Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 28

Media

 * Hello, I was wondering can I add sources from magazines, newspapers, TV specials, and/or books as a "foot note" on FAs? Please view my talk page for more information on this issue I am having thanks. AJona1992 (talk) 02:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I checked out your talk page. Please post any suggested additions on the article talk page so that other editors, including those who brought it to FA status, can discuss them . Jezhotwells (talk) 02:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok I will do that later, thanks AJona1992 (talk) 03:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Anybody is allowed to edit FA's... but FA's are generally closely monitored and people generally have a higher threshold on what goes in there. A source that is marginal may be rejected on an FA because of the desire to maintain that higher level of quality.  There is also a concern about WHAT is being added.  People who have worked to get an article to FA status are not prone to fluff and weaker edits... again as they want to ensure the article maintains its FA status.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 04:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks! But that article doesn't include a lot of her information that is repeatedly told in numerous specials about her. So that's why I see the need for this change, thank you AJona1992 (talk) 13:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Governmental statements as reliable source?
Can governmental statements, declarations, affirmations, allegations be cited as a reliable source? We are often confronted with the fact that established media rely on governmental statements as "fact", which then find their way to Wikipedia, again as fact, because they were reported in established media. Remember the Iraqi WMD story, which almost all media promoted as an article of truth.

I wonder whether there are any established Wikipedia rules for relying on governmental statements, such as made in press conferences by spokesmen of governmental agencies, as statements of fact, or when such statements are reprinted and cited by mass media.

The same question extends to declarations and claims made by foreign governments.

--sannleikur (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * They are certainly reliable for the fact that the government made the statement. Blueboar (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * They are primary sources for the viewpoint of that government, but clearly not reliable for statements of fact where any controversy exists. Dlabtot (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This depends on context (which government, which agency, what the statement is, what the article is, etc.). Personally, I would consider NASA to be a reliable source on astronomy, the CDC to be a reliable source on disease, etc.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * All reliability decisions are context-dependent, but governmental sources are often the best sources available for statistics like demographics. That doesn't mean that they are absolute truth, but nothing is.  The WMD claim-as-casus-belli was controversial at the time as other reliable sources expressed doubt about it, so it's an obvious example of when the claim wouldn't be taken at face value.  SDY (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * In response to sannleikur's second sentence, since newspapers use fact-checking, we cannot question what they report as facts. When they are mistaken, we expect to find a published correction or a conflicting account of the facts in other publications.  The error the newspapers made on WMDs was not that they reported them as a fact but that they gave too much prominence to the position of the U. S. government.  In fact the media in other countries gave a more balanced coverage, with the result that most people outside the U. S. did not believe the U. S. government position.  TFD (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Questionable sources
There appears to be a minor edit war going on about the sentence "Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves" While I have my own thoughts what this should say, I would like to remind everyone that we should be discussing things before making these kind of changes to this guideline. I recommend we restore the wording that existed before these changes, discuss any potential changes on this talk page and then proceed to make changes only after reaching consensus. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, since you say you have your own thoughts about what it should say, wouldn't this be a good place to share them? Dlabtot (talk) 03:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It doesn't look like much of an edit war. I think we're all friendly here? LK (talk) 03:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe I triggered this when, a day or so ago, I noticed the following statement in the guideline: On the face of it, this is a very strange statement to make in isolation. Why on earth would anyone want to rely on what questionable sources say about themselves? But then, two subsections below and not mentioned here, I happened upon:
 * Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves.

I therefore deleted the isolated statement, drawing attention to my reason in the edit summary, but this was reverted without engaging with my reasoning. The sentence has since been changed back and forth by other editors, and currently reads: To me this is no better, and no amount of tweaking will make it so: I think the isolated statement&mdash;as well as losing the intended focus where it is located&mdash;fails (and would always fail) to adequately summarize what needs to be known and is clearly laid out two subsections below. I repeat my suggestion that for this reason, the isolated statement should be deleted. Perhaps a "see below" link to the elaborating subsection instead? PL290 (talk) 09:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Questionable sources should only be used as sources of information about themselves, and should mainly be used in articles on themselves.


 * I am in agreement with PL290. If the paragraph ends with a statement that the acceptable use of questionable sources is very limited and we outline within eyeshot what those uses are, I don't think we need to prefigure what those uses are in the definition of and caution against questionable sources.  RJC  TalkContribs 14:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * How about we truncate the sentence to: "Questionable sources should only be used as sources of information about themselves." And move it to where ever fits best. LK (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That presumes a reason for such a statement appearing outside Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves, whereas none has been given&mdash;quite the reverse. Therefore I have removed the statement. PL290 (talk) 07:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Scanned Original Documents
If you want to refer the reader to a scan of an original document that appears on the web, what's the proper protocol? My thought was just to use "cite web" with a description in the "title" portion and the website that published it (in this case a radio program) as the "publisher."

It's a document that appears around the web and there doesn't seem to be any real dispute about its authenticity. John2510 (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes... that is how you would cite it. That said... we would not be able to answer whether such a document is reliable without knowing the specific document. Also, be aware that such a document is likely to be classed as a Primary source... and there are limitations to using such documents (see: WP:PSTS for more on this). Please use caution and don't be surprised if someone challenges it. Blueboar (talk) 21:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Depends on what you mean by 'an original document'. Is it something that was published?  If not I doubt it would be usable. Dlabtot (talk) 03:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Signed newspaper articles
Are there any specific guidelines for signed newspaper articles? They often contain analysis that would not be found in unsigned articles, which raises issues of neutrality. For example, this signed article ("Mets’ Closer to Be Arraigned in Assault") this signed article ("Mets’ Closer Is Arrested in Assault After Loss") in today's Wednesday's New York Times says, "Mr. Rodriguez has shown a hot-tempered side.... He has been something of a high-wire act on the mound, often getting himself into trouble and then bailing himself out." I would think that statement should be treated as the opinion of the authors, but cannot find any policy or guidelines on this. (Note - I only used this article as a recent example.) TFD (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, opinion pieces need to be attributed as the opinion of the author and are not generally good sources for facts. Is that really not anywhere in the guidelines or policies? Dlabtot (talk) 02:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I struck my comment above because I seem to have misunderstood. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/13/sports/baseball/13Rodriguez.html?hp does not actually contain the text you quoted above so I don't know what you are talking about. Maybe the print version is different or something. Dlabtot (talk) 02:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Bylines certainly are no indication of unreliability. Dlabtot (talk) 03:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The Times apparently updated the story but you may find the original here and here. The fact that the article has been updated however is a distraction.  How do we report the text I quoted that was in the article - as fact or opinion?  TFD (talk) 04:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, are you really saying that you are having trouble distinguishing facts from opinion in that article? And are you seriously suggesting that you think there is some reason to put the text you quoted into an article on Wikipedia? I'm having trouble wrapping my head around both of those concepts. Dlabtot (talk) 04:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your due respect. The issue is that since the article is a reliable source, does that mean that we can report the statements I mentioned as facts?  Could we for example say in an article "Rodriguez has shown a hot-tempered side" or would we have to say that that was an opinion expressed in the NYT.  More to the point, could you please point to a policy that explains what we should do.  TFD (talk) 05:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Material which is quite clearly editorial opinion and ascribable to a particular person, ought to be so described and ascribed. That is WP policy and guidelines in action.   Collect (talk) 10:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * First, the fact that the Times apparently updated the story definitely can not be dismissed as "a distraction"... whether we treat it as a fact or an opinion, the fact that information has been removed from later versions of a news story means we have very good reason to question whether the earlier version(s) (that included it) should be considered reliable. Essentially the removal equates to a correction.  Always check the last version of a news story, not the first.
 * Second, In deciding whether to repeat something a source (any source) says as blunt fact (or attribute it as opinion), we should do proper research and see what multiple sources say on the subject. If only one source has made an observation (and other sources have not noted the same observation), then we must treat the observation as an opinion.  For us to treat something as fact, multiple sources must make the observation.
 * Third... We do have stricter rules when it comes to articles about living people (see: WP:BLP) ... Wikipedia is not a gossip column... and I question whether K-Rod's temper is really important enough to discuss in an encyclopedia article about him. Blueboar (talk) 12:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. I changed the question and it now refers to a story that appeared Wednesday and is on the 'NYT'' website. The same text is however included.
 * 2. How does that differ from facts?
 * 3. While this is a BLP, the issue of distinguishing fact from opinion also occurs with non-BLP articles.
 * Again is there any specific policy that tells us to distinguish between facts and opinions in news articles? I appreciate that common sense tells us to do so, but common sense arguments are not necessarily persuasive with all editors.  TFD (talk) 13:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * TFD -- Not sure exactly what you are looking for, but WP:ASSERT and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV might be it. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:NEWSORG implicitly addresses the point by telling us to assess news sources on a case-by-case basis. Personally, my take on it would be:
 * a) There are out-and-out facts - Wiki Towers burned to the ground last night. These don't need attribution.
 * b) There are out-and-out opinions - Wikipedia is the scourge of our age. These always need attribution.
 * c) There are opinions which could in theory be factually verified, even if the author hasn't done so (or doesn't state that they have done so) - Wikipedia has become an important research tool for students. In these cases, the issue is the credibility of the writer and the publication. If they are both very credible (for example, a recognised authority on education writing in The New York Times), and the statement is relatively non-contentious, it can be presented as fact without attribution in the body text of the article (although obviously a footnote citation is still desirable). Barnabypage (talk) 14:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

About Inkscape 0.47- totally solid with lots of new tools
This article about Inkscape 0.47 by Nathan Willis, a technical writer appeared on the Worldlabel blog. Does the original blog post count as a reliable source? The blog post has been "re-tweeted" on website Linux Today in it's news section here. Worldlabel is a commercial firm making labels. Part of the business strategy of the firm appears to be encouraging clients to use Inkscape to adorn the labels that they can buy. My reverting the blogpost added as a reference has created doubts in my mind as to whether certain forms of blog posts are acceptable, and more specifically, this one. AshLin (talk) 04:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Quotes pulled from the back cover of a book--reliable?
In article about a poet, Kevin Hart, one of our references quotes an academic journal that in turn quotes two "reviews" of Hart's poetry. The journal article explicitly states that the quotes were pulled from the back of a book of poems by Hart. You know, just like many book publishers get "quotations" from big names or reviewers, and then put them on the back of their books. Does that sound like a reliable source? This is strictly to site them as opinions; i.e., one of them says that Hart is "one of the major living poets in the English languages." So, is that an accurate, reliable report of the reviewer's opinion, or a piece of advertisement whose primary purpose is to sell a book and thus unreliable? Qwyrxian (talk) 13:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As a person who has been quoted for the back of a book wherein I gave just such a statement, for us to use them, it would be an unacceptable source as an authoritative piece. Book covers are marketting.  But it doesn't sound like you are using the book cover here, it sounds as if you are using a journal artivle which uses a quote from the book cover.  That is a different story.  Assuming the journal is a reliable source, then it would be acceptable as presumably the journal would not allow the quote to go through unless it was true.  The editorial process for getting something between the covers is a lot more rigorous than getting something on the cover.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Why should the fact that book covers are used for marketing be significant? I would have thought that neither the placement of the reviewer's quote on the cover, nor the source's imagined reason for using the quote, should have any effect on whether the publication is a reliable source for the quote. The obvious exception would be if the quote simply praises the book, rather than saying something about the subject (as in the Hart case given above). PL290 (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If noted expert John Smith were solicited for a quote for a book by Jane Doe, I would not put much reliance upon the quote if it was only found on the book's review or cover of Jane Smith. The cover of a book or the publisher's release, would IMO be a primary source from the publisher as a press release.  However, unless we are dealing with a book review where the reviewer is simply citing the book cover, I would argue that a journal/magazine that uses the same quote would be doing so as an independent/objective source.  Thus, it would no longer be a primary advertising piece.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The cite should be directly attributed to the book cover, e.g. "According to the back cover of Flame Tree, critic Harold Bloom says...." Just because an academic cites the book cover doesn't make it right. Looking into this further the quote may have come from Blooms Book The Western Canon ISBN 9781573225144.  If someone can cite that it would be a much better source. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Title vs. content
I suggest to add a guideline that advises to use the content of an article, rather than its title, when adding information to an article. For example, the title of an article published by The Daily Telegraph, reads "German ruling says Dresden was a holocaust", while the text explains that "prosecutors have provoked outrage by ruling that the 1945 RAF bombing of Dresden can legally be termed a «holocaust»". In effect, there was thus no ruling (although people have ruled something), and the prosecutors only said that it's legal to use the term, not that it would be appropriate. Cs32en  Talk to me  02:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Surely there are cases where YouTube is a reliable source?
I cited a Youtube video of the fully formed adult actress Linda Regan kissing a 54 year old Man in 1970 as evidence that she wasn't 10 years old at that time,yet my edits were reversed because for some reason,it's been erroneously reported elsewhere(IMDB perhaps,certainly not a reliable source)that she was born in November 1959 and was therefore 10 years old when she played a bus conductor with big breasts who went out with a bus driver.

I think in a case like this,people should use some common sense,consider all the evidence available and decide whether the editor is right. Even if that means watching a clip on YouTube!

In my case,the person disputing my edit should've looked at the Youtube link I posted before reversing my edits and decided for him/herself whether the person with breasts who was working on a bus and kissing men in their 50s was 10 years old. If they'd done this,they would've seen she clearly wasn't 10 years old or anywhere near that age and therefore couldn't have been born in 1959 yet because the best evidence to show she wasn't born in that year came from Youtube,it was dismissed as a reliable source without being watched and Wiki are still reporting as fact that Linda Regan was born in 1959 when everyone can see via Youtube that this clearly isn't correct. Ron Stowmarket (talk) 02:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There are cases where YouTube might be a reliable source (e.g. in an article discussing some of the things one can find on YT), but this isn't one of them. I watched that clip and didn't see any confirmation that it was shot in 1970, or that it featured Linda Regan. To support those things you need to combine that clip with a second source, which gets us into WP:OR problems. --GenericBob (talk) 03:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Youtube can be acceptable. But making your own conclusion from a video is not acceptable. If it isn't in a secondary source then you need to ask yourself why. You also have to make sure that the video is a reliable source or an appropriate primary source. If anyone has any thoughts, WP:VIDEOLINK is something that you might be interested in.Cptnono (talk) 03:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * People should just be reasonable. Of course, if we have no better citation for the statement "Shfamous McNotable was born in Smallville" a speach clearly given at Trusted Institution, 3:32:99 in, "I, Shfamous McNotable was born in Smallville" should be more than enough to stave off any good faith challenges.  It's not good for the project to have rules that Wikilawyers can use to remove statements that would convince any reasonable person in an honest debate as to whether something is true or not. "Reasonable Doubt" is the only measure of a good faith challange. Chrisrus (talk) 04:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You would also need to show that the youtube video in question was uploaded by the copyright holder; otherwise, we have no way of judging the authenticity of the video. This is almost never true in Wikipedia, even for things like news broadcasts.  This is analogous the fact that we shouldn't site a blog re-posting a newspaper article, and need to site the original article.  In other words, it's not that we're doubting the YouTube video, it's that we're doubting the person re-posting that video onto Youtube.  As a side note, this can actually fall both under the issue of reliable sources as well as the potential problem of contributory copyright violations.Qwyrxian (talk) 06:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the last thing I'll write on the matter. It is clear for everyone to see that the video on Youtube is an episode of the sit-com "On The Buses" and the name of the episode is "Christmas Duty" here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYqcDqXx3OU and as it says here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_On_the_Buses_episodes#Series_Four_.281970-1971.29 here - http://www.comedy.co.uk/guide/tv/on_the_buses/episodes/4/5/ and here - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0665431/ that particular episode was filmed in 1970.

So there can be no doubt whatsoever that the video on Youtube really is from 1970 and there can be no doubt that Linda Regan was not 10 or 11 years old at that time. In fact she was about 10 years older than that.

It is up to Wikipedia if they want to have what is clearly incorrect information on their site but it does their reputation as a reliable website no good because anyone looking up Linda Regan will know she is nowhere near that age and they may not rely on Wiki for other information if they know the site makes such big mistakes as claiming a 10 or 11 year old girl played an adult Woman who had big breasts,worked on a bus and had a sexual relationship with a 54 year old man on prime time TV back in 1970. Ron Stowmarket (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * What is our source for the fact that the woman in that clip is Linda Regan? I still don't see anything in the clip that names her. --GenericBob (talk) 02:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It says in the IMDB link above that Linda played "Edna" in that episode. At 1:42 in the Youtube clip,the Man says "I saw Joyce and Edna go in there" As the two Ladies come out,we see one of them has short dark hair,a quick look on Google shows that this is clearly "Joyce"/Ursula Mohan. The other Lady has long blonde hair and again,a quick look on Google shows that this is clearly "Edna"/Linda Regan and that she clearly isn't 10 or 11 years old! Ron Stowmarket (talk) 12:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It also says on IMDB that she was born in 1959. Having watched the clip, I agree that Edna is very unlikely to be 11, and that at least one of the three relevant data on IMDB is incorrect (date of birth, date of filming, or the fact that Edna = Linda Regan). But it's not clear which of them. (Maybe it was some other actress who looked a lot like Linda Regan, and the attribution is a matter of mistaken identity?) When we get to the point of trying to reconcile a YouTube clip, an IMDB entry, and a Google image search, we're getting well into the realm of synthesis, which is considered original research.
 * Don't get me wrong; I think your arguments are sensible and if we were discussing this in some other forum, I'd accept them. Actresses' ages are notoriously unreliable, and there might also have been confusion with Linda Blair, born in 1959 and best known for playing a character named Regan. The problem is that WP needs to have consistent rules about what edits are acceptable, and "common sense" doesn't work because the people who lack sense don't realise they lack it and won't be told.
 * Fortunately, I think there is a simpler way to handle this. You're invoking YouTube in order to prove that Linda Regan was born earlier than 1959, but you don't actually need to do that. The burden of proof is on the other side - if a claim is challenged, people need to provide a reliable source to back it up, and IMDB is not considered a reliable source - especially for bio information, as noted in Wikipedia_talk:Citing_IMDb. Googling on "linda regan 1959", while there are a lot of sources that repeat the 1959 date, I can't immediately find one that I would consider reliable; I'd guess most of them have taken it from IMDB or perhaps Wikipedia. --GenericBob (talk) 23:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Some science articles have YouTube versions Count Iblis (talk) 14:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

We have several issues here.
 * Going off Ron's comment that one "clearly" can see this actress is not the age specified in an episode of a TV show, that's bordering on synthesis to prove a point. It would be better instead to use someone that commented on that episode to make that observation, instead of WP making the original leap of logic.
 * If there was clearly obvious evidence in the episode to show the point, we would not use a copyright-infringing YouTube clip to prove it, but simple use a citation template for TV episodes or videos and reference the original work. If perhaps the copyright owner had their own online video site for users to see the works in this way, then that would be fine as a URL to the episode/video cite template, but its improper to point directly to the video as the source, as that's really not it.
 * All that said: Yes, it is possible there are reliable YouTube videos but it requires good affirmation that the user that uploaded them is the copyright owner, is the person/expert in question, and doesn't otherwise replicate information from another source. 99% of the videos on YouTube fail that to start, but that still leaves 1% for possible sourcing. --M ASEM  (t) 15:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually the 1% might be a bit misleading here since it is still a big number and were don't really care about arbitrary youtube uploads anyhow, but only those which can be considered reliable and then you have essentially 2 scenarios: --Kmhkmh (talk) 13:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * a) the upload is copyright violation (but is a copy of some reliable/reputable broadcast). In that case use the content of the youtube video, but in the reference you just specify the briadcast without the youtube link
 * b) an increasing number of (reputable/reliable) news media outlets do publish much of their material themselves. Check whether that is case, then there is no copyright issue and in addition to referencing the broadcast you should provide the youtube link as well. (see for instance : http://www.youtube.com/user/aljazeeraenglish, http://www.youtube.com/user/cnninternational, or http://www.youtube.com/user/bbcworldwide )


 * One of the issues with youtube, as shown here, is the limited size of the videos they host. So while there are three "clips" from the episode in question on youtube, none of them actually show the actress in dispute.  Go get the full episode and you will see the young girl.  Simply buy the DVD set http://www.amazon.ca/Buses-Ultimate-Collection-Reg-Varney/dp/B000FOQ04Q/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1254168699&sr=1-2 watch the episode and then you can use that DVD set as your reference.  No youtube needed or useful.  Hcobb (talk) 17:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well this was meant as a general comment on the use of youtube as a source not really regarding this particular kissing scene. Material that media outlets or universities/academic institutes offer on youtube ranges from 1 minute clips to one hour long features. The big advantage of providing legal youtube links when available is that the material can be easily used by auther editors for verifications and expansion of of the article content.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Virgin Atlantic records and other media sources now publish material on YouTube. For example, there are several interviews with Straight No Chaser members telling their story on YouTube. These releases would be reliable but primary sources.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Hyperpartisan sources
{{Collapse|1=I am starting an RfC regarding recent discussions, at WP:ANI regarding User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling and at WP:RSN, about the usefulness of hyperpartisan sources, such as the progressive Media Matters for America and Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting, and the conservative Media Research Center and Newsbusters. These should never be used as sources of fact in the article mainspace, due to their practice of editing out of context, spin-doctoring, selective presentation of the facts, and general partisan mendacity. They often cite reliable sources; if an editor wishes to use a fact presented in a hyperpartisan source such as MMfA, he should cite as a reference the reliable source that MMfA cited instead. They sometimes publish wire service stories from reliable sources such as the Associated Press; the editor should seek out the same wire service story as published in a reliable source such as the Washington Post, and use that instead.

If editors try to use facts from hyperpartisan sources, they will need to fact-check everything very thoroughly, and they'll probably face opposition from other editors. It's best to just seek out the facts in more reliable sources, and cite those sources instead.

Hyperpartisan sources can be used as opinion sources, but must be clearly identified for readers in the article mainspace as "conservative" or "progressive," i.e., "According to the conservative news analysis site Media Research Center ..." This section should be added to the WP:RS policy article, immediately after the "Questionable sources" section. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * We already have a WP:NPOV policy which governs how we cover subjects with multiple points of view. I don't believe there is a useful distinction between a 'hyperpartisan' viewpoint, a 'partisan' viewpoint, a 'nonpartisan' viewpoint, and a simple viewpoint.  But there is a useful distinction between facts and opinions.  We attribute opinions to the author.  If a source is getting the facts right, it doesn't matter where it supposedly lies on someone's perception of the ideological spectrum. If reliable sources disagree about the facts, we report the disagreement. Dlabtot (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * NPOV seems to result in edit warring and multiple biased presentation from both sides of the spectrum. If all editors were to adhere to basic NPOV ideals it wouldn't be a problem, unfortunately this is not the case.  Arzel (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge that you disagree with our NPOV policy. Perhaps you can find a consensus to do away with it. But for now, it is our policy. Dlabtot (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I understand the policy, unfortunately most people don't follow them. Arzel (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your assertions about Wikipedia and the NPOV policy. Dlabtot (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dlabtot. If a source is getting the facts right ... Well, how do we know that? A hyperpartisan source will omit inconvenient facts, selectively edit video, edit out of context, etc. to skew the entire perception of a story. Why should we have to be their fact checkers? My position is that we should identify hyperpartisan sources, and never use them as factual sources at Wikipedia. As I said, if they cite a source that's reliable, then we should use the reliable source they cited. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We know if they get the facts right by examining a multitude of sources with various viewpoints. For example we had a discussion not long ago on RSN about World News Daily. Multiple reliable sources showed them to be wrong about the facts in many instances. Where they lie on the ideological spectrum was irrelevant to that discussion. Even if we could actually define 'hyperpartisan' - which is doubtful - the bottom line is that we can't exclude sources because of their viewpoints - that goes directly against our NPOV policy. Dlabtot (talk) 23:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that we can't exclude sources because of their viewpoints. But if they allow their viewpoints to distort their presentation of the facts, then we have a duty to exclude them. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Do we have any evidence that fx MMfA is distorting the facts? Unomi (talk) 02:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, they have presented information out of context just like all of the others. When you only present the view that promotes your opinion you invariably distort the meaning of what was being said to some degree.  I am not going to discuss specifics because it serves no point in debating specific issues here.  Arzel (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Unomi asked for evidence not assertions. If you are "not going to discuss specifics" in response to such a request, you might as well not respond at all. Dlabtot (talk) 20:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Bill O'Reilly Sylvia Restaruant incident. Arzel (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you are trying to say - again, you are going to have to post some specifics if you want to make a case that MMfA got its facts wrong. As in, you would have to recount what they said and why you believe it was wrong. I found some items on their website that may be what you were referring to: and   and .  Which facts did MMfA get wrong?  Dlabtot (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Second this Request and also move to amend the issues presented to include reliance on Fox News, as well as the others previously mentioned. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Don. I'm not sure we can get community support for classification of Fox News as a hyperpartisan source. I suppose we could run a separate section of the RfC for each source, and determine whether there's community consensus for declaring that source to be hyperpartisan and therefore excluded as a reliable source. But that seems necessary. There will be little resistance to declaring Newsmax, for example as a hyperpartisan source. Fox News may not be so easy. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Two points. 1) This RfC really belongs at WP:RSN, not here. 2) Amending to include FoxNews is a bad idea, for reasons already discussed on various pages.   RJC  {{sup| Talk }}{{sub| Contribs }} 22:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (1) No, it doesn't belong at RSN, it's about modifying this guideline so it belongs here. (2) Fox News is just as 'hyperpartisan' (whatever that means) as any of these sources, which illustrates why this proposal is such a bad idea. All sources have bias. Dlabtot (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding the five sources I've already identified (MMfA and FAIR on the left; Newsmax, MRC and Newsbusters on the right), my opinion is that all should be treated as hyperpartisan. Adding to that list, World Net Daily is an obvious choice. I'm not sure about Fox and I'd prefer to let others decide on that one. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ummm, World Net Daily is not a reliable source, and it has nothing to do with being 'partisan', 'hyperpartisan', or any other label. It'e because they don't meet the criteria of the already exist4ng policy. ^Dlabtot (talk) 05:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that 'hyperpartisan' is a meaningful identifier, it all depends on where one imagines the 'center' lies. What we should be focusing on is whether they have a history of reliably reporting the facts. Unomi (talk) 02:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Leave off hyperpartisan, but the sites WND, MMFA, HP, FAIR, Newsbusters, MRC, and Newsmax tend to push a POV and make no bones about it. They are used in place of legitimate, more neutral mainstream publications. I don't think they should be used except when adding detail or giving a viewpoint on subjects already established as notable and weighty by other mainstream media sources, ESPECIALLY for BLPs. Too often they harp on minor incidents and blow things out of proportion, allowing partisan editors with the ability to inundate the article with ticky-tack mistakes and trivialities in an attempt to smear the subject. Soxwon (talk) 08:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

{{outdent}} Largely agree with everything that's been said here except by Phoenix and Winslow (sorry P&W!). I think we're not that far from consensus. If I may summarize: Hope this captures what everyone is saying. LK (talk) 09:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Reliability has little to do with whether or not a source is partisan (there can be partisan reliable sources and unreliable neutral sources)
 * Our existing guidelines should be used to determine whether or not a source is reliable
 * Specifically, for the 'media watchdog organizations' mentioned, how a source is treated by other known reliable sources is an indication of how reliable a source is (as noted in WP:USEBYOTHERS).
 * However, we should keep in mind that these partisan (POV pushing) organizations are biased.
 * If available, we should preferentially use more neutral sources.
 * When used, their opinions should usually be attributed.
 * Care should especially be taken with using these sources in BLPs.
 * Additionally, because these partisan websites emphasize POV issues, coverage by these sources is not an indication an issue is not being given undue weight.


 * We're nowhere near consensus, and even attempting to judge that in a hypothetical "whole discussion group against P&W" scenario would be extremely premature at this point, LK. An editor named LegitimateAndEvenCompelling almost received an indefinite block at WP:ANI, due to what I perceive as good-faith efforts to remove inappropriate uses of MMfA as a reference. I haven't even notified him yet. Nor have I notified anyone who participated in the ANI discussion (unless they also participated in the WP:RSN discussion). I've only notified about five people. Furthermore, this RfC has only been in effect for 16 hours and for eight of those hours, people in Europe and North America were sleeping. There are probably a lot of key people in the Wikipedia project, such as Admins and even Arbcom members, who have policy RfCs watchlisted and haven't even checked their watchlists yet. RfC rules allow discussion to go on for 30 days, and there's a good reason for that. So let's just hold off for a while on such pronouncements, all right?


 * My position is that hyperpartisan sources (and I think that's a fair descriptive term, Soxwon) just aren't worth the trouble. It becomes a chore to responsibly check out all of the facts they present. And how does one check for other facts that they're trying to conceal? Too much work. Editing Wikipedia is supposed to be fun. We should stick to sources that we know are reliable, and do not allow a partisan political agenda to cloud their presentation of the facts. If a hyperpartisan source cites a reliable source, then we should use the reliable source. If it doesn't cite a reliable source, then the content is immediately suspect and in my opinion, radioactive. Wherever a hyperpartisan source is already in use, conscientious editors such as LAEC should be empowered to replace it with a "citation needed" tag. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Another obvious addition to the list of hyperpartisan sources is Andrew Breitbart's mean-spirited little family of websites (Big Government, Big Journalism and whatever other "big" stuff he's chosen to attack). His recent treatment of Shirley Sherrod says everything that needs to be said on that score. As of this post I've notified about seven more people from the WP:ANI discussion. I'll notify the rest, people such as Jimbo Wales will wake up and check their watchlists, and then let's see what happens. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with the basic proposal. Arzel (talk) 14:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * What is the 'basic proposal' are you referring to?
 * The one that was proposed. Arzel (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Question not framed correctly, and therefore we're not going to get a usable result here. The question presumes: (1) that the four organizations listed are "hyperpartisan", which as far as I can tell is not the case, and (2) that one can equate the reliability of American conservative and liberal-leaning news sources, based on their apparent political position.  In fact, each has its own range of issues and practices, and these so-called media watchdog groups are often more reliable in terms of getting their facts straight within their core subject matter than the mainstream press that they critique.  As always, assessing the reliability of a source is more than looking at the group that publishes it and making a black and white characterization.  As WP:RS says, you have to look at the author, the publication, the specific piece, and the article content it is supposed to be supporting.  Finally, I don't know about all these groups but Media Matters is certainly not an extremist group.  this and this are extremist groups.  [ http://www.wnd.com/ this] is a news source that, while not as blatantly nuts, weighs in entirely on one side of the issues and has more or less no regard for actual facts.  Setting aside the issue that partisanship is really about supporting a political faction, not being liberal or conservative, these politically charged news organizations are well within the American mainstream - probably 1/3 of all Americans are either more conservative or more liberal in their personal beliefs than the span between them.  We shouldn't succumb to Americans' tendency to marginalize everything that seems off center.  We're divining sourced facts here, not trying to expunge everybody with an opinion.  - Wikidemon (talk) 15:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikidemon is absolutely correct. The political vies of our sources do not define their reliability.  Sources are allowed to be biased and non-neutral... what has to be neutral is how we present those views.  Blueboar (talk) 15:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, there's a provision for that: when the hyperpartisan source cites a reliable source, we should cite the reliable source instead. If the hyperpartisan source fails to cite a reliable source, then it can still be used as an opinion. Generally, we're talking about the self-appointed "watchdog" sites. Their articles usually link to some other source that we find reliable, but they find unreliable or inaccurate (and often biased against "their side"). Why not just use the source they're critiquing?


 * One potential problem is the provisions of WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. If a consensus of editors on a particular article agrees that the hyperpartisan (HP) source has gathered enough facts, from other reliable sources, to prove a particular fact not found elsewhere (that a Washington Post story is inaccurate, for example) then for that limited purpose, the HP source should be used as a factual source. But again, it should be clearly identified in the mainspace as a conservative (or progressive) source. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not clear - are we simply talking about sources that some would consider biased relative to the norms of their community? Or are we talking about sourcs that consistently weight in on the side of the party in power or the opposition party?  Or are we talking about watchdog sites?  Those are three different things.  The first is not always a useful way to look at sources.  Everything has a bias or, conversely, bias doesn't matter.  Being middle of the road is a bias.  A news source can be unflinching in its devotion to accuracy, in covering a subject that some would disagree with.  The second class is more of a problem.  If the site's very purpose is to advance a particular ideology, organization, political party, or other group, then it will tend not to present all the facts relative to that issue.  A pro-homeopathy site, for example, is unlikely to give due weight to the majority of scientists who don't believe in homeopathy.  A government-sponsored newspaper in Iran (or America, for that matter) is unlikely to give reliable coverage of female sexuality.  And so on.  Regarding the third group, as I hinted at earlier, media watchdog groups are often a good source of information about certain media things.  If FAIR reports that a particular news correspondent worked for one paper, then joined another paper a year later, that's pretty good sourcing, and something one may not find in the mainstream press, which tends to avoid covering itself.  If in the context of claiming that Fox News is biased, FAIR were to report that Obama's stimulus plan has the support of most economists, we would ask for a better source.  - Wikidemon (talk) 16:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would agree with Wikidemon, but the problem is that the watchdogs are used instead of better sourcing. A good example would be the Bill O'Reilly criticism page. I first saw the page last year and was stunned at the sourcing that was used: . Soxwon (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You ignore precedent and I make a motion to close the RFC early What you call "hyper-partisan" most people "call watchdogs." All these sources at one time or another have sat through a RSN debate to say that the artilces/blogs/videos and found on these site to be "reliable enough" in their appropriate functions as Watchdogs as long as all statements are directly attributed in text. All sources have fundamental biases that is how is always been and always will be. Its very foolish to simply say everything thing that come out of site "Org A" is not reliable when Watchdogs have their appropriate time and their place. By this logic we should assume that Southern Poverty Law Center is too biased against the klan or ADL is too biased against Neo-nazisto be a Reliable source here. I know those two example are taking this to an extreme but that how editors WILL (not might) use any modifications along the lines you are suggesting. If we were to use only neutral sources then we would have no encyclopedia.  We just have to use a range of sources and not rely on Watchdogs alone for our articles. I think this discussion is in good faith but this is silly discussion to have when when we have WP:USEBYOTHERS and WP:UNDUE to supplement the WP:RS policy  Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a particular American concept that the press should be neutral. In most other countries, a particular news source is quite partisan and doesn't try to be balanced. Note that neutrality and balance can apply at the publication level; for example, choice of stories, placement, column inches, resources given to the reporter, the quality of the reporter assigned, and so on. Then a particular article can have it's own neutrality and sourcing issues, or not. Are all sides fairly represented in the article, is the presentation balanced, is there enough information for readers to make up their own minds, and so on. I believe neutrality, reliability, and independence can exist, or not exist, at the publication level, the section level, the article level, and the individual reporter levels. At least to some degree. And then it depends on other factors, as the political center moves over time, and by location and culture. As a hypothetical example, at the section level, metro news may be known as reliable and neutral, but the fashion section may include many fashion insiders and therefore has a built in COI. My own personal view is that World Net Daily is a disinformation mill and quite unreliable and non-neutral. I really don't see how we can come up with a white list and black list of sources that have any chance of being accepted with any reasonable degree of consensus, or being anything but subjective. The only ones we will be able achieve consensus on are already extreme enough to not be an decision issue for the vast majority of us. And they are already known, like the two mentioned by Wikidemon. In my view, the only process that will work is to decide on a case by case basis in each article, keeping in mind our criteria for RS. — Becksguy (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * What is hyperpartisan? Is that a source that identifies itself as partisan? What about sources that don't identify themselves as partisan, but have been identified as partisan by other sources? Akerans (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it is quite easy to identify a hyperpartisan source. Those that consistently present a point of view from one far end of a political spectrum are clearly hyperpartisan.  MMfA, FAIR, MRC, Newsbusters, plus others, clearly fall within that ideology.  Most of these sites also identify themselves along ideological lines as well.  Arzel (talk) 17:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree that MMfA, FAIR, MRC, etc "present a point of view form one far end of a political spectrum". They may not be in the middle, but they are hardly "far end".  And even if they were, being "far end" politically does not make a source unreliable.  Bias does not equate to unreliability... We simply need to note any bias, while reporting on what they say. Blueboar (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * See my post above, the problems come when their bias is unaccounted for and they are used to give one side of an argument endlessly. Soxwon (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Blueboar and Becksguy, my point is that for hyperpartisan sources, they're not worth the trouble. Wikipedia already has enough trouble trying to establish itself as a reliable information source. Using hyperpartisan sources at all, under any circumstances, opens us up to charges of bias. Even if we take the time and expend the effort to check every fact thoroughly,
 * Weaponbb7 and Wikidemon, of course no source is perfectly accurate. Even The New York Times publishes corrections, and has been disgraced by a reporter named Jayson Blair who was just making it up as he went along. But some sources are a lot worse than others, and they're a lot worse on a pretty consistent basis. Wikipedia has already defined some sources as "questionable." I think it would improve the Wikipedia project to expand that concept. There are several sources that skew the facts, and they're not worth the trouble. Partisans and inexperienced editors use them indiscriminately, and it starts edit wars. Given a choice between keeping a little good information out, and letting a little bad information in—particularly in biographies of living persons such as politicians and political groups, where such hyperpartisan sources are used with the greatest frequency—I'll choose the former over the latter, and I think a lot of people will agree. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The point that most other people are making is that they are worth the trouble. Some of these watchdog groups are reliable, any bias just has to be noted. LK (talk) 00:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The issue, as I see it, isn't partisanship, it's accuracy. All sources have an opinion. Not all sources have a good history of fact-checking. Some sources fact-check poorly, but put little political spin. Others fact-check well, but have a definite political opinion. So as a source for facts, it mostly matters what a source's reputation for fact-checking is like, and how they deal with corrections and retractions. The problem with any source labelled "hyperpartisan" is that it's in the eye of the beholder. So it's a poor label. Guettarda (talk) 00:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I have a few thoughts on the matter, but the first, most important one has to be that this discussion is already too large to digest, less than one day after it has opened. I have not read any of it, or even skimmed most of it. I will, however, note two issues that ought to be part of any discussion of these matters.

Firstly, there all sources have some bias. However, all sources do not address their bias equally: some deliberately partisan sources are very plain about the fact that they are deliberately partisan sources (e.g., National Review or Mother Jones); some deliberately partisan sources maintain that they are neutral essentially as an empty rhetorical device, while being as partisan as possible within that pretense (e.g. WorldNetDaily or MoveOn.org), some sources attempt to be neutral and fail at it for various reasons (see, for instance, your local newspaper's coverage of the Associated Press - or, rather, try to find it); some sources really are about as neutral as it is possible to be, given the limits of human institutions in discussing other human institutions. Only the second category - deliberately nonneutral sources that deliberately pursue a pretext of neutrality - is really a problem.

Secondly, it ought to be remembered that there is a difference between secondary and tertiary sources. We are a tertiary source, and ought to prefer secondary sources over tertiary sources. If you ignore the muddle that keeps infecting attempts to discuss this matter, it is mostly about "media analysis" sources - that is, tertiary sources. MMfA, FAIR, MRC - those are all tertiary sources. More importantly, the concerns I mentioned in the previous paragraph apply even more strongly to tertiary sources than to secondary sources - nobody really thinks that citing the Columbia Journalism Review is a problem, even though it might lean to the left a bit, but the most objectionable problem with FAIR or MRC is precisely their pretext of being extra-neutral (or "rejecting bias") when they plainly are not

I would suggest that if anyone wants to conduct a productive RFC, rather than the abortive discussions that came before this one or the metastatic mess this one has already become, then the RFC ought to concentrate solely on the problem I have mentioned - partisan tertiary sources that maintain a pretext of neutrality - to the exclusion of other things that are much less of a problem. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with Gavia, above. Rapier (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well stated. Arzel (talk) 22:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Add "tertiary source" to the list of problems we encounter with hyperpartisan sources. They're not worth the trouble and we need to simply stop using them. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Writing an encyclopedia is hard. Dlabtot (talk) 02:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So let's try to make it a little bit easier. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Someone is going to have to come up with a very compelling argument why the watchdog or media analysis publications—such as MMfA and FAIR—are not secondary sources, when they are not tertiary in that they are clearly not encyclopedias or directories. The policy on the distinction, from WP:ORIGINAL, which says: Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event. They rely for their material on primary sources, often making analytic or evaluative claims about them. For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research. On the other hand: Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias or other compendia that mainly summarize secondary sources. Media analysis publications are all secondary sources in that they analyze print or broadcast journalism and make evaluative claims. Is the NYT a tertiary source when it writes an article about Fox News, or The Washington Post (on their coverage of a story), and then flips back to a secondary source when it writes about an event or public figure? — Becksguy (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The phrase, "summarize secondary sources" covers it very nicely. The phrase "such as encyclopedias" offers encyclopedias as just one example of a tertiary source. Therefore encyclopedias are not the only tertiary source. A site like MRC, FAIR, MMfA or Newsbusters is a news aggregator. It gathers and analyzes stories in secondary sources such as The Washington Post, not primary sources such as scientific journals or eyewitness reports. Therefore it's a tertiary source. And yes, if a story in The New York Times publishes a quote from an interview with Nancy Pelosi that was reported in The Washington Post, when the NYT reporter didn't interview Mrs. Pelosi himself to obtain the quote, then the NYT briefly becomes a tertiary source. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry P&W, but to me that is not even close to compelling. I think there is a misunderstanding of the meanings of primary, secondary, and tertiary, which do *not* refer to the number to steps or generations away from the primary event or source. Rather they refer to the level and kind of information processing and intellectual work that is done. Secondary sources interpret, analyze, evaluate, assign value to, refute, synthesize, and come to conclusions (primary sources can't). See Princeton University's definition here, and University of Maryland's definition here. Tertiary sources, on the other hand, aggregate, collect, list, and produce summaries or synopsis, such as an encyclopedias, abstracts, chronologies, indexes, and the like. They do not analyze or interpret. That's the difference. The NYT example was meant to be rhetorical. WP:SECONDARY says: ... at least one step removed from an event.  Which means it can be more one step, as in the Nancy Pelosi example, so the NYT is still a secondary source there. BTW, I like your username. — Becksguy (talk) 20:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Our article Tertiary source discusses some different, somewhat contradictory meanings of the term. When I used it above, I meant "Tertiary in the sense that we, Wikipedia, are a tertiary source" - this does not require the particular form of an encyclopedia. On the other hand, "they do not interpret" is nonsense applied to any human endeavor - the mere act of aggregating some material, and inherently rejecting other material, is interpretation. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree the WP article on Tertiary source needs work. And granted, an encyclopedia is just one form of a tertiary source among several. The two academic references (first among those found) I provided seem more appropriate. As to "they do not interpret" being nonsense; making choices regarding the inclusion of some entries over others in an aggregation is an interpretation, I suppose, of a minor kind. But hardly the kind of interpretation and analysis I mean. The kind that academic researchers and historians do when, for example, going over the mountains of mostly primary material in a presidential library or the archives of a country such as the Third Reich or Iraq after Saddam. Or interpreting the entire complex history of the US Constitution and all the related case law, economic, cultural, and political contexts in which it has grown and changed for over 200 years. Some of these research projects have taken decades. Or even something less daunting, such as the Resignation of Shirley Sherrod affair. We are talking about a difference of orders of magnitude between your meaning of the term and mine in this discussion, I believe. One could also say that one interprets the temperature as being comfortable or hot (since it's August) at the other end of the continuum from serious. :-) — Becksguy (talk) 04:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Motion to close
This is going nowhere fast, I suggest that this be scrapped and started from scratch if at all. Honestly, from the reactions here, the issues are not going to be solved with an RFC, it's just going to be case-by-case as before. Soxwon (talk) 03:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I weakly disagree with closing. Progress is unlikely to advance on the actual proposal here, but the comments may prove enlightening.  The proper question to be asking here could possibly be teased out from the responses given. BigK HeX (talk) 19:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That was the idea. As more people comment, inadequacies in the original proposal are exposed. This will yield Version 2.0, incorporating a few improvements. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * 2=Continued at a better venue at Hyperpartisan Sources 1}}

Since this discussion appears to have run out of steam without a clear consensus one way or the other, I've created a new subpage called Hyperpartisan Sources 1. I've been learning a great deal from this discussion. During the next couple of days, I'll prepare a proposed new subsection of the WP:RS mainspace on that subpage, and notify all participants in this discussion (and a few other related discussions). I know we hate voting here, but measuring "Support" and "Oppose" is the most cost-effective way to measure consensus. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I haven't diligently attended to this RfC and had to retrieve it from the Talk Page archives. I thought we had a minimum of 30 days to pursue RfC, and this started on July 30. I'll get on this immediately. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:NEWSORG
WP:NEWSORG currently says the following: Mainstream news sources, especially those at the high-quality end of the market, are considered to be generally reliable.

I noticed on a talk page a request to comment these practises. I make only small comments. If there is a peer-reviewed journal article, especially from a field as precise as mathematics, then main stream news are not needed for verifying its correctness. Really, the New Your Times is not a reliable source on the level of mathematics, and it should not be required that referred articles are first described in newspapers before they can be used as citations in Wiki. In science, an article published after the normal (or harder than normal) peer-review process is considered valid according to the present knowledge, provided that it has not been refuted or there is no special reason to consider that it is false. I was kind of shocked when Gavia immer stated to somebody, not known to me, who tried to refer to my paper that before mentioning my paper it should first be verified by newspapers or approved by Clay Math (the possible opponents of the new result). However, I have followed some discussion claiming that the moderators edit away changes that are completely correct. I have an earlier small experience seemingly supporting this. Try to do better, and good luck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.55.128 (talk) 06:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

What does "especially those at the high-quality end of the market" mean? Does it mean anything, or is its meaning so subjective that it might as well be removed, leaving:
 * Mainstream news sources are generally considered to be reliable.?

-- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That wording is not really perfect. It broadly says that editors should prefer the New York Times to the New York Post, when in doubt. However, in many cases, newspapers of the country in which a certain event took place, may report more accurately than foreign newspapers, because they have a better understanding of the issues. There are other cases in which quality is very context-specific, and this should be explained by the guideline. Also, the reference to the "market" is somewhat odd, in my view, as "high-quality newspapers" would probably say the same thing as the current wording. Cs32en   Talk to me  02:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but what I'm saying is that "high-quality" is so subjective that it doesn't really provide any guidance on how to make a decision. The criteria that is almost always used is (unfortunately) determining reliability by measuring how "mainstream" a source is. What determines when a news source is "high-quality"? If we mean "with a reputation for accuracy", then we should just say so -- Mainstream news sources, with a reputation for factual accuracy regarding the topic at hand, are generally considered to be reliable., etc. Otherwise, we just have a vague and meaningless term that doesn't help us determine reliability. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it can be generally agreed upon that if a news organization has national press credentials to the White House Press Room, then they can safely be considered "high-quality", whether or not you happen to think that they suck because you disagree with what they say or how they edit. We are trying to build an encyclopedia, not engage in social commentary. Rapier (talk) 22:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody said "I think that they suck because I disagree with what they say or how they edit.", and nobody is attempting to "engage in social commentary". We are trying to improve the guidelines to be more explicit about what is considered "high-quality", because this is a very subjective term, and it doesn't provide much guidance for people in determining reliability. Please try to remain civil, and calmly discuss the topic at hand, without resorting to straw men and sarcasm. That said, your suggested criteria of having "national press credentials to the White House" is probably not adequate, because it is specifically focused on the U.S., and there are many news organizations that are not based in the U.S. For instance, is it reasonable to apply that criteria to news organizations in China or Zimbabwe? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject FACT suggestion for reference evaluation.
Anyone think there's value in such evaluations? Comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fact and Reference_Check please. -- Jeandré, 2010-08-21t01:10z


 * The number, type and quality of sources available depends very much on the nature of the specific topic. Therefore, while I do not want to argue against such guidelines in principle, there would probably need to be such a large number of different guidelines, exceptions, modification etc., so that the whole guideline may become impractical. Cs32en   Talk to me  00:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Private Correspondence
I can't find an existing Wiki topic that covers this precise concern.

A published, peer-reviewed scholarly article (American Journal of Human Genetics) contains a factual error in a data table. The authors of the paper confirm, in a private email, the error but the journal has never (as of four years later) issued a correction or retraction. The error is specifically repeated in a Wiki article.

I don't want to merely delete the mistaken repetition, since it could be easily and innocently reverted, but that's the only solution that doesn't violate the policies on verifiability and/or reliable sources.

Help? Vineviz (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't the authors have any kind of blog or university website where they can post a correction? Or can't they persuade the journal to post a correction? That's really the only solution. Is it too minor for them to bother? Rd232 talk 18:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This group of authors is blog-averse, it seems, but maybe they can be prompted to make some sort of public statement. The mistake is minor to the thesis of the original paper, but it is significant enough that Wikipedia is propagating the error.  Thanks for the comment. Vineviz (talk) 22:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That implies greater significance of the data in question outside the original thesis. How can there be no other source for such data? PL290 (talk) 08:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The original paper was a study of the Y-DNA makeup of India. The mistake affected a small number (eleven) samples from an East Asian "control" sample and did not impact the "core" Indian samples.  The error is in a data table, represents about 1% of the total samples, and was not mentioned explicitly in the text of the original paper.  The data has been republished by the same authors in other papers, with the erroneous data silently omitted but not explicitly addressed.  Vineviz (talk) 13:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Then can you not cite both the original and later published papers, identify the omitted data, and state that the authors have not published a reason for the omission? PL290 (talk) 14:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That is possibly an elegant solution, but it might bump up against the policy on Synthesis since that approach would effectively be combining two sources to imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by either source. Vineviz (talk) 16:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Only if you choose to word it so. If you present plain facts, and refrain from combining them in any way by editorializing and synthesis, you imply no conclusion. PL290 (talk) 17:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, even with private corespondence, there really isn't much that can be done. WP:OR and WP:V would apply.  Even if we knew for certainity that the author was contacting us directly, it would still be unlikely to result in a change due to the author being a primary source!  If it was published, even with incorrect info, the assumption would be that the peer-reviewed scholarly article was properly vetted, whereas the author making a claim that it contains incorrect info wouldn't wiegh as much.  (At most, it might get a footnote that the author later said the original source made a mistake.)   Until there is something that says, "no this is wrong" from a reliable source, then it is unlikely to change much.  One of the refrains you will often here at WP is Verifiability, not Truth.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I would tend to say that the vetting process increases the reliability of what a certain author says at some point in time. (We also can include non-vetted information from recognized experts in a specific field.) From this point of view, the increased reliability would be conferred on what the author says, and it would of course depend on the author maintaining his or her statement. If that's not the case, the inclusion of the statement, if maintained by the publisher only, would be based on the publishers reliability only, and should not be attributed to the author (likely requiring some lengthy explanation of its status), while the author's correction, if reliably sources (not necessarily scholarly published), would have to be treated as an expert's opinion, if applicable. In any case, a reliably sourced statement from the author would be needed, and this requires that, in principle, anyone must be able to verify the statement. A private communication, whether with an editor, or with Wikipedia as an institution, does not, in my view, meet that condition. Cs32en   Talk to me  23:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Private correspondence does not pass RS unless it is subsequently published. HOWEVER! I would say that any evidence that comes to us by any means can be used to exclude information, provided that there is consensus amongst editors that the information should be excluded. Material does not need to pass RS for it to be taken into account in talkpage discussions. If it turns out that other editors wish to ignore the email, then I am not sure there is much you can do, though. Why not start a talkpage discussion presenting the contents of your email and see where it goes? --FormerIP (talk) 00:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but if a 62 Year old medical journal is standing behind an article, then if somebody wants to use it, then there would have to be some A) pretty strong evidence that the private correspondence is from whom it claims to be B) some pretty convincing evidence that all of the authors on the original article agree that an error exists. Even then, when faced with a reliable scholarly source that stands behind the article, it would be almost impossible to over come that source without something from another RS... especially if the information has become accepted by other sources and other users want to include it.  Private correspondence just doesn't, rise to that level.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Fully agree with FormerIP, although with the caveat that you can into issues if you're dealing with a key piece of information which should be discussed in the article. Per WP:SPS, if the author ever makes a public statement about his own work in a way that we can trust its coming from the actual author, we can accept that. II  | (t - c) 01:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Therein lies a crucial difference... there is a world of difference with a public statement about the authors work and private correspondence.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Vineviz, I do have to ask you a critical question, is there a discussion this ongoing someplace? If so, then it would be considered bad form not to inform that discussion that you've opened a similar one here.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * In general Wikipedia frowns upon subjects of article editing their own articles in mainspace. However there are cases where the subject of an article has submitted information to OTRS in order to have material either added or removed. The ironic part of that is OTRS is considered 'need to know' and is private, so if information suddenly appears or disappears the general public can not question where it came from/where it went. On the other hand there are past discussions about subjects close to an article (or the subject) of an article have edited information and been supported for it - here is an (extreme but relevant) example: Mikegodwin editing this page. One editor surmized I see no difference in a person editing details of his own life and a person editing details of an entry in which they have any other form of interest. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no similar discussion going on elsewhere regarding Wikipedia policy as it relates to this issue. I did follow the suggestion of FormerIP and make a note on the Talk page of the article outlining the edit and the reasons for it.  Although that note did draw comment so far the edit has not been challenged. Vineviz (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I wanted to make sure that there wasn't some discussion going on that we were unaware of. You posed the question above as somewhat a curiosity/hypothetical, and I wanted to make sure that is what we were dealing with.  Ultimately, IMO, if people on the page accept the edit, then no problem.  If they challenge it, then the RS will general win out over the private correspondence.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Using statements of opinion for statements of fact
Can statements of opinion be used for statements of fact if the fact is attributed to the author of the opinion? Policy seems to state this, but it is a little unclear and I know that many editors don't agree with this sentiment. The applicable policy:
 * "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. These are reliable sources, depending on context, but when using them, it is better to attribute the material in the text to the author."

The main point of contention seems to rest in whether "without attribution" refers to attribution by other (non-opinion) reliable sources, or simply to attribution by the opinion author. The use of "attribute the material in the text to the author" in the next sentence seems to point to the interpretation that the attribution is to the opinion author rather than to other reliable sources. Drrll (talk) 00:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it just means that when using sources of the type identified, we should use attribution regardless of whether the author purports to be presenting an opinion or a fact. It could probably be expressed more simply. PL290 (talk) 08:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The policy is disinguishing between two types of statement in the original source: "their author's opinion" on the one hand and "statements of fact without attribution" on the other hand.  So, for example, and Op-ed columni might be a reliable source about the opinion of the author of the Op-ed column, it would not be a reliable source for any statement of facts that the Op-ed author presents.  The policy is confusingly written, but the second sentence means that if you are using the Op-ed as a source then you should attribute it to the author in the text of Wikipedia (e.g. "Bill Smith said that the rock fell")  rather than as simple statement of fact (e.g. "the rock fell"). Vineviz (talk) 11:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Doesn't every single source need attribution? What we need is a policy to help determine when sources are independent of each other, in the face of hostile action to obscure this.  Hcobb (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No, attribution is not always appropriate. For example, if the New York Times says the rock fell, and so do all the other WP:RSs, the article may state that the rock fell (and provide an inline citation if appropriate). However, in the case of the type of source under discussion, the article must not only provide an inline citation but also attribute the statement, i.e., state that "according to Smith, the rock fell". PL290 (talk) 16:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If there is a non-editorial RS which says "the rock fell" then that source should be cited, and not the hypothetical NYT editorial article.  Attribution is appropriate in all cases where the article is written with an editorial slant of any kind at all.  Collect (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * And your brief edit summary, "nope", refers to what exactly? We don't seem to disagree here. PL290 (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Using An Existing Photo From Wikimedia Commons As A Source
I wonder if a photo, already exists in subject's Wikimedia Commons, could be used as a source. Fusion is the future (talk) 10:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Short answer is: Yes a photo can be a source. The long answer is:  Appropriately using a photograph as a source is very very difficult.  Whether the photo is a reliable source or not depends on what you are trying to use the photo for.  In general, a photo can be used as a source for a purely descriptive statement about the photo itself, and not much more.  Recognize that photos and other images can be easily misused.  Extreme care must be taken not to use the photo in ways that constitute Original Research.
 * Photographs and other images are best when seen as being illustrations, not as sources. Support the content with a written source, then illustrate the content with images. Blueboar (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Slightly different opinion take than Blueboar, the photograph itself cannot be used as a source, but rather you can use the photograph to show/illustrate what was being said---the source, really goes back to where the photograph came from. E.G. if I upload a picture of the White House, that photo can be used without problem in an article on Wikipedia of the White House.  However, if I wanted to use that same photo to make a point about the White House being designed with various conspiracy theories, then said photo would not be reliable sources---even if the photo captured the image described in the conspiracy theory.  You would need another source to support that and then use the photo to illustrate what the source described.  Similarly, suppose that there is a photo on Wikipedia showing a specific crime being committed.  You recognize that he person who is committing the crime is the latest hip hop star "Ima Starr".  You may be right and you may be the first person to realize this, but you can't use the photo as proof that Ima Starr committed a crime.  First, you would need another source to say that.  Second, even it was crystal clear what was going on, you wouldn't be using the photo, but rather the source of the photo as the source.  EG a photo in the NY Times carries more weight than the same photo taken by Balloonman.  This is because the photo is illustrative and photos can be easily manipulated.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is essentially what I was trying to say. Blueboar (talk) 17:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot Blueboar and Baloonman, you made my day.:-) Fusion is the future (talk) 00:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Blueboar and Baloonman. As you realize, I am a newcomer. I need your help and further guidance, if you will, about the same issue. How can I then create this photo link as an additional reference to the matter itself? (In biography section.) The Internet site of the event with a specific information was already used as a source. This very photo (as a second-supporting reference) will further prove that the event (mentioned) took place. All artists, appearing in that photo, are also in Wikipedia English. The photo of the event is in the artist's Wikimedia Commons. Thanks. Fusion is the future (talk) 11:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm a little reluctant to answer this without more info, what image? what article? what website?--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 13:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Another way to put is, that any photo (at best) represents a primary source, however the content of WP articles usually has to be taken from secondary sources.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This very photo will further prove that the event took place, actually, no, it won't... photographs depict things... but they don't prove anything. Simply looking at the photo, the reader has no way of knowing what event the photo was taken at.  To tie a photo to an event, we need a reliable source that tells us the photo depicts the event.
 * Also, our job as Wikipedia editors is not to "prove" anything... our job is to compile and neutrally report what reliable sources say about a given topic. Blueboar (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That is correct but a bit misleading here imho, since the term "prove" comes in very different flavours and (colloquial) meanings. Of course photos "prove" something when they are used as "evidence", which in WP context is primary source "proving" or "verying" that your WP content or description of something is "correct". The problem here however is that articles are not supposed to be based on primary sources since their interpretation by a WP author would constitute WP:OR.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again everybody. I do appreciate your input to the matter. I am in the making as a new user, in terms of creating valuable articles for Wikipedia. I'm afraid I'll have to repeat my words, originally used to seek an answer for a specific issue. These artists were also mentioned in the article as they were mentioned in the secondary source. (Internet site.) Now.:-) What was said originally is: As Blueboar said it: "Support the content with a written source, then illustrate the content with images"
 * In the article, the event mentioned is already linked to a (secondary) source supporting a specific claim about the subject, meaning, that very source (Internet site) was used as reference.
 * Now comes the photo in to the picture...:-) Photo shooting is from a concert. It illustrates the subject, along with the other artists, at the stage. Behind them, there's a huge poster (I mean huge) hanging on the wall. (Showing the name of the event itself.)
 * "The Internet site of the event with a specific information was already used as a source. This very photo (as a second-supporting reference) will further prove that the event (mentioned) took place. All artists, appearing in that photo, are also in Wikipedia English."

This is exactly what I intend to do.

My original question was: This very photo exists in artist's Wikimedia Commons. Sincerely best. Fusion is the future 10:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fusion is the future (talk • contribs)
 * How can I then create this photo link as an "additional reference" (an illustration) to the matter itself?
 * What photo, what statement in what article is this about. There are no general overriding rules, all such queries should be accompanied by specifics. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Probably for Atilla Engin? The first issue is not proving whether the event took place; the "OTRS pending" means someone is investigating whether the photo violates anyone's copyright restrictions. Wait on the OTRS team before adding it the article to prevent breaking any copyright laws, thanks. Second, the inline source says only that Atilla and Okay appeared together at Tal Vadya Utsav, so the issue seems to be whether the additional people depicted in the photo are appropriate to name in the inline text. To be on the safe side, I'd leave only Mr. Okay in the inline text, after the OTRS clears; there is no source demonstrating who the other artists are besides the uploader, and those faces are pretty tiny. When you can answer "How do you know who they are?" with a secondary source, then you can list them. JJB 17:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC) JJB 17:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info on picture and article. The photo isn't a source for anything. It just depicts some musicians on stage. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello again. Thanks for all input. In line source is only from New Delhi's Siri Fort Auditorium which lists a small part of the roosters of a 125 artist Festival. Tal Vadya Utsav 1985 Siri Fort Auditorium New Delhi In line source from New Delhi also mentions Babatunde Olatunji, I guess you didn't notice. It further mentions "Family of Percussion" which formed by Peter Giger. They both, Peter Giger and Babatunde Olatunji are in that very photo so are Zakir Hussain, Okay Temiz and Trilok Gurtu. Anyone involved with Jazz/Fusion, African, Indian and World music would recognize them from two hundred meters away.:-)


 * This Festival was three weeks long and three major cities did host all of these concert events. Bombay, New Delhi and Bangalore. This photo you just saw is from final concert in Bombay. It is actually a Jam Session.
 * I couldn't get the info (source) from Bombay and Bangalore concerts. It is twenty five years ago. It may never be on the Internet neither. Only that photo which clearly illustrates TAL VADYA UTSAV and the inline mentioned artists.
 * No one will ever dispute whether these people-mentioned are in this photo or not.:-) Well I hope not.:-) If someone does, they could ask Peter Giger, Zakir Hussain, Okay Temiz and Trilok Gurtu if its them in the photo who participated this last concert in Bombay in 1985. Great artist Babatunde Olatunji died some years ago.


 * TAL VADYA UTSAV


 * From left to right: Trilok Gurtu, Atilla Engin (front left,) Zakir Hussain (sitting-middle,) Okay Temiz (standing-more to right before Peter Giger,) Peter Giger (sitting,) Babatunde Olatunji (behind Peter Giger-standing) TAL VADYA UTSAV International Drums&Percussion Festival India 1985
 * When you can answer "How do you know who they are?" with a secondary source, then you can list them
 * A question: Could Okay Temiz himself be a secondary source? Or Peter Giger? Or others in this photo?
 * THEY ALL are in Wikipedia English too. If so, please guide me about what kind of document (testimony) is necessary.
 * Other thing is the OTRS pending. I was not aware of that. I was told that a permission was granted by the artist already a month ago. I will go ahead and investigate this matter.
 * Thanks for reminding me. And thanks everybody for enlightening me. Fusion is the future (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Jezzhotwells, I didn't see your comment until now. You said:


 * The photo isn't a source for anything. It just depicts some musicians on stage. Jezhotwells (talk) 6:13 pm, Yesterday (UTC−3)

With all respect, I differ. They are not some musicians on stage. They all are well-respected, cross-cultural World artists you see on this photo, including Atilla Engin and Okay Temiz, who make a difference in people's lives. And they are not there to prove something, rather share and help build awareness around the globe. Their music surely reiterates the long forgotten dreams we all once have had. Each and every time they perform, wherever they are, their contributions reach deeper inside people's senses and refresh true, unpolluted feelings of humanity which are being suppressed dramatically in today's world.

So, as "Wikipedia guide lines" suggest, I assume good faith, when considered, why this photo is, so are the names of these world artists in this photo are, there.

Still, if you all disagree with me, I will not use this photo together with the existing secondary source.

I, as a new comer, am here to make Wikipedia even more rich, accurate and valuable with my input, like you all do. Thanks again for your thoughtful and insightful replies. I'm learning.:-) Fusion is the future (talk) 13:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * While you may know who the musicians are... please remember that others may not (I certainly don't). So, to use the photo in the way you are talking about, what we need is a reliable source that mentions the photo and tells the reader who they are. Blueboar (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedylook
A few articles use Speedylook as a source; it's listed as a mirror, but it actually appears to be a machine translation of the French-language version of Wikipedia rather than a direct mirror of en.wikipedia. Several French-interest articles - including biographies of living people - use it as a source, sometimes as the only source, and I'm tempted to strip these out, but I can't find an explicit statement in the policies that forbids the use of non-English Wikipedias as a source. It seems instinctively wrong but I would like something authoritative to point at when the inevitable disputes arise. The machine translation is a separate issue although again it seems a bad idea; the translation might be incorrect, and might introduce factual errors into the article. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If that's correct, then just use the sources in the articles instead. For unsourced statements, simply show the article and translation to demonstrate that Speedylook is a quaternary source and that its source, fr.wikipedia, has its own policy about not being used as a source for (any) WP. N'est ce pas? JJB 17:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The Speedylook process doesn't seem to retain the sources - e.g. this page on Christine Delphy, which ends with (literally) some "random links", or this page about Rosalía Arteaga. Is there a page somewhere here on ye goode olde en.wikipedia that explicitly states in English that non-English versions of Wikipedia cannot be used as sources for the English-language Wikipedia? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 17:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:PSTS under tertiary, but it doesn't say "non-English Wikipedia", just "Wikipedia", as appropriate for those among your audience who may be followers of logic. JJB 17:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I wish to know if this is a fan site or not?
I wish to remove what I believe are unreliable fansites from transformers articles. Would these be considered reliable sources of info. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Transormer World Deinite fan site, all it is is a forum for people to post. Clearly not a reliable source.


 * SiebertTron.com I think this page says all you need to know... again not a reliable source.


 * tf source From there we took our expertise as collectors and have applied that knowledge to how we run our business, successfully serving the Transformers collector community since 2003. Again, this is just a personal website/business. No editorial oversight.  Not a reliable source.


 * Poison Bite DOn't even have to look at this page, TGWIKI... it's a wiki, which by definition is not reliable.


 * tfromers.com This page says that it is a division of Entertainment News International. I'm not familiar with them, but this MIGHT be ok.  I'm not 100% convinced either way.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Well someone needs to inform User talk:Mathewignash this topic has been debated ad nauseum :See "Improving Optimus Prime" Dwanyewest (talk) 03:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Dwayne, please try not to open the same discussion on multiple boards. Eventhough people are agreeing with you, that these sites are not reliable, it could be seen as Canvassing. See Reliable Sources discussion board for the same discussion on this topic--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 13:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for subscription/registration-requiring sources
Hi - I want to discuss the idea of having the Wikimedia Foundation acquire subscription/registration rights for editors to use those kinds of resources (newspapers, magazines, JSTOR, scientific journals, research papers, non-preview Google books, university/college resources) that are available online only for subscribers and registered individuals. There is a wealth of reliable sources that provide valuable information that is unavailable to most if not all Wikipedians. Such use and access has to be obviously for use exclusively for references. I have a few suggestions to make this practical:


 * 1) Access to subscription/registration-based reliable sources can be strictly limited to Wikipedia editors with the rights of reviewers, administrators and bureaucrats and those editors who have written more than, say, 3 featured articles or 15 DYKs. Only permanent, reliable/responsible users should have the rights - making sure (as much as possible) that are not abused nor references misused for citations that aren't accurate.
 * 2) It is not necessary for ordinary users and definitely not un-registered readers to directly view the sources that are cited. Just like buying off-line sources such as books right now - they can obtain subscription/registration by themselves if they so desire.
 * 3) No text from such sources can be used as or for quotes - just for paraphrasing.
 * 4) The sources can be clearly identified for volume no., publication details, authors, etc. to give credit to those publications kind enough to allow access.
 * 5) Usage of such sources can be restricted for articles are not biographies of living persons, and not for images (due to possible copyright issues).
 * 6) Administrators (and frankly any user given viewing rights) will have the responsibility of making sure 100% that such privileges are not being abused. If deemed advisable, they can be authorized to strike out the texts that are blatant copy-vios or page protect those articles (like BLPs) that must not use such sources. Users violating these rules can be blocked, placed under probation and have their rights revoked for a long period of time.

Obviously the Wikimedia Foundation will have to negotiate and may have to pay some sort of fee - that is something for the Foundation reps to do. Some publications may cooperate, some may not. I think its more than worth it - it will help develop literally thousands of FAs and DYKs, and make life of reviewers and those overseeing enforcement of WP:RS much easier. Of course, it gives a big leap forward for this encyclopedia's chief goal. What d'ya say?

I've started the thread of discussion on the Village Pump Shiva   (Visnu)  13:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No need for this... as such sources are available (for free) at most public libraries. If you are not willing or able to go to the library yourself, just ask your fellow editors.  99% of the time, someone will be willing to help you out.  Blueboar (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In principal I like the idea. However point 1 and 2 do not make any sense to me. Such an access is useful to all regularly active authors not just authors of featured articles or reviewers. Also note the primary goal of WP is not to produce featured articles, but to cover as much notable knowledge as possible in correct and appropriate manner (which normally is way beyond featured articles or DYK).--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Please could you check...
These two sources out to see if they meet RS guidlines for a book review. Thankyou. and. Although the second mentions "blogspot" in the web address, it appears the reviews are written by an independent person - not just aquired from website visitors.--Itshayfevertime (talk) 12:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The first one looks like it might be ok, but the second one no. The first one might be ok because it does look to be semi-serious. They appear to have an arrangement with the publishers to provide books for their reviewers and the reviewers are independent with apparently some oversight.  It also appears to have an online magazine.  It is not without some concerns, but on casual glance, I would probably accept the first one.  The second one... no.  Being an independent person does not make a reliable source or worth quoting, there are tons of blogs like that out there.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 13:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * OK.Many thanks for your help Balloonman.--Itshayfevertime (talk) 13:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI, try asking at this page next time.  — fetch ·  comms   16:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The first one is a review by "ReaderGirl" - not a reliable review. Active Banana   ( bananaphone  21:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with that conclusion... it was one of those things where I did a quick look.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 04:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

'Prove it didn't come from wikipedia'
I've been involved in a interesting debate at Meme Molly about the exclusion of the subject's real name. The article itself doesn't particularly bother me as WP:UNDUE and other policies come into play but one of the themes does. One of the arguments for exclusion is that it can't be shown that the claimed real name didn't originate here thus creating a circular reference. Now of course references based on wikipedia should be excluded but it seems to me that excluding references on the basis that you can't prove that they didn't come from wikipedia would allow about 80% of the references we currently use to be exclude. Surely if the source is generally considered reliable, then it needs to be shown that the information has indeed come from wikipedia because as far as I can tell, proving beyond doubt it has not is virtually impossible if it's picked up by RS later. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, first I would ask... what is the cited source for the person's real name? Then I would ask: What is that source's reputation?  Is it likely that it would have taken information from Wikipedia (a low reputation gossip rag, likely... a fan website, quite possible ... a well researched biography, unlikely).  Finally, I would ask whether it possible that the source took the information from Wikipedia or not... I would cross check when the source was published against when the information first appeared in Wikipedia.  If the source pre-dates the information appearing in Wikipedia, then I know the information could not have originated here.  Blueboar (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd call that a ridiculous, spurious argument. Dlabtot (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Also agree that in most cases, that argument holds absolutely no water. Given the speed with which people upload high profile news info here, almost any new event would be "suspicious" in that way.  However, Blueboar's concerns may be relevant in some cases; but in a broad set of cases, someone wanting to restrict the source would have to argue it likely that the information came from Wikipedia, not the opposite.  Qwyrxian (talk) 21:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Dlabton can I assume that you are saying that the argument that you have to somehow prove material isn't from Wikipedia is ridiculous and spurious... not my reply. I was simply pointing out ways to respond to such spurious arguments ... 1) ask whether it is likely that it came from Wikipedia, and 2) check the timing to see if it even possible that it could have come from Wikipedia.  That said, I would agree that, once a source has been provided, the burden to discredit the source falls on those who challenge the source. Blueboar (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's why I indented the way I did. Dlabtot (talk) 23:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

For those who Manage this page -- Citing from direct sources (hard copies of magazines) is NOT vandalism.
I recently posted many specific cites on Dwight Yoakam's wikipedia page. Each and every quote and cite came from the original source (a magazine or newspaper article) in my possession. The citations were completed according to AP style.

For you to call any of this vandalism is an insult. If you need to see PDFs of the sources cited, I can provide them. In the meantime, you've undone months of hard work and research on my part to make this page more than simply a PR piece managed by you.

--a very unhappy fan with a major print archive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.133.136 (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I took a look at the edits in question. I'm not 100% sure why Cluebot is reverting them, as they don't meet the classic definitions the bot usually uses to revert vandalism; nonetheless, I can say that the additions absolutely don't belong in the article.  Wikipedia articles should not quote large amounts of original sources--that is the style of a magazine or, in some cases, an academic article.  Our encyclopedia articles simply do not quote so much material, and certainly not to essentially "interview" Yoakam.  It is much better to summarize and present that info in a neutral, 3rd person tone than to put it into first person quotes.  Then you can still use the same references. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Dissertations
I'd like to raise a point that came up at WP:WQA. I'm quite surprised to see dissertations listed here as reliable sources. As somebody with extensive experience in this area, I can tell you that whereas some dissertations are excellent and authoritative, many contain questionable material, and there is no good way to set up criteria to distinguish them. Dissertations are reviewed, but not with nearly the thoroughness of a book or journal article. It is common for published papers to cite dissertations for purposes of recognizing priority, but in most cases dissertations are not cited in order to demonstrate that a fact has been established. Most scientists, I think, feel that if the material in a dissertation does not get translated into a published paper, then it shouldn't be considered as solid. No doubt this has been discussed before, but I feel it's important. Looie496 (talk) 06:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Very different in the humanities and social sciences where an accepted research doctoral thesis is the result of vigorous internal and external review by topic specialists. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Is EyeOnTheUN unreliable?
The web site EyeOnTheUN is the only published source of statistics about United Nations resolutions, decisions and other publications. It is a well organized database of data collected directly from the UN (www.un.org), edited by three US and Canadian lawyers. Today, a recent edit of mine in Israel, Palestine and the United Nations is being challenged because EyeOnTheUN is deemed to be an unreliable source. Since no one is challenging its numbers, can a unique academic source be unreliable? Emmanuelm (talk) 16:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The complaint does not seem to be about the reliability of EyeOnTheUN, but in how the information from that site is used in the article. Since this forum is about the reliability of sources, please provide a diff that shows it is actually the reliability of EyeOnTheUN that is in question, otherwise please take the discussion to a more appropriate forum. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec, I tried to post this before my revert on the article) On first sight it looks to me as if you might be using material from that site as a primary source on which you are building original research that you are presenting in essay form. But I didn't look very closely. If so, the reliability or not of that site would not be the main problem. Hans Adler 16:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Adler, thanks for your intervention in this very minor dispute but you misunderstood me. I was not asking for your arbitration. My goal was to point out a deficiency in the WP:RS policy article.
 * Let me rephrase my question: if an academic is the first person to describe a previously unknown phenomenon or to articulate a previously unpublished idea, is he a reliable or unreliable source? As the article stands, the first publication on a topic is always unreliable, regardless of the clarity or quality of the work. I find this illogical; if no one is arguing against a source, on what basis is it deemed unreliable? Sometimes, the source is unique because it is so obviously clear and correct that no one feels the need to repeat it or challenge it. Other times, the source is unique because there cannot be another source -- think about the Apollo lunar landings; is NASA reliable or fringe? I think this point deserves a paragraph. Emmanuelm (talk) 01:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Academic reliability is produced primarily by the Peer Review process of journals, conferences, and scholarly publishing house readers. This is why academic sources deemed highest quality are peer reviewed journals, peer reviewed conference outputs, and chapters in edited collections and monographs published by scholarly publishing houses.  The first utterance of a new idea does not reduce the reliability of a source.  It may reduce the WEIGHTing of a source when published in a well-trodden area.
 * Eye on the UN is published by: Hudson Institute New York and the Touro College Institute for Human Rights. Touro is an accredited US higher education provider.  The Hudson Institute is a nonpartisan think tank.  Neither is a scholarly University Press.  Thus the output is not peer reviewed and Eye on the UN is not a HQRS.  Next step, is it an RS at all?  HINY and Touro are capable of non-scholarly publication oversight.  EotU is edited by a non-Doctorally qualified academic (ANNE BAYEFSKY), and by two non-doctorally qualified lawyers.  No particular reliability is derived here from the editorial/authorial academic capacity.  EotU should be considered reliable as it is: 1) Published by non-partisan accredited institutions.  2) Edited and Authored by professional specialists (Three lawyers, two with further degrees, two with significant professional and academic research experience).  Treat as non-HQRS.  WEIGHT as normal per the field.  Fifelfoo (talk) 01:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Fifelfoo, thank you for your wise judgement but I was not asking for arbitration. ImperfectlyInformed changed the title of my comment here. My point, all along, was that this WP:RS article is unclear on this situation and should be clarified.
 * For example, in WP:RS: Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. In what field would an isolated study be reliable? Unclear.
 * In WP:RSEX: Websites and publications of political parties, religious groups, anti-religious groups, or any other partisan group, may exhibit bias and should be treated with caution. Neither political affiliation nor religious belief stated in these sources are in themselves a reason not to use them, as these websites can be used to present the viewpoints of these groups, if properly attributed. Such sources should be presented alongside references from other sources in order to maintain a neutral point of view. What if there is no other source? Unclear.
 * I argue that, if a source remains unique for several years, it implies that no one felt the need to contradict it. Its lack of opposition is, therefore, an evidence of reliability, but WP:RS states the opposite. I think this should be clarified. Emmanuelm (talk) 03:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Bad logic. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The Hudson Institute is non-partisan? See [] or not WP:RS ( for the (very conservative) foundations that support this, or or p.95 of ).  The data in the last two are derived originally from (credible) foundation 990 forms, but it's hard to find all this in any one WP:RS. If one is familiar with these foundations, the idea of nonpartisanship seems unlikely. [] is a good example of a Hudson person.  Many thinktanks claim to be nonpartisan.JohnMashey (talk) 05:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)