Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 29

Secondary or Third-Party Sources?
The article says in the Overview section, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources..." In the Scholarship section, the article says, "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible." These seem to be saying two different things. Does this need to be clarified? 216.54.1.35 (talk) 20:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You are confusing First/Third party sources with Primary/Secondary sources. These are distinct concepts, that involve different aspects of reliability. What we are really trying to say in both sections is that the best articles are those that are based upon Secondary sources written by independent (and thus neutral) third-parties. Blueboar (talk) 21:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

"For Dummies" books - reliable or not
Is information found in books from the "For Dummies" series considered reliable by Wikipedia standards? These books do provide accurate information. The question is, are they valid for citing materials? Xyz7890 (talk) 22:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, they are certainly reliable by our standards... however, I would also say that for complex topics there are almost always better sources available. It is the difference between "allowing" a source and "preferring" a different source. Blueboar (talk) 23:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I see no problem in using for "for dummies" or "complete idiot's guide" books for most basic knowledge that they usually cover, but as already said above there are usually better sources around. That means if you start an article or extend one and the only source you personally have at hand is such a dummy books by all means give them as reference before giving no reference at all. However don't be surprised if somebody else later on replaces them by better suited sources.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * In a way, I think of Wikipedia as a "for dummies" source of information. If you come to think of it, an entire book or more can be written about the subject of just about any article. But the amount suitable for Wikipedia content is limited to the traditional size of that article. Articles are written (or supposed to be written) in a manner in which a concept is explained to a layperson. Xyz7890 (talk) 00:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * They're tertiary sources. Good for getting an overview and generally accurate. But better sources are always available, some of which can be found in their bibliographies.   Will Beback    talk    01:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with using tertiary sources though. I think the important point is, that editors should cite as sources what they were actually using. I.e. if you got your info from a dummy book then you should use it as a reference. If you've actually read the better sources in the bibliography, then of course use them, but only then. One thing you should not do, is getting your info from the dummy book and cite its bibliography.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * ... depending on what the tertiary source is, what portion of the source is, how you use it, what you use if for, and if your citation is not misleading. Tertiary Sources are even more context dependent than secondary sources.  Fifelfoo (talk) 02:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes but you state here more or less applies to any source no matter whether it is primary, secondary or tertiary.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * For the scholarly humanities and social sciences, on matters subject to scholarly inquiry, unsigned articles in tertiary sources should not be used due to the availability of higher quality sources. For signed articles not of a scholarly length or character (a couple of hundred words with a single footnote), they are reliable, but not high quality.  Using higher quality sources is a good idea.  Some encyclopedia, dictionary, chronology articles in the humanities are of scholarly length and character, signed by experts.  These should be treated as the equivalent of journal articles or chapters in scholarly edited collections.  This in in part because the humanities and social sciences are fields where "simple facts" are not considered simple, and most "simple facts" involve the application or creation of fundamental judgements (see, for example, the large number of national history articles which involve terminology disputes).  Thanks, Fifelfoo (talk) 03:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well this is mostly question of allowed versus preferred sources as mentioned above and again in that context an author should cite what he actually used, which of course can be improved by others later on (wikipedia is a process).--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Compare three citations: Carlson, Carl (1900) Dictionary of Blue Things Duck Publishers, p. 200.  ;  Carlson, Carl (ed.) (1900) Dictionary of Blue Things London: Duck Publishers, p. 200 ; and, Susandaughter, Susan (1900) "Mousemats" in Dictionary of Blue Things Carl Carlson (ed.) London: Duck Publishers: 190-210, p. 200.  The third citation allows us to identify what the article was, if it had an individual author, how long the article was separate to which pages where consulted for the quote or fact.  We can rapidly check the individual author for expertise in the field of blue mousemats.  The first citation is, for a certain grade of article, misleading.  The second is slightly better, but still deficient in allowing us to instantly estimate the expertise and level of coverage devoted to Mousemats.  Fifelfoo (talk) 03:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, but that is now not an argument about the reliability of sources, but about citation formats. In other words now we are not discussing anymore, whether a source is considered reliable enough to allowed, but we are discussing how a source should be cited.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

They're ok, but are not going to be accepted at FA or GA, and are likely to make Wikipedia look wacky in any case  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  05:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

e-yakimono RS?
Is a reliable source. I would like to cite subpages like for List of National Treasures of Japan (crafts: others). bamse (talk) 23:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * My opinion is that yes, it's probably okay, although other references would be preferable. My first observation is that the site is a combination of an e-commerce site and a self-published blog.  Normally, SPS aren't allowed, but WP:RS carves out one exception: when they are "produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."  The fact that the author, Robert Yellin, regularly writes articles published in other places like Japan Times and Honoho Geijutusu seems to imply that he can be considered an expert in the field.  So I think that the subpage you wanted to site would be okay, although it would be better in the future to switch over to a book, academic journal, or trade journal article on the subject if a new source could be found.  Qwyrxian (talk) 00:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I see, thanks a lot. bamse (talk) 01:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * We have a message board on wikipedia set aside for this: Reliable Sources/Noticeboard, in future, taking your questions there ought to help your inquiry draw a more rapid response. thanks, Fifelfoo (talk) 03:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Five Gateways Genealogy

 * Further to the discussion on this website here: Archived discussion: The author's standpoint There are apparently two points under discussion about my little passtime, fivegateways, viz.  1.  Is the information to be considered reliable,  and 2. should I cease and desist or keep linking?  I hope you have the patience to sit through my arguments for 2, and to listen to my opinion on 1.

1. The short answer is wholly in line with ProGen and Cindamuse. The information is derivative and collected from a range of secondary sources, mostly ones I have been able to get a hold of easily myself. A professional genealogist, as any researcher worth his salt, would however have to start somewhere, and it is at that stage the site is meant to be helpful. The main page of the website contains the following statement, which is intended to explain how to use the site, and that indeed, the whole thing is meant to provide what Cindamuse refers to as clues:

"''The business of genealogy and especially of published genealogies, can be a mine-field of opinions. This site aims to show some of those opinions, and where possible, attempt to arrive at some form of truth. In the world of post-processualism every opinion is equally valid, and the "truth", such as it is, is the average of those opinions. I make no apologies for including the odd old or outdated genealogy on this site. The intent is to spark thought and whet the interest of individuals researching their own family histories, and to form an opinion of their own.

Sources will be referenced for each page of genealogies so that you may form your own view of the accuracy of the data...''"

There is of course no intent to mislead the readers of either WP or the site itself. The site allows the readers to form their own opinion of what is true or not by providing information that may not always be appropriate to include in the actual articles on WP. In creating the site there is a process of selection which I admit has not been indicated on the site itself (now updated) - the more recent sources are always favoured above older ones. E.g. if a source published in 1940 repeats information originally published in 1801, but a source published in 1928 diverges from this, then the 1928 source would be favoured as based on more recent research than the 1940 source. If you wish to verify any of the information, the sources are included at the bottom of each page rather than against each record because this is more expedient for the format of publication. As a similar example, the most recent edition of Europäische Stammtafeln gives the sources used for the entire volume in one place without specific reference by each record, and Burke's, as far as I can recall off the top of my head, does the same. This does not provide support for NOT including the sources against each person's record - I agree this would be desirable.

The long answer, therefore, is that the reliability of the site is dependant on the sources which it presents. It must be up to the reader to decide if these are 'true' or 'false'. Furthermore, I cannot answer the concern for knowing "...what errors, omissions, or misinterpretations crept in when the website was being created" raised by ProGene. That is also for the reader to judge, I suppose, but I do try to make sure I type as accurately as I can. Of course, I am just as likely as any professional researcher to make a misinterpretation of information (no offense meant - I have an academic background and 12 years worth of genealogical research experience, albeit not on a professional level, but enough to be aware of the most common pitfalls). I have now addressed this by including the site e-mail address on the front page in case of questions and corrections submitted by readers. I've also included the same note I wrote here on my selection of data, which I hope may go some way towards improving your opinion of the same. I originally intended for the site to have a message board option on each family page, but this proved impossible to manage for abusive language and vast quantities of spamming.

I also attempt to apply enough critical thinking to what I post to exclude mythological or impossible connections wherever I'm aware of them - you won't ever find Adam, Eve, Rameses II, Caesar or Arnoald.

2. As to the question on whether I should keep posting links to Fivegateways on Wikipedia or not, I would have to argue that the information given is absolutely valid as an external link. Please note the difference here - I am advocating the inclusion as an external link, not for it to be cited as an absolute authoritative source, which seems to have been somewhat confusing to some commentators, above. It is my understanding that an external link should provide additional information to the topic, which I believe FG does. It is further my understanding that such information should be referenced, which it is. The materials presented can therefore be researched backwards to the original sources if so desired. Without entering into the discussion about the accuracy of TSP, the references therein, as an example only, are quite detailed for its time and can easily be looked up.

I also believe, although I might be sorely mistaken here, that the site meets at least two of WP's criterias for inclusion as an external link. What should be linked §3 states: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons." and Links to be considered states, under §4: "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources". You will be interested to note that I took note of the former prior to posting my first link on WP. The latter paragraph I am including here as a counter-argument to the opinion of inclusion of possibly unreliable information, although I still hasten to add that I am interested only in publishing sensible data based on the sources referenced.

With this in mind, I would like to draw your attention to the notes on this page:  which show that the article is written entirely based on information culled from the website www.thepeerage.com, which cites Burkes as the (only) source of its information for the above named figure. This site, although it provides source references for individuals rather than groups, is consequently the foundation for an article on WP as a source, not as a linked external page. I should say that this would certainly merit further investigation, and I would agree strongly with anyone who has the same opinion of FG. It has never been the intention to include the site as a source on WP, merely as a place to find out more. Alas, I cannot stop others from using it as a reference, but I have no objections to it being removed from citations, per se, if someone has included it as such. I would still maintain, however, that FG is a potentially valuable resource for those beginning their research or those that want to know more about possible familial connections.

I'm more than happy to make improvements to the site based on your feedback, so by all means do not be afraid to provide me with further opinions or viewpoints (the appropriate medium for that might be the e-mail address on the website, rather than further comments here, though). I will, however, not compromise the basic premise of the site which is to provide the reader with an opportunity to make their own mind up about what is true and what is not.

Sincerely, Fivegateways (talk) 02:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I just came across an article on Mustafa Kamil Usmani which was deleted on Feb 28, 2008. I was aghast to read a particular comment which was cited as the reason for supporting the deletion....that just because the gentleman in question taught the present Agha Khan he has no claims to greatness...further, amazingly , a learned man has been compared to a 'dog trainer' and the groomer of Prince Harry's horses!!!!!! I wonder what the reactions of the Agha Khan would be upon being likened to the above animals......

My main contention is that a person who was a rising star and was chosen after a global hunt for a prestigious job must actually have had some devine spark in him and to assign such frivolous reasons for deleting an article related to him seems suspicious. The said gentleman's nephew Dr syed Khaild Rizvi also resides in the U.S.-having recently shifted residence -and is in possession of many documents which can conclusively proove his great achievements as an academician.Probably the said mementos are now in possession of Dr Tarik Bill Kamil...Mustafa Kamil Usmani's son and a man of high credentials himself

Whether the article is deleted or not ..is not the question. I only object to the reasons cited.

Mrs Safia Faruqi (niece)

Lucknow

India —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.173.220.96 (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

In discussion pages, how does one discuss (obvious) plagiarism or fabrication?
All of the following, until the end, is about Discussion pages for books, or in which papers/articles are proposed as sources for inclusion in actual articles.

Plagiarism
Suppose a book (src1) has a Wikipedia article, or some external paper/article (src1)is proposed as something credible to be discussed as a Wikipedia article. Suppose another source (src2) is found. Regardless of whether or not each is a WP:RS for the topic it discusses, or whether it is a primary, secondary, or tertiary source relative to something else, one would think each is a primary and WP:RS for its own words.

Suppose src1 is found to contain plagiarized material from src2. The simplest case is big chunks of text lifted word-for-word from src1, maybe with light edits. Proving plagiarism in effect requires direct comparison of 2 primary sources, which seems disallowed by WP:OR. Of course, since likely authors are living, the very proof of plagiarism needed for accuracy thus relies on primary sources, so runs afoul of WP:BLP.

Very rarely do WP:RS articles publish multiple pages of the src1-vs-src2 comparisons truly needed to clearly identify the plagiarism. It may well be that any sensible person would take one look at src1 and src2 and say "plagiarism." Suppose a detailed comparison exists, but is in a self-published source, i.e., not WP:RS. That certainly cannot be used for the Wikipedia article itself. Can it legitimately be cited in a Discussion page, i.e., given that it may not be WP:RS, but in essence consists of quotes from src1 and src2, which are at least WP:RS about themselves? If not, must that text be replicated into the discussion, to avoid the self-published source? Or is that disallowed also, as WP:OR?

There are of course, more complex flavors of plagiarism, and at some point, arguments over lifting of ideas gets arguable. Substantial obvious plagiarism in academe is The End, and it also tends to diminish the credibility of src1, especially if combined with injected errors that show the author(s) clueless.

However, am I wrong to believe that no matter how obvious plagiarism is, the combination of Wikipedia rules in effect forbids even discussing it, and hence a source non-credible for this reason cannot be challenged as such? Or am I missing something?

Fabrication-1
Suppose src1 cites src3. In the simplest case, src1 says that src3 says X, but simple inspection of src3 shows that it does not (simple fabrication). If src1 has drawn too heavily on (uncited) src2, then it might be plagiarism as well. This happens when someone's real source src2 is not credible, so they cite src3 to cover it.

So, is that subject to the same issues as above? May such things be discussed within discussion pages?

Fabrication-2
Suppose that src1 cites src2 and src3, stating (correctly) that src1 does not make claim X,. Then, src1 states that src3 confirmed that claim X was true.

By simple inspection of src2, it is found that src2 (incorrectly) claimed that src2 claimed X. Hence, src3 has fabricated a claim about src2, then src1 has fabricated a claim about src2's fabrication. All that may be trivially decidable by inspection of src1, src2, src3 ... but may be claimed to be WP:OR and disallowable, so that src1 is argued to be credible.

(This can happen when the author of src1 reads src2, but either reads src3 carelessly, or actually read what src4 said about src3. Other explanations are possible, especially if the author really, really wants X to be true.)

So, is such discussion considered acceptable on discussion pages, or not even there? In some cases, this is a factual issue easily decidable merely by examining src1, src2, src3 in a few minutes.

In summary, are plagiarism/fabrication even discussable, and if so, how should they be handled?

In articles, not discussion
Finally, to get this into an actual article, perhaps some WP:RS says "plagiarism," but it is unlikely that the full proof thereof will be found in that WP:RS, but somewhere else, which may thus not be enough under WP:BLP rules.

All these describe real examples.JohnMashey (talk) 05:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you are off base in even trying "to get this into an actual article". It isn't our job to discover and bring to light plagiarism.  For us to say (in an article) that one source plagiarizes material from another source, we need to cite a reliable source that notes this fact (in practicality, we need a third source that comments upon and compare the other two, noting how similar they are).  Without such a source, it would indeed be Original research for us to discuss it.  However... if we suspect plagiarism, and we feel that this will impact the reliability of the plagiarizing source, it is perfectly OK to discuss our suspicions on an article talk page. Blueboar (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I see that I was ambiguous above.  I probably should have added: "If I understand right, no matter how obvious plagiarism or fabrication might be, it is almost impossible for it ever to be discussed in an actual article page."  I thought that's what I was saying, but it wasn't clear enough; we are agreeing strongly.
 * I have never tried to get such into an article page. I have seen people trying to delete such discussions from talk pages if they are fond of the sources. That leads to the curious result that a source can be seriously plagiarized/fabricated, by simple inspection, but that source might still be treated as RS and used in the main article, anyway.JohnMashey (talk) 23:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * OK... thanks for clarifying. Given that we are talking about talk page discussions... It is not WP:OR to raise the issue of plagiarism on a talk page... especially if done within the context of questioning whether a source is reliable or not. WP:NOR only applies to article space, not talk page discussions (although going on and on trying to "prove" anything on a talk page will eventually become disruptive... it isn't a WP:NOR issue).  The simple fact is that it is difficult to "prove" plagiarism... and even when you have demonstrated that it exists, if other editors are willing to overlook it, there isn't much you can do.  Blueboar (talk) 00:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'd observe that some plagiarism is hard, some is really easy (obvious cut-and-paste of big chunks oftext), but some editors can certainly ignore anything.JohnMashey (talk) 06:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually the term plagiarism is misleading here because strictly speaking WP has no academic honor code nor do we pretend to create genuine tertiary literature always. The issue for WP are merely copyright violations, meaning you can plagiarize as much as you want as long as you do not commit a copyright violation as well. In fact WP started off with a plagiarism by copying the free 1911 Britannica as its first text base.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify. I'm not talking about Wikipedia plagiarizing anything, I'm talking about assessing the quality of a source by showing that it plagiarized.  Here is an example [], search for McShane.  I added the text now under "Self-published analysis", which started by "While not in itself an RS, and no material proposed for inclusion in the article."  Somebody else (who wants McShane in there to confirm Wegman) moved the text to a separate section, several times emphasized "self-published".  At least, there seems to have been no attempt to delete it, but maybe by moving it to a new section, it will get archived away faster.JohnMashey (talk) 06:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Premakeerthi de Alwis
Dear friend, this issue is actual and few of persons who want to avoid this issue. The user User:Ramya20 only contribute to Wikipedia delete this issue. I have a doubt on this user sock puppet of Hudson samarasinhe. This issue is promoting by Wife of premakeerthi who Nirmala De alwis on her book ‘’Premakeethini’’ which publish on 2010. Author is User:Bigger digger is mention that   this book cannot find out in Google searching. It is correct because it takes few more month on appear ISBN web sites. But no one can refuse this issue. There is already published on a blog translation Wikipedia we have a possibility to translate context of articles. I request to assist solve this problem to administrator in Wikipedia .--Wipeouting (talk) 18:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Identifying reliable sources...
When sources are evaluated here, do they not go on a list for reference? ~ R.T.G 08:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No, but you can look through the archives to see if a particular source has been discussed before. Barnabypage (talk) 10:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason why we don't have a list of reliable/unreliable sources is that a given source may be reliable in one situation and unreliable in another. Every source we discuss would end up in the "it depends" column. Blueboar (talk) 14:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a pity each evaluation isn't referenced so that you can just pick it out from a list and see what has been decided before and possibly even add to it. See: WikiProject Video games/Sources for a very long and helpful chart including situations where a source may be suitable for one thing while not another. ~ R.T.G 17:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with a wikiproject creating such a list for their subject area... in fact, I think it is appropriate for such lists to be done at the wikiproject level. This guideline is more focused on discussing the reliability of broad types of sources.  The "big picture" rather than the specific. Blueboar (talk) 17:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't understand... wherein is the importance of what you catalogue over the act of catalogueing it? What difference does it make how you rate the stuff you list as to wether you listed it or not? Anyway I watch this page not that I read it a lot but when I do the sources discussed here are as random as they come. Well if you're going to centralise the index of *Identified* reliable sources or *Source evaluation*, this is the place to do it, as broad as that. If a regular just noted and linked each unique discussion after it is archived, it would eventually roll a ball. Well it's a good idea and looks great on the video game project. I've often looked here to see if a source is mentioned on a list. ~ R.T.G 20:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, we are not actually supposed to discuss individual sources here on this page (this page is supposed to be for discussing improvements to the guideline)... questions about sources are supposed to be discussed at the reliable sources Noticeboard (RSN).  But that is a minor point.
 * What I am trying to say is this: To really understand whether a source is reliable or not, you often need a specialists understanding of the topic.  And you are more likely to get people who are familiar with the topic and will know which sources are better than others if you ask at the relevant project pages than here.  Those of us who work on this page (and answer questions at RSN) are generalists on the subject of reliability. We tend to focus on generalized questions (discussing, for example, whether newspapers are reliable, as opposed to whether a specific newspaper is reliable for a specific statement).   Blueboar (talk) 21:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You seem to want to tell me how you know best to discuss a source. There is no intention here to suggest discussing a source. How can you discuss a source so well without hoping to rely on the findings? How would an index of accepted findings be damageing or wrong to the project? Can you not see a situation in which access to previous findings would be useful in some way? So, if your previous discussions are useless information... have you not brought up information on a source which you have already brought up, or seen brought up, once before in another discussion? Have you never linked to a previous discussion in the archives to show what previous findings were or used a link that you first saw on one of these discussions? If you have done anything like this you have indexed previous findings already only that the new user coming along didn't have access to the information you have. Or maybe that would be a new way of discussing some source. ~ R.T.G 16:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Reliability of newspaper columns
I am having a hard time understanding the rules here regarding opinion columns in newspapers. The material under newspapers appears vague, and the material under opinion appears contradictory.

If a reporter reports a fact in an opinion column, and the column is rather overheated and contains a "fact" that appears to be contradictory on its face, do the other "facts" in the column have any validity at all? (Obviously, I am arguing that they do not, but I am new here and biased on the issue.) I would refer directly to the article, but I don't know how many of you know Hebrew. Also, do the same standards apply to foreign newspapers, where the same (adtmittedly low) standards that apply to American newspapers may not be followed, even by major, "respected" newspapers in Western-style countries?

In the same vein, I would like to point out the importance of distinguishing between print newspapers in the original language, and English language internet sites of the same newspapers. For example, two of our major newspapers here in Iarael publish internet sites in English (Ynet and Ha'aretz, by papers 1 and 4 respectively), that do not always mark opinion pieces as such. I would argue that a medium that does not distinguish between news and opinion pieces cannot be called a modern newspaper, although it still may have its uses.Mzk1 (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It really depends on the circumstances. If somebody makes one mistake, that doesn't automatically demote them to 'unreliable source' for everything else they might say - we'd have no sources left if we took that stance. Some errors might cast their credibility into doubt in general, while still leaving them credible on certain issues (e.g. plenty of people believe wacky things about politics, but are still reliable as sources on their own life). And some people are pathological liars. Inaccuracy in one point generally hurts one's credibility elsewhere, but I don't think WP has a blanket rule; this sort of stuff has to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. --GenericBob (talk) 21:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all this is an international encyclopedia in English and not an American encyclopedia. Hence the term "American standards" and "foreign newspapers" make little sense. That aside we apply the same general standards to all newspapers and I agree with GenericBob, that quite often you need to look at it on a case by case bases.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Opinion columns are citable for the author's opinion. Facts should be sourced elsewhere. Dlabtot (talk) 23:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * An undiscussed problem is identifying opinion pieces. Some newspaper archives, like Proquest, identify opinion pieces. In other cases it may be possible infer the nature of an article by its placement in the newspaper. The New York Times proudly lists some of its columnists as part of their "opinions" section. However I've often seen sources discounted as "opinion pieces" simply because a Wikipedia editor thought they were such but without having any evidence. I think the burden rests on the person making that assertion to show the column in question is an opinion column and not part of the newspaper's regular editorial output.    Will Beback    talk    23:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see this as a major problem; nor do I think we need to assign a blanket burden of proof. But if we were to, I would lean in the other direction: if it is not clear whether or not a piece is meant as opinion or fact, I think we'd want to err on the side of caution and consider it opinion. Dlabtot (talk) 23:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said, the problem is that it's usually impossible to determine. Placing the burden on editors to prove that newspaper articles are not opinion columns means that, in practice, they'd be deleted every time they are challenged. That's an unworkable standard.   Will Beback    talk    00:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you said that, and I disagreed with it. It is almost always very easy to determine, which is why disputes over the question of whether a source is 'an opinion piece' are vanishingly rare among editors who actually are editing in good faith. Dlabtot (talk) 01:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)^
 * OK, how do we determine whether a newspaper article is an opinion column, or prove that it isn't?   Will Beback    talk    02:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We use our judgment, discuss the issue with other editors and form a consensus. I don't see much point in discussing this in the abstract, can you provide an example of an article about which you are not sure whether it is opinion or not? Dlabtot (talk) 04:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You're the one who asserted that it's "almost always very easy" to prove that a newspaper article is not an opinion column. But you're apparently unable to say how we'd do that in even a single circumstance. So that kind of proves my point.   Will Beback    talk    04:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I did say how we handle it in every circumstance. All that has been demonstrated is that we disagree. But 'proof' doesn't enter into it, in fact, I don't even agree with the idea that points like this can be 'proven', which is why Wikipedia doesn't operate by 'proof', but by consensus. By all means, have the last word. Dlabtot (talk) 05:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently we agree that it's impossible to prove that an article isn't an opinion column.   Will Beback    talk    05:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I couldn't resist. In my opinion, it is irrelevant and meaningless to talk about 'proving' anything. If you want to falsely characterize that as in some way agreeing with you, so be it. Dlabtot (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, again! We now appear to disagree about what is meant by opinion. American-type major newspapers such as the NYT split their content into two parts: news and opinion. Into the former part go news articles. Into the latter part go editorials (especially!), letters, ALL "columns", responses, op-eds, "news analysis" pieces, etc.; this is what I am asking about. These are clearly labeled. (In theory, news articles are not opinion; actually they are, but this page assumes they are not, so we will go with that for most purposes.) So perhaps you gentlemen (generic gender) could explain why you feel this division is not there.

Regarding American, theere are many wikipedias with many standards, as was pointed out to me when I asked about translating without reschecking the sources. When the English Wikipedia refers to newspapers, etc., the authors, being english-speaking humans mostly located in the United States, are presumably referring to what they know, which is mostly American and British material. Presumably materials that are from places with different standards for newspapers, peer-reviewed articles, etc., need to be judged before they are the considered the same. As an extreme example, government-controlled newspapers are probably questionable sources, particularly in semi-free or not-free countries.Mzk1 (talk) 20:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If one is sitting in front of a printed newspaper, and if that newspaper segregates its opinion columns (as most do nowadays), then the distinction is clear. But if one is retrieving an article from an Internet archive, then that distinction might not be clear at all.
 * The new faces of reform in North Korea. Selig S Harrison. Boston Globe. Boston, Mass.: Oct 13, 2010. pg. A.15
 * Pashtun alienation. Selig S Harrison. International Herald Tribune. Paris: Aug 17, 2009. pg. 6
 * Here are two columns written by the same person. The archive says one ran as an opinion piece. Without that information, how could we tell which one it was? 20:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Then such internet sites should NOT be considered RS newspapers, period. They should be considered lesser sources, like ethnic, religious, and political newspapers that mix news and opinion and never claim to be NPOV (B'sheva / INN, Mishpacha, the Jewish Press). These are usable sources for various matters, but should not be in the top-level RS described in this article. This is my argument about YNET and English-internet-Ha'aretz. On the other hand, various other newspapers keep their original format (in Israel, probably the Jerusalem Post fits this), so their internet editions should fit RS.Mzk1 (talk) 20:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Those two citations are from the Proquest newspaper archive. My point is that it is often impossible to tell, using just the standard bibliographic information, whether a newspaper column is reportage or opinion.   Will Beback    talk    21:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Both of the Selig Harrison articles are obviously and unambiguously opinion pieces. I have a hard time envisioning a talk page discussion that would not reach this consensus. Dlabtot (talk) 16:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Based on what, the titles?   Will Beback    talk    21:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you actually disagree with me that they are both opinion pieces or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? Dlabtot (talk) 22:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The question isn't whether they are or not, but how that determination can be made. Is it just by intuition or is there a subjective test?   Will Beback    talk    23:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, the latter. Actually that is the question, in each case, on a case by case basis. In this case IHT identifies Mr. Harrison as an 'Op-Ed Contributor', he hasn't been a reporter since he worked for the Post, and the content of the articles unambiguously identify them as opinion pieces.  We decide these questions through discussion of the actual sources in question. Of course, I never said, nor implied, nor said anything that could be reasonably be inferred to imply, that intuition has anything to do with it. Dlabtot (talk) 23:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, if the newspaper identifies a column as being an opinion piece then that makes it easy.   Will Beback    talk    23:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's another tricky issue: not everything that appears on the Op-Ed page is an opinion piece. The syndicated columns of investigative reporter Jack Anderson generally always ran on the Op-Ed sections of papers, but they were undoubtedly reportage rather than opinion.   Will Beback    talk    23:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm note so sure you are correct about Jack Anderson (Whom I am old enough to remember). The very fact that they ran there, may have implied that they did not have the same standard. I also presume this was because they did not originate in the same paper.Mzk1 (talk) 19:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently you have no difficulty figuring out what is opinion and what is not. Just like everyone else. It is a non-issue. Dlabtot (talk) 23:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

At any rate, to get back to the original question. Is a column, editorial, news analysis, etc. on the rarified RS level of a news article of a major newspaper, or it is on a lower level? If a lower level, what level is it? This should be clearly defined in the article. We are talking about a basic policy here, after all; we only have three of these.Mzk1 (talk) 20:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is a case of "levels"... a column, editorial, op/ed etc. is an entirely different thing than a news article. They have a different purpose.  Editorials etc. are by their nature focused on opinion... while news articles are focused on facts.  They are apples and oranges.  Information taken from News articles can be presented as being fact, and the article can be used to cite where you found that fact... Information taken from an opinion column should be presented as being opinion... and the opinion column can be used to cite where you found that opinion.
 * In other words... both are reliable... but in different ways and for different types of statements.
 * That said... not all opinions are equal... Undue Weight can play a role. The opinion of a columnist who only appears in a small town paper does not carry as much weight as a nationally syndicated pundit.  And some opinions don't carry any weight at all. This however is a NPOV issue and not an RS issue. Blueboar (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, this is my point. Columns, news analysis, etc. often contain factual statements, or rather statements they are portraying as fact. If these are not to be considered high-level-RS facts, but opinions, then this article should clearly state this. This is what I have been trying to get at the whole time. Please let me know what you think.Mzk1 (talk)
 * A different point. As sources of opinion: I would say editorials, columnss and News Analyses are horrible sources of opinion. That they are these people's opinions, well - we already have a rule that people are good sources about themselves. Otherwise, polls, et. al. have shown reporters to be members of fringe groups (politically, economically, socially, etc.) that are more cut off from society than other groups. (For example, a poll here is Israel showed that the far left was more ghettoized than any group in Israel, including the religious right, the so-called "ultra-Orthodox".) The old joke about "nobody I know voted for him" was taken out of context, but there is a lot of truth in it.Mzk1 (talk) 19:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Even non-opinion news articles should not be considered particularly reliable. These days major newspapers clep stuff out of Wikipedia, pick up blogged rumors, and perpetuate urban legends and highly questionable stories from foreign papers.  The Internet has made the major papers and news organizations very lazy.  Don't even get me started on mainstream news reporting of scientific research. Gigs (talk) 04:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is true, but them's the rules. I think the best we can do is to Use Common Sense and require a higher standard when the newspaper is reporting on things they are known to be weak in (science, religion), politically incorrect groups (Heredim and settlers in Israel, evangelicals in the U.S.), or where the article does not give a real source.Mzk1 (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * When it comes to opinion pieces, a lot depends on who the author of the opinion is... some columnists are considered experts (who's opinions should be noted)... others are not. WP:NPOV makes it clear that we need to note all significant views... but also makes it clear that not every view is significant enough to note.
 * When it comes to news reports, a lot also depends on what you are using a news report for. For some information, a news report may be highly reliable.  For other information the exact same news report may be completely unreliable.  This is why we can not simply say: "news reports are reliable" or "news reports are not reliable"!   Sources are rarely "always reliable" or "always unreliable". Blueboar (talk) 15:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Newspaper columns are not good sources for facts. While newspaper articles are, the opinions in them should not be considered to be facts. But when it comes to reporting opinions expressed in newspapers, notability becomes important. Since we have no way to knowing how notable these opinions are we should usually ignore them. This is particularly true it the material is old, and better sources of opinion can be found. TFD (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Great! This is the answer (one way or another) I have been looking for. I think we should make this clear in the article here. But I don't think I can modify a basic policy based on one person. (I automatically need to disqualify myself, I think.) Is there a mechanism to get more broad-based opinion?Mzk1 (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am going to nit-pick... since WP uses the term notability in a specific way (one slightly different than the way TFD uses it) I think it more proper to say that undue weight becomes a factor. Blueboar (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been finding this boundary between "news" and "opinion" difficult for a while. I have heard that the quality US press maintains the distinction more rigorously than the quality UK press does. I don't see any easy answer in the UK press. The Guardian, for example, has columns from Timothy Garton Ash, from Gary Younge and from Lucy Mangan. Garton Ash is an expert on international relations, usually a notable viewpoint that can be attributed. When he marshalls facts to support an opinion, he will have done so carefully and the Guardian's fact-checking apparatus will have operated too. Gary Younge, as well as being a commentator, is the Guardian's US correspondent. It should usually be possible to tell if one of his pieces is commentary, an investigative report or news, but if he wanted to combine two or more of those, he would be allowed to. Lucy Mangan is a different kind of columnist, mainly there to amuse and be oddball. Anything looking like a fact in one of her columns could be exaggerated or ironic. And that's just one newspaper. There are other combinations of columnists in the other papers. I don't see any easy way round this. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I hope I am putting this right, but I think I have accompished my task. I see that in the meantime, others have modified the article to clarify this issue. To me, I think the reuslt is almost a 180 (degree turn) from the implications of the orginal article, which I think led people to just pull things out of columns as if they were facts. I hope this is not an inappropriate statement here. Mzk1 (talk)


 * By the way, I've written columns for The Guardian, and I can attest that the Guardian 's fact-checking is extremely stringent. As the saying goes, you're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Note, I put a huge amount of work into those columns, and it's rather annoying when Wikipedians dismiss them as not reliable sources for supposedly being mere "opinion". -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 22:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but how can we tell? I'm pretty sure the above does not apply to NYT editorials or op-eds. (I don't know about news analysis.) I can't call the paper - that's OR. Is this policy published publically?
 * BTW, how does this work? I remember reading an author describe an informal conversation with a fact-checker, and the checker said that as long as something was in a book - even one written by the author of the piece - it did not need further checking.
 * Ah, you have put your finger on one of the dirty little secrets of Wikipedia - it is in fact not possible to do what it claims to do, which is outsource the problem of Truth. Relying on "reliable sources" ultimately begs the question, since no simple rule will work for determining what is "reliable". People often mistake a very superficial and rather US-centric idea of news-not-opinion as all that's necessary. In reality, the topic is far more complex. It's necessary to know something about a subject in first place in order to have a sense of what's reliable (failures in grappling with this quasi-paradox explain much Wikipedia tail-chasing on specific controversial issues). Anyway, what I can tell you for The Guardian was all my columns were read in detail by the relevant editor for factual claims, and I was expected to substantiate any significant statements of fact which were arguable (this is a matter of judgment, of course). Controversial claims about living people received special legal scrutiny. The editorial code is online. I can't speak about what the New York Times does, I've never written anything for them. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, first of all, your point about prior knowledge certainly has, er, truth; I have had this issue with the Judaism articles I work on - if you don't understand the subject, you can misread even relatively generic sources. (Unfortunately, this also applies to even academic publications - see Dr. (listed there as Rabbi) David Berger's recounting of a rather horrifying experience in that regard at yutorah.edu, topic shituf.) But we often have enough experts here to deal with this. Secondly, Wikipedia quite clearly does not claim truth, as the guidelines state. But, really, if you're basically against the enterprise in the first place, it's kind of hard for you to help the discussion that much (although what you said is certainly valuble).Mzk1 (talk) 21:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think there is a good point there - if your publication has a published code, then this should be put in the article here as a matter to take into account. It could indeed make facts in an op-ed into news-quality facts. Is this true in all British publications? I was just reading a blog on Ma'ariv that fact-checked Gideon Levy's article in the Independent, and found that his description of Israeli newspaper coverage was not only false, but the opposite of the truth. I realize that this does not prove anything per se (we would need to double-check), but it shows a strength of Wikipedia - someone is likely to look up what you say, and correct you on the spot, not in some obscure side-box or publication hardly anyone reads.Mzk1 (talk) 21:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I realize this is not relevant here, but I did look at some of the material you pointed to, and did I understand you correctly - did you really suggest that free speech is more important than human life? I will tell you, myself, that I have avoided writing (and will - if necessary - delete) some material because of concern that someone might misunderstand and hurt someone.Mzk1 (talk) 21:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Seth's column for The Guardian is a different case again to those I mentioned. He is their specialist in www topics. As when science stories are signed by a newspaper's science correspondent, I'd say that makes his pieces ("columns"?) more reliable than items in the general news sections. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * One problem is that newspaper science stories do have inherent reliability problems, even when they come from the science editor. It's just the nature of the medium.Mzk1 (talk) 21:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Science journalism has come in for a lot of flak in the UK recently. But specialist science columnists really ought to be all right for science-related news. I think they are going to get their act together. I am still wondering how we would treat a column by Polly Toynbee. If she were to say (hypothetically) "this is the first major legislation on child benefit since 1946", then IMHO that would be as reliable as you can get in social policy writing, short of an academic article. But in the next sentence she would say that the government is in danger of losing popularity through upsetting mothers. That would be opinion. Careful readers can tell where the fact stops and opinion starts, but we often have to deal with editors who are anything but careful readers. That's why I'm worried about drawing too rigid a distinction between news and opinion in UK newspapers. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The other view is that it is past time for WP to adopt policies which actually can differentiate facts from opinions, and "actual facts" from "surmises for the future" or "surmises based on models".  (Absurd Hypothetical examples following) The stimulus bill provides $3 trillion over the next five years. (likely enough to be "fact"). The stimulus will create 200 million jobs. (Surmise at best - even if it is an "official claim" from somewhere, or based on some sort of model not specified.)   The Earth average surface temperature is 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit. ("Fact" and I told you this is hypothetical)  The ocean level will rise 200 feet by 2035. (Surmise at best - unless we decide predictions are the same as established fact).  If all ice on Earth melts, 200 cubic miles of water will enter the ecosystem. ("Fact" as it does not say that the event "will" occur).  The Widner model projects Earth temperatures will rise by 10 degrees next year. ("Fact" as it refers explicitly to a model).  The earth is going to melt. ("Surmise" as the model making the claim is not specified).   Muslims fast during daylight hours of Ramadan. (Fact)  Muslims end Ramadan with revelry and threats against non-Muslims. ("opinion" unless the reliable source itself provides material in clear support of such a claim) (End absurd hypothetical examples)  At least, this is my sort-of first stab at making a case that we need a strong and explicit guideline setting fort the difference between "fact" and "opinion,"   and demonstrating, I hope, that the problems inherent in such a dichotomy are not restricted in any way to "science" articles. Collect (talk) 22:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say that your hypotheticals show that editors in good faith will have little difficulty differentiating fact from opinion on a case by case basis, but that an explicit rule to cover all cases preemptively would be impossible to write. Dlabtot (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that similar concatenated statements are routinely found in newspaper articles - and the usual argument is "in for a penny, in for a pound" reasoning that if the article is RS at all, that all the statements in the article are RS. I would argue instead that we can and ought devise wording which provides a good distinction between "fact" and "surmise or opinion" which would apply even within what is asserted to be a "reliable source."   The "little difficulty differentiating" is, alas, not how WP works in practice.  We routinely find "John Doe faces up to 2312 years in prison if convicted" in BLPs - until the actual sentence ends up at 23 months.  But until the sentence is made, we have the 2312 year surmise.  95% (absolutely uncited figure) of the Climate Change contretemps revolve about what is "fact" and what is "opinion or surmise."   As for the "impossible to write" argument - that is something which can not be determined absent an attempt at doing such. The DofI was absolutely an "impossible document to write" as one neat example. Collect (talk) 23:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "reasoning that if the article is RS at all, that all the statements in the article are RS"  No. Not so. Not even slightly so. Not the current practice, not the current consensus, not supported by any policy or guideline. Dlabtot (talk) 23:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, this is what happens in many places, and is why I started this discussion. I am glad that the article has been fixed; peerhaps the system does work. (But why was consensus not obtained first?) I tend to be quite reticent about making major changes to articles - even if the article is a result of not being too reticent about removing my work. But if this consensus stays, there are places I hope to use the meat-axe. Slanderous opinion should not be reported as fact, even if it appears in a newspaper.Mzk1 (talk) 21:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually looking at the examples above one should realize that those are not problems specific to newspaper columns, but that this is general problem, that you'll in literature as well and even in peer reviewed academic publications. Another way to look at it, that people should only cite sources, that they can understand and where they have a clear grasp what part of the information can be considered a "fact", what a "surmise", what a mere "speculation and so on. Though one might argue that the problem becomes in particular apparent in newspaper columns, it is however a much broader phenomenon affecting a large variety of publications, hence it can't be fixed by any newspaper guideline.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hence my position that it ought to be a "fact" v. "surmise or opinion" guideline, and not just a "newspaper" guideline.  BTW, I can refer Diabtot to many discussions where the entire body of a source ends up being "fair game" in articles - not least of which are the notorious Climate Change, BLP, Prem Rawat, Scientology and other gorgeous quagmires of WP. Collect (talk) 23:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Such a guideline cannot be formulated here, but if at all it must be formulated by special subject portals, who might formulate what they consider a "fact" within their domain. But even then there are likely to be problems of a philosophical nature which might be impossible to resolve.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Do portals or projects have this right? This came up in Judaism, and I thought the consensus was that they did not.Mzk1 (talk) 21:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Portals/Projects are the places with the specific expertise required for any such decision, but it is somewhat of a grey area. Certainly it is not acceptable for (arbitrary) portals to restrict the number of sources, that would most likely be be considered acceptable under the general guidelines. However as mentioned above several times in doubt you have to look at individual cases and use domain expertise and the latter is where portals/projects come in. Also in rare cases it might make sense that large portals list some explicit cases of sources being considered unacceptable in this domain, however these cases should follow from the general guidelines anyway but domain knowledge was needed for an appropriate assessment.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Dlabtot - it's not policy or consensus, but it seems to be a very common misconception among editors. I wonder if it's possible to make the policy a little clearer on the point that reliability is evaluated with respect to specific statements rather than as a universal attribute of the source. --GenericBob (talk) 23:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Footnote regarding editorial codes
Seth Finkelstein - presumably it is he, although without outside proof we cannot assume it - made the interesting point that his newpaper did check facts in opinion pieces. I asked for something concrete I could use to avoid OR, and he referred me (above) to their editorial policy - online. Unfortunately, while the policy has some fascinating features that would probably destroy what passses for American Journalism (such as an anti-harrassment rule), the description of fact-checking rules appeared to me to be too vague for it to be useful here.

So, we do have a fascinating suggestion; that if the the published rules of the newspaper modify our assumptions of how newspapers work, it might also alter how we view the various parts of thge paper. However, we would need to see a clearer example. (Also, there is the possiblity that the rules are not followed.)Mzk1 (talk) 22:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Hermans620117, 20 October 2010
New generation of green roof A Belgium based company has introduced what can be called the XXIst green roof solution. It is composed of three modular industrialized layers: 1. the pedestals, directly on waterproof surface of any kind; 2. a floating floor: either metallic of plastic made, depending of loads applied; 3. last but not least: the Greenskin Box, made of autoconnected precultivated modules. The advantages are numerous, among others a universal adaptation to all roof types, a ventilated and technical space underneath, a perfect compatibility with all techniques such as solar panels, automatic sprinkler systems, cables for lighting, etc.. A world patent covers the main features. Web site: www.greenskindvmh.com

Hermans620117 (talk) 16:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're after, but it's not done. -Atmoz (talk) 21:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Opinions on these two sources please
This one appears to be a blog, http://www.drfunkenberry.com/

This one is a wiki, but not an open wiki, http://www.princevault.com/index.php/Main_Page

They are used in quite a few articles, and are both accurate (as far as the information they are citing goes), but I don't think they meet WP:RS. Markfury3000 (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, they don't. They both appear to be self-published and since the authors are not identified, there is no way of knowing whether they are recognised and reliable authorities on the subjects in question. Having said that (and this is IMHO, not policy), I wouldn't lose sleep over sourcing something completely non-contentious like the date of a concert to one of these, unless of course there is actually disagreement among editors as to the statement's veracity. Barnabypage (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. I'm inclined to leave them in as they are accurate, and much of the information they cite is difficult to find in Reliable Sources. Markfury3000 (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Google Books page links
WT:CITE. RfC on whether WP:CITE should say Google Books page links are not required but are allowed in footnotes, and that editors should not go around removing them. All input welcome. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 20:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

redundancy
I just noticed that large sections of this document are word-for-word copies from wp:V. That's a potential problem in the making: If the language in one place changes it will become inconsistent with the language in the other, which will produce ambiguities. I suggest we either delete the duplicate material and replace it with links to wp:V, or else set up transclusions so that the two pages stay in sync (though that may require extensive restructuring). -- Ludwigs 2 15:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * On the other hand... a lot of that duplication is deliberate. This guideline is directly and intimately tied to WP:V, and the two do need to stay closely in sync. Because the language is deliberately duplicated, the inevitable creeping inconsistencies between this guideline and the policy will quickly become highlighted, and we can move to resolve such inconsistencies all the sooner.  Blueboar (talk) 16:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I actually think the duplication is a symptom of poor role definition. In cases such as this, where there are related policies and guidelines, we would do well to distinguish their roles more clearly than we do at present, so that the policy confines itself to making clear statements of policy, while the guideline helps editors to use the policy effectively, elaborating on the ways in which the policy may be applicable to different types of article, or in relation to different subject areas, etc. PL290 (talk) 18:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with PL290, and I'll add that there is almost never any decent excuse for redundancy on a web forum (where things can so easily be linked and cross-referenced). redundancy simply adds noise (and the potential for crossed signals) without really adding any significant convenience. -- Ludwigs 2  22:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmm.... I still think it is helpful to repeat some of the provisions at WP:V in this guideline... but perhaps what we need to do is explicitly quote WP:V (possibly by using block quotes, and definitely with quotations marks and a link). I think that would alert editors who want to change the quoted material to the fact that they need to discuss and make the change at WP:V first... and then return here to conform the quote. Blueboar (talk) 15:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I wish the devs would get around to implementing section transclusion - that would make this easy. I'm a little hesitant to do any of this right at the moment, though, since there's so much ongoing discussion about wp:V.  let's take it up in a bit after that's settled itself some.  -- Ludwigs 2  15:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Importance of reliability
How important is it for sources to be labeled reliable? If a source is good in every other way with evidence to support its statement, but is labeled unreliable, should it still be used? 173.183.69.134 (talk) 14:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, because if it is not reliable, it is not reliable. If it is the only source available for a particular assertion, and it is unreliable, then we cannot be sure that the assertion is correct. On the other hand, if we are confident the assertion is correct because other, reliable sources also make it, why not just use them instead? Are you thinking of a specific situation? Barnabypage (talk) 15:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Dumb question perhaps
I don't see any mention of government websites. How would a site like this be for an article on cefn gola? Quadzilla99 (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think things like this would generally fall as tertiary sources (equivalent to dictionaries and encyclopedias). It varies, of course: some government websites provide statistical data and analyses, so they might be secondary sources.  but for the most part...   -- Ludwigs 2  16:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And some documents hosted on government websites might even qualify as primary sources. It does not mean you can't use them... we just have to understand how to use them appropriately.  As to the specific website in question... I agree with Ludwigs... it is an acceptable tertiary source. Blueboar (talk) 17:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The other issue with government websites is that they may be biased towards the government in power at the time or some policy they wish to promote. A lot of stuff is at least intended to be neutral though so I suppose there aren't hard and fast rules, beyond the rules that apply to other sources.
 * In the specific case you highlight, I would say that it is a reliable source for the facts it contains but:
 * I would be wary of citing it for a statement like "Cefn Golau Cholera Cemetery is one of the most evocative in the south Wales valleys."
 * If it is contradicted by an accademic paper or something like that then I would go with the paper... although there may be room for discussion in some cases... like if the author of the paper appears to be biased for some reason. Of course, we don't know who the author of the borough county webpage was so we starts to see why it is not ideal... but it is definitely good enough for most purposes.
 * Yaris678 (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources with user-generated content
Can the policy page include material on sources with user generated content? On the WP:V policy page, the section on Questionable sources and Self-published sources already mention sources with poor editorial control, and sources whose content is indeed user-generated, like open wikis, blogs, forums, etc. I asked on the WP:V talk page if those two sections could be combined into one, and was told I should take that discussion here. Nightscream (talk) 19:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Quotations
I just tried to edit this, but I'm not sure what it means:

"Quotations should be cited to the original source if possible; when secondary sources are used, those that cite the original source should be preferred over those that don't."

SlimVirgin talk| contribs 19:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, the language is confusing. I think the passage is attempting to address what I will call the "Telephone Effect" (Ever play a game of "Telephone"?  The further you get from the original, the greater you diverge from the original message).  What I think the passage is trying to say is this: When quoting, it is better to take the text directly from the original, rather than taking your text from a secondary source that repeats the quote. (for example: if Winston Churchill wrote something you think worth quoting in an article, it is best to find a copy of Churchill's work and quote directly from that (and cite it), rather than relying on what some other source claims Churchill wrote).  This is to prevent our inadvertently repeating a misquote or repeating a quote that has been taken out of context.
 * However, we also have to recognize that editors may not be able to obtain a copy of the original text, and in those cases we may have to settle for second best... which would be a source that itself cites the original (ie one close to the original on the "Telephone" chain... and since a source with citations is more likely to accurately quote the original than a source that does not include citations). Blueboar (talk) 20:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Are direct quotes preferable to secondary citations?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sometimes... sometimes not. Blueboar (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this was meant to deal with a lateral bias problem. i.e., source X quotes source Y in order to assert claim Q, but we can't use that to say that source Y claimed Q, only that X claimed it.  If we want to say source Y claimed Q, we need to quote from Y directly.  That's just because X might be selectively quoting to produce a particular conclusion.  -- Ludwigs 2  21:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * SV is probably right to raise the question then of whether this is clear.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I think Blueboar's reading matches mine. It relates to the usual best practices in source-based research. If you see that source A gives a direct quote from source B, and you want to include that quote, the usual best practice is to actually get a copy of source B, read it, and then cite it directly. In the cases when this isn't possible, it's certainly better if source A actually gives a full citation for source B, compared to some source C that just attributes the remarks to B without giving any indication where B might have said them. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 02:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * In simple English. "Quote what the person said, not what someone says they said. Use the book that does so directly, not the book that does so indirectly and adds any interpretation or alternative context." --LevenBoy (talk) 02:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No we can't actually do this, and we've been over it at length. We prefer reliable secondary sources to primary sources; the secondary sources, for example, may be quoting a different version or edition of the primary source. We can't use our own OR to try to "correct" a secondary source because we think we have a more accurate version of a quote. Jayjg (talk) 05:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about "correcting" a secondary source -- we're talking about the situation where we are going to include the quote anyway. In the situation where we're going to include a quote from a person, it would be shoddy practice not to look up the actual place where the quote was made. I wouldn't let a paper go that I'm refereeing if it included a direct quote from person B that was cited to some other source by person A. If we are going to quote person B then we should be able to say exactly where person B said those words, and we should be able to cite person B directly. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We would definitely prefer reliable secondary sources for any interpretation or analysis of the quote (per WP:NOR). but... for the quote itself, I strongly feel we should prefer the primary source (to avoid misquotes and sources that take the quote out of context). To put this another way... when quoting, cite the original for the text itself... but cite a secondary source for any statements about that text and what it means. Blueboar (talk) 14:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This would be normal practice outside Wikipedia and I dare say it sounds like common sense. I guess the question is whether the sentence will be understood correctly? It makes sense once someone explains it, but... I think my answer and also Jayjg's show how other WP issues come to some of our minds when we read it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I completely agree that it needs to be re-written so it is clearer. Any suggestions? Blueboar (talk) 15:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Add the word "direct" before "quotations"? &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 17:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Blueboar's recent edit. If a secondary source quotes a primary source, we should cite the primary source for the quote, and the secondary source for any analysis and context. We must rely on secondary sources for additional context and analysis, but playing a game of hearsay telephone is not required when we have access to a primary source. Gigs (talk) 00:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, no... this is where it gets tricky... if we have not checked the text against the primary (ie we only look at the secondary source) then we should cite the secondary source and not the primary one (per SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT).
 * We are actually making three distinct points ... 1) we should (ideally) take the text that we are quoting from the original (or as close to the original as we can get)... 2) any interpretation or analysis must come from a secondary source... and 3) we should cite what ever it is that we used for each statement.  Hopefully my edit made all this a bit clearer. Blueboar (talk) 00:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

RfC on when apparently reliable sources are objectively wrong
Please see here for an RfC at WP:VERIFY on what to do when apparently reliable sources are objectively wrong? .

Thank you. --LevenBoy (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If a source is wrong, it would then be un-reliable. GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, no... "right" and "wrong" are not a factor in reliability. Sources often disagree, and when this happens it is not our job to determine which is "right" and which is "wrong".  We note that there is disagreement, and who says what, giving them due weight... but we don't take sides in the disagreement by saying "this source is right" or "this source is wrong".  See: WP:NPOV for more on this. Blueboar (talk) 17:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * How do we decide which to use? GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * We use both, as appropriate. (or, if you mean which do we use as the article title, we go with whichever best fits the principles spelled out at WP:Article titles... commonality, recognition, brevity, etc.) Blueboar (talk) 18:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Basically, if a consensus (or atleast a majority) is reached as to which source to use. GoodDay (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Best keep discussion to one place I think. I have replied there. What you say works in simple cases of single incidents but it does not work where the question effects literally thousands of topics. In the vast majority of Wikipedia edits, editors are making unconscious judgments about what is right or wrong from grammatical, to stylistic/editorial, to factual according to their abilities. There is no need for us to shy away from such conscious discussion. Of course, they often get their grammar objectively wrong too but that is another issue ;-). --LevenBoy (talk) 02:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that when a reliable source is proven wrong it should be made unreliable and taken out. For example when a correction is discovered in a news paper or magazine, that acknowledges what was printed was incorrect then the source, (atleast for the Wiki article it is used for should be declared unreliable.  Another instance is where a book publishes a fact that is then countered by almost every single other source, then that book should be declared unreliable too.  Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, this is now about the more general question. Concerning the more general question then, please consider that there are sometimes more complex cases. I was involved in a debate with someone who found mathematical errors in the data table of a peer reviewed article, and then argued that the whole article should be erased from mention on Wikipedia, although the article was being cited by other mainstream sources and was apparently part of what the field knew. Context was that he started out from a position opposed to one of the conclusions of the article, and then read the article and found the problem in the data table. He cited WP:UCS. (And because he was deleting a source, not adding, and deleting a source gets benefit of the doubt these days, I found very little community interest in getting involved. Try citing WP:UCS as an argument for keeping a source!) Does your advice still apply in such a case or would you adjust your wording a bit?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Even the best (most reliable) sources can contain factual errors. If you discover that a source contains such an error, the error (or potential error) should be discussed at the talk page, and the editors should determine how to resolve the problem, by consensus.  Note... the fact that a source contains an error does not necessarily make the entire source unreliable (that, of course, depends on the nature of the error).
 * The difficult situations are those where there disagreement over whether something a source says actually is an error or not. But the solution to the problem is the same... discuss the situation on the talk page and work towards a consensus.
 * To put it bluntly... the issue of what to do when a source potentially contains an error isn't something that can be "legislated" in policy, because each situation will be unique. Debates over potential errors can only be worked out on the talk pages. Blueboar (talk) 15:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable to me. I mentioned a complex example basically as a response to a simpler description which was perhaps suggesting that it would be possibly to write a policy on this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

"Demonstrate consensus"
A couple months ago, an edit was made that fundamentally changed the standards for scientific consensus:

Prior to this, a claim of scientific consensus needed to be sourced to a reliable secondary source that actually declared that a scientific consensus existed. Now editors are free to "demonstrate" a scientific consensus by citing a bunch of disparate sources. This kind of meta-analysis is a violation of WP:NOR. We shouldn't claim that a scientific consensus exists unless someone else says it exists.

The edit was reverted, in part, but the "demonstrated" verbiage remains. I think we should revert to the left side of the above diff, and again require sourcing for claims of scientific consensus. Gigs (talk) 21:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, but that's question of proper citation and WP:OR. Strictly speaking calling someting scientific consensus without some source explicitly saying so is WP:OR by the author. In relatively undisputed cases such an approach might be acceptable, i.e. assumung the author is well versed in the subject and not POV pushing and essentially simply stated a common perception in the field (without having a literal external source at hand). But at least in disputed cases a source explicitly stating a scientific consensus is absolutely required. The current formulation could still be understood in a correct manner, i.e. one could read it as "requires reliable sourcing that demonstrates the consensus" = "a reliable source needs to explicitly talk of a scientific consensus". However the original formulation was more explicit and less prone to potential misunderstandings. I'm fine with restoring the original version. --Kmhkmh (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree that "Now editors are free to "demonstrate" a scientific consensus by citing a bunch of disparate sources" because the "making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material" sentence specifically prevents that. This whole guideline paragraph reads like fallout from some great global warming dispute or whatever, rather than advice that is useful generally. Most facts are uncontroversial, or are claimed to be controversial only by a tiny minority. So, IMO it is usually best to avoid making explicit statements that "all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view" and just state the view, citing the best source one can find. Those who believe they are not only right but in the majority tend not to say so: they just boldly make their case. It is those who know they are in the minority that make a song and dance about how many believe this and how many don't. Colin°Talk 22:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that such statements are not often appropriate, which is why I think we should go back to the older, more explicit, wording.  Do you think anything was wrong with the old wording?   Why should we introduce a new concept of "demonstrating a consensus exists"? It sounds a lot like original research to me, even with the second sentence still in place. Gigs (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think this text is causing any problems (has anyone encountered a problem in a live article over this?), but it may not be optimally clear. We have two possible issues:
 * You read a bunch of sources, you learn from the sources what the mainstream views are, and you write the article to correctly reflect those views: This is source-based research, which is explicitly endorsed by NOR, and all good editors do it.  (POV pushers read all the sources, learn what the mainstream views are, and write the article to reflect their POV anyway.)
 * You want to include a sentence that directly says "The consensus is ____": This is the (sole) point of this section.  You normally need a source that directly says "The consensus is ____", or something remarkably close to that (e.g., some authority group says "After studying the issue, we have adopted the following guidelines").  It might be clearer to say "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that demonstrates the consensus directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've incorporated your suggestion, with a minor modification to add the word "Otherwise" in front of the next sentence. That satisfies my concern. Gigs (talk) 02:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with Gigs. -- JN 466  23:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with the edit... but a word of caution is required... this is where IRS overlaps with both NPOV and NOR ... so we should double check that what we say here is in sync with what is stated at those policies. (I think it is... but we need to make sure... and if it isn't, then we need a centralized discussion to achieve a true consensus).  Blueboar (talk) 15:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Adding pages to list of Reliable Sources
Though I am not sure whether this is the right place to post my query/proposal, I decided to give it a try. While planning to put the external link from fxwords.com, I came to know about this page. I feel that the link can be considered amongst reliable sources and this applies to the entire site as well. I find the site blacklisted instead and the same cannot be posted even on this page. Please suggest.  D ip ta ns hu Talk 15:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Exceptional individuals wanted for challenging two-year assignment
You are: an effective communicator with a sound grasp of policy; able to see all aspects of a problem and find solutions; courteous, disciplined and open-minded; able to deal calmly with trolls, bigots and editors with issues; able to make up your own mind under stress.

If you can answer "yes" to most of the above, you are probably arbitrator material. Learn more about standing in the upcoming election. But don't delay, nomination close very soon! Tony  (talk)  16:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC), for the election coordinators


 * PS: You must also be able to prove your real name (with a copy of your passport) to "The Office" in case any litigation as a result of your actions arises.  Giacomo   17:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The purpose of providing identification is to verify age. All editors are responsible for their actions, regardless of whether or not they are identified. Risker (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

new diary
i have come across a diary hand written dated 28,11,59 detailing the outward voyage of the ss kenya by to lady passengers,you can read the diary ,buy if you turn the diary over there is lots of old croosswords stuck to the back of each page ,the one lady was a midwife  and  i also have her records of chil birhts  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.100.248 (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Here We Go Again (Newspaper op-eds)
Just when I thought we managed to make a distinction between newspaper news and opinion, a recent revert called my attention to the following paragraph:

"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."

This appears contradictory, and does not seem to fit in with the changes made to the earlier section on newspapers. The first sentence, to at least the casual reader, contradicts the second. Are they reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, or are they reliable sources, depending on context? The second appears to confer a lot more reliability than the first. Furthermore, my experience is that American op-eds often are meant to give a platform to a viewpoint that the newspaper considers newsworthy, while the content may be extremely POV and often factually questionable. I think the second sentence needs to be replaced. All American op-eds confer is notability, and then the content is as reliable as the author giving a public lecture, reported as such in a news source.

Just to clarify, I have never edited the article itself.Mzk1 (talk) 17:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Almost everything is a reliable source, depending on context. I agree that statement isn't saying much, and yet manages to do it in a misleading way. Gigs (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've edited it. Gigs (talk) 00:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. Hopefully, this will help stop abuse of the newspaper clause, particularly by people with a chip on their shoulder.Mzk1 (talk) 21:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

reverted changes

 * I reverted the changes at They aren't difficult all the time, just sometimes.  And are reliable in "many" situations, not just "limited situations".  There is no problem quoting a Noble winning scientists directly on their findings, others having already looked over their research and confirmed it was valid, thus the reason they won such a notable award.  Primary sources are used in cast listings for television shows and movies, as well as for finding out the name of a writer, artists, or whatnot for comic books, and other media.  When an episode, film, game, or scheduled to be available, comes from the primary source, there no reason not to quote them and state where the information comes from.  They'd know better than anyone else.  Also, with fictional characters or any fictional works, the primary source is the authority, of course.  If the company publishes an encyclopia/handbook listing all the facts from a movie, comic book series, television series, game series, or whatever, then of course the information about the characters and history of those fictional universes is not in doubt.   D r e a m Focus  17:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Magazine articles?
I'm sure you all have discussed this, but I'm not finding magazine articles in the guidelines. They seem to be problematic, because most of them are "creative nonfiction", and they are not even intended to provide an NPOV (if they did, they'd be too lacking in drama to sell). Also, MastCell recently recommended to me a book that documents magazine articles (and news, but there's not much anyone can do about that) being commissioned or "planted" as a public relations tactic. Of course the whole subject of "public relations", or PR, is relevant to the reliable sourcing debate, but again, not much we can do about it - one person's despicable "obvious PR plant" is another person's admirable "reliable secondary source", and a shouting match isn't going to change that. So, let's just focus on the status of articles, that give the impression of facts, in reasonably respected magazines. Thanks, Postpostmod (talk) 14:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you give some examples of the kind of articles you mean? There are, literally, thousands of magazines in English alone that do strive in many if not all articles to give an NPOV, and there is no problem in principle with using them as sources - I wonder if it is a specific subset of magazines you are thinking about? Barnabypage (talk) 14:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * One might want, for example, to distinguish between The Economist and Soap Opera Digest, and also to take the subject matter into account. A fashion magazine might be a perfectly good source for information about a fashion designer, but a lousy source for information about politics or climate change.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I think any magazine can be successfully targeted by a skillful public relations agent, for whom such activities are his bread and butter. Ideally, it would be a magazine of high prestige among the intended audience members. Obviously, some money would have to change hands, as well-connected PR agents aren't cheap, and probably the writer(s) of the article aren't either. The article couldn't be blatantly offensive to the audience, or dangerous to the magazine in terms of libel or advertising revenues. Other than that, any magazine that publishes free-lance general interest articles and reaches the intended target audience would be a suitable candidate. Presumably the more prestigious the publication, the higher the fees of the agent and writer, as in some forms of medical ghostwriting. [Note: non-chronological date on this post is due to invitation to reinsert it, after it was politely reverted due to my wikiformatting error - I put it after the comment to which I was responding]Postpostmod (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I would not argue that one should not use the Economist as a source, but NPOV it is not; I don't know if any newsmagazines are. I'm sure it does have fact-checkers, though, as do many magazines. On the other hand, I recall reading an article by someone who was told by a fact checker that as long as something she wrote was in a book - even a book by the same author(!) - it would be enough.Mzk1 (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Our sources are not required to be neutral... we are. And a source can be non-neutral and yet still be perfectly reliable. Blueboar (talk) 01:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed NPOV is a guideline for the content written by an WP author and not a guideline for the sources he might use. And as pointed out above already one needs to apply common sense when picking sources and judge them individually regarding their reliability for the information that is used.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, PRs target magazines (and not only freelances). But one of the things that distinguishes reliable sources is that they don't merely parrot the positions of PRs - while at the other end of the scale would, for example, be those Websites that just publish press releases verbatim. We can't, of course, detect every minute influence that PR activity might have, but we can still say broadly that magazines with a solid journalistic reputation and/or professional editorial team are sufficiently unlikely to be so excessively influenced by PR that they would cease to be reliable sources. Barnabypage (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking my concern seriously and explaining. I agree, it's tricky and there's no absolute rule that can be used to judge whether an article has been unduly influenced, so any kind of guideline is problematic. What if an article in an otherwise reputable magazine specifically mentions that the author of the article has been in contact with a PR agent hired by the subject? Of course, this doesn't mean the article is "untrue", just that if it's on a controversial subject it might be slanted toward one side, perhaps the wealthier side ;-), by hired guns. Maybe this could be helped by attribution - if there's a question as to the objective nature of the source, it could be prefaced by, say, "A 2005 article published in The Economist said that....". If the author of the article is a known partisan on the particular issue being addressed, the author could also be identified (e.g. "A 2005 article by John Doe published in ....)", otherwise that's probably unnecessary, and could be viewed as PR on behalf of the article's author ;-). It might get a little clunky as a consistent writing style, but it would ensure that editors are not, knowingly or unknowingly, repeating "PR" as "fact", and it would ensure that even if the source isn't objective, "we are". Or at least trying to be. Probably worth it in contentious articles where editors on each side don't trust the other's objectivity. Thanks, Postpostmod (talk) 15:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I see where you're coming from, but equally I see a couple of problems with the direction you're heading in:
 * (a) What if an article in an otherwise reputable magazine specifically mentions that the author of the article has been in contact with a PR agent hired by the subject?
 * Well, this happens all the time - it's a very routine part of journalism. Are we going to start distrusting every piece that quotes "a spokesman for Company X" (who will very often be a PR agent)? I think not - I think we have to place our trust in the editorial process of the publication to weed out any PR-induced bias. After all, in the case of media organisations, it's in part because of their editors' ability to do so that we treat them as reliable sources in the first place.
 * (b) If an article has been unduly influenced by a PR agenda, it's very unlikely to acknowledge this - the writer may go to lengths to conceal the extent of the influence, or indeed may themselves be unaware of it. So singling out articles that acknowledge contact with PR people seems doubly unfair.
 * Having said that, I agree that if the author of the article is a known partisan on the particular issue, that's certainly a valid reason to doubt the reliability of the source. Again, though, the whole context - author, publication, topic, specific assertions - need to be taken into account. People who are partisan on specific aspects of a topic may well be totally reliable on others. Barnabypage (talk) 16:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I agree that it would be impossible to sort out all PR agent-planted articles from the mass of magazine publications, even ones.
 * I was thinking more of general interest magazines, which are not expected to hew to NPOV, rather than news magazines, which (theoretically, at least) might be expected to strive for NPOV.
 * What do you think about my attribution suggestion? The idea is, then WP editors can summarize any article from a source that is considered "respectable", while making clear in the text (rather than footnote) that it comes from a publication that commonly includes, say, dramatic human interest stories, rather than limiting itself to "news". Say, for example, the NYT Magazine, rather than the NYT. Thanks again for your helpful comments, Postpostmod (talk) 15:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My gut reaction would be that if we feel the need to spell out the possible unreliability of a source, then we probably shouldn't be using it in the first place. But can you give me some examples of the kind of magazines/articles that you mean? Barnabypage (talk) 15:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Section about primary, secondaty, etc. sources
THe section says: Although Wikipedia articles are tertiary sources, Wikipedia contains no systematic mechanism for fact checking or accuracy. This phrase is highly misleading and does much dissevice to wikipedia. IMO it has several problems.
 * I fail to see why wikipedia must be put in an opposition to, say, Encyclopedia Britannica. I'd like anyone to describe "systematic mechanisms for fact checking and accuracy" in any other encyclopedia. This would be an instructive addition to the corresponding wikipedia articles.
 * I fail to see why wikipedia has no this mechanism: its citation policy is extremely systematic and solid mechanism. Other thing that any moron may disrupt it for short time, but this is a different issue.

I vaguely understand what this phrase is supposed to convey, but IMO currently it does its job quite poorly. Unfortunately I cannot suggest a better phrasing yet. Lovok Sovok (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it is extremely accurate. We don't have any systematic mechanism for fact checking or accuracy. Blueboar (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Blueboar. Our editors, us, do our own checking. We might do a good job, but we have no stand-apart process for checking that. A fact checking mechanism is a term which implies a mechanism separating from the job of editing itself. It does not in itself mean "poor quality" either.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It is rather incorrect nevertheless, because it kinda implies other tertiary resources contrary to WP do always possess systematic mechanism to check accuracy. The correct formulation is merely the second part, which is anyhow the only information that matters here, i.e. the line should be only: Wikipedia contains no systematic mechanism for fact checking or accuracy.--Kmhkmh (talk) 07:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

(69.255.160.227 (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC))
 * I think you are reading an implication that isn't there. Fact checking one of the keys to reliability... some tertiary sources are considered reliable because they have a mechanism for fact checking... others are considered unreliable because they do not.  Wikipedia falls into the latter category. Blueboar (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with your description of tertiary sources, but the current formulation suggest that implication as it starts with "although". That whole half sentence is pointless and misleading, since as you 've just pointed out there is no direct connection between being a tertiary source an having a fact checking mechanism. If you merely want to combine the information of being a tertiary sozrce and having no systematic fact checking mechanism, you'd simply write "WP is a tertiary source that has no systematic fact checking mechanism", but you'd not start with "although".--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Religious texts
I have noticed various Wikipedia articles using religious texts(eg the Torah or Bible) as their source. If the article is about some figure in the text, then this is the case, but for instance, the article of Jerusalem uses the Book of Joshua as one of its reliable sources. Is this Standard Wikipedia Policy? 41.133.47.252 (talk) 09:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Debate is possible depending on the context. I do not think it is possible to have a "standard" answer. Keep in mind that for example the Iliad is frequently discussed by archaeologists also.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Andrew is correct... Context is important... A lot depends on what is specifically being said in the article. The Bible is certainly an acceptable source for a statement as to what is said in the Bible.  It would not be an acceptable source for unqualified statements as to historical fact. Blueboar (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:NPOV gives some guidance on this. Holy texts are used in religion and history articles, but they do not get the final say. Nor are they excluded. Where the holy text contradicts modern archaeological research, for example, we note that some adherents follow the text, that modern archaeology says something different, and that some adherents have revised their views in light of this (i.e., fundamentalists don't get to be the sole voice in their religion). The same procedure holds on one set of holy books contradicts another.  RJC  TalkContribs 21:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We also need to remember that "the Bible" was not originally written in English... and there are multiple translations and versions. They don't all say the same thing.  This can be true in for the texts of other faiths as well. Blueboar (talk) 17:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Aren't these texts primary sources and shouldn't we seek secondaries before blindly posting that "The Bible gives 3 as the value of Pi", when of course there is no such explicit statement of mathematical formulas there. Hcobb (talk) 21:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Is someone posting that the Bible gives 3 as the value of pi somewhere in Wikipedia? If they did this would not be verifiable in the Bible, which is a published text, so the problems with that would be obvious, and no subtle discussion of Wikipedia policy about primary and secondary sources would be needed surely? (Primary sources can be used in Wikipedia depending on context, but I am not sure discussion of that is relevant in the example you give. For example there is no point finding a secondary source just so you can write that "According to a famous commentator, a famous book says "...."." Secondary sources are important but when the context requires a direct quote from a primary source, we generally just quote the primary source, and not a quote of a quote of a quote so to speak.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't think of many situations where religious scripture would be an appropriate sole source. There's enough scholarly literature to describe religious belief, e.g. from academic theology. Of course we can often add a link to "chapter and verse" for convenience and ease of verification. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As always, quotations of religious texts have to be cited to the edition/version/translation reproduced in the text. Paraphrases likewise need to be cited at least that far; if controversial that need to be cited to an outside secondary authority. Mangoe (talk) 14:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * For context... this is the section of the Jerusalem article in question. I think the reference is quite appropriate.  It is an attributed statement along the lines of "According to the biblical account..." (with an inline link to where in the bible the account can be found) Blueboar (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Attribution is likely to fix most concerns in most such cases I can think of, indeed. I think it is just a specific type of primary source, within the category "very well known and old". It would be quite common to include direct quotes within an article about, say, the Iliad, or Moby Dick, but these will of course normally be attributed. By definition classic works are not their own commentaries, so indeed there will not be many cases where you could even be tempted to use them like a secondary source (and a secondary style is also what any attempt to connect an old primary source, the Iliad, to real history, Trojan archaeology, would require). Don't really see much room for confusion here?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If the problem phrase is "According to Hebrew scripture, King David reigned until 970 BCE", scripture does not say that; someone's analysis of scripture says that, and therefore the source of that analysis is what needs to be cited. Mangoe (talk) 16:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * True, but can we use the Bible to say that according to the biblical account Moses was the brother of Aaaron? I think that would be unobjectionable. The fact that secondary sources are preferable to primary sources doesn't mean that you can't use the primary source because you happen to have it handy. Even then, I think the Bible is a special case in that the secondary source should be cited alongside it, rather than replace the biblical citation. This is because someone might want to see the original, given the importance of claims made about it.  RJC  TalkContribs 16:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds right to me.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Affirm WP:RNPOV and RJC's fine exposition of it (note spelling Aaron). In the version of Jerusalem I just peeked at, one sentence uses the Talmud properly as primary source, and two sentences use the Bible as primary source, although only the first of the two makes the attribution explicit (but this can be fixed with a semicolon if anyone objects). The current version is a good application of the general principle: In any tension between religious texts and scientific discovery, just like other tensions, all POVs should be given appropriate space, whether fundamentalist, modernist, scientist, or other. JJB 19:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ...if they are notable enough?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Rather than "if they are notable enough", I think it better to say "so long as mentioning them does not give them undue weight". Same thing, but ties it to the language used in policy. Blueboar (talk) 01:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Heads-up
There's a new essay and proposed guideline on the contents of "Further reading" sections at WP:Further reading. It is still only a couple of days old, so constructive comments are more useful than !votes at this point. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources with user-generated content
Can the policy page include material on sources with user generated content? On the WP:V policy page, the section on Questionable sources and Self-published sources already mention sources with poor editorial control, and sources whose content is indeed user-generated, like open wikis, blogs, forums, etc. I asked on the WP:V talk page if those two sections could be combined into one, and was told I should take that discussion here. Nightscream (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Structure of this policy text
Is it just me or has this policy page evolved over time until the lead no longer contains any summary of the policy? The basic "headline" summary now appears to be in the "Overview" section. The intro itself is now all about where the policy sits in context etc. That does not seem a great style to me. Obviously the policies are intended to be easily read and understood by all Wikipedia editors?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)