Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 26

Contradictions per claims in an interview vs. another source
If the interviewee of an article published in a reliable source makes a claim that another reliable source contradicts, how do you determine which is considered more reliable for Wiki purposes? In such an instance, would the subject's claim be trumped because it is, after all, only what they say? Or would the subject's claim fall under the assumption that the source fact-checked it and both sources could be equally valid?  Mbinebri  talk &larr; 01:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * What is the reputation of the various sources? This may be more of a WP:NPOV question than one involving reliability.  Your best bet is to do more research and see what several other sources say on the matter.  If that is not possible, then try in text attribution... make it clear who says what (and, if needed, where they say it) and don't pass judgment. Blueboar (talk) 02:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I would say it also depends very much on how surprising the claim is, whether the contradiction is explicit, and the relative timing of the sources. E.g. "Time Magazine claims that I got a Nobel Prize, but that's not true" would be much more credible than "I never got any reward for my work", especially when the latter statement may have been made a long time ago. Hans Adler 12:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Please wikilink "secondary source" etc.
It would be a good idea to wikilink the terms "secondary source", "primary source", and "tertiary source" in the section pertaining to them, as is done in WP:V. They are specialized terms of art with which most new editors are unfamiliar. Just putting them in boldface doesn't help at all. 71.198.176.22 (talk) 03:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Um... WP:V does not wikilink these terms either (as is done here, it includes a "for more information" link to No original research, aka WP:PSTS). Perhaps you meant that we should wikilink the way WP:PSTS does?  If so, I have to disagree.  WP:PSTS is the policy statement that governs when and how we can use Primary, Secondary and Tertiary sources... so we want editors to look at that section of the NOR policy if they have any questions... before they go to an article on the term itself.  In other words, editors need to be directed to the NOR policy first... and from there they can go to the articles. Blueboar (talk) 12:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Generic PSTS definitions, while useful as background, are not universally identical, and we would like editors to first see our own definitions for them, in the context of the PSTS section in WP:NOR. Crum375 (talk) 13:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Blogs, self-publishing, etc.
We have this: "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control."

Newspaper blogs often get very little editorial supervision or checking. I work at a newspaper, so I'm not pulling this out of thin air.

I suggest changing the sentence, along this line: "News site blogs may be acceptable as sources, as long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write." Or even leaving off the "News site" and starting with "Blogs may be acceptable ..."

Tangentially, I'm wondering:
 * 1) Should this page make more clear that reliability or suitability of sources is more of a continuum?
 * 2) How often do we (WP editors) need to deal with discrepancies between an online source and a paper source (even produced by the same organization)? Maurreen (talk) 07:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The whole thing with blogs is problematic. The fact that a site is a blog has nothing to do with reliability.  If I throw some information pages up on the web with hand edited HTML, that's no more or less reliable than if I use blog software to present the information.  When we first formulated the guidelines about blogs, it was a different time.  Blogs then were generally just personal opinion and experiences or maybe copied and summarized news items.   Today people use blogs and CMS software for all kinds of web sites.   I think it's a kind of systematic nerd bias that we prefer to believe information posted by people who can hand-edit HTML vs information posted through a blog or CMS. Gigs (talk) 23:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * We now have, under "Self-published sources (online and paper)":
 * "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media&mdash;whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets&mdash;are largely not acceptable."
 * "'Blogs' in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources."
 * "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. Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP."


 * I wonder if it might be better to change that along this line (the third paragraph remains the same):
 * "It's relatively easy to create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media are largely not acceptable."
 * "In this context, 'self-published' means material not subject to full editorial control. Typical examples include books published by a vanity press, personal websites, open wikis, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, and Twitter tweets."
 * "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. Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP."
 * Maurreen (talk) 07:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, no, maybe? Maurreen (talk) 12:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think Maurreen's suggested edit is acceptable. That said, we probably should note that that some blogs are acceptable (I am thinking of notable blogs with a reputation for accuracy and good journalism)... to some extent, the reliability of blogs really depends more on the reliability of their author, and less on the format. Blueboar (talk) 12:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. As Gigs says, we shouldn't get hung up on the word "blog" - it's just another way of producing a Website, after all. (Nor for that matter should we get hung up on the "fact-checking" that we fondly pretend to believe newspapers do.) Self-published material from a person who is established to be otherwise reliable in that context is probably going to be okay, except perhaps for extremely contentious arguments (where they may be self-publishing because no other publisher would handle it). Barnabypage (talk) 12:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I made the change. The new text does not specifically address blogs.
 * Maybe for blogs, we could say something like this:
 * "Blogs are a type of publishing format. They are not inherently reliable or unreliable. For the purpose of Wikipedia editing, determination of a blog's reliability is largely based on the relevance and professional standing of the writer."
 * Maurreen (talk) 15:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I would add in something like "the presence of editorial oversight also tends to enhance the reliability of a blog, although it is not an absolute prerequisite of the blog being considered a reliable source". Because editorial oversight is a good thing - I simply think we give it too much emphasis. Barnabypage (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, try this, with your sentence plus another of mine:
 * "Blogs are a type of publishing format. They are not inherently reliable or unreliable. For the purpose of Wikipedia editing, determination of a blog's reliability is largely based on the relevance and professional standing of the writer."
 * "The presence of editorial oversight also tends to enhance the reliability of a blog, although it is not an absolute prerequisite of the blog being considered a reliable source. The level of editorial oversight is not always obvious."
 * Maurreen (talk) 02:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hearing no more, I will add it. Maurreen (talk) 02:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Whoa. This is way too big a change in policy to be decided upon by three people who did not go through a formal Request for comment where the bulk of Wikipedia editors could be aware of the discussion.


 * I'll initialize such an RfC. And in the meantime, I am reverting the change until we can have more than three editors create such a major change in Wikipedia policy. And incidentally, I'm a newspaper and magazine journalist, and all my work goes through at least one editor. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This has been done; see below on this page and, shortly, at Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines. For the record, I'm not necessarily against a new policy, but we need stringent standards -- anybody can claim they interviewed a dead writer, for example, in order to push an agenda or pet theory. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

"Types of sources"
It's not clear why Identifying reliable sources was changed from "Some types of sources". The section covers only scholarly work and news organizations. General books, for example, are not included. Maurreen (talk) 11:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

More duplication
It appears that Identifying reliable sources is all repeated from Verifiability. I think such duplication is unwise. Maurreen (talk) 11:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. As a computer programmer, redundant material that must be manually kept in sync really rubs me the wrong way. It's a maintainability problem. Gigs (talk) 12:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, you have it backwards... the material came from here and was duplicated into WP:V. To give some history... We actually created this duplication on purpose... The reason why we did so was because, without it, the guideline kept creeping away from WP:V (the policy which this guideline is trying to expand upon), to the point that RS would end up directly contradicting what was stated at WP:V.  I saw this happen three times before we added the duplication (essentially turning what was said here into a quotation from V) ... but it has not happened after we did so.  Perhaps this is because there are editors such as yourselves (and me) who realize that the duplicated language does have to be maintained, and thus watch WP:V and WP:IRS pages closely.
 * The alternative is to merge this guideline back into WP:V completely ... I used to be against that idea, but now think it might be for the best. However, the idea has been shot down every time it was floated in the past... you are welcome to try again (I would support) but don't expect it to be easy. Blueboar (talk) 13:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Blueboar, thanks for the correction. I'm less concerned with which page the material is on that it is on only one page. Maurreen (talk) 14:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I would be more than happy to see all overlapping or duplicated material become unified in the WP:SOURCES section, which is policy. If we demote it to a guideline, it will weaken what is now policy, for no good reason. Crum375 (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The point I am trying to make is that sometimes it is necessary for guidelines to quote policy pages (or for one policy page to quote another), to ensure that they stay in sync and don't contradict each other.
 * Some rewriting, and perhaps some formatting changes might help clarify that this is what is now intended. Blueboar (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd be fine with merging all of this back into WP:V, which includes WP:SOURCES. Maurreen (talk) 05:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to be technical... we can not merge it back into WP:V, since it originated here (ie what is now in WP:V is a duplication of what was originally here) ... What I think you are proposing is to move the material more completely into WP:V by removing it from here. I would suggest that a better approach would be to trim what is here... so that it better summarizes what is stated at WP:SOURCES (with direct quotes where duplication is needed).  The key is ensure that this page does not, once again, end up being tweaked to the point where it contradicts WP:V. Blueboar (talk) 12:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Less duplication would be better. Trimming and summarizing here would be good. But real life beckons. Maurreen (talk) 06:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

RSes quoting from inheritly unreliable soruces
An academic journal I am wanting to use cites TheFreeDictonary which is known to be user-generated and furthermore the item he quoted no longer exists. How should I go about using this because the info for quotations doesn't really deal with RSes quoting unreliable sources. 陣 内 Jinnai 01:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * When a reliable source uses an unreliable source, the result is still reliable. We don't micro-manage reliable sources: if they are considered reliable, they are responsible for vetting their content and checking it for accuracy. Crum375 (talk) 01:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Blogs and self-publishing
I reverted to the previously agreed on version. The version I reverted from appears to be based on a misunderstanding of the change that had been agreed on. That change was not major nor did it indicate that blogs had more reliability. Maurreen (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Your change lacks consensus. Do not engage in revert warring. Per WP:BRD, you were bold, you were reverted, discuss. Hipocrite (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I reverted those changes, because they seem to conflict with WP:SPS and WP:SOURCES, which is the controlling policy. Crum375 (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hipocrite -- One revert is not edit warring. And I am discussing. Etc. Maurreen (talk) 18:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Crum, thanks. Although I disagree with your rationale, it is better rationale than the original reversion, where one person disagreed with three people. Maurreen (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC) By "disagree" I mean that you see a conflict and I don't. Maurreen (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As I see it, since the guideline is supposed to explain the policy, the SPS part has to first say what the policy says, and then perhaps expand on it. It should not even appear to say something different, or use different words to say the same thing, because that will only add confusion. At the moment, I feel editors are better served to just read WP:SPS and WP:SOURCES, because by coming to this guideline they risk confusion, and since the policy overrides the guideline anyway, they are better off sticking close to the source. Crum375 (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Crum, it appears one thing you and I agree on is that the details should be on only one page. I think the details are better here, but that's less important than the general point.
 * A compromise on my part would be for us to use this project page to say "Personal blogs by non-experts are never acceptable sources for anything but their author" then add something like "For more information on blogs, see WP:Verifiability." What do you think about that? Maurreen (talk) 19:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It sounds reasonable to me in principle, but the details should be in WP:SOURCES and WP:SPS, which is more specific than WP:V. On a general note, I think much of this guideline, if not all of it, can be subsumed into WP:SOURCES, which is policy. We already have WP:RSN for discussion of specific cases. Crum375 (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you and I are in agreement at least in principle, using different terms for the same basic idea. WP:SOURCES and WP:SPS are both part of WP:Verifiability.
 * It appears that this guideline was removed from WP:SOURCES (part of WP:Verifiability) in the past few months. I don't have a strong opinion on that. But if this page were not to exist, it couldn't conflict with another. Maurreen (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that having essentially the same information repeated in two places, one a policy and the other a guideline, serves little purpose, creating contradictions and confusion. Crum375 (talk) 00:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I do like Maurreen's phrase "Personal blogs by non-experts are never acceptable sources for anything but their author", though I can see conflicts down the line with people claiming they are experts. How do we draw a line?

More troublesome, though, is how to handle blogs that purport to have interviews. These are very easy to fake &mdash; particularly with deceased people.

I know many times I've seen blogs by people I personally recognize and trust, and whose material I would like to cite &mdash; but those people aren't necessarily published authorities whose expertise would be recognizable to anyone but a niche of fellow hobbyists, for example. The policy that we can cite blogs published under the auspices of newspapers and magazines (including webzines, such as Salon) is limiting, but it draws an unambiguous line. I don't know offhand how to move that unambiguous line, but I caution against any vagueness in this particular policy &mdash; I don't write about politics or religion, for example, but I can foresee small but like-minded groups claiming their fellow members as "expert" bloggers in order to push exteme agendas that vetted sources with editorial oversight generally cannot. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * And having missed the entire top portion of this discussion due to the new subhead that was inserted, I can see there are actually two discussions at work. Am I correct in surmising that we're all in agreement on the existing guideline (which I mistook for a policy page)?


 * In any event, this discussion did seem fruitful in clarifying that the blogs mention may be best stated within the "self-published" section of the guidelines, and not separate. Again, am I reading this discussion correctly? -- Tenebrae (talk) 02:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:SPS is the policy, and it says that for us to be able to cite an SPS, it's not enough for that person to be an expert, but he has to be (bold added): "established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." This draws a fairly clear line. Crum375 (talk) 02:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Crum375. I appreciate being part of all the thoughtful discussion here, which reiterated an important Wiki policy and restored a guideline page, even if I'd misread it as a policy page. I hope my contribution more helpful than not. With kind regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 02:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for helping to bring focus on this issue. I think the confusion resulting from overlapping and often confusing advice has to be addressed. Crum375 (talk) 03:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Tenebrae, just so you know, we're not all in agreement, but one step at a time. (That is, I'm focusing on where current consensus is clear, and not on the misunderstanding involved in support of the reversion.)
 * And thanks, but the wording you gave me credit for is based on a note further above, by Hipocrite. Maurreen (talk) 11:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposal
Current wording: "'Blogs' in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources."

Proposed wording: "Personal blogs by nonexperts are only acceptable as sources for information about their author. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources. For more information on blogs, see WP:SPS and WP:SOURCES." OK? Maurreen (talk) 11:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I added WP:NEWSBLOG as a shortcut to the special exclusion in the policy for newspapers or magazines which publish a "blog" by a staff journalist, which we consider reliable. Crum375 (talk) 15:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not OK. I don't like the removal of the sentence about news blogs being acceptable, it's an important sentence. --GRuban (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that whatever the guideline says, since it's supposed to be an explanation of the relevant policy, it should as a minimum include the highlights of the policy. In this case, WP:NEWSBLOG, WP:SPS and the general WP:SOURCES should all be summarized here. Crum375 (talk) 19:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with Crum375 and GRuban. I'm not sure what's wrong with the current wording. Maybe that would help clarify things: Maurreen, where do you feel the current wording falls short? I can see, for example, that the phrase "the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control" can be problematic in that how would a Wiki editor know if it were? --Tenebrae (talk) 02:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that Crum and GRuban agree.
 * Tenebrae, I have a couple of concerns, but what I'm focusing on now is the duplication between some of the text on Identifying reliable sources and some of the text on Verifiability. Maurreen (talk) 04:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe for now we should just focus on the duplication in general and discuss that in the section below. Maurreen (talk) 04:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't like the proposal at all: 1) What is an expert? My wife has been writing a topic specific blog for 2 years, is she an expert on that subject?  2) Where is the oversight?  Again, my wife's page is hers and hers alone, she does not have any oversight.  Even if she were an acknowledged, expert, I don't think their personal blog would ever be acceptable as a source.  Greeny from Mike & Mike has a blog on ESPN---that's a reliable source.  Greeny has another Blog on say USA Today---again a reliable source.  Greeny has a third blog, on his own, not a reliable source---even if the material is the same!--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 00:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Twitter account, James Van Der Beek, as a reliable source???
Logical Fuzz has advised me to take this issue here in hope of resolving this dilemma. I have provided James Van Der Beek's own Twitter account (it is linked through his own official web site) as a source for his Dutch ancestry. There he twitted that he is of Dutch ancestry by writing; [http://twitter.com/vanderjames/status/12590192424 ''That's it! I must have been channelling my Dutch ancestry!.] However, my entry was deleted with explanation that "Twitter is not a reliable source for biographical content (or any content for that matter)."'' So, I don't understand why the official twitter account is not a reliable source for biographical content, especially when official web site has the link to that same twitter account? Isn't something that subject writes on his official twitter account, the most reliable source that you can get? Why is it OK to use Twitter account as a reliable source on the Twitter's Wiki page, and it is not a reliable source to be used on the James Van Der Beek's Wiki page? I really don't get it. So if some journalist(let's say from New York Post) reads the James Van Der Beek's Twitter account where he claims his Dutch ancestry with the words I cited, and he uses that in the article that he is writing about him, and that article is being published, then that would be a reliable source by Wiki standards? Can I get some comments on that? Thank you! -- Eversman (talk) 16:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh gee. A man named Van Der Beek has Dutch ancestors? I'm shocked, shocked! Highly contentious! I won't accept it without three geneology PhDs signing in blood, and backed by an Act of Congress... MSNBC and the Los Angeles Times seem to consider Van Der Beek's Twitter page a reliable source for far more personal information than his ancestry. Of course our standards aren't theirs, but we can be influenced by them. The problem with Twitter is that you only have a few characters, so we lose context, and it's usually typed very casually without much thought, so people can say silly things without meaning to; for something nuanced or contentious we would probably want more. But for something as straight forward and innocuous as this, it's a reliable self-published source about the subject. --GRuban (talk) 21:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So, if he were to tweet, "I'm channelling my inner demon" would we then assume that he is possessed? There are so many reasons why *WE* wouldn't accept his twitter account.  First, it is casually written.  I could see somebody making a similar tweet in a sarcastic manner or as justification for something silly/dumb.  No offense, but to tap into the old joke, I could see somebody justifying a dumb move by saying, "must be the polish blood in me."  Does that mean they have polish ancestry?  No, it means they are tapping into the old joke about Poles.  Second, we tend to shy away from primary sources.  Third, no editorial oversight.  A newspaper/magazine might accept twitter as reliable enough, but we want more.  If you can find a newspaper/magazine that picked up on that fact, then it is golden.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, we wouldn't assume he is possessed specifically because that would be a contentious claim, and so would require a stronger source. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; similarly, less contentious claims can be sourced with weaker evidence. If you have any evidence that he is not Dutch, please say, and we'll reject the tweet on the grounds it could be a joke (didn't Obama say he was Irish one St. Patrick's Day?). But rejecting all tweets on the principle that some are jokes is silly; we are not a bureaucracy. For unopposed, uncontentious claims like this, given the man's name, backup from a twitter tweet from him himself will suffice. --GRuban (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It could be a joke even with the name. A tweet is in no way shape or form, reliable per our standards.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 05:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion it should be a reliable source/only in such exception/, although I am not a fan o twitt accounts to be used as a source. But in this case it is no brainier, his surname is Dutch and I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be used as a source in a simplified and obvious thing like this. --Bbrezic (talk) 01:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This doesn't seem obvious to me. The comment sounds like it could just as easily be said ironically by someone with no Dutch ancestry at all (in much the same spirit that one might say "That's it!  I must be channeling my inner velociraptor!").  Comment aside, knowing that the person has a Dutch-sounding name makes it more likely that they have Dutch ancestors &mdash; but I don't think the comment changes those odds.  If a person had a Dutch name without any Dutch ancestors &mdash;which I imagine is statistically unlikely, but is surely not impossible&mdash; I would think they would be especially likely to make such a comment in an ironic way.  --Pi zero (talk) 04:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. A twitter account is not reliable by any stretch of the imagination.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 05:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, as an adoptive father, it is very possible that somebody could have a last name from a ethnicity that they themselves do not have. It is also possible due to a parent getting remarried or an illigitimate child.  The fact that the name "sounds" Dutch, does not guarantee it is so.  If it wasn't for the name sounding Dutch, would we accept Twitter as a reliable source?  Would we accept a similar statement if it were made about religion.  "Gee, I'm feeling guilty, I must be channelling my inner Catholic?"  No.  A flippant comment on Twitter, is not assurance, and when somebody prefixes a statement with "channeling" or "my inner" whatever, it is clear that it is a flippant comment.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Something that might be worth mentioning...
I had posted this at the the OR talk page, and I got directed here. I was wondering: should we put somewhere in WP:Identifying reliable sources that this isn't a requirement to blindly acknowledge every reliable-looking source as such? For example, I've seen videos of newscasts from normally reputable sources that are obviously skewed and/or fake. That way, if, say, someone uses a video from a Chinese news network to "prove" the massacres at Tiananmen Squre didn't happen (just an example), it can be removed despite being from a "reliable source". Basically, a statement like, "This does not require editors to stop using their heads when looking at sources. If a document, photograph, or video purports to be from a reliable source, but is an obvious fake, or the source's coverage is blatantly skewed so as to constitute a fringe opinion despite claiming otherwise, its removal on those grounds would not constitute a violation". Or would this lead to excessive wiki-lawyering, and/or is this covered by IAR already? I bring this up because I've seen a few blatant fakes (mostly videos) in I/P topics get removed with that rationale, and the removal is hotly contested as being OR, (things like "saying it looks edited and fake is OR" when the video is clearly fake to amateur eyes). The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)  Sounds related to the post above this as well... The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A video clip is normally a primary source, and per WP:PSTS we may only use primary sources in limited circumstances, typically to enhance what a reliable secondary source (e.g. mainstream newspaper) is saying. If the issue is contentious, then primary sources are even less admissible. In general, unless the primary source is mentioned by a reliable secondary source, it should not be used for contentious issues. Crum375 (talk) 19:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's just what immediately came to mind, but I can think of times where, say, Fox News has a pretty egregiously slanted take on things. Even though they're considered a reliable source for many things, there are a few things here and there where their opinions are so blatantly fringe that they should either be noted as such, or removed altogether. There was another instance, when I was an IP, when I saw an article (not an op-ed or anything) in a Chinese newspaper get removed as a source because it grossly misrepresented a coal-mining accident, even though that paper would normally be considered a "reliable source" by our standards (after a debate, it ended up left in for a few months before someone quietly removed it).  That way, there wouldn't have to be a debate.  The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 20:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A government newspaper or a network TV news source are considered reliable sources on WP, regardless of their perceived bias. The issue of bias relates to WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, where it is our duty to present the different views about a topic in rough proportion to their prevalence among the reliable sources. Also, if the editors on a page agree that a particular view represents only a tiny fringe minority, it should not be presented at all when discussing the main topic. Crum375 (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a misconception among editors that when a reliable source says something then it can be forced into an article even if it's obviously wrong. The most extreme examples are of course when it concerns Wikipedia: But I have been going through other similar situations recently: Part of the problem is that even some admins think "verifiability, not truth" means we must report claims from reliable sources even if we all know they are false. For some reason "verifiability, not truth" is all that everybody remembers; the word "threshold" is not getting any attention. It may be time for a very clear reminder that verifiability is just our way of approximating truth, so using it to support lies and misrepresentations in article space is a perversion. Hans Adler 22:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Jimmy Wales, the supreme leader of Wikipedia, has been disempowered, and now there is chaos. (See above.)
 * Sam Blacketer was thrown out of Arbcom because he used sockpuppets to vandalise the article of a political opponent. (See WP:Articles for deletion/Sam Blacketer controversy. For anyone not familiar with the story and not willing to read the AfD: That's as bogus as the previous line. It was brought up by The Register and then simply copied and embellished by other media.)
 * Ghosts, haunted houses and reincarnation aren't just folk beliefs with no rational foundation – they are actually pseudoscience. (They were treated as such in an NSF document about science statistics that did not claim to rewrite the philosophy of pseudoscience. In the context of an encyclopedia this makes no sense because there is no similarity to science, a key element of pseudoscience as defined by philosophers of science.)
 * Sinking two whaling boats without endangering anybody is terrorism. (Source: Accusations by Greenpeace and the Icelandic government plus a number of media reports about the 1986 Hvalur sinkings. Some editors have taken care to cite as many of them in the article as possible and insist on categorising it as terrorism. But it isn't, because terrorism is about terrorising people, not about destroying their workplace.)
 * More generally: Any destruction of property for ecological-ideological reasons is eco-terrorism and any instance of eco-terrorism is terrorism. This is very hard to address because the first claim is mainstream, this being a politically motivated dysphemism, and the second claim is etymologically plausible and makes a lot of sense unless you also make the first claim. Normally no reliable source takes both claims seriously simultaneously and explicitly draws the obviously wrong consequences that would entail. But some editors insist on doing so.
 * I found your comment very interesting; it actually isn't tl;dr, and it shows that the problem is a bit more widespread than I had initially thought. More importantly, that's exactly why I'm putting this here- it's easy to put bogus information into an article, then pout and say, "but it's a reliable source", even though it's plainly wrong.  IMHO, that's more damaging than OR, because with OR there's nothing to back it up, whereas if some plainly false information is backed up by a "reliable source", people are far more likely to believe it.  Which is why we need to say something that encourages people to think before citing, and makes it easier to defend the removal of such content.  The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 23:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There are two issues relating to inclusion/exclusion of a sourced view that need to be decided by consensus among the editors on the page: a) is the source reliable? and b) is the source's view a "tiny fringe minority" which should be left out per WP:UNDUE? For reliability assessment, "bias" is not a relevant criterion, since all sources are assumed to have some bias. The main criterion for reliability is the reputation of the source for fact checking and accuracy, or the number of independent vetting layers. For a given view being a tiny fringe minority, editors need to agree that, based on the available reliable sources, the view being expressed is not even a "small" minority, but such a "tiny" and insignificant one that it should be excluded. Those are the available exclusion criteria. Just disagreeing with the view expressed by a source is in itself not an exclusion criterion. Crum375 (talk) 02:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I just perused the 1986 Hvalur sinkings, and that's the best example yet. That was basically turned into "terrorism" by some people in the media and the Icelandic government.  It would be one thing if that was just mentioned (it is notable, even if it's false), but it's quite another to characterize the events as such.  Like Hans Adler said above, the word "threshold" is being forgotten here.  Just because a "reliable source" says something does not mean we should be presenting it in every article- in the case of the Hvalur sinkings, it makes zero sense to even indicate the possibility of it being "terrorism", because the actual events by themselves contradict the definition of the word "terrorism" (the whaling ships were sunk to prevent their usage, not to strike fear into the hearts of whalers (which it didn't do, anyway), which are two obviously very different things).  To make the issue hit a bit closer to home, should we start saying, "Wikipedia is in chaos" because Fox News, and by extension 1-2 million people, say it is?  Everyone here knows that's preposterous, and there is no reason to include it anywhere because it is so patently false that if we did include it, we would knowingly misrepresent what's actually going on.  Verifiability (via Fox in this case) doesn't mean we have to knowingly propogate proven misinformation; editor's BS meters shouldn't be turned off the moment they read through sources. Let's get real, Wikipedia is in chaos?  Beep, beep, beep... bullshit meter going off...  The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 03:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This page is about identifying reliable sources, and it sounds like in your examples the sources are reliable by Wikipedia's standard. The remaining issue, once sources are deemed as reliable, is to follow WP:NPOV and sort the various views and weight them by prominence, with the majority view getting the most space, the minority getting least, and tiny fringe minorities getting none. This is an NPOV issue and not RS, and is specific to each article. The bottom line, as I noted above, is that for each article and for each specific point, editors need to decide which sources are acceptable in principle based on WP:SOURCES (where perceived bias is not a criterion), and then classify and weight the expressed views by their relative prevalence based on WP:NPOV. Crum375 (talk) 04:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that for some reason in Wikipedia TRUþ is a four-letter word. Just look at how it is normally used in conversations: I can understand the sociological forces that have caused "truth" to become a word with almost completely negative associations on Wikipedia. But it's time to do something against it. An encyclopedia that holds contempt for the truth is undesirable. Hans Adler 11:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Verifiability, not truth – i.e. the truth doesn't matter, only verifiability does. The context of this bolded phrase in WP:V (it's the threshold) and the essay explaining it at WP:Verifiability, not truth / WP:VNT (1–2 page views per day) are largely ignored.
 * Until recently WP:TRUTH redirected to WP:The Truth, a humorous essay targeting editors who think that their personal belief is the truth and does not address cases in which the truth is obvious.
 * Now WP:TRUTH redirects to WP:Truth, a serious essay about minority views that also doesn't address cases in which reliable sources are at odds with the truth.
 * We are using "truth warrior" as a swear word.


 * Yes we should allow the TRUTH. Wikipedia should make it clear that there is no God but God, and Mohamed is his Prophet... er, I mean we should state categorically that Jesus Christ is the Light and the Way, no one comes to the Father but though him... Um... that God is an extraterrestrial... I mean... that there is no God.
 * Well in any case, you are correct and we should allow The Truth. (not) Blueboar (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. One man's "truth" is another's lie, one man's "fact" is another's fiction. But there are things we can all agree on, despite all our cultural, national, and ideological differences: "Source X says A", and "Source Y says B". That's what we need to focus on, and together decide how reliable those sources are (where "reliability" means reputation for accuracy and independent vetting layers, not "lack of bias" or "truthfulness"), and we should also decide which views are majority among the reliable sources, which are minority, and which are too tiny to even mention. As long as we neutrally summarize the reliable sources, weighted by their prevalence, we'll be just fine. Crum375 (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, sorry, what you say makes sense in most contexts but not in all. In my experience we are increasingly getting situations where editors argue that an article should say something that is totally unreasonable merely because a reliable source says it, or appears to say it. These editors are not even trying to argue that it's correct. Instead, they are hiding behind "verifiability, not truth". That's fundamentalism, and fundamentalism is bad and destructive. In the Sam Blacketer case it went so far as a sizeable number of editors claiming seriously (or at least pretending to be serious while claiming it – perhaps it was all secretly orchestrated by 4Chan) that the Wikipedia article had to parrot a negative claim about Sam Blacketer from the reliable sources, even though our server logs proved it was completely false. On the other hand, the same people fought vigorously against putting this claim in context by presenting the truth based on the logs, because according to them that was original research.
 * There appears to be a fringe view behind that: The postmodernist view (see also Sokal affair) that there is no truth at all, and that all science is just pseudoscience which happens to be fashionable among a certain group.
 * This problem is made worse by editors who are unable to gauge the reliability of specific statements made by sources. Too many editors can't distinguish between when a source says "terrorism" or "pseudoscience" and means it, and when these words are used to express strong feelings and give weight to a statement in the same way that in everyday speech one might use "fuck" and not actually be referring to sexual intercourse. Hans Adler 17:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hans, "correctness" of a reliable source is not relevant for Wikipedia. If you believe that a reliable source spouts nonsense, all you need to do is show that its view is in a tiny minority compared to other reliable sources, and if others agree with you, that extremist view would be excluded per WP:UNDUE. If the others disagree, a consensus needs to be reached to decide the relative prevalence of each view, based on the reliable sources. If there is ongoing disagreement, more eyes should be sought, of uninvolved editors. But just claiming "this source is wrong, trust me!" won't cut it. Crum375 (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That is exactly the kind of faulty argument that I have been hearing recently and that is really getting on my nerves. What you describe is our procedure for keeping crackpottery out of the encyclopedia. This is not a rational procedure when sources of otherwise very high quality make an obvious mistake, or when many reliable sources agree in a sloppy use of language etc. There is a huge difference between "this source is wrong, trust me" and "as everybody can see, the claim made by this source is wrong when moved into an encyclopedia". Let's take one example:
 * If you write for a newspaper with an audience that hates Sea Shepherd, then you can't do better than use the strongest word possible to refer to the 1986 Hvalur sinkings. A lot of newspapers did that, although many made sure not to claim explicitly that it was terrorism, but e.g. put the word in the title and then not use it in the body. Thus the connection between the sabotage and the word terrorism is not marginal, simply because there is a POV that wants to have it. It's not the standard way of referring to the event at all, but it is so widespread that you can't really call it an "extremist" view.
 * Now if you take "sinking a boat without hurting or intending to hurt anybody is terrorism" out of its original newspaper context and move it into an encyclopedia context, then suddenly it acquires a lot more weight. That is because such a claim is the kind of nonsense that is normally filtered out as irrelevant noise by encyclopedia writers. While everybody seems to be still worrying about how we deal with the fringers, and still pushing our general handling of policy in one direction optimised for dealing with them, a new POV pushing strategy is on the rise, and this is what I have been dealing with recently. This strategy consists in identifying specific technically false claims in reliable sources, which support a specific POV, and push them into the encyclopedia with all force. If the editors who are doing this are not even under an obligation to make it plausible that they believe the false claims, then we are making it too easy for them.
 * I guess there is no POV for which it is relevant, but it would be trivial to cause a lot of disruption in astronomical arguments by pushing the idea that the moon is a star. There are literally thousands of reliable sources which claim that it is. The inevitable result of such pushing would be long passages in Moon, Star and several articles which discuss the "claims" of various reliable sources that the Moon is a star, and how the scientific establishment reacts to this claim. We could waste hundreds of editor hours on this non-issue, just in order to make the encyclopedia a little bit worse by dumping such nonsense discussions in otherwise good articles. This is exactly what has happened with terrorism in 1986 Hvalur sinkings and with pseudoscience in various articles on a-scientific nonsense. And it is what happened with Sam Blacketer controversy, with the special twist that in that case we couldn't even counter the misinformation.
 * It's all very easy: If we all know that something is false, then we can't claim it in the voice of the article, no matter how many reliable sources claim, or appear to claim, that it's true. And we must be careful about reporting false claims so as not to give the impression that they are true. But in practice these simple rules are ignored when ignoring them is convenient for pushing a POV. Hans Adler 20:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "If we all know that something is false, then we can't claim it in the voice of the article": If all editors agree that a statement in the article requires in-text attribution, then it should be so cited. If there is some confusion about a source, or extra details are needed (for example because of conflicts between sources), additional information may be included in a footnote. In my over 4 years here, I have yet to see a single case where following the existing sourcing policies, as I described above, with footnotes as "glue logic", fails to achieve a reasonable article. Crum375 (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That works when you have a high-traffic, well known subject- the vast majority of people know that the Moon isn't a star, and the reliable sources saying otherwise are obviously wrong. However, when you have a high-traffic, lesser known subject, it can become a major problem.  Looking through the Hvalur sinkings, that is roughly the equivalent of claiming the Moon is a star- it's obviously wrong, and based on a bastardization of terms.  But because fewer people are aware of this bastardization, they allow the riff-raff to shove it into the article without a reasonable explanation of the fact that it's not only a POV, it's one that isn't supported by the events.  If this view had that many supporters, but they all came from blogs and such, it would be easily filtered out as nonsense- however, because otherwise reliable sources claim it, using the exact same arguments as the bloggers, it's much easier for blantant POV-pushers to keep it in the article.  This makes no sense, because the argument is equally bogus no matter who makes it.  The only reason that article looks good now is because some editors who know what happened put in a tremendous effort to keep it out- however, it would be so much easier if we just put in a little word encouraging people to use their heads in determining the validity of arguments made by "reliable sources".  The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 00:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You can have POV pushers show up at any article, and use any policy, regardless of how it's written, to support their edits. And of course, one man's "POV pushers" are another man's "Truth Seekers". All we can do is write reasonable policies and guidelines, and hope that common sense will prevail. There is no way to legislate common sense, and as I noted above, in my own 4+ year experience here, I have yet to find a single article where the content policies failed to produce a reasonable result. Contentious issues will be harder and will take longer to nail down, but that's life. Crum375 (talk) 00:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * All I'm suggesting is allowing editors to be realistic when encountering the type of POV-pushing Hans Adler and I are suggesting. It doesn't matter what you call them, their attitude is just as toxic as if they were pushing blog POVs.  I've got to attend to other business, so I'll come back to this later.  The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 01:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As I noted above, as far as WP is concerned, all editors have a POV, and therefore we are all "POV pushers". The policies have been written with that in mind, which means that nobody here has a monopoly on "truth", and in fact, our policies specifically exclude "truth" as a factor. All we care about are reliable sources, and how to prioritize and summarize them neutrally. Crum375 (talk) 01:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

"I have yet to find a single article where the content policies failed to produce a reasonable result." – That's not the problem. Eventually we always get the right solution. Well, almost always. The "verifiability, not truth" meme that is being exploited here, by insisting that the truth doesn't actually matter even when it's really obvious, is not in place so that we get our articles right, it's there to make the process more efficient. It's there so we waste less time arguing against the crackpots. But it has been overdone recently, and now I have to waste incredible amounts of time arguing against the "it doesn't matter whether it's reasonable, it's verifiable!" POV pushers.

The underlying policy says we can't say something if it's not verifiable, even if it's true. There is a strong consensus for that and nobody wants to change it, obviously. Its fundamentalist interpretation, that we can say something that is verifiable even if it's obviously not true, has come up in part as a misunderstanding and in part as a time-saver when arguing with fringers. ("No, I needn't prove to you that the relativity theory is true, because it doesn't even matter.") But it's only a time-saver in some situations, and in others it's an immense time sink. We need to get the balance right. Hans Adler 12:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It all boils down to sources. If people focused on evaluating sources for reliability, and prioritizing the reliable ones by the prevalence of the expressed views, the rest would be easy. But the problem arises when people use their own "expert" knowledge that something is "true" or "false" or "incorrect". On Wikipedia our job is to neutrally summarize what reliable sources have written about an issue, not to present our own personal knowledge. If you do have expert knowledge, use that expertise to find the best sources. Crum375 (talk) 18:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree completely with Crum on this. Blueboar (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's possible to focus on reliability without being pedantic. It isn't using "expert" knowledge to recognize blatant mischaracterizaztions- it's using command of the English language.  Like Hans Adler said, there's a balance to be struck here, and it's currently tipped one way.  That's all, nothing huge and radical.  The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, the focus must be on sources, their reliability, and the relative prevalence of their views. But to be able to assess reliability and prevalence, and decide how to summarize the information neutrally, collaborative common sense must be used. Without common sense, all the written policies and guidelines are virtually useless. But personal knowledge or expertise is never acceptable, unless backed up by reliable sources. Crum375 (talk) 02:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Personal knowledge is how the encyclopedia gets written. Verifiable knowledge isn't the same as sourced knowledge. Gigs (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, not sure what this means. Crum375 (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The most important technique in the real world for evaluating whether a source can be relied on or not is to look at the overlap of what it says and what you are fully knowledgeable about. If there is enough such overlap and it gets that part basically right, then it's probably reliable. If it doesn't it is probably not. "No, you can't do that" is the kind of thing that is convenient to say to an astrology fan or new age freak or perpetuum mobile inventor who tries to use this technique to shoot down an obviously reliable physics book. It is not an adequate response if a New York Times article claims that Jimbo was the almighty ruler of Wikipedia, but has been deposed now, which is sure to lead to huge chaos; or that William M. Connolley has blocked 2,000 editors simply for disagreeing with him about climate change; or that Sam Blacketer committed vandalism on the article of a political opponent. It may be a thousand times the New York Times, but an article claiming such things obviously contains bullshit. Therefore everything it says needs to be taken with a pound of salt, and any attempts to "verify" the above bogus claims themselves with such an article should lead to an immediate block unless the editor seriously doesn't know it's false.

But we currently have a culture where editors can get away with putting stuff in articles that everybody knows to be false, merely by citing a source that obviously got something wrong or uses words in a different way, and then refusing to even talk about truth. They don't even need to claim that they believe that stuff. "No, I don't actually believe that the Moon is made of green cheese, but the following 20 philosophy books say it is the case, so it doesn't matter whether it's true, it's a significant POV." That's no way to write an encyclopedia. We are not playing Nomic here. Or rather, those who are here only for playing Nomic need to be shown the door. Hans Adler 00:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hans, if I understand you correctly, your concern is that someone will use a mistake made by an otherwise-reliable source to push some agenda. If so, that's relatively easy to overcome: find other reliable sources that contradict the one with the apparent mistake, so you can push it to the margin via WP:UNDUE. In some cases it makes sense to email the publisher and try to nail down the dubious information. What we can't do is just say, "trust me, that source is wrong!". Well, we can say it on the talk page, to urge people to find better sources, but can't use ourselves as a reliable source. Crum375 (talk) 00:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, your argument is fundamentalist. "Verifiability, not truth" is the threshold. If you read this in context it means that, assuming something is true, we still can't say it if it's not verifiable. This language was never intended to cover the relatively rare case that something is verifiable but clearly not true. The original principle has been bastardised to verifiability being the only criterion for what we say or don't say, as if it was necessary to find a reliable source that addresses an obvious error to avoid repeating the error. That's not realistic at all. There are no reliable sources that say: "When a philosophy book says 'The Moon is made of green cheese', then it doesn't actually mean the Moon is made of green cheese but is just using the sentence as an example." It's extremely hard to find reliable sources for such things as the Moon not being a star. And there are no such reliable sources for my three Wikipedia-related examples. It's telling that you are not even addressing the Wikipedia examples at all.
 * There are all sorts of reasons for us not say something that is verifiable, such as: It's not encyclopedic. It creates undue weight problems. It's redundant and needs to be left out for reasons of encyclopedic brevity.
 * The idea that something "verifiable" being obviously false is somehow a second-class argument which in contrast to these others cannot be used to leave information out is a perversion. Hans Adler 01:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you have a basic misconception of what Wikipedia is about. We are not here to spread the word of God, or the Truth, to the masses. Our goal is to be a "reader's digest" service &mdash; we summarize and present neutrally what reliable sources have published about various topics. So there is no such thing as "I know it's true", or "I know it's wrong", only "here is what source A said", and "here is what source B said". Note that we don't blindly compile and report what everybody said. First, we sift through the available sources, and vet them for reliability. Then we make sure that we present the gist of what they say by representing all their views in a neutral fashion, proportional to the prevalence of each view among the reliable sources. Nowhere in this process do we inject our own personal knowledge, of what is "Patent Nonsense", or "Gospel Truth". If we happen to have RL expertise in the subject matter, we harness that useful knowledge to help us find and vet the various sources, and properly interpret what they say. As I noted above, if you believe a reliable source is wrong, prove it by finding other reliable sources which contradict it, to the point it becomes marginal and left out by WP:UNDUE. But just saying, "trust me, I know better than this source" won't cut it. Crum375 (talk) 01:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So you are happy with Wikipedia lying about Jimbo, about William M. Connolley, or about Sam Blacketer, if all the "reliable" sources get something wrong? Please stop discussing only the strawman of cases where we can't know the truth and start addressing the really clear cases where all Wikipedians agree what the truth is but all the available sources are wrong. So far we have had three such examples. Hans Adler 22:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am happy if Wikipedia can do its job properly, which is to accurately report what the reliable sources have written about a topic. If I have personal knowledge about an issue, I would work extra hard to find all the best sources, and try to convince my fellow editors to prioritize those sources based on their reliability and prevalence of their views. I would be very unhappy if Wikipedia editors decided what they think is "true" or "false", instead of following the reliable sources. Wikipedia is not an investigative journal, or a Holy Bible, it is a neutral summary of reliable sources, period. Crum375 (talk) 00:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's all well and good to be a collection of reliable sources (in all seriousness); however, that doesn't mean we need to spread misinformation. That's the whole point of my suggestion, to prevent Wikipedia from becoming a platform for propaganda-type reporting.  A lot of these sources have serious COIs when reporting, and that should probably be taken into account when they start saying the things that Hans Adler alluded to above.  The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 01:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you mean that some sources are biased, that's well known, and in fact no source is unbiased. But if a source has a reputation for poor accuracy or vetting (assuming it doesn't get sued out of business), it will not be considered "reliable" for WP purposes, and therefore its content will be rejected. Conversely, if a source does have a reputation for accuracy, it is considered a reliable source, regardless of its perceived bias. The whole concept of WP is to present the reliable sources, and weight the various views by their prevalence among the reliable sources. There is no way around it: we must present all reliable sources, even if we personally don't like them, or are convinced they are wrong. The only way a reliable source can be excluded is if the view it presents is in a tiny minority, per WP:UNDUE. Again, if you have personal expertise, use it to help us find and vet the sources, not to impose your personal views or beliefs. Crum375 (talk) 02:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I only read this far for your original post and had to interject: "Sinking two whaling boats without endangering anybody is terrorism. (Source: Accusations by Greenpeace and the Icelandic government plus a number of media reports about the 1986 Hvalur sinkings. Some editors have taken care to cite as many of them in the article as possible and insist on categorising it as terrorism. But it isn't, because terrorism is about terrorising people, not about destroying their workplace.)"  This is so patently false that I can't just let this stand here, even on a discussion page. Terrorism in US law is premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatent targets by a subnational group.  Under this definition the greenpeace actions are most definately terrorism.  Our wikipedia definition of terrorism, which likely represents a amalgamation of definitions from a huge variety of sources also shows that the sinking of these two ships is terrorism.  It is easy to go around thinking that greenpeace does good, and is therefor a good organisation, but if you fact check any of their press releases, articles, blogs, and other media you will see that they rely heavily on misinformation and lies.  We should have no trouble identifying the action of destroying property for political motivated reasons as terrorism.  Furthermore we can use this example to show why your basic premise is flawed.  Much of what you think is obvious and common sense is probably wrong, just as much of what I think of as obviously true is likely false.  Therefor, how can we go about deciding what sources to remove and what to keep?

I'm no supporter of Greenpeace and the like- however, the whole idea of the Hvalur sinkings wasn't to inspire terror in people's hearts. It was to destroy a couple of whaling boats, and Greenpeace indeed had no intention of, and did not, harm a single person. To draw an example, you're probably familiar with the Boston Tea Party. Under your definition, those people are terrorists. However, that is obviously wrong, because what they did was dump thousands of pounds of tea into the Boston Harbor without harming anyone. It wasn't to terrorize the British, it was to dump their tea and protest the tax on it. The damage was astronomical, similar to the Hvalur sinkings. Similarly, Greenpeace sank two empty whaling ships to protest whaling. In addition, American law is totally irrelevant (by the way, "non-combatants" are humans, not structures, under American law- structures are a whole different entity), because this occurred in Iceland, and their definition of terrorism is different. Basically, the papers went on a smear campaign, and tried to distort it as such. That's why people need to be wary when looking through normally reliable sources. Read Hans Adler's definition of "verifiability, not truth", and you'll see why I got this idea. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 23:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC) By the way, you really should sign with four tildes. Also, if you want to debate that topic, go to the 1986 Hvalur sinkings talkpage and read Hans Adler's posts there; I think I'll head over there now myself.

Smaller news outlets articles less WP:RS than big one's opinion pieces?
I have been having a long standing problem in one BLP that statements from Opinion Pieces from large publications are given more credance than statements from news articles from smaller ones, including small city newspapers that definitely do have editors. To the extent that such factual or relatively neutral statements from these publications are consistently deleted as NOT WP:RS while biased opinion rants from major news publications are freely quoted. This has happened on the talk page consistently of the article and at least once at WP:RS Noticeboard. Does this article need to make it explicitly clear that opinion pieces do not trump factual news organization pieces, even if it is a relatively small news organization? CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * IMHO this depends on the context. If the subject, for example, is a complex issue of U.S. Congressional procedure, a staff-written opinion piece in The Washington Post is probably much more reliable than a news item written by a journalist on a smaller paper without a track record of national political coverage. But if the subject is a person who lives in that small city, a local celebrity, the opposite may very well apply.


 * I know I am in danger of banging on about this  but I will say again - sometimes we overstate the difference between opinion and news articles, in terms of the editorial procedures applied to them. Staff-written opinion columns, at least, are usually subject to an editor's oversight, which will involve questioning any doubtful or potentially defamatory claims; news reports are not routinely fact-checked (in the sense of an editor or fact-checker independently verifying accuracy), though of course they too are edited. (This applies to newspapers in North America and the UK - I'm not sufficiently familiar with practices in other markets, where I haven't worked in newsrooms, to comment.)


 * The takeaway being - we need to make the decision as to reliability based on looking at (a) the author (staff or outsider), (b) the publication, (c) the type of piece (news? pure personal opinion? news analysis?) and (d) the subject, not particularly in that order.


 * In this particular case, what is the Wikipedia article? Barnabypage (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer to keep it to the general since this is a general problem. I was thinking more in terms of guest columns which really are little more than opinionated rants with various allegations thrown about. I'm surprised to hear there is little fact checking in news articles. But at least there usually is an attempt to be NPOV which is not true of opinion pieces. Maybe there needs to be a differentiation between staff and guest opinion pieces? Or considered opinions and rants? Is a rant by a guest columnist in a major British publication more credible than a more NPOV news piece in a small newspaper in New Zealand or Cyprus, for example. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that what you call rants - those opinion pieces whose real purpose (from the publication's point of view) is to entertain/provoke readers - are never RS except for their authors' own opinions. The difficult grey area is those opinion pieces whose purpose is to explain, analyse, provide context. The distinction between them and interpretative news reporting is often so narrow as to be invisible... Barnabypage (talk) 10:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That's the distinction I think needs to be alluded to in this article because it is not clear to editors who are pushing various agendas. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought we made it clear in several guideline and policy pages that material taken from opinion pieces should always be directly attributed (in the text) to the author. When correctly phrased as being such, just about any source is reliable (ie any source where an opinion is stated should be considered reliable when what is being reported is the fact that so and so said it.)
 * With statements of opinion, the issue of where the opinion is stated is not really important, what is important is whether we should mention the opinion in the first place... but that is an WP:UNDUEWEIGHT issue, not an RS issue. Blueboar (talk) 17:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Facts should not be sourced to editorials. If the facts are correct and notable then they can be found in straight news stories.  Also it is sometimes difficult to distinguish facts from opinions in opinion pieces and they are often phrased in loaded terms.  They should also be used cautiously when better commentaries are available which is almost always the case for historical events.  For example articles about the Bush administration should use academic articles and books about it for criticism and defense rather than editorials.  TFD (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually this issue is answered well at RS, pretty much disallowing "facts" from opinion pieces in BLP if not verified from a better source. Sometimes you read a policy page and miss stuff - for weeks!! Argh.... CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Perdana College
I am trying to write an article about Perdana College of Malaysia. Is the school's website not a reliable resource? What would constitute a reliable resource in this situation? Smithmd2 (talk) 07:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have replied at the user's talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Official blogs
Official sources are reliable, but blogs aren't. So would Game Freak's blog be considered a reliable source, or not? --75.25.103.109 (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It would be a reliable source for information about the company Game Freak (except for obviously self-serving statements like Game Freak is the greatest video game developer ever) and it would be a reliable source for the company's views (Game Freak believes that the future of video gaming lies in blah blah blah). But it would not be a reliable source for, say, facts about competitors or about the video game market in general. See WP:SELFPUBOK. Barnabypage (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Would it be a reliable source for information the Pokémon games (influences, inspiration, etc. for specific characters or areas)? --75.25.103.109 (talk) 17:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think it would be a reliable source for information on any games that the company itself created, unless there was good reason to doubt the claims. The questions you need to ask yourself are (a) is the company in a position to know this fact definitively, and (b) would it have any credible motive for distorting the truth? So, it would be fine as a source for We decided to make this Pokemon character yellow because... (the company certainly should know why it made the decision, and there's no obvious reason to lie about it). But it would not be an acceptable source for This game outsold all others on the market for 40 weeks (because the company does not itself compile sales statistics for the market as a whole, and in any case has an obvious reason to talk up the game's success).
 * Inevitably it is going to be a bit of a judgement call depending on the exact assertions you want to use the blog as a source for. Barnabypage (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I want to say that Hiun City from BW is based on San Francisco, based on Junichi Masuda's comments on the blog about how great the Golden Gate Bridge is (Hiun City has a similar bridge, there are also other similarities). --75.25.103.109 (talk) 17:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know anything about Pokemon, but if you're talking about the blog entry here http://www.gamefreak.co.jp/blog/dir_english/?p=177 I don't think you can make that leap - not because it's a blog but because it's original research on your part (see WP:OR). In other words, SF as inspiration is your conclusion drawn from his comments rather than what his statements actually say. You need to actually find Masuda explicitly saying Hiun City was inspired by San Francisco. Barnabypage (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Personal blogs as sources
Currently, journalistic blogs by newspaper and magazine writers/editors are considered reliable sources, as they have oversight and professional standards and reputation.

Some editors propose allowing third-party personal blogs to be used as reliable sources.

Should these be allowed? If so, under what guidelines, and what standards should be implemented to help insure accuracy and credibility? - Tenebrae (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment This RFC is flawed, because it seems to imply that a local consensus in a guideline page can trump an overriding policy. In the case of WP:IRS, WP:SOURCES is the governing policy, and this guideline page is only an explanation of that policy. As this guideline already says (bold added): "In the event of a contradiction between this page and a Wikipedia policy, the policy takes priority, and this page should be updated to reflect it." The specific issue of blogs is covered in detail in WP:SOURCES, and any change in that policy has to be made on that page, not here. Crum375 (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This guideline is insuficiently informative if it fails to mention that personal blogs of individuals without substantial credentials are never reliable sources for anything except the writer of the blog. Hipocrite (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * According to WP:SPS, which is the governing policy, "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." There are some other cautions. This guideline should reflect that policy, if it doesn't already. Crum375 (talk) 15:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The proposed, now reverted, change distanced the "blogs" section from the self-published section. This is not appropriate. The reason the blogs section was so close to the self-published section is such that anyone who is pointed to this policy with "blogs are not reliable sources," very quickly finds the self-published section. If there is going to be a "blogs" section, it needs to mention, perhaps duplicatively, that blogs that are published by non-experts are not reliable sources, period. Hipocrite (talk) 15:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable, but whatever this guideline ends up saying about blogs has to conform to what the controlling policy says about the subject, in WP:SOURCES. Crum375 (talk) 15:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

There are at least a couple of problems here.
 * 1) This appears to be a misunderstanding of the previous change: "Some editors propose allowing third-party personal blogs to be used as reliable sources." That change did not indicate anything about specific about personal blogs. That change was intended to give more scrutiny to newspaper blogs and the like.
 * 2) Duplicated information among pages led to one page being revised and the other not. We need to avoid such the duplicating of information to avoid this problem. Maurreen (talk) 18:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Every time blogs are mentioned on a page discussing sourcing it needs to be made crystal clear that personal blogs by non-experts are never acceptable sources for anything but their author. I can't agree to any changes to this policy that do not conform to this long-established, universal behavior. Hipocrite (talk) 18:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone has disagreed with "personal blogs by non-experts are never acceptable sources for anything but their author." That can be said at the same time as the changes that were recently reverted. Maurreen (talk) 18:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * And there needs to be a strong BLP exception so such blogs are not used to trash people, as is often done on wikipedia in various partisan disputes. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Statement of Opinion "facts" and other WP:RS
RS reads: Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. It also reads ''There is an important exception to sourcing statements of fact or 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#Reliable sources and WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source.'' What if a negative opinion piece says "Mr. X has said '[some outrageous statement].'" Or "MS. X has [done some outrageous thing]." Under what circumstances can it be used? I used to think it was OK, but having read the above, and heard from an admin that opinion writers can't just throw "facts" around, I now have to wonder if it is indeed something that needs to be addressed in this policy article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Can it be used if the Opinion writer doesn't give any attribution, even if a search reveals a WP:RS news source, transcript, interview or something self-published by Mr. X that had the exact same words or deeds? (And editors then patch that reference on as a second WP:RS.)
 * And what if there is an attribution (He said this at some event) but no confirmation from a WP:RS?


 * It would never be correct to use a negative self-published source to bluntly assert that "Mr. X has said '[some outrageous statement]'" or "Mr. X has [done some outrageous thing]."
 * It is sometimes OK to use a self-published source if attributed to the person stating the opinion... as in: "According to Writer A, Mr. X said '[some outrageous statement]'" or "According to Writer A, Mr. X has [done some outrageous thing]." ... depending on who Writer A is, and what the subject of the article where the statement appears is (for example, if the Writer A is a published expert, his opinion is more reliable... and if the article is about Writer A, more latitude can be given to expressing his opinion about Mr. X).
 * Finally, as far as WP:IRS is concerned, it is always acceptable to quote someone directly, no matter the source... as in: "Mr. X has said '[some outrageous statement]'"  " (note, however, that this only addresses the RS issue... the quote might still be omitted for giving Undue Weight to Mr. X's view, or for other policy reasons.) Blueboar (talk) 18:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for a sensible response. (I don't see enough lately!) However, it is not entirely clear how you would apply to vitriolic opinion pieces or columns by regular writers for mainstream publications, who may be hired for their entertainment value or some other reason other than actual expertise. I think they can be OK for opinion, but not in preference to less biased opinion or news pieces. Plus, if the fact is outrageous, at the very least a second ref from a WP:RS news source confirming the person did not distort facts should be included.
 * Direct quotes from the source also can be a problem if there is a list of out of context ones to prove some WP:SYNTH point. They probably only should be used if backing up something a more neutral WP:RS has said or if a single quote that's not too contentious.
 * Anyway, does all this need to be made a bit more explicit under RS? I'll suggest language later. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Both of those questions relate more to other policy/guideline pages (specifically WP:NPOV and WP:NOR) than to WP:IRS. If a vitriolic opinion piece is published by a mainstream publication then it passes the test for RS.  However, that is only one of many tests it must pass... the opinion might well be excluded under some other policy. Blueboar (talk) 02:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking at Identifying_reliable_sources again, I can see the the possible confusion arises (in my mind and perhaps in others) because first paragraph deals only with Opinion pieces by WP:RS. The next two talk about blogs in WP:RS publications and "Self-published blogs." But there is no clear statement that blogs in WP:RS have to be edited or that "self-published" blogs might include blogs on WP:RS. So I think that clarifying that point in one or both paragraphs would be very helpful. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Named columns in UK newspapers - are they really "op-eds"?
I've been wondering for a while about the status of columns by named writers in the "broadsheet" UK newspapers (Times, Telegraph, Guardian, Independent). A lot of the time these are essays advancing a point of view, but I don't think it is possible to dismiss their reliability on that account alone. The writers frequently cite facts to support their position, and I would think that these facts are checked in much the same way as facts across the newspaper as a whole. Given the UK's strict libel laws they are of course checked for libel. And sometimes these writers actually undertake some reportage. And some of the columnists are or have been academics, e.g. Timothy Garton Ash. Does anyone else think that some further nuance should be given to the "only reliable for the author's own opinion" formula in these cases? Itsmejudith (talk) 14:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely. See the discussion headed Smaller news outlets articles less WP:RS than big one's opinion pieces? above for some further thoughts on this. Barnabypage (talk) 14:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. These are commissioned pieces from writers who are considered by the papers to be authoritative or they wouldn't commission them in the first place, as any content reflects on the standing of the paper. The papers take responsibility for publication of the content, and pieces have to pass through editorial review at some stage like any other published content. They are not going to allow false facts (apart from the occasional accident which can happen to any published material).  Ty  14:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Reliable Sources Outdated In The Modern Internet World?
In the modern internet world, surely blogs should be counted just as much as published sources (which are, in fact, usually opinions themselves), or at least the factual parts of what they're suggesting should be counted? Perhaps a "unreliable source" tag should be counted in, to allow for facts to be placed in articles whilst a reliable source is found?

An example is the current Inheritance Cycle page. The criticism article was cut down simply due to lack of "reliable sources", despite the fact that many of the sources were quoting directly from the books in question. The factual evidence of the sources is unquestionable, so why should they not be counted as reliable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.114.70 (talk) 08:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC) --77.97.114.70 (talk) 08:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * As an addendum to the above, it merely seems to me that people are not using the reliable source policy to protect articles from damage, but abusing it to protect them from negative facts and criticism. It's a shield to hide behind, not a shield to defend with, if that makes sense. Is that what we really want it to be?
 * --77.97.114.70 (talk) 08:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It depends on the blog. A few blogs are considered very reliable (those that are written by acknowledged experts in a particular field, or those that have won awards for journalism, etc). However, the vast majority of blogs are nothing more than the musings of some individual somewhere... someone with no real expertize that would qualify them as being a reliable source.
 * You complain that the guideline is used to keep out negative facts and criticism... if those facts and criticisms come from an unreliable source, you bet it is. The solution isn't to allow unreliable sources... the solution is to find and cite reliable sources for the facts and criticism.  Blueboar (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a combination of lack of general media interest in certain topics (for whatever reason) and the inability to place original research on Wikipedia (since it is also against the guidelines to do so) that leads to a dearth of verifiable sources on a subject. Unless, of course, taking from the book in question counts as a verifiable resource (the subject in question is copying chapters / plagiarism from a book, I have the chapters written out from the books themselves), but I think that counts as original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.114.70 (talk) 14:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If there is little or no coverage of a subject in reliable sources, it deserves little or no coverage in an encyclopedia article - see WP:N. This is one of the reasons why original research isn't allowed on Wikipedia: if the subject was notable enough for inclusion there would already be reliable sources discussing the subject. The example of demonstrating copying/plagiarism of two chapters would count as original research as you would be drawing conclusions yourself, rather than noting someone else's conclusions. Una LagunaTalk 15:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * What a ridiculous concept. [url=http://telpenori.blogspot.com/2007/02/paolini-and-plagiarism_28.html]There's been more than few mentions of what I'm talking about in smaller publications,[/url] but I doubt any large newspaper would be willing to touch the topic. Would that article, as an example, be allowed? --77.97.114.70 (talk) 15:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it can be frustrating when something you want to say is not verifiable by reliable sources. That said, unless I am not understanding the issue, it does not sound like this is the case in your situation.  If the unreliable websites are simply quoting from a book, then why not just skip over the unreliable websites and cite directly to the book (this assumes, or course, that the book being quoted is itself considered reliable).  Blueboar (talk) 15:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That does not look like a reliable source to me: it looks like someone (we don't know who) writing their own personal blog. Not reliable. When contributing articles, it's important to remember to distinguish between what you want to write and what you should write. It sounds to me like you're letting your point of view get in the way. You can't just quote directly from the books and draw conclusions that way; this would be synthesis of original material (original research). It is much better to approach an article with an open mind and look at what reliable sources have already said, rather than approaching an article with an agenda to get a certain point of view or idea in the article. Una LagunaTalk 16:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Evaluations of the quality of a work of fiction in Wikipedia should come from a recognized critic, not a web page author or Wikipedia editor. This particular case illustrates why: in stories about western magic and folklore, the same themes appear over and over again, so it takes a qualified critic to decide when a book should be blasted for being too derivative. There are also complicated issues such as who owns the copyright to various works (author or publisher), works written by the same author under various pen names, and publishers with different names which are actually part of the same corporation. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Carl Sagan's Indigo Children
Discussion about reliable sources. Moved to Reliable_sources/Noticeboard Deep Atlantic Blue (talk) 05:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

If information from a self published source is cited in reliable sources, would that make the SPS a reliable source as well?
I am starting this up because of a recent discussions at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard andReliable_sources/Noticeboard. If a source does not seem to be meet WP:SPS, but is cited by multiple (10+) reliable sources does that not also show the the reliability of the source in question? Yoenit (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Normally the answer is no, but what really made this situation gray is that Sinodefence is normally used for fundamental facts about Chinese military, both in and outside of Wikipedia. Given that Chinese military information, specifically ground forces and equipments after 1990s, is almost nonexistent on other RS, Sinodefence is probably the only PLA studies that actually receives wide recognition despite the lack of editorial oversight. Jim101 (talk) 20:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm somewhat ambivalent on this, as it makes sense, but may have the potential for misuse as a precedent for other less compelling cases. Is it worth testing this as a proposal?, something like:

Proposal on SPS
In the last paragraph of Identifying reliable sources, after the first sentence, insert: --RexxS (talk) 21:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "It is possible that a self-published source may be considered reliable, even where the editorial process is unclear and the author is unpublished, if the information in the source has been cited by a sufficiently large number of independent reliable sources, but this should be determined by consensus on a case-by-case basis."


 * Is this even necessary? Having a editorial process is a "nice to have", not an absolute requirement.  At its most fundamental core, a reliable source is one that has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking.  If a source is cited by lots of other reliable sources, then that is a good indication that it has such a reputation.  Snopes.com is a SPS but one with an excellent reputation for accuracy and fact-checking on urban legends.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, unless the author of Snopes.com has written books or academic papers about urban legends it would not be a RS according to some editors on the noticeboard. Read the links I posted above for more information. Yoenit (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed on the talk page before, and rejected. Considering the history of rejection, it would be necessary to have a discussion and, if a consensus in favor of it is reached, put it in the guideline, in order to put editors on notice there is a new consensus. I am in favor of the change. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been following Sinodefence.com (though I haven't commented) and I'm not sure consensus has been reached against its use. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I meant that the general concept of a source being regarded as reliable solely because it had been cited in many other reliable sources has been rejected on this talk page; I say nothing about the status of the sinodefence.com discussion. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Any chance you know why it has previously been rejected? I tried digging it up from the archives, but can't seem to find anything relevant. Yoenit (talk) 10:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The answer to this is fairly straightforward. If the secondary sources based upon a self-published source are reliable, follow WP:PSTS. No need to alter the basic thrust of the policy WP:SPS or the guideline WP:IRS. ... Kenosis (talk) 12:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Kenosis' analysis is flawed. If many reliable sources cite information from a SPS, each RS citing the information it need to support its topic, that may leave a great deal of information in the SPS that has not been cited in a RS. The question at hand is whether we can cite the SPS information that has never been cited before, on the grounds that the reliance by the RSs demonstrate the SPS is a RS? Jc3s5h (talk) 12:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, I didn't see the question the same way you're now putting it. OK, name an example where a SPS has been cited and relied upon by many RSs, where its use in an article appears necessary or desirable. ... Kenosis (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I provided two links above to discussions on navweaps.com and sinodefence.com.


 * navweaps.com is mostly a convenience issue as it is a source collecting technical information on naval weaponry, currently linked on over a 1000 wikipages. Some of the sources he uses are non-english and/or very rare, so while theoretically possible it would be a pain to replace the site. It is a one man run SPS, but cited (and sometimes recommended) in 23 naval warships and weaponry books, including some very important reference works.


 * Sinodefence.com is an even better example, the site seems to be THE source for information on the Chinese military, cited by (among others): the US government, Reuters and practically every academic paper on the topic.


 * Both sites fail SPS because the author does not seem to have made additional publications in the relevant field. For more information I recommend you read the relevant discussions on the noticeboard wp:RSN Yoenit (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I can begin to see why these sources might be convenient and therefore potentially preferable to digging through obscure library material. ..... I'm not sure the use of either of these sources is dependent on a blanket change in the language of either the policy WP:SPS or the guideline WP:IRS. The latter, which is at issue here, can readily be waived by consensus merely by its status as a guideline. And both allow for the use of SPSs where the source is published by an acknowledged expert. The reason is that the very definition of RS is a source with "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". sinodefence.com meets this criterion, despite being anonymously published by multiple contributors. As to navweeps.com, its author Tony Digiulian is acknowledged by at least one RS as a "Gun control system expert." ..... I don't see the need to add with the proposed language here to accommodate sources that can already be accommodated under the existing policy and guideline. If there's to be a change in the guideline language on SPSs on this page, maybe it's best to just modify the existing sentence in the last paragraph of WP:IRS to make clear that to qualify as an exception to the general guideline, it must first and foremost have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Remember too the three definitions for a "source" under WP:V. If the author can be demonstrated to have a personal reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, it's a "reliable source"; if the website can be demonstrated to have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, it's a "reliable source". Beyond that, as the existing language already says, SPSs can be judged reliable if the author already has third-party-published RSs to her or his credit. ... Kenosis (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and modified the language in WP:SOURCES (part of WP:V here. My reasoning is in the edit summary. If author and website can both be shown to have a "reputation for fact checking and accuracy" it's by definition a reliable source. I suppose we'll see if the edit holds. Similarly it should go with this page. No need to add stuff like "determined by consensus on a case-by-case basis". Just reiterate in very concise language in the third paragraph of WP:IRS that SPSs are only to be considered if the author and publication can be clearly shown to have a "reputation for fact checking and accuracy". I'll support a reasonable modification of the existing language on the basis that the current insistence on the existence of separate third-party-published gives rise to occasional contradictions in cases such as mentioned above. ... Kenosis (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

PhD dissertations are ok; what about MFA theses?
An MFA is a terminal degree much as a PhD is, and at many research institutions, the MFA theses are bound and inserted in the library for research next to the PhD dissertations. Furthermore, what about a thesis or dissertation written by the subject of the article, who is alive and therefore the article is a living biography? Jmorganferry (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)jmorganferryJmorganferry (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a major difference between an MFA/MBA/MA thesis and a PHD Dissertation. PhD's are vetted by multiple faculty members at a much higher and more rigorous level.  MA thesis, while potentially vetted by more than one faculty member, are not done so at the same level.  The dissertation has to be at the absolute highest level and the University is essentially putting its seal of approval on the degree.  A master's thesis has a much lower threshold and there is a much wider gap between various master's level thesis.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Novak Djokovic parents origin
There has been a constant vandalization of Novak Djokovic page, where his parents origin is being constantly removed. Anonymous user claims that the links I have provided are not reliable. First link is from Croatian daily newspaper Slobodna Dalmacija which was founded and continuously is published in Split since 1943, Novak Djokovic gave that interview to the reporter of Slobodna Dalmacija, Davor Burazin, on July 30, 2006. In that inteview he said; "I da mi je majka Hrvatica, iako je rođena u Beogradu, jer su svi njezini iz Vinkovaca i tamo imam puno rodbine. Tata je Crnogorac, a ja... ("And that my mother is Croatian, although she was born in Belgrade, because all of hers are from Vinkovci and there I have a lot of relatives. Dad is a Montenegrin, and I ......")" Second link is from another Croatian newspaper Jutarnji list which was was launched in April 1998, and in that link it says; "S obzirom na majku Hrvaticu, vjerujem da ima uvjete za hrvatsko državljanstvo. Ako se odluči na taj korak, Đoković je dobrodošao - rekao je predsjednik Hrvatskog teniskog saveza. ("With regards to his mother being a Croat, I believe he has conditions for a Croatian citizenship. If he decides to make that step, Djokovic is welcomed - said the president of Croatian Tennis Federation")". So I am asking, are those links reliable or not, because it seems to me that this thing is about constant national pest, Serbian in this issue. I am warning that the anonymous user hasn't provided not a single evidence that his father is not Montenegrin and that his mother is not Croatian. Help please, Thank You. With regards--Eversman (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please post this at WP:ELN. Johnuniq (talk) 00:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I mean WP:RSN (the Reliable sources Noticeboard). Johnuniq (talk) 08:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Myths and Future of Self Publishing
''I had this originally on the Reliable sources/Noticeboard but someone told be this is a better place. So here it goes...''

"Self published" appears to be a popular hammer used to slam a source. We need to exercise caution, and we will need to exercise it more. The following is based on more than 30 years in the media and publishing business:

1.) It may come as a shock that many established publishing houses engage in "vanity publishing" - for a price. That price used to be high, but is getting lower as established publishing houses get in trouble. However, it has been going on for a long time. Decades ago, I started writing books as a ghostwriter for famous industry figures. Their books were published with very reputable publishing houses. They went on sale. But large numbers were bought by the company. Unless you know about it, you'll never know.

2.) It seems like ebooks might finally be here. This significantly lowers the monetary threshold for publishing, but it does not necessarily lower their quality. Quality won't necessarily be raised either. Game changers such as Desktop Publishing, or Desktop video had been vilified as destructors of quality, but eventually, things settled down, and we lived with it. If eBooks make publishing houses as obsolete as DTP made typesetters, we may have to live with increasing numbers of "self published" books, or books that are "published" by Amazon or "iPad Publishing."

3.) The trust in the "editorial oversight" of major publishing houses and media outlets is touching, but often undeserved. The lack of a published "editorial oversight" policy doesn't mean that there is none. Likewise, the existence of a published "editorial oversight" policy doesn't mean that it is observed. -- BsBsBs (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I couldn't agree more on your first and third points, but I won't hold my breath waiting for a policy change! Not so sure about the second - sure, e-books may usher in a new era of fantastically reliable self-published sources, but equally they facilitate publication of dismally unreliable self-published sources. Probably the sensible compromise there is something like that which currently applies to blogs - those from acknowledged experts can be given more credence than those from unknowns. Barnabypage (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Good point. As someone who had been involved in the birth of Desktop Publishing and Desktop video, I put a qualifier in the text. I remember when DTP output was called "ransom notes" - after a while, it usually evens out. -- BsBsBs (talk) 18:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Identifying Unreliable Sources Against The Law
Likewise previously written, but this seems to be a better place.

WP:OR states: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."

Generally, it is a good concept. Like many good concepts, it has its limits. Let me give you an example. I could state on Wikipedia that Volkswagen is the world's largest auto manufacturer. After all, the Guardian said so: "Volkswagen-Porsche has overtaken Toyota to become the world's largest car manufacturer as the German group benefits from state-backed stimulus packages around the globe." And so said an untold number of media outlets that copied the story. Just a few days ago, the myth was spotted in the wild in Taiwan.

Guess what: All wrong, from top to bottom. The IHS Global Insight research company cited was wrong. Numbers off by several millions. Porsche wasn't a part of Volkswagen in 2009, they still aren't. IHS miscounted both Volkswagen and Toyota numbers. A gaffe of the first order. Now if someone would go to the trouble of reading the 2009 annual reports of Toyota, GM, and Volkswagen, it would become clear that not only was Volkswagen far removed from the number one spot in 2009. They weren't even the world's second largest automaker in 2009, as other supposedly reliable sources consistently claimed. According to WP:OR ("Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources"), combining three sources (gosh, even primary sources) would be a cardinal sin, and VW would still be #1, because sloppy Guardian said so. Thankfully, I have a work-around at my disposition. Now, anybody can quote the truth without violating WP:OR. Many don't have this opportunity.

(Of course, the Snopes-worthy story made it into WP, and I stomped it out. Thankfully, the editors of Volkswagen, Toyota, and General Motors were in a lenient mood and accepted the prima facie evidence. With a more fundamentalist approach, all three articles would still contain blatant lies.)

The reliable sources are getting increasingly unreliable (because the Internet kills magazines, newspapers, and budgets.} One cribs from the other. In my work (I cover the auto industry), I find nearly daily cases of blatant mis-reporting. Run-away Toyotas killed 89 people? Sure, the NHTSA and just about every paper said so. Guess what: They were and are wrong. Anybody could have done this research, using a publicly available database (as long as they don't use WP to publish the obviously synthesized findings.) Now, it's too late, because in the wake of the reports the NHTSA closed major portions of the database.

Wikipedia is the go to source for many people around the globe. A lot of them take the content as gospel. It is sad that truth takes a backseat to notoriety. I'm not talking about the truth of whether there is a god or not. I'm talking about 2 + 3 + 5 = 10 and not 8, as erroneously stated somewhere by a calculus-challenged editor. I'm talking about the evaporation of common sense. Maybe that's also the reason why Wikipedia is getting a bad name. In any case, the vaunted rules and regs of WP are inconstantly and selectively enforced. A lot of articles have no sources at all and are unmitigated original research. As long as nobody complains, no problem. Too often, discussions about rules and regs are a proxy war for clashing ideologies.

I'm a trained journalist. The first thing that had been drummed into me was: Go straight to the source. Cross check your sources. If something is printed somewhere, check again. These days, it has become far too easy to prove the so-called reliable sources wrong. According to WP:OR, I can't do that. I can happily continue citing patently false statements, as long as they are written somewhere. If I want to refute the statements, I must wait until someone does it somewhere else. Or I must refute it myself first in a Reputable Source and then quote myself. I hate quoting myself.

PS: Wikipedia is full of lists with entries that are referenced to multiple sources, and that derive a ranking. If "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" would be taken verbatim (and all too often, it is) then all these lists must be put up against the wall and shot. You think that's exaggerating? Recently, I wrote that a newspaper published seven articles about the same topic on one day. I referenced the seven articles. It was vilified as Original Research. -- BsBsBs (talk) 17:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If that bugs you try List of unusual deaths on for size. If it's in the AP it must be true! Gigs (talk) 19:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like you cannot throw WP:OR at this list, unless they would rank the deaths by unusualness .... -- BsBsBs (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not keen on us publishing the WP:TRUTH but consensus can be gained for non-vontroversial facts. A page of citations from reliable sources used in Wikipedia that people believe are wrong mighty be a useful resource for researchers outside of wikipedia. Iff they investigate such 'facts' and can get a refutation printed in a reliable source it could help solve such problems. Dmcq (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not a very good example as WP:OR allows routine calculations and linking three numbers and saying which is bigger is pretty routine. That is not the same as your point with the Chinese strike coverage (something like seven links to prove broad coverage right?) I am not gonna venture an opinion on the Chinese strike case, but I don't think you can't draw a direct parallel between it and this example. Yoenit (talk) 21:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The China mention referred to this: "According to The New York Times, which provided extensive coverage of the events at Foxconn and Honda, after initial nationwide coverage of the strikes media coverage of the strikes by Chinese media was severely restricted, 'After a brief flurry of coverage in the Chinese news media, coverage of the strikes has been all but silenced by government censors.'[19] Restriction of local press coverage was also reported by The Financial Times[24] On June 18, 2010, following the NYT's report, China Daily published seven articles (3 of them rewrites/reposts) dealing with the strikes and worker relations.[25][26][27][28][29][30][31]"

That was called OR. The "broad coverage" was before. I stated that the strikes had broad coverage. That was edited. I added a link to a Google search that showed it. Shot down. Then I added links to articles about the strikes from the preceding days. Shot down, reason: OR. Finally, I found an article in People's Daily that talked about a "widely-reported mass labor strike." That was legit. Facts don't count. But if the paper of the CCP says it, it's ok. -- BsBsBs (talk) 21:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This sounds a different problem from the reliable sources being wrong. It is when an editor tries to report something that hasn't been noted in a reliable source. If it is important enough to put into Wikipedia then some reliable source will have it already - otherwise we shouldn't stick it in. Dmcq (talk) 23:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is an interesting experiment: Articles for deletion/List of Chinese administrative divisions by population. That list doesn't have a single source for the population numbers. In a case of egregious WP:OR, the article compares these administrative divisions with (likewise unsourced) populations of other parts of the world, ranks them, and comes to such unsourced and synthesized conclusions as China having "the combined population of Western Europe, North America, and South America." Just as a for instance. There is much more. WP:OR on a global scale. I nominated the article for deletion. All hell broke loose. If it is important enough to put into Wikipedia that China has the combined population of Western Europe, North America, and South America, then some reliable source will have it already - otherwise we shouldn't stick it in. There are many more of those lists. Shall we? -- BsBsBs (talk) 05:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is you submitted the entire article for deletion. Neither OR nor being unsourced is a valid criteria for deletion. The article should be improved, not deleted. Nobody would have objected if you had removed that conclusion about the combined population, but this statement is also a case of saying X is bigger than Y, which is perfectly allowable if you have references for the sizes of X and Y. Yoenit (talk) 07:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, suddenly Original Research or unsourced are not a valid reason for deletion? We must have different versions of Wikipedia. My version reads:

"Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following (subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page): [...]


 * Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources [...]


 * Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed [...]


 * Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia."

The first sentence in WP:OR reads (emphasis theirs): "Wikipedia does not publish original research.' The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources." That makes an unreferenced article that is solely based on WP:OR "not suitable for an encyclopedia." The other alternative this leaves me is to delete the "offending section," i.e. the whole list. There are more of these lists. I reiterate my impression that WP:OR and WP:UNSOURCED are inconsistently, possibly selectively enforced, as proven by this simple experiment. -- BsBsBs (talk) 10:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The population numbers in that list are not OR, unless some wikipedian counted all those people himself. The information must come from somewhere and I refuse to believe no reliable source exists for Chinese population data. The comparisons to other countries are a different story and although allowed under WP:OR as a "routine calculation" they should at the very least be sourced to population data for each country and preferably removed, as I don't see the point. Yoenit (talk) 11:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I live and work in China. There are no reliable population figures. The last census was in the year 2000, and it was called off half way through. The total of 1.3 billion is widely believed as 1.5 billion, nobody knows. There are differences in methodology. Some count only the population that has the hukou (family book) in the city. People who lived in a city for ages can be called "temporary residents" and not counted. The next year, they are. I have lived here for 6 years, and was told that this year, I will receive the honor of becoming a Beijing statistic. I will be counted as a foreigner. -- BsBsBs (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I took a look at the article mentioned by BsBsBs. That led me to List of Chinese administrative divisions by population, which cites three general references. One of those, National Bureau of Statistics (PRC), led me to this page, which gives phone and email contact info for obtaining the China Statistical yearbook for 2009. (other years available here). I don't think the sourcing and verifiability situation with that article indicates an OR problem. I do agree that the (now deleted; see ) comparison information transgressed SYN. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I know where to find the statistical yearbook, I'm in Beijing, I just send someone to the library. I wish, all other editors would be as understanding as you. I had a hell of a time establishing the official count of 22 million for Beijing. Even after giving two very reliable sources, the (government-owned) China Daily, and the National Population and Family Planning Commission of China, the information was mercilessly removed. I had to compromise, remove it from the lede and banish the number into "Demographics." There was a HUGE edit war over "After Chongqing[80] and before Shanghai,[81]  Beijing is the second largest of the four direct-controlled municipalities of the People's Republic of China." Of course I was asked for a quote from a RS for that. Mere comparisons of numbers were not accepted - until, after dogged reverts, I received help, and common sense prevailed. Fundamentalists call this Original Research. However, even I refuse a telephone number of where to buy a statistical yearbook as a proper source for a number. If that would set a precedence, we could simply source everything at Amazon.com -- BsBsBs (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * (added) A better example of an article with SYN problems is probably Christianity by country (probably DUE, V, and OR problems as well). BsBsBs is correct in saying that there are lots of other examples. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I tend to read the RS criteria as minimum criteria for a reliable source; not everything that meets those criteria can or should be treated as a RS. In particular, if two sources contradict one another, one of them is evidently not a reliable source on that particular topic. (Determining which one depends on circumstances.) That said, I do get twitchy about 'simple' synthesis because there are situations where unwary editors don't realise that the situation is less simple than they thought.
 * e.g.: if Source A tells you that Country X's rate of HIV infection is 100 per 100,000 population and Source B tells you that Country Y's rate of HIV infection is 1000 per 100,000, it seems reasonable to say that Country Y has 10x the rate of HIV infection. But Source A is discussing incidence (i.e. annual rate of new infections), while Source B is discussing prevalence (total infected people). --GenericBob (talk) 09:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Although I agree with the point you are trying to make you are wrong in stating that "if two sources contradict one another, one of them is evidently not a reliable source on that particular topic." If something is a reliable source, it is still a reliable source if it gives incorrect information. The editor however has the ability to leave out a RS if he knows the information given by that source is incorrect. Yoenit (talk) 09:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That appears to contradict WP:V and WP:DUE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I should probably clarify that I am talking about facts here, not theories. An example would be a book writing that Mount Everest is 8848 kilometers high, instead of 8.848 km. This is obviously wrong and should not be included in the article, but the book still remains a reliable source for other aspects of the mountain. (double checking wherever possible of course, but you should always do that or you will never find 99% of the errors). Yoenit (talk) 11:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, editors are free to weed out such obvious errors, and ought to do that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to nitpick, but the BBC claims the Mount Everest stands a mere 8,848 meters tall. -- BsBsBs (talk) 14:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't see anything curious there. 8.848 km = 8,848 meters. Are you perhaps unfamiliar with UK usage of Decimal separators? Yoenit (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I am used to German decimal separators and to U.S. decimal separators. They are opposite. Because of the possibility for misunderstandings, I would never use km to indicate the height of a mountain. Whether Mt Everest would be called 8.848m high, or 8,848m high, everybody would get it right, no matter where they are from. Nobody would assume that the world's tallest mountain is less than 10 meters high. When writing for an international audience, we need to be mindful of these ambiguities. I'd call it simply 8848 meters. And the metrically challenged still wouldn't understand it, but that's a different story. -- BsBsBs (talk) 15:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * BsBsBs, see WP:MOS and WP:MOS for relevant guidelines. Also, re your earlier nitpick above, I note that the BBC article you linked also says that the U.S. National Geographic Society uses the figure of 8,850m which is based on 1999 GPS data, rather than the 8,848m figure agreed between China and Nepal which is based on a 1955 Indian survey. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)