. Textbooks and academic press books should be mentioned alongside review and meta-analysis literature. They often provide excellent overviews of the accepted mainstream in scholarly fields. Also, there seems to be a bit of undue emphasis on science, which comprises only a portion of scholarly study (though certainly a significant one). The changes should take a more neutral position addressing the whole of scholarship, rather than being so focused on "hard" science. It could also stand to be more concise, but I have no problem addressing that at a later point. Vassyana (talk) 02:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've made a sandbox revision to try addressing my concerns (User:Vassyana/scholar). Thoughts? Vassyana (talk) 03:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Vassyana/scholar is a substantial expansion, and should probably be discussed separately. All I care about is stating a preference for scholarly works (when reasonably available, WP:IAR, etc.) "For medical and scientific facts and figures".  Do you have any objection to this?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

There must be some confusion here. User:Vassyana/scholar is a rewrite of WP:RS, but the changes Ludwigs2 reverted are to a different section, WP:RS. The two sets of changes are pretty much unrelated, as far as I can see, so I inserted an subhead above Vassyana's comments. Eubulides (talk) 05:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Pardon me while I wipe the egg off my face. :-) I did confuse the sections, mainly due to the subject of the discussion and a lack of care (bad Vassyana!) in checking the diffs. Thanks for taking the proposed changes seriously nonetheless. Vassyana (talk) 07:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Here are some comments on Vassyana's proposed changes to WP:RS : Eubulides (talk) 05:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Vassyana/scholar is a very nice rewrite overall. It prunes away redundant text and it makes the section easier to read. Most of the comments below are about minor points.
 * The phrase "cover academic topics and" is redundant and should be removed. That phrase might tempt editors into thinking that for many topics, academic scholarship is irrelevant and should not be searched for.
 * "However, some material" should be "However, some scholarly material" to avoid confusion.
 * "cover all significant published views" should be "cover all significant views published by reliable sources"
 * Please don't add "philosophy" as an example field where single studies are less definitive. In some parts of philosophy, e.g., formal logic, single studies can be quite definitive (more so than in most fields). The current text's use of medicine is better as an example, and one example suffices here.
 * "Care should be taken to avoid" should be "Avoid".
 * Omit "academic press books" from the list of preferable sources. They aren't in the same league as meta-analyses, textbooks, and reviews. For example, Targeting Autism (ISBN 978-0-520-24838-0) is a fine book from a respected academic press about autism treatments, but Autism therapies is right to prefer Myers et al. 2007, a reliable review: it's much more authoritative and is more carefully reviewed.
 * A nit: "Meta-analysis" should be "Meta-analyses", right?
 * The phrase "review literature" is a bit ambiguous; are we talking about the New York Review of Books? Perhaps "scholarly review articles" instead?
 * Wikilink to Meta-analysis.
 * Good points. Draft altered accordingly. Vassyana (talk) 07:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the latest draft looks good. Eubulides (talk) 08:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thank you for the constructive feedback. Vassyana (talk) 10:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Given the points made in the previous discussion section, I see a potential problem with


 * As was discussed above, an announcement such as "Alzheimer's breakthrough" may be far more widely published than the actual research paper(s), which may make a far less confident claim. So could we think about whether the "in proportion" could be improved? Jayen 466 17:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe reword it as "Wikipedia articles should cover all significant views, doing so in proportion to their published prominence among reliable sources."? That is, it's prominence among the reliable sources that counts, not overall prominence. Eubulides (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The potential problem with that is, we have classified mainstream newspapers as reliable sources as well. Jayen 466 18:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This is why MEDRS encourages people to cite the actual paper instead of the newspaper's version of the paper. I think we can consider these two proposals separately:  if #News orgs points out (per the proposal above) that newspapers aren't necessarily the single best source for medical facts, then #Scholarship doesn't have to be as restrictive about the general case.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That is fine for medicine, but I think any scientist would be able to offer examples from his or her field. This report on using salt water as a combustible fuel may be one such example; while I am not an expert on the physics of water, and you should take what I say with a grain of salt (pun intended), I have heard it argued that these reports failed to mention that the amount of energy that needs to be input to make salt water burn far exceeds that released by the combustion. I fear that generally, items are sometimes deemed newsworthy even if they have only a tenuous grounding in scientific fact, whether it's medicine or any other field. Jayen 466 22:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, how about this rewording instead? ""Wikipedia articles should cover all significant views, doing so in proportion to their published prominence among the most reliable sources." The new words here are "the most". Eubulides (talk) 22:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that could work, well done! Jayen 466 22:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Revised accordingly. Vassyana (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

In general, I like what Vassyana has written. The last bullet currently reads: "* Single studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred to provide proper context, where available." and I'm inclined to suggest a few minor changes: Neither of these changes are truly important to me; they're just suggestions. Thanks for your work on this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not "single studies" (a systematic review can be considered a single "study", since it hopes to disprove a hypothesis) so much as it's "unreplicated experimental results" that are at issue.
 * It might be worth naming both narrative reviews and systematic reviews along with meta-analyses.
 * What about replacing "single studies" with "isolated studies"? Would that accurately convey the point? Vassyana (talk) 07:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Works for me. (Thanks for your corrections today.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The page later uses the more-standard term "primary sources"; how about if we use that here, with a wikilink, and then mention a single, isolated study as an example? Something like this:
 * A primary source, such as a paper reporting experimental results, is usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. The reliability of a primary source depends on the field. Primary sources relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive. Avoid undue weight when using primary sources in such fields. Meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred to provide proper context, where available.
 * Eubulides (talk) 17:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, there's a lot of baggage with the term "primary source" that I would rather not drag here. For example, a common argument has been that only the lab notes are primary sources, while the study papers are secondary. I would prefer to avoid opening that can of worms here. Vassyana (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think we're better off avoiding that term here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

General question
Feel free to respond here or on the page the question came up, WT:WIAGA, or not. There's a question over whether this sentence should be re-inserted into criteria for nominating Good Articles: "It is generally acceptable for good articles to contain a small percentage of sources with borderline reliability; however, most sources should be reliable". I'm uncomfortable with trying to define a class of "not reliable, but not that bad" (IMDB was suggested) sources that might sometimes be acceptable in Good Articles; what do you guys think? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it really depends on how the sources are used. When I think of "not-the-best sources" (my preferred wording) I think of self-publications by experts, or primary sources. I would never use such a source for information that doesn't seem in line with the reliable sources present, but I would use it to provide more context for something from an RS. Thus, I think editors have gone over the line if removal of all not-the-best sources leave not just little details, but a significant fact/claim unreferenced. Someguy1221 (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * One of these days we will actually put the RSN mantra in WP:RS: "No source is universally reliable.  Whether or not a source is reliable depends on how you use it."
 * I think it's acceptable for GAs to have some weak sources, particularly for non-controversial statements. It might be better to cite a textbook for some widely accepted fact, or a newspaper for a political event, but when the fact in question is not actually being challenged, it's probably okay to support it with, say, a website run by a small organization, or someone's lecture notes.  Complete perfection of all sources is perhaps best reserved for FAs.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That resonates with my view exactly. Horses for courses. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT vs.WP:RS
Having read the prohibitions regarding the use of trivial sources in WP:NOT, I propose that we change the wording of WP:RS so that it addresses these issues. Whilst I am not proposing that WP:RS should repeat these concerns verbatim, at the very least I think there should be some sort of link to WP:NOT. If you compare and contrast these two sections, would anyone agree that they need to reflect each other more closely?--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * They relate to completely different things. WP:RS refers to the reliability of using a newspaper as a source.  WP:NOT refers to writing articles about recent news events.  Apples and oranges. Blueboar (talk) 15:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Since the content of articles about recent news events is likely to be drawn from newspapers and similar sources, I would have thought they were dependent on one another. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think they are dependant on each other... in the case of an article on a recent event, first comes the decision as to whether to create an article or not... that is where NOT#NEWS plays a role. If the decision is to create the article, then we have to write it, and use reliable sources to support what we write.  That is where RS#News organizations might enter the picture.  They apply to different parts of the article writing process.  Also, RS#News organizations discusses using news media as a citation in any article, not just those on recent events. Blueboar (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Blueboar. Any apparent problem is a matter of vagueness in N and NOTNEWS. A news article isn't rendered unreliable by reporting something new. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * However, a news article is rendered unreliable if it is "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism" per WP:NOT. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You are conflating distinct concepts. "Not appropriate for Wikipedia" is not the same as "unreliable". You have noted in notability discussions (no pun) that just because we can verifiably and reliably relate some information doesn't mean we should. To take two further examples from WP:NOT, WP:NOTDICDEF and WP:NOTGUIDE both exclude content that can be reliably sourced. Vassyana (talk) 14:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Vassyana is right. Many reliable sources present information that is not appropriate for Wikipedia for some other reason (e.g., not being encyclopedic).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Third party
I cannot find where the term 'third party' is directly explained. It links to No_original_research, which doesn't directly explain it either. --Matt Lewis (talk) 09:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Try Wiktionary: third_party. The second definition is the relevant one. Note please that "third party" is used loosely and is not meant to imply that all disputes/other situations always have exactly two sides that are always represented by exactly one party each. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Does this qualify as a Reliable Source?
If the subject (David Copperfield (illusionist)‎) of an article links from his website to (the memorial site for Copperfield's father), would material in the rememberly site be considered a reliable source? -- The Red Pen of Doom  03:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * See notice at top of page. Questions about specific sources go to the noticeboard. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 01:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops, missed that. -- The Red Pen of Doom  10:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

When any published source is biased by definition?
How can you deal with the case where any published source is, by definition, biased? This usually happens in the case of arguments over significance of topic.

This arose in a discussion of whether Second Life should be regarded as a "game" or not. There are several books published about Second Life which mention that it is not a game (although they do not discuss or justify this point). Arguably, however, these sources must be biased because spreading the "mystique" of Second Life being more than a game would be necessary for the books to be published and then to sell (they are all sold by commercial, not academic, presses). Many regular people, however, consider Second Life to be at most a game and at worst a talker - but a book pointing this out wouldn't sell.

WP:RS allows judgment of "bias" only in "questionable sources". I think this should be revised - just because a statement appears in a fact-checked book (for example, in the foreward) does not mean that particular statement has been fact-checked or is unbiased. Either this, or all commercial publishers should be flagged as questionable sources because, ultimately, they publish books that will make money.

161.73.146.153 (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Not all sources are biased here. Some sources classify Second Life as a game... some state that it isn't a game. Then there are sources that discuss the debate that exists over how to classify it, such as MSNBC.  Our policy is to remain neutral on the issue, to discuss both sides of the issue.  The facts are that different people have different opinions on whether it should be classified as a game or not.
 * Taking your question beyond the specific... if all reliable sources agree on some point, then Wikipedia must follow suit. We can not (and should not) insert our own opinions, or opinions that are not discussed in reliable sources.  That is at the core of several of our Policies and guidelines, including WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE.  Blueboar (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This is just a fundamental misunderstanding of our NPOV policy: All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.  The point here is that the encyclopedia article we write should not be biased towards one view or another, not that sources that express a particular viewpoint are disallowed. Dlabtot (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * NPOV is exactly what I'm talking about, though. The problem is that if commercial publishers are seen as reliable sources, then a company can publish a product (such as SL), and hype its significance to the public.  Commercial publishers then publish books about it, not because it is truly significant, but because they can benefit from the hype and hear the sweet cha-ching; and of course all those books vouch for significance, since their target market is those who've bought into the hype.  And.. suddenly, the claim of significance, originally just a few lines on an advert, has been magically whitewashed into a "reliably sourced" statement that can appear in an encyclopedia?  That just seems fundamentally wrong, and not what the policies should be allowing, no matter how they're written now.
 * 161.73.146.153 (talk) 18:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You are making this much harder than it is.
 * If you suspect bias in a source, then you present the plain, unadorned facts that form the basis for your suspicion (but not your suspicion, which would violate WP:NOR). So you write "Jane Smith, author of the best-selling book on the social aspects of Second Life, says that it is more than a game."  Where reliable sources disagree, you present all sides:  "but John Jones, reviewer at Games Mag, says that Second Life is just a game."
 * If you want to get into the motivations of different sources to promote it in different ways, then you absolutely must have a published reliable source that specifically and directly addresses that issue. In the absence of such a source, you must omit your personal views on why certain sources tend to hold certain views.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Too academic and corporatist
Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise presents some proposals to water down WP:N in ways that I think would be potentially disastrous. WP:N has a clear deletionist bias that is a major reason for the dissatisfactions that led to Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise. However any version of WP:N, however good, has to rely on WP:RS, and any defects in WP:RS cause defects in WP:N.

WP:RS looks OK to me for "academic" subjects where there are plenty of peer-reviewed articles - I've had no problems over whether specific sources for paleontology articles are eligible. However the situation in popular culture topics is a mess. I'll stick with the sub-domain in which I've done some editing, video games. The main sources WP:RS appears to accept are articles in "big name" hard-copy or online mags. However there's widespread dissatisfaction with these: reviewers admit they have very little time to play the games they are reviewing; they sometimes even misread game manuals and print their misinterpretations; mags are under commercial pressure to make reviews more favourable; there are even reports of game publishers trying to influence Metacritic! Real gamers don't rely on these mags, they rely on top designers' / developers' blogs and on the top clans in their respective games - which WP:RS disallows.

WP:RS needs to sort out such problems before dissatisfaction reaches the level it has for WP:N, as I would hate to see similar watering-down proposals for WP:RS. -- Philcha (talk) 11:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This is amusing... to combat "watering-down" WP:N, you propose that we water-down WP:RS. I understand how frustrating Wikipedia's rules and guidelines are for those who write on pop culture topics. We have to write guidelines that fit Wikipedia as a whole, and many of the sources that discuss pop culture don't fit a  definition of reliability that is useful for Wikipeida as a whole.  It makes sense that those who want to write articles on pop-culture want an exemption of these sources.  Of course, on the other side of the coin are those who say that Wikipedia has too many articles on pop-culture as it is, and we should actually tighten the rules to limit them.  It's the old "inclusionist" vs "exclusionist" debate that has been a part of Wikipedia since it started.  We are at our best when we blend both extremes... inclusionists write new articles that expand Wikipedia, exclusionists remind us that some things are not encyclopedic.  By debating such issues on a case by case basis, we end up with the right balance. The place to debate this is at the Wikiproject level. Blueboar (talk) 17:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not proposing to "water-down" WP:RS - I've no patience with fanboys, POV-pushers or promoters.
 * In principle I agree that "The place to debate this is at the Wikiproject level". But:
 * the current academic and corporatist bias of WP:RS' phrasing makes such discussions unproductive as there are is usually someone around who takes the most restrictive interpretation of WP:RS.
 * without a guideline that is rigorous but not biassed towards / against certain types of subject, it's too easy for fanboys, POV-pushers or promoters to set up their own Wikiprojects or pack existing ones (many of which are somnolent to say the least) and define the rules to suit themselves. This is a concern raised several times in the debate about Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise - if you check my voting record you'll see that I think it's a very serious concern.
 * I also tend to agree that "inclusionist" vs "exclusionist" debates should be settled on a case by case basis, but such discussions become shouting matches if the guidelines show unclarity, bias or maladaptation to the subject area.
 * I don't pretend to have easy solutions since the issue is complex and, like most editors, my experience is limited to a handful of subject areas. I suggest the sensible course is to start by compiling a list of the areas in which the shoe seems to pinch. -- Philcha (talk) 10:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

A work of fiction (or fact) not a reliable source for its content?
According to the article at present, a work of fiction (or fact) - A Christmas Carol, say - is not a reliable source for information that appears within it (there is a character called 'Scrooge', say). The idea that a third-party source of information about what appears in a work of fiction (or fact) is more reliable a source than the work itself is untenable. Using my example, we're supposed to regard various sources telling us that a character called Scrooge appears in A Christmas Carol as being more reliable than actually reading A Christmas Carol? I don't think so. This guideline needs amending to make clear that a work of fiction (or fact) is a reliable source for its content. Otherwise we are going to get into a reducto ad absurdum; what is the source showing that your reference or citation says what you say it says? Cuddlyopedia (talk) 08:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This has never been true. Between WP:RS, WP:PSTS, and WP:SPS, I don't see how anyone could honestly arrive at the conclusion that a work of fiction is not an RS for what it, itself, says. Third-party sources are needed for any manner of interpretation of such a work, but they still have to be reliable in their own right. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty close to calling me an idiot! :) If you can't see how, then it must be obvious to you why not; and if it's obvious why not, then you should be able to point out to me why not? My problem is the requirement for a third party source - how can a published work be a third-party source for itself? At the very least, the guideline is not clear on this subject, and a specific statement that published works are reliable sources for their content should be included for the avoidance of doubt. Cuddlyopedia (talk) 09:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Uh, sorry. I see a post like this, I sort of figure you came here after hearing this from someone in dispute resolution. I was referring to their hypothetical selves. Someguy1221 (talk) 16:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:RS has a few problems. Here's what it says:
 * Primary sources — writings on or about a topic by key figures of the topic — may be allowable, but should be restricted to purely descriptive explanations of the subject or its core concepts. They should not be used for interpretation or evaluation; use the interpretations and evaluations of reliable secondary sources for that purpose. Tertiary sources — compendiums, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources — may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion.
 * Critique:
 * "Primary sources — writings on or about a topic by key figures of the topic — may be allowable, but should be restricted to purely descriptive explanations of the subject or its core concepts" does not fit well with current scientific debates, where there often only a handful of protagonists, who would count as "key figures". In such cases "the interpretations and evaluations of reliable secondary sources" are less authoritative because the protagonists are the experts in the field.
 * "Tertiary sources" are often essential because secondary sources, e.g. peer-reviewed journal articles take some important points for granted because they were agreed long ago, avoid some becuase their scope is too wide for a journal article, or avoid certain topics because they are still poorly understood, and only the better text books explain such points and the reasons for uncertainty. I found this the hard way when working on Arthropod and Mollusc.-- Philcha (talk) 10:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have rewritten the section. There was a lot in the previous wording that simply confusing and some things that were, frankly, wrong.  I think we do need to state clearly the few the key points that are commonly the cause of debates: a) primary sources are considered reliable in some situations, but are considered unreliable in other situations. b) articles should rely primarily on secondary sources. Blueboar (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Are court documents reliable sources?
On a Talk Page discussion, an editor has put foward the opinion that court documents are not acceptable sources for wikipedia. I looked through some policies and couldn't find any information referencing this. Is there anyone with experience who'd like to take a look at the discussion? McJeff (talk) 04:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It depends on the circumstances. Court documents are typically primary sources, and as per WP:RS it's generally better to cite secondary sources. For specific facts, such as the date the judge ruled and so forth, court documents are reliable; but for other things (e.g., if a document contains an argument by a plaintiff, and if Wikipedia cites that argument in support of a claim) they are not particularly reliable. Looking at Tucker Max, this particular case, it seems clear to me that we have a case of WP:OR; the first paragraph calls on primary sources to advance a theory that the primary sources themselves do not directly support. I'll follow up on the talk page and tag the section. Eubulides (talk) 04:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It is always better to cite secondary sources. That's the best way to stay out of trouble. AdjustShift (talk) 13:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Generally, as a lawyer, I would treat trial court documents (including judicial decisions) like primary sources and therefore with much caution (since many poorly-trained lawyers from third-tier schools tend to play fast and loose with the facts and law in their briefs). Appellate decisions tend to be a bit more reliable and neutral since the appellate court has the benefit of looking at the whole record after the parties and the trial judge have fought over the issues; also, appellate courts tend to have law clerks, staff attorneys, and editors who revise opinions for accuracy.  But it's important when citing opinions for factual statements to make sure that one is citing them only for (1) undisputed facts or (2) facts which were found to be true by the trial court and affirmed on appeal.  Anything else is still technically disputed even after the appellate decision comes out (because an appellate court can't find facts on its own, it can only review the evidence and confirm the trial court's findings or reject them and remand for a new trial).  For example, a decision affirming the sustaining of a demurrer may describe a factual situation that is a bit wacky because both the trial court and the appellate court in examining the demurrer are required to assume the facts are true for the purpose of that exercise (but that doesn't necessarily make the facts really true).  --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Reliable source question - Japanreview.net
Hi! On Talk:Debito_Arudou the subject in question, Debito Arudou, says that Japanreview.net is not a reliable source, while some other users say it is. I would like to have some thoroughness and I would like some more opinions on whether it is a reliable source. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please take your question to the reliable sources noticeboard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Explaining revert
I reverted this set of changes. It expanded the guideline unnecessarily and was also largely a regurgitation of other policies. Both points have been seen as a serious problem with this page in the past. I restored this change because the edit makes a valid point and the previous language contradicts other standing principles. Vassyana (talk) 12:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's important to make a distinction between a source that's not reliable, but is still not fringe, (eg. an article in a newly established minor magazine), and a fringe one (eg. a magazine published by the Communist Party of America. I've pared down the addition to one paragraph. lk (talk) 09:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Self-fulfilling verifiability
Cross-posting from WT:V - raising an issue there that may be of interest to watchers of this page Fritzpoll (talk) 10:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * By chance I just posted about a specific example of exactly this issue  at the noticeboard!  Times are hard in the news rooms! Carol Moore 16:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Semi-open tertiary encyclopedias [Store norske leksikon and Citizendium]
A development in Norway's largest and most respected paper encyclopedia Store norske leksikon brings up a question which might be of interest here. I think the issue also has relevance when discussing Citizendium.

Up until the end of 2008, Store norske has followed the traditional encyclopedia model, very much like Britannica. However, they have recently announced that they will "open up" the encyclopedia from 2009. The Google translated press message is here. (Not a perfect translation, Google tried translating "nynorsk" to "English"). The new model is not as open as the Wikipedia "anyone can edit" model, in that they will have around 1000 "fagansvarlig", people responsible for a specific topic in the encyclopedia.

The model seems to have some resemblance to the Citizendium model, which features a tiered system, with some users deemed experts in the field. This provides some measure of review and fact-checking.

I am interested in a discussion of whether sources like the upcoming version of Store norske leksikon and Citizendium qualify as "reliable sources" which meet the verifiability requirements of Wikipedia. (In the case of SNL, even if the upcoming version is not reliable, the old versions which are on paper are most certainly reliable, and will remain reliable.) Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Although I think the wording of WP:RS has excessive academic bias, I'd say open encyclopedias are way off-limits. Irrespective of legalistic debates about the meaning of WP:RS, there's a fairly simple but serious practical danger that one "open encyclopedia" cites another,which cites another, ... back to the first. So for example some POV-pusher could create such a circle of citations for a personal prejudice. -- Philcha (talk) 08:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I concur. We have enough problems as is with articles being vandalized on a daily basis.  I have seen major articles like World Wide Web and Freeway get badly vandalized and NO ONE NOTICES for five months.   It would be too easy for a clever POV-pusher to insert circular references and no one would catch it for a year (if ever).  --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, that is what worried me about the opening of Store Norske Leksikon. That has been the largest and most respected of the Norwegian encyclopedias, and it's reliability for us will take a dive from new year. That will reduce us to referring the old paper version which remains reliable if more and more out of date as time passes. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposing addition to News Organisations
Given the above thread and past encounters with this problem, I was wondering if a note about the possibility that Wikipedia is used by the news organisations should be included? Something along the lines of: Or something more eloquent. What do people think? Fritzpoll (talk) 15:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Reputable news organisations have been known to use inaccurate versions of Wikipedia articles as the sole source for their work. While it is impossible to ensure that this indirect self-referencing does not take place, editors should take care with inserting controversial or suspect information that material from news organisations is not the only existing source.  Generally, a source that predates the material's inclusion in Wikipedia is preferable.
 * It's a good addition. I tightened it down a little bit and avoided painting all news orgs with a broad brush. Good revision? Vassyana (talk) 15:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Just wanted it on file somewhere for us to refer to it all later on.  Hopefully see what other people think first. 16:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed expansion of #Overview
I'd like to take this sentence from the end of WP:RS: "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process." and turn it into its own paragraph: Proper sourcing always depends on context. No source is universally or inherently reliable because the reliability of any given source depends not only on the source itself, but also on how the source is used in the article. Common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process. We keep having to say this. It's practically the mantra at RSN. Does anyone object? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No Discussion on Rewriting "Extremist/fringe" Section to Advocacy-related "Questionable Sources" Section??
I note the the "Extremist/fringe" Section has been changed to an Advocacy-related "Questionable Sources" Section - without any discussion here. Advocacy groups are something we've discussed here a lot before. New proposals, including my own, have always been shot down before on the "we have to judge them case by case" argument. So this also seems overly broad, more so than what I proposed in the day, so I'm just surprised there's no discussion and this is slipping into becoming policy.

September 18 "Extremist/fringe Sources" Version
 * Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as extremist should be used only as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities, or where they are necessary to explain other groups or events; any information used must be directly relevant to the subject. The material taken from such sources should not be contentious, and it should not involve claims made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources. Articles should not be based primarily on such sources.
 * Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as extremist should be used only as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities, or where they are necessary to explain other groups or events; any information used must be directly relevant to the subject. The material taken from such sources should not be contentious, and it should not involve claims made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources. Articles should not be based primarily on such sources.
 * Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as extremist should be used only as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities, or where they are necessary to explain other groups or events; any information used must be directly relevant to the subject. The material taken from such sources should not be contentious, and it should not involve claims made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources. Articles should not be based primarily on such sources.


 * Organizations and individuals that promote what are widely agreed to be fringe theories (that is, views held by a small minority, in direct contrast with the mainstream view in their field), such as certain forms of revisionist history or pseudoscience, should only be used as sources about themselves or, if correctly attributed as being such, to detail the views of the proponents of that subject. Use of these sources must not obfuscate the description of the mainstream view, nor should these fringe sources be used to describe the mainstream view or the level of acceptance of the fringe theory. When using such sources, reliable mainstream sources must be found in order to allow the dispute to be characterized fairly, presenting the mainstream view as the mainstream, and the fringe theory as a minority fringe view.


 * Certain extremist and fringe sources may be entirely excluded from Wikipedia if there is no independent acknowledgment that the sources in question are representative of an opinion prominent enough for inclusion.'''

October 8 "Questionable Sources" Version
 * Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Questionable sources include websites and publications that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, are promotional in nature, or express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist or pseudoscience. Because of this, they can be treated similarly to the way self-published sources are treated and should not be used to support any contentious claims. Questionable sources should be used only as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities. Any information used must be directly relevant to the subject. Articles should not be based primarily on such sources. Certain extremist and fringe sources may be entirely excluded if they are not representative of an opinion prominent enough for inclusion. The material taken from such sources should not be contentious and must not involve claims made about third parties. Fringe and extremist sources must not be used to obscure or describe the mainstream view, nor used to indicate a fringe theory's level of acceptance.
 * Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Questionable sources include websites and publications that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, are promotional in nature, or express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist or pseudoscience. Because of this, they can be treated similarly to the way self-published sources are treated and should not be used to support any contentious claims. Questionable sources should be used only as sources about themselves and in articles about themselves or their activities. Any information used must be directly relevant to the subject. Articles should not be based primarily on such sources. Certain extremist and fringe sources may be entirely excluded if they are not representative of an opinion prominent enough for inclusion. The material taken from such sources should not be contentious and must not involve claims made about third parties. Fringe and extremist sources must not be used to obscure or describe the mainstream view, nor used to indicate a fringe theory's level of acceptance.

Carol Moore 01:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc


 * Overall, I'm not entirely satisfied with the direction of the changes. I suspect that the recent writers aren't quite grasping the point.  The "Extremist" stuff is supposed to deal with, say, publications by the Animal Liberation Front, or the Flat Earth Society.  They seem to be re-writing it so that it could apply to "normal" minorities, like small (but officially registered) political parties with unpopular views.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * while I think this wording could use some tweaking, I think the overall idea is an improvement, neutrality-wise. 'questionable sources' is more descriptive and to-the-point than 'extremist' or 'fringe', which both have pejorative connotations.  need to think about it a bit more, though.-- Ludwigs 2  19:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We might need both, because there are certainly sources that are questionable but not fringe or extremist, and sources that are unquestionably fringe or extremist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * yeah, that makes a certain amount of sense. do you think two separate sections, or maybe split the text of this section into subsections?  -- Ludwigs 2  20:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * My problem is with the wording "Questionable sources include websites and publications that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, are promotional in nature" since they could be interpreted to mean sites that publish a lot of opinion promoting an allegedly minority view, from both lay people and experts, saying that even if a renowned academic expert published there with footnotes it's too "questionable" a source to use the article. Right now the only examples given are the previously used ones that were considered extremist or fringe before, so unless there is some expansion to some other example, it just seems to allow a certain subjectivity to creep in that people can misuse. So unless those who wrote or accept this wording can insert in the text other examples of what they mean by "questionable," I think we should change it back to "extremist and fringe." Carol Moore 22:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

I took part in the edits last month. There was a bit of back and forth and some discussion on this talk page. The idea was to bring the section more in line with what is at WP:V which talks about Questionable Sources that include many types of sources that are questionable, not just extremist sources. The section on extremist/fringe sources was removed a few days ago without discussion. I have reinserted it. LK (talk) 02:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I see one post by an anonymous IP. Doesn't seem like much discussion to me. Best to reexplain with example of what kind of source your are talking about to make it make any sense, per my comment above. Carol Moore 04:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc


 * LK is correct in saying that this was discussed at WP:V (see: WP:V, the conversation bleeds over into several other threads as well).
 * We do need to remember that WP:V is a Policy page, and that WP:RS is a guideline designed to explain one aspect of WP:V. Thus, if WP:V is changed, it may require updating this page to better reflect what WP:V now says.  I strongly urge anyone who watches this page to also place WP:V on their watchlist (and vise-versa).
 * That said... Carolmooredc is also correct in saying that, before you update this page, it is helpful to a) explain that a change was made at WP:V that requires a change here and b) include a summary of why the change was made to WP:V (or at least a link to the discussion at WP:V).
 * And that said... I support any effort to avoid conflicts between the two pages. Blueboar (talk) 13:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

<---Indent: First, I don't have a problem with including a new section that is just a repeat of WP:V though it does make page become more and more redundant. Second, [User:Lawrencekhoo|LK] doesn't refer explicitly to the V:Talk page. And that discussion doesn't seem to be finished or to have considered the issue I am bringing up. In fact, here's what I just put there: Having heard one of the editors involved in these changes misquote WP:V and WP:RS essentially to assert that a certain political/economic class of widely quoted sources are basically all fringe wackos who aren't reliable at wikipedia, you'll have to pardon me if I grow a bit suspicious when the editor makes/supports changes that make pages with "opinons" be the first most questionable category!! The relevant changes are in the second sentence.
 * Original Sept 30 version: Questionable sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions.
 * New October 10th Version: Questionable sources include websites and publications that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, are promotional in nature, or express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist or pseudoscience.

Because sites that rely "heavily on rumors and personal opinions" has been moved up first it casts suspicion on many sites (left, right and libertarian) that offer opinions promoting allegedly minority views, often from both lay people and experts, and infers that even if a renowned academic expert published there with footnotes, it's too "questionable" a source to use the article! I think it is best to go back to the original so the emphasis starts with extremist and promotional. Also "personal opinions" might be modified to "lay person personal opinions" just be 100% clear. Carol Moore 15:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc
 * I would definitely put any source that "relies heavily on rumors and personal opinions" into the Questionable source category, so I think this is a good change. Remember that "Questionable" is not the same as "Unreliable".  We can use Questionable sources, but there are restrictions as to how we can use them.  In short, they can be considered reliable in some situations but not reliable in other situations.  A Questionable source is certainly reliable for statements as to the opinion of the source's author.  In most cases it isn't reliable for a statement of fact.
 * To me, "questionable sources" is a fairly broad category... at the "somewhat questionable" end are mainstream political advocacy groups. Extremist and Fringe sources fall at the "highly questionable" end of the spectrum.  So it makes sence to me that we first define the broad category... and then narrow things down to the sub-categories. Blueboar (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It makes sense the way you say it, but not the way it reads or could be interpreted. As I've said before, the spectrum language needs to be in there and there needs to be a way to make it clear that a notable person who footnotes his material can be quoted for fact but a layperson even with footnotes cannot. And where does, for example, a Nobel winning economist publishing an article on economics in a large conservative paper fit? Only useable for opinion? Or useable for fact?? Or do people have to keep running to WP:RS/noticeboard to clear up something that better guidelines might make clearer??  Carol Moore 16:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc
 * hmmm... I think part of the issue here is that the word 'source' is used interchangeably to refer to venues and people (thus Carol's objection that a reliable person can publish something in an unreliable venue, and less commonly vice-versa.  maybe expanding the description like so (rough draft): "Questionable sources include websites and publications that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions or are promotional in nature, or organization or individuals who express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist or pseudoscientific.  It may be necessary to evaluate the venue and the author independently."  does that move in the right direction?  -- Ludwigs 2  19:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Definitely an improvement. I keep thinking in terms of a chart, and depending on the score the source got on different variables, it would show how far along the spectrum they are. Weeee!  Maybe I'll play with it in spare time ;-) Carol Moore 19:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Sports discussion forums
Websites such as [www.ten-tenths.com], [www.totalf1.com] and [www.speedtv.com/forums] could be useful for establishing consensus to back up statements such as 'with widespread disagreement from viewers'. Are they considered reliable sources in this context?--MartinUK (talk) 10:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You should post this question at WP:RSN, which is dedicated to answering such questions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this a Reliable Source
This is being used as a ref on a controversial article that has seen a lot of edit wars and am curious if it can be described as a RS IMO it is an overly long blog. BigDunc Talk 13:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a personal web page which are not considered a reliable source except under very limited circumstances such as where the author of the page is a well respected authority in the field who is known for careful research and fact checking or where the "web page" in question itself has achieved notability and is the topic of the article for which the page is being used as a source. This page does not appear to fall in those categories.-- The Red Pen of Doom  13:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You should post this question at WP:RSN, which is dedicated to answering such questions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Will do thanks for the comments and pointers. BigDunc  Talk 18:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources regarding works of fiction
A group of CfD deletions has started to revolve around the use of reliable sources about works of fiction. As part of one CfD, for example, this source, which describes the series as starring "Tony Shalhoub as an obsessive-compulsive cop named Adrian Monk" was used as part of an effort to justify including the character Adrian Monk in a now-deleted Category:Fictional obsessive-compulsives. The CfD in question boiled down to the question of the sources provided addressing the WP:OR issues raised by the nominator and other participants who advocated for deletion. After further discussion at this DRV, the issue seems to boil down to two reasons offered by Kbdank71, the closing administrator, for why the sources provided do not trump the claim of original research:
 * 1) A review of a film or television program is by definition an "opinion piece" and can thus be excluded (this diff, and even more clearly at the following diff);
 * 2) The ony reliable source about a fictional character is from its author or writer. ("The only persons who can accurately describe Monk as obsessive-compulsive are the writers of the show, and I haven't seen any sources pointing to them." this diff).

Can anyone here offer any guidance as to how these sources should have been treated in this case, and the general question of treating newspaper and magazine articles about works of fiction as reliable sources? Alansohn (talk) 13:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This probably would be better at RS/N, but I agree with you about sourcing. The numbered items above essentially reverse the priority usually assigned to sources. Published reviews of fiction are independent sources, and hardly ever considered as mere opinion pieces, but rather as reliable sources. (It is usually easy enough to separate out reviewers' opinions -e.g. "this is the greatest TV series ever.").  If they were not considered reliable sources, it would be impossible for any fictional topics to be treated in wikipedia, as they would all fail notability for not having independent reliable sources.  Of course the creator of a work of fiction is decisive about many aspects of a fictional character, but not about such things - where disagreements are hard to think of in any case.  In the given example, Adrian Monk, the character is very, very clearly written to be obsessive-compulsive.  It would be surprising that the words don't appear somewhere in scripts, and it would be hard to believe that any substantial review of the character would not descibe him as such. Note that ' "adrian monk" obsessive compulsive ' gets 11 gscholar hits and 21 gbooks hits, some from academic psychological sources. Literature has often been used as a source of insight into psychology by psychiatrists, psychologists and philosophers and it is not very hard to think of psychiatric conditions named after fictional characters, or to find statements like: "The traditional example of obsessive compulsive disorders is Lady Macbeth".John Z (talk) 09:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * What you've been told is in conflict with how notability is considered, and John Z is correct. Reviews from established critics or from reliable sources (such as the example SFGate one) are appropriate RS for information.  Input from the original creators is useful, but it is a primary source.  --M ASEM  13:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Mention YouTube/etc as a Source in This Article?
Youtube.com comes up a lot on WP:RSN: #1,  #2,  #3,  #4,  #5

Today I was cleaning up a biography using what I remembered of above consensuses and as I explained on rhe biography's talk page. But maybe I remembered it wrong. Plus there's a big difference between a news channel's archived video and such video used legally or illegally (and edited who knows how) on youtube and self-created videos, which can be high quality or by the subject of an article, or can be totally specious. So it would be helpful to list video under news, self-published and questionable sources, with whatever explanation is necessary. Any thoughts? Carol Moore 20:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc


 * Most video sources can be treated exactly the same as any other type of source... to determine reliability we look at the same things we do for print or electronic sources... what is the reputation of the author (film maker), who is the publisher (is it self-produced or produced by a known media outlet, educational org. etc.), was there a reliable fact checking process, etc.


 * Video sources have the same range of reliability as print sources. A Ken Burns documentary on "Cowboys", that is produced by PBS is going to be reliable.  Joe Blow's self-created webcam rant on why George Bush is the best/worst President ever is not.


 * That said, there is a problem with using YouTube as a venue for video sources (which are stated well elsewhere, so I will not list them again). While the original Ken Burns/PBS documentary on "Cowboys" may be reliable, a copy of that documentary (or part of it) posted to YouTube is not. Blueboar (talk) 14:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

What about Hulu and FanCast? I know that we can't use YouTube because of copyright concerns, but Hulu and FanCast seem to be sure to follow copyright laws. Little Red Riding Hood  talk  01:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It is actually quite simple folks... If a video hosting website obeys copywrite laws, then we can use it for what is called a "courtesy link"... we should cite the original production information and tack on something like: "courtesy link hosted by X". This, of course, applies to video that has been created by someone other than the person who posted it to the website.  User-created videos (or videos that have been edited by a user) would fall under the provisions of WP:SPS (self-published sources), and are subject to its limitations.  In short, video sources are no different than print sources. Blueboar (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * My question is, since people ask a lot of questions about this on the noticeboard, should video be in this article? Carol Moore 18:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Economical with the truth
There's an interesting article in The Economist this week. This says that prominent papers in leading journals are quite likely to be wrong and suggests why this happens. Two passages are quite shocking:


 * ...incorrect research partly on a study of 49 papers in leading journals that had been cited by more than 1,000 other scientists. They were, in other words, well-regarded research. But he found that, within only a few years, almost a third of the papers had been refuted by other studies.


 * There also seems to be a bias towards publishing positive results. For instance, a study earlier this year found that among the studies submitted to America’s Food and Drug Administration about the effectiveness of antidepressants, almost all of those with positive results were published, whereas very few of those with negative results were.

This has some implications for our guideline which seems to overrate such sources:


 *  Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources...

This is a bold claim and yet it is not supported by any sources and, if this were an article, would be attacked as weasely OR. Since we now have sources indicating that academic peer-review is no guarantee of accuracy, we should adjust our guideline accordingly.

Colonel Warden (talk) 09:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Henry H. Bauer's "filter" (diagram page 45) is a pretty good model. In Bauer's model, the worth of journal articles can be discerned from the presence or absence of future textbook citations. --Firefly322 (talk) 11:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The sad truth is that there's no guarantee of the reliability of any source. I'd advise caution with any source under 5 years old, for the reasons given in the Economist article. Even fequency of citation is not always a good guide, for exmaple Ruben & colleagues' articles on dinosaur respiration are generally cited and then ignored (see Physiology of dinosaurs). -- Philcha (talk) 13:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, the statement is still valid. We do not say that academic, peer-reviewed sources are always reliable... simply that they are usually the most reliable.  While a specific article from an academic, peer-reviewed publication may end up being flawed, as a class they are still more reliable than any other type of source.
 * Remember that no article in Wikipedia is ever "finished". Wikipeida articles are meant to evolve.  When new scholarship on a subject is published, our articles may need to be edited to reflect that new scholarship. If the sources that we rely on are discredited, the article needs to be edited to reflect that fact. Blueboar (talk) 13:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The actual paper being discussed is Neal S. Young*, John P. A. Ioannidis, Omar Al-Ubaydli,"Why Current Publication Practices May Distort Science" in PLoS Medicine v.5 no. 10, article e2  http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050201 open access link]; that's a some shortened summary, the full version is at   (The Economist paper shows dramatically the limitations of using even good magazines and newspapers--their article, as usual in such cases, gives no exact references to the actual published work.)   I'll make a more detailed comment later, but  but I want to make a general one quickly:
 * Of course most published findings are eventually proven false. That's the basis of the scientific method, that research will be repeated and corrected and refined and developed. Knowledge is not static. The scientific method requires subsequent analysis. At Wikipedia we do not try to do the necessary analysis of primary journal publication, but just report it in the context of analysis published elsewhere. Among the places this is done, is in subsequent journal publication itself in primary journals--most primary articles analyze the previous literature, not just cite it. There is no clear separation between primary and secondary publication in science. And our general rule is that RS is not a matter of yes or no, but a spectrum. And all the inaccuracies of publication in academic research are magnified and distorted in subsequent popular and textbook presentation. DGG (talk) 16:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for the link to the actual paper. About the only relevant economic concept they don't explicitly mention is that leading journals are positional goods, but they make the point well enough any way. The critique diminishes the gap in reliability between scientific and other publications, and for exactly the personal and economic reasons that affect reliability of non-scientific publications. -- Philcha (talk) 16:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

As blogs and other self-published sources become more dominant vis-a-vis what we consider currently reliable sources, this guideline may become problematic
I think we are beginning to see mainstream news organizations being eschewed more and more in favor of self-published sources. We also see that the newspaper industry is becoming increasingly oligopolistic, as more and more local papers are bought up by regional firms; and we see large media conglomerates taking control of the TV industry as well. I was told by a local TV station director recently that local TV as we know it is probably going to go away in the next 15 years.

In short, mainstream news is a particular market, shrinking in importance, that is being dominated by an ever-smaller group of companies. The ascendancy of blogs thus becomes beneficial in adequately covering local and niche phenomena and viewpoints. Yet, we lose the advantage of having blogs if we don't allow their content to be covered on Wikipedia.

I would support a softening of WP:RS to simply say that in the event of a dispute, the mainstream news organizations' content will be given greater weight than that of blogs. Or we might even get rid of the arbitrary distinction altogether. Many blogs potentially have as much readership and respect as small-circulation newspapers, so why necessarily favor the former? Newspapers get their facts wrong all the time.

Facts that are suspect can still be removed in the course of the normal editing process. I think the current WP:RS is simply going to become less and less viable in the future. We are already seeing some problems, as WP:RS results in the set of includable articles on Wikipedia becoming smaller and smaller.

Another thing to consider is that WP:RS could result in coverage biased toward government (the biggest publisher of all) and big business, rather than the grassroots (which produces a lot of self-published content).

Also, the theory behind using the mainstream media as our sources is that there is someone doing fact-checking, or who can punish a reporter who gets the facts wrong. Don't we have our own editorial processes, though, for reverting incorrect information and blocking those who deliberately introduce wrong information? Our guidelines are suited toward covering "scholarly" topics (i.e. whatever the government and/or other powerful interests have deemed worthy of funding and publishing a study/report on), and certain fictional content such as The Simpsons, but not toward covering many other topics. Simultaneous movement (talk) 19:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Blogs are a very tricky subject... there are some blogs that have won journalism awards, and have a earned a reputation for accuracy and reliability.  On the other hand, there are blogs that have not.  I agree that we should take a new look at this issue.  I think we should continue to set a very high bar, but it is time to allow certain blogs.
 * I see two criteria that would make a blog reliable... 1) News Blogs that have won major journalism awards. These should be treated the same as any other form of journalism, and should thus be reliable. 2) Personal blogs of recognized experts in their field of expertize. Here we would allow the blog due to the reputation of the blogger. I see no real difference between a self-published book or webpage that is written by recognized expert in some subject (which we would allow), and a blog written by that same expert (which at the moment we don't allow).  The fact that he or she writes in blog format does not really change the reliability of what he or she writes.
 * I would continue to disallow the vast majority of blogs. Blueboar (talk) 20:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I still have reservations about the second point, but I'm not sure it can be contained within this guideline. While making the few, exceptional journalistic blogs on par with a good newspaper is all well and good (hopefully they are still clear to distingish news from opinions), I've always seen the expert personal blogs as potentially problematic. And this concern revolves around the issues of notability and undue weight. If we say that the personal blog of an expert is a reliable source, that opens the door to everything a single individual writes being potentially notable and significant without passing through any kind of review. Even confining the reliability to posts inside the expert's actual field, many experts possess extremely controversial viewpoints they couldn't hope to pass peer review, while they still do work inside the mainstream. So I would support making clear that blogs that have received major journalistic awards, or have been widely and favorably cited by sources of established reliability are themselves reliable, I think the expert part should stay confined as it is presently in self-published sources. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I oppose weakening our standards for sourcing. Blogs might someday be accepted.  Right now, they're generally not, and we can Ignore All Rules in the meantime.
 * I'm also astonished to find that an editor with fewer than 50 edits (all in the last five days) is trying to re-write policy on this point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment on the content, not the contributor. WP:BOLD, WP:CCC. -- The Red Pen of Doom  21:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that a footnote in /Wikipedia:Verifiability which explicitly mentions blogs reads: "Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested ..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources. Carol Moore 23:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Online vs offline, new media, vs old media is really not the issue here. The issue is whether a source is '' "generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication."  A self-published source, by definition has only one person - the author - supposedly checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing.''  Dlabtot (talk) 23:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Theoretically – but the blogs can act as fact-checkers over one another and over big media. There are some highly-regarded lay scholars out there. In any event, in a news organization or scholarly publication, there always has to be an editor(s) who has the final say in deciding what gets published; and quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Reputation can play an important role as well in deterring both blogs and more mainstream publications from posting untrue information. If many highly-respected bloggers are saying the same thing, isn't that as good as an editorial review process? Simultaneous movement (talk) 00:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Highly-respected by whom? A multitude of self-published sources could perhaps be considered the equivalent of a mob. This policy already describes 'reliable sources' as those with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Whether or not a particular source meets that criteria is an editorial judgement arrived at through consensus. Dlabtot (talk) 01:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And who says that all of those bloggers aren't just copying each other? The temptation to copy from other published articles is a problem in traditional media -- see this column for an example -- but in my experience it's not just rampant, but expected, in new media.  The mere fact that one person invented something and one hundred others copied it does not make it accurate.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So then, why do we consider traditional media a reliable source? Just because, if we didn't, we would have no sources at all and therefore no encyclopedia? I just don't see a reason for saying that blogs, as a category, are to be considered unreliable. Who knows how much fact-checking a traditional newspaper editor actually does of their stories - are we not simply relying on the potential for the reporter to be punished after the fact for untruths, and that there is therefore a tendency for reporters to be accurate? But the same kind of incentives can exist in the blogosphere. Wikipedia theoretically doesn't have any fact-checking either, as anyone can post anything. But in practice it's highly accurate. Likewise, if in the blogosphere, someone posts factual inaccuracies, it will tend to be corrected (in the blogosphere as a whole, and sometimes even on that particular blog) as others post blog entries refuting them. Thus, if someone cites an untrue statement from a blog in a Wikipedia article, then someone else should be able to readily come up with refuting statements from blogs. And in some cases, it's just self-evident what the truth is, and the blog is cited so that it doesn't fall under WP:NOR. In any event, the fact that a blog is cited lets the reader reach his own conclusion, "Hmm, I'm not sure if I'm going to trust this statement..." Simultaneous movement (talk) 01:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 *  "So then, why do we consider traditional media a reliable source?"  What are you talking about?  Nowhere in this policy does it say or imply that traditional media is a reliable source.  Dlabtot (talk) 01:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We necessarily land inside a region of circular logic. A reliable source has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, but how is that reputation determined? We typically go with favorable citations or awards from other reliable sources. But what establishes those? SM, the solution is and has been to consider certain sources to simply be reliable, such as major newspapers, magazines, and journals that aren't known for publishing rumors, gossip and other crap. How they treat other sources can be used to build outwards from there. Deciding to throw WP:RS out the window (and that's pretty close to what we'd be doing, since anyone can make a blog post saying anything they damn well please) just complicates things, such as making notability completely meaningless, and making the neutral point of view impossible to determine, except via attrition of edit warriors. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It comes down to an editorial judgement, which on WP is arrived at through consensus. Dlabtot (talk) 03:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Except when a wikicop decides to delete something purely because it's only records about notability come from blogs.BcRIPster (talk) 04:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly the point. Policy/guidelines are supposed to result from consensus having gone a certain way so many times, so consistently that we figure for expediency's sake, we might as well give people the power to revert/delete something without bringing it to the talk page first, and simply citing WP:(insert acronym here). Then again, I guess I can always WP:IAR! I think I'll start making greater use of that. Simultaneous movement (talk) 05:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, your bias in favor of blogs demonstrates your abysmal ignorance of the information industry. Try researching a senior thesis sometime at a major research university and you might actually learn something.
 * First of all, WP:RS reflects respect for the filtering function which professional editors perform. Of course, most of them do a terrible job (I am thinking about the notorious incident documented in the book Burning Down My Master's House) but the knowledge that someone else is going to be reading one's work product before it gets published does have an impact on ethical professional journalists. In contrast, too many blogs are written in stream-of-consciousness style by inexperienced writers.
 * Second, unlike the vast majority of fly-by-night blogs, practically all reputable newspapers, periodicals and journals are regularly archived by a large number of databases that are maintained by huge corporations (Reed Elsevier, Thomson Reuters, Cengage, ProQuest, et al.) who make breadth, availability, reliability and accuracy (in the sense that their databases accurately reproduce what was published on a given date) their main selling points. A factual assertion whose only source is a blog depends on the availability of the blog's underlying Web server, which may be operated by some fly-by-night dot-com startup that could go broke and disappear tomorrow (as actually happened to many Web sites back in 2001).  And if the blog wasn't captured at some point by the Internet Archive, then it's as if the blog never existed.  In contrast, the giant information corporations have so many paying subscribers (in the form of governments, libraries, corporations, private investigators, law firms, and so on) that they will probably last as long as our current civilization.  Even if any one corporation goes bankrupt, its brethren will be happy to sweep up its databases out of bankruptcy and merge them into their own.
 * Third, there are so many mediocre clowns desperately trying to eke out a living in the vicious publish-or-perish world of academia that every little subculture and fad has some little community of academics publishing peer-reviewed articles about it. It's just a matter of going to a decent academic library and running a proper search!  In my experience, the vast majority of Wikipedia editors who have historically proposed loosening the requirements of WP:RS, WP:N, and/or WP:NPOV have never actually done research at a decent library and become aware of the huge number of published resources out there.  And if you actually live in an area with a decent tax base, your public library should allow for remote access from home to its database subscriptions.  For example, thanks to my local public library (one of the most highly respected in the United States) I can access ProQuest eLibrary and InfoTrac OneFile from anywhere I can get an Internet connection.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Even peer-reviewed journal articles often get it wrong. On 9th October 2008 The Economist published an article Publish and be wrong describing how almost a third of 49 papers in leading journals that had been cited by more than 1,000 other scientists had been refuted by other studies within a few years. The risk was highest in papers that made spectacular claims, which for commercial reasons are the most likely to be published.
 * And that's in the "hard" sciences. In some social sciences and in the arts there's no objective testing of theories and it's hard to tell the difference between a decent theory and high-flown rubbish - check out the Sokal affair, where a physicist conned a postmodern cultural studies journal into publishing a spoof article.
 * The top-end news and public affairs mags all have ideological biases - for example The Economist is quite open about its preference for free-market solutions, and New Statesman is openly socialist. But others may be less open about their biases.
 * Once you get into popular culture topics, the current definition of WP:RS becomes highly questionable because of its corporatist bias. To take an area that I'm familiar with, the big-name computer game mags contain mainly reviews of specific games, written under very tight deadlines and subject to commercial pressures to adjust their comments on games published by major advertisers. One result of this is that they sometimes get their facts wrong about the games under review. Strategy guides are no better, see Alan Emrich's criticisms. All the thoughtful stuff is in self-published blogs, some run by well-known designers & developers and some by knowledgeable enthusiasts. But in the current formulation of WP:RS the big name mags are assumed to be reliable, as are the strategy guides, while the self-published comments of people like Emrich or Soren Johnson are assumed to be less reliable.
 * WP:RS at present is OK for the "hard" sciences, a grey area for "soft" sciences and public affairs, and full of holes for popular culture. -- Philcha (talk) 12:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm getting that "we're talking past each other" feeling. You're not responding to the issues I raised.  You're focusing on bias but I am focusing on range, depth, and availability.  It sounds like you are not familiar with the huge number of academic journals out there as opposed to general magazines (a situation which I was in before I went to college and learned just how many mountains of published stuff are out there).  And unlike many blogs, the materials in libraries will be preserved there and will remain publicly accessible for the indefinite foreseeable future (unless our civilization ends, but that's the risk constantly overhanging the entire academic enterprise).  Many blogs will not (just read Philip Kaplan's book F'd Companies to understand how many dot-coms are no longer with us).
 * Yes, publishers and editors do a lousy job, especially at the non-peer-reviewed journals (keep in mind the cultural studies journal in the Sokal affair was not peer reviewed at the time). But for people publishing to respectable journals, knowing that's one work will undergo peer review does have some effect on those who care about their reputation and integrity.  In contrast, blogs have no controls at all so it's just garbage in, garbage out (the old GIGO motto). --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, Coolcaesar, sorry for missing your last post. The thing that keeps academic journals fairly credible is the Darwinian competion of ideas - otherwise peer-review would degenerate into censorship and politicking, especially where new paradigms are involved. This Darwinian competion of ideas is far stronger in the sciences than in other academic fields, but still lets a lot of dubious material through.
 * I'm familiar with peer-reviewed journals - my main interest is paleontology with some overspill into zoology, see for example Kimberella, Small shelly fauna, Opabinia, Spider (all GA), Mollusc (currently being reviewed for GA) and others in the pipeline.
 * Another of my main interests is chess, and reliability of sources is a much more complex issue there - particularly in chess history, where books by (ex-)GMs are unreliable and the best work is all online, because chess history is not a lucrative business. If you can point me to some peer-reviewed sources on chess history, as opposed to Freudian theorising about the Oedipal reasons why Paul Morphy was so eager to play Howard Staunton (another of "my" GAs), I'll be grateful.
 * Ditto if you can point to peer-reviewed sources on computer games (the actual games and genres, not sociological studies about who plays them and what social problems they might cause). -- Philcha (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

In response to the OP - just like any other source, blogs that have a reputation for fact checking / peer review, are likely to meet consensus as being reliable sources - but the blog needs to pass those hurdles. And currently there are precious few blogs who meet that criteria and so there is little lost in having a blanket ban on blogs.-- The Red Pen of Doom  12:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Blanket bans are intolerant and often misguided. There are examples of admins saying this ban applies to any site that has comments.  This is absurd, but so are the admins who say it.
 * Regardless, what most who support this language don't understand is they are banning a technology; you are not banning what you think you are banning. This is like the scopes monkey trial, and you believe the earth is flat. Slipgrid (talk) 13:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The Scopes Trial had nothing to do with the earth being flat.
 * Yes, we're banning a particular medium. We're banning it because nearly all blogs are just the modern electronic version of a personal diary and are therefore not properly considered to be published.  The point behind the ban is to block the 99% of blog-based sources that we would all agree are wretched sources for any facts.
 * If/when you encounter a particularly good source that "just happens" to use blogging software, the editors on a page can agree to use it under WP:IAR. If you run into a complaint, you can take it to WP:RSN, where this question will be decided on the actual merits of the actual source instead of according to the marketing category for the software.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That second paragraph seems reasonable although the first paragraph is clearly inflammatory, and I don't think he was saying that Scopes was about flat Earth, his analogy was just poorly written.
 * The key issue here is that many of us are of the belief that Blogs are no more disreputable than corporate media. I find arguments like "Well the NYTimes is an authority because I can go back and read their issues from 100 years ago" have little merit when you realize after just looking at the varied events of the last 10 years in the U.S. that t is a hopeless biased to the pre-conceived notions or personal political agendas of the editorial staff. Besides if someone is going to throw out about transient web sites that are going to be gone because they aren't archived, there are two easy fixes for that: 1) Submit the site you've found to the IA for indexing, and 2) donate money to the IA to improve their capabilities so they can index more.
 * More than anything the Internet has proven beyond all doubt that the "journalist" writing for a dead tree format is no more reliable than a modern journalist in many cases and that editorial review is commonly no more than a glorified spell-checking/grammar-checking/ratings viability check.BcRIPster (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki translation guidance
Interwiki translation guidance is found in Citing_sources/example_style, which now appears to frown on quoting interwiki sites in translations, but none-the-less accommodates translations by providing a format and telling one to cite it as a reference. The germane text is quoted below:


 * "Wikipedia is not a reliable source. When you use an article from a different-language Wikipedia as a reference, it belongs in the reference section. Use an external link rather than an interwiki link to avoid an unnecessary self-reference:


 * "* Citau les fonts from the Catalan-language Wikipedia. Retrieved on December 27, 2004.


 * "If you are getting some or all of your references second-hand, because you translated all or part of an article from a different-language Wikipedia, you may want to start your reference section (or part of it) with something like this (from Paragraph 175):


 * "*Much of the content of this article comes from the equivalent German-language wikipedia article. Retrieved on September 30, 2004. The following references are cited by that German-language article:
 * "followed by a list of that different-language article's references."

I'd be interested in arguments for and against use of interwiki references. Should we prohibit them, allow them as an option, or encourage them, and why?

Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 16:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a few thoughts. One option is to use the edit summary ("Translated from the German wikipedia article xxx", or similar). That will make clear that the first version of the article is translated from an interwiki source, presumably from the version that existed on that interwiki that specific date. This is also important for GFDL attribution, as far as I understand it, and it "will stay forever", as long as the article exists. Any online references from the source article may also be checked and eventually used in the translated article, if applicable. Inline citations are preferable, because they are most robust to later modification of article content. Foreign language references are no problem, and English references can always be added later. Offline references are more problematic, but books and articles may possibly be listed in a "Further reading" section. Oceanh (talk) 00:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC).

Opinion pieces from news organisations
The guideline currently reads: Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact. I suggest this part of the guideline should discourage the uncritical derivation of factual assertions from opinion pieces, rather than say that they are never reliable.

For example, if a fact is asserted in an op-ed piece in a major newspaper such as the New York Times or Guardian, it is as likely to be accurate as anything reported anywhere else in the paper. (Unless the article is obviously aiming for humorous or absurd effect, of course.)

For example, it could read: Opinion pieces are often only reliable for statements as to the opinion of the authors, not for statements of fact, and should not be used as sources of fact unless there is no other source and the news organisation in question is a highly reputable one. (Others can doubtless word this better, it's off the top of my head.)

Views? Barnabypage (talk) 10:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I very much disagree. News articles are (presumably) fact checked by the editorial staff of the paper, and if the reporter gets a fact wrong the paper is held accountable. The paper will issue a retraction or correction.  The same is not true for an op-ed piece. The term "op-ed" means "opinion-editorial"... ie what is written is someone's opinion.  Op-ed pieces are not given the same level of scrutiny that news articles are given.
 * The key here is that the reliability of an op-ed piece depends on its author. Let's take an example: Suppose US Vice President Dick Chaney wrote an op-ed piece stating that the "surge" in Iraq was highly successful.  Is this a reliable statement of fact?  That probably depends on the reader's political views and whether they trust Vice President Chaney.  Some people will say it is reliable, but others will say it isn't.  We can not definitively say "The surge in Iraq was highly successful <cite to op-ed piece> " However, what we can say with reliability is that this was Vice President Chaney's opinion on the subject.  We can definitivly say: "According to Vice President Dick Chaney, the surge was highly successful <cite to op-ed piece> ". Blueboar (talk) 14:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * What's frustrating about this is now I'm editing an article where statements by govt employees or academic experts given in Congressional testimony or in speeches are considered unassailable statements of facts, while an op-ed by the same individuals stating the same facts - or those by others of equal stature refuting those facts - is NOT considering WP:RS!!
 * So there are a lot of inconsistencies in WP:V and WP:RS that should be clarified on those pages so people don't have to keep running to the noticeboard.
 * As I know from having put together this selectionof most of the discussions of important general and political oriented sources in WP:RS/noticeboard archives. Carol Moore 15:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc


 * Carol, You missinterpret the guideline. Nowhere does it say that an Op-ed piece is unreliable. It says it IS reliable... as an opinion.  Instead of saying "blah blah blah is true" you have to say "According to govt employee X, blah blah blah is true".  Also, I certainly would not treat a statement by a govt. employee as an unassailable statement of fact... even if it was included in Congressional testimony.  I would state that as an opinion as well and say: "In his testimony before congress, Govt. Employee X stated:... <cite to congressional Testimony> ." Blueboar (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Blueboar - I think it depends on the kind of fact. I agree that, in your example, Cheney's assertion of success should be treated as an individual opinion rather than a fact - almost by its nature it's a subjective judgement, whoever makes it. However, if Cheney's same article asserted "the coalition invaded Iraq in March 2003", would there be any reason to trust that less than a news article in the same publication saying the same thing? Virtually no - if any - publications formally fact-check news stories these days, so the editing process for an op-ed piece is not much different from that for a news article (as far as accuracy goes).


 * Incidentally, "op-ed" comes from "opposite editorial", not "opinion editorial". Irrelevant to the subject at hand but a potentially useful bit of trivia. ;) Barnabypage (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Something like "the coalition invaded Iraq in March 2003" can probably be cited to something more reliable than an op-ed piece. If not, I would definitely question whether it is, in fact, accurate. For example, suppose that there were covert forces in Iraq as early as February.  Is Chaney still accurate in his statement?  That depends on what he meant by "invaded".
 * The point is, a statement in an op-ed piece may be accurate, or it may be inaccurate. We have no way to know unless we check it against other sources... in which case, we should use those other sources instead of the op-ed piece.  If the only source for information is an op-ed column, we have to treat the information as opinion and not as fact. Blueboar (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

In reference to "if the reporter gets a fact wrong the paper is held accountable," in what way is it held accountable that an opinion columnist (or even a blogger) would not be? Libel laws are binding on them both. Isn't reputation really the strongest safeguard in place here? If one gets a reputation for writing/publishing untruths, there will be harmful ramifications; people will begin to disregard that source and publicly expose it for disseminating falsehoods. Simultaneous movement (talk) 00:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Bing Bing, give this guy an award. That was well stated!BcRIPster (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd disagree, as such a basis of "reliability" would be extremely dangerous. It would place the burden of proving (un)reliability on those seeking to remove information, if we allowed anyone to claim that a source is always reliable in the absence of proof to the contrary. Preventing such a system is why sources need a "reputation for fact checking and accuracy," and why blogs and opinion pieces are presumed unreliable for controversial facts (with the burden for assuming otherwise on those seeking to include). Someguy1221 (talk) 22:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In principle that sounds fine - the problem, I think (which is partly why I raised this point in the first place), is that in reality most news reports from most "reliable sources" - including most highly-regarded newspapers - are NOT fact-checked to any greater extent than opinion pieces are. The reporter's facts are taken by editors at face value in the same way as an opinion writer's are, unless there is a powerful reason to give them extra scrutiny. Is it therefore consistent to disallow opinion pieces in those particular publications while allowing news reports that are no more - or less - reliable? Barnabypage (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Plaques at historical sites
I am using a plaque that I have taken a photo of and uploaded to the commons as a source for an article. I have submitted this article for GA review and the reviewer says such a source is unreliable. I disagree, why is a plaque less reliable than any other published source, especially since it is at the site itself. The plaque in question is at. What is everyone else's opinion? Zeus1234 (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest posting your question at WP:RSN, which is dedicated to answering such questions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit war
To all the editors that have been tediously warring over the wording at ==Self-published sources== for the last several days: Please knock it off.  Proposals will be accepted on this talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Since no one has responded here and the edit-war seems to have stopped, perhaps everyone involved is more or less satisfied with the current wording. I think it is perplexing for an inexperienced user to see a reference deleted on grounds that it is an "unreliable source" when it was only being used to cite an opinion, which is why we should point out here that a better explanation is appreciated even if not required. The current version notes that it is helpful to refer to WP:SELFQUEST, but I would add that it is helpful to specifically note how the source was being used inappropriately. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)