Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 42

Conference papers
I wonder if we should mention unpublished conference papers. I've come here after seeing another discussion on such papers at WP:RSN just now. Dougweller (talk) 10:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Not sure if we can make universal statements, because in some fields a few conferences have a thorough peer review, and the few selected papers are highly regarded and widely indexed/archived, while in other fields conferences are essentially an all-submissions-accepted occasion for networking. At best we can say something like, "when considering conference publications look at how often such papers are directly cited in that field's literature," but that is true not only for conference papers but applies for academic literature in general. Abecedare (talk) 10:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We only accept WP:Published sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

FAQs.org
A personal-life passage in the article Virginia E. Masters cites this anonymous article at a site called FAQs.org, which appears to be a collection of old Usetnet and other forums' FAQs. It's not bylined, so the authority of the author(s) can be ascertained. And it doesn't itself cite any sources or say where any of its information comes from. I'm a little leery about trusting "something somebody wrote on the Internet" to cite as hard fact in an encyclopedia article. Thoughts? --Tenebrae (talk) 01:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

PhD Theses
I have an issue with a point in WP:SCHOLARSHIP regarding PhD Theses: PhD Theses have not yet been "vetted by the scholarly community", they have merely been approved by a jury of usually a handful of scientists. This is very different from a published article which has to go through the process of peer review before it's published and is subject to scrutiny by the community after its publication. You'll seldom see published articles citing a PhD Theses because it's assumed that some will become an article (usually after substantial corrections) and others simply will not make the cut. Furthermore PhD Theses available online can be considered as WP:SPS sources since at best the University will host it online and at worst the writer itself will in its own web page. In light of this I propose to modify the above point like so: Comments are welcomed. Regards. Gaba (talk)  21:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes. They have been vetted by the scholarly community; most are available via interlibrary loan or from Proquest. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.
 * Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), should be used with caution. They have not gone through the process of scientific peer reviewing and usually are not published in a scientific magazine but hosted by either the University or the writer itself. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.
 * Just curious why your rule discusses science, when the advice is to meant to cover all PhD theses? Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Par for the course. Most of our policy regarding sources is actually written with just academic science in mind, & often fits other areas very poorly. Johnbod (talk) 22:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure I follow, what PhD Theses are not related to science? Regards. Gaba  (talk)  23:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm? A general rule would seem to cover anything in the English speaking world that would be referred to as a PhD thesis in the humanities or science or professional. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Still not sure I follow. The humanities are sciences (see Social science) and regarding "professional", what do you mean exactly? A PhD (as far as I know) can only be awarded to someone presenting a thesis in a given scientific discipline. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  00:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, if you view everything as a science so be it. It is just not a communicative way to write a general rule that discusses scientific peer review and scientific magazine publishing covering PhD's in Accounting, and PhD's in German Literature, and PhD's in Physics, et al.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess Literature could be regarded as a social science, but a PhD in accounting? Is there even such a thing? Gaba  (talk)  01:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes of course there is, and the humanities are not sciences, despite some overlap. Literature is not a social science on any definition. You really need to spend more time away from the telescope. Johnbod (talk) 02:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to tell you I find your comment a bit aggressive, was it meant to be funny? Please have a look at Social sciences, humanities are usually regarded as sciences too. Regarding the PhD in accounting, it doesn't exist in my country and I'm not sure how you can even get a PhD on something that is not a science, so I asked. If you have a better way of wording the point, please propose it. Gaba  (talk)  02:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No it wasn't, your understanding here is so far adrift it was meant to be sharp. You recommend seeing Social science, which (rightly) says: "In a wider sense, it may often include humanities[1] such as archaeology, area studies, communication studies, cultural studies, folkloristics, history, law, linguistics, and rhetoric" - that does not mean that "humanities are usually regarded as sciences too", which is flat untrue. I didn't realize English may not be your first language, so perhaps you just need to spend more time with an English dictionary, though I can't imagine in what language the local equivalent of "humanities are usually regarded as sciences too" would be a true statement. Johnbod (talk) 02:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Given that you continue being needlessly aggressive (god knows why) I see no point in engaging with you any further, which is a shame really. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  03:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * At the risk of veering wildly off topic, here's a list of accounting PhD programs. Harvard, Hebrew, Leeds and McGill, for example, all offer doctorates in this field. Pburka (talk) 02:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you that is definitely new to me. Cheers.  Gaba  (talk)  03:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Gaba, although I agree with you that John is needlessly being sharp... (John please refer to pillar four)... John *is* correct. In fact, your way of thinking, which to put it as bluntly as I can manage would have the corollary that 'even a PhD in Chaucer should be considered a scientist' is absolutely positively non-factual, bordering on anti-sensical.  Somebody with a PhD from their study of Chaucer is of course a smart cookie, and a scholar, and well qualified to lecture, do scholarly research, and otherwise contribute to the field of Literature.
 * But note I said *scholarly* research. Folks with a PhD in Chaucer do not model his behavior mathematically, and predict his future behavior thereby, and test their hypotheses via realworld experimentation.  Saying that Larry, who has a PhD in Chaucerian Studies, is a *scientist* would be abusing the term; Larry's work in the future will not utilize the scientific method, Larry will not be putting forth any experimentally-verified theories, his work is *scholarly* as opposed to scientific.  More generally, his field is not a science:  the problem with calling Larry a scientist is not due to some deficiency in Larry's approach to The Great Science Of Literature, the problem is more fundamental:  literature just ain't science.  Full stop.
 * The people that hand out PhD degrees in literature, are not scientists, either, so literature cannot be *called* a science, ever, indefinitely far into the future -- it is inherently non-scientific. If somebody someday invents multiverse-time-travel, or creates a human clone of Chaucer in a virtual reality, so that it is *conceivable* to perform repeatable experimental verification of scientific theories that predict the behavior of Chaucerian-like-bodies, their work will be called The Great Science Of Author Simulation, or something, *not* called The Scholarly Tradition Of Literature.
 * So, although it was long-winded, hopefully you grok my point. Also, I hope, that my metaphor of Larry helps explain -- though not excuse(!) -- John's sharpness with you, above.  Lumping in Stephen Hawking, the genius physicist, with Larry the Chaucerian, is diluting the special value of science.  Frankly speaking, it is Larry and the Literature crowd, trying to pretend *they too* are great scientific geniuses, just like Stephen Awesome Hawking... when in fact, what Larry does is *nothing* like what Hawking does.  See also, Sokal affair. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * A thing to remember is a PhD is "doctorate of philosophy" (irregardless of the field you get it from), reflecting that the achievement is for demonstrating that you are able to present an hypothesis, and persuade the readers (read: dissertation committee) through research, experimentation (if necessary), analysis, critical thought, and conclusion, as such to be able to apply that to other situations. While some may consider a PhD in the more social sciences or in things like art and literature as less than that from hard sciences and engineering, it's still the fact that one had to do the same sort of philosophical exercise and demonstrate that to earn it. When it comes to those thesis on WP, however, one has to remember that for most theses, while they are expecting factual data and reporting (eg: you are supposed to be ethical and not falsify), the "peer-reviewed" nature is nowhere as close as compared to a peer-reviewed journal, thus showcasing that theses are not normally RS. --M ASEM (t) 13:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Disagree. ScientificResearch == ScholarlyResearch, is a false equivalence.  They cannot be conflated.  ScientificHypothesis == ScholarlyHypothesis, again false:  you prove a scientific hypothesis via mathematical proofs, or via experimental proofs via the scientific method, but neither technique works for Chaucerian scholars, who can only prove their concepts true via scholarship.  Does this mean that scholars suck, and scientists rule?  Course not.  But scholars are scholars, and scientists are scientists, and although some folks do both sorts of work (scientists need scholarship too... and scholars can use experiments from time to time), never the twain shall be conflated.  Your use of weasel-words ("some may consider") is the key here... in the minds of the general public, science is king, and scientists are king, because iPods.
 * You know, and I know, that progress in technology and industrialization is a very complex subject, and saying Science Rulz Cause Check Out My iPod is *totally* foolish, not even wrong. But that is the perception, and everybody knows it.  That is also my main problem with the wording of the policy.  I do not want some sentence from a PhD in Chaucer, being used as a source in the wikipedia article concerning quantum physics.  For the same reason (wrong field of expertise!), I do not want some famous physicist's blogpost about some classic Chaucerian literature they read, being used in the Chaucer article.  The position of the person with the PhD in literature has little  reliably-sourced weight in the article on quantum, and the position of the physicist should have little weight in the article on Chaucer.  My point is not to say that physicists are 'better' than social scientists... my point is to say that the *value* of some PhD research, depends on the *field* in which the PhD was granted (*relative* to the topic of the article and specifically *not* as relative to other fields).
 * Also, besides my concerns about sources being in-the-field-the-article-is-about, there is an orthogonal concern about the value of the thesis from Podunk Vanity-Press Degree Mill, versus the value of the thesis from Top Five In The World University. Your point about peer-reviewed journals is dead on; but even then, Some Journals Are More Equal Than Others.  See the talkpage of WP:FRINGE, for the case of the peer-reviewed Journal Of Believers In Bigfoot, and why wikipedia should not consider it a reliable source, due to WP:COI.  Sokal, too, above. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Having been through the process myself, I have to agree that the claims that the thesis has been reviewed by the "scholarly community" are really off; many dissertation committees are just a few professors from the given school. Mind you, often parts of a thesis are published as separate journal articles, and those are vetted peer-review journals, but the thesis itself is generally isolated from the community at large. I will note that some theses, by nature of the grad student's mentor, may be more reliable than others, but I would strongly caution against advice that theses in general are reliable sources. --M ASEM (t) 22:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I have known theses to get partially or wholly torn apart by the overseeing committee, and get approved nonetheless as contributing to the candidate's PhD requirements. Not all mentors, and not all committees, insist on perfection when a candidate is defending a thesis. Parroting some of the above - the nature of this process varies greatly between institutes, and between departments and professors within an institute. Taking a thesis as a reliable source simply for having been accepted is naive. If parts have been published separately in journals, that is another matter. If this thesis is itself being cited positively by incontestably reliable sources, that is also another matter. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I do also wonder how "routine" such thesis citing is on Wikipedia? But as a general matter is the author an expert? Is this published? These seem probably minimally reached but while they have been vetted, it does seem a stretch to imply they have been widely vetted. Also, the vetting does seem in its nature to vary widely, so it maybe good to make this advice more equivocal, but not limited to science. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * A PhD thesis, I think, is more akin to a book than a peer reviewed paper. There are many books on academic subjects which are published by respectable commercial or university publishers which, I suspect, receive scrutiny similar to, or perhaps less rigorous than, a dissertation committee's. Peer reviewed papers are the gold standard of reliable sources. Although less reliable, I do think that successfully defended PhD theses should be considered sufficiently reliable sources. I'm not convinced that any greater caution is required than for a published book. Pburka (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * But a published book is published by somebody. A PhD theses will 9 out of 10 times not be published but hosted by either the University or the writer's own site. There's a big difference there. Although I agree that a PhD theses is more akin to a book than a scientific article, we should still caution about its use because they tend to be used more like the latter. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  01:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The two key things about a published book are that it's available to anyone who wishes to verify the source, and that it's been vetted by a third party (the editor and publisher). A PhD thesis satisfies the same criteria. Pburka (talk) 01:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Being available to verify is not a valid criteria, today anything can be made available online. The key is whether it has been vetted by a third party. With a published book you know it has because, well, it is published. With a PhD Theses you have no idea because perhaps it is made available by the person who wrote it having failed to be accepted or perhaps it was accepted but it is made available as a draft and the actual final version will be heavily corrected. You have no way of checking this because there is no publisher or reviewer to guarantee that. Hope I've made my point clear. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  01:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Gaba's correct here. The "peer review" process is not as stringent on the scientific principles of the work for a thesis as compared to a peer-reviewed journal. I will note, that at least coming from a scientific field, a grad student is usually expected to have one published paper as a result of their thesis, but the thesis as a whole rarely gets the same treatment. --M ASEM (t) 01:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * But Pburka is correct on Wikipedia policy, see WP:V for what we mean by published. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree you can meet WP:V with thesis, but whether their content meets RS, that's a different issue. --M ASEM (t) 01:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Peer review is the gold standard for reliability, but it's not the minimum bar. An accepted thesis should be considered at least as reliable as a popular magazine article, in my opinion. The key, as Gaba_p correctly notes, is that it must not be a draft. In my experience, most universities place a stamp or seal on the cover of the theses in their libraries indicating when the thesis was accepted. I'm comfortable with an exclusion of draft theses (and draft works in general). Pburka (talk) 02:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * A PhD thesis, even one as brilliantly researched and as well-written as mine, in no way compares to a book published by a reputable press. Pburka sees this glass as too half-full. Peer review in a dissertation committee simply isn't as strong as it is in an anonymous review process as is customary with a reputable press, and a press typically has the opportunity to consult more than one expert. A dissertation committee doesn't. If you're lucky there's one expert on the committee, and one or two more who know a bit about the topic. It's a completely different dynamic with completely different goals, and the simplification that one peer-review process is just like another and that, therefore, a finished and approved dissertation should count as a published book is unrealistic, even if a dissertation is good enough for Springer or Edwin Mellen. I agree with Gaba: the wording should be changed. Drmies (talk) 03:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. What got this all started was some disruption on Talk:Animal welfare (and discussion of a source by ); since then I found that there is a determined spam/self-promotional effort underway to promote the dissertation of one particular scholar. Drmies (talk) 05:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Purba, yes, somebody with an online PhD thesis has satisfied the available-for-anyone-to-verify difficulty, and they have been vetted by a third party, their thesis committee.
 * But that's different from a published book, because of who is doing the vetting. The thesis committee might be five physicists, who are all in the list of the top hundred physicists in the world, representing one of the top research universities in the world.  *That* is vastly more vetting than a sci-fi novel about Quantum Wormholes To Infinity And Beyond is going to get, right?  Even if the published book is non-fiction-popular-science-exposition, the folks at Random House are not giving the work the same kind of vetting as the hypothetical PhD committee of Einstein, Heisenberg, Hawking, Leibniz, and Newton.
 * Most of the discussion here is not about how sometimes a PhD thesis is *vastly* more trustworthy than a published book... which I explore above. Most of the discussion here is about how, sometimes, the PhD thesis is suspect.  What if the committee is not actually composed of geniuses?  What if the school is the Podunk University Degree Mill, rather than a top-five-in-the-world research university?  What if the field of the PhD is in the humanities, rather than in physics?  What if the field of the PhD is telepathy?  The run-of-the-mill popular science book, vetted by the fine editors at Major Multinational Publishing Corporation, will be more reliable than a PhD thesis in telepathy from Podunk University Degree Mill, where the thesis committee bases their decision on whether or not the tuition cheque cleared.  See also, vanity press, for the identical situation where the publishing-corporation decides whether your book is worth publishing, by examining the color of your coin.
 * At the end of the day, WP:COI applies to publishers, but it can also apply to thesis committees! See also the comparison of yellow journalism, to the slow news day, to substantial in-depth wide journalistic coverage with full editorial controls.  This discussion is basically a rehash of the perennial topic:  should wikipedia maintain a list of Reliable Sources?  Should wikipedia have a hierarchy of which sources are 'more reliable' than others?  If you get a story on the thursday-at-3am newscast in Boise Idaho, and the next year a story on page 4 section 7 of your local newspaper, does that make you Notable?  There are deeper issues than just whether or not the various types of PhD thesis ought to be treated as prima facie reliable and vetted by all right-thinking scientists including Chaucerians.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm open to change, although leery of the wording proposed. How would you rewrite it (probably best to also take into account the comments below)? Pointer to anti fringe/anti spamming? Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know, Alan. I don't do Bradspeak very well, and it's a complicated issue. All of us in academia know that not every published book is of the same quality. Some Edwin Mellen publications are simply really good, some are not. Right now I'm reviewing an Oxford UP book on linguistics, and the lack of copyediting is embarrassing. And not every dissertation is alike--below, there is a suggestion that good dissertations often lead to good journal articles, and those can be cited; if a dissertation is frequently cited, then it should be deemed acceptable as a source, but of course those are individual decisions (though they could follow a general guideline). And you can't even say "if it's directed by a notable person"--big shots like Gary Taylor (scholar) and David S. Reynolds direct dozens of them, and while I'll accept that none of them would have been bad, they can't all be the next Castration: An Abbreviated History of Western Manhood or Beneath the American Renaissance. We hired an Americanist not too long ago; half a dozen were Reynolds graduates, and sometimes more means less--I'm trying to be delicate here and not insult anyone, certainly not scholars whom I respect and have studied (with), but we all know that they can't all be zingers. I'm going to have a look at all the proposed versions again. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I can only really speak from my experience of the humanities rather than the sciences, but certainly at the better universities (e.g. Oxford in the UK, or the equivalent in the US), there is a lot of rigour applied to the PhD process, with the examiners' professional reputation being bound up in who they pass. In fields like history, it's not uncommon for an academic to cite a specialist doctoral thesis. They would, in my opinion, count as "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". To continue the comparison above with books, though, not all academic institutions carry similar weight of course, any more than all publishing houses do.

I'm not convinced the proposed change is actually needed though. WP:SCHOLARSHIP already advises that it is important to check that a source has entered mainstream academic discourse; a low-quality PhD thesis that has slipped the net won't have been cited by others (at least, in a positive sense!) and so won't pass this threshold for inclusion or use in an article. The guidance is also already clear that isolated studies (e.g. a single thesis) should be treated with care. I'd also be concerned that we may be placing the bar for inclusion as a RS too high; if we're advising that (say) a PhD thesis from Harvard, based on at least 3-4 years of research and vetted by a several leading academics "should be used with caution", it would be hard to see why we shouldn't be formally advising that similar caution also be applied to articles in news sources, magazines, general publishing houses etc.- the "high-quality mainstream publications" that may also be used as Reliable Sources on scholarly issues according to the guidance. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The (infamous) news sources are not scholarly and are not peer reviewed. If the bar raise for academic thesis. Why news source should be allowed? News source are usually not allowed to be used as reference of thesis, because it is unreliable. 124.149.122.14 (talk) 08:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * PhD thesis is more reliable than book in many ways. For example, people have to do detailed citation to backup the claims in the thesis, sentence by sentence. This is not usually required for book. 124.149.122.14 (talk) 08:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with 124 that some PhD thesis projects are *much* more reliable than being published in the local newspaper... and on topics in their field of expertise, the PhD thesis is probably worth more weight (in the WP:UNDUE sense) than even top-of-the-line journalism, because the journalist is inherently limited in their personal understanding... and especially their *readership's* understanding... of complex topics. An expert scholar on Chaucer who wrote an obscure PhD thesis about literature, is a *better* source than the New York Times, on that subject.  An expert scientist with an obscure PhD in astrophysics is a *better* source about black holes than the New York Times.  Whether cross-field criticism/praise is helpful, or unhelpful, depends on the situation:  scientists can have an opinion about spirituality (though not given as much weight as PhD theologists), and of course spiritualists can have an opinion about science (but in this reversed direction the weight given to the spiritualist's opinion about astrophysics is *very* minimal).  However, 124, please see my examples above, where sometimes the PhD is not good enough to indicate expertise in the field ("degree mills"), or where the peer-reviewed journal is not good enough to indicate peer-review by actual experts ("peer-reviewed Journal Of Believers In Bigfoot").  Thanks for improving wikipedia.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * But that's actually not true in practice. Let's take a look at a practical example. Semir Osmanagić has a doctorate. To copy from his article, "He holds a doctorate in social sciences obtained from the University of Sarajevo His thesis claims that the Maya are older than the Olmec and that their culture mysteriously ceased to exist after the 10th century CE. He also discusses in some detail the Maya crystal skulls saying that they were created by advanced technology and discussing the alleged psychological and parapsychological phenomena surrounding them.Osmanagić's PhD thesis He suggests that the Maya had contact with the Chinese on the basis of what he says is mephrite (found in China, not in South America in a jaguar statue, although others identify the material as jadeite.) " The 2 academics on his thesis committee knew nothing about the Maya. His submission or at least some of it is here and the whole thing as a word doc athttp://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&ved=0CEwQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.semirosmanagic.com%2Fba%2FMaje_-_doktorska_disertacija_jun_2009.doc&ei=Ae1oUt_nD8qi0QXX1YCACA&usg=AFQjCNG0BMRHEdGL7DiNUooQNZxFAktNHQ&sig2=j_oDiRMCSl3IKdN_XaxrHA. I can't read it without a web translator, but the sources are in English. Some are good (although I don't know how they are used), but- an AAA travel books, Reader's' Digest books, Jose Argueles and other fringe writers, something on "Holy Ice-Crustal Healing" and Le Plongeon's "Queen Mu and the Eastern Sphinx" miscellaneous websites, etc. A grand total of 78 - not very many for a thesis of over 50,000 words. I've listed them at Talk:Semir Osmanagić. When I was assessing Master's theses I would have failed it on the basis of the references alone. Dougweller (talk) 10:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * the example mentions is exactly what troubles me. Some PhD's will certainly be very good works but applying this guideline on PhD's broadly means that issues like the one described above will very likely slip through. Bare in mind my proposed edit does not say do not use PhD Theses but use them with caution. After reading all the comments, I can propose a new edit, hopefully addressing the issues raised:


 * Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but caution should be exercised. Some of them will have gone through a process of peer reviewing, much less strict than the one applied to scientific articles, but some will not. If possible use theses that have been cited in the literature or reviewed by third parties. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.


 * Again, all comments are welcomed. Cheers. Gaba  (talk)  12:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why even PhD dissertations should be used if they haven't been shown to have significant scholarly influence. Without showing such influence, all we have is someone's research which has been assessed as adequate by a few other academics. Dougweller (talk) 13:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem is that your last statement pretty much describes every book and new articles too (change "academics" for "editors/writers" or "editors/journalists"). We can't just rule out all PhDs on such basis but we should advise caution when used. That's how I see it at least. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  13:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec) They are often available online, and are useful because they are almost always on a very specific subject. In my area they are sometimes useful for this reason, especially where they are collecting, reporting and summarizing the previous literature, which is often in foreign languages & very hard to find. In art history they are quite often referenced in academic articles simply because they are the most detailed or up to date information available. Many quite important objects have only been "published" (given a full academic write-up) once, very often in German well over a century ago. This does not amount to the thesis having "significant scholarly influence" at all, but does mean that undoubted RSs use them effectively as RSs, even when they have access to full library resources that most Wikipedians don't have. The important thing is to make their status clear when referencing them. As to the draft, one "scientific" has been removed, but the other still needs to be replaced by "academic" or something. In the light of the above, I'll let others try to explain to Gabu why this is necessary - good luck! Johnbod (talk) 13:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with your note on the wording of the change. And RSs using RSs by citing them is a mark of quality ("academic acceptance", certainly. Drmies (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * (e/c) Except RS is often a contextual analysis, is the article statement supported with this cite relatively uncontroversial, is it used to make the article unbalanced, etc. Thesis do seem, as a category more likely to be vetted than "mainstream press" and less vetted than widely published academic literature, but then there are the "popular press" lay audience books, and other varieties of many things we accept as reliable sources, depending on context. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

As per my previous comments, institutions vary considerably. I certainly share Doug's pain with the Sarajevo example (!) - but, as ever, there are horror stories with many genres of "reliable sources". I spent a while earlier this year with a piece by a national news source, regarded by us as a RS - but where the journalist, reporting on an academic story, had not only completely misunderstood the original academic article, but had even got the date of publication wrong, failing to notice it had been published several years ago! Grrr! :)

As an aside, of course some institutions use a fairly rigorous viva process, which, while not identical to an anonymous peer review, has its benefits. I can only speak for myself, but being grilled on my thesis paragraph by paragraph by three leading academics for several hours was an interesting experience... This also throws in another point - I'd trust theses supervised by known experts more than those that are supervised by non-specialists. If I could propose an alternative form of wording:


 * "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by third parties. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.

I'm suggesting "care" rather than "caution" (we want people to be citing good theses where they're useful, and "caution" feels like we're trying to deter people...). It adds the recognized specialist bit, and varies the wording on vetting slightly, to allow for the different ways in which peer review can occur. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd support this. I very much like the explanation, which also gives people some idea what to look for in determining whether or not it should be used. As an aside, I'm trying in another article to explain why an article on mushrooms and Egyptology, albeit in an ethnopharmacological journal, needs to show some evidence that it had some Egyptological peer review or some use in peer reviewed Egyptology journals. Dougweller (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the point made by 'care' is too vague; I'd like it to specifically say something about "taking care that the granting-institution is respected in the specific field, and taking care that the specific field is relevant to the wikipedia-article-topic under discussion". Doug's mention of Egyptological expertise is important:  there is a hierarchy of usefulness/applicability that should apply.  If the fact is about mushrooms-and-Egyptology, then the *most* valid/reliable/worthy source is a PhD in egyptology.  That does not mean we ignore a source that has a PhD in biology, or pharmacology; their discussion of the properties of mushrooms is absolutely also applicable.  Less useful is the New York Times.  Much less useful is the WKKK nightly news anchor's insightful riff on shrooms-and-egyptians.  Not even wrong is the "peer-reviewed Journal Of People Who Believe Aliens Delivered Shrooms To The Ancient Egyptians", or the non-accredited-'PhD'-granting-Degree-Mill-Of-Podunk thesis.  We need to specify that sources should be given weight based on their degree of applicability to the topic (recognized-by-cite-count-or-other-sources for their expertise in the field under discussion), and also that simply being *specific* to the topic does not make up for being *generally disreputable* due to WP:COI or shoddy overall reputation or similar troubles.  HTH.  &mdash; 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This wording is good, but I do wonder if we can footnote the fact that if there's a thesis by a person, there is a very good chance one can find a published paper on the same topic by the same person based on that work? In other words, finding a thesis may lead to finding a better RS than the thesis itself. --M ASEM (t) 15:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Please put a comma after "if possible". And for reasons indicated above, in my response to Alanscottwalker's question, I am not completely on board with the "supervised by recognized specialists". In addition, to put it somewhat vaguely since I don't want to name names, it is entirely possible that a supervisor lets a Ph.D. go farther than they would deem advisable if it concerned a publication; by "farther" I mean more speculative, more tentative, more experimental, more controversial, etc. Other supervisors go the opposite route and keep their students on a tight leash, tighter than if it were, for instance, a book proposal. And one good reason for that is (and let us not forget this!) that there is a completely different audience for a Ph.D. dissertation (and a Masters thesis): the committee, which must be the primary audience if you want your student to graduate. If you are lucky, you didn't have to deal with tactics and politics and the conflict between the faculties--a committee partly made up of non-experts, of people outside the department, of people who are duking it out with their colleagues over the merits of deconstruction or who should rightfully sleep with the new secretary/chair/French professor. A smart supervisor will make sure that their student won't fall into a trap dug by a committee member for someone else. (Mine was smart enough.) Sorry to be long-winded here, but it's a point I hadn't seen addressed: I think most supervisors are aware that a dissertation is never to be sent out as an unrevised whole, in part for those reasons. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I feel I should add that Germany, for one, requires publication of doctoral dissertations, either online or off; the situation with respect to making them available is quite different there than, for example, the US or the UK, and makes them more obviously analogous to scholarly books. Since scholarly books also vary greatly in value, I believe that's a useful analogy: all accepted dissertations can be regarded as published in some manner, and in at least that one country it's required to be actually made available to the public. There is also the German tradition of the Habilitationsschrift, often confused with a doctoral dissertation but in fact a second work at a still higher level. Those should always be accepted sources, in my opinion. Beyond that, since by definition a doctoral dissertation should be a new contribution to knowledge, some of them have dated or been revealed to be scholarly blind alleys; in non-scientific fields especially, that is one reason for them not to have led to articles, but there are also the kinds of political/audience considerations to which Drmies alludes. I'm not sure how that would be best fitted into a guideline though, since by the same token, in some byways of the humanities a dissertation remains the last scholarly examination even after some years. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Consciously noting that it wouldn't address Drmies's concerns, a version which reflected Masem's point might run:
 * "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by third parties. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Some theses are later published in the form of scholarly monographs or peer reviewed articles, and, if available, these are usually preferable to the original thesis as sources. Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." Hchc2009 (talk) 20:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I didn't even get my comma! Seriously, any wording that excludes automatic acceptance of a diss as an RS is fine with me. Yngvadottir's comments, above, are very valid as well and make clear that not all situations and dissertations are the same. Not accepting a Habilitationsschrift would be silly, but again a brief discussion in case of doubt would point out, yes, Habilitationsschrift X is acceptable. For "regular" dissertations (including the "regular" German ones, since we know that not every published German dissertation would have been published by an independent academic publisher), one can always make a case. So I don't see much to object to, Hchc, in your proposal--but give me my frigging comma, will ya? Or I'm hacking into your institution and corrupt your file, and get some vandal to pull your masterwork off the shelf to use as toilet paper. (I hope you printed it on cotton?) Drmies (talk) 22:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with the German-postdoc-tradition. Are we sure that there is no equivalent to the vanity press or the degree-mill for Habilitationsschrift, presumably run from the back-room of a seedy Bavarian tavern?  Yngvadottir's point, that all dissertations are "published in some manner" is correct... but there is a a vast hierarchy of manners-in-which-one-might-publish.  I'm unhappy with treating a PhD as 'vetted by all right-thinking genius-scientists', but I am pretty much equally unhappy with vaguely saying we should 'exercise care'.   I would much prefer specific hard-nosed guidance about applicability of expertise being most important, but subject to torpedo-exclusion if the 'expertise' is really just fauxpertise.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Fine with either of the two last proposals (and with the comma fwiw) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support last version proposed by, great work. Just give the man his comma for god's sake! (JK :) Cheers. Gaba  (talk)  13:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * :) Drmies (talk) 19:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm good on that version with the nod to looking for peer-published papers once you've found the thesis. --M ASEM (t) 19:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * A version with the comma (!) follows... :)
 * "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by third parties. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Some theses are later published in the form of scholarly monographs or peer reviewed articles, and, if available, these are usually preferable to the original thesis as sources. Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." Hchc2009 (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Pasted in. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Fep tubing
Fep tubing is cheaper then Ptfe tubing. Fep tubing is also easier to shrink requiring a much lower shrink temperature then ptfe tubing. Chris walls Tef Cap Industries Www.tefcap.com

Cnwalls (talk) 04:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * As it says at the top, "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Identifying reliable sources page." It is not an appropriate place to discuss the relative merits of 'Fep' and 'Ptfe' tubing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: irrelevant to this page. Nici  Vampire  Heart  06:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Do Axioms need a source?
I'm currently having an issue with another editor on the State of nature article. The issue is simple:


 * His position is that the article is limited to the political theory concept of the term
 * vs.
 * Mine, which is that the political theory term/concept is a sub-set of the more general topic. I am writing from the general perspective that the term, "state of nature" is, first and foremost, a synonym for Universe, and he keeps reverting my edits and accusing me of OR as the basis for his reversions and attempting to burden me with finding a citation to prove what, to me, seems so obvious that it is an axiom. Which to me, is a good way to start any article.

I am not here for resolution of this specific issue I am having. I am here for clarification on if I need to provide a cite for something so obviously true.

So, does an axiom need a cite to support it? If someone wrote, "1+3=2+2", could an editor revert the work if it doesn't have a citation? The main page of this article is where the guy refereed me, but it seems silent regarding this issue. Christopher Theodore (talk) 23:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:OR contains a specific exemption for routine calculations (see WP:CALC). Outside of that exception I would say that, yes, axioms do need sources, and, if they're truly axioms, it should be trivial to find one. Furthermore, I think that your claim that "state of nature" is used as a synonym for "universe" is not an axiom; it's a statement about nomenclature, and it most certainly would require a citation. Pburka (talk) 01:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * By definition, an Axiom is something so obviously true that need be no debate about it. You have now found three editors (Pburka, whoever reverted your edits, and myself) who disagree with your axiom. In any event, policy is that you need to provide a source for anything that has been challenged or is likely to be challenged. Your claim has now been challenged. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Please use WP:RSN for this kind of issue, next time. Johnuniq (talk) 06:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Unreliable open access Journals
Page watchers here may be interested in. Particularly the linked page which lists "peer reviewed" journals that do not provide any meaningful peer review. IRWolfie- (talk)


 * Belated date stamp for archiving: 03:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Enquiry
Can someone tell me, is the RT network (formerly Russia Today) a reliable source? I ask because some editors use it and I would happily do so for some things but I always thought the state-owned nature and the existing dislike of the network in established quarters may have dampened its "reliability" on Wikipedia. Can someone please confirm the verdict as I don't know where to look. Thanks.

Also - concerning blogs and material considered non-RS (not forums), are these ok to add on articles as external links? Provided of course no content is drawn from the source in question. Any thoughts? --Zavtek (talk) 12:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I think this question would be more appropriate on WP:RSN. Pburka (talk) 12:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Copying it over. --Zavtek (talk) 14:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Reddit
Hi all, is Reddit is a reliable source? Specifically their AMA or ask me anything ? I ask because a Reddit AMA has been cited, twice, as a source at the Captain Phillips (film) article. The AMA is an online, interactive Q&A with, in one case, Hollywood director Paul Greengrass. However, the only 'proof' that it is supposedly him, is a picture of him sitting in front of a computer, on a third party image hosting site. Does anyone know more about this, and whether we accept this as an acceptable reference? Thanks -  thewolfchild   11:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I think this question would be more appropriate on WP:RSN. Pburka (talk) 12:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll give it a try. -  thewolfchild   02:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * All I know about AMAs is that before one is conducted on Reddit they have to submit proof to Reddit mods before it goes through. I assume in the same fashion that Twitter marks individuals, celebrities, athletes as "official" or "verified". The rules/FAQ on Reddit AMAs are located here. —  dain  omite   20:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request of 19 November 2013
regarding the page of Eddie 'Kwagga' Boucher i would like to reverance the page and not for it to be deleted.

SPORTBUZZ (talk) 13:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Nothing is stopping you -- just go ahead and add references there, as the page is not protected. Or if you have difficulty doing it, you could go to the article's talk page and list the sources you want to add there. --Stfg (talk) 14:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Are liner notes from CDs/Albums considered a reliable source?
I've never contributed to Wikipedia, but tonight have been reading articles on many musicians. I would like to know if the liner notes for a CD would be considered a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.29.105 (talk) 05:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it would be fine to use liner notes as a reference for certain kinds of information about the source; please see this section of our guideline about identifying reliable sources for more to consider. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 06:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I would classify the liner notes as a "Primary Source"... OK to use, but there are limitations... so caution is needed. Blueboar (talk) 13:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Biased or opinionated sources
Sometimes, sources are removed with only stating they are unreliable. I add:

While a source may be biased, no source is unreliable in advance. What matters is credibility on the subject, in the specific context. On the other hand, an opinion in a reliable source is still an opinion. A financial expert may be reliable on investment, but unreliable on making a good cup of coffee. --Wickey-nl (talk) 09:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I see you've made some pretty significant changes to this section. Here's the comparison:


 * (I've tweaked the order slightly to make comparison easier.) I'm not sure that all of this is an improvement.  In particular, I think it overly discourages use of any source that could possibly be accused of bias (e.g., Fox News if you're politically liberal and The New York Times if you're not—and, yes, this page has seen requests for blanket bans on both of those news outlets on grounds of alleged bias).  Biased sources aren't more likely to be unreliable; unreliability is almost entirely in how you choose to use the source.  The Time Cube website is a 100% reliable source for certain statements.  Even a Nobel Prize winner's writings are 100% unreliable for other kinds of statements.
 * The emphasis on opinion is IMO misplaced, because the desire to reject a source as "biased" is usually about a source that is making pure claims of fact, like whether or not some politician is being investigated for potentially criminal actions, rather than statements of opinion, like whether the politician's latest budget proposal is Good For the Country™. What do other people think?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Does anyone have anything to say about this? I don't think that the current version is an improvement.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * One big comment... I don't think it is at all correct to say that a biased source is more likely to be unreliable than a neutral source. High level academic sources are often highly biased, and yet they are the epitome of what we consider a reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that's the single most problematic assertion, so I've removed it from the guideline.
 * Do you think that a separate supplement that could give a half-dozen examples would be useful? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I really, really would hate to see anything about biased or opinionated sources being less reliable. It would, for instance, mean the very few archaeologists that right about fringe stuff could be rejected as unreliable - and I've seen this attempted, so it's not just speculation. Fringe advocates of all kinds would just say 'look, that source is biased against fringe material, it's not an RS'. Dougweller (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with Dougweller. Bias doesn't automatically make a source unreliable. Sometimes that bias might be on the right side of the issues, while the "neutral" ones have fallen victim to false balance and really are unhelpful. On a personal level, it's important to not be prejudiced (uninformed bias), but to have well-informed biases, IOW have a POV because you have examined all sides of the issues and chosen the one which is most reliable. Yes, you'll be biased, and rightly so! -- Brangifer (talk) 03:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've also just removed the "Biased sources should be used limited and with utmost caution" sentence. Sometimes the allegedly biased source is the best possible source.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Incoherent
This sentence of the guideline does not make much sense to me: "However, biased sources should be used limited and with utmost caution." Maybe someone can explain what "used limited" means? Perhaps the word "sparingly" was intended instead of "limited"? Thx. P.S. This guideline is being discussed in a BLPN thread in which I'm participating.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've discussed the matter with the editor who wrote the sentence. Accordingly I will make a minor edit which is only grammatical.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Please look at above, where these changes are discussed (the table shows a side-by-side comparison).  I think that more significant changes probably need to be made, and possibly a complete reversal of the changes.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not going to get involved here with anything beyond grammar, due to involvement in a BLPN discussion. Correcting grammar very obviously does not advance my position in a content dispute, nor do various other edits to guidelines, but I'd rather stick to the former.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

A source help please from Wayback
Can anyone here tell me what does the archive link for this one say in Wayback or if anyone is able to open the link properly. A user I believe is blatanly lying that he/she cannot see the archive link and is continuously reverting the addition of the archive link to eliminate the dead link for the original. — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat  ] 05:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I see a one paragraph article about Ludacris scoring a role in a movie. Loads just fine. No comment on the reliability of the site, though that is a question for WP:RSN. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah thanks a lot Someguy1221, I guess I will let the user know of this. — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat  ] 05:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

A relevant case
Scenario: An anon with no other contributions changed a date from 2011 to 2005. The article did cite a source for the 2011 date (not the best one admittedly) but the edit that changed to the 2005 date did not add a citation and the existing one was not changed. The change was reverted (by me actually) four days later, but in the meantime the 2005 date appeared in a newspaper article, and has since appeared in at least one other (neither of them citing Wikipedia). I've since added several better sources that support the 2011 date, but have found none prior to the suspected vandalism that support the 2005 date.

That first newspaper article that quoted the 2005 date was cited by another contributor to support placing a dubious tag on the date, which I think should now be removed. It was a good catch on the surface but is not justified on deeper investigation.

WP:NEWSORG is obviously relevant, and this case might even be one worth citing in that section of this page. See Talk:Mortal Error: The Shot That Killed JFK. Andrewa (talk) 02:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a clear example of circular sourcing. Since you supplied strong RS to support the 2011 DoD, I think it's best to stick with that. A "dubious" tag is clearly not necessary. The Blue Canoe  19:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library seeks renewal (please comment)
The Wikipedia Library has grown from a collection of donations to paywalled sources into a broad open research portal for our community. New partnerships have been formed, new pilot programs started, new connections made with our library experts and likeminded institutions. We have tried to bring people together in a new sense of purpose and community about the importance of facilitating research in an open and collaborative way. Here's what we've done so far:


 * Increased access to sources: 1500 editors signed up for 3700 free accounts, individually worth over $500,000, with usage increases of those references between 400-600%
 * Deep networking: Built relationships with Credo, HighBeam, Questia, JSTOR, Cochrane, LexisNexis, EBSCO, New York Times, and OCLC
 * New pilot projects: Started the Wikipedia Visiting Scholar project to empower university-affiliated Wikipedia researchers
 * Developed community: Created portal connecting 250 newsletter recipients, 30 library members, 3 volunteer coordinators, and 2 part-time contractors
 * Tech scoped: Spec'd out a reference tool for linking to full-text sources and established a basis for OAuth integration
 * Broad outreach: Wrote a feature article for Library Journal's The Digital Shift; presenting at the American Library Association annual meeting

We've proposed a 6 month renewal request to continue and deepen this work and would appreciate your comments, concerns, thoughts, questions, or endorsements.

Cheers, Jake Ocaasit &#124; c 12:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Add "modern sources are preferred to Victorian sources"
I thought there was a line "modern sources are [usually] preferred to Victorian sources" about watching out for Victorian reprints being misdated in Google Books. It doesn't appear to be in WP:RS, does anyone know where it is? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't remember it being in the guideline... but I agree that a caution about misdated reprints should be included.  It's a citation flaw.
 * That said, while I agree that we usually would prefer modern sources over older ones... any statement to that effect will need some caveats to account for exceptions to that generalized rule. We don't "always" prefer modern sources over older sources.  Of course, a lot depends on the specific topic area.  Obviously in topic areas like Medicine and Physics, a Victorian source would (and should) be considered outdated and obsolete... however, in other topic areas this is not necessarily the case.  In History, for example, there are Victorian works that are still considered THE seminal work on the subject...  and where none of the modern sources have supplanted the high reputation of that Victorian source.  Blueboar (talk) 14:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with the way Blueboar has stated that.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Blueboar, which is mostly why I made a revert in this regard on the 9th, as seen here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 15:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not just Victorian, I just found a 1961 source given a 2004 date, both as a source and in the author's biography. That's a long time for some fields. I'll also have to say I've seen 19th century sources used for history that are seriously obsolete. Dougweller (talk) 15:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So there are two issues here it seems, which it is suggested should be mentioned: people apparently being mislead about the publication date; and that newer sources tend to be preferred in most subject areas, where available. Correct?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've essentially seen the same as Dougweller, such as when looking for sources with regard to anatomy. While a lot of, perhaps the majority of, what was stated about anatomy back in 1961 is the same as today, some things are different...such as the primary source of vaginal lubrication (it was once believed to be primarily produced by the Bartholin's glands, but anatomists, the majority at least, no longer believe that to be the case). Andrew Lancaster, I suppose that newer sources are better for most subject areas. If you look at Identifying reliable sources (medicine), you will see that it lists exceptions and begins in that regard by stating: "These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or few reviews are being published." Flyer22 (talk) 16:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Definitely 19th century (and generally pre WW2) sources get used too often. One practical excuse for this is that people can sometimes find a source on google books so that they at least have something. That is not exactly a bad thing most times. More important reasons for using old sources are when we cite primary sources for one thing, but also when we are writing about subjects that are no longer in fashion or have a slow cycle of change. In some areas of classical studies it is not unusual to see very old works cited as serious secondary works. Another example might be heraldry? Just trying to consider extremes, to help the discussion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe instead of a rule like "modern sources are to be preferred to Victorian sources", offer some insight into the kinds of considerations that make the age of a source relevant to its reliability, like the illustrations made by Blueboar and Andrew Lancaster above. On the other hand, almost anything said in a guideline about this will likely be abused, and there's little to say about Victorian sources that isn't implied by the principles we already have. Before adding specific guidelines about old sources, please consider WP:CREEP. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes - rather than singling out Victorian sources in particular, I'd prefer something along the lines of The best modern sources often draw on a wider range of scholarship and consider more perspectives than the standard works of earlier periods. Agree re WP:CREEP, though; while good advice this might be so vague as to be pointless (or, worse, encourage endless Wikipedantry over what is and isn't "modern", "of earlier periods" etc.). Barnabypage (talk) 08:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think Victorian and Edwardian sources can be as misleading in history as in any other field. For one thing, they tended to interpret ancient history in terms of modern nationalism. It's not hard to find old articles assuming that of course all the Germanic tribes have always been allies of each other and enemies of the Celtic tribes. For another, they were inordinately fond of migration and invasion hypotheses, although one may reply that more recent scholars are inordinately afraid of migration hypotheses. For another, history has advanced, and archaeology has advanced rather more and shed its own light on the common subjects. For another, some sources that were important to earlier historians, such as the Historia Augusta have been shown to be clever hoaxes. Ananiujitha (talk) 02:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * @User:Andrew Lancaster, correct there are two issues here; apologies for bundling, but it seems there is immediate consensus on the caution on reprint dates. There should (probably is) be a list somewhere of red alert publishers such as Kessinger Publishing which appear to always be entered incorrectly on Google Books.
 * @User:Ananiujitha, exactly - and in addition to Germanic/Celtic tribes, anything related to Second Temple Judaism or Early Christianity/Gnosticism prior to the discoveries such as Nag Hammadi and Dead Sea Scrolls is effectively worthless. Same true of much Ancient Near East archaeology. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the best thing to make clear is that the goal is to represent the scholarship on the topic as it is, not as it was. This makes it clear that many older sources are not reliable, even if they would have been considered reliable among some hypothetical Wikipedians a hundred years ago, because they are no longer accepted within current scholarship. It also makes it clear that some older sources are reliable, because they are still accepted within current scholarship. For example, the standard text for Plato's Symposium is Burnet's published in 1901. But the standard text for Plato's Republic (dialogue) is not Burnet's, but Slings' published in 2003. You can't look at the intrinsic evidence of a work to determine whether it is reliable (i.e., when was it published, where was it published, what methods did the author follow, etc.), which will only amount to original research. You have to look at the extrinsic evidence (i.e., how do scholars now treat it). -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 08:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * And of course, when the subject is the Victorian scholar or period, then the Victorian sources are essential. Context is everything. DES (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course, Victorian sources used to describe Victorian scholarship are, in that context, primary sources, and must be used cautiously so as to avoid WP:OR. When writing about Victorian scholar or society, modern secondary sources would be preferred. Pburka (talk) 17:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Obsolete Victorian historiography is the bane of our articles on all our national and military history. Colonial, racist and antisemitic assumptions were rife in pre-1945 scholarship. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * They are to this day. What is your point? We do not discount a source because of it's age alone. If you can demonstrate that a source is lacking or is overly problematic for the reasons you state, we take them on a case by case nature and do not lump every source from a single period and exclude them all. Some older sources are the only sources on some subjects, but a modern interpretation is useful, if there is one.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The scholarship as it is, not as it was
Atethnekos said to make clear that the goal is to represent the scholarship on the topic as it is, not as it was. That is well said. It is so well said, I think those exact words ought to go in the guideline page. Any objections? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have one concern myself: the very very most recent, cutting-edge publications often discuss matters of debate where the dust has not yet settled. Occasionally I've heard people criticize an article for having few or no sources published within some timeframe, like the past 10 years, or criticizing a source simply because it's old. To me, that sounds like a principle that unwittingly leads to covering the latest academic fads and fashions before conclusions have stabilized, and opposing well-established conclusions simply because they have stabilized. Some remark about this is probably in order, too. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2014
Maureenlb (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Avacados brought to America from Mexico to Santa Barbara before Lomoland as claimed. http://www.californiaavocado.com/


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. -- El Hef  ( Meep? ) 02:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

(Definition of Publication)
''Publication does not necessarily mean ink on paper: some venerable newspapers like the Christian Science Monitor have ceased printing and gone all-digital. 


 * Reason: I recently encountered an editor who did not think an all-digital journal was a reliable source. Had this page cited a specific example, in this case the Christian Science Monitor, it would have been the fastest and clearest response.  While I take the reverting editor's point that the first sentence speaks to this, it does not speak clearly. The question here is whether to add the example.  This is not a change from existing policy. ElijahBosley  (talk &#9758;)  17:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A flaw in our Definition of published is that it doesn't include a definition of "published". There's a link to WP:Published, which does have some further discussion. I do think that our wording here could be a lot clearer. I normally like examples and citations, but in this case I think there is some cost in wordiness. How about this?
 * "A published source is one that is publicly available. Sources can be published in any medium: print, audio or video recordings, film, or any digital representation, such as web pages, ebooks, on-line newspapers, CDs, DVDs, etc."
 * Our definition of "published" should not conflate publication with reliability. The wording should make clear that public availability is only the first criterion for verifiability. The next is reliability. This is already covered to some extent at WP:SOURCE. It would probably be best to sharpen the definition of "published" there, if it's not satisfactory, and link to it here. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Verifiability notes that "material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form"." Hchc2009 (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The sentence offered above ("A published source is. . . ") does seem to solve the problem, both in being more clear and in offering concrete examples. So I would support that revision. I wonder whether this is the place, or not, to note that not *all* publications equate to notability; that there is a difference between an online article in the Christian Science Monitor and one in a high school online newspaper. That may be addressed on another page but editors looking for guidance usually don't hop from page to page; it would make sense to collect all pertinent policies in one place. ElijahBosley  (talk &#9758;)  14:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is a common enough problem any more to merit inclusion. We used to hear that a lot, but now we are far more likely to hear the opposite (that a source only available on paper cannot be used).  Addressing rare complaints is WP:CREEP.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

(Bias)
''Special interest magazines can be skewed, because of an unhealthy depedence on and preference given to advertisers: an example is the firing of a writer and an editor at Guns & Ammo for departing from the advertiser's preferred party line. Wikipedia editors should take into account Mark Twain's remark: "You tell me whar a man gits his corn pone, en I'll tell you what his 'pinions is."  


 * Reason: I also encountered another editor who insisted that only newstand special interest consumer magazine like Guns & Ammo could support an article; that a cite to a more staid business journal was insufficient. For that reason it is necessary to point out that glossy consumer magazines can be skewed--Guns & Ammo being the best recent example, featured in a New York Times article on this subject. Again this is not a departure of the policy of avoiding bias, merely furnishing an example of bias. So the question is, is this section better or worse with an example? ElijahBosley  (talk &#9758;)  17:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I do like having an example, and I especially like the Mark Twain quotation. I believe the latter well reflects the spirit of Wikipedia's attitude toward sources. It's probably unwise to pick on "special-interest magazines", though. I figure that the great majority of our sources are special-interest publications of one sort or another. Does anyone know any facts about the prevalence of bias that undermines reliability? If so, mentioning those would probably be helpful. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Editorial independence is a significant subject, and it is not well addressed. But I'm not sure that this is the right way to address it.  It's complicated.  It ought to be obvious to anyone with a tiny bit of WP:COMPETENCE that a firearms magazine is likely to have an overall pro-firearms editorial stance and that these are businesses that want to stay profitable—which is not bad, but which needs to be considered.  But at the same time, we'll have people trying to twist this into "you can't cite a medical journal about, because they're just opposing it due to financial pressure from Big Pharma".
 * This is hard. It will require a lot of thought.  Now may not be the best time to address this.  We may need more information about all of the varieties of problems people have in this area.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

(Blogs)
''While articles published in respected journals are generally preferable, blogs and forums whose contributors have knowledge in the area are gaining in credibility. An example would be Dr. Jeff Master's blog on Weather Underground where an experienced and reputable meteriologist offers science-based assesments. A Harvard conference in 2005 concluded that credibility of blogging as opposed to (or in conjunction with) traditional journalism is an evolving standard, and requires case-by-case consideration.  


 * Reason: A few months ago I was pillaried by a blogger who felt that my eliminating a cite to an academic blog (on the article Lawfare ) was wrong. In the course of that discussion I had to re-examine my own negative views on blogs as sources: I must concede that blogs are gaining in notability and reliability. The Harvard conference cited makes this point: blogs and traditional journalism now are mutually reinforcing. This is not so much a change to existing policy as modifying a ""usually not" to a "maybe, depending on the circumstances."  Editors who prefer a hard "no" to all blogs, no matter how credible, I think might like to read that Harvard conference report.  To the extent this modifies policy I think it a necessary modification, and to the extent other Wikipedia policy pages on blogs likewise need review, I say--okay. Let's have at 'em. ElijahBosley  (talk &#9758;)  17:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * We already cover this pretty well, I think, at WP:NEWSBLOG and WP:BLOGS. The main criterion is editorial oversight, reasonably overridden on occasion for self-reporting or for a self-published expert whose authority is established elsewhere. We should probably link to those sections from this page. Actually, we do: notice the links to WP:SPS and WP:NEWSBLOG. It could probably be done more clearly, though, since obviously you didn't see them. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Quite right, I did not see them. So a sentence here saying something like (this wording is awkward but you see where I am going) "publications are preferred, but some blogs may be acceptable as sources if there is editorial review, or other indicia of credibility, see WP:SPS and WP:NEWSBLOG " ElijahBosley (talk &#9758;)  14:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think this duplicative statement needs to be added, especially since the reverse (citing inappropriate blogs) is the bigger problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Citing a TV show
Recently I added a Mythbusters episode to Wikipedia that hasn't aired in the US yet. I provided the date and channel it aired locally, but no link because the online TV guide only goes a few days back and would at best be verifiable for two or three days. (at the time I made the edit, the air date was already no longer accessable) Because I realize I could make up a load of hooey, I also provided a link in the edit comment to a screenshot that made it perfectly clear this episode in fact did air. I didn't link the screenshot in the article because it seemed slightly silly. Regardless, someone added a "citation needed" tag.

So my question is this: exactly how is one supposed to cite a TV show? If there is no online TV guide that goes back far enough, how does one provide proof it really aired? Does one even have to? W3ird N3rd (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi W3ird N3rd,
 * Sources must be accessible. Unfortunately, non-archived TV shows are not and therefore cannot be used.  If a DVD can be expected at the end of the season, or if there is a website for the show, then you could cite those.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

additons of citations
I have added cited material, as this page suffers from a dearth of citations and thus violates Wikipedia's own policy about sourcing assertions. I have also added clarifying examples in a few instances. Before reverting these additions please discuss here. ElijahBosley  (talk &#9758;)  16:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Returning to the page I see a flurry of reversions by several different editors, endeavoring to undo all the cites I have added. As per the edit histories I believe some discussion is warranted. Please explain why uncited material, without examples, is preferable to cited material. ElijahBosley (talk &#9758;)  16:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Why no citations: This page is a guideline for editing Wikipedia articles, not itself a Wikipedia article. It reflects the consensus of Wikipedia editors about content that we consider acceptable, not a scholarly consensus about an encyclopedia topic. (BTW, I copyedited one paragraph that you added, so don't think everyone is against you. Also, please have a look at WP:BRD if you haven't already. Boldly editing a guideline is fine, but most of the time it gets reverted and you have to discuss to find a new consensus.) —Ben Kovitz (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * ElijahBosley, at the top of the Identifying reliable sources guideline, there is a tag that states, "Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." And taking this matter to the talk page is what, in my opinion, you should have done first.


 * You were reverted here, here, here and here with regard to your changes to the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources guideline; this doubly means that these substantive edits should be discussed on this talk page to achieve WP:Consensus on whether or not to implement them. In the future, I hope that you strongly consider seeking WP:Consensus on a guideline or policy talk page for any substantive edit before substantially altering that guideline or policy. Flyer22 (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response. My policy is generally to try avoiding use of the word "you:" the proper focus of the discussion is on the Wikipedia text, and not the editor. I am creating a separate section below to discuss each proposed change, for the sake of organization and clarity, and responses specific to each.  I add  a brief note on the "why's" of each, and invite discussion.


 * I note the first two are not changes of policy, merely embellishments and examples. The third is a loosening, not so much a change but a relaxing, of the existing policy about blogs, supported as you can see by a Harvard policy study on journalism. ElijahBosley (talk &#9758;)  17:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You made substantial changes to a guideline (guideline, not policy) without WP:Consensus, and then reverted. Of course the focus is going to be on both you and your edits. From what I can see, that is not a WP:Talk guideline "Comment on content, not on the contributor." matter.


 * I'll let others deal with your arguments with regard to the guideline wording; I'm not interested. Flyer22 (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This comment is puzzling: inaccurate, since I reverted nothing, and the "I'm not interested" strangely preemptory and seemingly uncivil. If an editor chooses not to contribute, the thing to do is, not contribute. Meantime others have indeed "dealt with" the arguments below, in a reasoned and considerate way, and I will try to emulate their good example in responding. ElijahBosley (talk &#9758;)  14:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * As noted here, you accidentally reverted here (what appears to be an accident, judging by the edits being committed within the same minute). And this, restoring that reference, can be validly argued as a revert. Notice that a WP:Revert is restoring any edit in part or in whole. Ben Kovitz above, when citing WP:BRD, also seems to believe that you reverted (I'm not referring to that unintentional matter either). So I fail to see what is puzzling with regard to my commentary above. And I don't think "I'm not interested" falls into "strangely preemptory" and/or WP:Uncivil territory; it's simply a statement of fact. Nothing wrong in the least with me stating "I'm not interested," as it explains why I won't be participating. Explaining why one won't be participating can also be "the thing to do" and "reasoned and considerate," as it is in this case. Flyer22 (talk) 04:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

On the initial statement about "violat[ing] Wikipedia's own policy about sourcing assertions", see Policies and guidelines. It is our formal policy that no citations are required. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Interpretation of WP:SPS
There is a disagreement on the interpretation of the line in WP:SPS that says, "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." The matter involves a blog that reposts cable television viewership numbers originally obtained from the Nielsen company. The question is whether the blog is considered an expert by virtue of the fact that other sites sometimes cite the blog as their source for Nielsen ratings. The discussion is here. Dezastru (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Quackwatch used for RS? Really?

 * Wow, the very same Qwackwatch that says that acupuncture doesn't work? http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/acu.html


 * Never mind that acupuncture has rapidly stopped the pain in my sprained knee, stopped my migraine headaches and relieved my asthma in minutes.


 * I really hope Wikipedia opens its eyes on this one.


 * 2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 13:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * See the /FAQ. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Shadowboxes
Shadowboxes may, among other things, be used to display military awards. An example links from the William Guarnere page. The direct link is to an on-line image of Guarnere's shadowbox. The question is: Is a shadowbox any better as a reference than a blog?-- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  00:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This type of question is best asked at WP:RSN, but the answer is almost certainly "no". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Journalist Article Sources
I've noticed that some Wikipedia articles about journalists use articles written by the journalist themselves as references. Like in the article on Chuck Philips ("The murder of Biggie" section) where it says, "In 1997, Los Angeles Times authors Chuck Philips and Matt Laitt reported that the key suspect was a member of the Crips acting in service of a personal financial motive. " (If you see the Wiki markup, a Chuck Philips article is referenced.) While that news article would be an RS in the Biggie Smalls article, I don't believe it is an RS in the Chuck Philips article because in that context it is not independent nor a secondary source. If the claim you are making is that Chuck Philips wrote this article, then the article itself is a primary source, therefore not an RS. Am I right? If so, I think it'd be a good addition to the guidelines. Fnordware (talk) 06:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You are both right and wrong. Yes, it is a primary source for this statement, but, no, "primary" does not mean unreliable.  You may WP:USEPRIMARY sources (carefully, and not to demonstrate notability).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the helpful link. I know that notability is the measure of weather an article should exist or not, but should the ideas of notability also be applied to the article contents? In this particular case, Chuck Philips certainly is notable enough to warrant an article, but then is that license to fill up his article with details about everything he's ever written, just because you reference each article? This seems to be just a more structured link farm. By following notability guidelines for the contents and requiring independent secondary sources, the article will limit itself to information that describes the key points of his career, not every detail. Fnordware (talk) 07:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Fnordware, the notability guideline does not limit article contents. However, your very important idea is the main subject of the policy you will find at WP:DUE.  Filling up an article with what the subject wrote about himself or his ideas does not result in due weight.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, I guess WP:BALASPS has the relevant policy info, although it stops short of saying that an indication an event may not be significant is if there are few secondary sources for it. I guess it's up to editors' consensus to decide that. For the Chuck Philips article, the majority of editors agreed to take out all the primary sources and re-build it on secondary sources alone. I think the article is much-improved as a result. Fnordware (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Request to add book [psi], REI theory and dyslexia method as reliable sources
I'm new on Wikipedia and I wanted to add new documents about REI theory which is at the moment explained only in the book [psi] by author called Eros (pseudonym). REI is a new way of understanding the human psyche. It represents the basics of how our mind operates and explains the background of our thoughts. Link: http://www.psi-book.com/rei/3. Based on this theory author developed an explanation, from which he derived a simple method that he then used to help a dyslexic child. This method is patented and free for use here: http://www.psi-book.com/the-forum/dyslexia. This method uses application for text coding. I would like to add at least those two documents: REI theory and The mystery of dyslexia unraveled and if possible a document about [psi] the book: http://www.psi-book.com/the-book. Since I don’t have permission to add new documents and I think they are of big importance I’m asking for your help.

Erik.MIletic (talk) 21:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What you describe sounds like a WP:FRINGE theory. The author's book, which introduces the theory, is a primary source. The fact that the author hides behind a pseudonym doesn't help with credibility. In order to demonstrate that the theory is notable you need to show that it's received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Have mainstream journals or newspapers written about the theory? Are there books by other authors published by reputable houses? Pburka (talk) 22:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yup - a self-published book by an anonymous author, making extraordinary claims about 'a new way of understanding the human psyche' more or less ticks all the boxes as an unreliable source as far as Wikipedia is concerned. If the book gains serious academic credibility in the relevant fields, that can of course change, but without evidence of such credibility, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Sam Sailor Sing 08:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The origine of title Bhaduri
So far i have have knowledge of my study there was Gandagram called Bhaturia under Parjna area of Bengal where an famous Acharya called Udayan Acharya lived. The name Udayan was so famous that often he called as Udayan Bhaturia and the so after long period of the the term Bhaturia is known as Bhaduri. There are many example of Bhaduri like Raja ganesh'' of medieval Bengal. There are also example of Bhaduri at Saptadurgaat Chalan Beelat Rajsshahi, Now at Bangladesh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.96.51.236 (talk) 14:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Vox
Is this new voice RS or an unreliable blog? Thanks. Lfstevens (talk) 04:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Lfstevens... you should probably ask this at WP:RSN (the Reliable Sources Noticeboard). This talk page is really for discussing the wording of the guideline itself.
 * That said... I can all but guarantee that the first question they will ask you is: "Reliable for what exactly?" You see, context matters.  The same source may be absolutely reliable in one context, and completely unreliable in another.  For example... a pamphlet published by the Flat Earth Society would be reliable for the statement "The Flat Earth Society contends that the Earth is flat"... but it would be completely unreliable for the non-hedged statement "The Earth is flat".
 * We also need to look at the appropriateness of the statement itself... in the context of the article topic. For example, the opinion of the Flat Earth Society about the shape of the Earth is appropriate to mention in the context of the article on the Flat Earth Society itself... but their opinion would not be appropriate to mention in the context of our article on Earth (for more on this, see our policy on WP:UNDUE WEIGHT).
 * In other words... reliability depends on exactly what you want to say... and where you want to say it. Blueboar (talk) 13:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear sir I am new on wikipedia and I wanted to write correct thing... pl help me to do...--SjElle (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)