Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 57

Defining reliability of a medium via the trust on the medium among its readers
Hi all, I'm new here and writing with background of journalistic studies. Mass media is commonly used as a reliable source in several Wikipedia article and referred as "a reliable source". I'd like to suggest adding the following into the definition of reliable sources:

When citing a medium as a reliable source, there should be an independent study or poll supporting the reliability of that medium. For example a poll showing more than 50% trust among the readers would support the reliability, and in the opposite less than 50% would support unreliability. This should not be taken as a requirement, as such information is not available for all the mediums, but for those who have it's a good rule of thumb when defining the reliability. This rule of thumb should not be used for defining a reliability of a single article published in any medium as any article might be reliable despite the trust on the medium in general. However, reliability of a medium shouldn't be founded solely on trust among readers as there are areas, times and circumstances where/when mediums are used for propaganda or for other purposes. Please also refer to other methods identifying reliable sources. The reliability of a single article should always be handled separately considering the concept, but more focus on reliability should be addressed especially when using articles in mediums having low public trust among their readers. When a reliability on a medium(s) plays important role in a Wikipedia article, and especially when using article(s) of medium(s) carrying low public trust, it's a good practice to reason the use of such medium and when possible, link readers to a recent study or poll on the reliability of the medium.

EDITS IN THE ABOVE SUGGESTION:

1. After comment by Hob Gadling, edited adding ''However, reliability of a medium shouldn't be founded solely on trust among readers as there are areas, times and circumstances where/when mediums are used for propaganda or for other purposes. Please also refer to other methods identifying reliable sources.'' Edit by 81.197.179.232 (talk) 11:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

DISCUSSION:

I think the above suggestion requires a discussion in advance both on it's usefulness, topic and the content itself. My goal here is to ensure good practices when referring to mediums as a source. Thanks for any opinions. 81.197.179.232 (talk) 13:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I stopped reading after "When citing a medium as a reliable source, there should be an independent study or poll supporting the reliability of that medium." No writer searches for an independent study or poll every time the writer wants to cite a source. This idea is a non-starter. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * My suggestion does not require writer to do that. Please read through at least, and maybe suggest edits which would remove such an impression you got. 81.197.179.232 (talk) 14:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * By the criterion of whether the readers agree with the articles, Völkischer Beobachter and Pravda are reliable sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * We use polls (at least among ourselves) to establish media reliability only when a dispute arises. Heck, even Pravda may be a reliable source when it says that "Khrushchev visited kolkhoz "Lenin's Glory". Staszek Lem (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing up this point of view. You refer to mediums in a country under dictatorship / communism, so we should also consider the reliability of such polls. I suggested an independent study or poll which includes this level of reliability check when needed, but it might not be enough (There actually might be trust among readers). An edit to my suggestion is in place. My suggestion is not supposed to drop any other method regarding reliability checks on mediums, like for example how a propaganda medium is currently handled as a source in Wikipedia, and the suggestion should not enable the use of such mediums any easier than the current practices are. Having these in mind, I've edited my suggestion by adding However, reliability of a medium shouldn't be founded solely on trust among readers as there are areas, times and circumstances where/when mediums are used for propaganda or for other purposes. Please also refer to other methods identifying reliable sources. Again thanks a lot, happy if you check if this edit covers the issue (and doesn't bring up any new issues). 81.197.179.232 (talk) 11:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, my two examples were intended not as constructive suggestions for improving the proposition but as counterexamples for destroying it. What you are suggesting is to use the fallacy of argumentum ad populum. People are fallible and easy to fool, in democracies as well as in dictatorships, and most of the time, in all countries, the majority holds several batshit crazy ideas with no connection to reality, often because media spread them. Sometimes the majority elects known liars and frauds into positions of power because of that. Truth and reliability are not, and should not be, determined by vote. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't mind if your goal is more destructive or constructive as long as it's well argued, which you again do. My counter argument: As long as gallups, polls or other measures of opinion are used to support scientific studies I can't find a reason why they should be disallowed when determining reliability of a medium. You also shared a valuable point re argumentum ad populum but I see that already taken care of with the latest edit. In the current form the reliability is not based solely on the fact that it is a widely popular thought and it does not disregard the importance of expertise, independence, accuracy and fact-checking, but instead adds to that list. 81.197.179.232 (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

English can be a confusing language... It took me a moment to realize that we were (once again) discussing news media, and not discussing the reliability of mediums. For a moment there, I thought the OP was asking us to search for polls to determine whether (for example) Theresa Caputo was more trusted than John Edward... or something like that. Blueboar (talk) 12:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It can... a medium was a generally used term during my studies to cover any intermediate agency or a channel of communication like as a single instance in the field of media, definitely not limited to news. Do you think another term would be better to avoid confusion? 81.197.179.232 (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

How long time should we give for the discussion here before considering editing the page? (assuming the suggestion would benefit Wikipedia) 81.197.179.232 (talk) 12:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Challenges to the closure should be taken to WP:AN (after contacting the closer, which has taken place), not WP:TO, per WP:CLOSE – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

secondary source cite of primary source
For a case where a primary source x says “We conclude with y degree of certainty that z” where the primary source defines ‘y degree’ as being less than 100%, is a secondary source’ considered reliable when it specifically cites the primary source a statement of the form “ concluded y” rather than qualifying that statement as the source did? Related: Are there degrees of reliability that pertain here? Humanengr (talk) 00:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Issues like this frequently arise when one source cites another inaccurately. I don't think it has anything to with primary vs secondary. Zerotalk 00:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thx. So ignoring the primary vs secondary aspect, would the citing source be considered reliable if it cites 'inaccurately'? The answer seems an obvious 'no'; I'm just confirming re WP use of the term 'reliable'. Humanengr (talk) 01:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Elaborating: RS:News organizations says "'News reporting' from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors)." Here the citing source is stating that another source "concluded z" without the qualifier. The issue is whether it should be considered 'reliable' when it is not 'accurate'. Humanengr (talk) 01:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem is in deciding who gets to decide what is "inaccurate". For example, the usual standard in lots of inferential statistics is 95% confidence that a result is not random. But the results are often described as given - as a conclusion, that yes, something or other is as it is. But sometimes, depending on the research question and the data involved, the standard is 90%. Or 99%. So what's "inaccurate" here?
 * And here is the thing. Based on experience, I'd say that a lot of Wikipedians probably have some difficulty even with the whole "verifiability" part of sourcing - is it sourced or not? The last thing you want is this bunch running around trying to evaluate whether or not a source is being "accurate" or not. That way lies madness. And reddit. Basically that would just turn Wikipedia into another crappy internet discussion forum.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Re "depending on the research question and the data involved". Does that include consequence (say in terms of benefit or cost) of the decision? Humanengr (talk) 04:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * In theory, yes (Loss function). In practice, most often it really comes down to the quality of the data. But that's not a Wikipedia topic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm asking whether you are saying that consequence should or should not be considered. The probability of an event is one thing; the consequence of an event is another. I am not asking about the quality of the data for either, only whether consequence should be considered. Humanengr (talk) 05:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you asking about Wikipedia practice specifically, or just scholarly work in general? If latter, then yeah, "consequence of an event" is part of the loss function - look at that article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's pick this up later after discussion below re 'secret' (beyond the Taleb issue). Humanengr (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a hard question and I don't think there is a simple answer to it. Some points: (1) If both the sources are independently citable under the rules, you can cite them both to show the disagreement. However, you shouldn't write it as a story of how one source got it wrong (which would be a SYNTH violation). Just write that one source says A and another source says B.  (2) Rules like NOR and V don't apply to talk pages, sources can be reliable for some things and not for others, and editors have the right to choose which items in "reliable sources" get into articles anyway. It is perfectly ok to argue on the talk page that a source made a mistake, using whatever evidence you can muster, and if a consensus forms that you are right you have decided that the source is not reliable for that fact.  Zerotalk 01:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what "independently citable" means (and don't see a mention of it in the RS article. Re "Just write that one source says A and another source says B.": that would result in, e.g.: "' concluded that y did z.[cite to 2ary source]  'concluded with high confidence that y did z.[cite to 1ary source]'"Is that what you are recommending?Humanengr (talk) 12:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "Independently citable" just means that each of the sources satisfies our citing rules (like WP:RS) on its own merits. As for how to cite both of them, not every problem has a solution which is both satisfying and elegant. One device you might think about is to put the secondary source's opinion in the main text, then in the footnote giving the full specs of the secondary source you can note that it cited the primary source which you then quote.  It is perilously close to SYNTH, but maybe ok if you don't write that the secondary source made a mistake. Zerotalk 13:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Pls see discussion below with Jc3s5h wrt 2ary sources citing 1ary public summaries of their 'secret' investigations. Comments welcome. Humanengr (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I should also add that in my experience on Wikipedia I've really only seen a few instances where a secondary, reliable, source really "got it wrong". 90 times out of a 100 it was the user who wanted to use primary rather than secondary, who either did not understand the primary source or was pretending not to understand it in order to push their POV. Out of the remaining 10% a good chunk just involved sources which used some ambiguous phrasing which could be easily misconstrued. The couple times where the source "got it wrong" it actually wasn't that hard to get consensus on talk not to use that particular source, or to write it in the way which makes it clear that something fishy is going on (for example, do it the way Zero0000 suggests).

Basically, if you think "source got it wrong" and others don't see it that way on the talk page, there's a pretty good chance that you're the one getting it wrong.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Pls see my response below to Jc3s5h re a narrower focus; will return to broader issues later. Comments welcome Humanengr (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

"We conclude with y degree of certainty that z" is a typical way to state a conclusion in a scientific journal. "Jones concluded z" or even just "z" may be a typical way to state a conclusion in a source aimed at a popular audience, or when addressing a technical audience in a briefer format. So it comes down to whether the author of the secondary source has the qualifications to make the jump from "Jones concluded with y degree of certainty that z" to "Jones concluded z". If the secondary author is a scholar in the field, I'd consider it reliable unless there are other reliable sources contradicting the statement. If it's a general-interest reporter writing a newspaper article about a technical subject, I wouldn't be so sure the secondary source is reliable for the statement about z. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thx. In science, experiments are repeatable (more so in physics, less so in other disciplines), so there is a possibility that a 2ary author -might- have some relevant experience and -might- be qualified. But in, say, writing about a public summary release of a secret investigation by a government agency, the 2ary author has no basis on which to make a judgment of the 1ary source designation of confidence. Any change from the designation given by the 1ary source -- e.g., "with high confidence" is a biased distortion. Humanengr (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I must disagree. Making use of the conclusions of the primary source requires readers to transform the statement to different wording or action. A technical reporter writing for a lay audience writes "Jones concluded z." An engineer writing a test spec translates "a properly functioning circuit will have an output voltage that is normally distributed with mean 1.0 V and &sigma; 0.01 V" to a program that shunts any part with an output voltage >1.03 V or < than 0.97 V into the trash bin. A patient translates a probabilistic statement about the risk of a surgery into a decision to have the surgery. Making use of a statement involving probabilities involves transforming the statement into a useful form for the situation. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree that 'use' and 'decision' are key. Are you familiar with Taleb? Humanengr (talk) 21:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * No. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Taleb's proofs of errors in "traditional treatment of probability distributions" have radically changed decision-making but I can leave that aside for now.
 * Not really. Taleb's audience is mostly the semi-educated who wish to seem smart without putting in the work. He's basically saying the same shit that's been known for years just dressing it up in new phraseology and pretending it's original. The loss function (multiplying consequences by their probabilities and basing decisions on that) has been around for a couple centuries implicitly and explicitly for almost a full century.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * (by "semi-educated" I mean people with a Masters or a Bachelors degree, depending on the discipline ;) )Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't want to pursue this now except to say that's not even wrong. But I'd welcome comments below re 'secret'. Humanengr (talk) 02:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok. But if you think that Taleb "proved" that there are errors in "traditional treatments of probability distributions" or that his stuff has "radically changed decision-making" (how would you know?) then, well, that's "not even wrong".Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * In your engineering and surgery examples, as in my physics, etc., examples, the data and methods have been made publicly available. In those cases, another party -might- have some basis for "transforming the statement into a useful form for the situation". But in the case of a secret report they do not have access to the data and methods and so have zero basis for "transforming the statement". Any change is a distortion. Humanengr (talk) 08:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Responding to the OP - every policy and guideline says that we should rely on secondary sources, and I will add to that, that we should rely on high quality secondary sources. There are zillions of reasons for this.  One reason to reach for high quality secondary sources is that their expert authors will gather up the underlying primary sources and contextualize them.  It isn't our place as editors to peer review them. We should just summarize them.  One of the ways that editors go wrong is that they grab low quality secondary sources that don't deal well with the material they are discussing; editors also go wrong by citing primary sources and interpreting them in various ways.
 * With the way the question is phrased, neither I nor anybody else can understand if the secondary source is high quality (a New York Times article, or a review in the NEJM) or low quality.
 * In general we defer to high quality secondary sources. 20:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I narrowed the discussion in my post immediately above (which basically repeats my 19:34, 20 April 2017 cmt). Can you respond specifically to the issue of 2ary sources citing 1ary public summaries of their 'secret' investigations? Humanengr (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The question remains too vague to answer.  You give no sense of whether the 2nd source is high quality of low. If it is Daily Mail-ish and it mischaracterizes the underlying source of course you don't use that. These kind of hand-wavy discussions are generally unproductive. It would be much better if you actually brought the sources you are concerned about. Jytdog (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * btw I looked at your editing history, and am guessing this is something about the Russian interference with US elections and what the US intelligence agencies found, how those findings were reported, and what other people think about those findings and of various reports of them. This is a morass where obvious political agendas are making editing more difficult than usual. Per the advice in WP:Controversial articles, concentrate on raising source quality and push away efforts to introduce content based on low quality sources. Jytdog (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I have no problem in talking about the specifics; but the issue is broader. The issue is what is considered 'high quality'. You are correct that political agendas are of concern, and that is exactly what I am focusing on. I want to address this more generally but will note the particulars here (which include some confounding issues).
 * In this example, the 1ary source, the ODNI, provided a Jan 2017 public summary of their conclusions as "We have high confidence in these judgments." Obviously, as for all secret investigations, they did not publish their data or methods and so are not available for review and critique. The 2ary source cited for the lead sentence inexplicably refers not to the Jan report but to what it superseded -- a Oct 2016 'joint statement'. This results in a lede of "The United States Intelligence Community officially concluded that …" without the 'high confidence' qualification. The cite to the Jan 2017 report is postponed to the 2nd sentence. The discussion on the talk page has promoted the 'concluded that' language citing various later sources. But none of those later 2ary sources are cited in the lead para. So the controlling presentation to the reader is that the -current- assessment is 'concluded that'.
 * I hope those details provide context for what prompted my general concern, which I restate here eliminating the confounding issues in the example above: Assume, for sake of simplicity, that a 2ary source cites and rephrases the public summary given by 1ary source of their 'secret' investigation. The 1ary source, irrespective of any supposed stamp of 'quality' approval by the WP community or anywhere else, has no basis -- since the 'secret' nature of the investigation prohibits release of data or methods for critique -- for rephrasing the 1ary's statement of their conclusion -- except a political agenda or incompetence, both of which make the source extremely unreliable for any such statement.
 * This applies to all 2ary reports of secret investigations. Humanengr (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm less convinced than before. The report defined three confidence levels then assigned the highest level to its main conclusion.  It isn't a qualification that lowers the strength of the conclusion.  It allows for a small possibility of being wrong, but so does "officially concluded" (as opposed to "determined beyond any doubt" for example). So in this case I think the secondary source's summary was not too bad. Zerotalk 02:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting then how all discussants opposed to changing the lede to (in your view) the stronger statement are those convinced the claims are undoubtedly true. Humanengr (talk) 02:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Just FYI - people's strong views make it harder.  Guessing at what people's views are and making comments about that in the midst of discussions, make things impossible. If you keep doing that you will end up topic-banned.  WP:FOC. Jytdog (talk) 04:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * @Zero In your view, does "officially concluded" allow for different interpretations? Humanengr (talk) 09:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The word "officially" can have different import depending on context. On its face it just means that the committee presented the report as a formal action, in which case it has no bearing on the certainty of the conclusions. However, authors sometimes attach the word "officially" to drop a hint that something might be hidden, i.e. that there could be an unofficial position that differs from the official one. I have no idea if that applies here.  As for "concluded", that's what the committee did: they wrote "conclusions".  All committee conclusions come with a level of certainty, though usually it isn't stated. Not saying that a level of certainty was attached, especially if it was the highest defined level, is not a sin if every reader should know that some level of (un)certainty is necessarily there.  If you think that "officially concluded" means "proved" or "determined as a fact", you are simply mistaken; it does not mean that. Zerotalk 10:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you think that the fraction of readers who read "officially concluded" as 'proved' or 'determined as a fact' is negligible? Humanengr (talk) 10:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It is quite difficult to write a nontrivial sentence that nobody will misunderstand. So I don't see that you have point. Zerotalk
 * What advantage is gained by rephrasing the 1ary source? If both concluded 'with high confidence' and 'officially concluded' leave "a small possibility of being wrong", why rephrase except to distort? Humanengr (talk) 11:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * We are the readers of the secondary source; the author of the secondary source is the author. The author has broad discretion about how to write his or her work. If a reader invents a writing rule that the author has no knowledge of, and no obligation to pay any attention to, and the reader then dismisses the secondary source as a distortion, other Wikipedia editors are likely to believe that the writing rule was not invented in good faith, but rather, because the editor arguing for dismissal of the source is grasping at straws to exclude a source that disagrees with the dismissing editor's own views. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Two Paper Rule
Might be of interest: https://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2017/05/vast-literatures-as-mud-moats.html Nemo 19:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposal at WP:PAYWALL (WP:V)
Discussion at: Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability

Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only in university libraries. Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf (see WikiProject Resource Exchange). Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only in university libraries. Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf (see WikiProject Resource Exchange).
 * Current
 * Suggested (new)

''That said, all else being equal, a source freely available to read online is preferable because more readers will be able to verify its claims. If two sources are equally suitable to verify a claim, accessibility is a reason to prefer one over the other.''

Thoughts welcome. Ocaasit &#124; c 11:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Military history FA/GA discussion
MilHist project is hosting a discussion on GA / FA articles that have been tagged as possibly having unreliable sources. The discussion can be found here:

Interested editors are invited to participate. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * MILHIST: GA / FA articles.

Recent change to Template:Refimprove
We need some opinions on the following matter: Template talk:Refimprove. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:46, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

How to characterize biased sources
Are there guidelines for when/how to characterize known partisan sources on politically-related articles? I have seen run into this circumstance several times and am usually met with hostility and lengthy unproductive debates when trying to add information and put sources into context. Here's an example that stands out to me, from James Comey: "His decisions have been regarded by a number of analysts, including Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight, to have likely cost Clinton the election.[7][8][9]" The "number of analysts" is actually three avowed liberal blogs previously loyal to Hillary Clinton: 538 (mentioned), Vox (which cites 538), and Vanity Fair. As has been established, it's acceptable to use biased sources, but not to sway the tone of the article with these biased sources. So using this case as an example, what would be the preferred re-wording of this sentence? SInce I see no reason to single out Nate Silver, I removed his specific reference. Here a few options I came up with: Without getting too deep into the weeds of what the best option is here (that discussion can be saved for that article's talk page), what would be the best M.O. for adding a frame of reference to sources to ensure that the reader isn't misled into believing that the source is independent and disinterested? Can we possibly create an article with a list of common sources and acceptable descriptors for political articles? I realize that such an article would create debate within itself, but this seems like a common enough problem that it would be worth the trouble. Hidden Tempo (talk) 21:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * a) "...regarded by several progressive/liberal blogs to have likely cost Clinton the election."
 * b) "...regarded by several progressive/liberal blogs to have likely cost Clinton the election. Others are skeptical of this notion and dispute that the letter had any discernible effect." [NYT, Townhall, hotair]
 * c) "His handling of the discovery on Wiener's laptop was met with bipartisan criticism.[a few liberal sources and a few conservative sources]"


 * For additional input on this specific case, the place to go is WP:NPOVN. Appropriate attribution to handle potential bias in sources is a difficult issue, and is liable to prompt disputes, as you've observed. I don't believe it's possible to formulate a list of generally applicable attribution phrases. What we have here are cautiously stated general principles, whose application should be discussed on a case-by-case basis. For example, in a specific discussion I would carefully consider whether "Marxist" is not inappropriately treated as a form of economist's "bias" in a different class from Keynesian, neoclassical, etc, so "should consider" sounds right. Eperoton (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Breaking news
The Breaking news section lacks a good definition of "breaking news" and contains a problematic absolutist statement: "All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution per WP:PSTS."

I would change that sentence to: "Breaking news stories are sometimes primary sources and should be treated with caution per WP:PSTS."

And I suggest adding this sentence to the beginning of the section:"Breaking news is unedited or real-time reporting about an event as it is happening. Some examples are live video reports, online time-stamped short items that are continually updated, or social media posts. Completed news stories, while they may be updated or corrected later, are not automatically breaking news that should not be used in an article." - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 21:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Um... could you give us an example of a breaking news story that isn't primary? Blueboar (talk) 22:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Not for a breaking news story as I defined it. I would tone down the absolute statement mainly for those that take too wide a definition. But the absolute can stay, the definition is more important. - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 01:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * So can you give an example where you think someone took to wide a view? (In the abstract, I would prefer to take too wide a view than too narrow... but my attitude could easily change if I could see some concrete examples.) Blueboar (talk) 09:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Diff at Khan Shaykhun chemical attack. Quotes: "it seems that a significant portion of this Wikipedia article's sources come from reputable news sites reporting on what was then breaking news so it is important to remember Wikipedia's policy on breaking news, which can be found here: Identifying reliable sources" and "Claims sourced to initial news reports should be replaced with better-researched ones as soon as possible, especially where incorrect information was imprudently added. All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution per]] WP:PSTS." There are many articles on April 4 and 5. But none that I can see that are primary sources. - Mnnlaxer &#124;  talk  &#124; stalk 15:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Citing claims in international disputes
When Nation A and A's media accuse Nation B of doing x but those accusations have not been proven in an international court, should WP, in citing A's media, report those accusations as 'fact' or as 'allegations'? E.g., should WP say "B did x" or "A alleges that B did x"? Humanengr (talk) 03:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Nations are generally not taken to court. To illustrate the US was not (legally) at war in Vietnam, but we do not call it the "alleged Vietnam war". So a lot is based upon the context.Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In that example, neither side disputed there was a war. Per WP "In Vietnamese, the war is generally known as Kháng chiến chống Mỹ (Resistance War Against America)." Assume Nation B disputes the allegation. Humanengr (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You mean as in the case of say the "alleged gulf of tonkin incident", or maybe the "alleged Use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War"? Again your question is too vague, there a many instances where there are enough RS saying X is true for us to accept it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's take your 1st example. Say WP had existed at that point with an article titled ‘Viet Nam attack on U.S. destroyer in international waters”. Should the article rely on media from the US (or allies) or on media from Viet Nam (or allies)? Should the article title have been prefaced with the word ‘Alleged’? Humanengr (talk) 18:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * And yet, you are not here for that topic, you are here for Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk) 18:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The issue is broader, it affects all international disputes. Do you have anything productive to add? Humanengr (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia uses the best available scholarly consensus, reporting also where significant bodies of expertise hold differing views. When the US government agencies publicly and unanimously say "Russia did it" and it receives no opposition from any quarter of the academic or other serious political field, Wikipedia presents it as the world sees it - as fact. When Russia claims that they are not involved and all experts laugh, Wikipedia presents it as a laughable claim.
 * Also, do you care to identify yourself or are you simply here on a fly-by? Humanengr (talk) 19:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We rely on what RS say, and RS tend to be independent of their subjects. Thus a State controlled media is considered less reliable then an independent one. So (yet again) it is not a black and white issue, it is all based upon context (hence my choices).Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

What is it that you think editors are here to do? Evaluate evidence? No offense, but what you seem to be suggesting reads like WP:SYNTH. I could be reading into it a bit too much myself, but case in point, you see what I mean, I hope. DN (talk) 05:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Just to provide another example (of which I'm currently indifferent on either way) is 2017 cyberattacks on Ukraine. Ukraine officials blame Russia, but while independent security experts do this some state-level agency may have been behind it, have not named Russia (though clearly would be at the top of the list). There we have not factually said Russia did it, but assigned whom has made that assertion. --M ASEM (t) 12:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, as long as we say "X has said this is the case" we are obeying policy.Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@, re 'Nations are generally not taken to court': agree, and until they are taken to court, allegations remain allegations, whatever the media says. Humanengr (talk) 12:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It is an interesting situation, but generally the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" is not applicable where there is not court (other then of public opinion or the media). That is why (for example) BLP's have stricter rules then BLD's, it is not actually as illegal to accuse a dead person of a crime. And again it is hard to see what you are arguing for, each case is separate and we may have situations were the evidence is overwhelming (such as Syrian (by both sides) use of chemical weapons) but where not case has been heard in a court of law. Neutrality does not mean we have to give both sides of an argument equal consideration, rather we give them consideration based upon their reliability, neutrality and their dissemination. As I said this question is too broad to work in most situations, and I can see causing even more trouble then the current situation (can you image how many historical "facts" have never been tried in a court of law).Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Court of Russian, Syrian, Iranian, Chinese, … public opinion and media? R, S, I, C are 'living' (not 'dead' yet despite U.S. best efforts); should not stricter rules apply to 'BLN'? Corporate media is more reliable than state? Humanengr (talk) 13:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "Corporate" media are less prone to being censored or being government mouth prices (that is why they have to be "independent" and not "privately owned" in policy). And no BLN's should not adhere to a stricter set of rules, BLP rules are there because of the threat of legal actions, not as a kindness or out of a sense of fair play. As to your soapboxing about the US trying to kill people, my point was that we have less strict rules for Biographies of dead people because there is less of a legal minefield.Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * It might be good to give a concrete example in actual article space to know what the specific complaint is. If it is the Russian interference article, I don't see anything immediately that looks like accusations stated as fact - the lede is very strong to emphasize this is what the US intelligence organizations have determined, but does not say "Russia did it.". (In fact the only thing immediately that looks off is the fact that the Russian response is delegated to a subsection, where it should be on parity with a top level section as a major player, but that's not an RS issue). --M ASEM (t) 13:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * thx . Taking that article as exemplar (but the issue is broader), yes the lede is (now) reasonably presented. But the article title and heading of the first section are inconsistent with the lede and present as 'fact' without a prepended 'Alleged' b/c of reliance on U.S. media as RS. Humanengr (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

A question on youtube videos
I don't really understand why a YouTube video can't be reliable source. What would the difference be if someone made a video about something, then proceeded to write down all the things said in the video and published them as an article? Its the exact same content made by the original creator.

2601:18D:680:2B2C:ADA5:83C5:9437:95A5 (talk) 00:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * see WP:SPS. Jytdog (talk) 01:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * So the content being published is what proves reliability? How do you explain sites like Buzzfeed and Breitbart which are vastly unreliable? 2601:18D:680:2B2C:ADA5:83C5:9437:95A5 (talk) 02:53, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Self-published content is judged on the merits of the content creator. Does said creator have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy? Does said creator have any demonstrable expertise in the subject being talked about? The YouTube channel could also be the official channel of a news organization, in which case it would be treated just like any other broadcast they made. Any YouTube video could potentially be a reliable source, but most are not. As for the rest, sources that publish content only after passing it through editing and fact checking are certainly more likely to be assumed reliable without discussion, but this is not guaranteed, and many such sources are rejected for various reasons. If you have a specific video intended for a specific statement on a specific article, it can be discussed at WP:RSN. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:34, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Reliability of corporate media/labeling of outlets as propaganda vs "biased"
I've been periodically checking on this, looked through some archives, but no mods have explained why RT's news network is called "propaganda" while privately owned mass media with admitted biases are not referred to as such in their intro, i.e. Fox News. Propaganda as defined on Wikipedia: "biased info that promotes a political view." In its page intro, Fox News is referred to as "biased reporting" that promotes the "Republican view" and links to a Controversies section. I suggested changing the loaded term 'propaganda' on RT's page to a "biased reporting" link like Fox currently has, or more accurately, changing Fox News's page to the word 'propaganda' if going by definition. Climate change debate alone is justification enough to call Fox political propaganda; constant denialism is pushing a Big Oil agenda contrary to scientific consensus because Republicans get most of the petroleum lobbying money. Yet, different wording is used for RT. Fox News Broadcasting doesn't even including a mention of bias, neither does the NBC News page. All news sources are biased; I'm wondering why corporate-owned mainstream media is given the illusion of objectivity.

The RT intro says the network is "frequently referred to as propaganda" (clearly a negative term, alluding to Cold War-era communist rhetoric) to assert a narrative, quoting other (reliable) sources to feign neutrality. However, those same three sources - Columbia Journalism Review, CBS , and Der Spiegel - have also referred to Fox News as propaganda, hence it appears Wikipedia is not being neutral by omitting that word from Fox's intro. Likewise, Al Jazeera is referred to as propaganda on its main page intro, yet Al Jazeera English (like RT America) is not referred to as such, even though it is owned and funded by the same network. Furthermore, Al Jazeera English and RT America are used as a source all over Wikipedia, so this seems inconsistent. Wikipedia RS guidelines states that bias and errors does not invalidate a RS, so why does RT and Al Jazeera's main pages cite the criticisms of them as propaganda from the get-go just because they are state run? CNN has no mention of bias in their intro, despite that they are known to have a neoliberal bias.

This looks bad on Wikipedia as a company. RT gives a platform to far-left and libertarian political figures silenced by American MSM, including dissident journalists with credibility such as Chris Hedges and Larry King. Wikipedia can't paint the network as a Putin mouthpiece when there are clearly independent reporters, at least on RT America; meanwhile, Phil Donahue has been open that he was fired for his anti-war stance on the so called left-leaning MSNBC. Yet, Wiki-guidelines specifically mentions that Russia's low press freedom is the reason to question their reliability - are Comcast employees any more free? Oligarchy-approved cable news rather than the state is not freedom - at least not for the political left and other liberal media critics like Glenn Greenwald and Cenk Uyger, who left MSNBC for that very reason - "establishment bias".

So three things - why are the same 3 sources' use of the term 'propaganda' not applied to a corporate network with equally dubious credibility? Why are the English-speaking subsidiaries treated differently than their parent network? Finally, why is it legitimate to dismiss an entire source (RT, Al Jazeera) because of its ownership/funding by an oppressive state when there is a clear COI in all privately owned corporate media (who inherently have their own financial interests paramount as is required of corporations by law)? Talk pages tend to devolve into when the admins have cognitive dissonance about their trust in "reliable sources" (corporations whose reliability is based on age and brand recognition more than veracity) versus the reality of US media post 1996 Telecommunications Act. Verifiable evidence suggests that Time Warner, Comcast, etc. have a biased, pro-war agenda. Wikipedia itself details this extensively on isolated pages, but not in CNN's intro.

I think Wikipedia needs to address its idea of what is and isn't biased; and separately, what is and isn't a "reliable source." When I tried to cite Telesur in the horribly biased Jill Stein article during the election, a mod said it wasn't a RS, nor is RT. Yet, Telesur's Wikipage doesn't call it propaganda in the intro, despite the fact that it is funded by states as bad or worse than Russia/Qatar in the Press Freedom Index (Venezuela & Cuba). If Wikipedia feels the need to whitewash corporate media while demonizing state run media that presents opposing views like the Green Party, they are participating in propaganda themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.206.251 (talk) 00:06, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Reliable source
Hi, can anyone please check whether this source be considered as a reliable source? Though the publisher is a reliable one but the author claims himself to be professional heritage photographer who is writing about a historical monument. RRD (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:RSN is where to ask such questions. You should identify the specific content verified from the source as well. --Ronz (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Concern Re: Footnote 8, to describe and/or list unreliable sources
Footnote 8, http://nymag.com/selectall/2016/11/fake-facebook-news-sites-to-avoid.html, goes to a single site, which gives a single source, a list of sites reviewed and classified by what seems to be a single person. Is it desirable to give a single repository of what one person thinks is a proper news source or not the power to decide such things? - HKEY LOCAL MACHINE\Security (talk) 08:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks like the list is outdated, so the reference isn't very helpful. See Zimdars' fake news list and it's talk page. Maybe we just link ZIMF instead? --Ronz (talk) 14:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Is ZIMF helpful in the first place? Unless I'm mistaken, this is a list compiled by a single professor with zero peer-review; as the disclaimer says, it's advice or opinion by another editor. While this may have a place in an entry discussing various opinions on the issue, a proscribed list (or lists) of what is and is not a reliable source is, even if subject to peer-review, unwise, as it is prone to bias problems. Links to material that gives an analytical framework of how to process materials for reliability would be preferable (or explicitly stating only information speaking to this has any authority), otherwise it becomes something of a trivia-style checklist, which invites serious disagreements if people start noticing this (I isn't readily apparent to me that they have) and bring up competing lists to argue inclusion or exclusion. - HKEY LOCAL MACHINE\Security (talk) 05:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest looking for other discussions on the topic, which the ZIMF talk page may be of help. --Ronz (talk) 16:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Telegraph UK reliable for US obit?
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Potentially serious issue
See WP:RSN. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  Tell me all about it.  23:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Medical source for non-medical claims
I assume medical sources or MEDRS compliant reviews are reliable for non-medical claims. I could not find where WP:RS mentions using medical sources for non-medical claims. QuackGuru ( talk ) 23:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Depends on what the claim is... I certainly would not expect a medical source to be all that reliable for (say) a claim about the diplomacy of medieval France. But for other things, a medical source might well be more reliable... so ... as is often the case, we will need specific details before we can properly answer the question.  What article? What source? What claim? Blueboar (talk) 01:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * User:QuackGuru the instructions at the top of this page are very clear that we need specifics to have any useful discussion. There is no blanket answer; I could see a MEDRS review being quite incorrect about some non-WP:Biomedical information thing like oh, the price of a drug or some history thing, or what a law says or doesn't say. Lots will ... depend. Jytdog (talk) 05:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Wut O_o?! You mean that fascinating analysis of the later works of Faulker and the themes of death and rebirth within them that I read in the New England Journal of Medicine has no more authority than a blog post? That's it, I'm cancelling my subscription.
 * Yeah, I'm with the other two here. I can think of a number of things that a MEDRS source might comment on that it could get horribly, horribly wrong. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  12:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

This is not about getting into specifics. See WP:MEDORG: "Statements and information from reputable major medical and scientific bodies may be valuable encyclopedic sources." Something simple like that will work. Getting into specifics is a case-by-case basis. To have any useful discussion we must not get into specifics because we are not going to add specifics to this page. Questions such as what article, what source or what claim are all irrelevant to improving this page. There is no blanket answer is also irrelevant. What is relevant? Adding a simple sentence that it is possible that they may be reliable for non-medical claims. The key part is that they "may" be reliable. We are not going to say they are always reliable or that they are never reliable for non-medical claims. We don't need specific details to improve this page. I added "Material that fails verification may also be replaced with content that passes verification." But editors objected because they believe policy should not explicitly allow the possibility of replacing FV content with content that passes verification even when that should be the norm. If editors literally follow policy failed verification content should be tagged and/or deleted. See Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability. Before Identifying reliable sources did not address this issue. For now I added "Being a "medical source" is not an intrinsic property of the source itself. This means a medical source may be reliable for non-medical claims." QuackGuru  ( talk ) 14:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem is that we can not determine reliability without specifics. Blueboar (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It is a problem to determine reliability with trying to go into specifics. We do not determine reliability with specifics for this page for using medical sources for non-medical claims. Identifying reliable sources does not even address this. Before getting into specifics there should be a general statement addressing it. There is nothing at the moment. This means we should start with a general statement.  QuackGuru  ( talk ) 14:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Three last replies. First, the most general answer I can give, QG, is around that whole nexus of "is this sort of source reliable for this sort of content"?  MEDRS was developed specially to define what "sort of source" is reliable for WP:Biomedical information - that is what it is aimed at.  We can't say much that is general about whether MEDRS sources are reliable for content that is not biomedical information.  It would really depend.  I picked two things above that are relatively close to being biomedical information where I wouldn't necessarily argue the MEDRS ref was better; others have brought yet other topics where a MEDRS ref would not be given much credence. It really depends on the content and the source. (Flipping it around, the NYT is very reliable for most everything but not in the field of biomedical information.)
 * Second... but sure, a MEDRS source might be reliable for non-biomedical information content. If somebody is making the broad claim that a MEDRS source cannot be reliable for non-biomedical information, that is equally bad.
 * Third part. Everything has its limits.    Please be careful with the line you are pushing here.  MEDRS is very useful in the scope where it is useful and has broad consensus for that,  which was hard earned; please don't try to make claims that MEDRS sources are necessarily reliable for everything.   Jytdog (talk) 14:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I wrote above "We are not going to say they are always reliable or that they are never reliable for non-medical claims." We can at least add one sentence. "A medical source may be reliable for non-medical claims." This is neutral and is not pushing anything here. We do not need to go into specifics. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 15:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * (ec) As Blueboar and Jytdog say above, the answer in any particular instance will depend on specific circumstances&mdash;as is generally true for all reliability and sourcing questions. Moreover, there seems to be an issue with trying to create and use the term "medical source" in ways for which it may be unnecessary or confusing.  On the one hand, the term is overbroad, as sources of medical information run the gamut from primary research papers to systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses of clinical trials, with different standards and expectations and qualifications for each.  On the other hand, the term is unnecessarily narrow.  If whatever one defines as a "medical source" is being used for non-medical content, there's no need to invoke a special category and special rules; it's just a "source", subject to evaluation like any other.  There's a reason why we don't have (or need) a separate parallel noticeboard to WP:RSN at WP:MEDRSN.  WP:MEDRS is triggered when someone wishes to add medical information to Wikipedia, not when someone uses particular types of sources; it's a description of how Wikipedia expects WP:RS to be applied to a particular type of information.
 * It might help if you could describe or link to some specific disputes where you've identified a problem with the interpretation of the existing policies and guidelines. Is there genuine confusion on this issue 'out in the wild'?  It's often easier for other editors to understand when problem a policy change is intended to fix if we can see what the problem is in the first place. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to get an answer for a particular instance. I'm trying to add a general statement because it is not being addressed.
 * A MEDRS compliant review also made non-medical claims. The content was deleted because the source was a medical source making non-medical claims. Proposal "A medical source may be used for non-medical content" or "A medical source may be reliable for non-medical claims." QuackGuru  ( talk ) 15:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, it would be helpful if you could identify the specific instance(s) involved, so that the rest of us can see the reasoning and discussion that resulted. (We already understand that you understand the correct application of RS and MEDRS in this type of situation; we're trying to see what happens in instances where someone doesn't quite get it.) I note that WP:RS already has the reference to MEDRS under a section clearly headed "Medical claims"; it may actually result in more confusion if we start adding text to this guideline that introduces and enshrines the existence of specific and unique "medical sources" in contrast to 'normal' sources.
 * In other words, sometimes the problem can't be fixed by adding yet more dozens of words to our guidelines. Sometimes the problem is fixed by polite explanation to the small number of editors who hold a particular misconception.  Is this a daily occurrence, or a one-off?  That's why I'm asking about examples. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Quack... it is impossible to give a generalized statement... because reliability is always specific dependent. The best we could do is say that it is unlikely that a medical text would be reliable for a non-medical claim... but exceptions will exist. Blueboar (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You wrote "The best we could do is say that it is unlikely that a medical text would be reliable for a non-medical claim... but exceptions will exist." Why would you assume it is unlikely? When it is a non-medical claim it is not medical text. What you suggested makes no sense.
 * See WP:MEDORG again: "Statements and information from reputable major medical and scientific bodies may be valuable encyclopedic sources." That is a general statement. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 15:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not about trying to see what happens in instances where someone doesn't quite get it. They get it. It was just an excuse to delete content. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 16:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * For those wondering, I strongly suspect this and the other 2 RS related discussions initiated by QG relate at least in part to the dispute Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 31 since I'm seeing a lot of similar comments used by QG there. Nil Einne (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see why we want a statement about support for non-medical claims in a subsection about medical claims. The section "Context matters" is a generalized section that deals with this in a broader sense. A MEDRS-compliant source may or may not be a good source for a medical claim. That's a more specific instance of the general statement "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content."

Maybe all we need to do is give some examples under WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. TJRC (talk) 16:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Specific proposal
A MEDRS compliant source may be useful for non-medical content. One sentence should be enough. We don't need to get into specifics. QuackGuru ( talk ) 15:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Opposed for the reasons stated above. Tries to make a generalization for something that can not (and should not) be generalized. Blueboar (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You suggested "The best we could do is say that it is unlikely that a medical text would be reliable for a non-medical claim... but exceptions will exist." Why would a medical source be likely unreliable for non-medicals claims? QuackGuru  ( talk ) 16:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Not necessary, as the existing guideline seems to be sufficiently clear.  As you've just mentioned above, this proposal stems from some sort of content dispute (with a related user-conduct issue in the mix) where the participants understand the existing guidelines but are being obnoxious.  It's generally a bad idea to add to widely-used, widely-cited core guidelines to win a single dispute with a wikilawyer, especially when the matter would have been quickly disposed of by, say, WP:RSN.  Since you refuse to identify the page where the dispute is occurring, we can't even help you there. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You said "Not necessary, as the existing guideline seems to be sufficiently clear." Where is it clear for using a MEDRS compliant source for non-medical content? You say it is not necessary because guideline appears to be sufficiently clear. Therefore, if it is not clear does that mean you believe it is necessary? QuackGuru  ( talk ) 16:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I oppose any proposal to solve a purported problem for which you refuse to provide examples. Your stubborn insistence on avoiding identifying the actual situation(s) to which you believe this change would apply borders on trolling.  I won't be participating further in this waste of time. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You are against any proposal to solve a purported problem for which I refuse to provide examples. To improve this page does not require specific examples because the proposal is not about specifics. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 17:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A discussion of support for non-medical claims is not appropriate for the section "Medical claims". TJRC (talk) 16:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The proposal is now under WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. See "A MEDRS-compliant source may be useful for non-medical content." QuackGuru  ( talk ) 16:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Still oppose, in this form. Your point seems to be that medical-specific references are particularly reliable for non-medical facts. I don't think that's the case. I think that some specialized sources may be particularly reliable for facts within the sphere of tha specialization: MEDRS sources for medical information; law reviews for legal information; etc. But have no special additional value, other than as for any other WP:RS when expounding outside of that sphere.
 * But your edit suggests the opposite. I would not have a problem with an edit that suggested that specialized sources may be cited for areas outside of their specialty, but no particular deference should be given to them in such a context. TJRC (talk) 17:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not suggest medical-specific references are particularly reliable for non-medical facts. A MEDRS-compliant source is not inherently unreliable for non-medical content. That's what the proposal is about. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 17:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * add'l comment: to put some meat on these bones, consider the book: This book is presumably a reliable source on the design of medical devices and presumably satisfies WP:MEDRS. But the part of the book at the page number indicated goes off outside its area of expertise, into copyright law, and includes the statement "copyright protection is not available in some 20 foreign countries unless a work contains a copyright notice", which is just plain wrong, based apparently on the author's misunderstanding of the application of the Universal Copyright Convention, yet it has has been used as the basis for erroneous edits in both Copyright and Copyright notice. This is precisely the type of thing we want to avoid, and suggesting that MEDRS-compliant sources are particularly reliable for non-medical aspects subverts the point of WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. We don not want to put particular weight on a specialized source for areas outside of its specialty. An edit saying "A MEDRS-compliant source may not be reliable for non-medical content" is more in keeping with the point of this section. TJRC (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There was no suggestion that MEDRS-compliant sources are particularly reliable for non-medical aspects. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

New proposal

 * How's this for a proposal: A MEDRS-compliant source is not inherently unreliable for non-medical content. ?
 * That seems to sum up the consensus here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  18:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Support for the reasons I stated above. There is no misunderstanding with this proposal. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * nope, per CREEP. Many things have this sort of nuance or obvious obverse. Jytdog (talk) 18:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * could you pls follow WP:TALKFIRST "Bold editors of policy and guideline pages are strongly encouraged to follow WP:1RR or WP:0RR standards."....this includes editwaring with yourself.--Moxy (talk) 18:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose both QG and MP's proposals. Both are simply unnecessary and also far too specific for CONTEXTMATTERS. I don't doubt that someone has argued that MEDRS sources cannot be used for non-MEDRS matters, but we don't need a policy change to address every misinterpretation of policy, especially one as clear as this. If the argument is frequently made, I'm open to being shown that through enough diffs to demonstrate that fact. Finally, though I oppose both versions, MP's is significantly less problematic, though to avoid positive implications it ought to be rewritten to read A MEDRS-compliant source is neither inherently reliable or unreliable for non-medical content. I'd still oppose it as unnecessary even in that form, but it would improve it further. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * (ec) While that statement is true, it remains superfluous; MEDRS just isn't engaged by questions about non-medical content. MEDRS is about which sources are appropriate for medical claims and has nothing to say about appropriate use of sources for other purposes, and it just seems to be QuackGuru who is insisting that we need to have special treatment in this guideline for "medical sources" as distinct from plain ordinary sources. We similarly don't include redundant instructions like
 * A BLP-compliant source is not inherently unreliable for non-biographical content. or
 * A MOS:QUOTE-compliant source is not inherently unreliable for non-quotation content.
 * Again, if it weren't such a big secret where QuackGuru was actually seeing this problem, we might be able to help. And I am very reluctant indeed to make modifications to a widely-used guideline just as a way to get QuackGuru to stop spamming proposals on this talk page.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * And what happens when you make unnecessary obvious statements, like those proposed here and those examples you give, is that people start trying to make sense out of why there here and start reading inappropriate meanings into them. That creates unforeseen — and unforeseeable — consequences. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * And if we don't add it, people will start (or rather, continue) arguing that MEDRS sources aren't usable for anything but medical claims. I'm not disagreeing with you -notice I never opposed or supported any proposal- I'm just saying that the downside to adding this bit is different, but no worse than the downside to leaving it out.
 * Although, now that I think about it, the upsides aren't the same. The upside to adding it is that it cuts off one branch of tendentious editing. The upside to not adding it is that it remains an open question, to be decided on a case by case basis without adding to the arsenal of alphabet soup wikilinks one editor will inevitably end up bludgeoning everyone who disagrees with them with. So... Oppose any addition regarding this question. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Although I'm not adverse to seeing some examples in WP:CONTEXTMATTERS,the proposals here apparently seek to address a problem that has not been shown to exist. As TransporterMan points out, trying to craft text to address a merely hypothetical issue can lead to misreadings and unintended consequences. If it's not broken let's not fix it. If it is broke, identifying specific examples of how it is broken is necessary to craft the appropriate fix.
 * The commentary here is all about some specific text to fix some undocumented and possibly imaginary problem. That's just backward. TJRC (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Close this redundant discussion. As others have noted, this is a solution looking for a problem that doesn't exist. A reliable source (in proper context) is a reliable source (in proper context). No need to enumerate every single possibility for which reliable sources apply or doesn't apply in which context. Bright☀ 10:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Also oppose both - in the general guideline, it's useless and worse, misleading, to try to list all the ways a class of reliable source may or may not be used - contextmatters, as the guideline says - these proposals are at best CREEP. And when asked to produce diffs showing the context where this change might have effect, the proponent has refused. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2017
156.215.228.72 (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You have not made any request. Did you mean to? If so, what is it? TJRC (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Please help me translate into Japanese!
Hello English Wikipedians! In the content of the article, differences in interpretation of the original version (English version) appeared in the part translated into Japanese. So, it is a question to those using native English. Although this sentence "there is no reasonable doubt about authenticity", Is this interpretation meaning that "Where the responsibility is clearly stated to be the author itself" ? or, "There is no reasonable doubt about the contents described" ? or both? The difference in interpretation is manifested in the word "authenticity", Opinions are divided on whether this word points to the source or whether it points to the truth of the article.
 * Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves

Thank you for your cooperation. --禮旺 (talk) 12:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Please, if you quote something, quote it correctly: you wrote "there is no reasonable doubt about authenticity", the guidance has however: "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity" (I put the word you left out in boldface). So the quote, giving the context of what "its" refers to:
 * [...] so long as:
 * the material is (...);
 * it (i.e. the material) does [...];
 * it (i.e. the material) does [...];
 * there is no reasonable doubt as to its (i.e. the material's) authenticity;
 * Material is deemed authentic when it is no spoof, forgery, misinterpretation, faulty translation, or whatever else that may indicate that the material is not what it pretends to be. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Google translator can also translate the wording. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 17:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * thank you very much for answers! In Google Translate, I dont know the literal that "Vocabulary" has, so I asked you here. and, Im sorry about the error of quotation!--禮旺 (talk) 07:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Noteworthy opinions vice reliable sources -- suggested changes
The section WP:NEWSORG talks in terms of whether opinions can be "reliable" as per WP:RS analysis. I submit that the term "reliable" is misplaced in this context. Rather, we should consider whether the opinions themselves, published in reliable sources, are WP:NOTEWORTHY. With this in mind, I suggest changing the first sentences in the first bullet point to read: "'When taking factual information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability . Likewise, the opinions of such specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be noteworthy and may be used to reflect a significant viewpoint.'" The suggested changes are underlined. Present text reads: "When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint." Comments? – S. Rich (talk) 03:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The problem is that neutrality requires that articles present "all significant viewspoints that have been published in reliable sources." Under this proposal, all viewpoints expressed by experts would be significant and would be required to be included.  Also, there are degrees of significance as the policy further says, "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."  The proposal does not explain how we should assess the significance of each opinion.  Note that under current policy, if the opinion piece is deemed a reliable source, that we recognize that the opinion has been expressed in a reliable source and counts toward its weight.
 * For each major topic, there may be thousands or tens of thousands of opinions expressed by experts. If an expert presents an opinion in an academic journal and all other experts ignore it, then it should not be included.  I think that this proposal would open the floodgates to every possible opinion being presented in articles.
 * TFD (talk) 04:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think NOTEWORTHY would be helpful to include, but WP:NOTNEWS (and perhaps other sections from NOT) and WP:UNDUE are more important and clearer. --Ronz (talk) 15:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm unclear on how NOTNEWS and UNDUE would apply to the wording I've suggested. Can you clarify or give a suggestion. I am not saying all viewpoints by experts should be included. In many cases the differences between experts might be difficult to parse in a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE encyclopedia. (But such efforts are part of the challenge of good editing.) The first step in the editing process is determining whether the material comes from RS. Then we should consider the NOTEWORTHYness; e.g., whether the view/opinion is significant. The proposed changes allows for such NOTEWORTHYness instead of asking whether their opinions, per se, are "reliable". – S. Rich (talk) 04:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Significance is specified in DUE, encyclopedic value, in NOT.
 * NOTNEWS says However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events... --Ronz (talk) 14:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. But my suggestion still stands as sound. When we consider the NOTEWORTHINESS of significant viewpoints, DUE and NOT are weighed. Same thing applies when considering the factuality of info. Taking your comment to heart, perhaps the following is better:

"'When taking factual information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability . Likewise, the opinions of such specialists, notable persons, and recognized experts are more likely to be noteworthy and may be used to reflect a significant viewpoint. In every case editors should consider WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS in their evaluations.'"
 * – S. Rich (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That's an improvement. However, POV and NOT are policy, and content policy at that. N is a guideline with limited application to content beyond whether or not an article should exist. Bringing up NOTEWORTHY for content issues confuses any discussion tremendously in my experience. --Ronz (talk) 20:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. How about saying "In every case editors must consider UNDUE/NOTNEWS...." As for NOTEWORTHY, I often see editors saying "that fact/opinion can't be used here because it is not notable". This indicates confusion on their part. With this in mind, I think the change (citing NOTEWORTHY) actually clarifies this part of our content guideline.  – S. Rich (talk) 18:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Care should also be used to consider WP:RECENTISM. The views and opinions of a event as it is happening/developing/resolving may reflect some biases, whereas the views a year or so later are going to be much more tempered due to time and distance. It is to try to find the balance, and what works as RSes, from a long-term view, and standing that short-term, ongoing events are difficult to balance all facets of policy (hence why WP:NOT ) --M ASEM (t) 18:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. As this thread got a bit stale, I'm renewing it with hopes for more comments. – S. Rich (talk) 04:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:PSTS, MOS:TONE/MOS:FICT, and reviews of fictional works
Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film. This is a request for comments in the general sense, but not a WP:RFC at this stage, being an initial discussion draft (broadened to cover writing about fiction generally), building on a lengthy discussion/dispute at the same page. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Clarity for WP:BIASED
I typed a lot of text here, but have decided to replace it with these two questions:

If a point of view is found only in sources that are only reliable for their own opinion, under what circumstances would we want to include it?

If someone argues to include a particular source/opinion "because WP:BIASED says that biased sources can be reliable sources for their own opinion", what wikipolicy do you point to in response? (and I mean "you" in the literal sense, not as in me or as in "one")

The point: It seems like the section could use a little hedging. There should be a reason beyond existence and editors' opinions on what is "important" to include a source that is only reliable for its own opinion. Maybe it's when that opinion is already reflected in other sources? Maybe just having a qualifier articulating that, although bias doesn't mean a source is unreliable, sources that are only reliable for their own opinion have limited uses on Wikipedia?

There is no specific ongoing issue that led me to open this thread, and I feel like a concrete example would overly complicate things, so I'll leave it at that. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 03:21, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think generally due and undue help here, especially concerning how widely a particular source is cited and/or accepted - the problem occurs more from not following the policy, then the policy not being well-written and this is harder to solve, Seraphim System  ( talk ) 03:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Attention needed to clear up serious confusion about secondary sourcing on the part of the film wikiproject
Please see this sprawling discussion, in which an alarmingly large number of people are convinced that primary-source opinion pieces in the form of film (and book, etc.) reviews are secondary sources within WP's meaning because they're reviews of other works (i.e. that the work that is the subject of WP's article is the primary source, and that individual opinion magically transubstantiates into secondary sourcing because it's about a work instead of about, say, a mineral or a person). A secondary mistaken argument is that it must be secondary because it's in a newspaper/newssite, and this makes it secondary because everything in a news-focused publication is magically secondary. This is total bollocks, but they're actually trying to change an important site-wide guideline to reflect this nonsense. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep. This is part of what makes us so wide open to COATRACKS, which i wanted to address at VPP. Jytdog (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Depends on what you are using it for... for a plot summary or an analysis of themes presented, a review would indeed be secondary... but for the opinion on whether the work is brilliant or rubbish, it is primary.  And, of course "Primary does not mean bad" and "Secondary does not mean good".  Blueboar (talk) 21:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with Blueboar. Also, anybody can claim any source is primary for one reason or another since WP:ALLPRIMARY proves that all sources are primary for something. It also says, "More importantly, many high-quality sources contain both primary and secondary material." So, this idea that all references are either/or a primary/secondary source is not always the case. However, some references could be distinguished as either/or since primary sources do exist which have no secondary/tertiary characteristics. I guess my point is that just because you can prove it's a primary source doesn't disprove it being secondary. Huggums537 (talk) 02:13, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

moovit
Anyone have any experience/opinion on how reliable transit statistics from Moovit are? I feel like because not everyone in a region would be using their app, their numbers can't be properly representative of what's going on. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Those results are transitory and not "published", and so are not reliable. Jytdog (talk) 22:30, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm going to mention User:Joeyconnick and User:Jytdog since I'm so late to this party. Anyway, just because everyone doesn't use the app doesn't mean the statistical data isn't also gathered from the local transit authorities as well as the app users. Also, if the statistics are posted to the website, then they are effectively published according to WP:Published. I can't say if they do/n't gather data from the transit authority, or if they do/n't post statistics to their website, but if they do both of these things, then it could be considered a reliable source. My question is, how would someone be able to link to the statistics as a source unless they were published online in some way? Unless, of course, they were citing the reference the same way someone would cite a book. Has this source been used, if so, how? That bit of information could go a long way to help determine the reliability of it. Huggums537 (talk) 04:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Could the recent explosion in dubious academic journals affect reliable sourcing?
Don't know if this is the best venue to point this out, and my apologies if this is not news to anyone here, but a couple of days ago the New York Times published an article, "Many Academics Are Eager to Publish in Worthless Journals", discussing a highly worrisome trend in academic publishing which should be of concern to anyone trying to judge the quality of sources. (Wikipedia doesn't come up in the article—I made the connection to our concerns myself.) I think it's definitely worth a read. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, this guideline addresses such issues in the last bullet point of WP:SCHOLARSHIP, is there anything you suggest adding or changing? Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't have any suggestions myself, no; I don't feel I have enough experience in this area to make any. I just thought the story might be worth your attention, but it's good to know you're already keeping an eye on the problem. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 15:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I would suggest automatically blacklisting suspected predatory journals (for example the ones listed by Beall, Bokhove, Moher, Eriksson, KRD CSIR-SERC, Neuroskeptic) but I get the feeling there will be strong opposition to this. WP:SCHOLARSHIP covers this on a case-by-case basis. Generally, Wikipedia articles do not conform to Wikipedia sourcing standards, so at the moment, the best you can do is edit those articles and make them conform, since Wikipedia policy is on your side. Bright☀ 12:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What about auto-tagging citations from a blacklist, rather than auto-removing them? (Or was that what you had in mind already?) --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 15:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Auto-tagging would be wonderful and probably won't have any significant opposition. Bright☀ 23:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I always check publishers that i don't know against Beall's list and remove citations to journals by predatory publishers. Everybody should do this who uses the scientific/scholarly literature. This is addressed in MEDRS at Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) (and has been for a long time) and is also mentioned in WP:PUS. I think it would be great if we had a blacklist; might be difficult to implemetn since journal citations won't necessary have a link to the journal website. Jytdog (talk) 16:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * If this exists, it would be great if ENWP could get access, even if it has to pay for it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Predatory publishers, fake conferences and academics who find them a way to succeed
I've raised this at User talk:Jimbo Wales. To make it easier, here's what I posted there. I hope interested editors will respond there. At World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology (WASET] an attempt by an editor to speedy delete it, then an AfD Articles for deletion/World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology (2nd nomination) and discussions raised at RSN and NPOVN spurred me and other editors to look for current sources. Some of these sources discuss OMICS and Allied Academies, recently acquired by OMICS along with Future Medicine.

These have sparked a number of articles in the mainstream media and complaints by academics, while at the same time some academics are cooperating.

A study reported in the Japan Times by James McCrostie looks at fake conferences in Japan. McCrostie discusses submitting fake papers generated by SCIgen to fake conferences all of which were accepted. It also discusses both the cost to attendees for these conferences (which are cheap to run) and the damage that can be done to reputations.

The New York Times published an article last month called "Many Academics Are Eager to Publish in Worthless Journals". It also discusses aspects of predatory journals such as using names almost identical to prestigious ones, the fact that many or most don't have paper publications or do serious reviews, etc. And the fact that publishing in them is a way for academics to get promoted. "Many faculty members — especially at schools where the teaching load is heavy and resources few — have become eager participants in what experts call academic fraud that wastes taxpayer money, chips away at scientific credibility, and muddies important research." Senior academics publish in them -- 200 McGill University professsors, for instance.

They also run fake conferences where by paying a hefty fee an academic can be listed as a presenter even if they don't attend. It's also easy to become an editor of a fake journal. A fictional academic with ludicrous credentials applied to 360 open-access journals asking to become an editor, with 48 accepting her, 4 making her editor-in-chief. See also this article.

There are now more predatory conferences than scholarly ones. Many of these are run by Waset: "research into Waset, which is registered in the United Arab Emirates, shows that it will hold some 183 events in 2018, although these will cover almost 60,000 individual “conferences” – averaging 320 at each event. Conferences are scheduled almost every day up until the end of 2030." These take place in small rooms with multiple conferences held in each room but few attendees, although many will have paid a large sum to attend.

An article last month in Die Zeit says the ownership of WASET is unknown, and "website of Waset does not give an address anywhere. Interested parties can only fill out an anonymous form or send an SMS - with the United Arab Emirates dialing code." "The purpose of a waset conference is to extend the CV by a conference as well as a contribution in a scientific journal. Because every lecture is published in an online publication, which is also published by Waset. Over 40,000 articles are said to have come together since 1999, according to the website."

There are more sources of course, I could go on and on. And warnings from academics.

This raises serious issues from Wikipedia. The obvious one is that it is now very difficult for most editors to distinguish between reputable journals and predatory ones, especially when the contributor seems "normal". My other issue is whether Wikipedia or the WMF has a role to play in the fight against these. Maybe we don't, I'd like to think there is something we can do. We do have Predatory open access publishing which oddly doesn't linketo Predatory conference. Perhaps one of the relevant wikiprojects should set up a working party to improve all the related articles?

Mild rant over. Please read the sources, they are pretty alarming and go into much more detail than I can here. Doug Weller talk 20:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What about reputable academics unwittingly publishing in such journals? Pandeist (talk) 17:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This raises serious issues from Wikipedia To be frank, there was no shortage of bunk papers and bogus sources before the recent explosion, but this certainly makes it much easier to find bad sources because these journals pretty much exist to be found on the first page of search results on Google. This is an issue for academia to solve, and Wikipedia will hopefully follow suit. If we want to be proactive we can blacklist or automatically tag edits that source suspected predatory journals. Bright☀ 20:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I've seen a list of predatory publishers somewhere in Wikipedia non-article spaces. Can anyone remind me? Staszek Lem (talk) 01:36, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Exception for Blogs As References
In General Wikipedia does not allow UGC in blogs to be cited as reference. I feel this rules need to add exception for Release announcements for Open Source Projects. As many of these projects are developed in a collaborative environment, Forums / Blogs maintained by the company are the authoritative location where announcements regarding new releases are published. So this scenario should also be an exception to the WP:UGC rule.

Hagennos (talk) 08:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Is this not covered by the exception "authored by, and is credited to, credentialed members of the site's editorial staff"? Eperoton (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes; Also please do not forget ii is a primary source for Wikipedia, with all consequences.Staszek Lem (talk) 18:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Why would you need to cite Release Announcements in Wikipedia? Wikipedia is encyclopedia, not a billboard for Open Source. If something is not noticed by independent references, then I doubt it is of note for Wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

No mention if organizations or governments are reliable sources
For some reason there is no mention if the local police department or the FBI are reliable sources, or the Senate or the Department of State, or the ACLU or Human Rights Watch. Or foreign governments agencies. At least some mention should be given to these sources, talking about examples of when they can be reliable sources. Thinker78 (talk) 05:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Organizations are not reliable. Their publications may be reliable, but the question which must always be answered is "reliable for what"? The particular publication, the part of the publication, and what its being used for here must all be taken into consideration in determining reliability. As for governmental sources, remember that public records are not reliable sources for information about living persons, see BLPPRIMARY. Publications by the ACLU and HRW are judged for reliability in the same way as any other private organization. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Biased or opinionated sources
The current section on "Biased or opinionated sources" appears to me to be an open invitation to problematic editing. It invites Wikipedia editors to decide which non-neutral views are significant. For example, we might be asked to accept a statement of opinion by Michael Moore published in Politico, where there is no evidence from politically neutral sources that his view is considered significant, let alone accurate, by progressives more generally. Or we might be asked to accept a statement by Roger Stone repeated in Breitbart, again without any evidence that this is considered significant even by the far right.

It also invites a false equivalency between somewhat biased and extremely biased sources. Do we "balance" Mother Jones with Breitbart? Is NPOV actually equidistant between Politico and Federalist? I don't think we should be making those judgments as editors. It puts us in the place of arbiters of truth, something we are explicitly not allowed to be.

I do feel this section reflects gentler times and is no longer appropriate in the current heavily polarised climate - though in fact it is quite recent (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AIdentifying_reliable_sources&type=revision&diff=534579697&oldid=531328734 2013). I think we should step back from using biased sources to show what outliers say about things, and pull back to the standard Wikipedia practice of relying on sources that are reliable and independent, to establish the significance and context of a statement or claim. If the Washington Post quotes a partisan on a partisan website as an exemplar, then that's fine, but I do not think we should be weaving together the narrative from primary, partisan sources, however much we might like any individual one of them.

We deprecated the Daily Mail as a source because it is biased, and its bias leads to poor fact-checking. This section positively invites the inclusion of sources that are equally bad. It fails to properly distinguish between respected organisations with a bias (e.g. Guardian, Wall Street Journal, NY Times, Washington Post) and organisations that exist to promote an agenda, especially think tanks. It places policy-based evidence making on an equal footing with analytical reporting. As I say, I think this section is inappropriate in the current climate. Guy (Help!) 11:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I could not disagree more... Polarized times are when we most need to present all sides of an issue. We (Wikipedia's editors) need to set our own biases to the side and remain neutral.  But, while WE need to remain neutral, our sources most definitely do not.  Remember that this guideline is focused on the question of reliability... The section in question is important because it highlights the fact that, when presenting an opinion, the most reliable source is always the one where the opinion was actually stated (ie the Primary source for that opinion).  When presenting the opinions, we actually don't want any filters... we want the source that is as close to the original opinion maker's actual statements as possible (again, the most reliable source for an opinion is the Primary source where that opinion was actually stated, as that will be the most accurate presentation of the opinion).
 * The question is not whether we can use biased sources (we can)... but rather how we should use biased sources. We should not use biased sources to support statements of fact. Instead, we must attribute the information we take from biased sources, so the reader knows that it IS biased - that the opinion is opinion, and not necessarily fact.
 * That said... I totally agree that articles should not simply compare and contrast primary opinions. Articles do need analysis to put the various stated opinions into proper context ... and for analysis we absolutely need independent secondary sources.  While we can use biased primary sources in a limited way, we should not build an article that is purely based on biased primary sources.
 * My point is simply that biased primary sources do have their place. Biased sources should be limited in use - but within that limited usage, they are fine (and can even be the most reliable sources possible). Blueboar (talk) 13:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, we need to represent both sides, but not by deciding which biased sources to include. Instead we should reference sources that are reliable and analytical. As I said, this is an open invitation to "balance" valid sources leaning one way with rabid insanity leaning the other. False balance is one of the more significant problems with the current polarised news media. How else do we know if J. Random Nutjob cited in biasedsource.com is an outlier, whether his views are significant, or what?
 * I'm not saying never use, I am saying that the existing text encourages over-use. Nutjob.com is arguably a valid source for the views of people associated with nutjob.com, but obviously not for its significance. With the scale and extremity of craziness currently in circulation I think it's incredibly dangerous, especially when we go WP:PRIMARY, as often happens. Ten we are straying towards a news style coverage.
 * How about if you give some examples of the kind of usage you think would be valid? Guy (Help!) 14:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Aside: I will come up with some examples, but it's quite singular how little pushback I have had removing left-partisan sites like Occupy versus right/libertarian partisan, so I have to be careful to find requests that won't gratuitously engage the cognitive dissonance of well-meaning onlookers. I removed Occupy as a source in mainspace months ago, and only a coupe have crept back in. Guy (Help!) 14:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Examples

 * . We discussed the statements of Colin Taylor (who he? - ed) on Occupy Democrats, sourced solely from Occupy Democrats, and of Juanita Jean on her own website. I agree with their sentiments, by the way. Guy (Help!) 14:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The most obvious example is citing “Mien Kamph” when explaining what Adolph Hitler’s views were. While “Mien Kamph” is an extremely biased source, it is also the single most reliable source when it comes to explaining what Hitler’s beliefs actually were... in his own words. Now, context is always important, and there are all sorts of restrictions on HOW and WHERE we would appropriately mention what Hitler’s views were... but within those restrictions, “Mien Kamph” is as reliable as you can get, and most definitely can be cited. Blueboar (talk) 15:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, but in most cases we don't need to cite Mein Kampf directly, we can refer to historical analysis of exactly what Mein Kampf reveals about Hitler's beliefs - and in fact that is what we generally do. It would be dangerous and wrong to mine the primary source to divine his intent, and I have not seen any examples where we do that. The only thing we might do is quote paragraphs which are identified as particularly significant by numerous sources. With these neo-nazi and white supremacist websites, their rants are rarely discussed outside the walled garden of the alt-right. Guy (Help!) 09:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What you are concerned about is covered in the WP:Undue weight section of our WP:Neutral point of view policy. Sure, there won’t be many situations where it would be appropriate to cite such primary sources... but within those limited situations the source is deemed reliable. Blueboar (talk) 11:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Translation
Someone rejected an edit where I supplied a translation of a German phrase, on the grounds that I did not cite a source for the translation (which I couldn't do, because the translation was my own). Now of course, a translation might be wrong or biased; but it's readily open to challenge. Rejecting it purely because the translation is original seems absurd. Mhkay (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It would be better if you post a link to the article where the edit happened so the context can be analyzed. Thinker78 (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, this isn't the place to talk about that. Try Reliable sources/Noticeboard.