Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 21

Reliable sources come from a reliable process
Is this my imagination, or is this a circular definition ?

Reliable sources are credible. Reliable sources are reliable. Reliable sources are trustworthy (and authoritative)

"Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative"

So, then, how do we know someone is credible ? Trustworthy ? Authoritative ? --InnocentsAbroad2 (talk) 02:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * By looking at other reliable sources, of course. Do you have a suggestion, or did you just want to rant? (note: see WT:V.)


 * The definition is circular to a degree, but contains substantial requirements too. In everyday English, Charlie Rose is a reliable source, but this definition excludes him, because he is a person, not published materials. Also, a book by George Washington is published materials, but isn't reliable unless it is the product of a reliable publication process. If it is a reprint available from an established publisher, it's reliable, but if it's a manuscript I picked up at a Flea market it isn't reliable. --Jc3s5h (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the question you raise is important and it points up there are limitations in any formal guidance. I believe your sense of the problem is why RS notes that its guidance this: common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process.  When editors ask "Is x reliable?" I hope they are not assuming it is a simple yes, no, formula.  The documentary program called frontline has long analyses of the problem of the decline of investigative journalism.  Authors like these have begun to show deep problems in most news: Fallows, Postman, Jamieson, McChesney and Mitchell.  --Ihaveabutt (talk) 21:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Census data
For population numbers, would it be worth mentioning that the reliable resource is the census data, even if this may be considered a primary source, possible even more than the same numbers misquoted somewhere else? -- User:Docu


 * I don't think that should be taken as a blanket rule, because census data isn't always a good source. It's generally accurate, but raw data can be very easy to misinterpret - I've seen that happen on WP several times. --GenericBob (talk) 13:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ideally we would find a formulation that takes this in account. I'm think more of simple data, rather than the type of information mentioned in /archive5. -- User:Docu


 * I would not call a published census a Primary document... but, even if we do, remember that we are allowed to cite primary sources. We simply have to do so with caution and care to avoid OR. Blueboar (talk) 14:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * IWHT the individual census forms, or the census-taker's records, are the primary sources and the published report on the census is a secondary one. Barnabypage (talk) 14:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Even population numbers aren't as simple as they look. Censuses will always miss a certain percentage of people, so census counts pretty much always underestimate the true population, and most countries only run a census every five or ten years. Statistical agencies use various techniques to correct for undercount and to produce numbers for non-census years, so very often the census data is not the most accurate figure for population. The Australian Bureau of Statistics publishes both 'counts' (raw numbers from census) and 'estimates' (adjusted for these issues), and WP editors often use the counts when they should be using the estimates. --GenericBob (talk) 14:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Depends where you are. Nigerian census figures are wildly inflated by tribal competition. Peter jackson (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Pulsemusic
For the music related articles, many a times user add pulsemusic.proboards.com as reference. It is generally a forum where a member called bks posts the Billboard Hot 100 chart way early than the magazine publishes it. IT also has the week to week sales of albums and singles. But the question is won't this lead to copyright vio? I request that users don't add information from this website untill and unless it is confirmed as a reliable source. --Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 08:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The copyright vio on the charts only happens if the full Hot 100 is posted, which is why only the top 50 and selected others are posted. Ok I won't add info from the site until and unless it is deemed an RS but there are no other sources for the particular album 'The Fame's sales as Plat = 1mill shipped not sold and no-one has found any other source for sales.
 * The fact of the matter is that the charts on the board are the real and correct charts and have acurate sales figures, you can cross reference them with any that Billboard post later and you will find they are correct. NinjaChucks (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Are dictionaries secondary or tertiary sources?
For example, is Oxford English Dictionary a secondary or tertiary source? I cant find "dictionary" in WP:RS. Phoenix of9 (talk) 04:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * AFAIK, the OED's analysis (addition/definition of new words and etymology of old ones) is done by the OED's own staff, so I think 'secondary source' is the best fit here; ditto for most big-name dictionaries. (Might be some exceptions depending on the context in which they're used.) --GenericBob (talk) 04:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Irrelevant question... since the question of whether a source is primary, secondary or tertiary has nothing to do with whether it is reliable or unreliable (there are reliable and unreliable sources in each category)... in other words, it does not matter whether the OED (or any other dictionary) is primary, secondary or tertiary. What is important is that the OED is arguably THE most reliable source for the definition of English words. Blueboar (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It does matter, because WP:OR makes a hard distinction between these sources: "Articles may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims only if they have been published by a reliable secondary source". Suppose e.g. we're writing an article about an offensive word, and we want to note that "before 1850 the term did not have derogatory connotations". Per that section of policy, this specifically needs a secondary source. Addendum: I think in most instances, quoting the definition of a word would also qualify as an "explanatory claim". --GenericBob (talk) 23:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In the case at hand, a dictionary definition is being used to counter definitions and opinions from many reliable sources (historians) on a topic.  Where it is made clear that historians differ greatly on a definition, ought a dictionary based on "historical usage" be used to counter those opinions?  At best it could show how the popular press used the word, but now how historians use it. Collect (talk) 15:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say that if a historian's definition disagrees with the OED, then it is probably the historian who is using the word incorrectly. The OED takes great care to get it right... it uses multiple sources in deriving its definitions, it uses high level scholarship and not just the popular press.  It looks at historical sources and modern sources (and it gives historical usages as well as modern usages).  No, you can not get better than the OED when it comes to reliability. Blueboar (talk) 16:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Unless it's a very specialised and fairly new tech term. It might help if you tell us where the issue is. --Philcha (talk) 16:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I assume it relates to the same issue as is being discussed at WP:RSN... the issue being that the OED defines Fascism as right-wing, which Collect does not like. Blueboar (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It's in Fascism. I added the OED definition into the lead (without deleting anything) "The principles and organization of Fascists. Also, loosely, any form of right-wing authoritarianism." but it was deleted by Collect and others, claiming it wasnt a RS.

Now this is both an issue at hand but its also about the policy. There are eg's such as "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, for example the Washington Post in the United States and the Times in Britain, as well as widely used conglomerates such as the Associated Press." Cant we add OED as an example of a RS? Phoenix of9 (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Do we really need to add something about this just because one editor does not understand that dictionaries in general (and the OED in particular) are reliable for the definition of words? I would think that would be obvious.  Seriously, is this something we really need to spell it out? Blueboar (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * He is supported by 2 other editors. Go to edit history of Fascism and you tell me. Btw, I mentioned this at the village pump: Phoenix of9 (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Phoenix... may I suggest that instead of raising this in multiple places (which can be seen as "forum shopping"), we consolidate the discussuion at WP:RSN (where the issue was first raised). Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 16:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yea, but if you wanna change a policy, arent you supposed to go to village pump? Phoenix of9 (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to make a MAJOR policy change, yes. But for something as minor as adding an example, raising the issue on the policy talk page is enough.  Also, if you do feel the need to raise an issue at the Pump, it is a good idea to post a link to any discussions that already exist... such as this one and the one at WP:RSN.  (I have done so.) Blueboar (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yea, you beat me to it. So what do you think about adding OED into the policy? Or at least say something about dictionaries? Phoenix of9 (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Policy doesn't need changing or clarifying - it already covers this situation just fine. It doesn't matter whether OED is classed as secondary or tertiary - read what policy says about tertiary sources. That covers any reasonable use of a dictionary, including the one that sparked this debate. Rd232 talk 17:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Does it? This is how some people interpret it:
 * "WP:RS is fairly explicit -- dictionaries are not "reliable sources" for articles. "Tertiary sources such as compendia, 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." Collect (talk) 01:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)"
 * So I still think you have to say something about dictionaries. Phoenix of9 (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I still don't see where there is a problem. You are talking about adding the OED definition to the lead of the article, which is by definition an overview or summary.  Even if you want to classify the OED as a Tertiary document, it is covered by this policy and deemed reliable. Blueboar (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And generally you would not use a dictionary as a source for detailed discussion, because they do not have that level of detail. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As I have just written elsewhere: Actually dictionaries can be problematic when they are defining words used by professionals, etc. Take the word 'archaeology' - Chambers 21st Century Dictionary defines it as "the excavation and subsequent study of the physical remains of earlier civilizations!. No archaeologist would accept that as a definition. Ignoring the fact that you can do archaeology without excavating (eg field walking where you walk through a landscape looking for artefacts on the surface), archaeology covers all periods of human existence up to today, ie both before and after 'earlier civilizations'. And that isn't the only dictionary that defines archaeology as only dealing with things that happened 'a long time ago'. There's been a similar argument I believe at Patriarchy. So no, I would not automatically accept the OED as a reliable source for the definition of words, odd as that might seem. Dougweller (talk) 18:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, OED is automatically a reliable source for the general usage definition of words. The fact that specialists might disagree at the margin doesn't alter that, it supplements it. In other words, as with everything else, we need to find a way to intelligently combine different reliable sources which say different things for different reasons in different contexts. Rd232 talk 19:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm happy with that. I'd say that for specialist uses of a word, a dictionary will not suffice as a RS. Dougweller (talk) 14:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar, you are right. However, if OED is a secondary source, mentioning that in the policy would have saved me from listening to lots of nonsensical arguments in Fascism. Dougweller, just like other sources, I guess there are reliable dictionaries and unreliable ones. I've never heard of Chambers 21st Century Dictionary, to be honest. Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Phoenix, you are missing my point... It does not matter whether it is primary or secondary. The OED is by far the single most reliable source for giving an english language definition of a word (Webster being a close second).  In any article, the best place to include a definition is in the first few sentences of the article... as part of the article lead (ie in a summary or overview).  Now, I fully understand that sometimes specific scholars will formulate their own alternative definitions, or point out subtleties of fact or usage not mentioned in a general reference book such as the OED...  and there is nothing wrong with discussing what they have to say if it is deemed appropriate (if, for example, discussing them is not Undue Weight). The proper place to do so would be in the main text of the article.  Blueboar (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In all my readings about fascism I have never encountered a case where some scholar cites definition from OED as an authoritative definition of fascism or even discusses it. They often cite other scholars but never OED. So, in contrary to what you are saying, I would say that using OED in the article lead would be a case of undue weight. -- Vision Thing -- 21:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the OED, on the other hand cites scholars. This is one of the things that makes it so reliable. But ultimately your comment is a red-herring in this discussion... The editorial decisions that others may have made have nothing to do with the editorial decisions that we make. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia.  If the editors of Wikipedia feel that it would be helpful to include the dictionary definition of a word in an article, there is absolutely nothing wrong with doing so.  And, if they do so, it is highly appropriate to cite that definition to the dictionary where that definition comes from.  And among dictionaries there is none more reliable than the OED. Blueboar (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Quotations
"Quotations should be cited to the original source if possible; when secondary sources are used, those that cite the original source should be preferred over those that don't. Hostile secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion if they lack neutral corroboration."

Should this perhaps be "Partisan secondary sources..."? It's not just the hostile ones that mangle and misattribute quotes - one common form of appeal to authority is to attribute a supportive quote to a well-respected figure. --GenericBob (talk) 00:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Good call. Blueboar (talk) 01:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. Mangoe (talk) 02:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * that makes sense to me 70.71.22.45 (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

A paragraph or a section on totalitarian era sources
Since this is a topic that pops up with regular frequency here (ex. above), I think we should add a section or paragraph to deal with this (next to or as a part of the "Extremist and fringe sources" section, perhaps, or to the Reliable source examples?). Here's my proposed paragraph:

"Sources published under totalitarian or autocratic regimes can be reliable, but should be treated carefully, particularly if they touch upon an area of known bias or likely to be affected by censorship or party-line propaganda (for example, Nazi sources will not be objective on the Jewish issues, and Soviet sources will have a pro-Marxist bias). Those problems are discussed in dedicated articles on national historiographies (see Category:Historiography by country). If in doubt whether a particular fact is reliable, this fact should be discussed on relevant article's page, and if it is agreed that the fact is controversial, it should sourced with non-communist era works, as exceptional claims require exceptional sources. If a particular publication or an author is in doubt, critical reviews need to be presented before the book or an author are deemed unreliable; it is recommended that those critical reviews are also mentioned in the article's on those authors or publications (see example one, example two)."

Comments appreciated.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 09:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems overkill to put it everywhere. Perhaps just saying we should have a "note on possibly biased sources" link in those articles would suffice?  Collect (talk) 10:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * To the extent that we are talking about party propaganda, isn't this already covered by the existing Extremist and fringe sources section? I am also concerned that this will lump legitimate scholarship that happened to be written under a totalitarian regime with the propaganda from that regime.  Not everything that was written in Germany under the Nazis or in Russia under the Soviets is suspect. Blueboar (talk) 12:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is already noted in my proposal, which clearly states that only specific parts of that scholarship are unreliable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 06:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Overuse of "third-party" in nutsell and intro paragraphs causing problems
Hi. Longtime contributor to RSN here with an complaint about overemphasis on "third party" sources in the guideline. Our guideline says articles should rely primarily on third-party sources, which is fine, but the nutshell and one of the other paragraphs leaves out the "primarily". Some editors only read the nutshell and then argue that press releases and other primary sources from an article subject can never be cited in a WP article. Recommending that "third-party" be removed from the nutshell and the first paragraph of Overview. We already discuss third-party in the bolded second paragraph of the lead and in the "primary sources" section. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Instead of removing the word "third-party", I would add the word "primarily". We do want our articles to cite third party sources, after all.  The problem is that some people think the nutshell means only third party sources. Blueboar (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the third-party preference is less important than the requirement that sources be reliable and published. Every source except images must be published somewhere other than Wikipedia, always, no exceptions. Sources must always be reliable in some sense of the word, even if it is only to assure that a certain crazy assertion can really be attributed to a certain kook. Third-party sources are usually preferred to first- and second-party sources, but not always (for example, the ISO 8601 article is based mostly on the standard, which is a first-party source). To try to put all three in the same sentence and modify them all with the word "primarily" just does not work very well. --Jc3s5h (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * What you say is true when you are citing an individual claim and statement, but when it comes to overall citing of an entire article third party sources are needed.... If for no other reason than to demonstrate notability.  An article that is purely cited to first-party sources will not last long on Wikipedia.  Also, an article that is purely cited to primary sources is highly likely to have NOR issues. (OK, I admit that it is possible to write an article with no OR using nothing but primary sources ... but doing so is very very difficult, and would probably not be a very good article)
 * The point we want to convey is this: while primary sources are reliable and allowed for certain types of statements, the majority of the citations in any article should be to reliable secondary sources that are independant of the subject (ie Third Party sources). Blueboar (talk) 19:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

OK... I have been bold and changed it to "based primarily" instead of just "based". Blueboar (talk) 20:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've boldly edited that revision, associating "primarily" only with "third-party". -- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

CBS.com is a reliable source?
Is CBS.com a reliable source? For example, an unaired miscellaneous task in The Amazing Race from a forum. I'm sure the part is from a CBS website. ApprenticeFan talk  contribs 06:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * First, please provide the URL. Second, forums are not considered RS. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's the original info from CBS website (taken from The Amazing Race 14 page):, second the sourced one from the article:  ApprenticeFan  talk  contribs 06:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The first URL u link to is a bunch of pictures... pictures are not a source. I dont think i would consider the second URL a realible source as we have no clue of their editorial standards... it calls itself reality tv news but it doesnt seem like a reliable news outlet to me... others can chime in though... 70.71.22.45 (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as CBS.com goes, the over all website contains individual sub-pages that are reliable and individual sub-pages that are not reliable. For example, the "recaps" sub-page is reliable as that is authored by an employee of CBS, the photo gallery sub-page (photos are not sources) and the "fans/forums" sub-page (authored by anyone) are not reliable. Blueboar (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that a photo is not a source. True, it is almost always necessary to have some explaination from a reliable source, together with the photo, but I fail to see why a photo can't be a source. --Jc3s5h (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose a photograph could be a primary source... allowable for a statement as to its own existance, and for a purley discriptive comment as to what the photo depicts.... but it would not be reliable for much more than that. Raw photographs are prone to all sorts of original research issues.  Blueboar (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To use a photo as a source, it would be necessary that it be published by a reliable source, be published together with text that explains what it is a photo of (unless that is patently obvious, for example, if the name of the object is painted on it), and the claim would have to be very clear from the photo. For example, if NASA releases a photo of a meteorite with a scale included in the photo, one might claim the meteorite is about 3 cm long. On the other hand, if there were a photo of President X, it wouldn't be proper to claim, based on facial expression, "President X was frustrated." --Jc3s5h (talk) 17:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Examiner.com
I'm going to have to put out a motion that Examiner.com not be allowed as a viable source for linking to articles. There are a number of Wikipedia articles that cite Examiner.com, and there's a bit of problem with this because the Examiner.com model is based on paying writers for page views. Anyone can sign up to be a writer there, put down some information, and then get paid for getting mass amounts of page views. This, in my opinion, creates great conflict with the idea of NPOV. Rustydangerfield (talk) 05:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Also, examiner.com lacks most of the safeguards of a reputable news source and many of the writings are the equivalent to blogs. There is some great info in these but it is typically available in other places and typically should be cross checked.Cptnono (talk) 07:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would support an XlinkBot, a gentler process that bot-reverts sources often added by inexperienced users but I wouldn't support a full blacklist of the source. I have seen some articles that were pretty good and I wouldnt want to discard it entirely. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:Cite newsgroup
It's my understanding that we should, under no circumstances, cite a newsgroup. Then why do we have a newsgroup citation template that's used on at least 100 articles? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 11:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably because in some very tightly-controlled circumstances it may be appropriate per WP:SPS, as long as it has been demonstrated in a more bona fide reliable source that the post author is legit. I suppose it's not a lot different to citing, for example, a writer's personal blog for minor or uncontroversial information about the writer or his/her work. Use sparingly! Steve  T • C 11:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In particular, to cite a quotation it is preferable to do so directly. Mangoe (talk) 16:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Newsgroup posts can also be intrinsically reliable sources for certain statements about newsgroups. For instance, alt.religion.scientology notes the posting of a specific rmgroup message aimed at a.r.s - it's hard to conceive of a better cite for that than the rmgroup message itself. --GenericBob (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * When it comes to quoting what is said in a source, there is nothing more reliable than the source itself. Whether the source should be quoted at all is another matter. Blueboar (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, notability is often an issue for Usenet-related content (cue discussions about coverage bias), but I'd argue that this particular example makes the cut. --GenericBob (talk) 01:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Usenet forums vary widely in terms of reliability. There are a few that are both moderated by, and mainly populated by, experts in their field.  comp.dcom.telecom comes to mind as a professional mailing list.  Another situation where a newsgroup citation may be appropriate is a bona fide FAQ posted by someone knowledgeable in their field and revised with input from peers. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Electronic Intifada
Is the Electronic Intifada a reliable source? I don't see why it is not, but user:ShamWow has removed it from Haneen Zoubi's article as not reliable, citing here. Thoughts?--TM 18:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This inquiry belongs at Reliable sources/Noticeboard and/or at No original research/Noticeboard. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Circularity issue
A source currently being used at Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth - a featured article - contains text that looks to have been copied verbatim from WP itself. The WP content is older, giving rise to the question of the source's reliability. An editor has suggested that the inclusion of the WP material (not credited in the paper) constitutes, in effect, a peer review of the WP content, and thereby makes the paper usable as a source, and has also suggested that the topic be brought here. See Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_35. Novickas (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors are NOT reliable sources, please see WP:Verifiability Jezhotwells (talk) 22:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, Wikipedia mirrors are not reliable sources, but that is not the question. The question is whether an otherwise reliable source that uses a few passages from Wikipedia is still reliable. I would say that if the use of Wikipedia passages is the only issue, it is still reliable. However, in the case being discussed on the noticeboard, it is alleged that the supposedly reliable source didn't cite Wikipedia. Any source that fails to follow the citation norms for the relevant field is suspect. --Jc3s5h (talk) 00:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have a problem calling any source that copies wording from Wikipedia (especially one which does not have the intelectual honesty to cite wikipedia for that material) reliable. It definitely should raise red flags. While it might be possible to isolate which material came from Wikipedia and which came from elsewhere, I have no confidence that this non-wikipedia derived material is at all reliable. Blueboar (talk) 02:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I would wonder about a source that tries to pass off Wikipedia as a reliable source, just as I would wonder about a source that tried to pass a supermarket tabloid as a reliable source. However, if a source acknowledged the reliability issues of Wikipedia, and explained why the passage from Wikipedia was sound in some specific instance, I would consider the source to be untarnished. --Jc3s5h (talk) 03:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Is this question for the rs noticeboard?

--Ihaveabutt (talk) 04:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * the standard for a RS is editorial judgement. If an editor of responsible press or a responsible academic author decides that WP offers a reliable treatment of something, his work counts a a RS. Some of the best academic authors I know use WP for definitions in computer science. In fact, seeing that is what led me to take WP seriously in the first place 3 years ago. DGG (talk) 01:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're serious about this, then you might want to change Verifiability, which currently reads "In addition, sources that present information known to originate from Wikipedia should not be used for that information, as this may create circular sourcing." Also - the source in question was written by students, doesn't say what level - under the supervision of tutors. See pages 10-11. . Novickas (talk) 00:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. But here we are talking about the case when an author plagiarised from Wikipedia without any attribution. In other words, there is reason to suppose that the author is not a responsible academic. I am not saying this is the case here, since it seems entirely possible that there was once an earlier draft of this book chapter on the web which was copied into Wikipedia. But the practical implications in both cases are very similar. --Hans Adler (talk) 02:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Rulings in an american courts
I cant find the policy on court documents. Surely the are considered more reliable than newspapers

--Cogvoid (talk) 03:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Depends. They're reliable as a record of what was said in court, but a good-quality newspaper article is often a better source for plain-English interpretation of what a judgement etc. actually means, which is often what we need for WP - this is a 'primary source' issue. --GenericBob (talk) 06:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The Michael Jackson situation
Those interested in policing/updating/quality controlling WP:RS and related policies should take note of the issues occurring in the Michael Jackson article today (note particularly the talk page) in which undeniably reliable sources with editorial oversight -- the Associated Press, the BBC, CNN, etc. -- were being rejected outright as RS with regards to reporting Jackson's death. No less than CNET has even posted a story regarding this controversy here. I can understand the reluctance to go with information originating from the gossip site TMZ, but things got out of hand when the Associated Press was being rejected. I think the conduct regarding RS has set a bad precedent. I'm not pointing a finger at any user on this issue, but it is worth investigating for future updates to the policy. 68.146.81.123 (talk) 23:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you miss the point. When the reliable sources were reporting that there are reports of Jackson's death, these were quite rightly interpreted as not confirming the death.  When RS began to report the death as confimed by the LA Coroner, they were accepted. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * For a while there, these news outlets were reporting that TMZ was reporting that MJ was dead. This, of course, is not the same thing as news outlets reporting that MJ was dead.  I think we did fine.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

(speedforceironman1809081389099 00:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

Foreign language sources
Is it appropriate to cite sources in a language other than the one the Wikipedia entry is written in? The problem that arises is that foreign language sources necessarily are less comprehensible by possibly a majority of other contributors. However, in my view, sources written in those languages that are most widespread, like English, Spanish, French or German, should be accepted for citation. Sources written in such languages might easily be verified by other users. --Hcinmmod (talk) 19:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:NONENG. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Consensus
"The existence of a consensus within an academic community may be indicated, for example, by independent secondary or tertiary sources that come to the same conclusion. The statement that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material."

This guideline seems to contradict itself, depending on how you read it. I've always taken it to mean that you should not report a scientific or academic consensus unless someone else (in a reliable source) has explicitly said that one exists. Is this the intent? I think getting rid of the first sentence would fix it, but then that seems to leave a loophole where an otherwise reliable source makes a left field claim for a consensus that doesn't really exist. I'd like to get it clarified one way or another, so if anyone has any suggestions, lets have it. Gigs (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Since there's no comment so far, I'm going to be bold and attempt to rework this section. I'm extremely open to discussing the changes I'm about to make if someone has a problem with them. Gigs (talk) 01:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would advise otherwise. This will have some significant implications for some articles. The consensus does need to be shown if challenged. This can be done either by explicit comment or by implication--ie use of a standard textbook. Personally, I find that many statements in the published literature from a party on one side of a controversy about what the scientific consensus is are somewhat biased, typically being examples of denying the presence of an opposition. The sttement of even a sound atuhority on the subject must still be attributed, and if different statements of consensus can be found, they must be included also. DGG (talk) 23:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you and I aren't too far off. The old wording seemed to imply that a Wikipedia editor could look at various sources and then declare a scientific consensus.  I want to get rid of that implication, since that's almost the definition of synthesis. Gigs (talk) 01:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Judging reliability of editing in newspapers and other sources
How are we judging the comparative quality of newspapers? They all have editors, but they are all obviously not equal.

Tabloids like the Natioinal Enqurier are obviously of inferior quality, but what method are we using to judge this? First, you need some method to determine if something is a Tabloid or simply reports on celebrities a lot (like People). Second, if it isn't a tabloid, you still need to employ some other methods to judge quality as a reliable source.

I think that people are frequently applying personal opinion, for better or for worse, as to what newspapers are more reliable than others, as it's not like there's some database of "editor reliability" and "editor expertise."

The only thing I can think of that's objective is circulation of the newspaper and how often the journalist/editor gets printed, which is an indirect measure of the consensus among journalists and their readers regarding the writing subject.

This is a universal method, because even with scientific journals, we judge how often a scientist gets published, is cited, and accepted within the scientific community.

If we are using circulation (in essence, popularity as a measure of consensus), why can't the same be applied to non-expert websites and blogs? It doesn't make sense to allow popularity of a source as viewed as being reliable for one type of source, but not others.

In other words, if Joe's website is frequently linked to by others as a good source to read (i.e. linking to him because they think the site is good, not bad), it would make sense to use Joe as a reliable source. You'd compare the proportion of recognition from all sources.

The quality as a reliable source would be weighted against other factors, such as whether there were multiple contributors, whether it's equivalent to an "op ed" piece or written in a more professional fashion, what sources they used for their information, etc...

Thus, I think that proportion of recognition as a reliable source (recognition within the relevant population e.g. the scientist population for journal articles) should one of the main indicators for all types of sources. It's not the only indicator, but it's an important one.

-Nathan J. Yoder (talk) 16:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think that that circulation is a good way to determine a source's reliablity. Many people read a publication for entertainment value rather than for knowledge.  Cosmopolitan and Maxim have circulations of 2,928,041 and 2,558,475 whereas higly respected academic journals such as Nature have a circulation of only about 65,000.


 * Ultimately, it boils down to whether a publication has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. One way to do this is to look at the number of awards it has won.  The New York Times, for example, has won 101 Pulitzer Prizes.  Another indication is to look at how many times other reliable sources cite it.  For academic journals, they actually have a Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You're comparing newspapers to scientific journals, which I clarified are assessed via different populations. As I said, the relevant population for scientific articles is the population of scientists, so you'd do what you just said--use citations and positive views from within the community.  Plus, it's not just subscribers within the community, but anyone who regularly reads their articles and a lot of scientists read Nature.


 * There isn't really a readily available source for how much a print article is cited, beyond perhaps using Google or Alexa to see how much it's linked (if it's available online). In those cases, I don't see how that's different than judging quality of a random webpage the same way.


 * How do you determine which awards are "acceptable"? There are a variety of them from different sources, many with political and ideological leanings.  I don't think a select, "elite few" should determine, for the rest of the world, what's the best.  It's largely subjective (i.e. their authority is largely arbitrary) and expertise doesn't really apply in judging here (unless they are an expert in the specific area the newspaper article covers e.g. a geologist critiquing a journalist's geology article), which is why reliability should be left to the whole population of people who read that type of publication.


 * Besides, Pulitzer Prizes are usually awarded to the journalists, not the newspapers, and journalists often write for multiple newspapers, so then you've got a counting issue. There's also the fact that very few journalists have won such a prestigious prize; you're talking some small fraction of journalists, which would require limiting yourself to a very small number of articles (they award one prize per category per year).


 * People almost never win them twice and there's no assurance that past prizes hold the same value as they did back when it was originally awarded. If a specific journalist is covering something in an area related to where they won some prestigious award or recognition, that adds value to their reliability, but it's rarely the case that you'll get an news/magazine article like that.


 * In this day and age, the number of journalists and print publications is rapidly growing and many are reliable, non-tabloid sources, but comparatively little will win a prestigious award and that percentage will only decrease with time, because the number of new journalists per year easily over shadows the few awards given per year. -Nathan J. Yoder (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You bring up a lot of points, and I don't have time to answer all of them but it still boils down to whether a publication has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. You determine this by seeing what other WP:RS say about it.  Same thing with awards.  Whether it's a Pulitzer or the Buckeye News Hawk Award, you look it up.  Other indicators that we use to determine reliability are really secondary. For web sites, we often check to see if there's an About page, an editorial staff, named and professional writers, physical address, etc. but these are ultimately secondary to the core issue: a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking.  You'll note that Snopes.com fails many of these tests, but it is considered a reliable because it has earned an excellent reputation for accuracy and fact-checking.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Coverage by citation indexes

 * I modified an earlier change to indicate that not all academic fields are covered  adequately by such indexes. I am open to other wording, because I think the problem here is a little complicated. For one thing, the competition between Scopus and Web of Science has caused them both to increase coverage, which is good for indexing, but somewhat decreases the quality distinction.  Then, Google Scholar is among other things a citation index, and we do not mean to include it here.  Third, it's not covered/uncovered--the coverage in, say, biochemistry , is not as complete as in mathematics where there are more small journals.   Fourth, the distinction can not deal with the problem of journals of high quality from the first.  fifth, the less developed countries are poorly represented (China though has one of its own--does anyone know about Japan?). The general principle that a source is reliable if qualified people think it is, is certainly true, but inherently a little circular. .  DGG (talk) 02:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You can't determine that based on what other reliable sources say about it, because then you're stuck in circular justification, because you then have to demonstrate that the sources you're using as evidence of how reliable a source is are reliable, themselves. We're left with awards, but like I said, that creates their own major problems, which you haven't yet addressed (the rarity of them, subjectivity, and lack of a way to determine what awards are reliable).  What does a physical address have to do with the quality of a website?  How are you determining if they are "professional writers?  Snopes.com fails ALL of those.  It has only two writers (not professional) and no prizes.  Snopes is considered reliable by web users and we know that based on site usage statistics, which is the criteria I proposed before.


 * DGG, I think you misunderstood the purpose of a citation index. A good citation index will tell you how many times an article is cited and even how much an author's articles as a whole are cited, as well as other citation measures.  The more they index, the better the data.  It's about how much scientists cite other scientists, not how much they've been indexed in search engines.  They're usually pretty complete.  You could also check other media sources that cite certain journal articles.  -Nathan J. Yoder (talk) 06:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for some confusion. I was not talking about web sites, anyway,  or about snopes. I forgot to put in a heading, so it looked like my discussion followed on to that one.   I've put it in now.
 * I think I know very well the purpose -- and limitations-- of a citation index, having seen and used them since the very beginning of SCI, and having taught their use at 3 universities. And having written a multi-part peer-reviewed comparative review on them-,, . There's also 2 nice papers by a student of mine ,.
 * Incidentally, i fully support the employment of site usage statistics to determine notability of a web site. It does not however determine reliability, or WP would be a RS. DGG (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

RfC on reliable sources for Eurovision Articles
I should probably have posted this here before. RfC on the reliability of sources such as ESCToday, oikiotimes is open at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

When a reliable source clearly is not
I originally tried to post on this topic in RS/N but it got hijacked by a specific case and didn't attract disinterested commentary, so it might be best discussed here in the broad sense. I reasonably regularly come across ostensibly RS/V sources, for example articles in journals or newspaper reports, however the articles have obvious, glaring factual errors (usually without citation) that are easily disproved through better sources. In journals these usually occur when discussing cross-discipline topics, such as a pyschology journal discussing business. In newsmedia, well they occur all over the place! How should these types of sources be handled? Someone wanting to use them to support some fact can clearly claim they're from an ostensibly RS/V source and want to use it on WP. On the other hand, clear evidence the article is not reliable can not be included in WP as it would be OR. The current guidelines don't seem to address this problem. --Insider201283 (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What you are essentially discussing is comparative reliability... ie determining whether one source more reliable than another. The reason why we don't get into this in the guideline, or at places like RSN, is that such determinations simply can't be mandated by policy... they have to be discussed and determined at the article level, by those who know the subject and the specific sources under discussion.  All we can say at a guideline level is that we hope that our articles to be based upon the most reliable sources available.  We leave it to our editors to figure out what those sources should be. Blueboar (talk) 14:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia allows source-based research, but not original research. If I find one apparently reliable source that says the first human moon landing was in 1996, and 25 reliable sources that say it was in 1969, it is source-based research to write in Wikipedia that it happened in 1969, with no mention of 1996. On the other hand, if a reliable source says an automotive headlight draws 2 MA of current, it would be original research to measure the current drawn in a headlight of my personal vehicle and write in Wikipedia that automovive headlights draw about 2 A of current. --Jc3s5h (talk) 14:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * However, we can use original research on the article talk page when disussing the relative merits of a source in comparison to another. We can't put any OR in the article itself, but OR arguments that point out the flaws of a source can help us determine which source might be more reliable than another.
 * Also... something I forgot to mention... when I say we strive to use the most reliable sources possible, we also have to take into account WP:NPOV... if the two sources are expressing equally significant, but differing points of view on a topic we should mention what both sources have to say on the matter, even if one is considered more reliable than the other. Balancing POVs is important (and not always easy). Blueboar (talk) 15:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand that with regard using the source for a specific fact or point. My question is more when someone wants to use a source to support claim A, and there are few or no sources to either support or oppose the assertion - but elsewhere in the source there is also assertions B,C,D - and there are many sources showing the source is wrong on B,C,D. It would seem to me that this would question the reliability of using the source for claim A. So if you read an article that says "there's a tea cup orbiting the moon", and you can't find anything that says its wrong, but elsewhere the article also states "the moon is made of green cheese", "Neil Armstrong was the first mouse in space" etc - clearly this would weaken claims of reliability for the first assertion. An exaggerated example, but hopefully you get my point. --Insider201283 (talk) 15:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would agree that it would weaken claims of reliablilty for the first assertion. However, whether it weakens them enough to exclude the source (and the statement) from use in the article has to be determined by debate and consensus on the article's talk page.  It isn't something we can determine at a policy level because the issue is specific to the particular source. Blueboar (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, but at present the guidelines don't really speak to this at all. It talks about the author and the publishers contributing (or otherwise), but not the text itself. Perhaps the problem is more that the guidelines as written imply that if it's published in a peer-reviewed journal, then it's ok no question. Now they don't actually say that, but it's easy to understand how editors could interpret it that way. --Insider201283 (talk) 16:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Policy statements have to be based on normal conditions and situations... and you are discussing an abnormal one... an exception to the norm (a source that dispite being in a peer reviewed journal may not be reliable). If you look hard enough, you can probably find exceptions to every policy statement on Wikipedia.  These exceptions don't invalidate the policy statements.  Most papers that appear in peer reviewed journals are going to be highly reliable sources.  Look to the intent of the policy, and less to the narrow wording. Blueboar (talk) 16:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Unfortunately not so abnormal in some of the areas I'm often dealing with.:( So it's off to RS/N to duke it out on a case by case basis I guess. Thanks for your input. --Insider201283 (talk) 17:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The Washington Post
I do not belive that The Washington Post is an excellent example of a reliable source because of its lack of political neutrality. Instead, may I suggest a newspaper which does not have a political leaning such as the Wall Street Journal. I think this website needs to make sure that all articles are neutrally written and neutral sources are cited. Often times i find articles severely edited towards the "liberal" side, and no one seems to revert the edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonked116 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Instead, may I suggest a newspaper which does not have a political leaning such as the Wall Street Journal." Unfortunately, I was drinking tea when I read this. Now I have to clean my computer screen. --Jc3s5h (talk) 02:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Great comment Jc3s5h, the same thing happened to me when I read "Washington Post" on the main page.


 * The core problem here is that WP:Reliable sources assumes that mainstream media checks facts and avoids opinion in news articles. Even the media themselves have largely given up on the illusion of unbiased fact based reporting, the abandonment of which tracks in tight correlation with their declining reader/viewer base.


 * Eventually as the nature of reporting changes and shifts away from historical mediums and traditional news sources shift away from traditional rules of reporting this issue is going to have to be dealt with. Just because an entity makes money publishing information does not make them fact based and objective. Even today I would trust a primary photograph of a bunch of tea party protesters holding "Obama/Dems = Bush/Repubs" to tell me what the protesters care about rather than the Washington Post view of the event. Kehrerrl (talk) 20:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I recommend that the Washington Post on the main page be replaced with a better example that is more widely recognized as being unbiased and known for checking facts. Kehrerrl (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it is an excellent example... precisely because it doesn't have political neutrality. I can not stress this enough... sources do not need to be neutral to be considered reliable.  What needs to be neutral is how we present what those sources say.  Blueboar (talk) 00:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I actually agree with you. Ideally political neutrality should not be the measure of "reliable", fact checking should be. However, jumping back to reality...there are at least two types of errors a news organization may make. 1) They may posit something that is not true simply because they didn't research the facts. This is just lazy journalism, and while it should lower their trustworthiness, accidents happen and is forgivable as long as a pattern doesn't emerge. 2) They may purposefully pick and choose what subset of the facts to report in order to spin the story to fit their political views. This is not simply laziness or accident. It is willful mischaracterization of what actually happened at an event. This type 2 error is much more likely from a biased source than a neutral one.


 * Of course the remedy for such errors is to provide sources from opposing viewpoints. This is easy as long as our definition of "reliable" doesn't out of hand make that possibility very difficult. For example, in the United States, one political viewpoint typically owns the organizations that print or broadcast for profit. The opposing viewpoint typically messages through talk radio, blogs, and grassroots stuff. Yes there are exceptions, but it is very lopsided like that. To put it in terms of a real life case: if one listens to the "reliable" mainstream media one could walk away with the idea that the Tea Party protesters are out to get President Obama. However if one instead looks at "un-reliable" speeches, attendee photos, tirades on blogs, etc it is clear they are very bipartisan in their anger at the all politicians whose actions they perceive as bad.


 * I think that the WP definition of reliability needs to take this type 2 error into consideration and recognize that a biased news source is much less reliable than an unbiased one. I also think that the definition needs to adjust to the internet age as traditional news media is supplanted by internet age means of publishing. I'm not sure how that definition is adjusted, but without that change the WP definition of "reliable" may actually drive articles to misrepresent the truth simply because finding an opposing viewpoint that is deemed reliable is not possible. Kehrerrl (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah... but people with different viewpoints will often disagree as to what the truth actually is (which is why our criteria for inclusion is verifiability and not truth). You might think CBS News has a biased towards a left wing viewpoint, someone else will disagree. You might object to Fox News as having a right wing viewpoint... someone else will disagree. Our job is to mention both viewpoints and cite both sources for what they say.  We can cite the Washington Post and the Washington Times, NPR and Rush Limbaugh.  Blueboar (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we have just two things please?

A: A page for each and every source we ref.

B: On this page some bias codes.

A bias code that both WaPo and WSJ would share would be American, while The Register and The Economist would be tagged with British and Press TV would be tagged with Iranian. Additional tags would indicate government control (Press TV and VOA) and so on.

Also, should we simply exclude all editorial material from all publications? Hcobb (talk) 18:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Short burden of evidence statement?
I think this page needs something short in lead to repeat Verifiability ''The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[nb 1] The source cited must unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article.[nb 2] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books.''

I came here first and searched around for what I knew to be true and only after a while did I go back to WP:V. People with less experience might never get there and be ham-swoggled into having to prove that something was NOT verifiable or WP:RS, instead of other way round. Thoughts? CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a link to Verifiability right in the second sentence. This is just a guideline, WP:V is the policy. Gigs (talk) 03:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

what is the bankcode of banco de oro antique, philippine branch? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teresa tj21 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Academic consensus among "ministers"
There has been an attempt to include all kinds of religious opinions as reliable source on 04:33, 4 December 2006. Meanwhile it seems most of this additions have been reverted, however the project page still reads
 * "The statement that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing."

thereby giving the opinions of science and scholarship the same status as (here even: exlusively Christian) theologie. I don't think this is in agreement with the scientific approach of this encyclopaedic project and have therefore removed the "ministers" from the sentence. --Schwalker (talk) 17:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is fine, the new wording still allows for consensus among religious scholars. Gigs (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Heck, scientists are scholars too, so it could be shortened even farther if you wanted. SDY (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Examiner
I wanted to reopen the discussion on the Examiner: http://www.examiner.com. (Please see Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/archive 21). For the sake of transparency, I am involved in a deletion discussion in which another editor pointed it out as a source: Articles for deletion/Reading With Rover.

The basic structure of the Examiner is that amateur writers can sign up and start writing. They get paid per hits (which really isn't a terrible thing since professional writers receive compensation for their work) and do not always use reliable information in their reporting. It is more of a blog and neutrality is not common. It does come up on google news searches.

I have had a few personal experiences with these writers/bloggers/examiner/whatever.


 * A company I was with was working on a product and information was released prematurely in blogs, forums, and sites accepting online preorders. This would usually be a good thing but the Examiner person took the incorrect information found on various blogs and made the contribution. Interesting stuff but incorrect. The writer did not verify the information and made incorrect conclusions based on the unverifiable information available on the internet. Most journalists would have contacted us for a press kit or requested an interview. It did drive sales at least.


 * Another time, a writer submitted an opinion piece on products in the industry we were associated with. It was great to get some feedback from the writer but overall he had a negative impression of our stuff. Just for fun, I sent him an email asking him to take a look at the upcoming line. He emailed me back and said he would reverse his opinion of our products if I signed up as a subscriber to his Examiner page.

These are only two occurrences but the primary reason for my hesitance to accept it as a reliable source is the fact that these are amateur writers (bloggers) who do not need to answer to any vetting process (i.e. an editor). Some of the information they provide is truly outstanding (the Seattle Sounders guy is usually good even though I know of one instance where he released a tabloid like peice that contained little informaiton but started a buzz) but we should set her standards higher and make sure the information being included is verifiable. Many writings found at the Examiner site simply fail the project's and most journalists' criteria. Cptnono (talk) 01:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The Examiner.com is not a reliable source. It's come up several times on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and each time, the overwhelming majority of editors felt it was not a reliable source:, , . A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sweet, I don't need to revisit something that has obviously been discussed. Thanks for the links!Cptnono (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Automate tracking of sources
Here's my suggestion for how to handle sources.

First every inline cite gets robotically matched by URL to a source page. So if you ref http://www.nytimes.com/something_or_other it will automatically link to The New York Times. If the robot is unable to match your URL it will leave a red link that can be edited to fit and the robot will pick up this match for future use.

Then on the subject pages for sources we can note the topics for which they are good references and on their talk pages we can indicate where they fall short. (Say Press TV as a source on Human Rights in Iran.)

Finally we simply require that all sources have their own pages.

There will no longer be a need for a single page that judges the ability of every source to report on every issue as the problem is split up into managable bits. Hcobb (talk) 15:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You assume that there is a subject page for the source (ie an article on the source). The vast majority of our sources do not have (or rate) their own articles.  Also, how would your bot work with dead tree sources, since there is no URL to link to? Blueboar (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Books can be matched by ISBN or such. And for the pages I've looked at the missing pages for sources have been a matter of time rather than notoriety. Hcobb (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Even if this were a good idea, I think it would be very difficult to keep up-to-date. It is hard to tell what part of a url describes the publication, versus what part describes a particular piece that has been referenced. Organizations change their website names from time to time. They merge with other organizations.


 * ISBNs change with each edition and each format (hardcover, softcover, digital). Older books do not have ISBNs.


 * The requirement "finally we simply require that all sources have their own pages" disallows IP contributors from providing quality edits, because if the source they want to use does not already have an article, the IP editor cannot create it except by begging a registered editor to create it for him/her. --Jc3s5h (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And it shifts the criteria for citation from "reliability" to "notability"... these two terms are not the same... not all reliable sources are notable (a small town newspaper is reliable for information on the town, but it isn't notable), and not all notable sources are reliable (the National Enquirer and Weekly World News are both notable, but they are far from reliable). Blueboar (talk) 21:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Then I have a real easy case for you. Should we ref Press TV? Hcobb (talk) 02:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I fail to see what Press TV has to do with the discussion. --Jc3s5h (talk) 02:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Just give me a binary yes or no. Is Press TV a reliable source?  (Hint: Both answers are wrong, but go ahead anyway.) Hcobb (talk) 02:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Checking them out in a reliable source, it seems that they pretend to be independent but are actually controlled by the Iranian government. Since I wouldn't know when there acting independent, and when they are a mouthpiece for the government, I consider them unreliable. --Jc3s5h (talk) 02:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

But sometimes Iranian state media is our only source. Shall I remove all such refs from WP and all statements that depend on such sources? The real answer is that every source must be judged against its own background, which is best presented as a page. Hcobb (talk) 03:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The usefulness of wikilinking to an article about the author, publication, and/or publisher within a citation is already acknowledged by the widespread practice of doing so. But trying to figure out where the link should go with a bot is difficult and may be prone to false positives (e.g. Time). Making it impossible to write a citation if there is no article about the source is out of the question. --Jc3s5h (talk) 04:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Example of when the bot wouldn't work. Imagine our article on Joe Schmidlap, famed for being the tallest man in the world, the legendary "10 foot pole" himself. His wife, Ernestine Schmidlap, in her book, "Life of Joe Schmidlap", page 17, says that he actually wore lifts, and was merely 9' 10". Surely a) this is important and controversial information that deserves a citation; b) she is a reliable source on the subject; c) neither she nor her book deserve an individual article. --GRuban (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Associated Content
Should the website Associated Content be considered a reliable source or not? The article says "Associated Content enables anyone to publish their content on any topic" so that makes me wonder. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 13:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No it is not a reliable source (except for statements about itself in the article on itself). That said, it might be usable as a convenience link for material that has been reliably published elsewhere and is copied at Associated Content. Blueboar (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Opinions need to come from notable people
This article doesn't say anything about whose opinion can be cited, in citing opinions. Presumably, Joe Blow With a Blog is not a source for an opinion on a random political issue. Opinions need to be from relevant or influential people--an expert, or maybe a leader (maybe belongs in the article for that person...). What are the guidelines? Noloop (talk) 20:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This covered in WP:RS --Jc3s5h (talk) 21:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's not about opinions per se. I wasn't giving Joe Blow as an example of an unreliable source. The problem is that his opinion just doesn't matter. It wouldn't matter if he wrote a letter-to-the-editor in a reliable newspaper either. How do we determine whose opinion matters? Noloop (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have a specifc answer, but we should not conflate the concept of notability of a person (that is, worthy of a Wikipedia article about that person) and posessing sufficient expertise or influnce to be cited as a source on a particular topic. For example, if judge x, in espressing her opinion of celebrity y in a published sentencing opinion, could probably be cited in an article about celebrity y, even though x is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. --Jc3s5h (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think WP:UNDUE is the closest we have. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposal. Add something like what I've put in italics:

Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers. When discussing what is said in such sources, it is important to directly attribute the material to its author, and to do so in the main text of the Wikipedia article so readers know that we are discussing someone's opinion.

''Opinions on a subject should come from experts, such as scholars on the subject or someone likely to have notable insight into it. The opinion of a prominent non-expert, e.g. "Oprah" may be of interest simply because the source is of interest. Consider putting that in the article on Oprah, rather than the article on the subject.''

There is, however, an important exception to sourcing statements of opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs (see: WP:BLP#Sources and WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source).

Note that otherwise reliable news sources--for example, the website of a major news organization--that happens to publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be considered to be equally reliable as if it were published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format of a classic news story. However, the distinction between "opinion pieces" and news should be considered carefully.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Noloop (talk • contribs) 16:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Blp covers it already. If you wanted to add a nod to that policy in WP:RS, I think that would be OK, since right now it seems to forbid what the BLP policy allows.  The policy "wins" though.  Gigs (talk) 03:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and added WP:SELFPUB information to the appropriate place. Gigs (talk) 03:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It has nothing to do with self-publication. That's not the point, as I explained above. If I take your opinion and put it on my Web site, it's not self-published. Letters-to-the-editor in a newspaper aren't self-published. That doesn't make them encyclopedic opinions. Noloop (talk) 04:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Noloops point is about newspaper articles as per [].Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I get it now, but I still strongly disagree with his original premise. We don't apply notability to sources. A source's credibility rests on their independence, their reliability when it comes to fact checking, and how much editorial oversight there is.  If a source is quoting someone verbatim (such as in an interview), then that's assumed to not have editorial oversight, independence, or much fact checking, and should be weighted as such.  Applying notability to sources doesn't really solve this problem, and just creates new ones. It's also a radical departure from our current practice, and has a snowball's chance in hell of actually being accepted as policy/guideline.  I think a more useful discussion might be how to express what I just said in terms of source credibility in the guideline.  Gigs (talk) 02:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm only talking about sources of OPINION. It has nothing to do with fact checking. Reliable publishers generally don't fact-check opinion pieces. Maybe there is confusion because "notability" has specific meaning in wiki-jargon (it means "deserving its own article"). I mean it in the general dictionary sense. Is a letter-to-the-editor from someone with no particular experience on the subject a valid source of opinion? It's not a matter of fact checking. We would not write "According to [person nobody has heard of, not notable in any way], universal health care is incompatible with a free market. [1]", where [1] is a letter-to-the-editor, blog, or op-ed of a random, average, opinionated dude. For that opinion to be in an article on universal health care, it would presumably come from somebody notable: a professional economist, an involved politician, etc. But, we have no such guideline for sources of OPINION. Noloop (talk) 16:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Noloop does have a point here... not every opinion is worth discussing in Wikipedia. However, I don't really see this as being a reliability issue... from the stand point of WP:RS, a letter to the editor is a reliable source for a statement as to what is contained in that letter to the editor.  The question of whether a given article should bother to discuss that letter is more a WP:NPOV issue than a WP:RS issue.  In fact, it is discussed in that policy by WP:UNDUE. Blueboar (talk) 20:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The link to WP:UNDUE is about viewpoints, not sources. My point is about the opinionater, not the opinion. The sample opinion I gave, "universal healthcare is incompatible with a free market" may deserve considerable weight in an article. That still doesn't justify citing Joe Random Dude's opinion. Sources of opinion (meaning, the author not the publisher) have to be notable (in the general dictionary sense). Noloop (talk) 23:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Notability is relative to the topic. If we're writing about Syrian-Israeli relaitons and former Sectraey of State Colin Powell writes a letter to the editor, then that would be an opinion that would be worth reporting. OTOH, his opinion of Spiderman III is not notable because it's outside his area of expertise and fame. Or, let's say we're writing about a building, and we have a newspaper article that says three people died in its construction. And let's say that the newspaper later published a letter to the editor from the president of the construction firm, who claims his company was not at fault. While the person is not notable in a general sense, his opinion is noteworthy in that narrow scope and so we should probably mention his letter.     Will Beback    talk    01:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, notable is relative to the topic. It's not synonymous with "famous." Noloop (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, I propose the following:

''Opinions on a subject should come from experts, such as scholars on the subject or someone likely to have insight into it. The opinion of a prominent non-expert, e.g. "Oprah" may be of interest simply because the source is of interest. Consider putting that in the article on Oprah, rather than the article on the subject.''

Again, this would go in the section on sources of opinions. I'm not proposing that general reliable sources have to have expertise. Nor am I saying anything about self-publishing or due weight. Just that when we write "According to [source of opinion], [statement of opinion]", the [source of opinion] should be someone whose opinion matters. There should be an answer to the question: "Why should anyone care about that person's opinion?" Somebody with expertise, standing, or insight. The president of the construction firm, in Will Beback's example above, would probably count. Noloop (talk) 19:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not? One can argue that the president of a construction firm is an "expert" on the topic of a building his company constructed. Certainly he would have an important insight into the issue of the building's construction.  What about a statement from the president of a rival construction company, who might give insight into normal construction practices.  I understand where you are coming from with this, but it isn't something we can lock into "the rules"... who qualifies as an "expert" often depends on the topic. Blueboar (talk) 21:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you're saying. I said the company president would probably count. Are you objecting or agreeing? The point that who counts as an expert depends on the topic just acknowledges the point that there are people who count as experts (depending on the topic). So there has to be consensus about it. I don't know what you mean by "lock into the rules." We don't cite the opinion of Random Joe Schmoe on health care. Why? Because there's no reason anybody should care about his opinion. Let's put that principle in the rules. Noloop (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry... I misread your statement as saying you though the president was would not qualify. My error. Blueboar (talk) 00:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

My answer is none of the above. An opinion is worth repeating if the opinion itself is noteworthy. First of all, if someone has an opinion about something we don't endorse that opinion. All we can say is that the person holds the opinion. So, for example, we could say "Barack Obama and the head of Harvard's history department both believe Abraham Lincoln to be the best president in history", but we couldn't say Lincoln is widely considered the best president in history with a cite to Obama and the hypothetical professor. Secondly, like every statement of fact, the statement that person X has opinion Y should in most cases be cited to a third party source, rather than the original research implicit in our reading a document as a primary source for evidence of what a person's opinion is or what a person said. Although there is a limited RS exception here that does let us cite opinions for evidence of what a person's opinion is, it's not the best way to go about things because it does not establish weight or relevance. For example, what if Obama, Tom Cruise, the Pope, and the judges on Top Chef Masters all believe that KFC is better than Popeye's. They're certainly notable, or experts, take your pick. But if we source that claim to a random interview here and there, it still doesn't belong on the Popeye's or KFC articles because the opinion itself simply isn't noteworthy. It has no bearing or importance really. On the other hand the opinion of a far less notable person, Michael J. Pollard, that corn is evil, is quite notable because it had a huge impact, as evidenced by the thousands of major reliable sources that report on Pollard having that opinion. Hope that helps. Wikidemon (talk) 23:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose the core question is... what has any of this to do reliability of sources? If Tom Cruise states an opinion on KFC v Popeye's in an interview on CNN, the source is reliable.  Whether Tom's opinion is worth mentioning in any particular article is another matter. Blueboar (talk) 00:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What about newspaper articles (not letters) about KFC. If a newspaper publishes an article saying (by say a staff reporter, or corresepondant) that there are 3 KFC's in the villlage of Much Rutting in the Marsh would that be RS for that or not? Moreover is that an opinion or a report of a fact? A second point how do we determine notable expert in a field?Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, an article saying that there are 3 KFCs in the town would be a statement of fact, not of opinon. A newpaper article (as opposed to a letter to the editor, op-ed collumn or editorial) is not considered an opinion piece.  Whether the report is RS depends on the newspaper (an article from the Times would be RS, one from the National Inquirer would not be.)
 * Yes, sometimes the line between fact and opinon can be blurred (news articles that express opinions, and opinion pieces that include facts) and that is where we have to use editorial judgement. But for the most part, most major newspapers make a clear distinction between the two. Blueboar (talk) 14:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding this: So, for example, we could say "Barack Obama and the head of Harvard's history department both believe Abraham Lincoln to be the best president in history", but we couldn't say Lincoln is widely considered the best president in history with a cite to Obama and the hypothetical professor. Can we say "Random Joe Schmoe down the block believes Lincoln was the best..."? I don't see how it matters whether this opinion can be found in a reliable source. We don't cite it, because Random Joe has no expertise or standing regarding Lincoln. If it is reported by 1,000 reliable sources (as in the Pollard example), that's probably evidence that Random Joe is notable and deserves his own article, so by definition it isn't the case I'm talking about. (I think that's covered by the "Oprah" example I give in my proposed text above.). I think my proposal is a piece of common sense that just hasn't made it into the rules. Noloop (talk) 19:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The proposal that "opinions need to come from notable people" does not accord with common practice in the quality press - for example only guest articles in The Economist have named authors, and many obituaries are effectly the work of several anonymous hands, as the media update bios of famous people constantly in order to be ready with an obit immediately it's needed. Like most of WP:RS, this is a futile attempt to reduce assessment of reliability to robotic rules. --Philcha (talk) 20:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Noloop... reliablility does not necessarily mean worthy of being discussed in an article. I agree that we should not discuss what some Random Joe thinks about Lincoln, even if he says it in a reliable source... my problem with your proposal is that notability is not a reliability issue.  Essentially it is a WP:NPOV issue (giving an obscure non-notable person's viewpoint more attention than it deserves).  In other words... while I agree with the sentiment behind your proposal, you are trying to attach it to the wrong policy/guideline. Blueboar (talk) 20:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree that it is not about reliability. It is about sourcing. The only guidelines for sourcing opinions, that I found, are on this page. So, I brought the discussion to this page. This may be the imperfect place to discuss it, but it seems to be the best place. At some future date, we might want to spinoff the section on sourcing opinions to its own article, but for now, this venue is what there is (unless I missed something). It's not the same as WP:NPOV. That is only concerned with the weighting of viewpoints, not their sources. Noloop (talk) 20:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But an opinion is a viewpoint... you are saying that a viewpoint should be ignored because the person who holds it is not an expert. Blueboar (talk) 22:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Basically, that's right. Noloop (talk) 03:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * So (and using the above example) all Wiki pages that claim x is dead and use either newspaper reorts or orbitury columns should now have that fact removed as they do not come from experets in that field (death)?Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

But all orbits are examined by newspaper employees who are experts in their field (due to working in that area for a while, not dying themselves). Hcobb (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * But they are not experts in death, just in reporting it. The sugestion is that only those who are notable expert in a field should be used as sources (in the case of death Doctors), thus is we accept your point then a reporter who works on a paper for years wrting articles about say the village of Much rutting in the marsh is an expert on much rutting in the marsh. Which brings us back rather neatly to how do you define a noted expert? Moreover (as I had hoped my point wouold demonstrate) if we do accpet this idea that soource have to be noted experts in the field they are used as a source for then much of the curretn project will fall foul of this.Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Death isn't a matter of opinion. I am only talking about sourcing opinions. Noloop (talk) 15:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

IMNSHO, every source needs to be notable enough to justify its own page, which needs to be linked from every reference that uses that source. Then sources can be dealt with using standard WP practices. We could have a robot march through and adjust cites to link to source pages with simple URL matching, and leave red links where the matching fails. Hcobb (talk) 15:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No... sources need to be reliable, not notable. In fact, reliable sources are what determine notability... not the other way around. Blueboar (talk) 15:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * as an example David Irving is a notable historian of WW2 and Nazi Germany, does that make him a reliable source on those subjects? Are his critics notable experts on ww2 and Nazi Germany?Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sources need not be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. For example, the listers of a small Vermont town are not a suitable subject for a Wikipedia article, but the grand list they produce is a reliable source for the appraised value of pieces of real estate in the town.


 * I don't understand what Hcobb is talking about with robotic matching, but it sounds a lot like book burning to me (that is, sources need not be on-line; we allow the use of printed books as sources). --Jc3s5h (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Any book used as a source simply needs to be notable enough to have its own page or at least be listed on the notable author or publisher's page. Hcobb (talk) 16:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. Blueboar (talk) 16:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Then all you need to do is bring up one counter example of a book that ought to be used as a source but neither the book nor the author (or group if produced group-wise) deserves their own page. Hcobb (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure... one from List article that I have worked on... Bicentennial Commemorative Volume of Holland Lodge No. 8, Published by the Lodge, New York, 1988, used in the article List of Freemasons to support the fact that DeWitt Clinton was a Freemason and a member of that lodge. Neither the book, the authors, nor the lodge are notable enough for their own article but, as a self-published source - used purely in the context of establishing that Clinton was a Member of the fraternity, it is reliable.  I can come up with other examples if you need. Blueboar (talk) 17:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems to be a notable establishment to me. http://www.hollandlodgeno8.org/index.html Hcobb (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not according to WP:ORG... local chapters of international organizations are not notable. Blueboar (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Opinions need to come from notable people - continued
Dudes and dudesses! You are highjacking my thread. This thread is specifically for the discussion of how we source opinions. I'd like to make headway on that, specifically defined, topic. A lot of the initial confusions came, I think, from my lack of specificity. I think that's been clarified now, and I wonder if there are any objections. If we say "Joe Schmo expressed the opinion that..." there should be a reason we care about what Joe Schmo thinks. Joe should be expert or involved in some way. Agree? Noloop (talk) 17:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... an expert or involved in some way?... OK what constitutes "involved in some way"? Someone could make the argument that mearly by stating an opinion in a reliable source, the opinionator has "involved" himself.  No... I still think the key to determining which opinions are worth discussing and which are not is to examine where the opinion was expressed... New York Times op-ed page?  OK... a reliably published book? OK... on a personal webpage or blog, generally not OK.  National Enquirer? Definitely not OK. Blueboar (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Define an expert or involved in some way? Is an eyewitenss involved in what they obseerve or just expresing an opinion?Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The policies define the principles, but the consensus process determines how they will be applied. In general, when we talk about eyewitnesses, we are talking about fact checking, so that's a factual matter. I AM TALKING ABOUT SOURCING OPINIONS. Example: "Pearl Jam is an overrated ripoff of Nirvana with no creative feeling of their own whatsoever." That's my opinion. If I got it in a letter-to-the-editor of a reliable newspaper, would it become valid to cite me in the article on Peral Jam? Of course not. If Courtney Love or a rock critic expressed that opinion, it might be valid to cite it in the article. Same opinion, different people. The opinionater matters, even when reliability of the publisher is not in question. Noloop (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * OK then lets say we try.
 * Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers. When discussing what is said in such sources, it is important to directly attribute the material to its author, and to do so in the main text of the Wikipedia article so readers know that we are discussing someone's opinion.


 * Opinions expressed on letter pages should not be regarded as having the same level of reliablitly as articles published within otherwise reliable sources.

Thus we can remove the use of letters from Joe Blogs, or words to that effect.Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Or words to that effect... yes. I can agree with this. Blueboar (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Opps the "words to that effect" referd to my sugested addition, not to my sentance about Joe Blogs. thanks for making up for my bad spelling. But I( suspect you realised that.Slatersteven (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No, the point has nothing to do with reliability. Noloop (talk) 22:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Then what is it? Abce2 | Aww nuts!  Wribbit!(Sign here)  00:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * OK lets try this (if users object to the use of the word reliability)
 * Letters published in journals or newspapers should come from experts, such as scholars on the subject. Letters from prominent non-experts, e.g. "Oprah" may be of interest simply because the source is of interest. Consider putting that in the article on Oprah, rather than the article on the subject. Letters from non notable persons should not be used.
 * Thus we still disallow letters from Joe Blogs and do not raise the contentious issue of reliability.
 * Folks... I think we need to take a step back... this guideline is about reliability. It should not discuss issues unelss they relate to reliability. If the point has nothing to do with reliability, then this is the wrong place to discuss it.  Blueboar (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no other place to discuss it. Wikipedia is a work in progress. If you know a forum that's a closer fit, please say so.
 * I'm starting to think SlaterSteven is a troll. He (and Abce2) followed me from an article full of trolls (anti-Americanism) to here. Now he is making the same sort of vaguely incomprehensible comments, maybe feigned incomprehension maybe not, that he makes in that article. Sorry for bringing a bunch of people to this article who came for personality reasons, rather than interest in the topic.... Noloop (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please discuss the policy, not your fellow editors. If someone is a troll, we can figure it out ourselves.  As for other places to discuss this... WT:NPOV seems the most appropriate (as "opinion" is just another way of saying "viewpoint") ... as I see it, the real problem with discussing the viewpoint of a non-notable person is that it gives Undue Weight to a non-notable viewpoint... so it is more a NPOV issue than it is a WP:RS issue.  Blueboar (talk) 16:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The concern is not with the opinion per se, it is with the source of the opinion (hence, the connection here). By "source of the opinion" I mean the opinion-holder, not the publisher. So, it has nothing to do with reliability. It has nothing to do with NPOV. It has nothing to do with due weight. I've already given examples. Noloop (talk) 16:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree... I think this has everything to do with due weight. The only reason why we would cite the opinion-holder is if we discussed his/her opinion in an article. If the opinion-holder isn't notable in relation to the topic, then neither is his/her opinion.   To discuss it (and therefore cite it) thus gives undue weight to a non-notable opinion. Blueboar (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And how do you handle the debate about the validity of using Mr. X as a reference without a Mr. X page? Hcobb (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Counter-examples to this claim: "If the opinion-holder isn't notable in relation to the topic, then neither is his/her opinion." If Random Joe Schmoe says "Universal healthcare is incompatible with a free-market," the opinion-holder is not notable, but the opinion may be. If Obama expressed the exact same opinion, it can go in an article on universal healthcare. Another previously given example was something like "Pearl Jam just ripped off Nirvana; they have no creative feeling of their own." If the opinion-holder is, say, me, it shouldn't be cited in the article on Pearl Jam or Nirvana. If Courtney Love or Jimmy Page expresses the exact same opinion, it is citable. Noloop (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * First, statements of opinions need to be clearly attributed to the opinion-holder so the reader knows it is an opinion. This means that the only reason to cite Random Joe Schmoe's opinion on healthcare (or anything else) is if an article actually discusses the opinion as being Random Joe Schomoe's opinion ... and that means giving his specific view undue weight.  Presenting a similar view, one attributed to someone more notable might not be undue weight.
 * As for Courtney Love's or Jimmy Page's opinion on Pearl Jam or Nirvana... this is actually a good example of why reliability does not equate to notability. I don't think Love's or Page's opinion on bands is automatically worth discussing, even though they are notable ... on the other hand, the opinion of a nameless staffer writing a review for Rolling Stone (or one of the other trade mags) definitely is worth discussing, even though the reviewer as a person is completely non-notable.
 * Reliability has little to do with notability, whether we are talking opinions or not. Blueboar (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To give an example of when it might be appropriate to cite a non-notable person... take the opinions of Joseph Wurzelbacher aka Joe the Plummer. OK, today he has become notable... but he wasn't notable when he first confronted Obama and made the news.  He was just another random guy... a plumming contractor. In fact, it was the fact that he was seen as being an average guy that made his comments and opinion notable.  He wasn't notable... but his comments (expressing his opinion) were.  As such, the transcripts of his comments to Obama are reliable sources for what he said. Blueboar (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The way I understand WP:RS, transcripts made by Joseph Wurzelbacher aka Joe the Plumber would not be considered reliable, but transcripts made by a reputable news organisation would be. --Philcha (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would agree with that. But that is an issue of where the opinion is stated rather than who is stating the opinion.  The point is, Joe's opinion can still be cited. Blueboar (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If we are depending on the journalist integrity of the Daily Bagel, then we need a page for them. Hcobb (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hcobb... please stop. You have proposed this elsewhere. It is disruptive to harp on the topic it in this conversation.    Blueboar (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Right: reliability has nothing to do with significance. We can always disagree on whether X is an important opinion-holder. You seem to be agreeing, now, that the opinion is different from the opinion-holder. Your comparison of Jimmy Page to a writer for the Rolling Stone suggests, I think, that we should consider the opinion-holder as well as the opinion.
 * Vocabulary is a little confusing here. I suggest we use "opinion-holder" to refer to the person whose opinion is being cited, while reserving "source" for the publisher. And, let's use "significant" rather than "notable", since "notable" has a specific meaning in wikijargon. Noloop (talk) 22:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The point of my comparison of Love and Page to the writer from Roling Stone is that significant opinions can come from insignificant opinion-holders. What makes the nameless staffer's opinion significant is the fact that it appeared in Rolling Stone, not because the staffer is significant.  If the same staffer posted post the exact same opinion on his personal blog it wouldn't be considered reliable.  If Jimmy Page expresses his opinion in Rolling Stone (outside of a letters to the editor page), it is reliable.  If he expresses it in his personal blog, it isn't. Blueboar (talk) 22:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Blueboar: Don't you mean 'significant' for the last two uses of the word 'reliable'? A blog is reliable for the opinions of its author.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No... I mean reliable. A personal blog is not considered a reliable source, primarily because there is no fact checking or editorial oversight.  For this reason most blogs are not considered reliable even for statements as to the opinions of their authors. The exceptions are blogs that have earned a reputation for hight journalistic standards, that go beyond opinion and are essentially online news outlets. Blueboar (talk) 23:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I believe that you are mistaken. A blog is considered a self-published source which is allowed under two situations:
 * If the author is an established and published expert in the relevant topic. Stephen Hawking's blog (assuming he has one) would be considered a reliable source on black holes.
 * If the person's blog is used as a source of information about the author (with 5 qualifications none of which is accuracy, BTW .)
 * Page and Love's blogs (assuming their authenticity can be verified) are reliable for their own opinions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are going to quote policy... please do so completely:
 * Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.
 * We also have to remember the restrictions on self-published sources in BLPs... In other words, even self-published sources by experts have limitations.
 * In any case, we are getting far from the original discussion... which was the idea that "opinions need to come from notable people". I think we have demonstrated that this is a flawed idea.  Yes, the opinions of notable experts are generally going to be more reliable than the opinion of non-notable amatures, but there are enough excpetions that we can not take the final step, and say that the opinions of the non-notable are unreliable.  Blueboar (talk) 12:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Blueboar, I summarized but did not leave out anything important. Your statement that "A personal blog is not considered a reliable source" was clearly wrong. Sorry if I offended you.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Then it seems to me that the sugestion that letters are treated the same way as blogs is a godd idea.Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree that letters to the editor of newspapers should be treated the same way as blog postings. My objections have been to sweeping statements tieing the concept of reliability to the concept of notability. Blueboar (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I totaly agree that is a bad idea. So perhaps we shold not add the line about letters not beging as relialbe as articles.Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there anything left to see here?
Where are we in terms of this discussion and proposal(s)? I believe that the questions/objections are already handled by the existing policies and guidelines. A letter to an editor is reliable for the author's opinion per WP:RS. The significance of any opinion is determined by WP:WEIGHT. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed... with the added note that there are additional restrictions that apply when it comes to BLPs. Blueboar (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No, the point hasn't even been understood. WP:WEIGHT has to do with the opinion, not the opinion-holder. There may be no due weight problem with the opinion "Universal health care is incompatible with a free market." It may be underrepresented in some article. We still don't cite Random Joe Schmo expressing that opinion. We do cite Alan Greenspan. Different opinion-holder, same opinion. I think this is common sense, and I'm not sure why I can't make it understood. If you cite someone's opinion, there must be an implied answer to the question "Why should anybody care about that person's opinion?" Noloop (talk) 16:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That is because Alan Greenspan is a more reliable source for that particular opinion than Random Joe Schmo is... not because Schmo is unreliable for the opinion. Blueboar (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * More or less, we agree: the opinion-holder matters. Greenspan is more expert, more significant. But this is not explicitly stated in any policy. You can find allusions to it here and there, but no straightforward statement. (It's misleading to say Greenspan is a more reliable source: in wikijargon, the source is the publisher, and reliability refers to factual accuracy.) Noloop (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually no, WP:V includes the following footnote:
 * The word "source", as used in Wikipedia, has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (an article, book, paper, document), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times or Cambridge University Press). All three can affect reliability.
 * Due to a recent edit, this footnote was not showing up... so I can understand how you did not know it was there. I have fixed the problem.
 * Of course the opinion-holder matters... just not in the way you have been saying. Blueboar (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Aha! I just found this bit, as an aside in WP:WEIGHT, talking about aesthetic opinions: "Providing an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations or references to notable individuals holding that interpretation, is appropriate." (emphasis added) Noloop (talk) 16:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly... this is why we have been saying that this is a WP:WEIGHT issue, not an RS issue. Blueboar (talk) 16:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There's also:
 * If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
 * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
 * If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I feel like I'm herding cats. There now seems to be an agreement that the opinion-holder should be important in some way (not necessarily notable, in the sense of deserving an article). There is no explicit policy that makes that clear. There are passing references scattered about. What are the objections to my proposed text? Noloop (talk) 21:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I think that it's already covered by the existing policies and guidelines. Instead of modifying these, how about we add something like the following to WP:Reliable source examples:

"Are letters to the editor reliable sources? Letters to the editor are largely not acceptable, though may be used in limited circumstances, with caution. If a letter to the editor is published by a reliable source such as a respected newspaper or magazine and is written by an established expert on the topic at hand who has been previously published by reliable, third-party publications on this topic, it is reliable for that person's opinion. If the author is a non-expert such as a celebrity, it is also reliable for that person's opinion. However, it should be noted that if the non-expert's opinion is significant, it would have been covered by third-party, reliable sources. Either way, WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP still apply." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Quest... I don't think Noloop's issue is limited to letters to the editor. He seems to want a broader statement about the notability of the opinion-holder being the criteria by which we determine reliability.  I think we all agree that experts are more reliable than non-experts... what bothers me the most is that his proposals imply that the opinions of amatures are unreliable.  Blueboar (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "He seems to want a broader statement about the notability of the opinion-holder being the criteria by which we determine reliability". Then he's in the wrong guideline because this is a weighting issue, not a reliability issue.  Weight should be presented roughly in proportion to its prominence in third-party, reliable sources.  As for which sources are best to cite, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the best.  Highly respected newspapers and magazines are usually the next best sources.  When deciding which sources to use, letters to the editor appear towards the bottom. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There's no policy, easily locatable as being about the citation of opinion, which clearly states something like: Opinions on a subject should come from experts, such as scholars on the subject or someone likely to have insight into it. I don't know where Blueboar got the idea that I think the opinions of amateurs are automatically uncitable. If there is reason to think an amateur has insight into the topic, his opinion is citable, according to what I proposed. We can add some langauge about "prominence", which I think was covered by the Oprah example in the second part of my proposal. Can we agree on the first sentence in the proposal above? If not, are there tweaks needed or is it fundamentally flawed in some way? Noloop (talk) 01:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * AFAIK, there's no such statement because that's simply not correct. Weight should be attributed based on its prominence among third-party, reliable sources, not on whether the opinion-holder is an expert.  Per WP:WEIGHT, "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I would object to adding such language to this guideline for two reasons... first it ignores opinions that are notable, but not held by notable people. Conspiracy theories and similar Fringe topics come to mind. It is rare for the experts to be adherants of such theories, but becuase a lot of "average Joe's" believe them what is notable is the theory itself.  and yet we need to cite to someone who adhears to the theory to support the fact that the theory exists.  Second, adding such language will lead to endless arguments over whether a given opinion-holder meets the stated criteria... Does the author of a self-published pamphlet promoting a Fringe theory qualify as having insight on the subject?  If Random Joe Schmoe claims amateure status... would this mean that his opinion is suddenly citable after all? Blueboar (talk) 03:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not a question of weight. Even if an opinion is underweighted in an article, we don't cite Random Joe Schmoe expressing that opinion. I'm talking about the opinion-holder, not the opinion. Nor is it a question of the publisher: that mainly concerns citing facts. I'm talking about citing opinions.
 * A prominent holder of a fringe theory is probably notable as a source of opinion about that theory. Any given case is settled by consensus, guided by policy.
 * The "endless arguments" will happen anyway. That's what initially brought me here. The point of policies and guidelines is to help resolve those endless arguments.
 * What determines whether Random Joe's opinion is citable on Wikipedia is the consensus process, not what Random Joe says about himself. This is true of reliability, notability, and every other content policy. Noloop (talk) 15:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The flaw in your argument is that you can't seperate the opinion from the opinion-holder. If the editors of an article make the editorial judgement (taking into account WP:NPOV) that a particular opinion should be discussed in an article, they must be able to cite the opinion-holder, whoever that is.  I can agree that when we have a choice of sources (all with the same or similar opinions), we should cite the most reliable source for the opinion, but that does not change the fundamental fact that we have to cite an opinion holder for the opinion.  Blueboar (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * When would you decide an opinion should be discussed in an article, when nobody important to that article has ever expressed that opinion? Noloop (talk) 23:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Um... never... that is my point. If the opinion is important to mention in an article then the opinion-holder is also "important to the article" ... The determination on inclusion in the article is focused on whether the opinion is worth discussing.  If it is, then the opinion holder should be cited. Blueboar (talk) 00:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No, that's some sort POV-promotion. The editors aren't more important than the encylopedic sources of fact and opinion on an article. Editors can't put an opinion in an article just because they want to, even though nobody with standing on the tpic thinks the opinion is important. That would be a way to insert just about any opinion, since every opinion that could exist on any topic can be found in a blog somewhere. Noloop (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But some opinions are important to a topic even though the opinion-holders are not... a prime example of this are conspiracy theories. Yes, conspiracy theories are usually bullshit, but in many cases they have become notable bullshit (the various 9/11 conspiracy theories are a prime example).  Your proposal would mean that a notable conspiracy theory could not be discussed unless the theorist is notable.  That would eliminate discussion of 99 percent of the topic.
 * No... The determining factor for inclusion is whether the theory is notable... not whether the theorist is notable. Once you determine that a theory is worth discussing in the article (and see WP:FRINGE for the rules on that), then it does not matter who the theorist is... you can, should and must cite him for his opinion. Blueboar (talk) 23:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "Notable" is relative to the topic. A fringe theorist is "notable" to the particular theory he holds. Random Joe Shmoe is not. A member of the Flat Earth Society might be perfectly acceptable as a source of opinion about that theory. Such a person has standing and insight into some notable aspect of it. I'm saying Random Joe Shmoe--somebody with no standing regarding that topic--is not an encyclopedic source of opinion on that topic. Noloop (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * How you determine if someone has no standing in a topic?Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The guideline we've been discussing is something like expertise, likelihood of insight, or just obvious prominence. The process would be the consensus process. Noloop (talk) 18:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * But we already have that for opinions, and a sugestion has been largley accepted that letters do not carry the same weight as the sources they are published in. Other then that I fail to see your objections.Slatersteven (talk) 18:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, for opinions we actually have a clear criteria for inclusion that we can use... see WP:FRINGE. To boil that guideline down to its essence: If a reliable mainstream source has commented upon a given theory/opinion in a serious manner (even if to disparage it), then it is considered notable enough to discuss in Wikipedia... if not, then it isn't.  The point for this guideline is that once we determine that a Fringe opinion should be discussed, we must be able to cite the opinion-holder for that opinion, regardless of who the opinion-holder is.  Everyone (including Joe Schmoe) is a reliable source for their own opinions... the issue is whether the opinions are worthy of discussion.Blueboar (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:FRINGE only applies to fringe theories. Noloop (talk) 23:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * First line of WP:FRINGE... This guideline advises which fringe theories and opinions may be included in Wikipedia, and to a certain extent how those articles should approach their subjects. (bolding mine) 'Nuff said. Blueboar (talk) 00:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, fringe theories and opinions. As in, fringe theories and fringe opinions. It's WP:Fringe. Noloop (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fringe opinions are still opinions. Which means we have a criteria for inclusion as to which opinions are worthy of discussion in Wikipedia. Blueboar (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No, that means we have criteria for fringe opinions.Noloop (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I fail to see how that changes anything. Let's go back to your example of Random Joe Schmoe's opinion on health care... if no reliable source has commented upon his opinion, then his opinion is too Fringe to discuss in Wikipedia... falling on the "not worth including in an article" side of the line... if a reliable source has commented upon it, that means his opinion is not too Fringe to discuss in Wikipedia... falling on the "worth including in an article" side of the line. And IF by this process we determine that his opinion IS "worth discussing", then it is absolutely appropriate to cite him for that opinion. The determination is made based on the opinion, not the opinion holder. Blueboar (talk) 23:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In your example, the "determination is made based on" the commenting of reliable sources. That's what you looked at in your example. I'm not sure what you mean by the commenting of reliable sources, however. The reliability of a source is mostly about statements of fact; I'm talking about opinions. Besides, we could cite Obama's opinion on healthcare regardless of whether anyone commented on it. Noloop (talk) 16:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * An nopinion is worthy of discusio if it is likely that that opinion might have some knowledge of the facts. The problom comes from determining who might have such knowlegde. If Joe Blogs states there are three KFC's in a village he spent a week on holiday in is he a reliable source for that. We can (to an extent) define notable expert, after all wew can say that to be counted the soource has to have qaulifications or offical recognition (such as awards or proffeserships in that or related field) but involved?Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Slatersteven, opinions are often held in contradiction of the facts... conspiracy theories are a prime example. Yet because certain conspiracy theories are notable (the various 9/11 conspiracy theories are very notable), we have articles about them and discuss what the opinions of various conspiracy theorists are... and we cite to the people who hold those opinions because they are reliable sources for what their own opinions are. The issue is whether to discuss the opinion, not whether we can cite the opinion-holder. Blueboar (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In the context of this discussion, it is false that "opinions are often held in contradiction of the facts." We are taking about statements of opinion, not statements of fact. "Pearl Jam sucks." isn't in contradiction (or agreement) with the facts. "Opinion doesn't refer to whatever you believe. It refers to your POV. Noloop (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point (this is essentially what I was trying to say). Blueboar (talk) 17:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Good. I think I need to clarify that by "opinion" we mean POV, not opinion about a factual matter (e.g. not the "opinion" that global warming is caused by human activity). The guideline isn't restricted to fringe theories, or cases where there is a WP:WEIGHT problem. Making these changes, can we add the proposed text? Noloop (talk) 16:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No... because WP:NPOV tells us that the only reasons to omit a POV is if it is fringe or if there is a NPOV problem. Blueboar (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is about the POV of an entire article. I'm not talking about omitting a POV from an article, I'm talking about who is a valid source of a particular opinion/interpretation/POV that is to be cited. It's kind of interesting that after this enormous volume of text, you still don't understand what is being said. Noloop (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, NPOV is not just about the POV of an entire article (although it does talk about that). It is also about how and whether any particular POV should be discussed in an article.  I realize that your intent is not to omit a POV from an article... but the reality is that your suggested addition would omit POVs from articles... you are saying that we should not discuss a notable POV unless the person who has that POV (the opinion-holder) is notable.  Your addition would shift the citeria for inclusion from the notability of the opinion to the notability of the opinion-holder. That sets up a direct conflict between this guideline and the NPOV policy. It is that shift that I object to. Blueboar (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The portions of WP:NPOV that pertain to this subject support my position. The example for citing aesthetic opinions refers to "prominent" critics. The example for citing opinions using baseball refers to "baseball insiders." The idea that the opinion-holder matters exists scattered around in various guidelines, it just isn't outright stated anywhere. Theoreticallly, the only way this guideline could cause any problems is if there was an important opinion, and nobody relevant had ever expressed that opinion. That might be impossible just by definition, and it creates new issues of neutrality for editors to decide it is the case. Noloop (talk) 20:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If it helps, weight should be in proportion to its prominence in third-party, reliable sources where academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the best sources to cite. Highly respected newspapers and magazines are usually the next best sources.  I still don't see the issue here.  Just follow what reliable sources are doing.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It doesn't help. Weighting isn't the issue. My point is valid regardless of whether the opinion being cited is underweighted. Noloop (talk) 04:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Choosing between sources that agree
In the somewhat long discussions on "Opinions need to come from notable people" above we breifly addressed the idea of using the most reliable source for any give statement... I think there is strong consensus that we should always use the best sources possible for anything... but the guideline does not actually say anything about this. We should probably address that. I would suggest adding something along the lines of the following (I am not wedded to this particular language):


 * Choosing between sources that agree - Ideally, all Wikipedia articles should refer to the most reliable source for any stated fact or opinion. When two or more reliable sources agree on a fact, or state a substantially similar opinion on a topic, editors should discuss the relative merits of each source on the article talk page and reach a concensus as to which source should be cited.

thoughts and comments? Blueboar (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that using "the most reliable" is desirable. But I could see the last sentence leading to a huge amount of effort that might be better expended elsewhere being wasted on debating the relative merits of sources that are to all intents and purposes equally, and highly, reliable... Barnabypage (talk) 20:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I second Barnabypage's comment. Also, this kind of presents the issue as a false dichotomy.  There's nothing wrong with citing multiple reliable sources for the same content.  In fact, that's probably preferable.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm good points. Obviously I need to think on this more. Thanks for the replies. Blueboar (talk) 03:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I would agree that if there are more then one reliable source use them all (but perhpas a limit should be imposed of say 3 sources).Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

News articles that allow comments
There is someone at Talk:Harriet Harman trying to assert that a news source cannot be used if the comments to the main article contain material insulting to the subject. Specifically, the WP article claims that Harman earned a particular nickname because of her feminism. The article cites a Spectator Evening Standard piece that says her feminism earned her the nickname. Like many news sources, members of the public are allowed to leave comments at the end of the article. After this particular article is a comment stating that Harman is mental and should be institutionalized. The other editor involved in this dispute keeps removing the source on the basis that the source contains "slanderous material". He has even gone so far as to try to say this somehow implicates WP:BLP. -Rrius (talk) 23:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that the news article can be used as a source - if it is comment by a columnist, then it clearly needs to be attributed to the columnist. The fact that others have added comment to the article page is irrelevant, IMHO. Of course such comments must not be cited. Jezhotwells (talk) 05:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The articles can be used, but if there is a citation without comments from the general public then that is preferable. I notice that no link has yet been provided for the disputed link, I consider that as slanderous comments about the subject of the biography that in this case it would be better not to use this link, we have other options so if the link is contentious then why keep it in the article? [Here] is the link and here is the specific comment I dislike to be linking to.

Rogan from Irving comments .. This female is basically mad and should be sectioned under the mental health act. Off2riorob (talk) 19:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, as Jezhotwells said, it is irrelevant. As in the comments have zero effect on the article that is being used as a source. It is unclear where you are getting the idea from that it matters one iota, but clearly opinion is against you. -Rrius (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No? If you don't mind there is one comment here, that is all, so it is a little early to state that opinion in this matter is against me, I have added a link to the site and added the specific comment I object to, and opened up the discussion.Off2riorob (talk) 21:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And there is another at the Harman talk page. Everyone besides you who has commented on the issue has rejected your opinion. It is bizarre to claim that the public comments somehow tarnish the source. You have failed to explain even once, either here or at Talk:Harriet Harman, just how the comments affect the source. It seems more and more likely that the reason for that failure is because there isn't one. It would be unreasonable for anyone to think that the Evening Standard endorses the views expressed in the comment you repeated above, and it would be even more so to assume that linking to the article from Wikipedia somehow implies that Wikipedia endorses those views. It is clearly the article, not the comments, that the Wikipedia article is putting up as a source. I have attempted to engage with you on why you believe what you believe by asking it straight out and by asking different series of questions. You have answered none of those questions. It all keeps coming back to the fact that you "feel" it is "slanderous" even though feelings don't come into it, even though you clearly don't know what slander is, and even though you can't explain why, if the comment were defamatory, how it has anything to do with the article, which is what Wikipedia is linking to. Even if the whole page were nothing but a libelous screed, Wikipedia would still not be committing libel unless it repeated the libel. -Rrius (talk) 22:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is where you are wrong, I am simply requesting that this citation be changed as the comment that I have posted here is clearly visible, it is a very nasty comment about the subject of the biography, and I am simply requesting you change it for another citation without similar comments, I fail to see why you are resisting so strongly, it is a simple request easily done, you took it out once and are now for some reason insisting on it's inclusion. A little editorial goodwill and it is gone, easy, no drama. I have shown you the specific comment that is clearly visible on the page you insist on linking to...here again it is....Rogan from Irving comments ..       This female is basically mad and should be sectioned under the mental health act.   Off2riorob (talk) 23:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How does that make me wrong? You are making what appears to be an unreasonable request. You have failed over and over again to make any sort of case as to why the comment's being visible is relevant to whether the article is a reliable source. The Wikipedia article does not link to the comment; it links to the Evening Standard article. Please try to understand the difference. There are very few sources out there that explain where Harman received the nickname "Harperson". I have found two, one of which you object to because some 3d party left a comment in a public comments section. The other is from the Daily Mail, a source which you and another editor at the page have disdained. I will not risk it being removed because people such as yourself believe it cannot be trusted. In any event, the availability of another source does not make your request reasonable, and your attempt to make it seems so is unconvincing. Finally, it is you who has been dramatic throughout, including in your insults to my contributions and to me personally. Your persistence in having legitimate material removed despite its being verified by reasonable sources succeeded because I was unwilling to put up with your silly declarative arguments with no attempt at support. I draw the line at removing sources based on nothing more that silly concerns that have been rejected now by three different editors and supported by none. I will not back down from this because you are being unreasonable, and you cannot be left believing that every unreasonable demand you have will be acquiesced to. -Rrius (talk) 00:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

There are two different things here: the citation and the link. A citation should always have enough information that someone could go to a physical archive and find the article. A link is provided for convenience. As this is about the link rather than the citation, it has nothing to do with reliable sources. I suggest the BLP noticeboard. --NE2 01:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not really a BLP issue either. The problem is that there is nothing at all wrong with the linked article, so there is no "correct" place to bring the discussion. At BLP, they would say it is not really about BLP because no one claims the Wikipedia article contains claims about a living person that are not verified by a reliable source. They would say it is about the reliability of the source and direct the conversation here. -Rrius (talk) 01:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If they say it's about the reliability of the source, they're idiots. This is about whether including the link violates BLP or not. --NE2 02:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This sounds like a WP:BLP issue to me. I suggest bringing it to WP:BLPN.  BTW, if consensus is reached that this is a valid reason to disallow an otherwise reliable source, it has broad implications across Wikipedia as we have tons of articles cited to news sources that allow comments. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, that is confusing. To avoid BLP, a claim has to be verified by a reliable source. The only possible failing is in the reliable source department. Moreover, your comment, A Quest for Knowledge, says straight out that if Off2riorob's interpretation were correct, it would have broad implications for otherwise reliable sources used throughout Wikipedia. How is this not a WP:RS issue? In any event, I have started yet another discussion on this topic at WP:BLPN. I just hope more people there address the question rather than trying to bounce it to another forum. -Rrius (talk) 04:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's been pointed out there that an url is not required, so the citation can just reference the article - this would have been the best place to raise that possibility surely? Dougweller (talk) 13:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a good solution, I like it and support it. Off2riorob (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Can we please have this discussion in one place? Since it seems the discussion is moving at BLP, how about we just keep it there. -Rrius (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Help with a reliable source
Please ref: Talk:Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh)...

I have been asked to check here with RS editors if it would be appropriate to cite the following article, which holds a quote that is in the Osho article in this section. Can this website, enlightened-spirituality.org, and its contributor, Timothy Conway, PhD, be considered a reliable source?

Also, please consider this website and this website as other possible reliable sources for the same quotation.

The quotation is as follows: "I am not a disciple and I do not consider Osho my master, but I cannot hide my admiration for the old man. I think his contribution to expanding human awareness has no parallel in human history. There have been other masters, but no one has been so effective in reaching so many people during his lifetime as Osho did. Also, his insistence on laughter, enjoying life and humor as religious qualities makes him stand alone in the world of mystics. Finally, he helped to liberate, sexually and from social conditioning vast quantities of spiritual seekers that would have, otherwise, ended up ranking with some ascetic, repressive guru, and thus contributing with more repression and self-torture to this world."

- Anthony Thompson, Ph.D.

&mdash;  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.   14:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * it definitely fails WP:RS, it's from a forum, it's a case of WP:SPS it should not be used. BTW anyone can tag PhD after their name, but even if he is a PhD, it does not qualify his opinion in this context. Relative to the standard of sourcing used in this article thus far this item is not usable. Semitransgenic (talk) 17:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not a forum, it was attached to a forum but that has since been closed, it is a respectable site with the names and contact details of the owners of the site,it is a site where comments are allowed, as are lots of the links we provide to newsarticles. There are also no sales on the site. This comment that is attempted to be included is well sourced around the web. And there is no dispute about the author. This particular comment is non controvertial in any way. Off2riorob (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a site that is run by supporters of Osho but the david cameron article uses heavily the conservative website for simple information, I would suggest that for uncontrovertial comments that this site is respectable enough, if comments are disputed then I would agree a stronger citation would be preferable but for non controvertial stuff I see no reason that this can not be cited from here. Off2riorob (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You are correct that the website in question is not a forum... it's a blog... however it is still an Self-Published source with all the limitations that implies. I would say it is not reliable for this quote. Blueboar (talk) 17:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes it is not a forum, it is not really a blog either, perhaps it is closer to a well run fan site. I would say it was a bit above a blog, and I would say that for this simple comment it is fine as a citation, and it is not self published, it has been added by the management of sannyasnews not by the writer. Off2riorob (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Rob & Paine, please state the distinction you make between the Thompson item and the Calder SP item that is being rebuked. I take it you have no problems also detailing Calders claims then? Or detailing further Hugh Milnes experiences? or the other sources Calder refers to in his item? Contrary to the other commentators cited in the Osho appraisal section, most of whom are published academics, Thompson is a non-notable individual and is not published by a reliable third party source; Semitransgenic (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Where is Paine? I am here alone.I will leave her a note to come join in.Off2riorob (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I hear what you are saying there Semi, this is not really about the wider picture, is it? It is really only about the possible reliability of non contentious comments from this site. Where is Paine? I am here alone.I will leave her a note to come join in.Off2riorob (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have left Paine a note to come comment here. I see your point Semi but I am only talking about non contentious comments from the site. Off2riorob (talk) 17:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * why is this quote notable? relative to the hundreds of other relevant quotes that could be derived from notable sources. Semitransgenic (talk) 17:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The inserter suggested that it is the comment that can be more important than the notability of the commenter. Off2riorob (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Really?? I would like to see this rule applied throughout wikipedia and see where it gets us, this is an indefencible position. 78.105.238.248 (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you may be right, 78, and notability of people being quoted may or may not have been the norm up to now; however, there is nothing I can find in the MoS nor WP:Quote that says that a quoted person must be notable. Articles must be notable.  Persons who have articles written about them must be notable persons.  But I haven't yet found a policy nor a guideline that precludes any quoted person in any article based upon their notability or lack thereof.  Perhaps you can focus me?
 * &mdash;  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.   18:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Semi, there are actually 3 sources to consider, as I've linked above. On a scale from 1 - 10 (ten being the most reliable), I wonder about where each of the three possible RS's measures, as well as what minimum measurement would be appropriate for this rather harmless quotation from Thompson.  And forgive me, but I don't think that just "anyone" can tag PhD after their name and be credible to even their critics for very long; Thompson is credible to the writer, Timothy Conway, who criticizes him at the first website I asked about.  Nor do I find anything in the MoS or WP:Quote that automatically invalidates a good quotation just because the person quoted is not "notable" (and by what standard is this notability, if truly crucial, measured, precisely?).
 * &mdash;  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.   18:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * yes anyone can, and they have, happens all the time, happens on wikipedia also Semitransgenic (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Semitransgenic, the quote is notable because it appears to give a more down-to-earth, common person's opinion of this highly controversial mystic. With Osho it seems to usually be a "love him or hate him" proposition.  Thompson seems to be able to compliment Osho without overtly showing great love or hatred.  One might say that it belongs in the section and the article by virtue of the fact that it fairly balances the highly polarized opinions found in the preceding four paragraphs.  I know it's all a very subjective call in this case, and that's why we came here – for your experienced help in dealing with our subjective and, in Off2riorob's and my cases, inexperience in these matters. Thank you very much for your help!
 * &mdash;  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.   18:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's in your opinion, I beg to differ, the guy is not a notable commentator, and the source is not RS. One might as well write "some dude said Osho was a bad man but some other dude says that he really is a cool dude, like yeah man!" Semitransgenic (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It could be a reliable source, it is like a well run fansite, with the administrators names and contact details. They are not selling anything and there is no forum, which as I remember was one of the previous problems with the source,I fail to see why it could not be used for non contentious comments. Off2riorob (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, you asked for my opinion and you got it. And you're entitled to differ.  But I'm still unclear, because you keep saying "the source is not RS" without specifying which of the three sources you mean.  They aren't all unreliable, are they?  And even if they're not as reliable as one might want for more crucial, perhaps harmful claims, might their lower level(s) of reliability still be appropriate for this unharmful little quotation?  And once more you lead me to ask just where it says in guideline or policy that a quoted person absolutely must be notable her or himself?  Oh! and why do I get the "vibes" from you that you're not being objective?  Forgive me, for I cannot remember any case where I might have somehow wronged you in the past; however, I'm getting distinct vibes from your responses that I was "beaten" before I even wrote the first word of this enquiry.  If it's all etched in stone, then what's the real reason for this particular Talk page?  Is it to "let the newbies down gently"?  All I'm asking for here is a thoughtful decision about three possibly reliable sources for a harmless quote in an article about a controversial mystic.  Am I being too much trouble for you?  If so, just let me know and I'll gladly go back to wikignoming and try never to bother you again!
 * &mdash;  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.   19:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Semi, I sincerely hope that you can find it in your heart to forgive me. I have only now noted that this is all taking place on the wrong page, and that my enquiry should have been placed in another locale.  I shall retire with all due speed to that other page:  Reliable sources/Noticeboard.  Thank you for your immense tolerance of my mistake thus far!
 * &mdash;  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.   20:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Suggest you copy over the entire discussion. Blueboar (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just caught your suggestion, and I did already link to this discussion over on the Noticeboard. Thank you for your advice!
 * &mdash;  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.   20:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

scholarship --> double-blind reviewing / anonymous submission
I think it would be valuable to discuss the issue of anonymous submission and double-blind peer-review in journals, and emphasize that in general, journals using such a review process ought to be preferred as sources to those that do not. I would also recommend including mention of factors that can lead to bias in acceptance/rejection when submission and reviewing is not anonymous. I also think it might be relevant to discuss related issues such as publication bias, especially when it comes to avoiding undue weight.

Here are some articles that discuss the importance of these concerns:


 * Peters, Douglas P.; Ceci, Stephen J., "Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again.", Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol 5(2), Jun 1982, 187-255. -- This rather old study provides strong evidence that the status of the institution that work is associated with has bearings on acceptance rates in journals, controlling for content.


 * R.J. Brown, "The use of double anonymity in peer review: a decision whose time has come?", Qual Assur. 2005 Apr-Jun;11(2):103-9. -- This is a pretty balanced article that discusses the benefits of (and arguments againts) anonymity of both the reviewers and author.


 * Kathryn S. McKinley, "Editorial: Improving Publication Quality by Reducing Bias with Double-Blind Reviewing and Author Response", The University of Texas at Austin, Computer Science Dept. -- This editorial advocating for double-blind reviewing contains citations to many other relevant studies. It also has a compelling argument that double-blind publications are already taken more seriously in Academia as they are cited more often.


 * David Shatz, Peer review: a critical inquiry, Rowman & Littlefield, 2004. -- This is a pretty exhaustive text, presenting many different perspectives, and would be interesting reading for anyone who really wants to delve into this issue in more depth.

What do others think? Do people generally agree? The arguments against double-blind submission do not seem to hinge on the quality of the work (see the book by D. Shatz) and thus, from a perspective of reliability, I have not found any compelling arguments against them. What do you think would be the best way to mention these sorts of issues in WP's guidelines?

What about adding a sentence like "Publications in journals using anonymous submission/double-blind peer reviewing are preferred to those in journals."...or does anyone have any other suggestions or ideas? And what is the most widely accepted word or phrase to use here? Anonymous submission? Blind submission? Double-blind reviewing?

I think it might also help to link to a wikipedia page on the issue--I was unable to find one--and it surprises me there isn't one so if I am just not searching in the right way and someone could point this out that would be great too. Cazort (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Instruction Creep and overkill... we already say that peer reviewed journals are highly reliable. There is no need to go further by saying that "this form of peer review is better than that form of peer review".  That said, I don't think double-blind is necessarily universally better... a standard peer review from a highly respected journal is going to be more reliable than a double-blind review from one that has a poor reputation.  When it comes to reliability, I think the reputation of the journal is more important than its methodology. Blueboar (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that "I don't think double-blind is necessarily universally better". However, in the case of journals with similar reputations, I think double-blind is clearly better as it eliminates a major potential source of bias.  The key issue, as far as WP is concerned, is the source's reliability--and reputation is only a proxy for reliability.  There is also some evidence, based on citation indices, that journals with double-blind reviewing actually have better reputations (at least in computer science, see: ).  Determining the reputation of a journal can also be a highly subjective matter, whereas the reviewing process is something that can be determined at a glance from afar.  So my points are (1) the impartiality of the submission/reviewing process is an important contributing factor to the journal's reputation, and (2) among journals with similar reputations, one with a more impartial submission/reviewing process is likely to be more reliable.  Cazort (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree that formalising a preference for double-blind reviewing / anonymous submission would be "Instruction Creep and overkill". The journals cited in suppor tof the idea have a built-in bias towards instruction-creep themselves, check their names - I bet the word "process" appears in every second sentence. In reality I'm sure those with enough experience of a field can generally identify notable contributors by their style, views, methods and citations. --Philcha (talk) 21:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree wholeheartedly with your concerns about instruction creep; I think it would be prudent to limit inclusion to as concise a remark as possible...I would actually prefer to add only a short clause in a sentence, if it is possible to convey the appropriate meaning. But I am still convinced that the bias highlighted here is real, and is an issue that could confound attempts at NPOV, especially in cases where undue weight is an issue.  Just because an issue is subtle and hard to detect doesn't mean it is any less important--I think this is an example of an issue that is extraordinarily subtle but has a massive effect on the neutrality not just of wikipedia, but of academic work in general.  Wikipedia's guidelines, in as sense, already go above and beyond the standards of many peer-reviewed journals, in terms of demanding consensus and requiring that all views be represented in appropriate weight.  I think this is one case where at least mentioning this issue is necessary in order to maintain that higher sense of rigor, both in a practical and idealized sense.  Cazort (talk) 01:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * One more note, maybe it would be better for me to pursue discussion of this elsewhere on wikipedia rather than here, such as at WikiProject Countering systemic bias...thoughts? This would avoid instruction creep in core policies and guidelines.  Thanks.  Cazort (talk) 01:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to try... but I don't think you will get very far. If anything, you are suggesting that we introduce a bias by saying that one method of peer review is better than another.  Blueboar (talk) 14:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you believe (as I do) that doubly-anonymous review eliminates a major source of bias, then you're removing, rather than introducing a bias. WP's policies already take strong, clear stances on peer-reviewed academic articles being preferred to news articles; I don't see how this is any different other than that the issue is more subtle.  The reason I brought this issue up is that I believe there is a major bias here and the bias can be reduced somewhat through awareness of it.  Cazort (talk) 22:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * peer-review journals are not uniformly highly reliable. They cover a very wide range, depending on the quality standards of the review and the editing.  Many is the peer-reviewed journal which accepts anything that looks remotely like science.  .  The nature of the reviewing process can not be determined from afar--the only thing that can be determined from afar is what the journal says its process is, which may be very far from the reality, usually in the hope of sounding more respectable than reality.  After the double blind reviewing, there is still the question of what the editor in chief decides to accept--it is very easy to go through the motions of what looks like quality, in this, as in every profession.  Quality of a journal, on the other hand, can be roughly quantified for fields where  impact factors are relevant or  those where some sort of   rating based by reputation is available. They are both limited and full of possible bias, but so is everything. Reputation measures tend to over-value the journals that were once of high quality, among many  other problems, but they do exist and should not be ignored as a factor. The studies linking method of peer review with reputation are correlation studies only, and  do not apply either positively or negatively to any one journal. ( I think people can even think highly of a journal because they're deceived by what it says about itself, so using reputation as a gold standard is not justifiable. And even the very best journals have had major peer-review failures, so the quality of a journal is not necessarily .        There's a basic question of definition also: If journal A publishes 100% better than average work, and journal B publishes 90% average work and 10% excellent work, which is the better journal?  It's the papers themselves that need to be evaluated, which is basically done by the method of publishing them and seeing what happens. There are no easy answers.    DGG ( talk ) 23:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with everything you're saying: double-blind reviewing is no holy grail, and the quality of a journal is very hard to assess and must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, and even then, it is not a single continuum. But I still believe that double-blind reviewing is critically important for reducing bias, and is an important enough issue to warrant inclusion in WP's guidelines.  Double-blind review does not guarantee lack of bias--but its absence guarantees the introduction of bias.  Cazort (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree, especially with your last sentence. A reputable journal will avoid bias, no matter what methodology they use for their peer review.  I think you are beating a dead horse here, and getting a bit WP:POINTy in the process. Blueboar (talk) 15:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I pointed to sources backing up my view that this bias is real and its effects large. Do you have any good sources that show any evidence that non-anonymous reviewing does not introduce bias?  Cazort (talk) 19:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There are two kinds of bias: Bias in articles, and Bias in overall editing policy. Both are present widely. Sometimes the journal bias is even explicit--that it covers one particular aspect of a subject, or covers only mainstream publication, or covers primarily speculative ones.    DGG ( talk ) 21:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * DGG nailed it above (23:32, 18 August 2009): "It's the papers themselves that need to be evaluated, which is basically done by the method of publishing them and seeing what happens." Peer review is just a coarse filter. What matters is how a journal artcile stands up under prolonged scutiny - ultimately, whether it survives the Darwinian contest of ideas. --Philcha (talk) 22:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is unarguable. But for our purposes at Wikipedia, it's better to have a coarse filter than no filter at all. So, for example, we should generally prefer peer reviewed, published journal articles over articles that have never made it off the arxiv. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 23:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Cazort, please understand that we are not saying that double blind review is bad... We are simply saying that any sort of Peer review (or its equivalent for non-academic sources) is good. We don't really care which is or is not the best. Blueboar (talk) 03:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I understand what's being said here...and it does make sense based on how most debate on WP surrounding which sources are reliable centers around things that are nowhere near as reliable as a typical peer-reviewed publication. I think I'm satisfied for the time being.  Since so many editors seem to agree here, I'm going to go back and reflect on where I was going with this and where I want to go in the future.  You may be right that this has no place here.  I'm still not 100% convinced, but I don't want to make too much of a nuisance of myself for the time being!  Thanks for bearing with me.  Cazort (talk) 04:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem... that's what talk pages are for. Blueboar (talk) 12:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Bengali link
Please add bn interwikilink bn:উইকিপিডিয়া:নির্ভরযোগ্য উৎস for bn:উইকিপিডিয়া:নির্ভরযোগ্য উৎস. - Jayanta Nath (Talk 11:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Why are a subject's website posts considered reliable sources?
Pardon me (this topic might have been covered many times before) but I wonder why an article subjects own posts about his doings are often cited as the truth on wikipedia? I would think that the subject's own statements are inherently biased and self-serving thus not having the reliability of secondary sources on the subject. On the other hand, the subject's posts against his interest (negative type information) are more reliable as who would post such about themselves unless it's true.

Example 1: If I was a famous person with a website and I posted on there "I am pregnant!" then this information would often be added to my wikipedia article with my own statement as the source. I don't think this is reliable.

Example 2: If i posted on there "I just pled guilty to DUI and will be serving 10 days in jail," that statement is much more reliable as it is a statement against interest.

Any thoughts? Torkmann (talk) 22:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Who would know than better than you whether you're pregnant? As long as the site is a reliable source for the person's statements, I don't see the problem. If you think the posting might be from an imposter, that's different. Noloop (talk) 23:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The site is what is known as a Self-published source (WP:SPS)... which are considered reliable for statments the author makes about his or her self, but not reliable for statements about others. Blueboar (talk) 00:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The site is what is known as a Self-published source (WP:SPS)... which are considered reliable for non controversial statements  the author makes about his or her self. Claims of winning the Nobel Prize or that "as your stock broker I can make you a millionaire" would not be acceptable to source solely from a persons blog. Claims that I am pregnant would be acceptable, claims that I am pregnant with Micheal Jackson's love child would not.--  The Red Pen of Doom  00:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good caveat... but there is a caveat to that... a lot of this depends on exactly how you word things ... statements such as: "On his website, X claims to have won the Nobel Prize" or "X claims that he can make you a millionaire on the Stockmarket" can be cited to X's website. What you can not cite to his website is the statement "X has won the Nobel Prize" or "X can make you a millionaire".  Blueboar (talk) 02:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I would agree. it seems to me that if a persons website (and it can be verified its theirs) says something unless you are calling that person a liar then it has to be assumed to be true, given the caveats above of course. But the question of twits could be raised at this point, as well as blogs, who do you determine of the said twit or blog is by the person it purports to be?Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In general, look for a WP:RS that confirms that the source is indeed by the person claimed to be. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Adult industry

 * from RSN

(Discussion copied here from Reliable sources/Noticeboard) MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

In interpretation of WP:RS, what adult publications might be considered as authoritative on the adult field? I am not asking if Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler or others of that ilk be considered as authoritative on world politics... only if such publications are accptable as generally reliable and authoritative in context to sourcing articles dealing with aspects of the adult industry... films and stars and authors and such. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Such publications as which to source which articles to cite what text? Dlabtot (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I stress that I do not watch porn nor read adult magazines, and am trying to follow guideline as closely as possible in several AfD discussons:, , . An experienced editor has taken an interest in numerous adult-related BLPs and has nominated many for deletion . I feel that WP:PORNBIO is not the only guideline that might apply.  When it is pointed out that adult sources might be considered in context to what is being sourced, the editor requests me to qualify the sources as authoritative and reliable for the context in which it is being used, so I have come here.  In responses to opinions that an adult BLP may meet WP:ENT, the editor seeks input to change that guideline after-the-fact to support his view  .  The editor asserts that such pubications are unavailable to Wikipedians .  So I am here seeking clarification, as I do not see the various notability guidelines as exclusionary... but understand them to be various related ways to determine notability. My thought is that if an actor has multiple write-ups in Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler, or one of the other adult industry major publications, it would then qualify as meeting notability under the WP:GNG since reliable sources must be consdered in context to what is being sourced.  I am of the thought that such publications should, under WP:RS, be accptable as generally reliable and authoritative in context to the sourcing of articles dealing with aspects of the adult industry. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler are all reliable sources. Playboy is just below peer reviewed journals and books, in a lot of cases.  Hustler isn't great for politics, but it's just fine for adult entertainment.  Penthouse is in-between, I think (not entirely sure, I think it's going down and Hustler is going up).  The problem with Lilly Ann, and articles like that, is that it's a pictorial and not a normal article.  The subject of a pictorial is kinda like an author.  It's kinda by them as opposed to about them.  If it meets PORN or whatever, that's fine, but I'm not sure that a pictorial really meets the independent part of the GNG.  Finding sources is difficult for that kind of stuff.  Not sure where to look.  If it's an article and not a pictorial, then it's just fine. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: I think, however, that we can safely say that the Penthouse Forum section of that magazine should NOT be considered reliable for statements of fact! Blueboar (talk) 00:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, the forums and letters sections of such are not RS, and if a pictorial spread is accompanied by an article about the subject, that should be suitable toward meeting GNG. I agree that pictures alone do not do it. I needed assurance that I was not reading guideline incorectly.  And I found the discussions about WP:ATH at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)   to be enlightening as well and for the same reasons... in that the sub-criteria of WP:BIO are not intended to prevent determining notability through other applicable guidelines. Thanks. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I look at "sub-criteria", like WP:PORNBIO as specific ones tailors to those areas. In some cases, they allow in people who would otherwise fail GNG. On the flip side, I see them as over-riding GNG in a way. If specific guidelines were needed for an area, then why shouldn't we go with them? Is an actress that made 35 non-notable straight to DVD pornos notable because of the number? Is a guest spread (no pun intended) in Hustler (with a circulation of under 500,000) or Penthouse (with a circulation of under 350,000)as notable as Playboy with a circulation of over 3 million? If showing up in Penthouse or Hustler in notable, then a guest model in FHM (circulation 700,000), Maxim (2.5 million) or Sports Illustrated (3 million a week) should be a shoe-in. I am perfectly content with the PORNBIO criteria and use it as a default. It is a very easy criteria to meet. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Are biographies such as this at Hustler.com a reliable source, and if so, can they be used to establish notability? Are they independant of the subject seeing as the models work for the magazine? Epbr123 (talk) 08:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, not in terms of establishing notability. The biography is not independent from her paid photoshoot. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sensible. "Articles" might establish notability per WP:GNG where a simple bio or pictorial spread, though it might perhaps offer some WP:V, would not of itself confer notability. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry but until it can be demonstrated that these publications have the same degree of fact checking and/or peer review (and I don't mean that kind of review thank you) as a broadsheet newspaper or even a red top I'm flatly not buying into the concept that an editorial in playboy or penthouse can be considered sourcing to establish notability under N or BIO. Personally, I find redtops to be unreliable in many cases so adult mags? No. I don't think so. I'm sure I'm not alone in taking this view. Spartaz Humbug! 09:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * With respects Spartaz, does your comment indicate then that you do not fully aprove of how WP:RS is written? Its phrases "...generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" and "How reliable a source is depends on context" seem rather clear. Subject at hand. Context. I think it is reasonable common sense to accept that Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler would be both authoritative and knowledgable on adult entertainment subjects, as that is their field of expertise.  Without my researching years of archived dicussions, I believe the accepting of certain adult magazines as reliable in context to an adult subject, have already been disussed multiple times, and that consensus had been reached.  No doubt it was acrimonious.  MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note On his talk page Spartaz indicates that I asked a question about Realiable Sources at the wrong venue. So I have copied the entire discussion here, and left a note there about this new location, so that discussions may continue in the specific location that Spartaz feels they must be discussed. Or perhaps we might create a Request For Comment? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just an aside here - when looking for references on this subject it might be worth checking out Adult Video News; I believe there are other trade publications too. They surely meet RS criteria (and, unlike consumer adult publications, have no reason to massage the facts). Barnabypage (talk) 09:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's consensus at WikiProject Pornography that trade journals are reliable. The project has a guide on the reliability of certain adult industry websites. Epbr123 (talk) 09:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Continued discussion:
 * AVN seems reliable. Most of them do.  They're about the same as any industry in that way, whether it's fishing, or cosmetics, aftermarket car parts, or computer software - every industry has industry publications that cater to industry insiders.  They tend to get the real scoop but at the same time they butter up the industry, report lots of gossip and speculation, are often mouthpieces for their publishers who themselves have a vested stake in the industry, and don't have quite the same standards of a mainstream newspaper.  They do confer notability.  Think of it this way.  If Keyboard Magazine does a full page spread on the latest version of some sampling machine they just saw at a trade show, does that mean it's notable?  Mabye, or maybe it's just inside-the-indusry news of the day.  Same thing if an adult industry publication does a profile of a star, production company, video, or business news item. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemon (talk • contribs) 03:32, August 26, 2009
 * for the bio linked to above, I note that the editors are careful to word all possibly disputable matters as "she says that,...", "She revealed that ... ", "she asserts...".   Obviously in talking about many things, she can be the only source, and I think the bio can be trusted as evidence that she has said these things. Obviously any or all of this may be fanciful, but it is still a RS for what she wants to say about herself. What the bio asserts as fact are things that can be demonstrated, such as films she did, or awards she won. It also takes the opportunity to summarize, as "she is known for...."  Now we can't say that, but we can say, that "according to Hustler, she is known for...."  a RS for what it says. Whether apperaring there is a RS for the purposes of notability can be another matter.    DGG ( talk ) 06:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Rumors
Should rumors of future events confirmed by reputable news sources be included? For instance, Joe Schmoe (popular guy) is rumored to be the next Defense Secretary of the United States and the rumor is confirmed by Time magazine, but not confirmed by the White House. There are a range of options ranging from ludicrous to restrictive. Should he be listed as the current Defense Secretary based on Time's confirmation even though it is not factually correct? Or should he be listed as the prospective Defense Secretary with the rumor cited? Or neither until the White House confirms his nomination? Or not until he is actually sworn in as the Defense Secretary?Sandcherry (talk) 03:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If a very high quality source is reporting that "White House sources say Joe Schmoe will be nominated for Position X." In Joe Schmoe's article we can say that "Quality Source reported that a source within the White House indicated that JS would be nominated for Position X." However, he is clearly NOT the holder Position X until officially nominated and approved and so would not be listed as the holder of Position X. -- The Red Pen of Doom  03:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I would avoid rumors all together, even when repeated or reported on by reputable sources. Unlike a newspaper, we don't need to "scoop" all the other online encyclopedias by reporting on the latest rumors.  We have the luxury of waiting to see if the rumor becomes fact. (see: WP:NOTNEWS) Blueboar (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * While we do not need to "scoop" other encyclopedias, wouldnt the very fact that a Very Reliable Source had indicated a likely nomination of Joe Schmoe to an Important Post potentially be worthwhile information to include in Joe Schmoe's article? (Of course depending on the other content present in the article) -- The Red Pen of Doom  17:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is worthwhile information. The news story might simply be reporting on speculation.  It might even be inaccurate (Dewey beats Truman!).  Yes, it might be accurate... but if it is accurate, an official announcement will be made in a short period of time.  The Joe Schmoe article is not harmed in any way by our waiting until that official announcement is made.  On the other hand the artcle might be harmed if we go with the hot news story and don't wait.  When it comes to current events, it is almost always better to wait a while before adding the latest news. Blueboar (talk) 19:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You are probably right, I am thinking of a highly unlikely hypothetical situation, and even then there would be no reason to include anything before final announcements are made.-- The Red Pen of Doom  20:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts. Here are articles that serve as examples. The Saturday Night Live article shows Nasim Pedrad and Jenny Slate as current cast members based on a rumor confirmed by TV Guide (but not confirmed by NBC, their potential employer) that they will be hired for the new season starting later this month. The Nasim Pedrad and Jenny Slate articles state they have been hired based on the same rumor. Therefore, all three articles are stating as a fact something that may or may not happen. They do cite TV Guide's report stating the magazine has confirmed their hiring rumor, but NBC has not. Should editors revise such articles stating the hiring is rumored, delete the factually incorrect information, discuss the issue with the contributor on the talk page, or leave it alone as it is relatively trivial and will be confirmed (or not) shortly? I would appreciate your opinions.Sandcherry (talk) 04:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you sould remove it (citing WP:CRYSTAL) ... make sure you explain your reasoning... point to this discussion and make it clear that all you are asking is that we until they "officially" join the cast. Blueboar (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this discussion simplifies matters far too much, and reaches the wrong results. There's a continuum of possibilities here, not a simple binary option.  We start with simple rumors about expected future events at one end of the scale, and those aren't encyclopedic.  As we progress along the scale to, say, the possible cabinet nomination, we're usually not dealing with simple rumors, but with inferences drawn from actual events - background checks, formal inquiries, etc. This is a complex situation, and when an otherwise reliable source like Time magazine makes its report, it's usually reporting a combination of facts and informed speculation. There are going to be topics where it would be appropriate, perhaps necessary, to include a more limited assertion in an encyclopedic article.  "The Bartlett administration conducted background checks in anticipation of a possible nomination of Toby Ziegler to be ambassador to the United Nations" might be the best way to phrase something like this. At the other end of the scale we have "rumors" or reports of events that have actually occurred, but haven't been disclosed or announced. Sometimes there's never an official announcement (Google News, for example, shows no contemporaneous news stories of an official announcement that Viggo Mortenson had replaced Stewart Townsend during the startup of filming of The Lord of the Rings.)  Many events just aren't documented by press releases.  The SNL stories fall generally into this latter category. The hirings and firings have been reported/confirmed by reliable sources up to the New York Times, even though there's been no "official announcement" from Lorne Michaels' production company.  That's the way things go; a quick pass through Google News shows no announcement of the Elliott-Watkins hirings last season.  (Nor does the NYTimes archive; its report of those hirings implies, but doesn't say explicitly, it called Lorne Michaels for confirmation.)  Wikipedia documents what's verified by reliable sources, which isn't quite the same as "what's true," and is clearly different from what's officially announced. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

notable oromo
Elemo qiltu, the founder of OLF shek Bakri Saphalo, the founder of Oromo alphabet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.174.237.130 (talk) 07:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Extremist and fringe sources
"Extremist" or "fringe" relative to what? To the social norms of the contemporary, English speaking, relatively wired Wiki community of users, of course. I suggest putting that in explicitly so that the norm enforcers who cite this policy to support their purging are more self-conscious about what they are doing. If Wiki were around in the 17th century a Wiki user wouldn't have been able to cite Galileo in an astronomical article (ie. in an article other than an article about Galileo or his deviant heliocentrism) because somebody would revert saying the source was "extremist" or "fringe". How is one supposed to argue against that? If the project were somehow restricted to 1930s Germans it would likewise look entirely different, as the conventional wisdom of that time and place was again quite different from today's. I should think that we should aspire to the project NOT looking entirely different as political and cultural trends change. That's what "neutral" ought to mean: independent of culturally or politically situated POVs. Why aren't "fringe" or "extremist" sources that employ rigorous, scientific, and logical processes in coming to their conclusions OK? Ideally constructed Wiki policies should be able to screen for unreliable sources using universal, abstract principles; ie. without requiring a contingent test for particular popularity.Bdell555 (talk) 08:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "Why aren't 'fringe' or 'extremist' sources that employ rigorous, scientific, and logical processes in coming to their conclusions OK?" One argument against some such sources is that a small group can put forward hypocritical propaganda that they do not actually believe in, and/or which contain fraudulent "objective" data. It is more difficult to maintain such a facade if the group putting forward the positions is large. --Jc3s5h (talk) 13:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Defining extremist and fringe sources is always going to be difficult. However, if you tried to remove all social norms from Wikipedia you would end up with anarchy.  I am actually quite impressed by how well it works.  To take your example of a 17th century Wikipedia, heliocentrism would only get discussed in the article of that name, plus a couple of others such as Galileo Galilei and Aristarchus of Samos.  Perhaps there might be a mention in Retrograde motion that some sources claim that some observations of retrograde motion can be explained by a heliocentric model... and that would be it.  If you looked at the article on Earth you would be told that it is the centre of the universe.  If you looked at Universe you would be told that it all revolves around the Earth... but you might get a See also link to heliocentrism.  This was the understanding of the universe at the time and it would only be right that an encyclopedia would reflect that understanding.  The article on heliocentrism would provide plenty of information for anyone who wanted to pursue it further.  Similarly, articles in the current encyclopedia should document notable alternative views in articles about those views.  I get the impression that you think that Wikipedia is similar to the Roman Inquisition.  Of course, the Roman Inquisition would have banned an article on heliocentrism.  A 17th century Wikipedia would not.
 * This does mean that Wikipedia will change over time as knowledge of the universe changes, but that is to be expected. Yaris678 (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The system does work well for scientific and technical articles. The problem is with articles about politics and history where one often cannot add an additional well researched fact because someone says that the source is "fringe".  Generally a "fringe" scientist or technician is truly a weirdo.  A "fringe" politician or historian is often as not just "fringe" to those who do not agree with his or her worldview.Bdell555 (talk) 05:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I’m not sure what to make of your statements. First you are worried that we might be suppressing some modern Galileo... and then you are not.  In fact, you think such people are generally weirdos.  Political and social issues are more difficult to pin down and hence more reasonably a matter or opinion.  WP:NPOV is obviously related but I see that this policy mentions reliable sources, hence your issue.  Perhaps if you could give us an example of a source you think is reliable and others do not we could think this through.  I suspect that the source will be reliable for some purposes but not for others.  Yaris678 (talk) 12:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, for a specific example here was an extended debate over this edit. The author of the source was a former Chair of the History Dept at the University of Dallas and the entirety of the material was also published by the US Senate (however, the Senate did not have the material available online, hence my cite).  Elsewhere this author was cited by the Historical Adviser for the Royal Archives and George VI's official biographer.  But this was all dismissed out of hand because this "extremist" and "fringe" section of WP:RS does not allow for any saving considerations.  The world's most reputable scholar cannot be cited in Wikipedia if enough activist users consider him, or a platform or journal he publishes to, "extremist" or "fringe".  So it just closes down the inquiry.  Take relativistically defined criteria like "fringe" or "extreme" out of WP:RS and then users will have to engage the issue of whether a source is reliable or not based on whether the source is objectively reliable or not.Bdell555 (talk) 04:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. I have actually been accused of genocide denial myself once, so I know that it (and the similar accusation of holocaust denial) can be thrown around in an attempt to make someone look bad.  That said, it does look like most people, including most historians and wikipedians who have taken an interest, have come to the conclusion that holocaust denial is what the Institute for Historical Review is all about.  If you want to persuade wikipedians you could start at talk: Institute for Historical Review.  Of course, if most historians have a particular view of the IHR then Wikipedia should make that clear, just as it would be made clear in a 17th century Wikipedia that Galileo’s view of the universe is considered wrong.
 * Given that the particular reference of interest is associated with the IHR, I would say that it should only be used if there is a particular reason to use it. Given that the link was just stuck in the ‘’External links’’ section, it seems superfluous.
 * I don’t know anything about this author, but I’m guessing that no one else had any respect for his paper if he had to publish it through the IHR. Yaris678 (talk) 12:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If the contention is that there is no such thing as "Fringe theories" in politics or history, I very much disagree. Blueboar (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * My contention is that there are, indeed, "fringe" theories, but they are in the eye of the beholder; ie. subjective and relative. What is a reliable source and what is not ought to be subject to objective standards.Bdell555 (talk) 04:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I need help
I've been stuck in a rut vis a vis the article Nibiru collision. For those of you not in the know, the Nibiru collision idea is causing a lot of people around the world a lot of anxiety, because it posits that we're about to be hit by a giant planet in 2012. Roland Emmerich is making a movie about it. Problem is that, despite its growing impact, it has not been dealt with in any detail by the mainstream "respectable" media. Scientists as a rule have not touched it with a ten foot pole, and most news coverage of it has been glib at best and inaccurate at worst. The only person who has been resolutely covering it and dealing with the impact is NASA's chief astrobiologist David Morrison, who had the grace to credit my work in The Skeptical Enquirer. That page is worth reading, actually, because it sums up not only the global notability of this issue but also our mutual frustration in finding notable information on it.

"To my surprise, I have not seen much evidence that other scientists or skeptics are concerned about this growing outbreak of pseudoscience. ... A few news blogs such as Yahoo also provide truthful answers, but these are drowned out by the 2012 hysteria. I give credit to Wikipedia, which has several entries on Nibiru, including a very good overview of the pseudoscience under “Nibiru collision.”"

As a result of the mainstream media's basic ignorance of this concept, I have been forced to scavenge, using the blogs of respected scientists and occasional pseudoscientific sites as references. Case in point: Mike Brown, the discoverer of the dwarf planet Eris, has a blog in which he makes specific scientific counterclaims against the Nibiru collision. One, that no object's magnetic field could possibly have the effect on Earth described, and that such an object would have been expelled from the Solar System by Jupiter within one million years. Compare that with the typical article in an Australian newspaper:

"Concern is building again over a hoax that first appeared - to my knowledge - in 2002, about a planet called Nibiru that will supposedly wreak havoc on the Earth. It's all a load of rubbish! I first became aware of this hoax in early 2002, when I received inquiries about a planet that had supposedly been discovered on an extremely elongated orbit that was to bring it into the inner Solar System. According to the information being circulated around that time, it was heading in the vicinity of the inner planets and would pass between the Earth and the Sun about May 2003. Apparently, its 'magnetic' effects were predicted to do all sorts of nasty things to the Earth, including stopping its rotation. But the authors go on to say that the rotation will start again afterwards. Let me assure you that no laws of physics could allow any of this to happen."

First of all, the author of this quote gets his dates wrong; the idea started long before 2002. Second, while he does mention that the laws of physics would not allow such things to happen, he doesn't say why. So, which do I use? A "reliable" source that gives inaccurate information (as most "reliable" sources do on this topic), or an "unreliable" source by a world-renowned astronomer which gives a cogent and specific scientific rebuttal to a pseudoscientific claim?

Another problem I have is that the Nibiru collision originated on a website called Zetatalk, which is a forum for people to talk to a crazy old woman who thinks she can speak to aliens. Since most of the claims made about Nibiru originated on Zetatalk, I don't really have a choice but to cite Zetatalk as a source.

Also, as the story grew, it became entwined with the 2012 doomsday prediction, which originally had nothing to do with the Nibiru collision. The Nibiru collision was supposed to happen in 2003, but when that failed, the old woman who came up with the idea changed it to 2010. Other writers, looking for an angle, have changed the date to 2012, and that is the date most people read when they encounter this on the web. So how do I cite it? None of the books or websites that mention 2012 and Nibiru would ever be called reliable sources. And again, the media tends to get things mixed up about this.

I don't know what to do.  Serendi pod ous  13:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * And why isn't the piece in Skeptical Inquirer a reliable source? WP:FRINGE governs how articles of this kind are to be treated.  Not all sources are of equal reliability, especially when it comes to the promotion and debunking of pseudoscience.   RJC  TalkContribs 13:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have cited the article in the SI, but it doesn't go into nearly enough detail. It's just a quick overview. WP:Fringe doesn't go into that much detail about what "reliable sources" are, only that I should use them. What I want to know is, what happens when there aren't any reliable sources to draw on?  Serendi pod  ous  14:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:V answers that question ... "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Blueboar (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If a NASA spokesman considers this article one of the few currently standing against a wave of worldwide hysteria, is it really wise to consider listing it for deletion?  Serendi pod ous  15:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It isn't Wikipedia's role to "stand against a wave of worldwide hysteria". The threshold for inclusion is Verifiability not Truth.  That means we need sources.  It isn't Wikipedia's fault that no one has written reliable sources on this topic.  If the NASA spokesman wants Wikipedia to debunk some crazy theory, he needs to point us to reliable sources.  If none exist, then perhaps he should write a reliable source that we can use.  In the meantime... "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it" is the best we can do. Blueboar (talk) 15:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

A NASA employee writing on a NASA website, and authorized by NASA to answer questions from the public, is a reliable independent source (unless he is secretly an illegal alien from Nibiru, in which case he wouldn't be independent). I don't use the term "third-party" because "third-party" comes from contract law, and so far as I know, no nation on earth recognizes the ability of extraterrestrials to enter into contracts. --Jc3s5h (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah... if there are reliable sources, then it follows that the "If no reliable sources can be found..." provision does not apply. Blueboar (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * First, when it comes to articles on fringe theories, WP:PARITY is your friend. Second, csicop.org is a reliable source.  Third, even without WP:PARITY, self-published sources such as Mike Brown's blog are acceptable sources if they are "by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."  Mike Brown is an established expert in the relevant field (astronomy) who has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Here's at least one: A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know if any of these help, but here are some potential sources you might be able to use for the article:, , , , , . A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have wondered whether to include the bit about Nancy Lieder killing her dogs, but I thought that would be unnecessary. Since that Robert Roy Britt article quotes Brown's blog, should I sub it for the blog in the article?  Serendi pod ous  21:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Self-published book
Can we use a self-published book for citing as sources to Wikipedia articles. The content is related to population of Non-indigenous ethnic groups in a specific country. As far I know, population of a particular ethnic group obtained respectively from their diplomatic missions and I don't think so, it is a sort of original research. Please comment. VPM --  Gaikokujin  talk  19:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * To properly answer your question we need to know more information... What book? What specific Wikipedia article? What specific section of the article? Exactly how is the statement that is being supported to the source phrased? Generally, self-published materials fall on the "less reliable" side of the spectrum... or even at the "unreliable" end ... but the specifics can change this determination. Blueboar (talk) 20:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Unreliable content in the Reliable Sources guidelines
I am noticing confusing and inconsistent text in Wiki guidelines regarding second and third party sources. Can we amend these guidelines so that they are consistent? Here are some examples (bold added by me for clarity):

WP:SECONDARY “Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias or other compendia that mainly summarize secondary sources. For example, Wikipedia itself is a tertiary source. Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks may also be considered tertiary sources, to the extent that they sum up multiple secondary sources.” “Secondary sources are at least one step removed from an event. They rely for their facts and opinions on primary sources, often to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims.[3][4][5] Our policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims if they have been published by a reliable secondary source.“

WP:RS This page in a nutshell: Information in Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and articles should be based primarily on independent secondary sources.

(and then a few sentences later it says:)

Wikipedia articles[1] should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources”

WP:WELLKNOWN “Well-known public figures: In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. '''If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.” ' -- — K''bob • Talk  • 15:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * So what is the inconsistency that you see? Are you sure you are not just getting confused over the difference between third party and tertiary?  Yaris678 (talk) 17:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Secondary and tertiary refer to how far removed the sources are from the observations, experiments, or creative thoughts that underlie the information. Second party and third party are terms from contract law and putting them in Wikipedia guidelines and policies is stupid. --Jc3s5h (talk) 17:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's quite obvious that the first two parties are those writing Wikipedia and those being written about. A third-party source is a source written by neither of these parties.  This terminology is quite common outside the world of contract law.  e.g.:
 * Third-party developer - a software developer that is neither the original developer nor the user.
 * Third party technique - a public relations technique where a potential customer's opinion of a product is improved by the someone not ostensibly linked to the product giving a favourable opinion.
 * If you think you know a better term, please suggest it.
 * Yaris678 (talk) 17:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I can think of two changes we could make to clarify this one:
 * Explain what is meant by a third-party source.
 * Link to Third-party sources.
 * Yaris678 (talk) 17:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Terms that are better than "third-party" include "independent" and "disinterested". A big problem with "third-party" is deciding where the first party ends. For example, since the US federal government gives out lots of reasearch funding, every US government document from July 4, 1776 onward, every U.S. law, every U.S court decision, and all university research that is US federally funded, in whole or in part, is by the same party; it's all first-party. --Jc3s5h (talk) 17:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks gents, but you are all missing the point, which I guess I failed to make clear (woe is me). So let me try again. My point of frustration is that the Wiki guidelines can't make up their mind which type of source they favor. Sometimes they say articles should use primarily secondary or second party sources and other times they say that articles should rely primarily on tertiary or third party sources. So they are contradictory. That's my issue. Please read my initial post again and you'll see what I mean. Thanks!-- — Kbob • Talk  • 18:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There are various definitons for all these terms. Some would say that any article, book, etc. that communicates new results or a new idea that popped into someone's head is a primary source. Depending on who wrote it and who published it, these can be very reliable, except for deciding how the rest of the world reacted to the new information. If the rest of the world takes no notice of the new information, Wikipedia shouldn't have an article about it. Others say primary sources are not necessarily published; it might include census questionaires filled out by heads of households, laboratory notebooks, etc.


 * A secondary source is based on reading and analyzing primary sources. Those who think primary sources have to be published would classify journal review articles as secondary sources. Those who think lab notebooks can be primary sources would say any scientific journal article is a secondary source.


 * A tertiary source is based on reading and analyzing secondary sources. Encyclopedias are tertiary sources. Some would say review articles in journals are tertiary sources.


 * I decline to explain what, if anything, "first party", "second party", or "third party" mean. --Jc3s5h (talk) 18:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think part of the confusion comes from the fact that while we favor secondary sources that are written by someone independent of the topic... we allow (with limitations) sources that fall into all the other categories.
 * As for what constitutes first, second, and third party in this context... I think a "first party" source would be one where the author is writing about himself (such as an autobiography) ... a "second party" source would be one where the author is writing about something he is directly connected with ... while a "third party" source would one where the author is writing about something he has no direct connection to.  At least this is how I understand the difference. Blueboar (talk) 19:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand the definition of the terms. But they are used in the guidelines inconsistently. Such as in WP:RS (and then a few sentences later it says:) Wikipedia articles[1] should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources” Are you saying that third party sources are the same as secondary sources? Even if that is the case (which I don't think it is) why not be consistent in our terminology to avoid confusion?-- — Kbob • Talk  • 19:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:RS This page in a nutshell: Information in Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and articles should be based primarily on independent secondary sources.


 * Edit conflict... so this may be redundant


 * I understand third party published sources to have to do with actual publication...the third party in terms of biography is the publishing history /house...


 * The history of a person for example might be related by the person themselves, first party account, then recounted by an onlooker, secondary party account.. unless the onlooker has the story published in a reliable publishing situation ( third party) the story is not verifiable. In an accident the person injured tells one story, primary party source, the onlooker another, secondary party source, but the third party is the newspaper that prints the story, supposedly the source that verifies the information.


 * Primary, secondary, tertiary sources refers to research methods.... one does not carry out the research on a topic then use that information to create new information WP:NOR, and thus becomes the primary source for that new information, and the new information is primary. How I've interpreted this anyway., and one cannot take information form the accident victim above or the onlooker and cite it here. That's also a primary source. One must go to the newspaper that published the story on the accident victim, the secondary source.
 * One of the problems may be that you are trying to equate these two somehow or to connect them but they are in fact quite different aspects of approaching sources with language that crosses over into both aspects/ approaches. (olive (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC))

Kbob, a third-party source isn't necessarily a secondary source. Nor is it necessarily a tertiary source. The two concepts are quite different as I explained above at 17:22. The third party thing is in bold and at the front because it is most important. The secondary thing is mentioned later because it is more of a preference. Yaris678 (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * we've been here many times before. The actual meaning is that a primary source is one not based upon another source, and a secondary source one based on one or more primary sources, and so on down. The significance of that varies from field to field, as does the interpretation of what being based on a source actually means. In literature, the primary sources are the works being discussed. In history, they are the first-hand accounts of the events being discussed, or the documents encapsulating these events. In experimental science, the primary source strictly speaking is the laboratory record of the experiment, but is usually considered to be the journal article written on the basis of them.
 * I do not understand the third party to mean the publishing house, but the author or other responsible party for preparing the content. Sometimes the publishing house and the author are identical, or subunits, but normally an author writes a work, and another author writes a work about him; first party, third party. The key term is really "independent". A book written by a officer of an organization about the organization would not usually be called independent, & thus is not a RS for the notability of the organization or for opinion about it. A memoir after the author has left the organization may or may not be reliable, but it is usually independent.    DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks everyone for your great comments. Now I understand the distinction between one, two, three party and primary, secondary, tertiary source and I was confusing them before. I now have a clearer understanding of the terms. However, to create more clarity in the RS guide can we have a section that explains first, second and third party? Just like we have a section for primary, secondary and tertiary sources?  I think that would be helpful and avoid confusion.  Alternatively we could consider using other words as Jc3 as suggested, that are more self evident in their meaning, and less likely to cause confusion, like independent etc. Thanks for your patience and perseverance!-- — Kbob •  Talk  • 00:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This was a good question Kbob, and probably needs repeating many times as new editors come along ... i realized after I'd slogged through trying to explain how I understood it that science for example would be viewed differently than in the fields I was formally trained in so it was great to have DGG come in and clarify . I have an intuitive sense of what NOR, OR, and RS are based on my training but tying to explain that is a whole other story.Thanks for asking the question.(olive (talk) 04:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC))


 * I guess is the publisher is less correct than could be the publisher. Anyway.(olive (talk) 04:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC))

"Google translate" and foreign language sources
I've decided to not mention the specific issues that brought me to this point because I think it should be discussed generally.

In my opinion the policy should be expanded to make it clear that translations of foreign language texts are NOT acceptable where the translation was done by Google Translate.

I'd like to see the policy amended as such. Any thoughts? Manning (talk) 22:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree completely. Use some common sense and don't use the exact text if the translation looks incorrect.Cptnono (talk) 23:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What are the flaws with Google Translate? Blueboar (talk) 20:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Um - is that a serious question? Google translate is a machine translation service which is unable to recognise context, nuance, irony, idiom, etc and hence is unable to make reliably accurate translations. While it is useful for getting a rough idea of what a text might say, the risk of wild inaccuracy is unacceptable. For example I just ran the first verse of "La Marseillaise" through it. While the first two lines were near enough, it translated the third and fourth lines as "cons us from tyranny, the bloody flag is raised" when the correct translation is "tyranny's bloodied banner is raised against us" which has a completely different sense. Manning (talk) 00:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * See User:Vassyana/badmachine for an illustrative example of how machine translation fails. Vassyana (talk) 04:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Humans can translate content just as poorly as a machine, so I don't see a compelling reason to specifically ban them. Editors have always had the discretion to find consensus that a translation is so bad it's an unreliable source. This might be worth mentioning. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is actually going on at a discussion I am on. The placement of little words like "in" and "of" can casue headaches in the weirdest places. "Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors." (WP:NONENG) I personally do not want  to except anything contentious unless it is verified by a reliable source. Since google translate and editors make errors in translations they both should be excluded if challenged per WP:BURDEN.Cptnono (talk) 05:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Um - is there some kind of collective joke going on here? I'm not trying to be dense but it appears that you people are arguing that machine translation is actually a legitimate resource, when even our own article on the topic indicates that it isn't. Manning (talk) 05:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Um... I said no it isn't OK. Thanks for the wikilink, though.Cptnono (talk) 05:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry Cptnono - that was an indent error. I was referring to the comments of Someguy1221. Manning (talk) 07:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't imagine a situation in which a Wikipedia article should use a machine translation, except for articles that are specifically about machine translation. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The Amityville Horror House
I excised a lengthy comment placed here which seemed to be just a cut and paste of an article about the Amityville Horror. I can't see the point of the posting - perhaps the IP would care to explain? Manning (talk) 00:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Scholarship
Some of the wording runs contrary to WP:WEIGHT. This section states that the "most" reliable sources are "Academic and peer-reviewed publications" and then goes on to quote NPOV UNDUE, however, it adds one word "most" to the statement "doing so in proportion to their published prominence among the most reliable sources." UNDUE does not say "most", and the way this is worded, it implies the prior reference to "Academic and peer-reviewed publications". Based on this policy, it can be argued and is being argued that weight be based on "Academic and peer-reviewed publications" and not the broader reliable sources. Even if we did say "most reliable sources", we define such in another policy WP:NOR differently: "In general the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." I don't see that there is any consensus on basing weight on this smaller subset of reliable sources. Why is WEIGHT being redefined on this policy? Why is it included at all in this policy? WP:POLICY states "Policies should not be redundant with other policies, or within themselves. Do not summarize, copy, or extract text. Avoid needless reminders." Morphh  (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Your first sentence lacks a specific noun. If you want us to be involved, we need much greater clarity about what the object of your criticism is. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, This post was done in line with the removal. It appears to quote policy but the wording was changed slightly, which falsely implies something not defined in weight policy.   Morphh   (talk) 12:50, 05 October 2009 (UTC)

Letters to the Editor?
I'm curious if Letters to the Editor in a newspaper can be uses for citations. Off-hand, my assumption is they cannot, but I was simply wondering. Is there situations when they would be reliable and be utilized? I can see an issue here being that normally a newspaper would stand behind it's content, but this is not the case with letters. Is this just a flat "NO...they can never be used"? I was curious. BashBrannigan (talk) 05:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The way I see it, they would not be citeable unless the writer is notable, provides citations to their sources, or unless the editor responds, again with citations. But that may not be the case. WookMuff (talk) 09:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Even being notable is not enough. A famous movie star is notable, but is no different than the average joe when it comes to expressing his/her opinion in a letter to the editor. About the only time a letter to the editor might concievably be a legitimate source would be if the author of the letter was an "acknowleged expert writing about his field of expertise"... and if this is the case, we must phrase things as being the expert's opinion, and not fact. Blueboar (talk) 12:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Mediation economics project
A mediation request Requests for mediation/WikiProject Economics Guidelines has the interpretation of a sentence from this policy as one of the items in dispute. Dmcq (talk) 13:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

NewsBlogs
Note that otherwise reliable news sources--for example, the website of a major news organization--that happens to publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be considered to be equally reliable as if it were published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format of a classic news story. However, the distinction between "opinion pieces" and news should be considered carefully. Just so I read this correctly, a source that is published by a journalist on a media website, such as newyorktimes.com, in a blog format is not the same as a typical blog (which tends to be seen as a poor source) for purposes of reliable sourcing? I ask this not in regards to any current editing (such as my recent edit warring on the Roman Polanski page) but more as my desire in future to be able to use legitimate references without fear of being promptly shut down because "its a blog". To be extra clear, I am not asking if "Blog = Reliable source" so much as clarifying that "Blog ≠ Reliable source" is not a valid reason to deny sources. WookMuff (talk) 05:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, that being the case, is it possible an editor with greater standing than my own could make some mention of this in the No original research page? Because until now I honestly believed that the policy was "Blog ≠ Reliable source", no matter what. WookMuff (talk) 05:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It really depends on the blog in question. 98% of the time, you are correct to think "Blog ≠ Reliable source"... However, there are exceptions.  We do recongnize that not all blogs are equal.  Fro example, we allow blogs written by experts (if they are writing about their field of expertise)... but we phrase our statements as being opinion, not fact.  We recognize that a few "news" blogs have won major journalism awards, and these are considered a clear step above the typical blog as far as reliability goes.  In the case of the web edition of major news outlets such as the NYT (or CNN), we recognize that some legitimate journalism is presented in "blog format".  In this case we are NOT saying "this type of blog = reliable"... we are saying "online editions of major news outlets ≠ Blog (even though they may look like one)".
 * The key to the reliability of all on line information is the reputation of the website... can we trust it to give us accurate and reliable information. We determine this in two ways: 1) by looking at the reputation of the author (is the author considered an expert), b) by determining whether there is some form of review and fact checking takes place.  In the case of the websites of major news outlets, there is. Blueboar (talk) 12:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite a few journalists will use the personal blog format to flash off texts that are more subjective, and more dependent on your buying some underlying assertions, than what they could normally get published in the paper they work for. I'm not saying "paper journalism" isn't often subjective, but in blogs it becomes more accentuated and at the same time harder to trace, harder to nail down. Especially if you're arguing about possible bias or ideology a long time after those blog posts were written.


 * Actually I think it's too simplistic to say certain journalits or certain news outlets are 'always' trustworthy, unless they have been disproved by another trustworthy part. Guys, the media and even the academic world simply don't work that way anymore! There used to be some kind of firm boundary between 'objective news/research/reasoned investigation' and promotion of yourself or your own views, but that boundary has been eroded in many places by the evolution from journalism to PR scouting and sensationalism- people who do news these days often have to keep an eye on fuelling interest in their own person and their stories, so they will be more prepared to toss out statements that are doubtful, overstated or blatantly false. Any real scrutiny of "stated facts" from this or that newspaper or pundit or scholar takes some careful weighing: what are the issues here and who could be interested in challenging such and such a view? /Strausszek (talk) 01:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Reliable Source?
Would other editors consider linkedin.com as a reliable source as a reference to a list entry, which require the same level of verification as a BLP entry. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * To discuss reliability of specific sources, please go to Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I posted the question there. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Citing a Project tag from one page to justify adding the Project tag to a related page: yes? no?
I tried to add the Ethnic Group Project tag to History of the Jews in the United States but was told I had to prove that U.S. Jews were an ethnic group. I explained that both American Jews and Jew were both part of the WikiProject and that this seemed good enough for me. But I was again told I needed an outside source. Does the policy of not using other articles as evidence still apply when copying Project tags from one article to a related article? Thanks. Aristophanes68 (talk) 04:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Take it to WP:RS/N where they'll tell you wikipedia doesn't cite wikipedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I saw read the article on reliability, but saw that there some exceptions, including Project namespaces, so I wasn't sure where my issue fit. Aristophanes68 (talk) 04:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:RS applies to material in the text of an article, not to talk pages... Since project tags are on talk pages they do not need to be cited. The rules for what we do on talk pages are different than they are for article text.  Content policies and guidelines, such as WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR etc. do not apply to talk pages. That said, we could use some guidance on what to do when there is dispute over whether a particular project tag applies to an article... some project tags can give the reader an impression of categorization, which can be seen as POV. Blueboar (talk) 13:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks; that was exactly the issue--someone felt the project tag was open to dispute, even though several of the article's parent pages had the tag on them as well. I think at this point the issue is being resolved through consensus rather than through sourcing. Aristophanes68 (talk) 01:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Blueboar. Maybe some clarification on this issue needs to be provided at WikiProject Council/Guide.  In this specific instance, I think the only objection could be based on quibbling over the definition of ethnic group.  However,
 * Almost all ethnic groups are subject to some degree of quibbling.
 * The people who work on that wikiProject will be interested in that article, so the precise definition is irrelevant.
 * Yaris678 (talk) 19:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Southern Comfort Conference
This article has a bunch of ridiculous references. Are these allowed? They just take bits and pieces of these non-fiction publications and throw them in an article. Skrewler (talk) 06:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This question could be answered at WP:RS/N, the reliable sources notice board, but you'd need to paste the actual references there. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

One's own words as unreliable primary sources
Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on quotations allow great mischief when someone says something with ironic or sarcastic intent, and their words are quoted in a reliable source that doesn't explicitly mention the possible irony/sarcasm. Editors, intentionally or mistakenly, can use the person's literal words to claim that the person believes them. An example would be if TV personality Rachel Ray would spill some salt on camera and say "I am such a klutz!," and her words were shown on YouTube or reported in a magazine article about her. A foolish or malicious editor could use her words to support a claim that the normally sure-handed Ray is actually a klutz. This could lead to a well-sourced paragraph on klutziness, demonstrating in great detail what Ray, by her own words, admits to. In fact, she is not seriously claiming to be a klutz, but just referring ironically to an accident. Similar things can happen with more important figures. (Substitute a golden glove shortstop for Rachel Ray, for example.)

The problem is that the intended irony or sarcasm isn't mentioned in the encyclopedia article. It can't be mentioned, in fact, unless there is a source that points it out. Typically, there is no such secondary source, since reliable sources are not in the habit of identifying possible irony or sarcasm.

A recent case is where White House official Anita Dunn said that her favorite political philosophers include Mother Teresa and Chairman Mao. It isn't clear whether this was an ironic juxtaposition of opposites or a statement of her actual belief. The problem is that, in similar cases, often involving controversial living persons, editors can take the literal words and conclude that the person literally meant them.

IMHO in cases like this, the person's words are unreliable primary sources. I believe that our content guidelines on quotations as reliable sources should be changed/refined/improved to cover this situation.

Basically, if there is a legitimate chance of ironic intent in a person's words, especially if the person is living, extreme caution should be used in using them as an indication of the person's beliefs, positions, etc. Our policies and guidelines should advocate that caution. Lou Sander (talk) 14:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * We shouldn't use a primary source alone to support something that is criticism or praise in a BLP - it does not meet the standards described in BLP. However, in the case of Anita Dunn, there are reliable secondary sources that support the criticism, and a primary source can be used as additional reference so readers can read or view more context.  If you have RS that presents Anita's pov that her statement was made in jest, than you can include that POV (perhaps along with the response to that POV).   Morphh   (talk) 15:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem arises when an editor finds a reliable source quoting Rachel's words (or whomever's). He then puts in Rachel's article something like: "By her own words, Rachel is a klutz.(citation goes here)", or even worse, puts in "Rachel says: (her quote about being a klutz) (citation goes here)," and lets the reader draw the obvious but wrong conclusion that Rachel is a klutz.


 * One way or another, either by a direct statement about klutziness or by quoting Rachel accurately and letting the reader draw obvious but inaccurate conclusions about her klutziness, Wikipedia is saying that Rachel is a klutz and indicating that she must be a klutz because she said so. It happens frequently. It's not a good thing, because the apparent or possible irony isn't mentioned. There are no cautions about it in our policy or guidline, and IMHO there should be. Lou Sander (talk) 21:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The Rachel Ray example is too trivial to be useful: why would the article need to mention her dexterity? The Anita Dunn example is more realistic. Think about it this way: when media figures like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck claim that they're just entertainers, should the article take these claims at face value? Aristophanes68 (talk) 22:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It is a trivial example, yes. It illustrates a problem that is not trivial: A person's words, possibly or certainly meant as ironic, quoted in an article, with a declaration or insinuation that they should be taken at face value. The examples are included to illustrate the principle, not to serve as actual cases. Lou Sander (talk) 23:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I've seen this problem in controversial BLPs. Controversial person A says B with obvious ironic intent. POV-pushing editor C finds B quoted in reliable source D, then puts it verbatim into Wikipedia, saying or implying that person A is obviously hateful (or whatever) because he/she said B. The POV-pushing is allowed to stand, as is the violation of BLP intent, since Wikipedia's policies and guidelines don't deal with irony. The encyclopedia would be better if they did. DCLawyer (talk) 12:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit for Style
According to WP:EoS the subtitle statement "To obtain or provide community input on whether or not a source meets our reliability standards for a particular use, see the reliable sources noticeboard." should be edited to change "whether or not" to whether".

I will do so. Riverpa (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Aditional Resource for Tamburlaine
The Golden Road to Samarkand by Wilfrid Blunt(Taught at Eton from 1938-1959),Viking Press, New York, 1975, Chapter 8, Pages 138-163. This reference gives not only dates and historical facts, but also lovely color plates of art pertaining to Tamburlaine The Great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.124.189 (talk) 15:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't sources for the X WP be in the X language?
Shouldn't secondary sources upon which we primarily rely be in the language of the WP in question (and so in English for this one)?

In other words, is it ever appropriate for the English WP to ever be the only source in English for a given topic? Or must there not be a reliable source in English for coverage in Wikipedia? Perhaps this is more of a question for Notability, so I'll start this discussion at WT:N too. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "Shouldn't secondary sources upon which we primarily rely be in the language of the WP in question (and so in English for this one)?" No.


 * "is it ever appropriate for the English WP to ever be the only source in English for a given topic?" Yes.


 * " Perhaps this is more of a question for Notability, so I'll start this discussion at WT:N too. " Don't discuss it in more than one place.


 * There are recent discussions on this topic in WT:Verifiability. --Jc3s5h (talk) 21:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems to me that this would create POV problems. To pick one example, Japanese history texts tend to represent WWII in a rather different light from that seen in English-language sources, and indeed most of the rest of the world. IMHO, a Japanese article on WWII should acknowledge that most of the world has Certain Views About What Happened, even if this requires drawing heavily on English/Chinese/etc sources. --GenericBob (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should acknowledge all significant viewpoints... and so and article on WWII should include sources from Japan, sources from the US, sources from the Philipenes, etc. Not all of those will be in English. We want reliable sources... no matter what the language. Blueboar (talk) 23:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The usual caveats about translation and original research apply. See WP:NONENG. A translation is something that requires subjective judgment and it is better to use reliable external translation when possible. Gigs (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

When WP:RS publish insulting polemics against Living Persons
While I won't mention specifics, I think there are times when various reputable news sources publish opinion pieces by individuals which go over the top as far as insulting and accusing individuals of various thought crimes, with no more evidence than allegations. Some wiki articles end up using several of these to lambast the subject of an article. Can't there be some way of discouraging use of such sources? While there can be a thin line between a reasoned expose which should be used and a questionable polemic, sometimes it is quite obvious. Having language in here making clear that overwhelmingly negative polemical opinion piece attacks, even if published in WP:RS, should not be used would be helpful. I think the policy needs to be stated here first, and then copied to WP:BLP. Thoughts? CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikiepdia is not censored, and our mission is to present in a neutral fashion what reliable sources have published, even if it's overwhelmingly negative. We do have to be extra strict in the case of BLP, to cross all the t's and dot all the i's, and ensure that we don't violate WP:UNDUE or WP:SYN, for example. But as long as we carefully adhere to the published sources and present them properly, we need to present the complete picture, not a politically correct one. Crum375 (talk) 14:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * BLP has higher standards than most articles, and if it is the opinion of one person, than if like fails WP:WEIGHT. Read the section on criticism and praise for a BLP, which has higher standards for including content.  "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability".  If it is the opinion of one person, it is not likely relevant to the subjects notability and fails weight for the biography of the person, unless that opinion is reprinted in several reliable sources (CNN,NBC,NYT report person A said this about person B).  Look at it in a historical context.  If several reliable sources report the same charge or opinion for different people, then it is also likely part of the persons notability and the criticism on that point is sufficient to be due weight.   Morphh   (talk) 14:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the issue is more like: reasonable WP:RS 1 and 2 have a criticism of the subject. But that's not enough for some people, they want to take the nasty insults on the same topic thrown out by an opinion/commentator to make the subject look particularly bad. It's obviously an NPOV issue, but I have found it done so often in articles about certain people, that having language in here making clear that overwhelmingly negative polemical opinion piece attacks, even if published in WP:RS and repeating accusations made by more reliable sources, should not be used would be helpful. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The amount and nature of criticism should reflect the real world. "Piling on" criticisms can give the negative POV Undue Weight.  The key is to present both criticism and praise in a neutral tone and in proportion to the sources. Blueboar (talk) 21:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The bottom line problem really is when editors POV is so strong vs. a BLP article's subject that they won't listen to such reasonable arguments. Sigh... CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think what you're describing is more of an issue with undue weight to the details of a criticism. It's one thing to include a criticism, and another to give it undue weight and details in the life of someones biography.  One option is to put such remarks in the footnotes as a reference to the criticism.  In determining the content, consider what details are important to present the criticism neutrally.   BLP states "it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone."  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.  If the discussion does not resolve a violation of policy, than I would follow the steps of dispute resolution.   Morphh   (talk) 15:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What CarolMooreDC is describing, you can see all the time on WP. A user who sympathizes strongly with some pundit's opinions - or who just shares the same mindset - brings the entire gist of that guy's arguments into one or more articles, with heavily emotional firebomb words, claiming that it is "highly significant and reliable" that X thinks Y is an idiot/fellow traveller/ crypto-communist/neo-nazi/was always an appeaser/is Satan etc. The problem is compounded when one of the persons feuding is from a small country - so he's unknown to most wikipedians interested in the subject and they have limited means of checking up and seeing who it is - and the other, at the moment or all the time, is an actor on the world stage. The guy from the small country may be a loonie, heavily prejudiced and completely unrepresentative of any wider opinion - or the world stage actror may be ill-informed, he may just have been served what he says by his speechwriter - but either way, he may still be good at expressing himself forcefully and clearly. How is the British, US, French or Chinese wikipedian going to know that if they are just served his talking points and told "This guy's a prominent man in his home country"? (or the other way around,  "The President will always be well informed on current affairs, no matter who he is talking about")


 * For instance, in November 2002, Hans Blix, at that point a man who was in the headlines as boss of the preparations for a UN mission to inspect Itaq's suspected WMD capacity, was attacked in a very venomous way by Swedish ex-politician and writer Per Ahlmark (briefly deputy PM in the late seventies). The piece appeared in the right-wing Washington Times. Ahlmark desribed Blix as an arch-appeaser, an idiot, an uncritical weather fan, and headlined it "Blix is a Wimp!". Printed in the US and dealing with a very hot set of issues, the piece got quite a bit of attention. To non-Swedish observers, it would have looked as if Blix was getting punched by one of the leading lights of his home country, a heavyweight, but in fact Ahlmark is infamous at home for his over-the-top, bitter polemics, his misuse of quotations out of context and his total lack of fact scrutiny - he's a Swedish David Horowitz (they are both just as uncritically pro-Israeli). That's not a marginal ultra left-wing view of him, it's as close as you'd get to a mainstream view of his debater credentials. It's thirty years since he left politics behind on his own accord but he's stuck to his guns in political opinionizing and has become ever more neo-con. He does get published in major newspapers but he's still a marginal voice, particularly in this kind of matter. Besides, he's had a long-standing personal feud with Blix - they were once in the same party. All of that would have been unknowable to most people who came across his piece or saw it rehashed here, if they didn't know Swedish politics. Even if Ahlmark's words were far out, that was an assessment very many people wanted to hear at the time, particularly in the US and in some European countries.


 * My bottom line is: it won't do to simply say, this and that news source is always reliable and can always be trusted to do a good and thorough job. Maybe that would have been a tenable position thirty years ago but today news outlets work faster and they are more prone to letting through sensationalizing or marginal stuff. Qualitative judgments are needed, not just "five out of eight say this is true". /Strausszek (talk) 13:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)