Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 31

Basic failure of Wikipedia
There is something wrong with Wikipedia. And there is something wrong with the Reliable Source guidelines.

Per the Wikipedia page, Wikipedia is "Wikipedia ( /ˌwɪkɪˈpiːdi.ə/ or /ˌwɪkiˈpiːdi.ə/ WIK-i-PEE-dee-ə) is a free,[3] web-based, collaborative, multilingual encyclopedia project supported by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation."

An Encyclopedia, per the page here state, "An encyclopedia (also spelled encyclopaedia or encyclopædia) is a type of reference work, a compendium holding a summary of information from either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge.[1]"

So, it is an elemental part of Wikipedia holding the summary of information from all branches of knowledge. And yet, around the world, Fox News is widely regarded as a partisan joke. Yet from a basic read of the article, there are only a few mentions of this fact. Wheras, the talk page is so riddled with wikilawyering as to make any submitted source meaningless. Every time a source is submitted, it is said to be 'partisan' or 'not sufficiently reliable'. The Reliable Sources policy in particular is often cited extensively, and yet from this very page I give you what it says about News guidelines:

"Mainstream news sources are generally considered to be reliable. However, even the most reputable news outlets occasionally contain errors. Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article is something that must be assessed on a case by case basis. When using news sources, care should be taken to distinguish opinion columns from news reporting."

Fox news has repeatedly been shown to publish outright lies, and deliberately spin facts. There are numerous sources that are regarded as reliable on any other article, but because of a handful of dedicated editors, the article looks like something straight out of a News Corp information bulletin.

Now let's look at questionable sources shall we?

From the page:

"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight."

Fox News.

"Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions."

Fox News.

"Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited."

And yet despite repeated calls for arbitration over the last few years in the Fox News article, the basic tenor has not changed. There is almost nothing listing the extremely poor quality of the article itself. If "Reliable Sources" can be sited as a defense of this article, then the "Reliable Sources" guidelines clearly need to be changed. Tacitus2010 (talk) 18:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Tacitus2010, you've been here only 2 days and edit only relating to Fox News. Please take some time to get some experience under your belt, then come back here and make the same complaint, if you still feel it holds.  You may be 100% correct, but gaining some experience will help you here and elsewhere. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This reminds me of an extended discussion not that long ago :p Tacitus2010, have a look through here,here,here. Then come up with a plan. un☯mi 18:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Intriguingly, this just fell into my lap "Yet another study has been released proving that watching Fox News is detrimental to your intelligence. " un</b><b style="color:#775">☯</b><b style="color:#675">m</b><b style="color:#575">i</b></i> 18:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That's the point. There is now a peer reviewed study showing its biased and flawed, and it still makes no traction.  People keep talking about it and talking about it and nothing gets done.  The people who regard Fox News as flawed seem to be greatly outnumbered by the Pro Fox news editors on the site.  This has been going round and round and round for YEARS.  Rather than bring up again in an arbitration panel, which has clearly failed.  Because the arbitration has either been spun into nothing, or it was implemented and then ignored by the commentators again as they came back and reedited, or the arbitration has failed to find that Fox News is ridiculously partisan that I felt that repeating the same mistake over and over again was pointless, so I would try to bring the problem to a higher level to rewrite Wikipedia policy to account for blatant attempts to blur the truth into meaninglessness.  I imagine many of the commentators on this page sincerely believe in what they're doing, but the article isn't balanced, isn't properly sourced and quite frankly isn't true.

If they can cite "reliable sources" guidelines to keep the fact that Fox News is not a legitimate news channel from being in the article, much less barely even a mention of it at all, then clearly the 'reliable sources' guidelines are fundamentally flawed. Tacitus2010 (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought the consensus from prior discussion was to acknowledge its bias where relevant, and to generally trust it otherwise. It's reliable in most contexts, but it has a leaning, and we can use discretion to either avoid it or attribute it where it conflicts with other less partisan sources.  Is that a misreading of prior discussions? Ocaasi (talk) 20:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite see how wikilawyering and POV/Hack jobs on the Fox news article do represent a failure of this guideline/policy. You have to keep in mind that "wikilawyering" and "gaming the system" is always possible no matter how you formulate the guidelines. And no guideline can protect us from a lack of reasonable editors in some dispute cases.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * We've been having a related discussion here in which you may want to participate. Note that news sources are given much more weight in WP:IRS, which is a merely GUIDELINE, than they are in the "RS" section WP:SOURCES that is part of the policy page at WP:V. The latter is more vague, but actually is far more reasonable (in part because it IS vague). And it's also policy, which is stronger than guideline. So don't sweat WP:IRS too much-- it's a guideline under construction, and still needs a lot of construction.  S  B Harris 01:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I'll definitely check out that discussion! Tacitus2010 (talk) 16:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Right, as I mentioned on the other page, I think one potential solution is to just flat out list sources that are known to be deliberately designed to propagate false information or that will echo information without making any attempts to validate it. Fox News certainly qualifies in this. Tacitus2010 (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that such list are difficult to manage and I doubt you will get a consensus here. Moreover it always depends on the context, there scenarios where referencing fox might not be a problem (sports news, maybe some cutlural or society reporting, etc.).--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Really? I mean, yes there is a significant people that believe in Creationism, yet the way the Evolution article is written leads to the science rather than the critics of it. That's because scientists know things.  And wikipedia isn't dumb by believing that all truth is relative.  The Pravda article flat out says that it was the official organ between the communist party and a news paper.  The VAST majority of the American and World population believes, both experts in any field you care to name or not that Fox is linked to the Republican party but because Fox News still pretends that its independent somehow (mainly through psyops to try and win independent voters).  If you can ban chronic abusers of wiki policy that edit their own articles through lies, why can't you list news sources that are shown to lie and not care about it above a significant portion of others?

Would Encyclopedia Britannica cite "The Onion" as a news source? No. Because they have a reputation to protect and because anyone who knows what's going on knows its satire. But you want to know who DID use the Onion as a news source?

Fox News.

So why then should Wikipedia agree to use a propaganda machine as a viable reliable source of information? And if it isn't, then the standard for showing how much they lie should be significantly lower, thus making the article actually editable instead of what it currently is. The shenanigans that have taken place in the talk page of that article lessen the credibility of all wikipedia, and multiple arbitration attempts have, to the best of my observation, accomplished NOTHING. Tacitus2010 (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you actually read what I've posted above? Anyway as far as I'm concerned there is no need to use Fox at all, but i don't see any consensus for "blacklisting" Fox in general and hence blocking its use even in cases where it is unproblematic (as mentioned above). However if you think you can organize a consensus to blacklist Fox, be my guest.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "You're welcome to go off and start your own little crusade. Why don't we see how far that gets you?"  No thanks.  Given the fact that it has been allowed to go on as long as it has, one must imagine that Wikipedia isn't really serious about the truth, just collecting the donation checks.  And how does one define 'consensus' anyway?  The policy already describes that Wikipeda is not a Democracy.  So exactly how many people would be needed to make it 'consensus'?   And finally, I've never asked for a mere blacklisting but a chance of the guidelines to reflect the fact that Propaganda isn't a reliable news source.  I see there is no interest in that.  So why would I try to build consensus when people are perfectly fine allowing Wikipedia to be used to propagate lies? Good day. Tacitus2010 (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Our guidelines already cover in general terms that propaganda is not reliable news source, so if that was your only concern that's already taken care of. The tricky parts comes with the enforcement and interpretation of guidelines in an open system such as WP and to agree on what's propaganda and what's not.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I see. So if a source does not follow your particular left-wing slant (as do the "legitimate" U.S. sources), it is unusable. THIS is why we say Wikipedia wants verifiable information, not "the truth (TM)". There have been studies of news slant, you might cite them instead of "what everybody knows". The one I saw said that Fox was less slanted than the others, but this may have changed; I no longer watch television. If you are going to put a disclaimer on Fox News, please put one on CBS, NBC, ABC, and especially the New York Times and the extremely slanted BBC.Mzk1 (talk) 18:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, I missed that above. You did get one peer-reviewed source. It would do to have more, and one would need to keep in mind institutional bias of the sources.Mzk1 (talk) 18:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, the reason that FOX News is not a reliable source has nothing to do with it's "right-wing POV". Every source has a POV. The reason that FOX is unusable is that they've got a poor record for fact-checking, and deliberately publish misinformation. POV is never a reason to classify something as unreliable. Consistent factual inaccuracy is. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * So there is a reliable study comparing FOX News fact-checking, with, say, CBS? Certainly one accidental reference to the Onion, given the short time-to-boradcast, does not invalidate something, given what the regular networks have done? (Note that I am not comparing to MSNBC.)Mzk1 (talk) 20:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I've seen the study, and I am shocked and disgusted that this discussion was brought here. It is nothing but ANOTHER attempt to standardize a left-wing POV in wikipedia.
 * Looking at the study:
 * 1. What is the proof that it was peer-reviewed? This was not done by UM itself.
 * 2. It is a study of FOX viewers, not of FOX itself. Anyone who understands science knows that once you get away from studying the subject itself, the results become much less accurate.
 * 3. FOX viewers may also watch FOX opinion. I have managed here to successfully create a differentiation between the news and opinion parts of newpapers. Does the study do this?
 * 4. The study includes statements like "most economists say". This is an unprovable assertion, and not all that relevant either.
 * 5. Most assertions of "fact" were Democratic views. In one Republican view, it was found that FOX viewers had the LEAST misinformation.
 * There are other points that could be brought up, but I'm sure others have done this. I would just note that contrary to popular belief, the WSJ is not a conservative-leaning publication, or so at least one study has shown. There is wall of separation between the editorial and and news sections of the WSJ, saomething we would all do well to emulate.
 * Now can we get back to substantive discussions?Mzk1 (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Fox News is routinely found to be reliable on the Reliable sources noticeboard. Anyone who makes the blanket statement that Fox News is not reliable doesn't know what they're talking about and should stop giving editors bad advice.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Like other news sources, Fox gets the bulk of its stories from the newswires. If it then spins the news to support a political line, that isn't usually going to be a problem for us. If an editor has reason to believe that a Fox story, or any news story, is inaccurate, then they should indicate why they believe it to be inaccurate. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Peer review will take place after recess
See: this... I want to know who their teacher was. Blueboar (talk) 00:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "The paper was prepared by 28 boys and girls, ages eight to 10, at Blackawton Primary School in the village of Blackawton, Devon, England, under the direction of their head teacher, Dave Strudwick, and Beau Lotto, a researcher at the University College London's Institute of Ophthalmology." --Hegvald (talk) 18:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Are sources easy to manipulate?
I was just thinking how easy it is for any person or group with some clout or connections to manipulate and insert their own bias into commonly-held "reliable" sources. Does anyone agree? Kiki Rebeouf (talk) 05:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if this is what you mean... but if you are pointing out that sources can be biased, of course... in fact, most (if not all) sources reflect the bias of their authors. The fact that a source reflects a bias does not make it unreliable. We deal with controversial biases by phrasing what we write as a statement of opinion (as opposed to a statement of fact)... We write "According to X, Obama is evil <cite to X saying this> " rather than "Obama is evil <cite to X> " Blueboar (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've actually seen that in most cases the "censuses" would rather agree with "Obama is evil <cite to X> " unless the case is as obvious as your example.173.180.214.13 (talk) 02:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

soultracks.com
Would http://www.soultracks.com be considered a RS? It's being used extensively in Jon Gibson (Christian musician). The material in the bio seems to be listed, verbatim, in a few other locations, but does that make it a RS? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Circular logic
Sources that are "widely acknowledged as extremist" are described as questionable. This creates a paradox, where two GROUPS of sources both consider the other as "widely acknowledged as extremist." This means any group, that claims everyone who accuse it is "widely acknowledged as extremist," which is chosen first is always reliable because any sources that state it isn't reliable is a questionable source. Apparently groups that defend itself in this (common) way cannot be deemed unreliable.173.180.214.13 (talk) 02:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia reliability
Sorry to rake up "reliability of master's dissertations" again, but I am going through guidelines that affect how I contribute to WP, and the issue concerns me from another angle. This comment is meant to be self contained.

In Identifying reliable sources, Section 2.1, (titled "Scholarship"), the final sentence of the 3rd bulleted item states: "Masters dissertations and theses are only considered reliable if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence."

Should the word "reliable" (together with its morphological variants) in this, and equivalent contexts, be replaced by "Wikipedia reliable" or "WK:reliable" or some other denotation that shows its specialized usage?

Readers with experience of supervising and examining master's dissertations, and presenting these in discussions of priority, could consider the statement denigratory to their professional integrity.

Also, the usage just quoted conflicts with the definitions of "reliable" in the Oxford English Dictionary and the Random House Dictionary of the English Language, and with the usage of the word in the approximately 25 places where it occurs in Reliability of Wikipedia.

I just ran some searches relating to master's dissertations.

The web site for the MIT Master of Science in Management Studies mentions four exemplary master's dissertations with email addresses of faculty advisors. It seems that the Sloane School is proud of its master's dissertations.

A Google Scholar search on "Masters dissertation" brought up 222,000 hits. I have looked at a few. Some relate to unpublished dissertations which have been cited in scholarly journals. Other hits relate to studies of the use of master's dissertations as sources of information that are not available elsewhere.

The National Library of Medicine Manual of Style devotes an entire chapter to the style of citation to be used for master's and doctoral dissertations. Presumably this shows the perception of a need to cite master's dissertations by the U.S. agency responsible for the dissemination of biomedical information.

The claim that master's degrees are seldom terminal for people conducting serious research ignores accepted professional career paths of many people who conduct serious research in M.S., M.Sc., M.A, M.B.A, M.P.H, M.F.A. and many other master's degree programs.

The suggestion that reliability is confered by significant scholarly impact raises difficulties, without a definition of "significant". Also, there have been many occurrences in research when the signifance of a paper in a peer reviewed journal was not recognized for several years. And the scholarly impact of most peer reviewed articles, measured by the number of citations in later articles, is zero (this can be seen in Web of Science and Scopus searches).

The fact that a dissertation has been cited shows its perceived interest content, not its reliability (the citing paper might even consider the dissertation erroneous).

Hope I have not repeated myself too much. But I am concerned about outside scepticism of WP, and the wording I have questioned does seem vulnerable.

Michael P. Barnett (talk) 17:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Can a Ph D dissertation be used?
Can a Ph D dissertation submitted and available in the University library qualify for use as reference on Wikipedia. AshLin (talk) 09:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am assuming that the person who submitted it also got a PhD. (Otherwise it's better to wait, and if no degree was obtained the situation would have to be quite exceptional in my opinion.) It's a reliable source, but it's not a very strong source in general. There are many factors that must be weighed:
 * How reliable the field in which the dissertation appeared generally considers dissertations.
 * The country.
 * The university.
 * That said, a dissertation may well be a better source for a scientific statement than a New York Times article, especially when it explicitly contradicts a newspaper article on a scientific claim. As always intelligent evaluation of all available sources is required for a fair assessment. Hans Adler 10:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It also to depends what kind of content or statement you want to source with it. I.e. something that is new and groundbreaking research appearing in this thesis for the first time or something that is relatively undisputed and assumed to be correct to begin with.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. AshLin (talk) 11:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It also depends on whether the statement is in line with the thesis' discipline. Economics theses shouldn't be used for fine art criticism. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Opinion pieces from major news sources
I want to clarify the Wikipedia policy towards opinion pieces from major news outlets (CNN, NYT, WSJ, etc.). If I interpreted the description correctly, we can use op-eds for reliable information on the author, but any opinion, conclusions, synthesis, etc. must be marked as their opinion? For example, if I had an op-ed piece from the NYT written by Paul Krugman on tax cuts, it would need to start something like: "According to Paul Krugman"; followed by the quotation or his conclusions? However, as long as it is attributed to him as an individual and not necessarily a factual statement based on consensus, it is considered reliable?--FrankieG123 (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds right. However, there is one other question, that of due weight. We include all significant viewpoints that have been published in reliable sources, so if we say it's a reliable source, the other question is, "is it a 'significant' viewpoint"? Of course, things published in the sources you mention would generally qualify. Dlabtot (talk) 02:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

tag wanted
what is the tag for a reference that does not support the article content its used with?Koakhtzvigad (talk) 07:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Failed verification gives
 * If you're looking for tags in the future, check out this page. It's handy to have around as a reference. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but maybe thats not what I need.
 * The sentence says A, but the reference, while discussing A, really says B. So what do I tag it?
 * Also, where do I tag it?Koakhtzvigad (talk) 08:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be Failed verification or fv for short, Place it like so: "A is C" that is immediately after the statement that failed verification. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#978">u</b><b style="color:#877">n</b><b style="color:#777">☯</b><b style="color:#677">m</b><b style="color:#577">i</b></i> 09:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Pictures as a source?
What is the rationale for using pictures as a source? Let's say a random webpage publishes pictures that indisputably show some particular thing. Would it be valid to affirm such thing in an article and use the picture as a source? This is of course, provided that the affirmation is based on a fact directly shown in the picture and not requiring an interpretation or speculation based on it. --uKER (talk) 13:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Pictures are generally not considered reliable sources... as they are very easy to manipulate. Pictures (and other images) should be used to illustrate our articles, but the information they are illustrating still needs to be reliably sourced.  (Yes, there are a few rare situations where images might be reliable, but they are very few and far between.) Blueboar (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The case in question is a film of which filming set photos were posted in several sources, depicting the very same thing. Needless to say, the source wouldn't be a direct link to an image, but to a page in which they're published and more or less described. --uKER (talk) 18:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What exactly is being stated in the article? Again, If there is a reliable source that states something about the film set, you could probably use the photos to illustrate what is said in the source.  Blueboar (talk) 22:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Um. The case in question is about Transformers: Dark of the Moon, in which the film's main character has been pictured wearing some kind of tech glove. I'm using this as a source, but it's being disputed by someone who says it can't be mentioned because the editor doesn't know what it is, no matter how objectively I've tried to describe the picture. --uKER (talk) 01:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Given that the text that accompanies the picture is speculative in nature (with the author asking whether it could be a tech glove, and not asserting that it is a tech glove), I have to agree with the other editor. For us to look at the picture and draw any conclusion from it would essentially a case of Original research.  My call... wait until the movie comes out and we know for sure. Blueboar (talk) 14:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Original research. Dlabtot (talk) 14:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * While I agree with the particular case here being original research/synthesis, I disagree with Blueboar's assertion that they are not reliable because they can be manipulated. Text can be manipulated far more easily, after all.  Gigs (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Gigs... Could you give an example what you mean by "manipulated text"? Blueboar (talk) 15:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess he meant that text is much more easily made to show something that doesn't reflect reality, than a picture. About the pictures, I don't get how that could not be a glove, but never mind. I won't make a crusade over this. --uKER (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree it looks like a glove... the problem is that you are drawing a conclusion about the glove and its relationship to the movie. That is OR.  It is also getting into WP:CRYSTAL territory (since the movie has not come out yet, we don't even know if the scene depicted will be in the movie).  Blueboar (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To try to make this clearer... the photograph in question would be reliable for a purely descriptive statement about itself... along the lines of "A series of photographs posted to beyondhollywood.com depicts someone sitting on the ground, and reaching forward with his gloved left hand. Director Michael Bay and the film crew work around him." (we can not even say who the person on the ground is, as we can not clearly his face... it could be a stunt double). We can not say anything further about the photographs without getting into OR.  Beyond the photograph, the website would be reliable for the statement "The author of the posting speculates that these photographs may indicate that Sam Witwicky has a new Power Glove".  However, that brings into play the question of whether the author of the posting is someone who's speculation is worth mentioning.  Is the author some sort of expert?  Is the author in a position to know what he is talking about? Does his opinion carry any weight?
 * Finally... even if you were to phrase things as I outline above, I would argue against inclusion... it is essentially fancruft trivia. Blueboar (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

New Spanish Proverb
Spanish saying: "Yo vine a este mundo a querer, no a que me quieran". Author: Carlos Kalife Sanchez my dad. Don't know if it's registered please review and let me know. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.140.26 (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Has anyone else used it or discussed it? Blueboar (talk) 18:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Google yields no results neither in Spanish or English, but may I ask... how how does that question fit here? --uKER (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Interviews and book reviews
I've been searching Reliable sources Noticeboard to find out about the reliability of interviews and book reviews based on book/author. I'm thinking that on the Project page it should also talk about how to judge the reliability of sources based on self-published book or on a non expert interview. Blackash  have a chat 09:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Feature articles and what they can be used for
Over at Wikiproject Video Games a recent issue brought this to the forefrount and we are trying to figure out what these reliable sources can and cannot be used for. Specifically, whether can be used for making statements in video game reviews without attributing it to the studio, the development team or specific member of it. IE, would sites like IGN and Gamespot be okay? What about sites like Gamasutra which focuses more on developers and development-related issues that a general-interest website? 陣 内 Jinnai 23:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

DVD/Blu-ray extras as a source
If I was to make an affirmation that a certain Blu-ray disc's extras include an interview to a certain person, would I have to cite an external third party source backing that or is there a way to cite the Blu-ray as a source in itself? --uKER (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You could cite it directly to the disc, you could use Cite video. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Awesome. Thanks for that. --uKER (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Ultimate decision
In reality, isn't the last word as to what is or is not a "reliable" source ultimately that of an admin? After all he/she has the power to block any persistent editor for "vandalism" or some other spurious reason.Sushisurprise (talk) 07:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No. The last word is WP:CONSENSUS.  Admins abusing their privileges will lose them, eventually. Dlabtot (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Admins are (for the most part) respected members of our community, who are presumed to know and understand our polices and guidelines... so their opinions will often influence discussions. However, they definitely do not have the last word. As Dlabtot says, the last word is community consensus... especially on the issue of reliability. Blueboar (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd be interested to know just exactly how many admins have lost their privileges. How do we get to find out whether there are complaints against admins?Sushisurprise (talk) 05:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I find these sort of oblique discussions tedious. Whoever the particular admin it is that you have an issue with, and whatever the particular issue, please bring it up at WP:ANI. The chances that it is illustrative of a fundamental flaw in the Wikipedia model are remote, but if so, it will all come out in the wash. Dlabtot (talk) 07:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

No particular issue with any admin; was just curious, that's all. I will not risk any more intolerant responses by persisting with the question. Consider it closed.Sushisurprise (talk) 07:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I see from your edit history that the particular article in question is Censorship. The particular admin is User:Favonian. We are required to assume good faith, but we are not required to pretend someone is acting in good faith when the evidence shows otherwise. Dlabtot (talk) 17:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't get your reference. I reiterate: I was not "gunning" for any particular admin in my quest for info. From your aggressive attitude I can only assume you are an admin who has taken offence at my post.Sushisurprise (talk) 05:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Yellow journalism
Can Yellow journalism be added to the unreliable sources category? Journalistic sources are used a lot in Wikipedia, but many fail to comply with the elements of the trade's professional and ethical standards Koakhtzvigad (talk) 23:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that is needed, can you provide some examples? We already weigh the relative worth of newspapers, for example, the NY Daily Post is less well regarded than the NY Times. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I can only suggest that its prevalent in reporting on certain subjects, notably those concerning crime, celebrities, etc. and may not be applied to general editorial standards of publications. I.e.. with regard to some topics the standard applied seems to be low even where the publication in general may be well regarded. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 00:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see that as well. The question is, since we handle such on an individual basis, how would adding yellow journalism to the list help? My concern would be that we'd wind up arguing about which newspaper fit in that category. Also, such sources can be reliable for some things, if not for most things--really, we have to evaluate a source against the topic--an excellent peer reviewed academic article is not always a reliable source for every assertion it contains. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The intention in my request is not to 'outlaw' all journalistic sources, but to ask the Wikipedia editors to be more discriminating by adding an extra filter to their reference acquisition. It seems to me that this would also assist in eliminating quite a bit of edit-warring on some of the more controversial subjects Koakhtzvigad (talk) 07:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, it is far more likely, in my opinion, to set the stage for "correct" sources being required.  And endless debate among groups of editors as to which sources are "correct."   Collect (talk) 11:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. Everything can be boiled down to either "fact" or "opinion". Facts can stand up for themselves, so I suppose it's all down to whose opinions we value and whose we reject. Sushisurprise (talk) 05:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not quite since a typical problem of yellow journalism is that they get the facts wrong, so yellow press publications are not always reliable sources for establishing the plain facts.--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Which is one way one distinguished the yellow press from the others. Realibility isn't a black and white yellow issue, reliable source for one topic may not be reliable for another. So if we made the policy change, we'd have to establish criteria for which are yellow and which are not, and argue that those criteria. And I think those arguments would be harder than the ones we have now. But that's just my thought. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Quoting in citations to help readers quickly check source content
I propose adding to MOS aand/or RS the following – "“Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, and is often viewed with mistrust. Wikipedia responds to this by requiring reliable sources. Users can then always check the content of an article by reading the source provided in the reference list.  It is helpful to the reader to include a very brief quote from the source in the ref, so the reader can quickly find where the content came from in the source.”"

Please comment. HkFnsNGA (talk)
 * That belongs in WP:No Original Research, where it may actually be a useful condensation; this is the Manual of Style, where we argue over hyphens. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It probably belongs in citations (although I think MOS should take over citations). On the content, I had to deal with this at an FA and have a slight tweak desired. I often use quotes in citation, they are very punchy sometimes.  they give extra info.  they give a flavor.  They drive home the proof.  But I don't do it to help locate info.  I do it for extra effect.  I had a reviewer want me to add "See sentence starting at..." before all my quotes, but my intention was pretty far from locational. I believe the citation was sufficient.  Plus the quote was the most important part but not the "starting part".  Plus I had a couple that started mid sentence.  So I love the practice.  But I don't do it for location.  See Painted turtle.  TCO (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I will start a talk page section at WP:RS And WP:OR, per your suggestions. (What does "FA" abbreviate? Is there a dictionary of WP:abbreviations for relative newbies to them?) I had similar experiences to yours, which is why I thought of it, and with your additional "punch" motivations, beyond just to be helpful. HkFnsNGA (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Were this proposed in a relevant policy (and I oppose MOS taking over anything actually important), I would comment that a brief quotation is often misleading, and this provision would certainly be abused; often a sentence in WP summarizes a page; also, anything that makes citation more difficult had better be clearly worth the slower citation rate it will produce. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a possibility for non-WP:GoodFaith abusing this, but it is also helpful in finding information in large sources, and for detecting such abuse. I agree this discussion could also take place in other talk pages, and I will start it there. HkFnsNGA (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For most sources, the solution to that is page numbers, already required. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This conversatoin is being merged over to parallel discussions at WP:CITE, and WP:MOS here. PPdd (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Homeopathy Journal
The recent brouhaha above about 'claimed peer review' has caused me to re-evaluate the listed examples. The journal Homeopathy can actually be argued to have a reasonable peer-review process. It is published by the respected scientific journal publisher Elsevier (journal page on Elsevier site). It is periodically cited by other peer-reviewed journals. And, looking through recent articles, their articles are sometimes not supportive of the practice of homeopathy. Since there is some evidence that this journal should not be on the list, I have removed it from the list of 'claimed peer-review, but no meaningful review and not respected' journals. LK (talk) 08:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding Homeopathy as having a "reasonable peer-review process", see the "something from nothing generating machine" discussion about one if its "peer reviewed" articles, citing WP:PARITY here. PPdd (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Please vote - A consensus vote as to whether to consider the journal Homeopathy an RS for physics, science or medical conclusions
A consensus vote as to whether to consider the journal Homeopathy an RS for physics, science or medical conclusions is happening here. PPdd (talk) 01:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Clarification, please
I'd like a little bit of clarification on the following part: "However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third-party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable source. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third-party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is useful but by no means necessary for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet." What does this mean, "an archived copy of the media must exist"? I first thought that it meant that there has to be some version of it on the internet, but the next sentence disregards that. Can somebody clarify this please? -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 17:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * As an example, the source might be a recording that's available from a library. --GenericBob (talk) 11:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, by definition then, isn't every film archived? I mean, if some version exists on tape or whatever somewhere, be it in a library, in a museum, in an archives, on Youtube, or in my camcorder.... -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 11:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Note the 'archived by a reputable third party' requirement there. YouTube or Joe Random Person's camcorder generally wouldn't meet that requirement.
 * Just about all significant modern films would easily meet this requirement; digital media makes archival a lot cheaper than it used to be. But a lot of older stuff is lost forever - see e.g. lost films and List of lost television broadcasts for discussion of this. I don't know what percentage of modern TV broadcasts are archived; I'd guess it's high, but I don't know that it's 100%. --GenericBob (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, then. That makes sense. Thank you.
 * Then that begs the question -- if I watch a film of some sort on television, say a news broadcast, is it safe to assume that it passes the archiving requirement, or do I need to go track down a physical copy of the film somewhere?
 * Thanks for your help. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 01:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure - don't know enough about archiving practices to give a reliable answer here. --GenericBob (talk) 02:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

'Creation Science Quarterly'
The page says "A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals.", and there is a footnote which says (in part) "Examples include: The Creation Science Quarterly..."

I don't know what "The Creation Science Quarterly" is. A Google search doesn't show any clear candidates, although a few uses of the phrase refer to the CRS Quarterly (CRS = Creation Research Society). Is this the journal that is intended?

If so, how do we know that it is not peer reviewed by the wider academic community? I believe (but can't document) that another creationist journal does include reviewers who don't agree with their stance but are willing to review on the basis of the quality of the paper. Couldn't this be said to be "reviewed by the wider academic community"? (Surely nobody expects creationist journals to be reviewed by people actively opposed to their views, just a nobody expects pro-evolution papers to be submitted to creationist reviewers.) Are we certain that this is not the case with the CRSQ, if that is the journal that was meant?

Philip J. Rayment (talk) 03:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * See comments here about the CRS Quarterly's peer review process - if it's representing Whitmore et al. accurately, it's not just anti-creationists who have doubts about the CRSQ's review process.
 * The issue with peer review isn't so much whether articles are reviewed by people from the opposing camps, as whether they're reviewed by people with a good professional reputation who are committed to providing a critical review (i.e. not a rubberstamp). That can be difficult for creation science journals; since there aren't a lot of YEC geologists/physicists/biologists to begin with, it's hard to find reviewers without conflicts of interest, and reputable non-YEC scientists are unlikely to volunteer. --GenericBob (talk) 23:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not an academic and am not familiar with that particular journal, but I was able to google up the website at http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html. I see that WP:FRINGE, like WP:RS, characterizes it as a "fringe journal" and says that it "... should generally be considered unreliable". That characterization and guidance there is followed by an inline external link to http://jfspeerreview.blogspot.com/, which describes itself as "Journal of Frontier Science Peer Review". A quick search there for "creation science quarterly" came up empty. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * GenericBob, I should be able to get hold of a copy of the letter that TalkOrigins cites, to see if they have represented it fairly. I agree with your point about the quality of review being the issue rather than which side of the fence they sit on, yet I have seen creationist journals dismissed for that very reason, that the reviewers are (supposedly) all creationists, and, importantly, this seems to be the thrust of the rationale provided on this IRS page for rejecting the "CSQ".
 * In a sense I agree that it's more difficult for creationist journals, with the more limited numbers of available reviewers. However, this does not mean that there are not enough to allow for proper reviews.
 * Wtmitchell, finding the website of the CRSQ is not the issue; I'm familiar with it. The FRINGE page wording is an exact copy of this page, including the external link, but that explicitly relates to one of the other journals mentioned, not to the "CSQ".
 * So, in summary, we still have no confirmation that the "Creation Science Quarterly" is actually meant to be the CRS Quarterly, nor any evidence that it is not "reviewed by the wider academic community". The most we have at the moment is a second-hand report that there are YEC doubts about the CRSQ's review process.
 * Philip J. Rayment (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You've got to be kidding. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact: do you really expect anyone to take you seriously? Dlabtot (talk) 03:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That it is an edited journal makes it more reliable for Creationist views than, say, the personal website of Pastor Bob from Smallville Kansas... but that is a far cry from saying it is a respected peer reviewed journal. Blueboar (talk) 03:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't quite share your reading of why this page (IRS) rejects CRS Quarterly as a RS. It's not that the reviewers are all creationists; it's that the raison d'etre for the journal is to promote a specific viewpoint. (From its website: "Emphasis on scientific evidence supporting: intelligent design, a recent creation, and a catastrophic worldwide flood". Society membership is only open to those who subscribe to a statement of belief that amounts to YEC etc etc.) If submissions are judged on whether they support a particular conclusion (rather than on their scientific merits) then that isn't 'peer review' in the usually-understood sense of the word.
 * I do agree that the name should be corrected to match the journal name, & have done so - not sure whether the original author meant CRS Quarterly or something obscure with a similar name, but CRS Quarterly still fits the bill. --GenericBob (talk) 04:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Dlabtot and Blueboar, thanks for sharing your personal opinions on the merits of creationism, but they add nothing to this discussion, which is about the page content.
 * GenericBob, The dot-point concerned does start off with saying "Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view." But note that it says "care should be taken", not "they are not considered reliable sources".  The dot-point then goes on to give an example of a particular problem, which is the lack of peer review, says that those journals (the ones lacking proper peer review, not the ones existing to promote a particular point of view) should be considered unreliable, and gives three examples of that.  This reading is supported by the wp:Fringe theories page which says "Note that fringe journals exist, some of which claim peer review. Only a very few of these actually have any meaningful peer review outside of promoters of the fringe theories, and should generally be considered unreliable. Examples: The Creation Science Quarterly..."  Again, the rationale for considering them unreliable is the lack of "meaningful" peer review, specifically by outsiders.  So no, it has not been shown that CRSQ fits the bill.
 * Philip J. Rayment (talk) 05:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Philip, you misrepresent my statement. My comment had nothing to do with the merits of creationism... I was speaking about the merits of Creation Science Quarterly as a reliable source. I think it is reliable for statements as to the views of Creationists (and more reliable, for those views, than Pastor Bob's website) ... I don't think it qualifies as a peer reviewed journal.  There is a difference. Blueboar (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the misrepresentation. The fact that you called it an "edited" journal rather than a peer-reviewed journal (which it is, even if it turns out that the peer review is lacking in some way) and the fact that you said that it is "a far cry from saying it is a respected peer reviewed journal" without providing any reason for that implied dismissal indicated to me that a personal view of creationism was being expressed.  I'm glad to hear that you were simply making the logical point that being "edited" doesn't in an of itself make it respected, despite nobody claiming otherwise.  Philip J. Rayment (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Let's suppose you or I were running a journal dedicated to a branch of science that is treated as a laughing-stock by the general scientific community (YEC, Lysenkoism, homeopathy, parapsychology, etc etc). Presumably we understand that we're starting on the back foot credibility-wise; if we want to be taken seriously by anybody other than true believers, we're going to need to address that problem. As part of that, we are presumably going to supply as much evidence as we can in favour of our credibility, including the peer review process. In my experience, YECs are not remotely naive about this issue; they're well aware of the need to establish cred, and make their best effort to do so through whatever avenues are available. So, what is CRS Quarterly's best effort on this particular issue? As far as I can tell from Google and looking through their site, it is:


 * "Peer-reviewed by degreed scientists"


 * This is underwhelming. It doesn't mention what those degrees are, or where they're from (are we talking BSc from a "prestigious non-accredited university" here?) It doesn't mention how relevant their quals might be to the subject matter, or whether all key aspects of the paper are covered. (Getting the experimental methodology correct is worthless if the data analysis is bunk.) It's not even a complete sentence. If this is all they can say about their peer-review process after 46 years of publication, then no, it's not a meaningful peer-review process.
 * If and when they supply more info about that process, maybe it would be appropriate to revisit the issue. But the onus of proof is on those arguing that CRSQ should be accepted as a reliable source, not on those who reject it. --GenericBob (talk) 10:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You are dodging the point that Wikipedia's policy rejects the CRSQ on grounds that it fails to substantiate, but you are trying to shift the onus by criticising them for not doing something that you have just now decided they should do (the point being that this is not something that is in Wikipedia's policy). There is nothing unusual in a peer-review journal not giving details about the process, yet other journals are not rejected for not explaining their particular version of the process.  To clarify where I'm coming from, for all I know CRSQ's peer-review process is below par, but my point is that Wikipedia seems to be rejecting it for reasons that it assumes to be true without actually knowing that they are true.  Remember, this page is a guideline for the Verifiability policy, but so far it seems that nobody is able to verify this claim!  Philip J. Rayment (talk) 12:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That's because the Verifiability policy applies to what we say in articles... not to what we say in policy/guideline pages. Policy and guideline pages are based on community consensus.  If the consensus of the community is that a source (or a category of sources) is not reliable, then we write the guideline to reflect that.  You can disagree with that consensus, but the consensus still governs what is said in the policy. Blueboar (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, so by extension, what you're saying is that articles are supposed to be neutral, but the policies guiding those articles doesn't need to be. So for example, we can arbitrarily declare sources supporting a particular view as being unacceptable if that's the community consensus, and thereby introduce bias (just like a polling company can introduce bias by only polling in particular socio-economic groups).  It's still ironic that details of the verifiability claim do not need to be verifiable, even if it is within the rules.  Philip J. Rayment (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The reason it wouldn't be usable in articles has little to do with the nature of the source and more to do with WP:UNDUE. It could be seen as a reliable source in the context of establishing that group's arguments, for example, but using it to say "evolution is bunk" would be inappropriate because it's an extreme minority opinion and there is objective evidence that some of the arguments made have been made in bad faith. It's probably listed as an inappropriate source because outside of articles that specifically address creationism and equivalent ideas its use is essentially WP:FRINGE. SDY (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This is sounding rather like a circular argument to me. We can't use peer-reviewed journals in support of 'fringe' views because they support fringe views.  At least the wording in the guideline page has a pretence of being objective, by basing rejection on the quality of peer review.  And I again point out that quality of peer review is the stated reason, but without any substantiation that the journal in question does not have that quality.
 * Replying again to GenericBob, I have obtained a copy of Whitmore et. al.'s letter (CRSEF letter), and a response to it by the lead author (Miller) of the papers the CRSEF letter criticise. Without checking every word, TalkOrigins does appear to have quoted the letter correctly, and indeed the letter is quite scathing of the paper and CRSQ.  Without analysing it closely, Miller's response does appear to me to go some way towards refuting Whitmore's charges, but probably not far enough.  In fact Miller does admit to lapses, and I found a few things he said to be not very convincing in exonerating himself.  He defends his own paper rather than the journal and its peer-review process, I should add.  (And, for the record, his paper was peer-reviewed, by two reviewers who did suggest changes.)  On the other side of the coin, though, what Miller does say gives me the impression that Whitmore had an axe to grind and that some of his criticisms are probably not warranted.
 * However, TalkOrigins does overstate the case.
 * It claims that CRSQ's '"peer-review" system and scientific quality have even been discredited by YECs '. Complained about, yes.  Criticised, yes.  But "discredited"?  TO could be making too much of one complaint.
 * It claims that "the CRSEF authors also noticed that young-Earth creationist authors too often rely on obscure and difficult to obtain references". This is incorrect in that the CRSEF letter confines itself to the two papers by Miller—it is not a sweeping statement about "young-Earth creationist authors"—and it does not say "too often" (or anything equivalent).
 * One other fact needs to be pointed out. The CRSEF letter was supportive of the CRSQ.  That is, although they felt the review process needed serious improvement, it was not claiming that CRSQ didn't qualify as a peer-reviewed journal, should be ignored or boycotted by YECs, or anything like that.  If a letter that critical of a "respected" journal was published, I doubt that many people would completely write off that journal just because of one letter of criticism.  They would, I expect, hope that (a) the criticism was not true, or (b) that this was a lapse that the journal would correct.  In the case of CRSQ, even assuming that the CRSEF letter is completely valid, it may be no more than a temporary lapse by the journal.  Now that's bad enough, deserving of criticism, and justification for exercising caution in citing it, but not by itself reason to completely reject the journal as a valid peer-reviewed journal, any more than concluding "evolution is bunk" because one scientist says so is good reason.
 * Philip J. Rayment (talk) 11:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Fringiness is determined by outside sources, not by wikipedia editors. So long as Creation Science claims to be "science" it will be considered a bit odd by its peer group, other scientists.  If it claimed to be a religious activity, it wouldn't be fringe at all.  Getting back on topic for reliable sources board, though, I'm a little concerned that we've upgraded CRSQ from an "F" for the quality of review to a "D", which might not be catastrophic but isn't exactly desirable.  SDY (talk) 02:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That's not quite true. Wikipedia editors are free to decide some source is a fringe source and simply not use it. We only need explicitly sources if we actually want to say in the article that the source is a fringe source. We are free to consider all the available evidence in deciding whether to use a source, even though it would be inappropriate to put our analysis into the article itself. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 02:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the comment about CRSQ being "upgraded". I also wonder why upgrading it is undesirable unless you are inserting your personal beliefs about it here.
 * Yes, Wikipedia editors are, in principle, free to decide some source is a fringe source and simply not use it. But if an editor does want to use CRSQ, another editor with opposing views only needs refer them to this page and claim that Wikipedia has already declared this one to be unreliable.  Which means that the editor is, in practice, not free to use it.  Yet it still seems that Wikipedia can't substantiate it being listed as unreliable.
 * Philip J. Rayment (talk) 11:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If and when an editor feels like citing CRSQ for something other than "some YECs believe...", they'll need to establish consensus that it's a reliable source for that claim. It wouldn't be enough to argue the "not proven unreliable" that you've been arguing here; they would need a positive consensus that it's reliable.
 * That is a much harder case to make. If they can muster the evidence and persuasive skills to do that, then the cite will go into the relevant article, and amending the footnote here would be a trivial side-issue. (I doubt anybody capable of establishing a consensus for CRSQ as a reliable source is going to be frightened off by a footnote.) If they can't establish that consensus, then the cite won't stay in, and amending the footnote wouldn't change that. --GenericBob (talk) 13:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

As CBM correctly explained, whether a source is fringe or not is ultimately up to a consensus of editors. There are a few rules that are so fundamental that they cannot usually be overruled by a consensus of editors. Nothing in WP:FRINGE has this status.

Our policies are primarily descriptive, not prescriptive. There is a consensus among the community that scholarly publications are among the highest quality sources, though they are sometimes hard to interpret. There is also a consensus that publications that merely pretend to be scholarly according to the usual standards don't have this privilege. E.g. homeopathy journals generally count as fringe, not as scholarly journals, even if they are peer reviewed. The reason is, of course, that the normal purpose of the peer review process is to produce the best possible approximation to truth and accuracy. This rationale does not apply to peer review with a strong ideological slant such as peer review among fellow followers of the same pseudoscience. Hans Adler 17:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I accept that listing the journal here will not stop it being used as a reference if there is a consensus to use it. However, one of the problems is that a large proportion of editors here already reject anything to do with creationism as reliable, so getting a consensus will be almost impossible.  (I recall one editor was so anti-creationism that he claimed that a creationist group should not be considered a reliable source for what they believe.  He was not shouted down by other editors.)  But it will be made harder to get that consensus when this page already declares this particular journal as being unreliable.  And, as I keep pointing out, Wikipedia seems unable to substantiate the claim that CRSQ is an unreliable source on the grounds that it claims.
 * The claim that the goal of peer review to arrive at truth and accuracy does not apply where there is a strong ideological slant is actually a non-sequitur claim that assumes that those with an ideological slant aren't interested in truth and accuracy. There is also an underlying assumption that the majority does not have a strong ideological slant, hence their attempts at peer review are legitimate.  On the contrary, one of the purposes of peer review is to counter any ideological slant that authors might have.  That peer review is a blunt instrument for doing this and doesn't always work is not logically more the case with minority views than majority views.
 * Philip J. Rayment (talk) 12:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The question has always got to be "Reliable for what??" Perhaps the Creation Science Quarterly is a reliable source for what the Creation Science movement believes about a subject.  That does not mean that it is a reliable source for content in actual science articles on evolution or other topics.  You can't make a blanket statement and say that "This journal isn't reliable for anything".  There are certainly some sources which really aren't reliable for anything; but just about any source has limitations on its reliability.  So, while the CRSQ may be useful in the article on Creationism to reference exactly what people who believe in Creationism really believe in, it is NOT reliable to use in the article Evolution to provide evidence which debunks some aspect of evolution.  Always look at the use of the source at Wikipedia before deciding if that use is reliable or not.  -- Jayron  32  14:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Jayron gets this exactly right. Blueboar (talk) 14:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You are both still sidestepping the point that this page declares CRSQ to be unreliable because of improper or inadequate peer review. It's not provided as an example of inappropriate use of a source, but as an unreliable source generally.  And apparently without being able to substantiate that.  As for whether it's suitable to cite for some bit of evidence to debunk evolution or "other topics", you (both) appear to be sharing your personal views, as you have not provided any reason why an ostensibly peer-reviewed scientific journal should not be used for that.  Jayron's last sentence seems to be saying that its (inherent) reliability is dependent on whether or not Wikipedia editors use it as a reliable source.  Philip J. Rayment (talk) 08:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Far more important than peer-review is "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". This can be subject specific. You'd demonstrate such a reputation by showing that the journal has been positively reviewed and/or cited frequently by sources whose reliability is not in question. But given the title of the work, it's a given that it will not have a good reputation amongst major scientific publishers, and is thus disqualified from being a reliable source on scientific topics. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'ld like to come back to the actual text on the page, it states: "A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs." It then gives CRSQ as an example of such a journal. It can be easily shown that CRSQ has not been frequently cited in other reliable journals as a reliable source, and so it is not "respected". And, given that the society has an announced agenda about what conclusions they desire to publish, and that they do not publish articles critical of their agenda, "meaningful peer review" does not occur. Thus, CRSQ is a valid example of such types of journals. LK (talk) 10:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Someguy1221, the onus is not on me to show that it has that reputation. It is Wikipedia that is claiming that it is not a reliable source, so the onus is on Wikipedia to substantiate that claim.  Furthermore, your claim regarding the title of the work gives the game away.  It will not have a good reputation, and will be disqualified as a reliable source, as you say, because it's creationist, not because of inadequate peer review, which is the reason Wikipedia gives.
 * Laurencekhoo, is it not respected because of a lack of adequate peer review, or because it's creationist? Someguy1221 indicates that it's because it's creationist—the name alone is enough to tell him that it can't be reliable (talk about judging a book by its cover!).  Do you have any evidence that they refuse to publish articles critical of their "agenda"?  For the sake of consistency, do you also claim that mainstream journals that refuse to publish article in favour of creationism or Intelligent Design "do not publish articles critical of their agenda"?  In any case, what do you mean by "agenda"?  Merely that they have a particular focus, or something more sinister?
 * While we are discussing this, I see that it was you who put that bit (back) in with the comment "Not sure why this important qualification was removed". However, I cannot find where it was ever in the page, and I can't find any previous discussion on it.  Can you help there, please?
 * Philip J. Rayment (talk) 11:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Philip... sorry, but you have the onus backwards. WP:BURDEN places the burden for providing reliable sources (and by extension the onus for explaining why the source is reliable) on those who wish to include it... not on those who challenge it. If the challenge centers on the issue of whether the source is peer reviewed, then it is up to those who want to add the source to show that it is peer reviewed.  Now, multiple editors have told you that CRSQ does not rise to the level of "respected peer reviewed journal", that CRSQ can be considered a reliable source for limited statements about what creationists think... but not for unqualified statements of scientific fact. There is clearly a consensus here.  You don't have to like this consensus, but you do have to accept it. If you know of something that might change this consensus, please present it... otherwise, I think you should move on.  Continuing to argue the same points over and over is not likely to change anyone's mind, and may, eventually, be considered disruptive. Blueboar (talk) 14:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not clear on where you get the idea that the onus is on Wikipedia to find positive proof that a source is unreliable before declaring it so. That's not the way things work here, and AFAIK it has never been so; sources are unreliable until established otherwise. To suppose otherwise is to leave ourselves open to any crackpot smart enough to conceal the details of his fact-checking process (if any).

There are several ways a source could be established otherwise. One is to be frequently cited in other reliable sources as a reliable source. Another is to demonstrate a meaningful peer review process. The point of the policy is that merely asserting peer review, as CRSQ does, is insufficient, and since it doesn't manage to satisfy any of the other possible conditions to be admitted as reliable, it remains unreliable by default.

I would further suggest that it is unreasonable to demand that Wikipedia editors should be putting a great deal of energy into assessing the 'merits' of a journal that is, to be blunt, not in any danger of becoming an important source on Wikipedia. According to its own website, CRSQ has a worldwide membership/circulation of 1700 - by my understanding, this about half that of Charles Johnson's Flat Earth Society at its peak - and the time we put into assessing its merits should be gauged accordingly.

As to whether the CRSQ restricts publication according to an agenda - as I already noted early in this discussion, its own website specifically states "Emphasis on scientific evidence supporting: intelligent design, a recent creation, and a catastrophic worldwide flood" (which is, if a bit vague, still three times as long as the description of its peer review process). The society's membership page requires that members "must agree with the CRS statement of belief", which by my reading entails Young-Earth Creationism. Can you suggest an example of a mainstream scientific society that has a similar belief/nonbelief requirement, or a mainstream scientific journal that explicitly states it will emphasise evidence supporting a specific conclusion? You will certainly find plenty that have rejected creationist articles, but the usual reason is that the articles in question have serious scientific failings. Plenty of non-creationist articles get rejected for the same reason.

For an earlier appearance of the section under discussion, see e.g. this version of 26 November 2009. --GenericBob (talk) 14:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The burden on proof is always on someone making a claim. I'm not saying that the burden of proof is on Wikipedia to show that a journal is unreliable when an editor wants to use it, which is what WP:BURDEN and both of your comments are about.  Rather, I'm saying that the burden of proof is on Wikipedia when it claims that the journal is unreliable, as is the case on this page.
 * As for the claimed consensus that CRSQ is not a reliable source, we've had:
 * Wikipedia say that it is not a reliable source because it doesn't have adequate peer review (but doesn't substantiate that)
 * Wtmitchell say that it was not a reliable source because Wikipedia says so (on a different page) and because an external source says so (but the external source wasn't talking about CRSQ).
 * Dlabtot dismiss my question by saying that he doesn't have to take me seriously.
 * Blueboar implicitly reject it as a reliable journal, but for no stated reason.
 * GenericBob say that it's because it has a particular focus, and because they will allegedly reject papers opposed to their viewpoint (unproven and no different to mainstream journal rejecting papers opposed to evolution).
 * Blueboar clarify his previous comment by saying that he doesn't think it is reliable because it doesn't qualify as a peer-review journal (but doesn't substantiate that).
 * GenericBob say that it's peer-review process is inadequate because it doesn't explain its peer-review process (although many other (mainstream) journals don't either).
 * SDY say that it's not a reliable source because it's allegedly a fringe view (which is a non-sequitur), and it's a fringe view because a majority of scientists think it "a bit odd", not because Wikipedia editors think it's a fringe view.
 * GenericBob say that it can be used if there is a consensus.
 * Hans Adler say that whether or not it's considered a fringe view depends on what a consensus of Wikipedia editors say, directly contradicting SDY.
 * Jayron say (and Blueboar's concur) that it's not reliable to use to debunk evolution, but without saying why.
 * Someguy1221 indicate that it's not reliable because of its name.
 * LK say that it's not reliable because it's not respected, because it has a particular focus, and because they allegedly won't publish articles that disagree with them (that last point is not substantiated and is no different to mainstream journals rejecting papers opposed to evolution).
 * So although there is some consensus that it's unreliable, there is little consensus as to why, and a number of the reasons given don't stand up to scrutiny. You (Blueboar) say that I don't have to like the consensus but I have to accept it, but why do I have to accept such a dog's breakfast of a consensus?
 * Comparing memberships of a society that limits membership to people with scientific qualifications with a crackpot group's probably-open membership (which may include many people who join for a joke) is not a valid comparison.
 * Producing evidence that CRSQ restricts publication according to a particular focus proves nothing when practically every other journal also restricts publication to its particular focus. Yes, I can suggest other journals that have a similar belief requirement, but unlike the CRSQ, they don't publish those requirements up front.  And yes, I can name another mainstream scientific journal which explicitly states that it will emphasise evidence supporting a particular conclusion.  The Journal of the Biological Society of Washington, for example, has explicitly said that it will only publish material that is not supportive of Intelligent Design.  Note that it didn't say that they will reject them for "serious scientific failings", but because they are pro-Intelligent Design. The scientific merit of the papers was irrelevant; only their conclusion was relevant.  Given that this was tied to the AAAS statement on ID, other journals would certainly have the same views.
 * Thanks for the link to the earlier version of the page with the statement. I see that it was added by Shoemaker'sHoliday with the comment "We have a tendency to fall right into the trap set up by the recent trend towards fringe theory journals.", removed by SlimVirgin with the comment "removed material not compatible with the policy, and general tidying", and re-added by LK (Laurencekhoo) with the comment "Not sure why this important qualification was removed".  And all without any discussion.
 * Philip J. Rayment (talk) 02:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not quite... The burden on proof is on those wanting to add or keep material in an article. This page is not an article... it operates purely on consensus. Blueboar (talk) 14:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about the rules of debating, not Wikipedia's rules. Whenever anyone makes a claim (on or off Wikipedia), the burden of proof is always on the one making the claim.  Philip J. Rayment (talk) 04:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not the U.S. Senate; filibustering is generally ineffective. Dlabtot (talk) 04:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose that instead you are adopting the tactic of avoiding the issue and hoping it will go away. I agree that can be effective, but it's hardly intellectually honest.  Philip J. Rayment (talk) 05:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue has been discussed and the consensus is very definitely against you. As per WP:SNOWBALL further arguing by you is a waste of time as Wikipedia is not a debating society. Come back in a year's time and try again if you want to. Dmcq (talk) 07:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You missed my point. Please stop quoting me in this way. In an earlier response to me you mentioned some anti-pseudoscience excess that nobody addressed. That's something that unfortunately happens too often here and which I really hate because it creates the impression that science is just some form of religion or ideology. However, this does not make it right to advocate for pseudoscience on Wikipedia. Hans Adler 07:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So now we are resorting to argument by assertion. I have rebutted the "consensus" claim, but here it is repeated again with no refutation of my rebuttal, and still no substantiation of the claim in the guideline page.  It is not just me arguing; look at all the responses by others who have skirted this point of no substantiation.
 * Hans Adler, if I've missed your point, perhaps you should explain what I've got wrong, instead of simply accusing me of being wrong. In turn, you have missed my point (despite me repeating it many times) that I'm asking for substantiation for a claim that Wikipedia makes; I'm not advocating for pseudoscience on Wikipedia.  To put it another way, I'm not asking Wikipedia to list CRSQ as a reliable source, nor claiming that it is a reliable source.  I'm simply asking for Wikipedia to substantiate it's claim that it's not a reliable source due to a lack of proper peer review, or else to remove the unsubstantiated claim.
 * Philip J. Rayment (talk) 09:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Philip, you're trying to find a controversy between editors where none exists. When policy says that a source can be established through any of means A, B, or C, and various editors point out individually that it fails to meet A, fails to meet B, and fails to meet C, that is not actually a disagreement.
 * "Comparing memberships of a society that limits membership to people with scientific qualifications with a crackpot group's probably-open membership (which may include many people who join for a joke) is not a valid comparison" - the CRS does not restrict membership to people with scientific qualifications. You may have been confused by their "voting membership" category, which is indeed limited to people with "an earned postgraduate degree in a recognized area of science", but they offer several other categories of membership that encompass anybody who agrees with the statement of belief, and subscription to non-believers. The figure of "over 1700 worldwide" includes all categories of membership and subscriptions; according to their site the voting membership is 700.
 * "why do I have to accept such a dog's breakfast of a consensus?" - because Wikipedia's editing policies are based on the assumption that no individual, not even Philip J. Rayment, is infallible when it comes to judging the merits of an issue; consensus isn't always correct but it tends to do better than the available alternatives. Nobody here is requiring you to agree with the consensus conclusion, but having stated your views and pursued this discussion long past the point where anybody's likely to change their mind, the only thing you're going to achieve from here is to annoy people and waste their time.
 * If you would like a wiki built on the assumption that one person DOES know best, there's one just down the road. I believe you're already familiar with it. --GenericBob (talk) 09:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not "trying" to find a controversy. And I'm not claiming disagreement or contradiction (with one exception). I'm pointing out that the claim of "consensus" is weak, as although they all agree that it's not reliable, they don't agree (which is not the same as disagreeing) on why.
 * You're right about CRS's membership; I was relying on my memory. Sorry, I withdraw that.  I still don't think it's a valid comparison, as it is a comparison between two entirely different types of organisations.
 * I am, of course, not claiming that one person knows best. (On the contrary, that was perhaps the main reason I left the site you mention.)  But my point was that the "consensus" is so weak that there is no reason that I should accept that it is a meaningful consensus.  If people think I am wasting their time, then I suggest that they cease from adding comments that sidestep the issue that I actually brought up, that Wikipedia does not substantiate the claim that the peer-review of CRSQ is lacking.  Wikipedia lists CRSQ as a non-reliable source because of inadequate peer review.  Various people here have given their own reasons why it's not a reliable source, but only about one (yours) was to do with inadequate peer-review!  Do you see the point that most of the reasons given do not substantiate Wikipedia's claim?  And your argument about peer-review doesn't stand scrutiny, as I've pointed out.  So the claim remains unsubstantiated.  Is the response to substantiate the unsubstantiated?  No, it is "go away, you're starting to annoy".
 * Philip J. Rayment (talk) 09:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The community here agrees that CRSQ is i) not respected by reliable sources; and ii) does not have meaningful peer review (as they accept or reject based on an agenda not academic merit).
 * What we have here is a serious case of I Can't Hear You and Beating a Dead Horse. Suggest closing this thread, as it's obviously not going anywhere. LK (talk) 09:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that CRSQ is not a reliable source in our sense. I would also point out that as far as I know, there's no requirement that our reasoning be in parallel to reach consensus. Rather, agreement on the point is sufficient. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason I "can't hear you" is because nobody has said anything. Anything, that is, that actually provided an answer of substance.  Yes, there is agreement that CRSQ is not a reliable source, but despite various assertions, including in the latest posts above, without any substantiation (except more assertions, including repeating ones that have already been answered).  (Note that my bullet-point list above is not just showing lack of consensus on why its supposedly unreliable, but also a list of the reasons people have given for claiming that it's unreliable, and none of those reasons have any substantiation or withstand scrutiny.  LK's reasons just above are simply more of the same and have already been answered.)   So the consensus is one of unsubstantiated opinion.  So you are right; it's not going anywhere, as obviously the definition of "reliable source" is based on "agreement on the point", as Nuujinn said, not on reason or evidence.  Philip J. Rayment (talk) 13:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, nobody has provided anything that you are willing to recognise as an answer of substance. Several of us have given reasons for why we don't think CRSQ's peer-review process qualifies it for 'reliable source' status. You believe your counter-arguments have demolished those objections; the rest of us, having heard what you have to say, simply don't find it as compelling as you do. Sorry, but that does happen sometimes. There is no dishonour at all in disagreeing with consensus (sometimes dissidents turn out to be right) but it's churlish to suppose that you're the only person here capable of reasoned discussion. --GenericBob (talk) 14:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, exactly. Philip J. Rayment, you came here to ask for opinions, you've gotten a good number of them, and you're rejecting, as far as I can see, all of them. And you're misrepresenting what I said. If I, as I do, think that CRSQ is not generally reliable because it is fringe relative to other scientific journals, and another editor says it is not generally reliable because it appears to lack a comprehensive peer review process, we are in agreement that is not a reliable source, even if we come to that same conclusion via different paths, and that does not mean that our conclusion were not reached through reasoning and evidence weighed against relevant policy. The general consensus here appears to be that CRSQ is reliable enough for the positions of creation science, but not generally reliable. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * GenericBob, there are two issues here: (1) Is CRSQ a reliable source? (2) Does CRSQ have adequate peer review.  If the answer to (2) is "no", then the answer to (1) is also "no".  But the answer to (2) could be "yes" and the answer to (1) could still be "no" for other reasons.  Okay so far?  This IRS page says that (1)="no" because (2)="no".  So my question was what the evidence was that (2)="no".  Very few here have even attempted to answer that question, instead offering other reasons (opinions and assertions) why (1)="no".  So when I say that the answers have no substance, in many cases it's because they are not actually answering the question I asked.  This is not matter of opinion; this is an objective fact.  As for the few that did answer the question, I say that I have refuted their arguments not just because I think my answers achieved that, but also because nobody has provided any counter argument.  That, again, is an objective fact (if you think otherwise, point me to those counter-arguments).
 * Nuujinn, I did not come here to ask for opinions on the reliability of the journal. It is you who misrepresents me.  I came to ask for evidence of a claim.  Instead, all I got was opinions and un-evidenced assertions.  Your further point about different users arriving at the same conclusion by different processes has already been answered, so I don't see how I was misrepresenting anything you said.  And if your conclusions were reached through reasoning and evidence, then why has none of that evidence been offered?
 * Philip J. Rayment (talk) 04:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Phillip J. Rayment, I recommend you read the essay WP:STICK. Very shortly, you're going to cross from WP:STICK into WP:Tendentious editing (if you haven't already). As they say on courtroom dramas, "Asked and answered. Please move on." Qwyrxian (talk) 04:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I was accused of I Can't Hear You, yet by totally ignoring what I'm actually saying and just responding to the fact that I'm still saying something, it seems that it's not me who's suffering from it.  And just to show that I can hear you, I've just read WP:STICK, and it offers three choices:  (a) I've won—no, clearly not.  (b) I've lost—no, my actual point has been ignored, not answered.  (c) it's died a natural death—clearly not, as people other than just me keep responding.  So will what I've just said actually be addressed or will my points continue to be ignored? Philip J. Rayment (talk) 07:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've already answered you once, but I'm going to answer you again, so please stop claiming that you haven't been answered. (Many other people have also answered you. Just because that you are not satisfied with their answers doesn't mean that you have not been answered.)
 * (2) Does CRSQ have adequate peer review? No, because they invite reviewers based on the POV of the reviewers, not on the reviewer's prominence in the field (reviewed by 'degreed scientists'), and they accept and reject papers based on an agenda, not on academic merit.
 * (1) Is CRSQ a reliable source? No, because of the above, and because other reliable sources do not treat them as a reliable source.
 * QED, CRSQ is a valid example of a journal that is not respected and that does not have meaningful peer review. The consensus is clear, this issue is closed. LK (talk) 08:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * PJR, I think I'm with LK on this one. Everyone who has spoken up disagrees with your arguments, and as far as I can tell every one of them has been addressed in some form.  You have lost the argument, please put down the stick.  SDY (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly... PJR, several people have explained why CRSQ is not considered to be acceptable as a "peer reviewed journal"... and several people have explained why it is not considered reliable (or, alternatively, can be considered reliable in certain specific, limited situations but not in others). You don't have to agree with those answers (or even fully understand them), but you have been answered.  You are not going to change anyone's mind on this... Continuing to try to convince people that they are mistaken and you are right will do nothing but piss people off and eventually get you blocked or banned. Blueboar (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Philip, sometimes we need a reminder of Wikipedia's many problems and biases. I see this as one such reminder. LowKey (talk) 00:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC) (Not LK)
 * Perhaps you could start a wiki (or find one) to add a list of Wikipedia's bias and blatant errors? Ace McWicked (talk) 03:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Ace. I found such a list, but editing it got me blocked at that wiki.  I prefer to consider it "lessons learned" rather than "grievances to list". LowKey (talk) 05:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I was accused of beating a dead horse, but three separate editors (not counting LowKey and Ace) have decided that the horse is not dead and kept beating it! Secondly, I'm repeatedly told not only that I've been given answers, but that my rebuttals to those answer have been refuted. Yet not one person has pointed to any such refutation (attempted or otherwise). The mere assertion of having responded seems to be enough; evidence is not actually required.

I'm quite prepared to let this go (I indicated as much earlier, but perhaps not so plainly), as it is clear that the claim on the IRS page is going to remain unsubstantiated, but critics keep bringing up new claims (such as LK pulling a "fact" out of thin air by claiming that "they invite reviewers based on the POV of the reviewers", contradicting one of the earlier criticisms that the CRSQ does not explain anything about its peer-review process!) and repeating old ones I've answered. In other words, it's not me who's keeping this alive! (By the way, I will happily withdraw my accusation of LK pulling a fact out of thin air and apologise if someone shows me actual hard evidence of it being true.)

Philip J. Rayment (talk) 06:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "In other words, it's not me who's keeping this alive!"
 * Philip, look at the timestamps: those people all commented within 24 hours of your last response, and this discussion then lay dead for six days until you came back to give it the ol' Herbert West. This is not what "prepared to let go" looks like in my world. The fact that you can find occasional discrepancies between people who disagree with you is a natural consequence of the fact that a lot of different people disagree with you; if you want to believe that all opposition to your viewpoint is shattered by that discovery, I can't stop you, but I suspect you'll find it's not a belief that's widely shared here. --GenericBob (talk) 12:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You ignore most of what I say, make a big deal out of a pause, and criticise a straw-man argument of your own making. Philip J. Rayment (talk) 06:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources going dead
An effort is underway to solve the problem of links to reliable sources going dead. We would like to get input from the broader community. Everybody is encouraged to share their ideas here. Thanks for your help. -  Hydroxonium  ( H3O+ ) 14:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Provide ISBN numbers for published material. ISBN numbers don't go dead. The internet is a changing wasteland of somewhat accurate information. But my suggestion would not allow wikipedia deletion of reliable sources, and abuse of editors by admins to continue, so go ahead and ignore it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.58.247.77 (talk) 01:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

A need to state the obvious
This is already covered in this article, but it is apparently not worded well enough for some editors to understand. "An alternative medicine or alternative science journal (or book) that is peer reviewed by its practitioners can not be used as a reliable source for scientific or medical statements. These should be supported by articles (or books) that are peer reviewed by professional scientists or science based medical doctors. In some cases, however, the alternative journal or book can be used as a reliable source to describe beliefs or practices of the alternative medicine or science."

This was voted on here. Some editors found the vote to be preposterously unnecessary. However, the unanimous consensus vote shut down the many interminal talk page discussions above the vote at WP talk:Homeopathy, and being able to reference has already stopped a possible edit war at WP talk:Anthroposophical medicine here]. I propose adding the wording above to the WP:MEDRS article, as it will be usefull for. Please comment. PPdd (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are thinking of adding this to WP:MEDRS, this discussion should take place at WP:MEDRS. Not here. Blueboar (talk) 13:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I put it here because it is about "alternative science journals" in addition to alternative medicine journals. ~
 * Fair enough... Well, from a purely RS standpoint, I would agree with the statement.
 * As a further thought, when you get around to discussing it at MEDRS (and I expect your proposal will require some discussion) I would suggest leaving a note at both WT:FRINGE and WT:NPOV, pointing to that centralized discussion. The issue relates to multiple policies and guidelines, and a full discussion now, ending in a broad consensus now will help prevent potential conflicts later. Blueboar (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree on cenralizing the discussion. I also agree that this will be a major decision for modifying WP:RS or WP:MEDRS (or WP:Fringe or WP:NPOV), since it will affect a huge number of edit war-prone articles (and likely stop a huge number of edit wars and interminable and multi-repeated talk page debates. I got accused of "canvassing" last time I posted a vote on a related topic at relevant talk pages, but I fully agree with the need for multiple notifications, and a centralized discussion.  PPdd (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * To centralize this discussion, please respond to it in one place here. PPdd (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 67.52.56.34, 10 February 2011
REQUEST MADE ON EVENING OF 2-09-2011 AT 9:55pm CST TO SUBMIT EDIT CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS MADE BY THIS WRITER, JAMES F. FOSTER, THE SUBJECT OF THE BIO. THANK YOU 67.52.56.34 (talk) 03:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have removed the "edit request" since there is no request to edit the project page associated with this talk page. Instead, it looks as if the issue revolves around Jim Foster (football) which I will have a quick look at. Johnuniq (talk) 04:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Is Fox News really a reliable source?
Are politically biased "news" networks, like Fox News, that have been accused of not telling the truth, considered reliable sources for verifying Wikipedia content? Fox News has been documented for broadcasting inaccurate information, especially about living people, as "news." What is Wikipedia's standard on this subject?

The White House, among others, say that Fox News is not really news. Here are just a few of many articles about that, in case you want to read:, , Shaliya waya (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Gosh - how many times is this going to be raised. Opinions expressed by Fox commentators (O'Reilly etc.) are citable as opinions. Just like opinions in any reliable source.  FoxNews is citable just like every other reliable source is for news.  Virtually every news outlet has erred, but the guideline is not WP:InerrantSources.  Collect (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * We should only cite comments that are notable, i.e. only such comments that have been reported on by third party sources. Not all commentaries on FOX meet this criterion. Cs32en   Talk to me  03:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Re "The White House, among others, say that Fox News is not really news", I've got a quote from a White House source on that:


 * In WP, though, HuffPost and the like are the gold standard of reliability in the area of U.S. politics; their opinion pieces can be taken as straight news. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that's a misquote. Obama said it is news with a point of view, not that it's not news.  Also, I'm glad we don't take sitting presidents' opinions for which partisan sources are and are not reliable.  And I hate Fox News 93.6% of the time, unless it's for non-news purposes. Ocaasi (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Bias is not a consideration, but a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy is. Fox News' reputation in this regard is certainly less than stellar, but not so bad that they can't be called RS.  However, there are generally better sources available  - I can't, for example, imagine how having an article sourced solely to FN would be appropriate. Dlabtot (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Or any single news source... but no this is really is wp;peren--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * All of this is already covered in the guideline... see: WP:NEWSORG. Blueboar (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think Shaliya waya's point is that it is not "mainstream" under WP:NEWSORG. If Fox news, not Fox commentary, broadcasts retractions when it errs, then it is reliable, even if biased in selection of stories. If it does not broadcast retractions, then it is not mainstream, so is NRS. There would have to be examples of this for me to form an opinion. If it consistently deliberately misleads by ommission of facts in a story that other news sources broadcast, then it is not mainstream, as "mainstream" news sources do not do this. If it blends news and commentary without any indication it is doing so, then it is not a news source. Shaliay waya, please give some specifics on these points and I can form an opinion. PPdd (talk) 01:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It's important to remember that only a portion of the Fox News channel's broadcasting is devoted to news. Much of it is opinion or entertainment. See Fox_News for listing that specifies which are which.   Will Beback    talk    01:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The news programs on Fox are reliable sources. TFD (talk) 02:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Fox is an enormous media organization with online news, tv news, online commentary, and tv commentary. We really need to take sources on a case by case basis.  If Brett Baer or Shepard Smith reports something from the Fox News desk, it's almost definitely RS.  If Bill O'Reilly or Glenn Beck does it, it would need attribution at the least.  Trying to define Fox as NRS equivocally, however, is several political steps too far. Ocaasi (talk) 11:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that you cannot declare as NRS in general, however personally i wouldn't even use fox news for anything other than sports news. In doubt one has to decide on a case by case basis and cautious authors might consider to skip foy altogether.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yesterday, I saw a FOX item in which several people ranting about DNI James R. Clapper calling the Muslim Brotherhood a "largely secular organization", immediately followed by a FOX foreign relations analyst telling the anchor that the Muslim Brotherhood was ... largely secular. My guess is that you can find almost any serious content that FOX is reporting on other news outlets. Sometimes FOX has exclusive interviews and news, usually you can tell from the vocabulary that is being used whether the news can be taken seriously or whether it is an integral part of FOX propaganda. Cs32en   Talk to me  03:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Echoing part of the above, usually you can tell from the vocabulary that is being used whether the news can be taken seriously or whether it is an integral part of HuffPostish propaganda. AFAICT, Fox is up front in labeling its news as news, its commentary as commentary, and its opinion as opinion. AFAICT, that is not true elsewhere. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

To answer your question bluntly: Yes. Now, you may disagree with the positions of the commentators on Fox, you might disagree with the commentators on MSNBC, you might disagree with the commentators on CBS or ABC. It doesn't matter. The sources are reliable because they meet the Wikipedia definition of reliability. Whether you are looking at the Huffington Post or the Heritage Foundation, the argument has been put forward literally dozens of times by partisans on both sides of the political spectrum. YES! They ARE reliable! Rapier (talk) 20:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In case anyone is still in doubt... Fox News is a major news outlet... and Wikipedia considers all major news outlets to be reliable sources. Got it? Good... now for the caveats: we also distinguish between news reporting and commentary (this is true for any news outlet), and recognize that when commentary is discussed in our articles, it should be phrased as being opinion and not phrased as being unattributed fact.  In addition, we recognize that any news outlet can get its facts wrong from time to time, which means it may be deemed unreliable for a specific statement.  But... in broad scope... major news outlets are considered reliable sources, and this applies to Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, BBC, and even Al Jezera. Blueboar (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's really not that simple; for example, PressTV is a 'major news outlet'. Also, please refrain from the disruptive bolding of comments, which adds no weight, but is perceived as shouting. Dlabtot (talk) 03:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I seem to recall two times in which Fox news did not retract errors, and some other times when they omitted facts that were in all other mainstream reporting, which misled viewers. That is not mainstream per WP:NEWSORG, but I don't recall the exact stories. Being large does not confer being mainstream. Mainstream means conventional press standards are followed, and if a mistake is made, it is corrected. PPdd (talk) 04:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The actual problem is less with FOX news, because we could treat all comments published by FOX news as comments, which would mean that we only include them when they are notable as evidenced by third party reports. The problem is, in my view, with some editors who seem to be specifically waiting for commentaries published on FOX that fit to their personal point of view, and then use the vocabulary employed by FOX to justify their edits on Wikipedia. That FOX News often intersperses its news with judgmental vocabulary and does not label all commentaries as commentaries is not helpful, to be sure. Cs32en   Talk to me  04:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And this is different from other media outlets because????--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if "other media outlets" that were formerly "mainstream" per WP:NEWSORGare beginning to use non-mainstream reporting methods (which would make them, NRS, e.g., Anderson Cooper is pushing that line calling Mubarek a "liar" without independent sources with knowledge that Mubarek was deliberately and intentionally not telling the truth). If Fox news reporters report their opinions as news in reporting a news story, they are not reliable. PPdd (talk) 15:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a tired debate. The same exact things can be said about MSNBC, CBS, CNN, Washington Post, NY Times, NPR, The Guardian, etceach has been accused of media bias, each has blurred the line between news reporting and opinion.  This is an old debate that ain't going anywhere.  So again, nothing has been said about using FoxNews as a source that isn't true for any other mainstream source.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Has Fox News ever been accused of telling the truth? That would be news! ;-)

RS re biomed conclusions "peer reviewed" by out of field non-experts
Application of MEDRS re biomed conclusions "peer reviewed" by out of field non-experts is being discussed here. PPdd (talk) 16:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Cartoons
Under what circumstances (if any) should a cartoon be cited as a WP:RS? Eg compare talk pages of Big Society and Ed Miliband NBeale (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This seems like a question about WP:WEIGHT. A cartoon is an RS according to the same criteria as printed material, so it will normally an RS for the views of the cartoonist. However, it will probably only be in unusual cases that it is not WP:UNDUE to use a political cartoon as a source. I think it would need to be shown that the cartoon in question had gained significant attention in its own right, which could be done by looking at third-party sources commenting on it. Even then, I suppose that it would also need to be shown that this attention related directly to the subject of the article, rather that just appraising the cartoon as a great piece of work or whatever. --FormerIP (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Um... the word 'cartoon' has multiple meanings... it can refer to an animated TV show or movie (eg: The Simpsons), a newspaper comic strip (eg: Doonesbury), or a single drawing appearing on a newpaper's editorial page, etc. etc. Which are we talking about here?  Blueboar (talk) 22:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The latter kind, apparently. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There are many types of cartoons, ranging perhaps from simple visual jokes (e.g. in the tabloids) through to the political cartoons in respected newspaper or weekly (i.e. reliable sources) which make a serious point. The latter have a place in public life and are indeed part of the national cultural heritage of GB and the UK, e.g. William Hogarth (starting in the 17th century) through to today's political cartoonists in the broadsheets, e.g. Jak in the Daily Telegraph and Steve Bell at The Guardian. Please follow the links NBeale has provided above and have a look at the article histories. All will become clear. --TraceyR (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think a cartoon is a reliable source for itself, but are their many articles requiring discussion about what is in individual cartoons? We obviously can't use them as proof that Uncle Sam really exists for example. Cartoons do not seek to show facts normally. We also do not normally use verbal jokes in order to show facts.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)