Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 3

My view of this debate
I just noticed a mention of this on the Village pump. It appears to me that Fahrenheit451 does not understand the Verifiability policy (Verifiability), and that Reliable sources is really a corollary guideline in support of the Verifiability policy. I applaud SlimVirgin's efforts to keep this guideline consistent with the policy.


 * You presumption is incorrect. I suggest you stop guessing and speculating.  The issues here involve many editors and the WP:NOR as well.

The real dispute here is over the Verifiability policy. Basically, Fahrenheit451 is unable to accept that assertions made on personal Web pages are inherently unreliable and unverifiable. It sounds like he or she has never done actual historical research. Furthermore, it's not too hard to find articles stored within databases run by reputable information providers; see How to write a great article, which I have made extensive contributions to. For an example of what a properly researched article looks like, see the heavily footnoted Lawyer article, which I completely revised a month ago.


 * Wrong again. Stop guessing and speculating.  Start asking.  I see from you user page that you are an attorney.  Perhaps you should employ your questioning skills, if extant, to ascertain the facts. --Fahrenheit451 00:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course, I have the advantage of living in a U.S. state that prides itself on open access to information (there are over 40 libraries with public access within 10 miles of where I sit right now). If Fahrenheit451 is too lazy, busy, old, infirm, disabled, etc. to go out there and dig up some reliable resources (they're called books), he or she may wish to limit their participation in Wikipedia to activities that do not require research, like editing or uploading self-taken photographs. --Coolcaesar 20:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I am glad that you like California. It so happens that Florida has a stronger public records law in our constitution, and plenty of municipal libraries in the urbanized counties. I responded to your trolling personal attack below. --Fahrenheit451 00:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Please cool-off. Take a break if you need to. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 00:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * In response to Fahrenheit451: Well, all your responses were conclusory statements rather than persuasive ones! That is, you merely stated my analysis is wrong, but you didn't say why.  Turning back to the point, can you actually adduce any facts in support of your apparent belief that at least some personal websites are reliable sources?  I have already noted here and elsewhere on Wikipedia the widespread availability of many reputable sources other than personal websites.  --Coolcaesar 19:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

O.K. A personal website that displays affidavits and depositions would be as reliable as a corporate website that did same. --Fahrenheit451 23:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * A corperation has a governing body and is owned by its public. Its governing body owes their jobs to the stockholders of the corperation in one way or another, thence, a number of people, in one manner or another, have an interest in the quality the corperation posts and maintains.  It is the element of responsibility that makes a personal website both powerful (can publish  literally anything at all) and unreliable (one person can change their published views at any moment.  Generally, a personal website will tend to be less stable, less conservative, more flambouant, more colorful and more responsive. While a personal website, funded by one person's own resources might contain the purest fantesy, a corperation website is in place to uphold an income and an image.  By nature a corperation tends to be more stable and reliable than one person's fleeting opinion. Terryeo 02:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Terryeo, that is not true. A corporation can have one person as shareholder. That person could use the corporation as a shell against legal liabilities. A large corporation can have widely held faulty notions promulaged by top management. I think you can find many examples of this. A corporate website can contain blatantly false information, for example to misinform stockholders or potential stockholders about the financial condition of the corporation. It can also contain other false information to forward the objectives or POV of corporate management. --Fahrenheit451 02:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If I spend $200 CAN on an incorporation with myself as sole corporate officer, are my web sites no longer personal web sites? AndroidCat 03:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * My statement was not meant to persuade, but to point out why personal websites are inherently less stable and less reliable than established organizations are.Terryeo 15:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks are a violation of wikipedia policy
Coolcaesar, you do not know me and I do not appreciate your personal attacks at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources. In fact, I have done much library research both in school and in college. I have an extensive personal library at home. I encourage you to constructively participate in our discussion. If you cannot do that, perhaps you should take your own hostile advice and limit your "participation in Wikipedia to activities that do not require research, like editing or uploading self-taken photographs". --Fahrenheit451 23:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with you, Fahrenheit451. I too do not appreciate this user's personal attacks. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  15:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The man stated his opinion, "appears ..." and made no personal attack and backed up what he said by pointing to the appropriate areas he was saying that were not being understood. What personal attack?  Fahrenheit451 made a large number of inappropriate edits of the guideline and it wasn't until ChrisO told him otherwise that he accepted that his place to go, toward getting what he wanted, was the Village Pump.  What "personal attack?"  There was no personal attack.  Personal attacks are direct name calling sorts of things and not the sort of "this is how the situation appears to me" sort of statement Coolcaesar made. Terryeo 05:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

FAQ's
This article really needs to mention something about FAQ's. We need some guidance on this. For example, there is the "An Anarchist FAQ." If an editor on Wikipedia is one of the writers of that FAQ, and a sources is requested of him, all he has to do is add his original research to the FAQ and then come back and attempt to cite it. This has actually happened when I requested a source of someone. The FAQ is initially issued from a geocities.com website then it's circulated around, so how can it be claimed that it is a "partisan website"? What is the exact policy on this? RJII 20:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This has actually happened when I requested a source of someone. Unsupportable accusation. RJII has personal problems with the FAQ. Read the above section "Citation fraud?" for his attempts to accuse one user of doing this. Now he's asserting his accusation as truth. -- infinity  0  20:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That website is what the policy refers to a "Personal website". As such, it cannot be used as a reference for anything other than the article An Anarchist FAQ itself. That is, if that website is notable enough to warrant an article in WP. I am not familiar with the subject, but if there are concerns of notability, you could try and ask for comments from other editors, via an WP:RFC.  Now, in regard to your concern about the author of that FAQ editing the article in WP about that FAQ, please note that this is strongly discouraged by the community. See WP:AUTO ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 20:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That website is not a personal website, just because it is hosted by geocities. "An Anarchist FAQ" is a widely distributed and well-received document in the anarchist community and it would be a crime not to allow it to be used as a source. It's mirrored on many websites, such as http://www.infoshop.org/faq/ which is the most popular anarchist website on the net. -- infinity  0  21:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * But you've said elsewhere that people are allowed to add material to it, is that right? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Everything is checked by the editors. See http://www.infoshop.org/faq/intro.html for details. -- infinity  0  21:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Are they published writers or researchers, or otherwise known? If not, I don't see how that helps. Example of the problem with personal and unsupervised websites: You added something to a Wikipedia article and it's challenged. The other editor asks you for a source. You look around and can't find one. So you go to this website and you add the material there. So long as it looks vaguely acceptable to the others, they won't remove it. Then you use the website as a source for your original edit on Wikipedia. That's exactly the kind of scenario this policy seeks to avoid. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there any way to get some kind of a ruling on the "An Anarchist FAQ." People are going to try to cite as a secondary source over and over. It would be good if there could be some kind of decision that could be referenced. Is an RFC, like Jossi suggested, the best way to go about this? RJII 03:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Can someone explain exactly how it works i.e. what the procedure is when people want to add something to it? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * SlimVirgin, it seems to be an "organic document" that keeps being edited (I found at least ten different versions in multiple mirrors). Theres is some copyright info and the names of the main contributors here: . ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 03:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Given the fluid nature of this document, and given that it is released under the GNU, one possibility would be to simply add it to Wikisource, and having an short article here. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 03:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been told that anyone can add to it. Is that right? If so, what's the procedure? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not think that there is a formal process as such. Seems that Ian McKay is the main writer. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 03:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It says this in the intro page of the FAQ: "We are sure that there are many issues that the FAQ does not address. If you think of anything we could add or feel you have a question and answer which should be included, get in contact with us. The FAQ is not our "property" but belongs to the whole anarchist movement and so aims to be an organic, living creation. We desire to see it grow and expand with new ideas and inputs from as many people as possible. If you want to get involved with the FAQ then contact us. Similarly, if others (particularly anarchists) want to distribute all or part of it then feel free. It is a resource for the movement. For this reason we have "copylefted" the FAQ (see http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html for details)." And it says at the bottom of the page: "Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.1 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation, and/or the terms of the GNU General Public License, Version 2.0 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation." From mirror version at Infoshop.org I don't know how this kind of GNU thing works. Does this mean anyone can modify it and put it on their own website? Or do you have to email them or what? I don't know. But, it appears that the geocities site is where it originates. Whoever is running that site can add what they want and it eventually gets distributed around. But, it says permission is granted to modify, so does that mean I can edit it and post it? I don't know. RJII 04:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is the FAQ page on the Geocities cite: . It has a link to contact the "small collective" that works on the FAQ: From that, it looks like, you can email them and if they like what you want to put in the FAQ they'll add it to the version on that website. RJII 04:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

So, can anyone add information to this article specifically about FAQs, such as this? RJII 15:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed all the statements sourced by the An Anarchist FAQ in the Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism article, and user:infinity0 comes along and puts them back in. What can be done about this violation of policy? Wikipedia information should not be corrupted by a non-credible source. RJII 18:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * RJII, you are demanding the source be excluded from wikipedia. An Anarchist FAQ is as viable a source as a published book on anarchism. It is published, just on the net. It is constantly being updated. Please give up this charade of "unreliability"; the bottom line is, you don't like what it says. -- infinity  0  18:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * SlimVirgin, this source is very widely distributed and well-received - see An Anarchist FAQ. The editors are the guardians of the FAQ - they check all submissions carefully and they make sure that it is of sufficient quality to add. It is no more unreliable than a published book or whatever; although the content has originated from many different people, it has been checked by people who are well-educated in the subject, and know a lot about it. -- infinity  0  18:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * "Published" on the net doesn't count. It's self-published on a Geocities.com website by people who apparently have no academic qualifications to comment. Just like the editorial comment on Wikipedia wouldn't be a credible source, neither is the FAQ. We can't have a situation where some Joe Blow can put original research into Wikipedia, then when someone requests a source, he goes and adds his original research to the FAQ and come back and cites it. RJII 18:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * RJII, you are needlessly attacking the authors. The document is very widely-received. You don't know their qualifications, yet you choose to imply instead that they have none. -- infinity  0  18:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Infinity, the authors would have to be published authors in that field; otherwise, we can't use them. Do you know whether the authors are published, or in any way qualified in the field? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The FAQ cannot be used as a primary source to describe what anarchists think, just because the qualifications of its authors are unknown? They are anarchists, which qualifies their opinion to be anarchist opinion. With all due respect I don't think you realise the scope of this document. People have written about it in academic journals. -- infinity  0  19:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * So what if they're anarchists? That in itself doesn't qualify them as an authority on the philosophies on anarchist philosophy. For argument's sake, let's assume you're an anarchist. You go and type up an article about anarchism and post it on a website you set up. Do you really think that should be citable on Wikipedia? If you post it on 100 websites, does it give it any more credibility? No. Because you have no academic credentials, you haven't written in any journals, and are not a published author. You're just Joe Blow Internet Anarchist, a self-proclaimed authority on anarchist philosophy. It means nothing here. Wikipedia has sourcing standards. RJII 02:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * And, even if one person was found to be academically qualified, since the FAQ says there are a variety of contributors (and apparently you can email them to get your stuff in the FAQ if the guy who runs the Geocities cite likes it) how is one to know who said what in the FAQ? RJII 18:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Dude, obey the Wikipedia policy. RJII 18:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I have email confirmation from AK Press.

zach blue  to me More options  Apr 27 (1 day ago)

Ximin,

We do not have a release date for it but the administrators of the FAQ are hard at work editing it down into a few volumes. Hopefully we'll see it in the next couple years but until then you'll have to read it online.

take care,

Zach (for AK Press)

The FAQ is going to be published by AK Press, no doubt about it. Thank you, RJII, and good night. -- infinity  0  17:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "Going to be published" is not good enough. And, "in the next couple of years"? LOL. Yeah right. RJII 02:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

If it's written by anarchists, for anarchists, about anarchists, doesn't that qualify as a primary source, i.e., one that can only be cited about itself (itself being the site, not anarchy). As an ironic twist, the entire point of anarchy means that what some self-described anarchists say about anarchy can't be representative, yes? &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 02:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit by Simetrical
Please seek consensus before making sweeping changes to an established guideline. I am copying your edit below, so that it can be discussed. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 05:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I didn't expect it would be controversial, or I wouldn't have made it without discussion.  I'm rather perplexed, but I'll try to explain why I think it should be there. &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Current version

At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources. Rare exceptions may be when a well-known professional person or acknowledged expert in a relevant field has set up a personal website using his or her real name. Even then, we should proceed with caution, because the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking.


 * Edit by

At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are mostly not acceptable as sources. Exceptions would include citing an eyewitness account to support a description of an event, citing a post made by a person to support a relevant quote from that person (for instance, an edit to a Wikipedia talk page by Jimbo Wales in the Wikipedia article to quote an opinion of his), or citing a website to provide primary-source documentation of an Internet phenomenon (e.g., a link in the O RLY article to the original owl image's posting or to a message-board post using the modified version). What is key is that all of these sources are primary evidence, and therefore inherently trustworthy; be much more cautious about citing secondary evidence from the Internet.


 * Comments
 * I wouldn't support that, and it would contradict parts of V and NOR. We're not supposed to use primary sources unless they've been published by a reliable source e.g. court transcripts published by a court stenographer. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see what parts of WP:V or WP:NOR it would contradict (not counting the places where they refer to WP:RS). Obviously, the primary source would have to be verifiable, but where such a primary source exists, there's no reason to exclude it.  Take, say, Jimmy Wales.  That cites a primary source, Wikimedia's budget.  Is that not verifiable?  It's quite verifiable; a link is provided, and any number of reliable sources will tell you that wikimedia.org is the official website of the Foundation. As for original research, that page states that "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is . . . strongly encouraged."  Or, in my words, documenting existing and verifiable primary sources is within Wikipedia's scope, is what I was getting at.  What exactly do you disagree with here? &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Posts in USENET, forums, message boards, etc. are not reliable sources and should not be given exceptions as proposed. "Primary evidence" implies a value judgement on the part of editors about what consists "evidence" (as it compares with an "opinion"), and if that "evidence" should be trustworthy or not. That is outside of the realm of what this project is about. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 05:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this. In certain limited cases, the identity of a website's author, message board user, etc. can be verified.  (For instance, many Internet forums that serve as "official" forums of a certain company will add a special graphic, such as the company logo, next to employees' names to verify their identity.)  If this is true in a given case, how is a statement by such an individual not every bit as reliably attributable to that individual as if they said it in a news interview?  What, in fact, is "unreliable" about such a communication?  And how can you say that editors' evaluating the trustworthiness of evidence is outside the realm of this project, on the talk page of an editor-written guideline about the trustworthiness of evidence? &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Not acceptable edit. I would even vote for removing the rare exception for "experts".  Experts publish their work in peer reviewed journals and we don't need their Blog entries as sources.  Blogs should only be used as quote material for the editor that made the entry.  i.e. Joe Blow said "blah blah blah [cite blog here] --Tbeatty 06:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's all I was saying. If you can verify that X runs a blog/has a user account/whatever at a certain place, then if "Y" is written in that blog/by that user account/whatever, that should be citeable as a source to substantiate the fact that X did, in fact, say "Y".  As I said: primary source, fine, secondary, bad. &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur with the positions of SlimVirgin, Jossi, and Tbeatty as expressed above. --Coolcaesar 19:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * We're not supposed to use primary sources unless they've been published by a reliable source e.g. court transcripts published by a court stenographer --SV. My response:  You are going overboard with this idea.  If you read WP:V it says even regarding sources of dubias reliability: "Self-published sources, and published sources of dubious reliability, may be used only as sources of information on themselves, and only in articles about them".  And in general it says for self-published sources: "Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material".  I understand that court records are good sources of primary information, but I would also put forward that nearly anyone that has an article about them can have their website cited as a source in an article about them according to WP:V (even Stormfront.org).  And for experts in the field, we can make exceptions to allow their information  in.  Nowhere does WP:V suggest that we are required to use only court transcripts as a reliable source.  For just one example, David Touretzky has a personal web page at Carnegie-Mellon University.  This has been his site for many years and a search of Carnie-Mellon's own systems show that this personal web page belongs to David Touretzky.  So in the article about DST, I believe it is acceptable to use this page as a source for claims about what David has written or published or stated.  And furthermore, I think that his personal website can be used in more than just his own article, but also for any article about one of his fields of expertise.  (meaning he has been declared a published expert in the field by other reliable sources).  I realize that we should prefer to use materials that is published in peer-reviewed journals and efforts should be made to do so, but I see nothing in the policies that indicate that personal websites cannot ever be used.  It looks like exceptions can be made to me.  Vivaldi (talk) 09:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Vivaldi's use of Dave Touretzky's site is particularly apt becuase that individual's site is frequently cited in the Scientology articles he edits in, presenting tourentzky's point of view to Wikipedia's public. A website containing an individual's photo, obviously created and maintained by the individual is obviously his personal site.  That he has opinions on aliens, Scientology or green cheese does not make his website useable as a secondary source, as certain editors would prefer. Terryeo 16:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:RS does state: "A personal website or blog may be used only as a primary source, i.e., when we are writing about the subject or owner of the website." - when Vivaldi cites Dr. Touretzky's website he is doing so as a reference when writing about his claims as a notable critic. Therefore his website is an appropriate source and perfectly falls within guidelines. - Gl e n  TC (Stollery)  16:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't believe you are stating that because Touretzky has some substance as an individual, that his site may be used as a secondary source of information for Scientology articles. The man has a strong opinion about Scientology, such an opinion does not make him right and it does not make him a "recognized expert".  A "recogognized expert" would be a man who testifies before governments and institutions about religion or about specifically, scientology.  In the area of Scientology he is a lone individual with a strong opinion that appeals to some editors.  I can't believe you are saying that his personal website is a citeable source of secondary information in Scientology articles ! Terryeo 19:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * A "rare exceptions" caveat is already included in the wording. Those rare exceptions should be obvious to editors as well as to readers. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 12:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Those rare exceptions should be obvious to editors as well as to readers. -- Jossi. My response:  I don't believe the "rare exceptions" reasons need to be "obvious" to editors as well as readers.  The rare exceptions just need to be accepted by the consensus of editors as necessary for making a good article.  I would expect that these "rare exceptions" would certainly be talked about on the talk page, but stipulating that the reasons need to be "obvious" seems like your own idea.  I would suggest that non-obvious reasons could also possibly be explained and fleshed out on the talk page and those non-obvious reasons could develop a consensus after being discussed. Vivaldi (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The edit obviously violates several policies, and reverses the meaning of a significant section of this guideline. Jayjg (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see my response to SlimVirgin above. &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Silly line
"Personal websites and blogs should not be used as secondary sources. (para) That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website." How exactly would one use a personal site as a secondary source about the same person? The italicized clause is silly because it's impossible. --Davidstrauss 06:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * How is it impossible? The sentence says: Personal websites should not be used as sources on anything or anyone apart from the owner of the website. That is, should not be used as secondary sources or third-party sources. I'm not seeing the silliness or impossibility. SlimVirgin (talk)  07:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Some clarification on "personal website" would still be good - I see no particular reason that, say, the Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5 or Operation Clambake do not count as personal websites. Which just points further towards my main point, which is that these are not claims and issues that can be dealt with via cudgels, and the handing out of cudgels is only causing problems. Phil Sandifer 08:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * One of the things that distinguishes a personal website, or unreliable source, is that it lacks editorial oversight. Jayjg (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Then this section needs heavy revision, as there is no way that's a useful guideline. Phil Sandifer 02:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Clearly you are assuming that an individual is not responsible enough to oversee their own writings. Perhaps you should lecture Shakespeare, Newton, Riemann, and Durant on your theories of editorial oversight. --Fahrenheit451 23:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I'm simply pointing out fact and good practice. Why is it that newspapers and book publishers actually have editors?  Why are respectable journals edited and peer-reviewed?  So that a second (and often third and fourth) set of eyes can have a look at the contents and, among other things, ensure that they are accurate and non-defamatory.  As for your strange statement about Shakespeare etc., Shakespeare wrote fiction. Newton lived in the 17th century and Reimann in the early 19th century, long before the value of editorial overview was recognized.  As for Durant, of course he had editors. Jayjg (talk) 01:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I am trying mightily not to assume bad faith here, but it's getting difficult. Phil Sandifer 02:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There is nothing wrong with claiming bad faith when bad faith is present. --Nikitchenko 01:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * A third and forth set of eyes? Well if that doesn't exist, than what are we all doing here? 70.27.25.7 11:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, my point is that while editorial oversight is desirable for a publication, it is not essential. There is no evidence that Shakespeare had a solicitor review his writings for libelous inferences, and Newton and Riemann held their own quite well without editors going over their works. Durant had some editing help, but was mainly informally from his wife. Works by one person should never be discounted as unacceptable on the basis of it being an individual work.--Fahrenheit451 01:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * What exactly were you going to cite Shakespeare for? Phil Sandifer 02:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Like I stated, Shakespeare did not have an attorney pore over his writings for libelous inferences so that he could publish them with impunity. My point of mentioning that was the contention that personally published material is not necessarily bad because it is not reviewed for legal liabilities by other parties. --Fahrenheit451 03:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The liability issue seems to me to be a far distant second to the reliability issue that they are talking about. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 02:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Query about a sentence
Hi Rjensen, I moved this because I'm not sure what it's saying: "Every research discipline evaluates the quality of its publications through its academic journals and the editors whould rely on those evaluations when evaluating the quality and reliability of the secondary sources." SlimVirgin (talk) 12:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I find that the most comprehensible part of the whole paragraph. Maybe if you explained what you have difficulty understanding, it would help.
 * It appears to be an attempt to clarify and explain the rest of the paragraph, which is otherwise self-contradictory, and which, as many people have have suggested on this talk page, uses words and phrases with something other than their ordinary meanings in the English language. Gene Nygaard 13:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I still do not understand what you are saying. Can you please clarify your points? ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 16:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be helpful. Jayjg (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to see you agree with me for once. Gene Nygaard 06:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was agreeing with jossi, who, like me, is having difficulty understanding what you are going on about. Do you speak a different dialect of English where all words have different meanings? Jayjg (talk) 01:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * And, if it is my point you are asking about, it is simply this: SlimVirgin is the one who needs to clarify what she is saying. I am not the one being asked to explain the sentence, but if anyone is going to be able explain the sentence to SlimVirgin, it would be helpful for SlimVirgin  to first explain what she is having difficulty understanding. Gene Nygaard 07:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Gene, could you explain what you mean by the phrases "explain the sentence" and "difficulty understanding"? Jayjg (talk) 01:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * (Scratching head) I've come from somewhere other than Snarkyland to see what's going on here. Let's see. Every research discipline evaluates the quality of its publications through its academic journals and the editors whould rely on those evaluations when evaluating the quality and reliability of the secondary sources. Since there's no word "whould", I guess my spell-checker could interpret it several ways. I suppose it could be "editors who rely on it", meaning the sentence is saying "X evaluates Y through its Z and (the editors who rely on those evauations)." But that just seems wrong, since research disciplines don't evaluate the quality of their publications based upon people who rely on those evaluations. So, maybe it's supposed to be "would", but then it makes no sense whatsoever. A third guess would be "should". OK, that means "(X evaluates Y through its Z) and (editors should rely on those evaluations when evaluating...)" That maybe starts to make some grammatical sense (though aesthetically, the repetition of "evaluate" is sure awkward). Semantically, though I still don't really get it. Aren't the publications of a research discipline its academic journals? So doesn't this say, "X evaluates the quality of Y through Y"?  --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 02:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Unreliable sources
Just as someone boldly removed vandalism, I removed an unreliable source from the Scientology article and another editor reverted my changes with personal attacks and argument that WP:RS is not a policy. Exactly how does her actions improve article quality or wikipedia community quality? --Nikitchenko 01:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:V is policy, Nikitchenko. You might want to look at that and see whether it covers your situation. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 02:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks SlimVirgin. I found this at WP:V#Sources which you suggested I look at and I think it is a key: "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." --Nikitchenko 17:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The main question here concerns the Operation Clambake site at xenu.net and Tilman Hausherr's site at snafu.de. As it happens, the question of whether xenu.net is or is not a personal website is being considered by the Arbitration Committee at this moment.


 * Requests_for_arbitration/Terryeo/Proposed_decision

--Tony Sidaway 02:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you Tony Sideaway, but my question does not only concern clambake, there are also personal websites as Arnie Lerma's, Gerry Armstrong, Tory Magoo. All personal websites that do not qualify under WP:V#Source:  "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." None of these personal webistes have "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." And some of them are even criticized for having incorrect information that the owner ignores to fix. --Nikitchenko 17:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

We could take this personal publication taboo and apply it to the works of L. Ron Hubbard. Almost all of his Scientology books were published by the company he set up. None of his works were peer reviewed. That may bring more skepticism to the works, but does not make those works invalid. There seems to be the big argument here by CofS protagonists that websites critical of the Church of Scientology sponsored by individuals are "bad", but ignores the fact that Hubbard's works were published by the corporation he set up and none were peer-reviewed. Those folks have a gross double standard on Reliable Sources. --Fahrenheit451 01:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * NO, your suggestion is contrary to policy. Read WP:V. And a reminder, I raised this point about Personal websites as secondary sources, NOT personal websites as primary sources. --Nikitchenko 00:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Deleted->challenged
I have changed the bolded section in the intro to:
 * If you can provide useful information to Wikipedia, please do so, but bear in mind that edits for which no reliable references are provided may be challenged by any editor.

While it is of course true that unsourced edits can be removed, this isn't a license to remove statements from articles willy nilly. Best practice depends on the context--for instance a potentially defamatory statement must always be removed first prior to discussion, but a statement that seems plausible but simply isn't adequately sourced may be commented out, removed or left in, depending on the judgement of the editor. The point being that discussion should normally be initiated. --Tony Sidaway 02:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Tony, this page must be consistent with poliy, which says they may be removed, and then makes some suggestions. We can copy that section in here for clarification, but we can't make anything here inconsistent with the policy. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 02:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd object in the strongest possible way to this change. References are the foundation of the encyclopedia, and we don't need to be scratching away at them.  And there seems to be some dichotomy here: That they can be removed is "of course true" but this has been removed from the page?  Err, what? -  brenneman  {L}  02:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Baloney. Nobody is going through and removing every unsourced claim from every article, and anybody who tried to do so would be blocked for vandalism. Phil Sandifer 02:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, Phil, I'd have shyed away from calling Tony's statement "Baloney" but you're essentially correct: The instances where unsourced material is removed are, in almost every case, uncontroversial. There's no need to weaken the argument for removing those claims that are extra-ordinary, and "willy-nilly" deletions aren't happening. -  brenneman  {L}  03:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If you sincerely believe that all unsourced material should be removed from articles, I invite you to replace the featured article Tea with User:Phil Sandifer/Tea, a version in which only sourced claims remain. Phil Sandifer 03:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The policy (V) doesn't say all unsourced material should be removed; only that it may be, and then it expands a little on the appropriateness of various responses. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 03:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * All right, User:Phil Sandifer/Tea2 then. (Not finished yet, but you get the idea.) Phil Sandifer 03:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)Phil, tea would only be a problem if we demanded footnote citations for every fact. But requiring sources for all facts, just means the fact should be mentioned somewhere in some source somewhere in the article (e.g. general references).  If there are facts in Tea, which are mentioned in none of the sources listed (I haven't read them all), then a simple fix is to provide some good general references, which I would presume are easy to find, for people familiar.  Since there are many full length books on the general topic (I assume, not being a tea person), it seems likely there's probably at least one book somewhere that pretty much backs up the whole article.  BTW, I noticed in this removal, labelled "Slashed all unsourced material", you axed a claim the British love of tea, led them to sell Opium to balance the trade deficit.  Some may think the Brits would have sold as much Opium, as aggresively, regardless of their thirst for tea.  Such an item, would be a great place for a cite.   --Rob 03:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, WP:V, brilliant policy that it is, refers to the sourcing of individual statements. Phil Sandifer 03:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Each and every individual statement must be sourced, that is true. But the source does not have to be cited adjacent to the indivudal statement.  It can be sourced in the general references alone, if it's uncontested.  Also, WP:V doesn't really address the form of sourcing.  That's left to WP:CITE.  Policy has to do with the requirement to verify, not the minor details of how. --Rob 03:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

V says at the top in the summary box: "Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor." And later: "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references ... Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but some editors may object if you remove material without giving people a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, a good idea is to move it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the template ... If the article or information is about a living person, remove the unsourced information immediately ..." SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 03:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * In that case, we ought, at the very least, note that challenges on sentences ought not be done unless there is sincere doubt that the statement is in error. Otherwise the verifiability policy becomes an easy way to disrupt articles you just don't like very much - a skill Aaron has been particularly adept at. Phil Sandifer 03:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem with your suggestion, is you're saying its ok to leave true material, that's not verifiable by others. I don't think that's right.  Somebody could write a person is gay.  You're suggesting, that can't be challenged unless I think its false.  I may think somebody is gay (for many, it might look obvious tome), but I don't think it should be published by us, if not published elsewhere.  I removed some allegations that certain people were prostitutes.  I didn't know they weren't.  But, I got a huge problem with people risking defamation, without proper backup.  There's a lot of true stuff that hasn't been published anywhere, and we shouldn't be the first ones to do so.  We shouldn't publish things that can be confirmed only by a phone call, or by e-mail.  Even if defamation isn't an issue, verification is still needed, even for true items. --Rob 04:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the section here using material from V to say that editors are encouraged not to remove things immediately if they're not obviously wrong, absurd, or harmful, except in the case of living persons, when unsourced material should be removed immediately if it could be regarded as constituting criticism. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 04:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent. This goes a long way towards including the sorts of escape hatches for common sense that these policies so depserately need. Phil Sandifer 04:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Phil. Glad it helped. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 05:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent addition! ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 05:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hunh. And here I could have sworn that when I proposed essentially this exact same thing, that SlimVirgin was one of the ones who shot it down... -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's unlikely, Antaeus, because it's also in WP:V. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 15:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Query for Rjensen
Hi, I was wondering about your latest edit: "For academic topics, every field has an established system of reviews, evaluations, and guide books that should be used to find the most authoritative sources."

The next question someone is going to ask us is how to find these for any given topic. I'm not sure what you're referring to exactly, especially with the guide books, but I don't want to edit it in case I get it wrong. Any clarification would be appreciated. Cheers, SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 07:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Every academic discipline evaluates all new ideas through its established publications. In the humanities and social sciences this means the scholarly journals. In history The American Historical Review for example reviews about 1000 books a year. History also has the AHA Guides that have been appearing for 75 years--most recently. It covers over 90% of historical topics. So it's fairly easy to see what the reliability and reputation of a book in history. Rjensen 07:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, RJ. Maybe we could reword it to make it clearer? For example: "For academic topics, every field has an established system of reviews and evaluations that can be found in scholarly journals associated with that field. In history, for example, the American Historical Review (AHA) reviews around 1,000 books each year, and AHA guides have been published for the last 75 years. Editors should seek out and take advantage of these publications to help find authoritative sources." Would that work for you? SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 08:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * yes--very nice. the journal is the AHR it is sponsored by the AHA. (Am His Review/ Am Hist Association). Rjensen 08:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * suggest: "For academic topics, every field has an established system of reviews and evaluations that can be found in scholarly journals associated with that field. In history, for example, the American Historical Review reviews around 1,000 books each year. The The American Historical Association's Guide to Historical Literature (1995) summarizes the evaluations of 27,000 books and articles in all fields of history. Editors should seek out and take advantage of these publications to help find authoritative sources." Rjensen 08:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks good, thank you. :-) SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 08:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Advice needed
I would appreciate input on a current problem with determining what is and what is not a reliable source. Sammy Davis, Jr. claimed in his lifetime that his mother was Puerto Rican. A 2003 book (excerpt) convincingly explained, with supporting names, facts, dates and historical narrative that his mother was in fact a New Yorker of Cuban ancestry and that Davis had only avoided mentioning a Cuban connection due to the political sensitivities of the time (in the 60s). The book has been well reviewed, is backed up with interviews with Davis' blood relatives and with contemporary documentation. User:Saxifrage claims that we cannot say that the 2003 book is more reliable than Davis' claim as that claim was published in a biography (without any supporting dates, facts, names etc.) and Saxifrage claims that all non self published books must be considered equally reliable sources. I cannot really believe this can be a correct interpretation of policy as many books are full of unverified claims and statements and are clearly not as reliable as other well researched, well sourced books (see more discussion at Talk:Elvera Sanchez. Thanks Arniep 20:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * And I repeat my oft-made point about this guideline and its problems, before leaving those who support it to figure out a way to contort its meaning to avoid the train wreck it has led us to this time. Phil Sandifer 20:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Arnie, I'm not sure I understood your point. If this is for an article, then you could simply point out what the different published sources have said. If it's for one of those ethnicity lists, then the issues of sources is problematic because the lists are silly, not because of this guideline. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 00:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Basically my question is: is it true that this policy states that all published sources must be considered of equal merit and you cannot indicate that one may be more reliable than the other? If a third party reliable source with well researched verifiable data contradicts a vague statement in an autobiography/biography unsupported by verifiable facts or data we are not allowed to say that the book that contains thorough verifiable research is more likely to have the correct information than the vague statement in the biography? The basic problem on Elvera Sanchez is that she is in a Puerto Rican category as is Sammy Davis, Jr., whereas it seems clear from the book's research that they are not Puerto Rican at all, so, if we aren't allowed to say that the reliable source takes precedence over the unreliable source then we cannot remove these Puerto Rican categories and therefore we will be displaying the incorrect information. Arniep 00:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know how you would know that the autobiography is unreliable. I don't know the details and so it's hard to comment, but if the second publication mentions the first, you could quote from there, e.g. that "although in his autobiography John Doe said Y, a later publication said that in fact X, and that Doe had simply alleged Y all his life because he was unhappy about X." But if there is no publication explaining the discrepancy, then all you can do is say what the different sources say. After all, for all you know, the later publication could be wrong. But again, this is assuming it's for an article. If it's for a list and it has to be either-or, I can't help you. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 00:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well statements that people make about their ancestry tend to be unreliable unless it is backed up by some kind of data, which Sammy Davis didn't give, he just said "my mother was born in St. Juan", whereas the 2003 biography gives extensive detail of names, dates, places etc. There's an excerpt here (second paragraph explains the discrepancy). Arniep 01:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It's your opinion that statements people make about their ancestry tend to be unreliable. Anyway, the biography explains: "My mother was born in San Juan," Sammy Davis, Jr., proclaimed. But it was a lie, and he knew it. She was born in New York City, of Cuban heritage." And it does on to explain why he lied. So there you go: "Davis wrote in his 19xx autobiography that his mother was born in San Juan, but Will Haygood in his 19xx biography writes that Davis lied about this because ..." I don't see the problem. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 01:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well there is a problem as both he and his mother are in Puerto Rican categories. Unless we accept that a source that gives extensive detail and lists verifiable sources is more reliable than one that does not do that we will be unable to correct not just this but any situation where new research contradicts previously accepted information. Arniep 01:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That's one of the reasons these lists and categories are a problem. The only way to present conflicting information from sources is to report what they all say. There can't be either-or. Life's not black and white. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 01:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia can't solve these kinds of problems, particularly with categories (lists can have more explanatory material). As SlimVirgin points out, the issues lies in having these kinds of categories in the first place. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well this involves nationality not ethnicity categories. Davis claimed his mother was born in St. Juan, however she was in fact American, born in New York. Arniep 01:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Then per WP:CGZ, you can't categorise: Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. As it is controversial and is not self evident, you can't place Sammy Davis Jr in dispuited categories. Hope that finalises the issue. Hiding The wikipedian meme 23:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I may be able to claim that what people say about their ancestry, i.e. their ancestors, cannot be considered reliable unless that person has demonstrated knowledge of that subject. This would apply to any other subject also, i.e. we wouldn't take a person's statements on particle physics as reliable if they have no scientific knowledge. Arniep 01:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As I have said before, in order for you to make a judgement about what source is more reliable, you have to engage in original research that is expressely forbidden at Wikipedia. &mdash; Saxifrage &#9998; 22:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect. You are able to evaluate sources as laid out on WP:RS. Arniep 23:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, we can evaluate sources, however that is evaluation for inclusion. It is not evaluation of which is "more reliable" or "better", which is what I actually said. &mdash; Saxifrage &#9998; 00:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Confusion
Rjensen, you've just left a talk comment on the page itself. :-D Would you mind reverting yourself? Cheers, SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 02:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops--my mistake. I meant to say that university libraries are designed to facilitate exactly the work of Wiki editors --and they have trained reference librarians who are happy to help. Very few city libraries have that--Chicago Public Library, for example, does not have the resources needed. Denver has it but they will not let suburbanites (like me) use their library. New York Public Library has superb collection and good help. Rjensen 02:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I turned it into an additional sentence, but if the originator removes it, so be it. --Fahrenheit451 02:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Stating the obvious
Could we please try to avoid adding points to the guideline that are obvious, because otherwise it's going to get incredibly long. For example, the most recent ones that "University libraries are designed to facilitate research and they have trained reference librarians who are employed to help," and that university libraries tend to have larger collections than municipal ones. I don't really see the point of these. Anyone who doesn't know this already isn't likely to have easy access to a university library anyway. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 02:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * the problem is that many Wiki editors never seem to use libraries of any kind and get their info online. I have to confess I'm in this group too, but I spent 11 years working in a big library and still love them. Rjensen 02:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree more, and specific, detailed information about libraries is fine. I'm just trying to avoid these very obvious comments, because the page already contains too much homespun philosophy and obvious points. In fact, we could use getting rid of a lot of it. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 02:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

That is not obvious unless one has attended a university and made use of the library. Someone living near a university does not necessarily use or is aware of its library facilities. --Fahrenheit451 02:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * But they also won't have free access to it. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 02:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Unless they do. Regardless, yes - this is not the right place to give an overview of library science. Phil Sandifer 02:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * In many U.S. locales, public universities are accessible by citizens of the state the university is domiciled in. Private universities are free to make their own policies. The additional sentence is hardly an overview of library science. --Fahrenheit451 02:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * University libraries are almost always available to the public. I've never been in a library that required an ID card to get in.  Also, most state universities offer up their collections to residents of the state, since the citizens of the state substantially subsidize state universities.  But I agree that we needn't go into this in the guideline.  Vivaldi (talk) 02:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * In California, UC Berkeley and Stanford University both require photo ID to visit their general undergraduate libraries; indeed, Berkeley requires that people not affiliated with the university must buy a visitor library card (no free visits at all), while Stanford grants only 7 free visits per year before one must buy a visitor library card. But nearly all other UC libraries, and all CSU and community college libraries are open to the public; that is, visitors are free to browse and read, but cannot borrow unless they purchase a library card or become affiliated with the institution.  Many private religious universities like Loyola Marymount University require visitors to show photo ID and to get a temporary access pass.  --Coolcaesar 23:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, can we end this thread?? The section under discussion is three sentences long. Are we going to have a content dispute over that?--Fahrenheit451 02:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, when I wrote free access, I meant borrowing rights, which of course doesn't necessarily matter. I was writing there as someone who doesn't like to be forced to do her reading inside libraries. :-) SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  02:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Why are 3 day old comments from active discussions in the talk archive?
My comments from 3 days ago are already in this pages talk archive, which I do not appreciate. I don't believe active discussions should be tabled by a single editor. Vivaldi (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Amen. It is because SlimVirgin is following her historical pattern, using "archiving" as a pretext to stifle discussion, something she has pulled out of her bag of tricks in the past.  She actually archived discussions half-a-day old in this case.


 * SV managed to get me into an edit war with her, resulting in both of us getting blocked for 24 hours. See Administrators' noticeboard/3RR.  Gene Nygaard 02:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Note also that the guideline at How to archive a talk page says quite clearly:


 * "Regardless of which method you choose, you should leave current, ongoing discussions on the existing talk page." Gene Nygaard 02:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The Talk: page was absurdly long, and no-one was responding any more in the sections in question, for good reason. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No one responded to Vivaldi's post here for 24 hours, but obviously that didn't mean the section was inactive and should have been archived. That's twice as long as some of the stuff SlimVirgin tries to hide away had been sitting on this page.  Gene Nygaard 03:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The difference being that Vivaldi was raising intelligible concerns, and he raised them in the same dialect of English that everyone here (excluding, apparently, you) uses. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Jayjg. I'm glad to see that you are able to understand Vivaldi, even if you did have difficulty understanding me.  As you could see right here (had you and SlimVirgin not tried to hide the discussion), Vivaldi said things like:
 * "You don't investigate or evaluate whether they are wrong by utilizing your own original research."
 * "I agree with you that one possible interpretation of this sentence is that nobody may ever do any fact checking, but I believe that strict interpretation is clearly not correct given my understanding of Wikipedia and the full context of all the guidelines, policies, conventions, styles, etc"
 * Of course, others besides Vivaldi and me have also raised similar points. So now I will edit the project page in accordance with that.  Gene Nygaard 10:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Vivaldi, I forgot to mention that Jayjg has also had his fingers in there, archiving those still-active, less than three-day old discussions (getting a little older all the time, largely because Jayjg and SlimVirgin are hell-bent on stifling discussion). Gene Nygaard 03:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

So far as I can see my edit and Gene Nygaard's two responses were the last changes made to the sections of this talk page which were archived by SlimVirgin, within 24 hours. I do not know if there was any connection between these events. Along with Vivaldi, I would like to register my very considerable displeasure. I can see that an edit war subsequently developed and one editor was blocked. SlimVirgin's subsequent self-block was an honourable action and I appreciate this. Unfortunately, Jayjg has not yet given me the pleasure of knowing whether my edit raised "intelligable concerns". Things are not right here and the problems are not all on one side. Thincat 09:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Definition of personal website
I still want to know what it means to be a personal website, at that term is used in this guideline. Please define the term. Is the website automatically a personal website if it is owned by a single person? What if the website is owned by a company that owned by a single person? What if the Washington Times newspaper's website was, for example, owned and controlled by a single individual? What about the Drudge Report? What if a large media empire were owned and controlled by a single man, say perhaps a man like Rupurt Murdoch or formerly a man like Ted Turner? Would we consider the CNN website to be a personal website if a single wealthy individual owned CNN?

If a website is owned by a shared partnership of two people, does it meet the requirements of not being a personal website? If a website is owned by a small non-profit group (maybe even one with anonymous members), is it a personal website?

What about the DrudgeReport? Is it a personal website? Now, I'm not asking if Drudge meets any of the other conditions for reliability. I specifically want to know is DrudgeReport considered a "personal website" as that term is used in this guideline. Vivaldi (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * A personal website would be one set up by a private individual or group of private individuals where there's no editorial oversight i.e. nothing stands between that person and the act of publication. Whatever they want to post on it, they post. The important point is that it's self-published, not personal. Personal websites are just a subset of self-published material. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 02:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Once again we have the same problem. What is self-published?  Are Fox and the Washington Times self-published?  AFAIK both are under the complete control of one man each.  Kasreyn 06:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

O.K. Are you defining self-published as published by an individual but not including editorial review by another party?--Fahrenheit451 03:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Not including any kind of formal editorial review. By the latter, I don't mean getting your mate to read it for you. I mean paying for a libel check, maybe having libel insurance, having professional staff on board who can give input, that kind of thing. It will vary a lot, with some having a lot of the above, and some having very little. But where there is none, the source can't be regarded as any more reliable than any individual editor on Wikipedia. The guideline makes exceptions for well-known professional researchers. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 03:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * So is the DrudgeReport a personal website according to your definition? Vivaldi (talk) 05:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. The only statement you make that I question is the last one. How does one define a well-known professional researcher, what exceptions are made for such a person, and the rationale for doing so. --Fahrenheit451 03:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The rationale for making the exception is that if George W. Bush set up a blog to discuss his time in the White House, it would clearly be absurd for us not to use him as a source. In some ways this is a poor example because any such blog would be endlessly written about by third-party sources and so there'd be problem. But the example serves to highlight a situation where a well-known professional person who is clearly knowledgeable about his subject matter might choose to set up a website to discuss his views. If Stephen Hawking wants to use his blog to discuss black holes, or Richard Dawkins evolution, it would be obtuse of us not to be able cite those sources. So we allow that, but there are built-in safeguards and cautions: first, there must be no reasonable doubt as to their identity; second, we may only use their self-published material in the fields in which they are professional experts (so Hawking's views on abortion would be no more reliable or interesting than anyone else's if not published by a third party); third, we should always proceed with caution because if the researcher is well-known and if the material is reliable and interesting, it is likely to be picked up by third party sources, and if it hasn't been, we should perhaps let that tell us something. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 03:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I follow you on that.--Fahrenheit451 04:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't answer part of your question. We define a well-known professional researcher as someone who is known and respected in his field, and who is paid to do that research (or who used to be paid to do it, in the case of someone who has retired or otherwise moved on). It needn't be academic research; it could be journalism or more popular writing. But the professional aspect is once again to ensure that someone or something stands between that person and the act of publication: professional standards, needing to adhere to the rules of his association, whatever. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  03:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand that as well. Both your points make sense. --Fahrenheit451 04:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * To be completely direct with the main (but not only) reason for most of this. May Xenu.net / Clambake.org be used as a secondary source of information.  That is, may material on it be quoted and cited, linked to xenu.net within articles?  And second question, if a whole book appears on Xenu.net, may portions of it be quoted and cited within Wikipedia's articles? Terryeo 09:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Terryeo, You are misrepresenting what is happening. The original book is what is sourced and cited.  The original book is available at your local library, and online from various book resellers.  The convenience links to the book by Xenu.net are like external links.  These links are being used to source the claims in the article, they are merely provided as a courtesy to the reader, who may find them useful and convenient. For example:


 * Behar, Richard SCIENTOLOGY: The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power, Ruined lives. Lost fortunes. Federal crimes. Scientology poses as a religion but really is a ruthless global scam -- and aiming for the mainstream Time Magazine, May 6, 1991 courtesy link, (accessed 04/20/06) -- Vivaldi (talk) 10:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I am asking a question, I end my 2 questions with question marks. I am not making a statement, I am not presenting what is happening, I am not commenting on what is happening. Therefore I can not possibly be "misrepresenting" what is happening.  I am asking 2 simple, straightforeward questions. These questions were and are:  May Clambake's material be quoted and cited to Clambake within Wikipedia articles.  That answer should cover the second questions which is a subset of it.  That second question is; If a whole book appears on Clambake, may portions of it be quoted and attributed and linked to Clambake.org?Terryeo 16:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems to me straightforward that Clambake is an important source to cite in Scientology matters. Your second question seems like it would depend on the book. Can you be more specific? Phil Sandifer 17:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems to me straightforward that Clambake uses no fact checking, expresses a complete disregard for and disputes copyrights and trademarks. The site presents, "everything on this site is my personal opinion".  Good, fine.  What confidence can a reader of the site have that his personal opinion includes all of the information contained within an article or a book or a document on his site?  He has no responsibility to present a whole book. he could leave out any part of it, he could modify it in any manner he chooses and still be within his first page statement, "this is my personal opinion".  He makes not the least statement, claims not the least legal responsibility toward presenting other people's opinions, publications or even points of view.Terryeo 08:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's nice. He's a major, notable viewpoint. It would be POV to exclude it, and POV to declare it truth. The end. Phil Sandifer 22:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In fact, that the question, "which particular book" ? Implying, "let me fact check that particular book for you, I want to do some Original Research anyway", that the question need be asked should tell you the quality of the site.  No particular book, every particular book.  Sites which need to be fact checked by Wikipedia editors should simply not be included as secondary sources of information at all, under any conditions.  Except an intitial check by an editor to satisfy himself.  Terryeo 08:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Your skill at implication reading is limited. Perhaps you should limit yourself to acutal engagement with what people say. It has nothing to do with fact checking the book and everything to do with whether the book is published elsewhere, accessable, etc. Phil Sandifer 22:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If widely published, then it should be available elsewhere. If narrowly published, then it won't be available except on "special interest" websites and that frequently means personal websites.  By definition, "widely published" leads us toward using websites which are not personal websites.  Additionally, the better the quality, the more reputable, the more substantial and stable and widely recognized the sites we use for verification of Wikipedia articles, the better Wikipedia becomes.  Poor citations are one of the weakest elements of Wikipedia, as has been discussed elsewhere. Terryeo 09:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's worth pointing out to Phil and other contributors that Terryeo is about to be sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee for sustained tendentious and POV editing, amongst other things, and that his intervention here is part of the POV-pushing campaign for which he's due to be banned. I strongly advise other contributors to bear that in mind - he's not acting in good faith in this debate. See Requests for arbitration/Terryeo/Proposed decision. -- ChrisO 09:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The idea of a Scientologist parsing things word by word in good faith is ludicrous to begin with, but that does not make it any less entertaining to me at present. Phil Sandifer 22:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Now its 2-3-1, in opposition of the proposed decision. Clambake, owner Andreas Heldal-Lund, is a personal websites.  JDForrester argued it is not just because he says it is "pretty clearly used as a prominent reference" I wonder how he establised that is is "pretty clearly" used as a prominent reference. And even if he is right, it is still a personal websites and regardless, it is unreliable and contains a lot of incorrect information that isn't ever corrected by Andreas. --Nikitchenko 11:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Advice specific to subject area - Science and medicine
Some changes that I made to that section the other day were rolled back by Phil in one sweeping revert, so it's appropiate that they are explained here:

At present the text reads
 * The best scientific journals are peer-reviewed

I am not aware of any serious journal in the physical sciences that does not pass submissions to subject experts to review, simply to catch errors and omissions that are beyond the editors' expertise and also to avoid any bias that the editors might have. Thus the change to
 * Any scientific journals that insists on being taken seriously is peer-reviewed, which means that submissions are passed not only by the editorial board but also by independent experts in the field who are asked to (usually anonymously) comment on articles before they are published.

Reference was then made to the Sokal affair, where Alain Sokal submitted a hoax paper to the journal Social Text to criticize sloppy practice by some historians of science. Sokal picked a soft target, as the journal wasn't peer-reviewed then; the editors had to admit they were out of the water. This is pertinent insofar that that the incident illustrates when someine is asked to comment on something that is outside their area of expertise. No reason to revert this just because Morris Zapp has egg on his face. 

Further down the guideline says right now
 * Determining the scientific consensus ... can also be accomplished by following the state of discussions in respected journals.

This skirts dangerously close to original research, especially when there has no consensus emerged yet. I propose that this be changed to something like
 * Determining the scientific consensus ... can also be accomplished by following what is accepted the state of knowledge in review articles.

At least a review in a review journal has been run past the editorial board as well as past two reviewers in the field, so at least there is a solid reference to what the consensus might be.

The paragraph
 * Also note that journals published by scientific societies are regarded to be of higher quality than those published by commercial publishers, such as Elsevier.

The public perception is that as a rule scientific societies offer the best journals (Cell Press being a notable exception). There was an article in Nature two or three months ago if someone insists on references. OK, the sideswipe against Elsevier is a bit inappropiate, yet any librarian asked in private will admit that they do offer very poor value for money, and their pricing practice (combined with the general impact rating of their offerings) has resulted in public controversy in some places.

Comments are appreciated. Dr Zak 16:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The Sokal Affair thing still strikes me as inappropriate. We are in such a wholly different business from Social Text that the example is tangental at best, and a cheap shot at worst. It is an open question whether Social Text was ill-equipped to handle a science article, or ill-equipped to handle a massive ethics violation from an academic that they had every reason to believe would know better. Phil Sandifer 17:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The fronts are hardened about the ethical interpretation of that hoax - those in favour of Social Text argue that Sokal abused the trust extended to him and those in favour of Sokal usually cite the lack of intellectual rigor amongst some historians of science. The point is also sometimes made that there is a difference between a fraudulent text and a meaningless text. None of this is relevant to the argument made.
 * Fact is that the editors themselves admit that they did not know what to make of the submission. "Not knowing the author or his work we engaged in some speculation about his intentions... . His adventures in PostmodernLand were not exactly our cup of tea." At this point it is good practice to get third party advice, something that Social Text omitted to do. That's what peer review does, to solicit advice not on the truth of a paper (the Schoen affair should show to everyone that the reviewing process in poorly equipped to deal with fraud) but on its relevance.
 * And let's also mention this: just because you disagree with one point being made in a more substantial edit is no reason to roll it back altogether, offensive aand inoffensive bits alike. Dr Zak 17:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Any scientific journals that insists on being taken seriously is peer-reviewed, In economics, there are a number of very prestigious journals that are invitation-only. Quality is insured by the reputation of the author, not peer review. I think economics is a science, and I'm surprised to hear that there are no such journals in any of the harder sciences.

Similarly, in economics, working papers are commonly distributed long before publication in a journal. Again, quality is not insured by peer review, but by the reputation of the author, and also by the reputation of the institution putting out the working paper. I was under the impression that physics had a similar system.

So, I think the phrase should be something more like In academic journals, peer review is an important hallmark of quality. Ragout 02:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Good to know that people do different in different academic disciplines. I'm genuinely unaware of any journal in the physical sciences that is invitation-only (although there are invited contributions that are still refereed). Nature and Science have a two-stage process where first an abstract is passed by the editors and when they find it relevant the full paper is passed to two reviewers. My point was to draw a clear distinction to the unrefereed journals that for example the cold-fusion crowd published in. Anyway, par the comment the section header reads now "Physical sciences, mathematics and medicine". Dr Zak 03:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I see a problem in simply talking about scientific journals being peer-reviewed. Even in peer-reviewed journals, not every bit and piece is peer-reviewed thoroughly. By this token, correspondence comparable to "letters to the editor" are given the same weight as full-blown research articles, and the bitching and moaning of minorities still clinging to outdated science who would normally fall under "the views of tiny minorities need not be reported". Simply because someone writes to Nature with stark criticism of an article and Nature publishes it for the sake of not being accused of censorship, doesn't mean that his complaints are actually good science or in any way consensus. Such communications are not being peer-reviewed at all. --OliverH 12:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have changed the section heading to "Cite peer-reviewed scientific journals to be more precise. The News section and the correspondence section are journalism and for that the usual rules apply. Further down someone has made some remarks, maybe that can be cast into proper words to put on the main page. Dr Zak 12:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Longstanding? No.
At 2:06 UTC on April 30, Jayjg restored this to project page with the edit summary "(restore standard and longstanding part of guideline, which aligns it with policy)".


 * However, bear in mind that we only report what reliable publications publish. In accordance with Wikipedia's No original research policy, we do not investigate, or in any other way attempt to evaluate, whether they are right or wrong, although of course editors should seek to use the most authoritative sources.

However, what was actually longstanding was this version before SlimVirgins 18 April 2006 editing of it:


 * However, bear in mind that it is not the job of Wikipedians to do original research. We report what reliable publications publish. We do not (in our capacity as Wikipedians) investigate whether they are right or wrong. See No original research.

We need to start from the longstanding version, and justify changes from there.

And we need to investigate the claim that it "aligns itself with policy", which was disputed by Thincat and me in the wrongly archived discussion. Gene Nygaard 10:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Jumping in without having followed all the past... it seems to me there is obviously some grey area here. I remember being startled by a newspaper article that mentioned Adolf Hitler and then put in parentheses "(the dictator of Germany during World War II)."


 * A Wikipedia article does contain some element of originality in organization, phrasing, selection, and even interpretation. It is not merely an unbroken string of quotations from sources. It's perfectly reasonable to quote a source which says "two inches" and then add, in parentheses, "(50.8 mm)" even though that conversion is not strictly contained in the published material. And while there are many sources that say one inch is 25.4 mm, there may not be any published source that says that three inches are 50.8 mm.


 * There's a long, continuous gradation here. Seems to me you can cite a source that says "two plus two" and then add in parentheses "(the sum of two and two is four)." On the other hand, you can't cite a source that says "The tree continues to exist even when there's no-one about in the quad" and add in parentheses "(i.e., God must exist)."


 * There's a distinction between using sources and conducting original research, but it's not an obvious bright-line absolute distinction. Attempts to eliminate the exercise of judgement from Wikipedia and replace them with algorithms are doomed to fail. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * edit conflicted with above Well, policy is that we don't present from a point of view, so we can't evaluate the authority, factuality or correctness of information. What we do is present sources, and if they are in conflict, present them as being in conflict, example being foo says x, but fum says y, rather than foo says x but this is widely inaccurate as can be seen in foo y's work, which states.  So I'd be firmly behind "However, bear in mind that we only report what reliable publications publish. In accordance with Wikipedia's No original research policy, we do not investigate, or in any other way attempt to evaluate, whether they are right or wrong, although of course editors should seek to use the most authoritative sources."


 * That seems firmly in line with policy, although it should perhaps mention the NPOV policy too. We can't present a point of view on the rightness or wrongness of anything. I thought that was well established? The current version seems to add a clause which has potential misuse: "However, bear in mind that we only report what reliable publications publish. In accordance with Wikipedia's No original research policy, we do not, by our own original research, investigate, or in any other way attempt to evaluate, whether they are right or wrong, although of course editors should seek to use the most authoritative sources."


 * I can't understand what is meant by original research in this instance. Wikipedia, and thus editors, should never be attempting to prove or disporove anything.  That violates all three key policies.


 * My suggestion would be "However, bear in mind that we only report what reliable publications publish. In accordance with Wikipedia's No original research and Neutral point of view policies, we do not investigate, or in any other way attempt to evaluate or present an unsourced opinion on whether they are right or wrong,, although of course editors should seek to use the most authoritative sources, and where such sources conflict, present that conflict in a neutral fashion, avoiding the affording to any opinion undue weight."


 * But that seems hideously wordy. Hiding The wikipedian meme 10:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, you were a participant in the earlier discussion, saying then, IIRC, that it was "original research" that was prohibited by what is stated in this paragraph, and that it would be improper original research that conversion you discussed here if someone had used a source which converted it as if it were French inches to "two inches (54.1 mm)", and you'd have to leave that 54.1 while explaining that some people think that two inches is 50.8 mm, substiting your example for the one I used originally. It would be improper original research to do otherwise, according to what you said then
 * Though it really isn't relevant here, if you actually added that "50.8 mm" to an article saying "two inches", that is likely incorrect because it is improperly rounded, and someone would probably eventually fix it. Gene Nygaard 11:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oops. I didn't mean that about explaining what "some people think".  You would, of course, have to cite a reliable source saying that in some cases two inches in 50.8 mm, though of course you would not be able to "investigate" or "evaluate" whether or not the original sources claim of 54.1 mm was "right or wrong".  Gene Nygaard 11:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The first bulleted quotation is one I have great difficulty with. It seems to me to say something that is not to be found in WP:NOR. I'm bothered by this because I so strongly agree with the principles behind NOR. Because NOR is so misunderstood, we need to be so careful in making claims about what it says. Although I have minor doubts about the second bulleted quotation, I am fairly happy with it and it certainly would not have occurred to me to seek to change it. I have given a lot of thought to the sentence in question and, given time, I could produce a considered critique. However, I think it would be preferable to do this after things have cooled down a bit. But now ( following an edit conflict!) I think I should say something now. The second sentence tells us what "we" should not do. However, NOR is about the form and content of articles. Can we not either quote a bit of NOR or word our summary or extract in a form consonant with that in NOR? Thincat 11:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I wish I felt I had time to think. In Wikipedia terms, Original Research is not something that must not be "done", it is something that must not be "added". Thincat 11:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That is a very accuerate distinction, Thincat. I do a lot of research in libraries, online databases and other resources, that may be construed as "original research", such as the research I did for the Sant Mat article. But when I edited the article, I did not add my own conclusions or editorialized the content, instead I just provided the material and the sources from my research. The former is OR and the latter is not. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 15:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * So, how would either of you fix this paragraph along those lines?
 * Isn't the use of italics or bolding here deceptively indicative that this is a direct quote from WP:NOR?
 * How, exactly, does this paragraph apply to the section in which it is found, "Check multiple independent sources"? Gene Nygaard 13:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Note that User:Jayjg has once again reverted to the non-longstanding version. Gene Nygaard 13:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've reverted to the clearer version. You have once again filled the Talk: page with lengthy semi-comprehensible text, rather than using a personal page or perhaps a blog to record your musings. If there are others who can state the issues in a succinct and coherent way, please ask them to translate for you, and I will work with them. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 15:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Thincat's distinction that "original research" is something that editors add. How about
 * However, bear in mind that we only report what reliable publications publish, although of course editors should seek to use the most authoritative sources. In accordance with Wikipedia's No original research policy, we do not add our own opinion, or in any other way attempt to evaluate, whether they are right or wrong,  Dr Zak 15:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 15:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't realize investigate had been removed. That's critical, so I restored it. Otherwise, glad we came to consensus. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 16:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Gee, now that you and Dr Zak have come to a consensus on Thincat's proposal here, and Thincat and I have come to a consensus on Thincat's proposal below, we are indeed making progress. But that doesn't mean that Jayjg's version has consensus.  Gene Nygaard 16:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Gene, I don't have a "version"; please ask someone intelligible to communicate on your behalf. Thanks. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 16:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Did you forget to check the special subpage reserved for the things you can understand? Gene Nygaard 16:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Query
Self-published sources, and published sources of dubious reliability, may be used only as sources of information on themselves, and only in articles about them.

Why only in *articles* about them? What if there is a section about them, in an article on a different subject? For example, on Wage labour there is a section about its criticisms and its criticisers. Is it OK if sources originating from those criticisers are used, to cite the sentence "criticisers think that wage labour..."? That to me, seems no different that citing their own opinion in an article about themselves. -- infinity  0  17:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Because the subject of the article is "wage labor." The subject is not the source itself. If you're stating what "An Anarchist FAQ" and "marxists.org" think about wage labor, then you would be using them as credible authorities on the subject. And, that wouldn't be allowed. RJII 17:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't be stating them as credible authorities on wage labour. I would only be stating what they think about wage labour. There is nothing which says what they think is the "correct" definition. -- infinity  0  17:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Stating what they think about wage labor, assumes that what they think about wage labor matters. RJII 17:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

And why don't the opinions of the opponents of wage labour matter? -- infinity  0  17:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The views of some opponents of wage labor matters, and the views of other opponents of wage labor don't. For example, your opinion on wage labor doesn't matter (as far as we know). Your work, if you have any, has never been published and you have no academic credentials. That's why Wikipedia doesn't allow you to put your "original research" into an article. You're relegated to only bringing in the views of others who are credible sources that have been published (preferably in a peer reviewed journal). If a you or you, and your friends, put up a website and "self-publish" things on it, it's not a credible source by Wikipedia standards. RJII 17:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

AFAQ and Marxists.org are not me, however, so you are arguing based on a wild technicality. You're also using Reliable sources as a guide for notability, which is not what it's for. WP:RS says those sources can be used as primary sources. However, the fact that An Anarchist FAQ and Marxists.org both have articles means they are both notable, and that their opinions do matter. Again, I emphasise that they are being used as primary sources. -- infinity  0  18:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The policy against using self-published sources is hardly a "technicality." It's a central part of keeping the information in Wikipedia verifiable. Sure, you can use them as "primary sources" and only as primary sources. That means you can only use them in articles about "An Anarchist FAQ" and "Marxists.org." You cannot use them as sources for other articles. An Anarchist FAQ may have a modicum of notability, but it does not does not meet the standards of a credible source. WP:V says: "Self-published sources, and published sources of dubious reliability, may be used only as sources of information on themselves, and only in articles about them. For example, the Stormfront website may be used as a source of information on itself in an article about Stormfront, so long as the information is notable, not unduly self-aggrandizing, and not contradicted by reliable, third-party published sources. Self-published sources may never be used as sources of information on another person or topic." The same goes for Marxists.org or the Geocities.com site that creates and hosts the "An Anarchist FAQ." RJII 18:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Why only their own articles is the question I am asking. -- infinity  0  18:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Because the subject of the article is "wage labor." The subject is not the source itself. If you're stating what "An Anarchist FAQ" and "marxists.org" think about wage labor in an article about wage labor, then you would be using them as a secondary source about wage labor. By citing them in an article about wage labor, you are giving them more credit than they deserve. They have no qualifications to comment on the subject. What they have to say about wage labor does not matter, in a reliable encyclopedia. RJII 19:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * User:RJII is offering a clear explanation in the above.   Jkelly 20:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

AFAQ and Marxists.org are not extreme partisan websites, and they are qualified to comment on the subject, since their entire philosophy is based upon it. Marxists.org uses Marx directly and AFAQ has been cited in academic works and is due to be published itself. They are well known and popular sources for many people. They are not being used to specifically cite their own views, but of the views of the significant group which they belong to. Those views can be citable by different authors; if you dislike AFAQ, then find another reliable source and cite that.

In other words, see WP:IAR. -- infinity  0  22:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Citing own articles
Is there a policy about a Wikipedia contributor citing one of his own published articles? The scenario is this: I am thinking of writing an article for which many of the points are taken from a published article I have written. They're not even disputable opinions, but straightforward facts taken from phone interviews with the relevant people. The only conceivable issue is the fact that I wrote the article. If I did that, would someone come along and say it was self-promotion, even if it was good, published research whose inclusion was justified in the context? David L Rattigan 10:39 03 May 2006 GMT
 * My view is yes, you can add information from and cite your own articles in reliable publications providing you are sure you are adopting a neutral point of view and that yours is the most reliable source. Yes, someone will come along and say it is self-promotion and you will have to put up with that. You could then restore your additions but it might be a good idea to let another (independent) editor do this if he or she thought it benefitted the article. Thincat 10:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In general, as long as you don't engage in any blatant self-promotion, it should be OK. I would think that standards found in Biographies of living persons and Autobiography would apply here.  I would disclose on the talk page what you have done, just to be transparent.  There was a case recently where a noted computer scientist was disciplined by the ArbCom for excessive self-promotional edits to Wikipedia concerning himself and his research--but this result came after numerous warnings and suggestions that such behavior was inappropriate.  (He has since left Wikipedia, of his own choosing). --EngineerScotty 00:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Either V or NOR covers this, David. You may use your own published material (so long as it's not self-published) in exactly the same way as you'd use any other. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 00:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Cheers, all. I created the article, and in the end had to use my own article just for one ref. I'll put a note in the talk page as suggested. User:David L Rattigan 08:17 04 May 2006 GMT

We do not investigate...
Gene Nygaard challenged me (Thincat) to fix the last paragraph of “Check multiple independent sources”. I suggest:
 * However, bear in mind that in accordance with Wikipedia’s No original research policy, we only report what reliable publications publish. We may think we know a fact for certain, or we may investigate whether a published fact is right or wrong, but we must not directly add such information to an article. However, using our background knowledge, we may select, using a neutral point of view, between reliable published sources and use the most reliable. Editors should seek to use the most authoritative sources.

It is the version:
 * However, bear in mind that we only report what reliable publications publish. In accordance with Wikipedia's No original research policy, we do not investigate, or in any other way attempt to evaluate, whether they are right or wrong, although of course editors should seek to use the most authoritative sources.

that I am most critical of though the presently restored version also has, to my mind, some problems:
 * However, bear in mind that it is not the job of Wikipedians to do original research. We report what reliable publications publish. We do not (in our capacity as Wikipedians) investigate whether they are right or wrong. See Wikipedia:No original research.

I have no difficulty with the first sentence. For the second sentence, I am going to specifically criticize the first version I quoted above. I am not going to criticize anything else in the guideline.

WP:NOR strongly encourages source-based research, saying it is fundamental to writhing an encyclopedia. However, “we do not investigate...” embraces “we do not carry out source-based research” and does not accord with anything in NOR.

Another difficulty is the meaning of “they”.

”They” refers to “reliable publications”
That is, a reliable publication, taken as a whole, is it right or wrong? This is a world I really don’t live in. Some people would regard the Bible are wholly right. We are told we must not investigate this. I expect I agree but if this is what is meant it should be greatly clarified.

”They” refers to “what reliable publications publish”
I think this is what is intended. We are told not to investigate whether the particular facts we are intending adding to Wikipedia are right or wrong. We should, however, seek the most authoritative sources. Suppose the most authoritative source has a logical inconsistency due to a misprint (i.e. it is wrong)? It can happen. Someone is stated to be born in 1900 and got married in 1922 at the age of 25. NOR allows me to do source-based research provided I end up quoting from a reliable source. There may be issues of NPOV requiring both sources to be quoted but I am allowed to investigate whether the original statement is right or wrong. What I eventually add must come from a reliable source.

”They” refers to “multiple independent sources”
This is the subsection heading and so may be what the sentence is referring to. We must not investigate whether multiple independent sources are right or wrong. However, we are earlier advised not to be satisfied with a single source and we should cross-check with another one to see if they agree. The very strong implication is that we are seeking the reliability of the information, not seeking the single publication of greatest repute or overall reliability. We are also told to ask ourselves “Have they reported other facts reliably, including on different subjects? Cross-check with what you already know”. I realise the check is one of consistency, not truth, but if there is a disagreement between reliable sources, internal logical inconsistency within one publication (i.e. the information is not right) is one factor to be borne in mind in assessing reliabliity.

Thincat 10:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Most of what you have said makes very good sense. Not to say I won't quibble about details, of course, but you have done a good job of starting to distinguish "reliable sources" from information in them which can be unclear or wrong, and which indeed needs to be investigated and evaluated.
 * Not only can you have internal inconsistency within the sources we use, but you have also pointed out ways in which this statement is internally inconsistent with other statements on the project page here. Gene Nygaard 19:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Since nobody seems to have any problems with your proposed wording, I suggest we go with it. It can always be tweaked in the future,  Gene Nygaard 15:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

A question about Secondary Sources
WP:NOR seems to apply to information presented to the reader of articles. WP:V seems to present that infomation which already been published may be presented in articles. But what about information which has been published and is then presented on newsgroups, blogs or personal websites. For example, several personal websites hold Jon Atack's book, A Piece of Blue Sky which was published and is apparently duplicated whole and intact. A knowledgeable editor might, by his own personal research, determine that Atack's book appears on a site exactly as he published it, and therefore determine, by his own research, that it could be cited, used as a secondary source of information. That action would not be directly against WP:NOR (which applies to information presented to the reader) and would not be directly against WP:V (it was once published) and would seem to be within WP:NPOV (a point of view, though a personal one) and yet it would seem to conflict with WP:RS which seems to state that nothing on a personal website should be used as a secondary source of information. So, my question is, are there situations where information on a personal website may be used as a secondary source of information in wikipedia articles? Terryeo 01:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Terryeo, personal websites may not be used as sources, except in article about themselves, or where the website is maintained by an acknowledged expert in the field. However, you're getting confused between a website being the source and it acting as a link repository. It's fine to give a full citation to a newspaper article, and then as an additional courtesy to the reader, link to the article on a personal website if it can't be found elsewhere. Exceptions would be where you have good reason to believe the website might not be reliable e.g. that it might have changed the wording of the article (but I'd guess there are few websites that fit into this category), or where it's an offensive website (e.g. a white supremacist site). Another exception would be if the website is violating copyright, which is likely in the case of entire books being copied. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 01:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That was the issue I was uncertain about and thank you for responding. Regarding repository type links and given that two websites are acting as repositories of the same article, is one a preferred source over the other, such as a scholarly site over a personal website or a commercial site over a personal website? I would think the standards of better quality would apply to repository type information too, right?Terryeo 12:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The original source should always be used if possible: so the New York Times should be linked to for a NYT story. If it's not available online, or is behind a paid subscription only, you can link to any website that isn't offensive or in some other way obviously unreliable. I would personally prefer a scholarly site over a personal one, but I think that will boil down to the preference of the editors on the page, because the important thing is that you have no reason to believe the website has changed the content; and if the content hasn't been changed, then it really doesn't matter which website it's on. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 00:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't been involved in the discussion here (though I am familiar with Terryeo's campaign, and I appreciate your pointing out the clear distinction between personal website as an original source of info and as repository of courtesy links), so forgive me if this is a repetitive question: why the prohibition on "offensive" web sites? As I read your reply SlimVirgin, it sounds as if a courtesy link to, say, an NYT story hosted on a white-supremacist web site would be forbidden because the NYT story it is taited by the unsavoryness of the host.  But unless there is evidence of the article being presented in some inaccurate way, or there is a clear case of copyright violation, I don't see why the identity of the host would bear on the courtesy link (although I can see why going direct to the NYT site is preferable where possible). On the other hand, you say "if the content hasn't been changed, then it really doesn't matter which website it's on," which makes sense to me. Can you clarify whether I've got you right, and if so, the logic behind prohibiting links to "offensive" web sites?  BTfromLA 03:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure "campaign" really describes what I'm doing, but I have responded to you on your user page before, BTfromLA. One reason that personal websites are a lesser quality of information, even for a New York Times article, is because a wikipedia editor might check through the whole story, line for line and punctuation and spelling and find it is 100 % accurate.  And so cite it as a Wikipedia reference.  Then the owner of the personal website might see that by deleting a comma, the meaning could be subtly changed and think he might as well, and do that.  The next day the article could be subtly different and why not?  Its his / her personal website, after all. Terryeo 16:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Biting the newbies
What's with FeloniousMonk throwing in a reversion here? Then railling on in some personal attacks in his edit summary on top of it. He's the "newbie" here, having never edited the project page before and not having participated in the discussion whatsoever. Gene Nygaard 16:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikis are as nonreliable as blogs, even more
Proposal

Blogs and bboards are forbidden. IMO external wikis must be forbidden for sources as well.

In addition to problems with blogs, they have still another grave problem: no guarantee that the content tomorrow will be the same as it was at the moment of reference, you surely know why. `'mikka (t) 23:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur with the proposal. If a blog is newsworthy, then a legitimate publication like the New York Times will run an article about the blog and we can do a cite and link to that article.  The same goes for wikis. --Coolcaesar 23:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ugh. No. The blogs and bboards rule is a problem - strengthening it to rule out stuff like Memory Alpha is just a disaster. Phil Sandifer 23:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought we'd already established that wikis aren't reliable sources because wikipedia itself isn't. The idea was to rather utilise their sourcing.  Otherwise Wikipedia is too open to gaming, for example, I'll just go and add something to wakipedia, and now I'll cite it here. If it's sourced there, just cite their source here.  If it isn't sourced there, we can't properly cite it, can we?  Otherwise we might as well cite ourselves and allow original research.  But yes, I'll grant that once again there's an area where users who know what they're doing can do it, but that should be the exception, not the rule. Hiding Talk 23:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I pretty much agree. Phil Sandifer 00:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There absolutely should not be any leeway for "users who know what they're doing". That latter class has an unfortunate habit of defining itself. You either allow something or you do not. Grace Note 03:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

While I agree wikis are generally not reliable, I wander about saying they never could be. If there's no hope for any Wiki, why was Wikinews created? Also, the fear that content changes, can be handled by citing a specific version of a page, which wikis normally allow. I don't know of any wiki that is a reliable source, but I still don't like saying its impossible for one to exist. --Rob 01:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * An open, freely editable wiki could not be, Rob. Not ever. But more restricted ones, subject to a degree of fact checking, might be an exception. Larry Sanger's new project, for instance, might be an exception: that would be something to talk about. Grace Note 03:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Reflexive Edits
I can't help being amused at FeloniousMonk, who joins Jayjg in criticizing "reflexive edits," and also "reflexive newbies who don't understand policy, and axe grinding." This of course, is the edit summary for a reflexive revert of a much-discussed edit that had achieved fairly wide consensus, even from the exalted Jayjg.

Anyway, you guys have made very clear that you think only admins or such should be allowed to edit policy pages, and I guess guideline pages too. The appropriate way to do that is to have an RfC and demonstrate consensus, not to automatically revert all edits from people you don't recognize or don't like. Ragout 02:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * These personal comments aren't helpful. Please stick to content. Cheers, SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 02:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you talking about unhelpful personal comments in the edit summaries of Jayjg and FeloniousMonk? Or does it only violate your sensibilities to mention that in the discussions on the talk page?  Gene Nygaard 10:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Articles sourced too heavily to a single person and to a website operated by that person
The debate on Articles for deletion/Universism (5th nomination) makes me aware of another potential hazard. Usually, I regard websites operated by organizations as reliable sources for that organization, or at least for that organization's public positions. In the case of small organizations, e.g. house museums, it's very likely that these websites are effectively controlled by a single person. But that's usually not much of a problem.

But... particularly in cases of possible use of Wikipedia to promote small or nascent organizations... it is important to be alert for instances in which most of the article content is actually traceable to a single source, and too much of it is traceable to a website under the direct control of that source.

In the case of Universism... it turns out that most of the article--originally entered mostly without sources--can be sourced only to the universism.org website, registered to Ford Vox (founder of "Universism"). The portions that aren't sourced to the website are sourced to writings attributed to Vox, or to articles by reporters interviewing Vox.

The article contains one very mildly negative item: "On March 24, 2006, the Movement's public online form was shut down (according to an email from Ford Vox) "because the quality of conversation had deteriorated, reflecting badly on the state of our Movement and had become a detriment to new members," with a pledge to open "a new forum in the near future."--which had been linked to the Universism website. It was removed by an editor whose interests appear to be closely aligned with Vox's, with the comment "Please note that your source link doesn't work. The information is false."

Indeed, the link no longer works. Universism.org has apparently been excluded from indexing by archive.org for some time. The link does exist in Google's cache, but not indefinitely.

All of this is trivial, but I do find it to be a concern that we have a situation where an entire Wikipedia article is sourced almost entirely to a single individual, and mostly to a website he controls, so that he is effectively able to control the article content by altering the cited material (or dumping it down the memory hole). Fortunately it's not an important article.

But if someone had previously post this situation to me as a possibility I wouldn't have believed it could be a problem in practice. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Dpb, the policy says that we may use personal websites, and the websites of organizations that wouldn't normally be good sources, in articles about themselves so long as the material is "notable, not unduly self-aggrandizing, and not contradicted by third-party sources." It sounds as though the first two conditions were violated by this article. People controlling Wikipedia content by adding material to websites, then citing the websites as sources, is becoming a bigger problem all the time. It might be a good idea to start keeping track of examples so we can determine how much of an issue it is. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 13:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That's why I mentioned it. (Needless to say this is not a perfectly clear example and my characterization of it could probably be disputed...) Dpbsmith (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the situation you are discussing is exactly why Web sites should be avoided as much as possible as sources. As far as I can tell, the only people who have a real reason to object are people living in Third World countries or very rural areas where decent libraries are hard to find.  For the vast majority of topics---including fictional universes like Star Trek---one can always find a good book or article at the library.  --Coolcaesar 02:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Another situation that brings such sites to the fore on Wikipedia is certain anti-(anything) sites. That is, a personal website created by an individual to oppose an idea.  There is an anti-narconon site against Narconon and an anti-scientology site against Scientology, all personal websites whose owner has one objective.  Such sites are attractive to opponents and are overused in the Dianetics and Scientology articles. Terryeo 16:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Native language question
What if I have a good source, but it's in Spanish? If I translate the quoted text, is my translation considered a WP:OR violation or does it mean that my source is not reliable? Hdtopo 22:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If there's no published translation, you can translate it yourself. When I've done that, I've posted the English version, and then directly below it the original-language version, so that readers can check it for themselves. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 22:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Gracias. Hdtopo 07:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

books.google.com, amazon.com
These and other internet companies have begun scanning the contents of academic libraries systematically. There is, of course, a copyright controversy over it. What's important is they are far enough along to be a great help in finding pages inside books that discuss a subject -- and sometimes a book whose credibility you're trying to judge. Do folk here think this is useful enough to put on this page or another as a helpful hint? If so, I'll write it up. --CTSWyneken 21:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I find them invaluable. The copyright issue does not apply to Amazon (which gets explicit permission). Note that Google also puts on line full texts of many pre 1923 books. Rjensen 23:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * From our perspective, you're right about copyright, especially if we do not link to a google image page. There's enough info in these to fully cite them as if they were physical books in our hands. So, do you think a tip about them has its place on this page somewhere as a suggestion? --CTSWyneken 01:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Your note about the google image is a good beginning. Terryeo 16:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll write something up and put it here first for review. --CTSWyneken 17:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There are many, many other companies that have already scanned in a huge amount of books (Questia, ProQuest Chadwyck-Healey) and articles (ProQuest, LexisNexis, Thomson Gale, InfoBank). See How to write a great article.  Of course, the problem with them is that you either have to subscribe directly (at enormous personal expense) or be affiliated with an academic institution or public library that subscribes.  We have many community colleges in California (see California Community Colleges system) so one can always visit a community college campus if there aren't any decent public libraries nearby, but I don't know about other parts of the world.  --Coolcaesar 19:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That is true. As a librarian, I myself have such power (*evil laugh*)... ;-) I can search almost all ancient greek and latin texts (if I wish). For our purposes, I'll emphasize the open engines. I'll also mention the fact of Subscription databases along with the other advice.--CTSWyneken 11:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed New Text
Well, here it is. I worry that it might be a bit long and I'm not sure where to place it on the page. What do you all think of it? Do not be shy. Feel free to edit it and or tell me to go away!

Fact checking and reference-running can be time consuming. Your local public or academic library may not have the work cited by an article on its shelves. Often you can ask for a book through interlibrary loan, but this can sometimes take several weeks to do. Fortunately, new tools are now available online to make this work easier. Services such as Google Books, Amazon.com’s “search inside!”, the Internet Archive’s Million Book Project allow you to search the full text of thousands of books. In addition, many similar subscription-based services may be available to though your public, college, university or graduate school libraries.

To check on facts and citations in Wikipedia, however, these databases are powerful tools. You can search them the same way that you do in an internet search. Enter the author in quotation marks and the title in quotation marks. If the book is in the database already, the search engine will find it. If it isn’t, you may discover another work that discusses the book you seek. For subjects, enter as many terms as you can recall. The engines will display a list of pages that contain these terms. Often you will be able to verify the fact you are checking or discover a significant point of view not represented in the Wikipedia article.

When you use one of these services, be sure to gather all the information you can find by selecting links such as “About the Book.” You should be able to assemble a citation in exactly the same way you do with a print publication. Please do not link to the online version of these books. The copyright status of many of them is in litigation. --CTSWyneken 14:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Original research in exterior links
There's a discussion in Wikipedia Talk:External links about whether or not original links can constitute original research. External links lists, among links to avoid:


 * Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, unless it is the official site of the article's subject or it is a notable proponent of a point of view in an article with multiple points of view. (See WP:RS for further information on this guideline.)

However, I was under the impression that WP:NOR only applied to the actual content of articles. Having read it along with this page a bit more carefully, I understand that exterior webpages about something that hasn't been talked about in reliable sources can also constitute original research. Is that right? How could we make things clearer on External links?

(Yes, I'm aware that there seems to be tons of discussion of this or something approaching in the archives :P I'm looking for a new start with a more concrete goal: how to better formulate that on the policy page?) Flammifer 16:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Owners of Personal Websites editing their counter-articles
The Narconon talk page has an interesting entry at its top. An editor who is active in the article states that it is his site which is anti-narconon, and is used within the article. Presently it is being used as a citation within the article to present the controversy. Is there a policy or guideline which specifically spells out that an individual should not use his (or her) personal site as a source of secondary information or convenience links to Wikipedia articles? Terryeo 16:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * On the issue of linking to your own site, External links suggests you not do it yourself, but you may mention it on a talk page, and let others do it. But, in the case you refer to, it seems somebody else (not the owner) brought up the site anyhow.  The fact a site is owned by a Wikipedian does not exclude its usage.  As well, the current version seems to only use the site as an External Link, and not as a "Reference".  Also, it's ok to add facts with a citation to a reliable source, even if the editor originally learned those facts from a non-reliable source. --Rob 16:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, that makes sense, especially as an exterior link. What I've seeing in some of the articles is a responsiveness to Wikipedia edits.  That is, a wikipedia article "kind of needs" a source of information about a particular point.  *poof* a personal website suddenly has exactly the document which is then used as a secondary source, a repository sort of document which is linked to.  Compared to linking directly to the source document, the personal website holds the document on its site and the document is linked to there.  This makes a lot of links to personal websites.  Not as secondary sources, but as "repository sources" or "convenience links".Terryeo 07:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That is, a wikipedia article "kind of needs" a source of information about a particular point. *poof* a personal website suddenly has exactly the document which is then used as a secondary source,  Terryeo, that is an interesting accusation and it is one that I would like to explore further since you are implying that other editors are engaging in bad faith editing. Are you able to point out a specific diff which documents this event happening?  I do not believe that any editor has created a document and put it on a personal site in order to then use it as a response in a Wikipedia article.  And secondly, when you demand citations for claims and then "*poof*" the citations appear, you should not assume bad faith.  There are many places for you to verify the authenticity of the source material and despite your nearly endless supply of free time to vandalise articles here you have not discovered a single instance where an editor has added an improper convenience link (one that was not an accurate duplication of the original). Vivaldi (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * So you're implying that someone has to vandalize Wikipedia to make a point before you'll believe it. That's smart.  Personal Web sites are inherently unreliable due to the lack of any filtering or editing mechanisms.  There is no need to rely on such unreliable sources when there are many excellent reputable databases available with millions of articles from established publications.  See How to write a great article.--Coolcaesar 20:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not quite as simple as that. Yes, there may be many reputable databases with articles from reputable publications, but they don't contain the sum of human knowledge (or even more than a fraction of it). Personal websites may have information from reputable third party sources which isn't to be found anywhere else online, such as old newspaper articles or out-of-print books.


 * As for Terryeo's claims, he has for some time been pushing a bizarre theory that if such things are hosted on a personal website they're somehow contaminated and can't be cited or referenced. Since this seems to have been laughed out of court by everyone else, he's now pushing the theory that people are creating content on other websites just so that it can be quoted on Wikipedia. I've never seen any evidence of this (and Terryeo has presented none) but if it ever did become an issue, our usual rules on citations would deal with it anyway. He's already been sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee for tendentious editing and wikilawyering, so I suggest that you don't take him too seriously on this issue. -- ChrisO 09:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There are other places besides the Internet that collectively hold the sum of human knowledge. They're called libraries.  I make a point of writing down a citation or two for a Wikipedia topic I'm interested in almost every time I go to the public library or the public law library.  It's not that hard.
 * It seems to me that most people pushing the use of personal Websites on Wikipedia are those too lazy or incompetent to go down to the library and dig up legitimate sources (as I have for Lawyer). I don't know about other parts of the world, but here in California, we have a huge number of public libraries, community college libraries, university libraries, public law libraries, and archives.  I think the total number within a 10 mile radius of where I am right now is well over 100.  I'm sure other urban U.S. states as well as certain European countries can easily match that density.
 * And as for old articles, ProQuest Historical Newspapers continues to scan in a huge number of old newspapers every single day. That's how I got the citations from the 1930s for the Freeway article. --Coolcaesar 17:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Making Wikipedia a reliable source
What can be done to make Wikipedia itself a reliable source?:


 * Note that Wikipedia itself does not currently meet the reliability guidelines...

At present anyone with spare time on their hands and a PC can edit, revert, vandalize, and otherwise waste other people's hard work, and there is absolutely no form of "finality" to an article. It is always vulnerable.

1. Is anything happening on the "who is allowed to edit" front?

2. Is anything being done to establish some form of protection for reasonably complete articles?

I am not proposing that articles should ever reach a point at which no editing is ever allowed, just that at some point reasonably complete articles should be protected from vandalism and unhelpful edits. Further editing should only be allowed after consensus is reached, and the agreed upon edit is then performed by an authorized administrator who has responsibility for the article. -- Fyslee 17:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia will never be a reliable source by its own standards, nor should it be. In general tertiary sources should not be used by other similiar tertiary sources (like anything, there are exceptions).  Rarely should one encyclopedia cite another one.  Same goes for secondary sources.  The New York Times and Washington Post generally shouldn't rely on one another, but instead each should do their own original reporting (or reprint a news service that does).  To do anything else creates an infinite gossip loop.  Our WP:NOR policy ensures that, any encyclopedia with an equivilent WP:RS policy, could never use us.  If an organization does fact checking themselves, that's original research.  If they don't do their own fact checking they're not a reliable source.  I think the wording in WP:RS you mentioned probably needs to be changed to remove the word "currently". --Rob 07:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Added: I obviously do want us to be reliable, but not in the sense of the term, defined in WP:RS.  --Rob 07:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * fact checking is not original research. Original research means interviewing people or studying primary documents or running lab experiments. Fact checking is looking at several published reliable sources, which editors do all the time.Rjensen 07:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem we have here, is Wikipedia has somewhat unique working definitions of words. A typical writer (say at a newspaper), could take various secondary sources together, analyse them, and come up with some novel finding, and be the first to publish it.  Outside Wikipedia, normally that's not called "original research" as they didn't go to primary sources.  However, for Wikipedia's purposes, that is original research, and prohibited.  Almost any newspaper story that is a reliable source for us, involved what we would call original research.  That is, a Wikipedian editor could not directly do the same type of "fact checking" that the newspaper writer did, without breaking WP:NOR. --Rob 07:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia (my understanding) does not attempt to compete with newspapers. It attempts to present widely published as the prevelent point of view, that is, the widely held point of view, that is, the point of view which most people have found most useful over a period of time.  Newspapers are fast, a news article can appear almost as quickly as an event unfolds.  Magazines are slower, Wikipedia is slower yet because our standards require "previously published, sources, reliable and reputable sources".  So Wikipedia is never going to be on the cutting edge of the news industry.  However, in addition to creating articles because their information has previously been published, Wikipedia could become more reliable if all of its editors were attributable.  That is, if editors were required to register before editing.  Terryeo 01:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

9/11 Commission Report, FEMA Report, and NIST Reports on 9/11 vs. Conspiracy Theories
On the talk page for Collapse of the World Trade Center a user has been making the argument that various 9/11 conspiracy theorists are essentially just as valid and reliable as the reports on 9/11 put out by the 9/11 commision, FEMA, and NIST, because the latter 3 are not peer reviewed, and that the 9/11 Commision report is not relevant because Congressmen are not qualified to speak on matters of structural engineering.

I know there is some sort of flaw in his argument, but I can't find a Wikipedia policy to back me up on this one. (And I've really been looking)--DCAnderson 10:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe that I am the user in question, and I would like to clarify that I am not suggesting that FEMA, NIST or Commission reports are invalid or that "various 9/11 conspiracy theorists" are valid. DCAnderson, User:Mongo and others have been trying to enforce a inclusion threshold of 'peer review'. However, I have been simply pointing out that such a threshold, applied without bias, would also exclude the NIST FEMA and Commission reports, which is something no-body wants to do. Seabhcán 11:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Scale
Couldn't we scale sources? Usenet posts (newsgroups) would be the most unreliable (don't know who posted, don't know where from).Then Bulletin Boards (hosted on one person's server, other unknowns apply. Then Weblogs (blogs) and then Personal Websites.  Personal websites are frequently being used in a responsive manner in the Scientology articles, where a hard to find source (such as Jon Atack's A Piece of Blue Sky is hosted on a personal website and linked as a reference. If we made up a scale, a "Reliability of Source Scale" then an editor could look at a reference, compare it to the references he knows of, an put his reference into an article if it was more reliable. Today, editors don't have a quick scale handy, but only have the concepts spelled out for them with just a few mentions of "don't use newsgroups". Terryeo 00:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

UK Socialist Worker Party a Good Example of "extremist?"
The Reliable Sources article identifies the UK SWP as an "extremist source" right next to the white power stormfront.org. Is this appropriate? The SWP campaigns against war and is anti-racist. The headline at their website now is in support of gov't pensions. Extremist? I'm not ruling out that I missed something about them. Can anyone else comment about UK SWP and whether the example should be changed? DanielM 00:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have changed this example. I would argue that the UK Socialist Worker Party is not widely considered as holding "extremist" views. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 03:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Intent to add text to the Project Page
Dear Friends: I've had this text on the talk page for a day or two and intend to move it to the project page tomorrow. Does anyone object to this? Have any tweaking they'd like to see in it?

Fact checking and reference-running can be time consuming. Your local public or academic library may not have the work cited by an article on its shelves. Often you can ask for a book through interlibrary loan, but this can sometimes take several weeks to do. Fortunately, new tools are now available online to make this work easier. Services such as Google Books, Amazon.com’s “search inside!”, the Internet Archive’s Million Book Project allow you to search the full text of thousands of books. In addition, many similar subscription-based services may be available to though your public, college, university or graduate school libraries.

To check on facts and citations in Wikipedia, however, these databases are powerful tools. You can search them the same way that you do in an internet search. Enter the author in quotation marks and the title in quotation marks. If the book is in the database already, the search engine will find it. If it isn’t, you may discover another work that discusses the book you seek. For subjects, enter as many terms as you can recall. The engines will display a list of pages that contain these terms. Often you will be able to verify the fact you are checking or discover a significant point of view not represented in the Wikipedia article.

When you use one of these services, be sure to gather all the information you can find by selecting links such as “About the Book.” You should be able to assemble a citation in exactly the same way you do with a print publication. Please do not link to the online version of these books. The copyright status of many of them is in litigation. --CTSWyneken 14:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

popular culture
I'm not particularly impressed by this addition of a "Popular culture & and fiction" section. To me it sets the bar pretty low for reliable sources. I didn't revert it, since it appears to be based on an arbcom decision. Of course, popular culture publications don't have the same standards of reliability that scientific ones do. But I also don't think we should accept truly lousy sources, just because they're the best of a bad lot. If the best source covering an item is the National Enquirer, then maybe we shouldn't mention it. --Rob 23:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, perhaps... that's more of a notability/encyclopedic value question than a verifiability or referencing question. My real point was to counteract the more hardline view towards internet forums, mailing lists and so on above that don't apply to the same extent to certain popular culture items. Now, if peer reviewed acedemic studies about television shows, movies and so on are available, then they should be used. But they often aren't, so we have to make due with the best material that exists, as per the Arbitration Committee decision I cited (Here).--Sean Black <sup style="color:#FC0FC0;">(talk) 23:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a *huge* gulf between peer reviewed journals and internet forms/mailing lists. Peer reviewed journals (to my knowledge) are almost never available (for this type of thing).  So, we can't demand that level of sourcing.  But still, web forms and mailing lists are also almost always useless garbage to normally be avoided.  To me Court TV coverage of a celibrity trial is an example, of a reasonable source.  It's not nearly as reliable as I would like.  But if Court TV says something about Michael Jackson, I'll accept that as a valid source.  I know their sensationilistic, and ratings seekers.  But we can't be so picky to exclude them (as long as we cite them appropriately).  But, if there's a widely circulated story on message forums about Michael Jackson, but not in a professional media outlet, then that's garbage, that should never be used, and would actually be a violation of WP:LIVING (if it was of a negative nature).  Also, the ArbCom case, seemed to involve dead people, whereas, normally pop culture edits are about the living.  Also, I hope I misread you completely.  I hope you agree that mailings lists are rarely reliable sources, and never useable for contentious matters.  --Rob 23:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, perhaps I was speaking too generally when I really meant a more specific area. I used several USENET posts as references on Kamen Rider Stronger... Special Duty Combat Unit Shinesman is almost strictly sourced from personal websites&mdash; My problem is that this page makes says "never", which just isn't true. See also this post on the mailing list.--Sean Black <sup style="color:#FC0FC0;">(talk) 00:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I added the line "However, keep in mind, that personal websites and blogs should still not be used as secondary sources", just to make clear, that while we're relaxing standards, we're not throwing them out the window. This isn't a change in policy, just a restatement, which seemed necessary. --Rob 23:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how citing the best source available lowers the bar. I would think that the unilateral exclusion of all x sources could limit what information we can give, making the project less effective. It's not saying to go all out with questionable sources, but there could be instances where a usually questionable source can be fairly reliable. Wikipedia is known for having articles on obscure topics, and obscure topics don't tend to show up in peer reviewed journals. Just my two cents. --Keitei (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but that's what newspapers and magazines are for. There are many respectable well-edited publications like the Atlantic Monthly and Harper's Weekly which publish articles on a wide variety of interesting but obscure topics.  You can find practically anything on ProQuest or LexisNexis or Infotrac nowadays---that's how I researched most of the articles which I have contributed to Wikipedia (see my user page).  As I have said before and will say again, my personal suspicion is that the editors most resistant to digging up respectable sources are either living in areas with no libraries or are simply too lazy to go down to the library and dig up some real sources.  --Coolcaesar 23:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Alternative newspaper
How do we determine if New Times Los Angeles is a reliable source? It's website looks suspicious http://www.newtimesla.com/ --Nikitchenko 11:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The http://www.newtimesla.com/ is no longer owned by New Times Los Angeles. The site itself is a domain name parking FOR SALE sign and it registered out of Taipai, Taiwan.   The New Times Los Angeles is no longer in operation.  However, you are correct to point out that the New Times Los Angeles was an alternative newsweekly.  As an alternative newsweekly, their articles are not generally subjected to the same rigorous editing and fact-checking that occurs at larger papers, like the LA Times, NY Times, or Wash Post.  Thus, factual claims made by New Times Los Angeles should be considered in that light.  Are the claims they are making supported by other more reliable sources?  Are the New Times claims consistent with the testimony of other parties found elsewhere?  I don't think we can automatically exclude as reliable sources the alternative newsweeklies, but we should make sure that the information they provide is supported by other reliable sources. Vivaldi (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * N.B. One notable example of an article being based almost solely on the content of a newsweekly is Sollog. Vivaldi (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There has been a lot of consolodation in the "alternative" weekly business, and the LA version of New Times was a casualty of that, but a chain of New Times papers in other cities has continued. I believe that chain has since merged with Village Voice Media, and that group now owns many of the better-established "alternative" papers, including LA Weekly and the Village Voice in New York.  Despite the "alternative" label, these papers are run by large corporations who are sensitive to lawsuits and they do indeed have editorial and fact-checking staffs.  BTfromLA 15:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * these papers are run by large corporations who are sensitive to lawsuits and they do indeed have editorial and fact-checking staffs. In the larger market areas this industry has been consolidated, with Village Voice running most of the nations alternatives.  However, these papers still have a tendency to engage in hype, innuendo, and tabloid-style stories.  (On the other hand, they have done a lot of good things, exposing a number of fraudulant politicians and companies.)  I'm not suggesting these groups are all bad, but merely that they sometimes engage in journalism that is unprofessional (if news journalism can even be "professional").  There is a tendency for Wikipedia editors to overvalue comments that are placed in newspapers.  When evaluating sources, researchers in general do not consider newspapers to be an accurate source for information.  This is in large part because many newspapers, and especially newspapers in the "alternative" market, do not require their journalists to receive any training at all in the craft of journalism.   There are no independent tests given to journalists to prove they are competent before they are given access the front pages.  Newspapers are not peer-reviewed.  Newspapers generally don't have fact-checkers go back and investigate their reporters sources to make sure they are quoting people correctly (or even if the sources exist at all).  In some cases, reporters are allowed to use anonymous sources to make their claims, which makes them even more suspect.   The whole point being. Yes, alternative newsmagazines can be used by wikipedians as sources, however they should also consider that such sources are not the best kinds of sources and editors should strive to find more reliable sources that back up the information.  If claims are truly notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia, they should have been reported on by more than one reliable and reputable source.  Vivaldi (talk) 16:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur with your assessment on that issue. An assertion drawn from an alt weekly article should always be backed up with corroborating sources.  I have worked in journalism.  Generally the quality of journalism is highest at the big newspapers of record like the NYT and WSJ, because most people who have reached that level are smart enough to not wreck their own careers by making stuff up (Jayson Blair being the obvious exception).  However, journalists at alt weeklies are often independent writers with very odd backgrounds.  --Coolcaesar 23:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

To Link or not to Link...
Rjensen makes the point that we should not restrict editors based on future court findings. Fair enough. This still leaves the question as to whether or not it is fair to link to them. Copyrights asks that we do not link to infringing works. There is a very good chance that the Google Books] versions of copyrighted works are infringing. They are not produced for an educational use, they are by-and-large copyrightable works, the copying is of the complete works and their is an argument that Google will supress sales of electronic versions of these works by placing them online.

So, what, if any, should we say to our editors about this? --CTSWyneken 13:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Google books is set up to let you view a small portion of a book, not the whole thing. Whether or not it is fair use is argued by many.  I'd prefer that editors of wikipedia just link to the ISBN numbers of books rather than to google books directly.  Then the admins and controlling board of wikipedia can decide what to do with the links to the ISBN as a group.  Vivaldi (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Good idea! I'll put it in! --CTSWyneken 12:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Let the editors link to google books. If Google is found to be copyvio, the links will go dead. If not then we have given users a remarkable resource. Rjensen 23:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Talk about timing; try Scan this Book! about the effort to scan every book ever written. --CTSWyneken 18:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Over zealous fact tagging
I find an increasing number of articles that are over linked and over fact tagged. By over linked I mean an article where there are links to every word including links that are ambiguous and wrong.

By over fact tagging I mean the cases where there is a citation in the introduction to basic information about the subject that gives a set of pretty obvious, basic facts. Then when the facts are mentioned later in the article there will be a fact tag on practically  every other  word.

Could we have a note to the effect that before fact tagging people should familiarize themselves with the citations in the introduction? --Gorgonzilla 00:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It might be good to ask how many citations we really want in an article. Do we want to, say, require a note for Thomas Jefferson writing the Declaration of Independence? Or do we save it for less known facts?


 * It seems at the moment that we do not insist on citations for non-controversial subjects, but insist on it in every phrase for articles like Jesus. --CTSWyneken 02:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I see nothing wrong with the current situation as described by CTSWyneken. That's the logical result of having an encyclopedia where anyone can post information and anyone else can challenge it.  Assertions about controversial subjects will be challenged more often, necessitating more citations to sources that support them.  --Coolcaesar 03:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As long as the policy pages say that all statements have to be sourced, cited and properly attributed, editors that want their contributions to have a chance of staying in an article have to cite and attribute every sentence. Drogo Underburrow 03:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If that is the case, practically speaking, how do we decide which articles we should tag? Then, how often? The rules of thumb I've always gone by, and taught, is as follows:


 * If you find the same information in two or more sources, you may summarize this information without a note. If less, you should cite at least one source. If you quote a source, even a phrase, you must cite it. Even though you need not cite common knowledge, as described in the first rule, your readers may find it helpful to cite a good example for further research. --CTSWyneken 11:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me just point out that WP:V does not say that all statements must be sourced. In fact, it doesn't say anything about sourcing individual statements at all, just that material included in WP should have already been published somewhere.  Inline citations for statements is a requirement for featured articles, not every article.  That said, inline citations are probably best to justify controversial statements.  But I personally think that the fact tag is being overused because except in the case of controversial statements or statements whose verifiability is not settled, and except for articles trying to reach featured status, this tag is not really necessary.  Mango juice talk 13:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we should go somewhere in the middle. It is helpful to source things, for the same reasons academics cite sources. First, it give intellectual credit to the scholar the first made the contribution to scholarship. Second, if we have the "I want to know more" feeling, we have some idea where to start.


 * So I guess the question is: does everyone find the text of Reliable sources sufficient on this point? And, no matter what the answer to that question, will my little rules of thumb paragraph be useful on it? --CTSWyneken 13:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The rule of thumb is a good addition. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 14:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Gorgonzilla, could you provide some examples of articles that are overcited? SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 01:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

When to cite
The following was added by CTSWyneken, and is something that might conflict with other policies, so I'm moving it here for discussion. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 01:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * When Citations are required; Some Rules of Thumb


 * There are no hard and fast rules as to when a citation is required. Here are a few rules of thumb to use when trying to decide whether a citation should be requested:


 * If you find the same information in two or more sources, you may summarize this information without a note.
 * If less than two or three sources have this information, you should cite at least one source.
 * If you quote a source, even a phrase, you must cite it.
 * Even though you need not cite common knowledge, as described in the first rule, your readers may find it helpful to cite a good example for further research.


 * That's fine. I had it here for awhile for that purpose. With which policies do you see a conflict? --CTSWyneken 01:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Possibly V, CITE, and NOR, especially the last bit about "common knowledge." The rule that "if you find the same information in two or more sources," you don't need a reference, is completely new, not a good idea, and definitely clashes with V and NOR. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 01:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll review them. Thanks! If so, that's kind of odd, don't you think? Do we need a cite for every phrase? If we don't go by common knowledge, at least as a rule of thumb, isn't that where we're at? Even though I've written them, personally I don't like reading and correcting five page papers with forty footnotes. --CTSWyneken 02:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * We use common sense and provide citations for any point that is likely to be challenged, or that readers might be interested to pursue, or any point that is actually challenged. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 02:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've only ever seen one article that was over-cited, and it was a biography someone had complained about, which is why there was that reaction. Our big problem on Wikipedia is lack of citation, so our policies and guidelines shouldn't say anything that appears to discourage it. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 02:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I do agree that we do need a lot more citation. But I do think a little honesty with folk will go a long way. (we shouldn't say, "cite everything" when we mean, "make sure we know where things come from." )But, if others agree with you and if it is impossible to reconcile with the other policies, I can drop this rule. What do you think of the others? --CTSWyneken 02:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * None of the policies says "cite everything." The only one of your suggestions I'd agree with is the need for a citation when quoting, but that's not an issue for WP:RS, although there's no harm in adding it, but it's probably more for WP:CITE. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 02:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've added a sentence about quoting to Citing_sources, because you're quite right that it should be mentioned somewhere, and I see no harm in adding it here too if it's not already explicit. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 03:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for adding that line to Citing_sources/


 * I'll do a policy/guideline reread and get back to the discussion after that. I still think that, while we do not say it, we imply everything should be cited, unless we say something about it.


 * Perhaps it would help to ponder some examples. Should we require a cite for:


 * 1) London is the capital city of Great Britain.
 * 2) Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence.
 * 3) Christopher Columbus was born in Genoa, Italy.
 * 4) The composition of the ink used by Johannes Gutenberg to print the Gutenberg Bible.


 * Given we can agree on these, how do we explain to new editors how to disern which to cite? --CTSWyneken 11:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I cannot give a cite for that, because I only remember what suprizes me and due to that I can give a cite from a reputable source that Aarhus is a city in the Netherlands. Can I use that reputable source for the article Aarhus? : ) Andries 11:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If it is really reputable and not just reputed to be so. ;-) --CTSWyneken 13:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * A quote that may or may not be helpful:

"Ethics, copyright laws, and courtesy to readers require authors to indentify the sources of direct quotations and of any facts or opinions not generally known or easily checked ... the primary criterion is sufficient information to lead readers to the sources used, whether these are published or unpublished materials, in print or electronic form. The Chicago Manual of Style, 15th ed. (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 2003), 594, para. 16.1-2.--CTSWyneken 13:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)"

Are patents peer-reviewed sources?
Are patents peer-reviewed sources, suitable for use as primary sources? On the one hand, the patent clerks who examine them are, to a degree, experts in the field. On the other hand, some notorious patent applications have slipped through from time to time. Gerry Ashton 22:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've only read a little in the area. While early patents might have been written by the inventors, modernly, patent application, review and granting has become a cumbersome process.  So much so that I have read, for some things, people choose to simply market, rather than apply for patent.  There may exist somewhere today, some small country wherein patents are not a specialized, high-tech, legal battlegrounds of experts, but in most countries it is beyond easy description. Applications expect peer-review, they are specifically written to withstand extreme peer-reviewed scrutiny, yet stand up to scrutiny and protect the inventor's idea. Terryeo 22:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I wish! The target audience of papers and patents is different. With a paper you want to establish scientific cred, a patent OTOH is to hedge your bets against competitors. Dr Zak 21:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * To echo Dr Zak: Patents, are a RS as far as the patent claims go--in other words, if Megasoft Corp claims to patent technology X (or even to invent it), an issued patent on X is a reliable source for that claim.  (Though an active dipute may seek to dilute the soundness of the claim--but if a source is disputed; that may become the province of NPOV). They're probably of little use as a general reference on technology or science matters--not because of the (in)competence of the patent office (in whatever jurisdiction), but because patents are not written to inform the world at large of the details of a discovery; they're written to inform the world what is claimed as a protected invention.  The style and construction of prose used in a patent is notoriously difficult for laypersons to decipher, and often includes superfluous items (and a great deal of redundancy) to allow the application to cover as many bases as possible.--EngineerScotty 21:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have read pleanty of patents in my time, and I agree that the claims section is usually indecipherable to anyone but a patent lawyer; even scientists and engineers will have a difficult time with the claims. However, the description of the invention is supposed to enable a person skilled in the art to build the invention, and I've seen some patents that have a very useful description. So, I generally would not look to patents to learn about a subject, but if I happened to know of one that was worthwhile, I am wondering if it is considered a peer-reviewed source for use in Wikipedia or other places where peer-reviewed sources are preferred. Gerry Ashton 21:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's put it like this (and WP:RS explicitly mentions this): just because it's printed it isn't necessarily true. Sometimes results are misinterpreted, sometimes papers are just made up. The consensus formed after publication is much much more important than the conclusions drawn from a paper (or a patent). Dr Zak 01:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Just found this in the bowels of Wikipedia: Brown's gas. The article quotes several patents and the claims are Total Bollocks altogether. Dr Zak 12:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * One of the problems with the current patent system is that patents are not being subjected to peer review, or in many cases adequate review. The proof of this is found in the patents that have been issued for perpetual motion machines, or for lossless compression methods which achieve compression on all inputs (to give you an idea of how strong a proof that is that patent != peer-reviewed, the existence of a perpetual motion machine would merely require setting aside all experimental observations that have ever been made regarding the law of thermodynamics, but the existence of a lossless compression method which achieves compression on all inputs would require setting aside '2 > 1'.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Court Testimony
I propose that additional information be added to explain the following statement from this guideline: "'Wikipedia articles may use primary sources only if they have been published by a reliable publisher e.g. trial transcripts published by a court stenographer...'" It should be explained that merely claiming something came from a court stenographer is not sufficient. Some type of reference information needs to be given to make the average person capable of contacting a specific PLACE to give some REFERENCE information that would be sufficient to allow a reader to receive that particular information. I am not sure exactly what that is, as I have never had to perform this action to get a court transcript. Secondly, this guideline should make it clear that TESTIMONY in a court cannot be "hearsay evidence". The word "testimony" is derived from the Latin root "to witness", and it must pertain to the knowledge that the witness has received information first hand through his own senses. One cannot fully accept testimony under oath where a man swears that a "several people told" him that a certain person has been "hanging around the bank window planning a robbery for several days". The only reliable part of this testimony is the fact that some people told him this. The man who took the oath did not witness this. It is merely "heresay evidence" as to the content of WHAT those people said to him. The only way that what those people said could become reliable is if they themselves actually took an oath and gave their own testimony. The court stenographer would have to be asked if another transcript may contain other testimony of other witnesses. --Diligens 20:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Diligens, in citing court transcripts, all we would do is quote them, or very carefully paraphrase, and give a full citation. We don't judge whether any given witness is credible. Please see WP:NOR. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 20:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Testimony under oath probably has a bit more credibility than claims made otherwise; and testimony which supports a finding by the Court a bit more so. At any rate, court transcripts and documents are certainly a RS concerning what was stated at trial or in briefings; even if we don't accept them as evidence concerning the veracity of an individual's testimony. --EngineerScotty 21:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Reliable?
I propose that we should change “Reliable sources” to “Credible sources”. I am currently in an argument with another editor, trying to explain why his fansite is not an appropriate source. He argues that the information has been consistently more accurate than major media outlet IGN. This is a good point, but to me it reflects more of a semantics problem than an actual flaw in procedure. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 20:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Polish sources not reliable?
Some editors seem to be suggesting that since an article uses Polish (academic) sources it must be POVed. Comments appeciated at Talk:Soviet partisans in Poland.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk 01:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Index of reliability
I have started a discussion closely related to 'evaluating sources' sections on this policy page at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability. Comments appreciated.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus <sup style="color:green;">Talk 20:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Methylphenidate Revert War
I am currently engaged in a revert war on the Methylphenidate page with User talk:PHenry. He is accusing me of violating the terms of this page by including a link to negative information on that drug. The links I added are reports of people with negative side effects on this drug. I did not include the information on the website in the body of the article - I merely added a link. Is that a violation of this policy? I think not, but PHenry insists that I am doing something wrong. See Talk:Methylphenidate for details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsk (talk • contribs)


 * We shouldn't give undue weight to what may be doubtful assertions. Personal websites that make them are always doubtful. We can't include them and we can't link to them either, as that would give an unproven assertion undue weight. Dr Zak 02:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that the external links section carries no burden of neither reputability, nor verifiability. If that is not the case, we ought to make thsi very clear in this policy. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 04:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * So I'm looking for an interpretation. Is it acceptable for me to put disputed links in the external links section of that article?  I belive that the answer is 'yes'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsk (talk • contribs)


 * I think the external links policy is clear. Section "Links to normally avoid" states "Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, unless it is the official site of the article's subject or it is a notable proponent of a point of view in an article with multiple points of view. (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for further information on this guideline.)" This is actually sane. Especially some medical subjects attract endless amounts of quackery and advocacy. We don't permit those in the article and shouldn't give them undue weight by linking to them externally. Of course we can (and should!) say many people believe that $MEDICATION is a bad reputation because of $SIDE-EFFECTS, but there must be a better way to back that up than someone's blog. Dr Zak 04:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Important to say that WP itself is not a reliable source
I'm restoring the sentence that says
 * Note that Wikipedia itself does not currently meet the reliability guidelines.

(while omitting the puzzling phrase "however, nothing in this guideline is meant to contravene the associated guideline: Build the web. Wikilink freely.) I think it is important to be crystal-clear on this. When I ask people to cite sources for an assertion, I am frequently told that none is needed because the assertion contains a bluelink to another Wikipedia article that makes the same assertion. That is, if List of people known as father or mother of something says "X is known as the father of Y" and I ask for a source, I may be told "it says so right in our article on X." But more often than not the article on X contains no source, or at least no inline reference. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Email Discussion List Archives
A question has come up at Talk:On the Jews and Their Lies as to whether or not such sources constitute reliable sources. Please share your thoughts on this. I can see it both ways. No matter what the consensus here, I’m game to write a paragraph for the project page that covers the collective opinion here.

The listserv in question is H-Antisemitism. Below are excerpts from its pages so that you can get a feel for this resource.

http://www.h-net.org/lists/

"H-Net's e-mail lists function as electronic networks, linking professors, teachers and students in an egalitarian exchange of ideas and materials. Every aspect of academic life--research, teaching, controversies new and old--is open for discussion; decorum is maintained by H-Net's dedicated editors."

http://www.h-net.org/~antis/

"Welcome to H-Antisemitism, a member of H-Net Humanities & Social Sciences OnLine. H-Antisemitism encourages scholarly discussion of the history of antisemitism and makes available diverse bibliographical, research and teaching aids."

http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/welcomeletter?list=h-antisemitism

"The moderators see it as their task to weed out extraneous postings and to make every effort to keep the list functioning as a medium of scholarly discourse. Postings shall in no way be censored. Nor will they have to conform to some preconceived philosophy or agenda. However, the moderators propose to distribute only those messages which meet the standards of scholarly seriousness and reasonably good manners. Let us emphasize that our intention is not to exclude for the sake of exclusion but rather to maintain quality. We are well aware that valuable contributions can come from people who have published little or nothing in the field. When doubt arises as to the suitability of a posting, the moderators will be advised by the board."

What are your thoughts, fellow editors? --CTSWyneken 18:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Caveat: No idea about this particular mailing list and its denizens. At least (opposed to Usenet posts) one can trust the participants to be verified, that is they are who they say they are.
 * Apart from that I see no reason why posts to mailing lists should be treated different from self-published material in any other form, whose reliability hinges on the reputation of the person that made the statement. Dr Zak 22:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! The same can also be said about all the H-Net lists, which have been around since the early 1990s. If any list archives are acceptable, these would be. On the other hand, there are some lists less carefully maintained, so it is difficult to approve of them in a blanket sense. Do we want to craft a rule that allows for H-Net and similar lists, one that rules them all out or accepts all lists? I'm gathering you're saying, even though this is a respectible organization, no exceptions. --CTSWyneken 10:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You may gather as you please. However, the editor is clear when he states, "No idea about this particular mailing list and its denizens."  The facts are that no posts are published without approval of the editorial board of scholars.Doright 23:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I would rather compare a mailing list post to an interview. How "quotable" the person making statements is depends on the newspaper/radio/TV station (obviously NPR is more trustworthy than FOX) and on the person interviewed (you can have a controversial scholar appear put forth his theory or you can have someone impartial sum up the state of knowledge). It depends. It very much depends. Dr Zak 01:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * CTS, thank you for the careful manner in which you are going about your research into the reliability of this source. It would be better if all participants in this discussion would limit themselves strictly to this issue. I receive the distinct impression that there is one Wiki user who appears to be following CTS everywhere he goes on Wiki trying to all he can to pick a fight. Isn't that childish behavior? And is it something that Wiki admins wish to condone, tolerate and encourage. It would be nice if the person would do the right thing and stop this kind of behavior.--Ptmccain 12:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of h-antisemitism
Please see [here] and [here] for background and analysis.Doright 22:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I helped found H-Antisemitism a decade ago. It is an edited list--every posting has to be approved by its editors, who include the leading scholars in the field. Rjensen 23:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed. So are you saying, let's accept this list? --CTSWyneken 10:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * He appears to be asking, what are your thoughts, fellow editors. I would say first of all, it is obviously not one man's personal opinion, it is not a personal website.  It doesn't quite have the status of a government website, it apparently has a program or point of view which it presents, but I would say it is a good source of information.  I am not endorsing it as philosophically valid, but as valid, published information, akin to a newspaper article in its repute, I would say it is good information. Terryeo 00:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Terryeoit, I agree with you that "it is a good source of information." However, I do not agree that it "apparently has a program or point of view which it presents." What about it suggests to you that it might have a "point of view which it presents?"Doright 01:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Because its first paragraph says what it addresses? "H-Net .. links professors, teachers and students .. Every aspect of academic life .."  So it is not talking about a war machine or about nudity or about the yield of rice per hectre, but about academic life. Terryeo 23:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Definitions
''A secondary source summarizes one or more primary or  secondary sources ... A tertiary source usually summarizes  secondary sources ...'' [emphasis is mine&mdash;Ë]

No further explanation is given what the difference between a secondary and a tertiary source is. Please, revise.&mdash;Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 18:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's self-evident. A secondary source is one step removed from the primary source, while the tertiary source is two steps removed.  Therefore, the probability of distortion increases.  For example, a summary may omit vital points and quotations can be taken out of context.  I don't see why any more explanation is necessary.  --Coolcaesar 22:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * An individual goes out into the field and makes an archaeological dig. His personal notes and his speeches and the books he publish are Primary sources of information.  Other archaeologists combine his work with others, similar primary sources and thus publish information about the time period and the area of the globe which is a secondary source.  The other archaeologists are secondary sources of information because they provide a context and expertise which recognize the primary source of information.  Then, Encyclopedias are tertiary sources.  There are two sides to the coin of informational accuarcy.  Encyclopedias don't give you much information "Straight from the horse's mouth", but, on the other side of the coin, they give you widely accepted information in context.  Often this is easier to understand than the specialist's technical jargon and handwritten notes. Terryeo 23:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your trouble explaining what secondary and tertiary sources are, folks; however, this is not what my question was about. I myself know perfectly well what the difference is.  My issue is regading the definition as it currently stands.  This page is an official Wikipedia guideline, and just because we know the difference does not mean every other person researching our policies and guidelines would (think of a schoolboy trying to figure this out using our guideline page).  The definition in its present form is extremely confusing to an uninformed reader, and the notion that the definition is "self-evident" does not really help.  I think that when it comes to wording used in our policies and guidelines, we should make every effort to spell everything out.  Schoolboys aside, folks out there often apply the guidelines after interpreting them quite literally; and currently the guidelines literally say that secondary and tertiary sources can be the same thing.  The "self-evident" clause can easily be dismissed as a non-issue (trust me, I've seen situations like this happen more than once).  Please, have the paragraph re-written more clearly.  Thank you.&mdash;Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 13:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a good point and there was really no need for any sarcasm by anyone to have crept into the discussion. It would be just ideal to have really good, really clear definitions. Terryeo 22:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about NPOV, NOR, Verifiability etc. on Talk:Fedora Core
I have been asked to mention this discussion here. - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal websites as primary sources
I noticed this section here quotes WP:V, but the quoted text in WP:V was edited on May 23 and no longer exists. Gimmetrow 21:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Its like editing into a headwind or something, heh. It would be helpful if at least the three policies, NPOV, V and NOR were more stable. Terryeo 23:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, the reference made to WP:V should go. The verifiability policy demands that statements be verifiable. This guideline here gives advice how to go about finding them. Dr Zak 01:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, finding them, yes. But there is more to WP:V than the idea of verifiability.  There is also the idea of published  which necessarily happens first, before verifiability.  A newsgroup of a particular date could be stored on a dozen websites and become "verifiable" but would not meet the threshold this guideline provides.  WP:V states the threshold of verifiability must be met.  While this guideline states Wikipedia's threshold of publication.  A book is published, a court document is published but a newsgroup is not published and a personal website's essay is not published. (some possible exceptions) Terryeo 03:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem with websites and newsgroup posts is attribution. For all we know, it could have been the family dog that made the newsgroup posting/blog entry/website. Dr Zak 03:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Attribution is certainly a problem. A newsgroup's postings can hardly ever be sure of who created the posting.  Newsgroups can satisfy "verifiability" if they are reposited on numerous servers but can't satisfy the problem of attribution.  Quality blogs and quality personal websites could satisfy both verifiability and attribution.  However, neither blogs nor personal websites are "published to the public" per WP:V for other reasons. Terryeo 17:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please excuse banned user Terryeo. Publicly accessible websites and newsgroups are published, per the definition. --Fahrenheit451 05:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello again, User Fahrenheit451. I notice you can scarcely speak my name but to mention my status.  My user page already tells anyone who is interested what my status is.  As you see, I can post freely here so your statement about "banned" is not completely, 100% accurate.  But your statement about newsgroups and personal websites is not accurate either.  Newsgroups are not published to the public and can not be used as secondary sources.  Blogs are not published to the public and can not be used as secondary sources.  Personal websites are not published to the public and can not be used as secondary sources.  Personal websites can, however store information which is published to the public, held as repository information on a personal website.  The threshold of "published to the public" includes, you see, an author and attribution.  Newsgroups do not meet this minimun threshold.  Blogs and personal websites meet the minimum threshold of having a author, but don't meet other thresholds which WP:V require.  Your statement demonstrates a misunderstanding. Terryeo 22:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Any literary or graphic works that are publicly accessible are published. I suggest you review the legal definition before you make false statements.  So, blogs, "personal" websites and newsgroups are all published to the public. Please stop attempting to spread misinformation here, banned user Terryeo.--Fahrenheit451 17:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. Sorry for not catching on to him earlier. If anyone wants to hear my personal two cents on Operation Clambake, it's this: we know who runs the site and the person and his work are well-regarded in the field, consequently it is a good source. (If the wording of the guideline disagrees the guideline might need adjusting.) Dr Zak 06:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Operation Clambake is known for a single field. It is the opposition to freedom of religion.  If you wish to consider Andreas Heldal-Lund who first opposed Chrisianity and then opposed Scientology, is "well-regarded" then I invite you to similar thinking done by other such heros. Heros such as Hitler, Saddam, and today's president of Iran.  All of those individuals likewise were and are "well-regarded" by a narrow group of people, but most of our planet's people considers them to be suppressive to freedom of religion. Terryeo 22:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Does Terryeo actually have a point to make within all that personal attacking, ad hominem arm-waving and Godwin's Rule confirmations, seeming made with intent to provoke? Could he provide a cite showing that Andreas is currently a well-regarded dictator of a nation-state? AndroidCat 02:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This is such a double-standard by Dr. Zak. He says "personal websites are OK if I give my say-so they're OK".  However, he has been cracking down on me linking to other websites, where I've verified on my own that they're legitimate.
 * If you can come up with evidence that websites such as or  are well-regarded by any significant number of activists they will stay. Note that no one ever thought of removing Dr Breggin's site - that man is respected. Dr Zak 06:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Regarding those two websites, those two links. If you explore the sites (Click "about us") you find they are both personal websites. That is, created by 2 or 3 individuals whose purpose is to present their own, personal viewpoint and experience about a specific area.  As such, any opinions on them would not satisfy WP:V, though if they had repositiory newspaper articles or books, those could be used as secondary sources of information, if they were accurate. Terryeo 17:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Those two sites could not be used within an article for information (except reposited, published books and other published information), but could be used in a "Exterior Links" section. Terryeo 18:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * What's the burden of proof for "well regarded"? It seems like such a wishy-washy standard.  Plus, we are debating the standard for what is acceptable for inclusion in the "external links" section of a page, which is a much lower threshold than what is acceptable as source material for the body of an article.  It appears that Dr. Zak asserts that "well regarded" is "whatever I consider to be acceptable".
 * There seems to be a fascination amongst non-scientists with "peer-reviewed journals". Well, there is much stuff published every day, even in refereed journals, much of it is boring, and some of it isn't even so, either because of mis-interpretation of results or outright fraud. What is more important is the prevailing scientific consensus that emerges when published research is discussed in the scientific community. So up to a point, "well regarded" is that people consider acceptable. WP:RS actually mentions this. Dr Zak 22:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Dr Zak writes, Note that no one ever thought of removing Dr Breggin's site - that man is respected. Peter Breggin is well-respected among the Scientology kooks at the CCHR.  He's not that well-respected in the psychiatric community.  However, Breggin has had books published by reputable publishers.  I'd say that Breggin's personal website is appropriate for discussing himself, but not for sourcing claims that Breggin makes about other topics other than himself.  If you want to source a claim about psychiatry to Breggin, find a peer-reviewed journal in which he makes the claim, or at least find a published book.  Vivaldi (talk) 07:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well stated, Vivaldi. A personal website's opinions may only be used as references to itself, in an article about the website or about the author.  Breggin's books, because they are published, can be used as secondary sources of information.
 * I would be more specific. Those statements of Breggin's that made it into the accepted body of literature can be used to back up statements about psychology. The statements that are made on his website can be used in the article on himself. Dr Zak 22:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

A Reliable resource but false claim
I have two questions and I want to extend the WP:RS policy if consensus is developed. Below is the first one. I will give real wikipedia example later but want to have some comments first. --- Faisal 00:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Question 1: What if a source/book makes false a claim. Will it be still okay to use that claim? For example: If a source "A" says that the fact "k" is obvious from source "B", whereas "K" is never mentioned in source "B".


 * I've always wondered about "verifiably false" claims. In the simplest case, if the New York Times prints a story saying "A", but then issues a correction a week later saying "We were wrong, 'A' is false", the first story is verifiable, but also verifiably false.


 * If somebody comes along and cites to the first NYT story to establish "A", are we really required to have two sentences, saying "On November 2, the NYT said 'A'. However, on November 8, the NYT issued a correction, saying that the November 2 story was incorrect, and actually 'not A'."?  As it reads now, verifiability, not truth suggests that we are.TheronJ 14:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Verifiability, not truth is the threshold for our putting information together, to create articles. But the quality of an article rests on more than a policy.  It is the great advantage of Wikipedia to have many editors.  An editor might create an article who has read the first NYT article but not the second, and a second editor come along who considers the second NYT article important.  Both pieces of information can then be included, producing a balanced article. Terryeo 17:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for replying. Here is the real wikipedian example. Please tell me what I should do. The article jizya says:
 * It was of course, evident that the tax represented a discrimination and was intended, according to the Koran's own words, to emphasize the inferior status of the non-believers.... 
 * However, I am NOT able to find any verse of Quran that say so. I invite other users to present any verse and they are also not able to do that. However, if I try to remove this misleading claim of a so-called well-know writer then other Users do not allow it and say that I should read WP:RS. Do not you think that WP:RS need to be change. Book reference is not enough but also the claim made by a book should be verifiable. Should I change WP:RS? --- Faisal 22:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Faisal, I'd say the first thing would be to find a copy of Goiten and check pp. 278-79 and see if he cites to a specific section of the Koran. You can probably get one by interlibrary loan.  That might resolve the issue in one direction or the other.TheronJ 22:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It is upon the shoulders of the editor who quotes a book to provide his / her source of information. A quotation of that sort should not just say, "book xyz" but should tell when the book was published, what company published ,etc. so that another person can locate a copy of that book and look at the page number and see that exact text. Terryeo 18:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur with Terryeo's analysis on this issue. That's why I, for one, provide publisher, year of publication, and city of publication for all my book sources, in line with Turabian citation style (see Lawyer for an example). --Coolcaesar 20:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The ISBN also serves as an identifier which is different for different versions of the book.--Fahrenheit451 17:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It is difficult to find that book in Pakistan, I have to visit city main library. However, suppose that the book really has written exactly what is mention in the jizya article. But still the point is that if an author says something with reference to Quran then he should specify the relavent verse of Quran. However, apprently from the text he has not. Furthermore, other users and me not able to find any such verse. Hence it is possible that the author has made that comment because he might be biased or mistaken. My question is that If a source "A" says that the fact "k" is obvious from source "B", whereas fact "K" is never mentioned in source "B" then WP:RR should not allow to mention that fact. I wish if I could improve WP:RR regarding this. --- Faisal 20:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Faisal has got a point. To summarize (there seem to be a few misunderstandings along the way), in our entry on jizya, the Muslim poll tax for non-Muslims, someone has cited an article by the Arabist S.D. Goitein, who makes a statement about the Koran. Faisal feels that Goitein's assertion is false. Per our policy of No Original Research we can't add our own opinion if any statement is true or not. What I would recommend is to get the article (by interlibrary loan) and try to find out what verse of the Koran Goitein bases his interpretation on. Then I would get a reliable Koran commentary and add that interpretation, saying "Goitein asserts ayat such-and-such to mean this-and-this, whereas Muslims on general interpret it to mean that-and-that." Dr Zak 21:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't agree. An unverified piece of information may be removed by any editor.  The citation is to a large, thick volume of many, easily identified verses.  Per WP:CITEVerifiability he would have the right to remove the verse to the discussion page where it could be properly attributed, or dropped from the article.Terryeo 16:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's right, Terry. If you look at the article, it says "Goiten says 'in the Koran's own words, the jizya is intended to . . .'"  Assuming that Goiten is a reliable source (and he apparently is) and that he actually says what he article says he says, that's it.  There's nothing in WP:V that says we check to see whether claims in otherwise reliable secondary sources are themselves verifiable.TheronJ 17:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Being perhaps the greatest authority on the issues of jizya, S.D. Goitein is most certainly right here. It is the predominant interpretation of the Quranic verse 9:29, namely its last word saghiruna ("to make small" or "to belittle"), that jizya is an expression of humiliation and submission. There are plenty of Muslim scholars and academic historians, apart from Goitein, talking about that. Faisal has made much ado about nothing, just because he feels uneasy about this aspect of the treatment of non-Muslims under Islam. Pecher Talk 21:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Faisal has stated something about both the content and the attribution. His statement that the verse should be cited is 100% correct.  Chapter and verse should be cited.  WP:CITE If the editor had cited the verse, the discussion would not have reached this page.  Since Faisal has questioned, surely other readers of the article likewise have questioned.  I would say one of two things should happen.  Either the quotation should be better cited or the quotation should come out.  Wikipedia doesn't want confusing articles, Wikipedia wants easy to understand articles, articles that will pull more people into contributing. Terryeo 16:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Terry, the article does cite to chapter and verse of the Goiten book cited. (See footnote 11 here).TheronJ 17:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your support Terry. TheronJ the Quranic verse needs to be citied. I never said that Goiten is not cited properly but the Quranic verse that Goiten is referring is not citied. Now if the User:Pecher says that Goiten is refering to version 9:29  then see the differnt translations of 009.029. These translations only mean that fight until non-Muslim accept jizya, that is they submit themselves to pay jizya. It does not remotely means to humiliate non-Muslims. If  you do not believe me than I could present different tafsir regarding that verse meaning. Also the Goiten text presented in the article jizya does NOT mention 9:29 verse of Quran.  --- Faisal 20:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The article currently says that "Goiten says the Koran says X." It's his opinion being reported.  If a contrary opinion can be reliably sourced, can't you just add "Authority Z interprets it otherwise"? Gimmetrow 21:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is my analysis of this ongoing debate. First of all, someone (preferably a Wikipedian with a strong track record of good edits who has access to a really big humanities library) needs to go verify the content of the 1963 article to make sure it actually says what the current article text credits Goitein with claiming.  If Goitein did say all that, then the article should remain the same per Verifiability. The NPOV and Verifiability policies (both core Wikipedia policies beyond debate) imply that it is not relevant whether Goitein's analysis was actually right or not, as long as his viewpoint is accurately summarized.  I know Faisal does not like that conclusion, but that is how the two policies have been applied to all controversial issues since the early days of the Wikipedia project, and I highly doubt the Wikimedia Foundation will reverse its position now.
 * Second, if Faisal is correct that Goitein was just plain wrong, then it should be easy to find at least several citations to articles by distinguished Islamic scholars arguing for the opposite interpretation (it's been a long time since 1963). At that point, Faisal can then edit the article to say, "Goitein argued this in 1963, but more recently a number of scholars has argued otherwise." But if Faisal can't find any citations to the contrary, then perhaps it may be likely that Goitein was correct.  --Coolcaesar 21:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Faisal began making those claims on Talk:Dhimmi; after several editors demonstrated to him using a really impressive array of sources that he was plain wrong, he moved to Talk:Jizya. Now he has migrated here. It's a resolved issue for everyone but Faisal, who keeps pushing his original research; discussing it again is a waste of our time. Pecher Talk 22:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur: there's no reasonable indication that Goitein's scholarly assertion is wrong or wrongly represented, except for a wikipedian's POV. --tickle me 22:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing me in the direction of those talk pages. As Americans say, Faisal is clearly two cards short of a full deck.  I'm not sure if he is capable of understanding the philosophical system of epistemology which Wikipedia operates under.--Coolcaesar 23:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I looked up the Goitein reference. There is a minor misquote but the text is there, with a footnote mentioning 9:29. Gimmetrow 02:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Just like always I am convinced, because both of you have presented very good reasoning. Thanks for your kind words about me Pecher and Coolcaesar. They really helped. Obviously they cannot come under wikipedia Personal attack policy and you are allowed to say whatever you wish about me. --- Faisal 10:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Today I looked up Goitein's 1955 book on Jews and Arabs while visiting the public library (we have excellent libraries in Silicon Valley). In that book, at pages 97 and 98, Goitein goes through a variety of examples to show how the tax as applied was extremely oppressive.  On page 97, he discusses how although the tax was usually one gold coin per year, a typical peasant earned only six or seven gold coins per year.  On page 98, he points out that to prevent tax evasion, people living within Muslim-controlled regions could not move about without special permits and had to always carry their receipt showing they had paid the tax.  On page 98, Goitein also notes that in Iraq the receipt was cauterized on the necks of non-Muslims.  So it seems to me that Wikipedia's portrayal of the jizya as discriminatory and oppressive is accurate.  --Coolcaesar 03:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Just looked up the Goitein reference out of curiosity at Stanford University's Green Library while visiting today for a different research project (feel free to trace this IP address). Yes, I am one of the participants in this discussion and will affirm this statement under my own WP username when I get home.  The citation is correct.  Actually, the bulk of the 1963 article is not about the underlying verse, but is directed to analyzing extensive empirical evidence (in the Geniza archives at Oxford and Cambridge) that the tax as applied was extremely harsh and oppressive. Again, Faisal has no case.  If he attempts to modify the article, he should be classified as a vandal and permanently banned. --171.64.140.160 20:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The post above is mine. And I reiterate my positions as stated.  Faisal is simply nuts and in denial. --Coolcaesar 16:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed text on Electronic mailing list archives
(Continues discussion at: and [h-antisemitism]

Dear Friends: in light of the short discussion above, I propose to add the following to the guideline:

Electronic mailing list archives

Electronic mailing list archives are collections of email messages related to a given topic. If such a list is moderated by a scholar or hosted by a reputable organization (see the venerable H-Net: Humanities and Social Sciences Online, they may be cited and quoted with care. Only if you can verify that the author of a post is a scholar on the subject you are editing should you use these sources.

Treat Electronic mailing list archives with the same level of reliability as you would a television interview of the scholar. Very rarely are posts juried or edited by a scholar's peers.

Does anyone object? If so, is it because you do not feel any email-based source is unreliable or that you would like the wording changed? --CTSWyneken 14:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I object. Online sources are inherently unreliable.  Email in particular is extremely unreliable.   --Coolcaesar 17:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me start by saying I have mixed feelings about this. The posts by scholars to this list are very interesting and can be quite helpful to us. In fact, this would be an expansion of the "use with caution" advice already in the guidelines concerning internet sources. On the other hand, we've all seen poor materials on the internet.


 * When I've expressed such misgivings, after I've been accused of trying to supress the truth, it has been pointed out that lists like the H-Net ones are moderated by scholars, verified by the organization, and are about as trustworthy as it gets on the internet. (they've been around since before the World Wide Web had images). 8-) I suspect they will ask: "are you saying that a post by, say, Shelby Foote to the Civil War list is unreliable?"


 * My interest in this is closure. Some are quick to remove info from these sources, others are inclined to be incensed at their removal. So, we need closure on it.


 * OK, enough ramble. Coolcaesar, could you explain why a set of lists such as H-Net are unreliable, given they have safeguards in place? Anyone else have an opinion? --CTSWyneken 17:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * As a long time (12 years) manager of an academic mailing list, I find that the contributions are widely varied in quality. Off hand, they're better than the general run of the internet, and when the interaction is good, they often turn up some details that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to find in the published literature.  Since there are also loonies and trolls out there, I think the proposed guideline has the proper level of caution and should be approved.  I would add to the guideline that "all citations must include the name of the person being cited and the subject line of their message." We don't want to invite citations to a general discussion on x-list.  --SteveMcCluskey 02:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent point! I'll add it. --CTSWyneken 10:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * My concern is that most such lists are not mirrored in enough places like physical books or magazines as insurance against retroactive censorship or modifications. I am mindful of Milan Kundera's famous opening passage in the Book of Laughter and Forgetting about the guy who was airbrushed out of all the history books in Czechoslovakia.  With an electronic source hosted in one or two places, it is much easier to modify the "authoritative" copy, and unlike conventional books or periodicals, there is no paper copy to check the computer copy against.  In contrast, it would be much harder for a hacker to vandalize the ProQuest newspaper database and get away with it, since there are literally thousands of copies of the New York Times back issues in libraries all over the world on microfilm.  As for rare items in university archives, they are guarded by tight security procedures, as I can personally attest to: I have visited archives at Stanford University and UC Berkeley.  Anyone who vandalized archive items would be quickly identified and prosecuted.
 * Yes, there is some danger of this. Although, as a librarian, I'm more worried about natural disasters, the folding of hosting organizations, technology foul ups, and physical items crumbling into dust or back up tapes degrading. But the same can be said of doctoral dissertations. For most of these, there may have been at most a dozen copies ever made, including microfilm, and only the school of record and the microfilmer are ever serious about preserving them. I'm not sure we would want to eliminate them as sources, however, since they are as juried as anything gets.--CTSWyneken 10:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I am also concerned about the fact that posts to such lists do not go through the editing and polishing that is required of most books and journal articles. However, I concede it might be all right, if there is no other source available, to cite such a post to support the statement that "Famous Professor contends that Event A occurred because of Cause B."
 * But I think such citations should be relied upon only as a last resort where there is no other source available, since it is so easy to find out what most scholars think about a specific issue by simply searching their published works through JSTOR, LexisNexis, ProQuest, EBSCO, or InfoTrac (even if most people don't personally subscribe, they do live close to a community college which probably subscribes to at least two of these databases). And I think that it is simply unacceptable to rely upon such citations as the primary ones in an article.  They should always be provided sparingly in combination with citations to more reliable sources.  --Coolcaesar 05:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a good point. We should be clear in the text that such are resources of last resort. But I think, if we put in a paragraph that these are OK, they will be used as first resort, rather than last. Do you have language that we could add to allow editors to challenge such citations with something like a "do your homework" edit summary? --CTSWyneken 10:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * As you say, most relevant research has found its way into print. However there are some rather esoteric subjects where there exists much informal knowledge simply because the circle of participants is so small. The flagship example is crystallography, especially mathematical crystallography, where my degree supervisor once remarked that "there are two dozen people in the world who understand direct methods. Trouble is, half of them are older than 50." One well-known exchange (on top of it on USENET!) concerned the question whether DIFABS should be banned. I don't think it any of it ever made it into Acta Cryst A. OK, it's an extreme case, but mailing list posts are good only for highly esoteric matter. Dr Zak 22:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Revised proposed text
Electronic mailing list archives

Electronic mailing list archives are collections of email messages related to a given topic. If such a list is moderated by a scholar or hosted by a reputable organization (see the venerable H-Net: Humanities and Social Sciences Online, they may be cited and quoted with care. Only if you can verify that the author of a post is a scholar on the subject you are editing should you use these sources. All citations must include the name of the person being cited and the subject line of their message.

Treat Electronic mailing list archives with the same level of reliability as you would a television interview of the scholar. Very rarely are posts juried or edited by a scholar's peers. Cite list archives only when no other source is available. --CTSWyneken 12:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks good; go with it. --SteveMcCluskey 20:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * OK with you, Coolcaesar? Other folk? --CTSWyneken 20:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I sort of concur. Though I would prefer: "Cite list archives only after making a good faith effort to determine that no other sources of superior reliability exist." The point is to encourage people to exhaust other sources before relying upon electronic mailing lists.  What I'm afraid of is some idiot citing an entire article to list postings he/she found through Google, and then when challenged, claiming that the article is "well-supported." --Coolcaesar 23:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I can well understand that fear, having seen nearly that bad several times before. I'll substitute your line for my third. Anyone have other ideas? --CTSWyneken 00:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

How about this?
 * Electronic mailing list archives are collections of email messages related to a given topic. If such a list is moderated by a scholar or hosted by a reputable organization (e.g., H-Net: Humanities and Social Sciences Online, they may not suffer from the above stated problem with Usenet. Therefore, they can be cited and carry the authority (if any) of the person being cited. As with all sources, it is incumbent upon the editor to ensure that the person being cited is notable.  All citations must include the name of the person being cited, the message subject line, the archive or forum name and date. --Doright 00:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please note this user substituted his version of this section on the page for the one achieved by consensus and then put his version also here. I have reverted the page. --CTSWyneken 15:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * CTSWyneken, Please note that claims of consensus seem a bit premature, since, at present, no one has agreed to your final text. Also, this so called, but yet to be formed consensus, consists of only yourself and one editor (that agreed only to a prior version), plus an editor that says, "I sort of concur." By rushing to slam your version into the article, you left me no choice but to edit it in the article.  Please calm down.  I suggest, if you don't like my version of the text you talk about it here rather than making unfounded and personal attacks.  What do you object to in the version you reverted?Doright 18:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Further Revision of Electronic mailing list archives
Perhaps this is an improvement over my last attempt?
 * Electronic mailing list archives are collections of email messages related to a given topic. If such a list is moderated by a reliable entity or hosted by a reputable organization (e.g., H-Net: Humanities and Social Sciences Online, that confirms the identity of its contributors, it may not suffer from the above stated identity problem of Usenet. Therefore, they can be cited and carry the authority (if any) of the person being cited. As with all sources, it is incumbent upon the editor to ensure that the person being cited is notable.  All citations must include the name of the person being cited, the message subject line, the archive or forum name and date.Doright 19:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Doright's two changes miss the point of the earlier discussion. All previous versions discussed on the talk page insisted that the list must be maintained by a scholarly organization and that the person cited must have scholarly credentials in the field.  The final consensus version added the caveat that this should only be done as a last resort if no other source is available.


 * Doright's changes water down the intended limitations so that the new statement would aprove citation of assertions made by almost any identifiable person on a list maintained by almost any kind of organization. But the issue isn't just identification; it's expertise.


 * I do not favor Doright's changes. --SteveMcCluskey 20:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Steve, that's false. They would still need to meet all relevant criteria, such as, notability, authority, etc. But, those concerns are already addressed by other policies and need need not be duplicated here.  Steve, so according to your favored version, a message from Tiger Woods on a PGA moderated list archive where he might discuss his opinions on the Pebble Beach Golf Course could not be included because (1) Tiger Woods is not a "scholar", and (2) the PGA is not a "scholarly organization."  However, according to your preferred version, a list archive maintained by someone called a "scholar" can be used to cite a posting even if there are no procedures in place on that list to even verify the identity of the author.  Also, I don't think we should duplicate other caveats and protections that are already addressed on this page.  For example, read the following.  Beware false authority "What are the credentials and expertise of the people taking responsibility for a website?" Anyone can post anything on the web.  Reliability of online sources Evaluate the reliability of online sources just as you would print or other more traditional sources. Neither online nor print sources deserve an automatic assumption of reliability by virtue of the medium they are printed in. All reports must be evaluated according to the processes and people that created them. At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources. Rare exceptions may be when a well-known professional person or acknowledged expert in a relevant field has set up a personal website using his or her real name. Even then, we should proceed with caution, because the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking. The policy page that governs the use of sources is Wikipedia:Verifiability. About self-published sources, which includes books published by vanity presses, and personal websites, it says: "Sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight..."  When reporting that an opinion is held by a particular individual or group, the best citation will be to a direct quote, citing the source of the quote in full after the sentence (see Harvard referencing) or using a footnote or embedded link if the source is online. See WP:CITE for more details.--Doright 23:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Which he would have learned had he brought it to the talk page first. Instead, he has now once again replaced the text we discussed here with his own. He should remove it. --CTSWyneken 20:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Since Doright asked me personally to reply to his comment, let me make two brief points and quietly drop out of this discussion.
 * His suggestion that we consider other than scholarly sources is useful, but must be used with caution -- there are disinterested organizations and organizations with an axe to grind.
 * One such caution that concerns me is Doright's use of the word opinion (e.g, "Tiger Woods ... might discuss his opinions on..."; "When reporting that an opinion is held..."). I don't see sources as a source of opinion, they are sources of reasoned opinion, i.e., opinion based on evidence which is presented.  An encyclopedia article should be evidence based, not opinion based.
 * --SteveMcCluskey 13:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Steve, thanks for the reply. Your two points are stimulating.  Since you have “drop(ped) out” of the discussion, I’ll address my analysis to others that still may be interested in working toward consensus language for Electronic mailing list archives.


 * With respect to the issue of a person’s views or “opinion,” I point to the following quotation from WP:RS: " An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group holds a certain opinion is a fact, and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group holds the opinion. That’s one of the reasons (it also distinguishes it from Usenet), I add the phrase, "that confirms the identity of its contributors."   Furthermore, WP:RS also states, " Keep in mind that many articles are about characterizing the various factions in a dispute. This means that you will be looking for reliable published reports of people's opinions. "


 * I also appreciate the concern expressed regarding the exclusion of sources that are not "scholarly." And, that there are "disinterested organizations and organizations with an axe to grind."  This is, of course, universally true and not unique to Electronic mailing list archives.  It’s not even unique to online sources. It's therefore better addressed in a more appropriate section.  Clearly, many sources are reliable but not “scholarly.”


 * Prejudicial admonitions like, "Cite list archives only after making a good faith effort to determine that no other sources of superior reliability exist," can be said for every citation from every source which leads one to wonder why add it here? And commands like "Cite list archives only when no other source is available," appear to be overly dogmatic, over reaching and of questionable reasoning.


 * In light of the above, I propose the following text, which I have edited into the Electronic mailing list archives section. Unfortunately the section was initiated prior to a consensus being achieved.  Electronic mailing list archives are collections of email messages related to a given topic. If such a list is moderated by a reliable entity or hosted by a reputable organization (e.g., H-Antisemitism, that confirms the identity of its contributors, they may not suffer from the above stated identity problem of Usenet. Therefore, they can be cited and carry the authority (if any) of the person being cited. As with all sources, it is incumbent upon the editor to ensure that the person being cited is notable. All citations must include the name of the person being cited, the message subject line, the archive or forum name and date.  Collegially, Doright 16:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Doright: It is only your opinion that consensus was not achieved in this matter. As it is, Steve and Coolcaesar both expressed the need to urge the use of this kind of source only as a last resort. The current text was adapted twice to increase the caution. Your version not only does not reflect this, but you argue against it. It seems you are alone on this issue. If you wish to adapt your text to somehow state clearly that email lists should be cited only if no other source is available, please do. Otherwise, the text as is should stand. --CTSWyneken 18:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear CTSWyneken, I think "consensus" is a bit over glorious a term for what you have achieved.  Yes, that is my opinion.  Yes, Steve and Coolceaesar expressed some concerns, however others have challenged your and Coolceaesars analysis.  Thus, there is obviously no consensus on your version.


 * For the record, user Doright has once again reverted a consensus text, inserting his own in its place, even after an editor explicitly expressed misgivings about his version. Would someone besides me explain how this is behaving badly? --CTSWyneken 19:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the problem is that Doright probably is not trained as a historian, journalist, attorney, or librarian. Generally, historians, journalists, attorneys, and librarians tend to pay the most attention to reliability of sources because the reliability of the information they compile into their writings is so important to their careers.  In other fields, factual errors in documents may be embarrassing but not career-ending.  I am not sure if there is any way Doright's rather generous view of the reliability of electronic list archives can be resolved with the more conservative view taken by those in the professions that actually do fact-finding on a daily basis.  If Doright keeps reverting, he needs to be blocked under the 3RR.--Coolcaesar 19:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Coolcaesar, your attribution of "the problem" to my personal training (about which you know absolutely nothing) is not helpful, especially when combined with an incitement to an edit war. Do not make personal attacks. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will rarely help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping create a good encyclopedia.Doright 22:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Consider the example of Daniel Dennett, a notable person who is known for answering his own email. If I asked him by email to explain whether he is in fact a behaviorist, it would be hard to use his reply as a WP:RS because only I have the email. On the other hand, if he responded on any reputable (but not necessarily moderated or even scholarly) mailing list whose contents were available on a public web site, his response would be visible to all, hence verifiable. In fact, any text by him on any web site that can be confirmed as his own words should be an excellent primary source. Can we modify the policy to reflect this? Al 20:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think so, Alienus, good point!Doright 22:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No. You still don't get the point which CTSWyneken and others are trying to get across.  The problem is not just verifiability, but survivability.  Nearly all books and periodicals exist in the form of redundant copies.  Until about seven years ago, it did not make financial sense to do offset lithography print runs under 1000 copies.
 * Even where documents have been digitized, as in the New York Times archives, the online copies can always be double-checked against the paper originals. Therefore, there is relatively little risk of tampering or corruption or complete loss.  The obvious exception is a thermonuclear war that could destroy all extant copies of a work simultaneously, but fortunately that hasn't happened yet.
 * Furthermore, items that exist only in a single copy in museum or university archives are usually under heavy guard so that there is a paper trail if someone tampers with them or steals them. For example, archives (like the Bancroft Library at UC Berkeley) require visitors to go through a lot of bureaucratic hassles before they can enter the secure area (including several forms and pat-down searches going in and out).
 * In contrast, a competent hacker (for profit or fun) can easily modify documents on public Web servers. If there are only two or three copies, and they are all modified, then it is impossible for anyone to know what the original copy said.
 * Of course, in theory, the original author could disavow the modified version---if they ever detect that it has been modified, out of all the thousands of messages they have drafted in their lifetime. But what about authors who are dead?  People die from accidents, disease, and old age all the time.  Are they going to be able to contest an edited email that dramatically misstates their position on an important issue? No.  And that's assuming the author of the email is who he says he is. As the famous New Yorker cartoon stated, on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog!
 * The point is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for the long run. I don't think any of us would bother to contribute to Wikipedia if we thought it was something that would be really cool for a year or so and then would be superseded.  Rather, I think we contribute to Wikipedia because we hope this is a valuable project that will be passed on to the next generation.  And that means we have to think in long run terms (which is what historians already do).  That's why I, for one, cite only sources that have already been published in paper format.  --Coolcaesar 21:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This reads like an argument against using any online sources. Is that really what you want to say?  Al  21:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly right Alienus. That's why all the baggage that these two and maybe three editors (the so called "consensus") want to hang on electronic mailing list archives is misplaced.Doright 22:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it's merely an argument against online sources which aren't backed with some kind of redundancy or security. For example, I have no problem with linking to articles from Web sites from any publication that also simultaneously publishes to paper, like the New York Times, Time, and Communications of the ACM. Furthermore, while deriding my argument as "baggage," neither you nor Alienus has attempted to directly refute my argument, which implies that you have no valid counterargument. --Coolcaesar 23:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Still no good. Now you're claiming that all web sites are unreliable unless there is a paper and ink archive available.  This is, to be frank, absurd.  If we followed this rule, we'd have to remove most of the articles in Wikipedia immediately.  Al  02:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Absurd in what way? Are you simply defending the status quo because you're too lazy to improve the encyclopedia by digging up legitimate resources? It's not that hard to write down a citation every time one goes to the public library, you know.  Do you have some kind of ulterior motive for getting bad information into Wikipedia?  I'm trying to coax you into making your underlying assumptions explicit (which I have done), because I'm simply not seeing where you're coming from.


 * To be clear, I'm not proposing that we delete half the encyclopedia. What I am proposing is that if and when information is challenged as unreliable or inaccurate, it should be replaced by information cited to verifiable, legitimate sources that exist in massively redundant copies, not fly-by-night electronic mailing lists that live on a single server and could be wiped out by a hacker, virus, or natural disaster (like Hurricane Katrina). --Coolcaesar 16:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, you figured me out: it's pure laziness on my part. It has nothing to do with my concern that raising the bar arbitrarily high would allow selective attacks by POV-pushers, even though I've seen this happen already.  In fact, it has nothing to do with the fact that such a standard would be entirely impractical and cause great harm to Wikipedia.  No, it's because I'm lazy.  Glad you read my mind.   Al  16:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, you still didn't respond to my arguments on the merits. Particularly the survivability one.  Do you have any training, formal or informal, in SSK (the sociology of scientific knowledge) or epistemology (the philosophy of knowledge)?  Do you understand how important those fields are to this debate?
 * It seems to me that you and Doright are coming from a rather naive position that grants first-order legitimacy to all documents, electronic or paper, without question. You are clearly unfamiliar with the efforts of various persons throughout history to modify the historical record to suit their agendas.  In fact, there was just a wonderful article in Smithsonian magazine last month about the evolution of Mary Magdalene's story during the time of the early Christian sects (before the Catholic Church branded all the competitors as heretics and purged them).
 * As a lawyer, I have been trained to be skeptical about the relevance, reliability, and authenticity of all evidence. I've also been heavily influenced by Milan Kundera, one of the most brilliant writers ever on the malleability of historical memory, and Thomas Kuhn, the founder of SSK.  CTSWyneken, as a librarian, is similarly skeptical, since librarians are charged with ensuring that their collections accurately reflect the historical record.
 * Turning to your points offered in rebuttal, I have seen numerous attacks by POV-pushers on Wikipedia who cite to extremely unreliable Web sites and USENET newsgroups. Allowing them to use electronic mailing lists would only make the problem worse.
 * Also, you are apparently unfamiliar with the huge number of electronic databases out there that have already digitized all significant periodicals published after 1990, and most periodicals published after 1900. Plus there are many smaller databases that have scanned in and published older books and magazines going all the way back to the Magna Carta (like Project Gutenbert and Chadwyck-Healey's Literature Online project).  Most of these databases are easy to use and can be accessed at libraries throughout the English-speaking world.  In fact, most public libraries allow patrons to access databases like Thomson Gale Infotrac and ProQuest from home, which I have done many times when researching articles for Wikipedia. Your argument about setting the bar "too high" is just plain wrong.  --Coolcaesar 20:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Good, then you'll understand the meaning of prima facie. If a verifable email message has my email address as the sender, that is prima facie evidence that I sent it. It may well be that further evidence will reveal that my address was spoofed, or the contents were changed after the fact. Perhaps, perhaps not, but the burden of proof is shifted onto the skeptic. The defense rests. Al 20:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Again you're not responding on the merits. It is precisely that inquiry over authenticity that Wikipedia is not suited to go into, just as it is not suited to inquire into the actual truth or falsity of statements asserted in verifiable sources (which is already stated in the Verifiability policy).
 * If you were familiar with e-discovery, then you would know that corporations spend billions of dollars every year (I recall it was $2 billion last year in the United States alone) on e-discovery consultants who fight over the production of electronic records like e-mail and whether they are authentic. In those projects, such insanely painstaking efforts are worth it because there may be billions of dollars in potential liability at stake, and because there's usually a liability insurer on the hook who's willing to pay a little now rather than a lot later.  But it's not worth it for Wikipedia.
 * Furthermore, most corporations have security measures in place on their internal email servers to ensure that users are who they say they are. But the public email protocols like SMTP and POP3 and IMAP do not have such measures.  If there was a mechanism in place to accurately link every single email address back to a physical person (a perfect one-to-one correspondence between both sets), spam would not be such a huge problem.  This is all obvious to anyone who has studied computer science, security, and set theory, of course, which you clearly have not.
 * As a project staffed by volunteers, Wikipedia does not have access to the power of subpoena or the armies of technical experts which would be necessary to ensure that email archives are reliable. The other alternative would be for the Wikimedia Foundation to start serving as a public mirror for all mailing list archives, so that there would always be a copy available of known reliability (much as Google hosts the Google Groups archive).  But Wikimedia can barely afford to keep Wikipedia running as is.  --Coolcaesar 05:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

(below suggestion copied here by Doright 19:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC))
 * Electronic mailing list archives are collections of email messages related to a given topic. If the contents of a list are available on the web in an archive or forum so that they can be verified, they can be cited and carry all the authority (if any) of the author.  Citations must include the name of the author, message subject line, archive or forum name (and URL) and date.  A good faith effort must be made to ensure that the named person is in fact associated with the email address used, and as always, that they are notable.  Al  12:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This works for me.Doright 17:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You can post it to the article or we can wait for more input. -Doright 19:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I cannot support this version unless it also includes the line "Cite list archives only after making a good faith effort to determine that no other sources of superior reliability exist." Wikipedia should not tolerate articles that are cited solely to unreliable electronic list archives (which will be the logical result of a guideline that fails to indicate that such archives are a last resort). This is not the "MailingList-Pedia!"  --Coolcaesar 20:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not acceptable, of course, but there may be a reasonable compromise available. How about:
 * "Mailing lists are generally understood to be less reliable than sources that are archived professionally, particularly in print. As always, we should prefer more reliable sources over less."
 * Al 20:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What's not acceptable with ensuring that no other sources of superior reliability exist? It's not that hard to run a cursory search of Google, a couple of local library catalogs and Gale Infotrac from a home computer (10 minutes max, I've timed it in the past).  Then the editor can say in their edit summary, "I searched the local catalogs and databases and came up with nothing, I'm posting a link to this archive instead," and then if no one else can come up with anything better from any other source (because it's a truly obscure subject) then the citation will stand.  But if it's a common thing (like freeways) there will always be a few articles on Infotrac or ProQuest.  Even Roger J. Traynor (whom only lawyers know about) gets about 30 hits on Infotrac (that's how I researched most of the article).  It sounds like you've never used Infotrac or LexisNexis or any of their brethren.--Coolcaesar 05:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Coolcaesar, all your stated concerns are already addressed on the WP:RS page. If you haven’t read it lately, give it a try.  Also, I find your analysis and conclusions a bit strained.  For example, I’ve had opinions published in some of the largest circulation newspapers in the USA without confirmation that I was who I said I was.  You would, for example, require that paper source be given preference over my posting to h-antisemitism, despite the fact that h-antisemtism does not publish my post until I am confirmed as the source.  That’s bad policy, in addition to being a bit strange.--Doright 07:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that's a step in the right direction, Al. Would you take a look at the version I developed before Doright decided to unilaterally replace it with his own version? What, if anything, makes you uncomfortable with it?


 * And, yes, Doright, I welcome your on this one if you can express it in a civil manner. --CTSWyneken 21:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This discussion is complicated. In any case, I made some grammatical and content revisions to the section. It still doesn't clearly say that email lists which don't meet the stringent criteria are not acceptable. -Will Beback 23:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well done. I tired to include your concern in a minor revision.  Take a look. --Doright 23:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)