Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 6

How to criticize using a rumor
If you'd like to criticize X in an article using a rumor, here is how it is done. Find a newspaper article that reports on the rumor, and then quote it. That way X gets indirectly criticized via hearsay. From my experience, editors will justify this as follows: "Hey, don't blame us, we are just reproducing what a reliable newspaper said." Precis 11:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately this is all too common, especially on controvercial topics. As I read WP:RS (as it stands now), such a citation does indeed meet the standards for reliablility.  You may be able to attack the criticism on other policy grounds (Notability, NPOV, NOT, NOR etc) depending on how the criticism is worded.  But otherwise, there is little you can do except point out that the claim is rumor or hearsay, and look other sources that contradict the criticial rumor (the best would be something in the same newspaper, such as a subsequent article, that had such a contradiction).  Perhaps someone has a different idea? Blueboar 12:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As manifested in the Scientology articles, it is removed even one step from Precis' example. Editors there find the article reproduced on a personal website (such as clambake.org) and cite the "convenience link" to the personal website.  Then the newspaper which produced the rumor is out of the loop.  Which is why I'm trying to get "convenince link" and "published" defined clearly. Terryeo 16:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I would take a slightly harder line on convenience links... if the personal website itself does not meet WP:RS (for example, if there is no indication of who runs it) we should not allow the link and should ask for a citation to the original... the basis being that we do not know if the personal website has changed or amended the original in posting their copy. Blueboar 17:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with the Scientology issue, but here is an example from a current article of (indirectly) promoting rumor: According to The Jewish Week, several faculty members said they had heard that "at least four major Jewish donors, whose identity the faculty members did not know, have contacted officials at the university urging that Cole’s appointment be denied."  Precis 19:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If personal websites which do not satisfy WP:V were not allowed as convenience links, the Scientology editors would go bananas on this page ! Possibly 1/6 of the links are convenience links to personal websites which have copies of court documents, newspaper articles of little note and other triva, all of which presents some criticsm or another of Scientology.  The reason those editors do that is because the Scientology, broadly and publically published information is vast and there is little published information against it.  I would LOVE to see personal websites disallowed, websites which do not satisfy WP:V, for the convenince links.  It would make a HUGE difference in the quality of the Scientology articles. Terryeo 06:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * A huge difference in which direction? Better? or Worse? Wjhonson 06:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Better. More reliable sources produce more reliable articles.  The convenience links are usually minor criticsms which no major newspaper or magazine has felt worth publishing.  The criticsms that remained would have some substance instead of being little hotspot statements. Terryeo 04:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * From Terryeo's POV, it would be a wonderful development if the enormous online archives of material critical of Scientology would be disallowed, and I believe this is his primary goal in attempting to influence Wikipedia policies and guidlines. Terryeo's is an extremely idiosyncratic point of view with regard to all matters related to the scientology articles--sufficiently extreme and inappropriate that Terryeo was adminstratively banned from editing those articles.  I suggest that discussion of the application of these guidelines to Scientology articles be directed to the talk pages of the affected  articles.  BTfromLA 06:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't appriciate your suggestion that my edits are "idiosyncratic", with implications of "extreme and inappropropriate". Your edit verges on incivility. Terryeo 18:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Terryeo, my comments above are both civil and factual.  Indeed, "idiosyncratic" was an especially civil word choice. As to the inappropriateness of your editing of scientology articles, there is an unambiguous consensus that this was the case, evidenced by your rfc (in which about twenty different editors complained or endorsed complaints about the extreme inappropriateness of your conduct) and the arbcom decision on that very topic.  BTfromLA 19:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't really care why Terryeo (or anyone else) raises what they see as an issue with WP:RS... we all have our axes to grind. What matters is if the issue being raised has some validity... in this case, it is a problem many articles face (far more than just the Scientology article).  It does need to be discussed.  If  Terryeo (or anyone else) is "idiosycratic"  their suggestions for changing the guideline will not meet with consensus, and his "attempt to influence" them will fail.  So far, he is making sense. Blueboar 18:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, what matters is the validity of the comments, not the history of the speaker. Still, I wanted to alert folks that, in my view, asking Terryeo about what's wrong with the Scientology articles is likely to send the talk page through the rabbit hole.   Just my 2¢. BTfromLA 19:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

whew ! take it up on my user page, huh? This issue was one of the disagreements I had with other editors, that's true.


 * Court documents are both public and verifiable. Putting them on a private webpage merely changes the accessibility. Likewise for newspaper articles. --OliverH 06:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem with personal page convenience links is that we have no way of knowing if the hosting page has altered the original in some way or not. I would say one should cite directly to the court document or newspaper article and not include the convenience link.  I would point out that, if the personal page has anything on it other than the document (such as commentary on the document) then it is no longer a true copy of the original ... Unless the the personal page meets WP:RS on its own, the link should be excluded on those grounds. Blueboar 12:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Addressing the reliability of the convenince link is an issue and in addition there is the stability of the link, too. A personal website can change at the whim of an individual, the owner of the website has no one to answer to but his own ideas. He could also think "gee, this convenience link should have some summantion, I'll just add a little helpful point of view for my readers".  Thus a "convenience link" could become a preaching of his own POV.  When a personal website contains personal opinion, it is not longer a convenience link, it is a statement of the owner's point of view. Terryeo 18:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That is why context is important. I have seen many a editor placing a "convenience link" on a blog or personal website that is full of original research, personal commentary and other partisan material, not so much as to provide a "convenience link" but to assert the POV of the hosting site. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 18:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As an example Patter drill was built on, almost word for word, a convenience link. Despite extensive efforts, the group of editors having the largest effect in the Scientology articles frequently use personal websites as secondary sources and even google group repositied information. Some clear guideline, set in stone within its limits would be helpful. Terryeo 04:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hold on a bit. There's a huge difference between theoretical possibilities and accusing someone of not only being criminal, but dumb to boot. Putting forged documents on well-frequented websites is not a very bright thing to do. Besides, the document itself can still be verified by anyone. Which is also why the fact that the personal website can change is not really an issue. As long as the access data for the original document is given, anyone can still verify it, whether it is on that website or not. The website merely eases accessibility. --OliverH 19:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we are in agreement that convinience links are questionable in general, and that editors should make sure that the link is a reliable source on its own... otherwise they should cite to the original and not include the link. Anyone want to draft proposed language and float it in the guideline? Blueboar 18:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm coming in late to this discussion--is that really the consensus? It seems to me that that argument will lead to a radical reduction of external links of all sorts on Wikipedia.  The content of any website is inherently unstable, thus virtually any link could be labeled "questionable".  Convenience links are not sources, and the linked to sites are not wikipedia.  The RS standards need to apply to the sources cited in the Wikipedia articles.  Obviously, if a specific linked example of those sources is genuinely suspect of being false, it should be removed--we don't want to knowingly direct people to bad information.  But I can't see the value of eliminating this service to readers on grounds that there is a possibility something they link to will not be as reliable a source as wikipedia.  Isn't that understood?  These are links away from Wikipedia--Wikipedia can use links responsibly, but it can't ultimately be responsble for the content of those other sites. BTfromLA 19:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This discussion is not about WP:EL, but about external links used as sources and references. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 23:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Convenience links are neither sources nor refernces.  They are external links that lead to sites that include some representation of the referenced source material. BTfromLA 23:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The discussion here is about convenience links as it pertain to reliable sources and if it is proper or not to link to a website that it is otherwise not reliable per se, such as a partisan website, a blog, a personal home page, or an anonymous website. My argument, and the argument of others is that, a convenienece link used to provide a reference, needs to pass a certain threshold of reliability. IMO, unless the website is considered a reliable source for the subject, we should not accept a reference that is hosted in it as it would violate WP:V. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 00:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * So, just to be clear: you are saying that external sites provided as convenience links in article footnotes should be subject to the exact same standards of verifiability and reliability as any source cited as fact in the articles. Correct?  Thus, in your argument, there is no distinction at all between a convenience link and a reliable source.  Have I got that right?  BTfromLA 01:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * But that is the problem... if the links were used responsibly, this would not be an issue. Unfortunately, they are not. I will give you another related example of how conveinence links are misused... an editor wants to cite to his personal page where he makes an unsubstantiated outrageously POV claim about group X. Since the site is not a reliable source, he can not... UNLESS... he copies a news article about group X on his website (it does not even have to be directly related to his claim) and finds a way to cite that, useing the "convenience link" loophole to get people to see his page and his claims.
 * But there is a more fundamental problem... In law, they have a concept known as "A True and Correct Copy". It means that the copy is in some way certified as being EXACTLY like the original...  Nothing added, nothing subtracted.  Now, I know this is not law, but the concept can be applied.  Many convenience links do not post a "true and correct copy" of a document... most add commentary before or after the document, or discuss the underlying subject matter in some other way.  Others do not print the entire document, just the parts that deal with the topic.  And some of them (a few, but enough to cast doubt on all) actually alter the document itself to prove a POV.  Unless we KNOW that a copy on a convenice link is true and correct, how can we trust it?  My feeling is that we can not.  We have to link to the original... and if that is not available on-line, we have to cite to the original the old way - without a link. Blueboar 20:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You can take everything to an extreme where it gets silly. If commentary is added in front or behind, everyone can judge whether the document presented really justifies the comments. If the precise source is provided, everyone can go the extra mile and compare with the original. Yes, cut and paste can be problematic, but to suggest that the document could have been altered is a dangerous proposition in and of itself. Since such documents can very much be legal documents (we had court decisions cited above) altering the document while maintaining verisimilitude can have very much legal repercussions for the one responsible. For the same reasons, accusations of such facts should be dealt out very carefully. There are nations in which such accusations where not known as fact to be true can have legal repercussions of their own.
 * But let me give you an example of how your demands can mount on the silly: Scientific publications that have been published in peer-reviewed journals are often accessible only through libraries or subscription-based online access. However, sometimes, authors are allowed to put their publications also on their own website. The fact that it is on the authors' website doesn't change a thing about the fact that it's a peer-reviewed publication. To suggest that the author would have forged his own publication is silly, especially when most people interested in it will NOT get it from his website. So the issues about reliability, more often than not, are token at best and legally questionable at worst. Yes, there are extreme cases. Likewise, there are extreme cases of publications in peer-reviewed journals which never should have made it past the publisher's letterbox. Policies aren't based on such extremes. --OliverH 21:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In this case it will be OK, as the personal homepage of the scientist, if a recognized as expert in his field, is a reliable source for primary sources. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 23:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * How do you know? You'd have to be familiar with the field to know whether he's a recognized expert, and if you are, you likely have access to online journals anyway. For that matter, you'd be hard-pressed to verify if the publication is actually a publication and not an entire forgery and the scientist never published in that journal. It's telling that you ignore 50% of my comment and simply claim the rest would be an entirely different situation. It is not. --OliverH 07:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you are applying an unrealistic and uncalled for standard to external websites. Yes, there is always a chance that the linked-to sites will change, will prove somehow unreliable, are there for POV-pushing purposes, etc.  I don't see that as a reason not to include them, and I think that the rule about assuming good faith will grant the presumption that editors are linking to materials they believe to be relevant and accurate.  I also don't see the unmodified "true and complete copy" to be the relevant standard: "fair use" exerpts are perfectly fine, and virtually any web site will have some contentualizing copy that changes the original, if only a button marked "home."  I think we should take a liberal view with regard to the range of external sites that might be appropriately linked to in wikipedia articles and references, then outline the causes that create truly problematic links (not just possibly problematic ones), to suggest the limit of acceptibility.  Obviously, if there is reason to believe that a document has been edited in a manner that significantly distorts its meaning, we would want to remove that.  The other questions would be less clear-cut:  to follow up on your example, let's imagine that an article from the now-defunct Los Angeles Herald-Examiner about Catholic priests was a source, and in the footnote a convenience link was placed to a webpage that accurately transcribed the article.  The website in question is vehemently anti-Catholic, and the article was introduced with the line "This article proves Catholics are crazy."  Can we accept that as a convenience link?  I'd say yes--as a reader, I get to read the article, and I'm well aware that I've left Wikipedia and entered the wilds of the internet, and I have no trouble separating the archived article from the surrounding opinion.  The mere fact that a reader is exposed to somebody's strenous POV in an external link doesn't seem like a problem to me.  (It would be good form to flag the link though, something like ("reproduced on a partisan website").  What do others think?  BTfromLA 21:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I would say no, for exactly the same reasons as you state it. It simply opens a massive can of worms. In a time of dime-adozen websites and blogs, not assessing the reliability of a website in which a source is purportedly copied, breaks WP:V, if not more. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 23:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * How about this attempt at formulating the involved principles:
 * What follows is only about two or more published, accessible and reliable sources confirming the same statement (not opposing or slightly differing versions of a fact). Also these recommendations only make sense if acknowledging that the difference between reliable and less reliable sources is not a black and white picture, there are gradations, although there is definitely a line below which sources are not acceptable for reference in Wikipedia:
 * If the most reliable sources only differ in accessibility, then it is best to cite the most accessible of these sources;
 * If the most accessible sources only differ in reliability, then it is best to cite the most reliable of these sources;
 * If the most accessible of the reliable sources is not the same as the most reliable of the accessible sources, then it usually best to cite both sources.
 * ? - Note that this is similar to the present content of Citing sources, only that I used a more generic formulation (instead of " " vs. " "), and that I'd see it as a principle to always also keep the reference to the most accessible source, especially after checking that the higher accessibility source and the higher reliability source don't diverge. --Francis Schonken 21:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Citing sources, makes it very clear that "[...]The web page itself [where the convenience link is hosted] must therefore be a reliable source". ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 23:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes - is that different from the above "What follows is only about two or more published, accessible and reliable sources confirming the same statement ..."? --Francis Schonken 23:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this reliable
Cited in the article Catholicism and Freemasonry... more on the Kadosh degree claims (see above) After we point out that the claim was dropped from the 1913 edition of the catholic encyclopedia, was added: "...although it was made in the Arlington Catholic Herald in 1996." The cite is this: here It is another example of criticism through indirect citation. It does not cite the Arlington Catholic Herald, but a web page that says it copies it ("courtesy of" this page0. I have no idea if this is a true copy or not.  So is it a reliable source or not?Blueboar 03:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is an instance (as usual) where reliability is a scale, not yes/no. Frankly, the Arlington Catholic Herald is less than excellent as a source on Freemasonry, although it is a primary document for the opinions of Catholics on Freemasonry; a copy of the article is worse, a second-hand copy through another website is much worse. Try inserting a description of the actual link into the article, and see if it is still fought for. Septentrionalis 20:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Problems with Convenience Links

 * I think this is important enough to have a seperate discussion on... we have been are talking (above) about an unreliable web page that hosts a copy of a reliable source. Let me give an example:
 * Say an eminent historian has written a short article about "The plight of slaves in the Northern States before the US Civil War" for his home town newspaper. Now, since the the author is considered a reliable source, and the newpaper is a reliable source, that article can be cited in the Wikipedia article on Slavery.
 * It would be cited as: (ref: Historian, Eminent; "Northern Slaves"; The Cumquat Valley News; Cumquat County, NY; May 9, 2006, p. 6).
 * However, instead of only citing the newspaper article, an editor wants to provide a web-based convenience link to the article, so that someone who wants to read the newspaper article can do so easily. Unfortunately, the newspaper is small and does not have an on-line editon to link to.  He searches the web, and finds that the article is copied on a white supremisist's personal webpage. The racist's web page not only copies the article, contains his comments on it... and worse, it contains all sorts of unfounded racist hate statements as well.  There is no way anyone would say that this personal page is a reliable source on its own.  So can the editor cite the newspaper article but use the racist page to provide a convenience link to the historians article?  I would say no... he should either continue to look for a reliable website that copies the article, or he should simply link to the newspaper and not provide a link to a web version.  I would like to change the guidelines to expressly reflect this. Blueboar 23:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * So how would you have the guideline read? Is the threshold of unacceptibility "personal website," or "partisan website," or "hate website," or some percentange of personal comments in relation to the quote materials, or something else?  Would you exclude all convenince links except those that link to a verifiably official web edition of the original reliable source? BTfromLA 00:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * From Citing sources (my highlight)
 * ". For example, you might find some information on a web page which says it comes from a certain book. Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there, your reference is really the web page and the web page must be mentioned. The web page itself must therefore be a reliable source. "
 * What this means is that trhe white supremacist website cannot be used as it not a reliable source for the subject of Slavery. See also Reliable_sources ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 00:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah... so there already IS a guideline statement on this (I was looking for it in other sections and had missed it). Thanks for pointing it out, Jossi.


 * Please note that the above guideline specifically refers to situations where the web site IS the source used for the article. It does not address the question of a linked website that includes a transcript of all or part of the cited reliable source, which comes from a book or was accessed in some other form not rediably available on the web.  BTfromLA 01:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * BLfromLA, to wrap up the discussion... and answer your question... The threshold would be unacceptability ... of any kind (I deliberately chose an example that would be unacceptable for several reasons... to highlight the issue). If the hosting page is not a reliable source on its own, then it can not be used as or within a citation - even as a courtesy link. Blueboar 01:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * So your view (and it seems to be Jossi's, too) is that there is no such thing as a convenience link that is not a source.  Since any linked material is regarded as a source for the article, linked sites should be subject to the standards for reliable sources.  Am I characterizing your position accurately?  BTfromLA 01:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly. The guideline refers specifically to convenience links as references not specifically about the website. As said before, a transcript of anything would be deemed unreliable if hosted on an unreliable website as per WP:RS, including an unverified transcription of a newspaper article, a radio or TV show, a court document, etc. as it will violates WP:V. I would argue further: It would always be better not to include a convenience link, than to include it, if the inclusion would mean that a doubt will be cast on the accuracy of the source transcribed. ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 03:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yours is an entirely different concept of "convenience link" than the one I've gleaned from other editors, Jossi. In fact, I don't see that any such concept survives in your definition. You seem to want to disallow the entire category of convenience links, and insist that the only legitimate external links lead directly to sources that pass muster as previously published reliable and verifiable reference sources.  As I understand it, a convenience link is never a source, reliable or otherwise.  It is an external link to a site that includes some representation of the material that was cited as a source. In other words, any conveniece link could be removed and the article would still be fully referenced and cited.  It is there merely as a convenience for web users, making it easier for those who are interested to read in more depth than the Wikipedia article provides.  Since convenience links (as I understand them) are not sources, the Reliable Sources guideline may not be the best place to address them.  This is the way the term has been used consistently in my editing experience, and such links are used extensively as a way of enriching Wikipedia and exploiting the resources of the internet.  You are proposing a radical set of restrictions on what editors can offer readers, as well as aggressively overriding the judgement of a consensus of editors about what makes the best article.  Have I got you wrong?  Do others agree with this "no convenience link" guideline?  BTfromLA 04:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That guideline is already there at Citing sources, and as far as I am concerned it applies specifically on content hosted on  non-reputable website (as per WP:RS). If there is no dispute, link at will! But if there is a dispute about (a) the reliability of the material in the link; (b) the partisanship of the site where hosted; or (c) any other dispute related to WP:V and/or WP:NOR, that "convenience link" is no longer convenient, rather a liability.  So, if an editor places an "convenience link" and that link is on a website that is deemed to be not a reliable source, and an editor challenges that as failing WP:V, the latter will be in all his/her right to remove such link. There is no bypassing policy for the sake of convenience.≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 05:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The guideline you are pointing to talks about something other than convenience links--that guideline specifically addresses the situation where an online source that refers to a printed source is the actual source an editor consulted. Please reread what I've described above--a convenience link is not a source, nor is it the source of a reference.  (Of course, we're taking this on faith, but we're taking all references on faith.) It is a form of external link, and you are making a big leap to assert it should be treated identically with a source.  BTfromLA 06:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In the Scientology articles, every convenience link is on a partisan website. Narconon exposed  is cited for a newspaper article  at Narconon [6] which is now hosted by Dave Touretzky, a recognized anti-Scientology advocate who has had legal proceedings against him by the Church of Scientology.  And a host of other personal websites are cited through the articles for their convenience links. Terryeo 13:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If there are no available non-partisan websites, then partisan websites are appropriate, although the article should strive for balance. Another issue you raised and which should be discussed: When a person posts to their website, a secret, distributed Scientology document, are they publishing it by this action?  If not, why not? Wjhonson 16:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter if he had legal proceedings against him, what matters is the outcome of said proceedings. And might I say, Scientology has had a truckload of legal proceedings against them some of which did not describe Scientology particularly favorably. --OliverH 21:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * May be an example will illustrate this: Consider the article Sant Mat, in which the book by Woodhead & Fletcher is used as a reference. Imagine now an editor finds a trascription of a few pages of the book in the blog of a critic of Woodhead, and adds the blog as a "convenience link". Problems: (a) the accuracy of the transcription may be in question: did the critic cited out of context, or chose specific passages of the book to illustrate a specific point, while ommitting others?; (b) alongside the transcription there are disparraging comments about Woodhead and his scholarship; (c) the blog is hosted on a free blogging service; (d) the blogger does not disclose her name. Would you say that this "convenience link", adds to the article or detracts from it? I would argue for the latter, and will delete such convenience link at first sight. As with all the policies and guidelines, context is everything. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 06:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that context is key, which is one reason I am alarmed by such a proscriptive position as you seem to be endorsing, which, if I read you correctly, disallows editors from judging the utilty of a link in context. I don't know a thing about Sant Mat--your mention is the first I've ever heard of it, and from what you've written, I'm not sure I know enough about the context to make a good judgement call.  If there is a legitimate reference to Woodhead's book in the article, if the relevant section of text is transcribed on the blog, if the editor who created the reference can attest that the transcription is accurate, and if there is no confusion between between the disparaging comments and the transcription, I might say yes to it.  But this all seems a bit off the point--the fact that there are potential problems with such linked material (I'd agree, anonymous blogs are about as low-reliabilty as you can get) does not mean that all convenience links should be banned.  Much more often than the scenario you describe, they provide easy access to additional material that will be of interest to some readers.  I think the key point that are being overlooked here are that convenience links are not wikipedia and that there is a lot of material available on the internet that is useful and relevant, even if the web publsher doesn't meet wikipedia's requirements for a reliable source.  This is especially true for subjects that are not established topics of academic scrutiny--which includes much of the material Wikipedia addresses.  BTfromLA 06:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If editors will allow this, it will vastly change the Scientology articles which rely extensively on convenience links on personal websites. A handful of maybe 20 or 25 people who have an axe to grind have "reposited" anti-scientology stuff on their websites.  The Patter drill, as an example, cites 4 links to personal websites as secondary sources within the article.  Terryeo 04:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Undent. BTfromLA are you talking at cross-purposes to Jossi? It seems that Jossi is speaking about convenience-links-which-are-used-as-sources and you BT are talking about convenience links period. If an article says "Mr Brown stated that your mother is fat (Mr Brown Speaks, p 9) with a link [www.mrbrown.com/p9 Mr Brown, p 9] and someone challenges that the link is not RS, why could that link not then, be simply, removed inline, and moved to the EL section? Wjhonson 07:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the links could just be moved to an "external links section." A couple of thoughts about that: 1. I'm not clear on what Jossi and Blueboar think about external links in general--they may want all links of any sort held to the reliable sources standard.  2. Assuming that they agree to a more inclusive view of "external links," I wonder what is gained by this repositioning of the links?  The sort of links we are discussing mostly appear in footnotes, as a link to some representation of the document cited in the footnote--that seems like a natural, reader-friendly place for that information.  Moving them to the external links category would require duplicating the written explanation of what this linked item is, and would make it more difficult for the reader to make the connection between the link and the citation.  BTfromLA 18:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, sorry, but your allegation of a violation of WP:V is simply false in probably the vast majority of cases at issue. Whether I simply put in the reference number of a court document or, in addition, provide a transcript, people STILL have the option to access the court document at the court. The transcript is merely an issue of accessibility. Anyone interested enough can cross-check. As such, the material on the website is verifiable as well. And before you accuse someone of forging federal documents, you better have doggone good evidence for it. Yes, blogs in which bits and pieces of other documents are abused without proper citation are a problem. But as long as proper citation is given, anyone can waive the website and go to the direct source instead. It is not an issue of WP:V but solely an issue of accessibility. If I can give people a list of strange letter/cipher combinations, it's not half as much convincing as when I can provide a copy of the actual document. In the first case, people with ill will are likely to suggest it's all made up. --OliverH 08:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Master's student M is very proud of her professor P. Since P has no website, M decides to place on her website pdf files of P's 50 publications. If this is the only such compilation, I would not hesitate to say in an article: "For a list of P's publications, see {M's personal website}".  I might not do this, however, if extra material appeared on her page beside the publications.  Precis 09:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, this would pose other problems since it would likely be a copyright violation, but anyway.... --OliverH 10:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Nope. See for example  Precis 11:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Some of you seem to equate not allowing unreliable convenience links, with not allowing the original citation. Not so.  An editor can still cite the original news story or book.  The reader can still obtain that book or news story from the library if they wish more information.  Also, a reliable convenience link would still be OK. Blueboar 13:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I sense some naivete on some of the comments above, forgetting how easy is to create a website, and transcribe material to it alongside its author's commentary. We are creating an encyclopedia were verifiability is key and one of the central pillars of our content policies. I would argue that a "convenience link" has to be of enough undisputed good quality to add value to an article. If its addition, purportedly for readers'convenience, obfuscate or otherwise compromise the original source, that convenience link is no longer convenient, but a liability as it pertains to readers' confidence in Wikipedia. The good judgement of editors is required to make that assessment. ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 15:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with you here, Jossi. My concern is that what you've been saying earlier seems to want to replace the editors' good judgement with a blanket "thou shalt not."  My belief is that guidelines should be designed to clarify the underlying principals we are seeking, such as accuracy and relevance, and equip editors to exercise their judgement in ways that improve the articles in light of those principals.  My fear, based on experience, is that policies and guidelines that lay out particular rules as opposed to guiding principals can easily become ends in themselves for certain editors, such that the editorial discussion becomes "Does this obey  the rule?" instead of "Does this improve the article?" BTfromLA 18:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's even easier to scan a document and put it on the web as-is. You're referring to a bunch of extreme cases. It's also very easy to smuggle fake data into a peer-reviewed journal if you really put an effort behind it. That doesn't mean we dump peer-reviewed journals because one or the other article might be fake. --OliverH 17:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * @Precis: That refers to the author. It does not refer to the Master Student, who might be an author on one or the other paper, but not on a whole bunch of papers his mentor published. --OliverH 17:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Another point to remember ... it is very easy to search the internet, looking for something that backs a statement you want to add to Wikipedia... to find a newspaper article that fits your needs reprinted on an unreliable site, and never bother go to the library and check the original.... to instead simply cite to the original without checking, and include a link to the copy as a "convenience". Of course no one posting on this page would ever do this... but I strongly suspect that this is what far too many editors actually do. It is called sloppy research, and it should be discouraged strongly. Blueboar 17:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Blueboar, I share your suspicions about the sloppy research epidemic. Realistically, though, I think the only way to guard against that degrading the quality of articles is for editors to check the work of other editors--there's no way to verify that people have gone to the original printed sources, as opposed to an online likeness of them. Fortunately, typos aside, online transcriptions of articles are usually faithful to their sources in my experience, particularly when they occur on a high-profile web site that archives a lot of material on a particular subject (like clambake.org that Terryeo complains about); these are precisely the sort of sites that many of the links we are discussing here connect to.  I'm sure there is somebody out there inventing sentences or engaging in grossly misleading editorial shenanigans when transcribing previously published material, but I haven't come across much of that--have you?  BTfromLA 18:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have come across that very frequently. I contribute to a number of articles related to Freemasonry.  Misquoting, taking statements out of context and out right forgery are common tactics used by those who oppose the fraternity.  As to your first point... the guidelines say that it is there responsibility of the editor who wishes to add a statement to find reliable sources for it.  It should not be the responsibility of others to cite check it and remove it.  Yes, that is what often has to happen, but it shouldn't be that way.  If I want to add a statement about xyz, I should spend the time to get the citation right... especially if the statement will be at all controvercial.  By requiring that a convenience link be to a reliable page, it will cut down on the poor research.  And the abuse of WP:RS that stems from it.Blueboar 19:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * OliverH, You say: You're referring to a bunch of extreme cases. given that there are a bunch of us complaining about the same issues... a bunch of us who do not edit (even remotely) the same articles... it don't think it is that extreme. It is a common problem on many of the more contentious topics.  Blueboar 17:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, then show me the "convenience links" where you can actually prove your contention from above, that someone outright forged a newspaper article, court document etc. The problem with your argument is that it's POV. If I give you a statement and reference it to Science, Vol 165, 1999, pp 365-372, you'd have to go to the Science website or have extensive knowledge of the journal to know I completely pulled that cite out of my hat and it's completely fake. That's no different than putting an artificial newspaper report on a cite -with one difference: The artificial news paper article can have indications that it's fake that you can see. The cite above has no indication whatsoever other than that the volume number and year quite probably don't match, and that neither volume and pages nor year and pages match any actual article. You only find that out if you go to the library and check. Without doing so, I can dupe anyone claiming I cited peer-reviewed scientific literature. --OliverH 21:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * BTfromLA: I don't want to address specific articles, as these discussions are better handled in the article's talk page. But I would say this: A primary source that has not been described on a reliable secondary source (as per WP:RS, is fair game as far as being able to be challenged as valid for inclusion. A group of editors may attest to the reputability of a website, but that is not sufficient if there is controversy about these sources. If website xyz.com contains primary sources about subject ABC, we can use these primary sources on the article about xyz.com only, and with caution. But note that we cannot use these primary sources on the article about ABC. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 19:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Again Jossi overstates the situation. We can use primary sources in a variety of ways.  We are *not* restricted to only using them to describe the organization which presents them.  If the Bureau of Land Management presents an image of an original land patent of Abraham Lincoln's we can certainly use that on the Abraham Lincoln page.  We don't have to restrict ourselves to only using it on the Bureau of Land Management page.  The BLM is a reliable publisher, and yet the image itself, unedited i.e. a facsimile edition if you will, is still a primary document. Wjhonson 04:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * jossi nails it here. FeloniousMonk 20:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * OliverH, you are right! The copyright rules would only allow the student to put pdf files of the professor's PREPRINTS on her webpage.  Thus my example would require her to get special permission from the publishers in the cases where the preprints differ from the reprints. Precis 20:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Jossi: being a primary or secondary source is one issue, being reliable or unreliable is a different matter. We can use material from the unreliable xyz.com only on articles about xyz.com, and only if the material does not refer to a third party. We can use secondary source material from the reliable abc.com without restriction. We can use primary source material from the reliable abc.com only in the ways explained in WP:NOR. --Gerry Ashton 20:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

We are, once again, getting off topic. I still feel strongly that both sources and convenience links to them must be reliable. Blueboar 21:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Doesn't this depend on the specific situation? Suppose some tennis pro has a personal webpage containing a long list of hyperlinks to sports organizations throughout the world, e.g., www.yankees.com, www.ladodgers.com, etc.  What's the worst that would happen if you linked to the pro's page?  Maybe one of the hyperlinks doesn't work? Precis 22:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I hope you would agree that your example is a little unlikely... I doubt anyone would cite www.yankees.com and link to the tennis pro's page, since www.yankees.com is even MORE accessible on its own... and if they did, another editor would quickly change the citation.  In any case... what you are describing is not a convenience link... the pro's page does not contain the material on www.yankees.com it just provides a hyperlink to it.  I would call that a "pass through" link or something. Blueboar 22:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I don't agree that the example is unlikely. There are hundreds of examples of personal webpages that collect together hyperlinks on the owner's favorite subject.  Someone wanting to visit MANY different sports sites would find the tennis pro's page quite useful.  However, I admit I wasn't aware of the distinction between "pass through" links and "convenience links". Precis 23:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not saying the site is not useful, or even uncommon ... but I doubt think it is likely that it would be used in a Wikipedia article as a citation to back a statement. If someone was writing an article on Derek Jeeter, they would probably cite directly to the yankees web page.  Your site is probably best placed in the "External Links" section with a discription saying that it has lots of useful links.
 * Oh... the "pass through" link discription is my own... I don't think Wikipedia has a term for what you have been describing. Blueboar 23:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. In this example, the pass-through page could go into EL with minimal risk, even though it is a personal webpage. I'd also be willing to use the page as a direct source in articles, for certain statements, such as "There are websites that provide hyperlinks to sports organizations throughout the world." But would we be willing to use it as a source for a statement such as "Each state in the US currently has a baseball organization"? (Assume we've clicked on 50 given links to verify this.) Precis 23:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC) P.S.  My answer to the last question is no, because of WP:NOR.


 * If Jossi's clarification holds, you will see extreme upset from Scientology article editors on this page soon. :) Terryeo 01:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Terryeo, I am sorry if this discussion impacts the Scientology article heavily... that is not why it was raised, however. I have come across this issue at a number of different articles (most of them contentious)  This issue goes beyond one article. Changing or clarifying the guidelines will impact any of the articles that use a lot of convenience links.  We are not trying to upset people, or please people... we are trying to improve the reliability of the information Wikipedia presents. Blueboar 01:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep, I understand that perfectly. We are putting into specific editor actions, the concepts present in WP:NPOV.  I am in complete agreement that we should.  The results will be good articles, increased web hits and implementation of Wikipedia's founder :)  Terryeo 18:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Probably a stupid question.
I've read the entire page and am confused. What about non-print material? For instance, suppose you have a biography of a person and want to cite an interview with said person that was televised in a major outlet, but never transcribed. Is this allowable? Crystallina 22:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If it is still available to the general public, then yes, it is a reliable source ... The key is if it was recorded (taped or put on disk etc.) by the media outlet, and can be viewed by the general public (say at a media library, or rented/purchased in DVD, VHS etc.) If you are relying on your memory of the TV show, or a personal copy... then no. Blueboar 22:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * When televised, the information was published. By a major network is a reliable, reputable source.  But how can anyone know the article accurately reproduces the person's words?  So it needs to be verifiable (to the original source of publication). Terryeo 01:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

By T's definition, every performance of a Broadway play is "published". That's the broad definition of the term synonymous with "made public", but it doesn't have much to do with the way WP uses the term "published". Indeed, under T's definition, Crystallina's example satisfies the three-point Policy statement at WP:V, which is ironic, because verifiability is precisely where the example fails. Precis 02:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Remember that for Wikipedia you have to be both published and accessible. I would say that every performance of a Broadway play IS publishing a new version of the play.  Look at it this way, say the play is recorded for television program... that is one version.  Later, the play is recorded a second time for a different television program.  Same play, two different versions of the show (the actors might ad lib in one and not in the other)... two different publications. I suppose you could equate it to different editions of a book.
 * Getting back to the TV show... remember that for a source to be reliable, it must be both published and accessible. Airing an interview is indeed a way publishing the interview (it was broadcast to the public)... but, if no reliable (approved) copy was made (in either written transcript or recorded form), it is not accessible.  That is where it might fail WP:RS and WP:V. Blueboar 12:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * To me, it is bizarre usage to say, e.g., that a live circus performance is "published", but you are welcome to use any definition you wish. I don't think such a definition has any value for Wikipedia, however. Precis 13:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe a circus performance would fulfill a common dictionary's definition of "published" but, unless filmed and that film reproduced with permission from the Circus, would not be verifiable. Terryeo 18:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * On that we agree. Blueboar 14:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Even if it were recorded, it would not necessarily be verifiable if the recording were not published. An event is an occurance, it is not a publication. I think Terryeo has accessibility confused with publication.--Fahrenheit451 23:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

On a related (convenience link) topic
Here is another question for us to discuss re convenience links. A private web page hosts a copy of a copywrited document or image ... there is no disclosure or indication that the copying page has been given permission to copy the document or image. Now, I think most of us would agree that the web page is in violation of copywrite laws. My question is this... To what extent are we limited using this page as a convenience link? I know we are not the "copywrite police", nor (I think) are we in direct violation of the law since we are not placing the document or image on Wikipedia, but simply providing a link to it. But do we have an obligation to the copywrite holder to link to an approved version? I suppose I am asking if we would be in "indirect" violation (if such a concept exists). (and is there a more appropriate page to ask this?) Blueboar 12:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Look up "contributory copyright infringement". Precis 13:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This was cross-posted as Wikipedia talk:Copyrights, and I am copying my reply from there:


 * In the US, courts have supported the view that knowingly and intentionally linking to material that infringes copyright is a form of contributory infringment. Essentially they found that you can't get around the fact it is illegal for you to host something by simply directing traffic to some other site that is illegally hosting the same material. There is not really a bright legal line on how much care one should take in choosing links in order to ensure that targeted site is legitimate, but I would suggest that if reasonable people look at the site and they feel it is unlikely to be legitimate, then we probably shouldn't be linking to it. Dragons flight 15:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * See WP:EL, that reads:
 * External sites can possibly violate copyright. Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page.  Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry).  Also, linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on us (see Copyrights and in particular Contributors' rights and obligations).
 * ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 15:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Given all this.... I would suggest that this is one more reason we should lean towards discouraging (if not prohibiting) the use of convenience links that use unreliable web-sites. Blueboar 15:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I disconcur. Here is how I handle this situation.  I write to the webpage author, stating "It appears this page xxxx has an item that may enjoy copyright protection, and yet the page itself does not have a disclaimer stating that either: A)the item is no longer under copyright protection; B) the author has released copyright to the web page owner; C) the author has *licensed* the item to the webpage owner for display on the internet; D) the webpage owner has inherited or otherwise possesses copyright over the item.  I would suggest rather then getting into a revert war, that would be the most appropriate first-course to pursue.  IF, after a sufficient amount of time (I waited a week for one person to respond), there is still an unclear situation, then it would be appropriate to remove the link.  Be aware, that any copyright infringement for linking goes against the *original editor*, not against you, and not against wikipedia, which is only a vehicle, not a source, of the issue. Wjhonson 17:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not a legal expert, but have read a little in the area. There is a legal action that can take place if a website reproduces copyrighted work.  The website can be asked to remove it by the offended party or a representative of the offended party.  Likewise, links to it can be similarly requested to be removed.  So, if Wikipedia were 'guilty' of linking to copyrighted information, the offended party's legal action would be to notify Wikipedia and request the link(s) be removed.  We can save ourselves trouble, save Wikipedia expense and increase Wikipedia's reputation if we take a little care with potential copyright violations, as Wjhonson has suggested. Terryeo 18:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not disagree with what Wjhonson suggests for cases where we are not sure if the convenience link is violating copyright (and what he suggests is a very good way to enquire) ... if we are sure, however, then we MUST remove them... read what Dragons flight said above: "In the US, courts have supported the view that knowingly and intentionally linking to material that infringes copyright is a form of contributory infringment. Essentially they found that you can't get around the fact it is illegal for you to host something by simply directing traffic to some other site that is illegally hosting the same materials." this is not a situation where Wikipedia simply looks bad, it is a situation where Wikipedia could be held liable in the courts. Blueboar 19:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The liability angle is, I think, a red herring. In a copyright case, there is usually not punative damages, but only compensatory.  That is, "How much money has you lost as a direct cause of this action?".  If a "copyrighted" work, is freely available for viewing on the fifty web pages, there is no financial loss, unless the offended party, sues them all to stop the violation.  There are cases like that, where basically, because the offended party, did not take sufficient action, their work is now public domain.  barring that, you still have to show how much financial loss you've sustained, and you're compensated for that.  If for example, your copyrighted work is freely distributed by yourself, you don't have a very good claim.  It seems like one or both of you has a particular axe to grind on this.  What is it? Wjhonson 06:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You are correct, Whjonson. The fact is that linked-to sites are not Wikipedia, that there is no financial benefit being derived form those links, and that the court decisions about hosts bearing responsibility for copyright violations generally are aimed at Napster-type sites that facilitate illegal copying. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the worst that would ever happen is that Wikipedia woud recieve a cease-and-desist letter from an aggrieved party, which could then be considered and dealt with on a case-by-case basis. BTfromLA 17:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've no axe to grind. But the internet is dynamic.  Wikipedia is a shot in the dark at creating a widely useable source of information.  Myself, I would like to see it work.  One of the potential failure points would be that anon, uncaring editors could create many links to copyrighted works placed on personal websites.  Which is one reason I am all for editor user name registration (at a minimum).  Terryeo 08:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Terryeo, you've been a major motivator behind discussion of "convenience links" in the context of these guidelines, if not the main one, and you certainly have an axe to grind--the fact that you deny it seriously undermines your credibility. Your "axe" has to do with your single-minded focus on Scientology-related articles and your desire to minimize or eliminate from Wikipedia kinds of information that the Church of Scientology holds as confidential, as well as journalism and commentary that is at odds with the Church's self-representations. To pretend that your motives have nothing to do with that is plainly disingenous, as anybody who has followed your Wikipedia career can plainly see.  Why not just admit your bias, then proceed to make your case?  BTfromLA 17:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have stated my case. If you have issue with my statement, take it to my user page and don't clog this guideline page with it.Terryeo 18:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Terryeo, you made the "I've no axe to grind" statement on this page. By misrepresenting your motives, your basic good faith in these discussions becomes an issue here. BTfromLA 19:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Historian Ibn Hisham (d. 834): to be regarded as secondary source?
I'm debatting whether historians of former centuries/millenia like Ibn Ishaq (d. 768), Ibn Hisham (d. 834) or Bukhari (810-870), are to be counted as secondary sources. My stance is that they were, so to speak, secondary sources to their contemporaries and direct successors. Nowadays, however, their erudition is superceded, thus they are primary sources only, which wikipedians may not infer or base articles on.

My opponent claims that no such policy is detailed at WP:RS explicitely (cf. bottommost post here). Can anybody clarifiy this issue? It has become a standard discussion on Islam related topics, where the reference work Encyclopaedia of Islam is being refused as Western academic view and Orientalism biased. Traditional Islamic hagiografic accounts or 8th-/11th century historians are cited as historically authoritative sources, as contemporary Muslim historians with academic clout are hard to find. I don't concur with that view.

As a rule, a historian to be regarded as secondary source should be either contemporary or of the former century at most, as it can be safely assumed that the older ones are outdated except for special cases. If folks here concur, I feel this should be included at WP:RS. --tickle me 21:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There's certainly no general rule in that sense. Many medieval chroniclers are doubtlessly primary sources (example: Jean de Joinville's Life of Saint Louis). Some historical works of antiquity are largely to be considered secondary sources (take for instance Tacitus' Annals), even after 19 centuries. I don't know about Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Hisham and Bukhari. Encyclopaedia of Islam would be a tertiary source anyhow. That tertiary sources aren't always the holy grail is clear since Nature compared the 2005 editions of Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia.
 * If there are multiple versions of a same fact, all with their sources, without any of these versions having a source that overwhelmingly outdoes all the others on reliability, apply the basic WP:NPOV rule, for instance formulated thus:"All significant published points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions. (quoted from WP:NPOV)"--Francis Schonken 23:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It probably depends on how you are using them. I would consider them (outdated) secondary sources. Reliable for statements about what they said, and what the views of Moslem Historians in general were in the first few centuries AH. Blueboar 23:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That's my view, unfortunately my contrahent asks to have that in written.
 * "Readers are left to form their own opinions": traditional Muslim sources of the 7th to 11th century, and even younger ones, prone on literal interpretation of Qu'ranic sources, which are related literally by early, or really, most Muslim historians, allege that in the Battle of Mu'tah 3000 Muslims fought of a 200 000 man (that's the number of Ibn Hisham) Byzantine army for six days in an open battlefield.


 * Obviously, that's hagiography and not factual. Western scholars on Byzantine history agree that a no time in its well document history there were armies of more than a couple of 10000s. This goes for all antique armies by the way, the numbers in traditional accounts (European too) are mostly exagerated for political reasons. There's no dispute about that. Muslim editors demand that these numbers are presented as fact, mostly in the form of "Muslim view" vs. a "Western academic view".


 * Encyclopaedia of Islam is *the* reference work of Oriental sciences, Bernard Lewis say, being one of the prominet contributors. What am I to say when Muslim hagiographic account is demanded to be presented on par with the Encyclopaedia? It tells that the number of both warring parties is unknown, Muslim sources go with 3000/100 000 or 3000/200 000.


 * The conflict is about the Battle of Mu'tah Infobox Military Conflict. It's demanded that the Muslim number 3000 is inserted (Ibn Hisham (d. 834)), whereas contemporary western sources set it as unknown. --tickle me 03:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, no, you're asking for a special permission to dodge WP:NPOV. Even if "Obviously, that's hagiography and not factual" would be the most popular view or some intermediate view, you shouldn't present it as the correct one. Jean de Joinville's Life of Saint Louis is prototypical hagiography, and a primary source. Generally, historians would mine that document for factual information too, without contending that every detail is factual either of course (like Jacques Le Goff does in his Medieval Civilization, ISBN 0631175660). Contending that all hagiography from the first letter to the last is non-factual, is a highly biased POV - it would make the work of historians very easy: they would have to do nothing else than reverse every contention in a hagiographic writing to achieve "factual" history-writing.
 * But basically you try to present "contemporary western sources set it as unknown" as the intermediate view that is the only correct one. Sorry, not good enough for Wikipedia. In order to conform to NPOV as well the properly sourced information about the presumed size of the Byzantine army should be presented, as what other historical sources say (also including proper references for that). If that is too much information to cram in the "infobox" template, the template should be discarded for this article. There is no statement in non-negotiable official policy (like WP:NPOV) that template size is paramount over the proper application of NPOV. --Francis Schonken 10:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

my views on this, from my discussion with tickle me, is that muslim traditionalist scholars are to have their works considered to be secondary sources. primary sources with relation to the life of Muhammad would be the Quran and Hadith, we generally cannot interpret these or elaborate upon them according to WP policy, that is for the historians to do. for those who don't know, the hadith are essentially reports from companions who witnessed actions of Muhammad. traditionalist muslim historians ranging from two hundred to one thousand years after Muhammad then wrote books of sira (biographical works) based upon these primary sources where they would analyse the reports to ascertain what happened and present interpretations, while rejecting the weak reports and reconciling between conflicting reports- thereby ascertaining statistics, series and order of events, and eventually establishing a biographical account of his life. this is what ibn hisham did, in order to provide his interpretation and account of the life of Muhammad, and his work of seerah is still authoritative even today. the issue is not just about ibn hisham (200 years after muhammad), but also other works interpreting and evaluating the life of Muhammad such the works of ibn katheer, ibn al-qayyim, ibn hajar, as-suyuti and so on, some of them coming more than 700 years after muhammad. do we then dismiss the historical works by the muslim scholars and historians as primary sources? the description of hagiography is a pov from some quarters, just as criticism from edward said on the neutrality of orientalist academia is a pov, so that is not the issue of the discussion. at the moment, i do not see why the analysis and evaluations of muslim historians centuries after Muhammad should be considered as primary sources, when it comes to the events of Muhammad's life.  ITAQALLAH  15:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * as for the figure of 3,000, then please see where i gave references to historians coming 700 to 800 (ibn al-qayyim and ibn hajar respectively) years after Muhammad, and i also gave a contemporary source which also puts the figure at 3,000 which cites this from the two aforementioned scholars. but if the issue of using traditionalist muslim scholars for secondary sources could be expounded upon, i would be most grateful.   ITAQALLAH   16:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal Websites
There are always questions about personal websites being used in articles. In WP:RS we presently have, Personal websites, should not be used as secondary sources. We also have discussion about convenince links and, as editors we know, those links appear frequently on personal websites. I.E., an individual has a point of view about subject XYZ, goes to archives and pays for copies of news articles and court affidavits and reproduces those. What would editors think of stating something like this in the Reliable Sources guideline:
 * Personal websites can only be used as references in articles about the person or the site.

This would still allow personal websites to be used in later sections of articles as "exterior links", "further reading" or "see also". It would save a quantity of editor discussions if we did not have to examine, every link on every personal website. It appears to me that we uniformly come to the conclusion that reference links to personal websites do not satisfy WP:V's reliability. Terryeo 09:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that may take it a bit too far. It leaves out using the site as a source for a direct quote from the person that is used in some other article. For example, if notable person ABC posts a statement saying that "person XYZ is an idiot" on his website abc.com... I think you should be able to cite to abc.com to back a statement on the article on XYZ such as: "However, notable person ABC says XYZ is an idiot  ".
 * I would say something more along the lines of
 * Personal websites can only be used as a reference in articles about the person or site, or as primary sources to reference quotations of statements by the owner of the site that directly relate to the subject of an article.
 * clunky... but we can tweek the wording if this is acceptable in concept. Blueboar 12:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * We would also need to better define what we mean by a "personal website"... I have seen editors object to the official web pages of organizations and corporations as "personal websites" (the idea being that the organization is a single entity, and thus "personal"). This has happened less since we added a specific header to discuss organizations and corporations, but it does still pop up from time to time. Blueboar 12:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have an example that is partly hypothetical and partly real. I was thinking of adding some information to the Tube sound article from an article in a reliable secondary source, IEEE Spectrum. I noticed that some of the schematic diagrams in the article had some errors. It would have been original research for me to make corrections to the diagrams. If the author had a web site that verifiably belonged to him, on which he had posted errata for the article, I think I should be able to make the corrections to the version of the diagrams that I put in a Wikipedia article. (In the end I decided the article didn't really need the information from the article.) --Gerry Ashton 14:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding the first comment in this thread, there are pretty good guidelines at WP:EL about what to link to and what not to link to. As for the "personal sites" that is pretty obvious: a site, personal home page or blog that belongs to an non-notable individual. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 14:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Jossi has above corrected the view on personal websites that you started with Terryeo. If a person is a well-known jounalist, a professional researcher or expert, discussing a matter in their field of study, then their *personal* website would be an appropriate site to quote in certain contexts, not only on themselves, but also on that field of study or news report (in the case of a journalist).  Reducing the matter to "personal websites" is too simplistic. Wjhonson 16:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

does reliability imply verifiability?
Can anyone give an example (hypothetical or otherwise) of information that Wikipedia would deem reliable but not verifiable? Or does reliability always imply verifiability in this context? Precis 10:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_July_13&oldid=64476061#Kitty_May_Ellis - note that this article (or its nth revamping) is currently going through its nth deletion review. Also, this example was already discussed above on this page.
 * Personally I get a bit wary of all these attempts to drive wedges between the core content policies. It has already been remarked above on this page that "Remember also, that the different core policies of WP work together as a whole. WP:NPOV + WP:V + WP:NOR + WP:NOT. You need all four to be compliant." - so that I'm becoming tempted to start posting "don't feed the trolls"-like templates. --Francis Schonken 11:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you read the question a bit too fast, because I don't see how your link provides an example of information Wikipedia deems (by consensus) reliable but not verifiable. My personal observation is that information deemed reliable is necessarily deemed verifiable, but I'd be interested to see if there are examples to the contrary. As for motivation, I ask probing questions to better understand the wording. But feel free to imagine whatever sinister motives may pop into your mind. Precis 12:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC) Perhaps it wouldn't hurt to say more about the reason for my question.  I was looking at the policy in a nutshell at WP:V which begins "Information on Wikipedia must be reliable."  I thought it odd that verifiability is not mentioned, and wondered if the first sentence should read "Information on Wikipedia must be reliable and verifiable."  Then I thought, hmmm, maybe the meanings here are such that reliable information is necessarily verifiable.  So I thought I'd ask. Precis 13:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * lol, while from my view, information which is published to the general public is verifiable. When there is a cost of copy associated with publication (print, film, DVD, tape) the publisher doesn't publish nonesense; when the medium is bits on a hard drive, on the internet, it is immediately verifiable.  The next threshold, reliability is not good all by itself because several organizations reliably copy and distribute information internal to their workings.  Such privately distibuted information is unpublished, but reliable to the organizaiton.  (Masons, Church of Scientology, CIA). Terryeo 16:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

does verifiability imply accessibility?
Can anyone give an example (hypothetical or otherwise) of verifiable Wikipedia information that comes from a source that is NOT publicly accessible? Precis 10:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, here is a fairly recent discussion over just such a piece of information. It is unpublished, has always been unpublished, but, a former member had a copy which he attempted to insert as a secondary source in the article.  It was and is distributed to certain memebers under certain situations. Terryeo 17:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That is misinformation. That material is published, but of restricted distribution so as to make verifiability difficult. Also, the only conditions imposed on the distribution are course prerequisites and payment of the required course fee.  Please be honest, rather than speak in generalities.--Fahrenheit451 22:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That is not misinformation. The Church which is the source of that information actually states outright, "has not been published".  I quoted that to you at the Suppressive person discussion page and gave the page number and ISBN. Be kind enough to either accept my statement in good faith or make the effort to check the quotation for yourself rather than accuse me of being less than honest because you won't make the effort to check it out. Terryeo 11:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There are different degrees of public accessibility. For example, some e-journals are available online to subscribers only (including to individual members of subscribing institutions such as universities which pay for collective access to journals, but not to everybody).  A member of the general public might find it hard to access such a journal without opening a paid subscription.  Another example is subscriber-only newspaper archives.  Is this the kind of thing you had in mind?  -- JimR 11:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * See my comment in the previous section --Francis Schonken 11:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * JimR, there are also different degrees of verifiability. I'm interested in examples that Wikipedians feel meet the threshold of one but not the other.  So thanks! Precis 12:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As general concepts, divorsed from Wikipedia policy - yes... if I have a collection of unpublished hand written letters, the information contained in those letters is verifiable in concept (I could show them to you if you asked) but not accessible to the general public.
 * However, as they relate to Wikipedia policy and guidelines, no... accessiblility is PART of WP:RS, which in turn is a PART of WP:V. In otherwords, Wikipedia defines accessibility as part of verifiablility.  For something to be verifiable it must be accessibe.  The problems arise in determining how accessible (and thus verifiable) things need to be. Blueboar 13:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I am getting decidedly bored with all these request for "hypothetical or otherwise" examples. Can we go back to edit articles? And if we find concrete situations that policy does not cover, discuss with fellow editors in that article's talk page, and only of there is a real problem, to bring it here to the attention of the wider community? Please? ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 14:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Jossi, you yourself recently gave a far-fetched hypothetical example on the subject of convenience links, but I suppose such examples only bore you when they are provided by others. In the previous section, I proposed a possible clarifying edit in the WP:V Policy in a nutshell.  If you truly want "to go back to edit", perhaps you'd like to comment somewhere on such a clarification? Is there consensus for it?Precis 22:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Birth certificates for people born in the last 100 years or so, issued by the appropriate government agency are reliable but, in most jurisdictions, not open to the public. In my view they are not published, and thus do not meet Wikipedia's definition, but some editors may not agree with my reading of the policies and guidelines. --Gerry Ashton 14:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

A dilemma re: blogs as sources
I have a real world problem. First the background. The term "swiftboating" is roughly defined on wikipedia as a partisan attack against critics of the Bush administration. However, on most conservative blogs, the term is generally defined as "exposing lies and deceit". I attempted to add this alternate definition to the Swift Boat Vets article, using blog citations, and was told that blogs are not RS. OK, so I worked with the other editor, and I found an alternate definition by Ted Sampley, and someone else selling T-shirts on Cafe Press with the alternate definition. The editor I was working with chose to use the Cafe Press link as a source, and compromised by adding the definition to the article. Now a third editor has removed the definition, citing WP:RS. This led to a mini edit-war, as I provided all of my sources, and the editor still insists that none of them comply with WP:RS. So my question is, how does one include a definition for a word that is widely used in the blogosphere, when all the sources are by definition, blogs? It seems that Wikipedia is lessened by the scrubbing of this information, simply because the sources do not meet an arbitrary WP guideline? The term "swiftboating" is used in two different ways, depending on your political alignment, but Wikipedia, because of its own rules, will only recognize one of them. How does one remove himself from the horns of this dilemma? Crockspot 20:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That seems to be clearly stated, Crockspot. As I understand WP:NPOV, the idea is that the most widely published point of view gets presented.  In this one instance, it appears that one point of view is published and the other point of view is just below the threshold which Wikipedia calls "published" i.e. blogs and personal website? (or at least not a widely recognized publisher).  But I gotta respect that you state the situation clearly. Terryeo 04:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * For an example of how terms in the blogosphere can be properly sourced, see Fisking. C, as you use non-notable bloggers as sources, your case is very weak.  Moreover, looking over your edit history, I see that you refer to reversions of your edits as vandalism.  This shows a misunderstanding of WP:VAND, where the difference between vandalism and content disputes is clearly spelled out. Precis 13:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Aryan Nations, Hamas, and Socialist Worker Party as "Partisans"?
I objected to the UK SWP getting lumped in with white supremacists as "extremist," at the time the UK SWP website was promoting worker pensions, hardly an extremist position. They were removed but someone stuck them back in in the last few months, now as part of the "partisan websites" mini-section. Now the problem is more multifaceted, Aryan Nations and Stormfront.org are not political parties as far as I know, and this applies even if they have some group of five losers writing up flyers in their basements and claiming to be one. Hamas is a political party with a wing that conducts suicide bombings. Is it proper to lump UK SWP in with this motley crew? I don't think so. Another problem in my view is that the mini-section is really conflating "extremist" with "partisan." If you want to have a section on partisan sourcess, then sure put UK SWP in there along with the French leftist parties but also the UK's Labour and Conservative parties and the American Republicans and Democrats, and Greens worldwide and so on really. And then you can break off the extremist sources like white power groups and Al Qaeda and so forth somewhere else. DanielM 14:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The way you have stated your post, it sounds like you are saying that the text which contains the phrase which you titled this subsection with might or might not be a fair description and a good communication, but instead, your objection is to the use of a term "UK SWP" in a context next to some other terms which are more extermist in view ? Terryeo 17:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Didn't mean to be unclear. Objection #1: it is improper to class the Socialist Worker's Party with Aryan Nations and Hamas and so forth, because it is not as extremist. Objection #2: it is improper to combine extremist organizations with partisan organizations in the context of describing what is or is not a reliable source, because many partisan groups are not extreme. No, I did not mean to suggest that the heading above is a fair description or good communication. DanielM 19:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you, makes sense, now. Terryeo 19:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I noticed this as well, and I think its part of a much wider problem I've began to identify on wikipedia. There is a great deal of US bias here. Whilst Americans consider the SWP an extremist organisation, they still have some degree of popularity in the UK and were major players in the anti-war movement prior to the invasion of Iraq. Damburger 15:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Blogs and "professional" writing
I have noticed, and participated in one of, two conflicts regarding whether blogs are reliable sources. These disputes seem to overlap in discussions over WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NOR. It seems to me, that there seems to be, a widespread, elitist refusal to accept any blog as reliable, regardless of who publishes, and I do mean publish, the blog.

The case I point to is a recent dispute at The Guardian. When I added criticism and cited three blogs, the content was removed and I was chastised for adding "unreliable sources."

The sources in question are the following: Centre for Policy Studies National University of Ireland, has affiliate faculty status at the University of Haifa and Bar-Ilan University in Israel. Served on the editorial board of the International Journal of Maritime Economics. Seved on the steering committee of the Ports and Maritime Transport Group of the World Conference on Transport Research Society. Learned economics at the University of Washington and the University of Chicago, and has worked in the past at Northern Illinois University and the Port of Seattle. For his bio, see here.
 * This post at AtlanticBlog.
 * The writer: William Sjostrom, senior lecturer, teaching economics, at
 * This post at Mideast Dispatch Archive.
 * The writer: Tom Gross, former Jerusalem correspondent for the Sunday Telegraph of London and for the New York Daily News. In addition, he has written news reports, features, articles, editorials and reviews for a broad range of other publications. These include the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, the National Review (USA), the London Daily Telegraph, the New York Post, the London Evening Standard, the Spectator (UK), Ha’aretz (Tel Aviv), the Jerusalem Post, the Jerusalem Report, the Jewish Chronicle, Harper’s and Queen (London), Italian Elle (Milan) and Cosmopolitan magazine (London). He also worked as a staff writer and editor at the Jerusalem Post for two years. For his bio, see here.
 * This post at Jihad Watch
 * The writer: Robert Spencer, writer and researcher who has written six books, seven monographs, and well over a hundred articles about jihad and Islamic terrorism. His latest book is the New York Times bestseller The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) (Regnery). He is also the author of Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World's Fastest Growing Faith (Encounter) and Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West (Regnery). He is coauthor, with Daniel Ali, of Inside Islam: A Guide for Catholics  (Ascension), and editor of the essay collection The Myth of Islamic Tolerance: How Islamic Law Treats Non-Muslims (Prometheus). His next book, The Truth About Muhammad, is coming October 9 from Regnery Publishing. For his bio, see here.

Despite the fact that all of these sources are clearly reliable, they are not allowed under the illogical rule of thumb that all blogs are bad. Interestingly, several users incompetently stated that blogs are unpublished. If that were the case, which it is not, one wonders why actual articles published by former writers at The Guardian were reverted under the pretext that they were "original research". While it is now clear that the few users in question who tried to peddle this nonsense were doing so out of malice, they seem to have convinced a few other users that their arguments werent baseless and they are acting in good faith. Any thoughts? (User:Tchadienne) 4.249.189.162 22:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Easy there, buddy, easy there. Information on the internet whisks past at the speed of light.  While we can count on books and CDs to have the same information today as yesterdays, the internet is not as dependable.  Wikipedia policy is pointed toward becoming a solid source of reliable information. Terryeo 18:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed definition of Publish
This is an evolution of a discussion from Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research proposed by User:Gerry_Ashton:"To make available in documented form (e.g. paper, CD, web page) to the interested public without active restrictions (e.g. non-disclosure agreements), with the exception that non-free publishers may apply restrictions to ensure payment for a publication."--Fahrenheit451 23:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The number of editors involved in that discussion, that agree to a look for a narrow definition of "published", does not warrant a change in this or other guidelines and policies. Me and other editors assert is that there is no need to define what is already defined and widely accepted, and so far no one has been able to explain why there is a need for a definition that is different. All the discussions so far have been about finding a definition, and not about the need for a definition. We have a dispute resolution process in which users can resolve content disputes when there is a dispute about a published source. ≈ jossi ≈  t &bull; @ 02:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Which is already overloaded and time-consuming, by the way. I filed an arbitration proceeding (recently accepted) against User:Ericsaindon2 to keep him from further messing up the Orange County articles.  Although it was a pleasure to get that situation under control, gathering the evidence for the arbitration took an hour which I could have spent making substantive contributions to the encyclopedia.  We need to keep the trivial disputes to a minimum and keep everyone focused on legitimate disputes like how to neutrally cover the Israel/Gaza mess (which I understand was just filed before the Arbitration Committee).  --Coolcaesar 03:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * We do not need narrow interpretations of these terms, just because there are some crackpots out there that abuse the system. In my experience, "Hecha la ley, hecha la trampa", (Spanish: "When you make a law, you have made a way to break it"). No matter how much policy you define and how narrowly you define it, there will always be these that will seek to bypass it. Human nature, I guess. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 04:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * lol ! Terryeo 15:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * en boca cerrada no entran moscas, in a closed mouth flies don't come in Terryeo 15:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the advantage of having an narrower definition is that it's easier to identify when someone is acting in bad faith (that is, trolling) by presenting evidence for their position that clearly doesn't fit that definition. Then we can skip the hassle of arbitration and get them permanently banned right away.  --Coolcaesar 18:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Jossi is right, 'published' has been sufficiently defined at Wikipedia for a very long time; recent attempts here to redefine this and other terms are fatally flawed and will never pass muster and make into canon. Broad, flexible definitions are better. FeloniousMonk 04:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, but not crackpot definitions like "published to the public". "En boca cerrada no salir moscas."--Fahrenheit451 03:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

www.ifamericansknew.org
Is www.ifamericansknew.org considered a reliable source? --HResearcher 11:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The site is not attributable, there is no name or known organization taking responsibility for the site. A post office box is given as a contact point. Thus, the site fails a first test of reliability, attributability.  Terryeo 23:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Wrong. See   Precis 23:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * TY, don't know how I missed that. Terryeo 07:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * My first impression is that I do not think it meets the criteria of WP:V that require reputable and reliable sources be used for factual information. This means that I don't believe that statements in Wikipedia articles should be solely attributed to comments that are made on this site.  The website appears to be self-published and unedited by any party that is concerned about reliability (such as a publishing house or an known organization with an attorney providing guidance).  It is not clear who the author of the website is at all.  However, there are exceptions that can be made to the guideline of WP:RS, since it is merely a guideline and not a policy.  Also, there are exceptions to be made if the site is being used to reference a statement about the organization itself in an article about itself (which I doubt is happening in this particular case, but it is a notable exception).  Also, if the website is being used to show information that is readily available and verifiable from other sources, then it might be acceptable to be used as a convenience link to information that can't be found online elsewhere.  For example, if something is properly sourced to the "Bethlehem Times", but a link is provided to the exact same text that is conveniently online at this site, then most people think that is acceptable.  If there is reasonable doubt that the original text has been faithfully reproduced, then it should not be used at all, anywhere.  Vivaldi (talk) 11:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Try to avoid using highly biased sources like If Americans Knew, especially if the source makes it hard to distinguish between fact and propaganda. Precis 12:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Might it be worth our while to write a guideline which would guide editors when they examine websites? The website mentioned is a good example.  Do we have a guideline that guides an editor to sites of good repute and helps him recognize sites which are unuseable as secondary sources, of poor reliability? Terryeo 15:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * So Terryeo wants a website guideline written. I wonder what websites he wants to discredit?--Fahrenheit451 04:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have politely asked several times to stay on purpose. This page is to discuss possible improvements to this guideine. Taking your personal disputes elsewhere would be highly appreciated. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 04:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

As per Vivaldi and Precis; Ifamericansknew is a highly biased source with no editorial oversight, and should not be used as a reliable source. Jayjg (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for all your comments. I was wondering because it was being used as a source for Israel Defense Forces using human shields The article was deleted after Afd: Articles for deletion/Israel Defense Forces using human shields. --HResearcher 08:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

unattributed quotes in reliable sources
how is this policy to be interpreted in the case of a national newspaper using anonymous/unattributed quotes?

Justforasecond 16:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The information in the newspaper is published. It can be used. If the national newspaper is reliable, reputable, then it can be used as a secondary source in articles.  When quoting the anonymous quote, state it was an anonymous quote.  Quote the newspaper exactly and insert the reference. "quoted text"  and then flush the reference out in a subsection tited References with a single for all of the references. Terryeo 18:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Justforasecond 02:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Remember that there is a difference between citing something as fact, and citing something as evidence that there is a notable POV that believes something as fact. Thus an anonymous quote which says "the US government planned 911" is not reliable as a source for this as a contention, but it might well be a reliable source to show that some group believes that the US government planned 911. In general, anonymous sources almost by defintion show that a particular assertion is controversial, not part of the established record and subject to opposing points of view. There is also the problem of poor use of anonymous quotes by newspapers, which many papers admit is a problem. In the case of anonymous quotes, many of the "process" steps which many people here seem to place so much faith in (editors, libel law etc) may not even have been invoked - no one other than the reporter might know who the actual source is, and the circumstances under which the information was gathered. For this reason, anonymous quotes are not regarded as reliable in the world of the press, and should not be regarded as sufficient to establish an assertion as being NPOV and credible. Stirling Newberry 04:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Media stations and their reliability
I was shocked when I ran over the article about the current Israel-Hezbollah conflict, that about 90% of all news sources referenced came from media stations originating in the western world (Europe, North America etc.). As I read through other articles I once again noticed how much is based upon such media corporations as Reuters, AP, CBS, CNN, BBC (World). I think, we cannot rely on their coverages. This is due to two facts: 1) big media corporations try to be very fast about delivering information, which makes their information less truth-proven. 2) big media corporations sometimes do have a biased view on a topic, see Iraq war or much more the Kosovo war (which was the first one that showed how much power western media coverage has upon the thinking of people in the western world)

Big media corporations are - as we all know - mostly coming from the western world, thus I do want to push ideas forward to include: 1) alternative media 2) asian/arab/south-american/african media (preferably those that are not financed or overseen by western corporations)

For me articles that are neutral in their information, but heavily based upon western thinking (today mostly dominated by western media) are POV, because they don't give a balance of sources. What do you think? I think Wikipedia is a global effort and stands upon values as international understanding, which should be put into reality much more by the points I gave above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.58.59.225 (talk • contribs)


 * 89, you can (and should) sign your posts by adding four "tildes" ( ~ ) at the end of each post, or by clicking the "signature" button (third from right, looks like a scribble). Thanks, TheronJ 22:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It might be worthy of note that most of the published information extant on the planet comes from sources which are not arabic. Therefore, to fulfill WP:NPOV, widely published, some information is more likely to be present than word of mouth information, or than limited publication newspaper. Terryeo 23:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Terryeo: It's not about quantity, it's about quality. Furtheron if you state that more information comes from western nations, please prove it by statistics. In my understanding, as a rational human being that is able to think on its own, most of the media used for references on Wikipedia articles is flawed, because it serves the poor masses with a lot of stuff they can't prove, good example are CBS, CNN, BBC and all those big corporations that provide error-prone information all the time. The reason why they're effective is not because of their quality standards (as they claim it in commercials) but their quantity and rapid news coverage around the world. In fact I wouldn't be wondered about some research institute finding out that the most reliable media comes from the Arabian world, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.5.199.242 (talk • contribs)


 * If you feel that an article is POV due to a Western media bias... feel free to add information that will balance the article. Remember that the majority of editors are from Western Europe and North America.  They do not have easy access to non-Western media sources. If you do, please contribute. Blueboar 12:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur that the raw news on the Web sites of most television networks is sometimes not very reliable because it is rushed out so fast. AP in particular has a reputation among journalists for mediocre quality; if they have time, newspaper editors will cross-check AP wire stories about important events against other sources before publishing them.  That's why my citations for Wikipedia are always to newspapers, periodicals, or judicial opinions (all of which are subject to a full editorial or editing process), and then I provide a convenience link to the Web page if one is available.  As I've regularly stated on this talk page, with so many reliable published sources available through online databases like ProQuest and LexisNexis, I see no need for Wikipedia to rely on sources of a more fleeting or questionable nature to support articles on the vast majority of topics.  --Coolcaesar 17:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Is NNDB a reliable source?
I just noticed that an editor, who's been doing an admirable job of supplying sources for List of bisexual people, has been referencing quite a few of them to http://www.nndb.com. This is very convenient, because this database seems to include a simple entry on "sexual orientation" for everybody, e.g. Pat Califia: Sexual orientation: Bisexual, but on looking at the site I can find out very little about how they compile their information. They certainly don't cite sources.

On the other hand, they don't seem to be a wiki, a forum, or an Urban Dictionary.

What do people know about the reliability of this site? I see our own article, NNDB, doesn't have much to say. "Readers may suggest additions or corrections which are later vetted by an NNDB staff member" but I couldn't actually find this on the site, and it's certainly not clear what the "vetting" process consists of. Dpbsmith (talk) 09:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Exploring the site leads to nothing. Absolutely no one is attributed.  Even "contact" doesn't lead to an email address.  It is a completely anonymous site, its content is completely unattributable.  It is less than a personal website.  It approaches a newsgroup where every editor doesn't even take a screen name.  As a Wikipedia source, it could at most be an "exterior link" or "further sites of interest". It certainly can not be used as a secondary source of information. Terryeo 22:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That website cannot be considered a reliable source for the purpose of this project. In addition, given that sexual orientation is frequently a contentious issue and particularlly in biographies of living people I would say reject that source. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 00:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed, it's not even a personal website, and certainly not a reliable source. Jayjg (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Is there some kind of template like [Better citation needed]? The List of bisexual people was in terrible shape and this editor has been working very hard at supplying references. They're not all from nndb by any means. I tend to think almost any reference is better than no reference at all, and rather than removing the nndb references or replacing them with the standard "citation needed" tag, I'd prefer to leave them in while indicating clearly that the source doesn't meet our guidelines. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, there's, but it doesn't seem to be quite what you're asking for.  I threw together  ; if you think this would be a good tool to have around, feel free to post it to Template messages/Disputes or wherever such things live.  Anville 17:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Much of NNDB is based on fan-submitted trivia, like much of IMDB. In the absence of other contradictory sources, it is often used as a reference for neutral information such as birthdates simply because it is online. It has unfortunately been the source of edit conflicts over some birthdays, and perhaps something about these sites should be mentioned on the policy page. Gimmetrow 19:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Doesn't meet most of the list of criterion for reliable - it isn't multiply checked, it isn't sources, the means by which the evidence is gathered isn't revealed, there is no effort at corroboration, it isn't reviewed by other news sources. In short, it is rumor and gossip. It might be a source for the existence of a rumor - for example "it is rumored that XYZ had a bisexual affair with ABC", but that is a far cry from asserting "XYZ is bisexual". Stirling Newberry 04:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

New template
Now that Dpbsmith and I have thrown it together, would anyone object to mentioning betterfact in this guideline? It sticks the notation &#91;better citation needed&#93; into an article and should be used in cases like the NNDB concern mentioned above. Anville 16:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Theres an easily followed logic to that.Terryeo 22:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Stated Goal
Is a web site, or publication in general, an acceptable source as to what is it's stated goal ?

I ask this because of the Anarchopedia article, that has been nominated for deletion. So far, the article is a stub, and the only information in there that needs to be verified is it's stated goal.

Though I do not consider that anarchopedia is a reliable source for nearly any matter (or at least not one that complies with Wikipedia's standard) it seams obvious (to me) that there can't be a better source for it's own stated goal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cold Light (talk • contribs)


 * If there is no other reliable source about this subject, then this article may not be suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 18:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * sorry, but did not understand. Do you mean that "as there is no other reliable source about the goals" the article shoud be removed, or "as there are no other reliable source about anarchopedia ...". I mean to improve the article with other information from other sources, but before, i need to know if the sources it has are good enough to verify it's stated goal Cold Light 18:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think Jossi is saying that if the only source of information about the bats in John Smith's belfry is the hand typed flyer on the village lamp post, then an article about the bats in John Smith's belfry isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. Which would imply that Anarchopedia, having no other publication about it could be nominated for deletion.  However, the article is about itself and its link, to itself, and the idea isn't badly presented and I would rather the article stand than be deleted. Terryeo 14:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The question was:"Is a web site, or publication in general, an acceptable source as to what is it's stated goal?" The editor has restricted his question as to whether or not a particular source can be used as a reliable source for its own stated goal. WP:V would apply in this case. The simple answer is Yes.--Fahrenheit451 15:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Americanism
I've found that in many discussions, the unspoken assumption is that an American source is considered inherently more reliable than any other. This is an extension of the heavy pro-US bias present here. To be fair, I think this bias is mostly unintentional. US editors assume the popularity of an opion in America is a good indication of its popularity worldwide, when in many cases Americans tend to hold opinions that are 'fringe' when taken in a worldwide context. Remember that only 5% of human beings are Americans.


 * Many of the 95% come from countries where the media does not use English. Precis 18:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Two comments on this... first, this is the English Language version of Wikipedia, so naturally those contributing to articles speak and write English. Thus, they tend to look for sources written in that language.  Now, while you are probably correct that only 5% of the human race are Americans ... a far larger percentage are english speakers.  First, you should add at least another 5% to account for Canadian, British, and Australian contributers.  Then there those who are multi-lingual (a very large portion of the world) ... English Speakers are probably close to 50% of the human race.
 * Second, you obviously feel that there is US Bias in the sources used in too many articles... That is a fair criticism, but it is also understandable. But there is something you can do about it...  Instead of complaining about it here, you can contribute to the articles and add material that is NOT US biased.  Simple. Blueboar 21:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Published by subject - relevant to notability?
I'd like to take issue with one of the criteria for use of sources written by the article subject. I'm working on Michael Ignatieff, and there's an editor there who has been calling alot of basic facts into question - including the existence of Mr. Ignatieff's spouse, and other basic biographical details. These facts are best available in the biography at Ignatieff's website (he is an elected official), and yet we face the criterion: "relevant to the person's notability, or, if the material is self-published by a group or organisation, relevant to the notability of that group or organisation" These basic biographical details are not controversial, but nor are they inherently relevant to his notability. And yet we cannot reasonably exclude the man's biography from consideration as a source. Might we change the policy wording here? -Joshuapaquin 02:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Clearly his own web site is a reliable source for this sort of information. To pretend otherwise is sophistry. This page is intended as a guideline, not a straitjacket. - Jmabel | Talk 01:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I wholehartedly agree. So what is the value in this statement at all?  -Joshuapaquin 02:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the guy says he six foot tall and prefers peas over string beans, well, big deal. Take his word for it.  On rare occassion there could possibly be some quibble regarding a controversial datum.  "Where was he at 8 PM on Wed, 2001" or something.  In those sorts of situations, then cited sources are important, but for general interest, human interest things, an elected offical's site reflects the degree of responsibility he means to serve his job with.  Certainly, for general interest information the man's website is plenty good enough. Were he a criminal, publishing from a jail cell, perhaps different standards would be applicable.  But a man going for election?  His website is reasonably good information. Terryeo 02:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Trivial attributions should be treated trivially, that is they don't require iron sources. A resume is a sufficient source for "worked at company x", but it's not a sufficient source for "was abducted by aliens and became the Emperor of Xenu".  For that you should cite the Washington Post article. Wjhonson 03:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Long Standing
Long standing doesn't mean correct. I made a valid point for changing that text.  Though it should be noted that people do inflate credentials and lie about such material from time to time. This sentence is formed in such a way to give the impression that everyone inflates credentials all the time. This is not a proper impression to give.--Crossmr 05:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The "Long Standing" argument is moot: the text was introduced 04:22, 15 August 2006 (less than an hour before Crossmr tried to change it).
 * I'd propose something like: "not contentious, such as basic biographical information, or that a person holds a certain opinion. Note that people may exaggerate or be too modest about their own involvement in certain facts or opinions." --Francis Schonken 07:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd noted the short standing and reverted to Crossmr's version before I saw this talk page thread, sorry. Both Crossmr's wording and Francis's suggestion are a lot better than casting aspersions about lying. -- JimR 11:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Crossmr's version implies even more lying than my version. Stirling Newberry 11:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * All I said was that information of a self-published nature should be looked at critically, as in you should evaluate it before blindly accepting it. The previous implied everyone who self-published something was a liar.--Crossmr 15:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I like the tone of Francis' statement, but think it needs to be worded more simply. But I confess I'm not sure how to do that. Terryeo 23:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

AHBL.ORG
Is AHBL considered a reliable source? --HResearcher 15:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It is a bit difficult to answer that without knowing the context of how you wish to use it... In general terms, just looking at the site, I would say it is reliable ... at least as a primary source on the organization itself and what it claims. It really does depends on what you are trying to say in the article.  To be on the safe side, I would make sure to attribute statements in the article text (by saying "According to the web site AHBL.org...") as well as simply adding a citation... ie, make it clear who is making any claims you wish to include. Blueboar 15:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The website is a business' website. The business maintains 2 offices, tells of its affiliations, how long it has been in business, etc.  I would say, therefore, the quality of the website included the elements of attribution, legal responsibility and so on that would allow it to be used as a secondary source of information in an article. Terryeo 03:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It is being used as a source for negative material on a biography of a living person: Barbara Schwarz. --HResearcher 08:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Does repitition make something reliable?
Here is an interesting situation. An editor wishes to include a convinience link to a controvercial document. He has difficulty finding a reliable source that hosts the document (We know that you can not include a convenience link pointing to an unreliable web site). But what if there are multiple unreliable sites that host the same document... can they be cited together? In other words, while each site is unreliable if taken alone, do they become reliable if cited as a group? My inclination is no... since they all could be copying from the same original unreliable source. Comments? Blueboar 14:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * My stance would be NO. I have spent a little time searching through unusual phrases of such a documentation.  I found about half a dozen personal websites with the same rendition of a piece of information.  In some, attribution was given to the source.  In others, attribution was not given to the source.  My guess is that such people communicate on google groups or newsgroups and find themselves thinking the same thoughts.  Then several personal websites suddenly use exactly the same piece of information to reproduce the information.  And too, it is not uncommon to see a document transmitted via a google group which is encoded and of a length which would at least lead to the suspicion that people are using a single source and popularizing a single document.

reliable?
would this be considered a reliable source? http://berkeleyinthe70s.homestead.com/

it was written by someone that "was there" and is probably the most detailed source on berkeley, california 1970's politics available.

Justforasecond 15:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It is an interesting read. It is published and verifiable (my opinion).  However it would appear to be a personal webpage.  The bottom of the page says, Questions, Complaints, Corrections, Suggestions, or Comments?  E-mail me at: davidmundstock@msn.com. An article about "davidmundstock@msn.com" could use that information but an article about Berkley could not.  Because "personal websites can not be used as secondary sources".  (my opinion). Terryeo 16:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The author is a relatively well known local character in Berkeley. It could certainly be cited as "according to David Mundstock". It has been linked to by The Berkeley Historical Society and other work by the same author has been linked to bey commercial sites as About.com. There are personal web sites and personal web sites. Check who has linked to a web site to determine the level of credibility. Sites without links from reliable sources, are probably not reliable enough to be used. Sites with lots of reliable citations, probably have met the test of reliabilty, because they are treated as reliable. Note that use by wikipedia and its mirrors wouldn't count, but use by publications certainly would. Stirling Newberry 04:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "Note: Web links are a subjective assessment of merit or interest. Inclusion does not imply endorsement by the Berkeley Historical Society. Links are updated or added frequently. Send comments, corrections, or suggestions for additional links to Web editor Nelly Coplan." That would imply that they might not look at each link they add that thoroughly. On the other hand, it might just be a disclaimer to cover them if they make a mistake. Being linked to from a few other reliable/respected websites would help. Saying "according to David Mundstock" would help, but there is still the concern of whether or not he is in fact David Mundstock. But hopefully, if the real David Mundstock was an expert on Berkeley, but was not the creator of the website, he would notice and tell the Berkeley Historical Society. (Pseudonyms are okay - stealing someone else's name isn't.) WP:RS discusses this. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 12:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Reliable or not?
I am not sure if anyone here is familiar with this topic, but I thought it worth asking... would anyone consider anti-masonic author Stephen Knight to be a reliable source for statements about Freemasonry? His ideas on the subject are speculative at best, but they are published, and did make quite a stir when they first came out. Blueboar 19:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In this case, attribution is needed, as in "According to Stephen Knight, this and that", but it would not be acceptable if the edit attempts to make an assertion of fact about the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 19:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Since he has published books, his words fulfill WP:V and therefore yes. However, NPOV would require a single author's publication to be presented as much less than the broad, generally held point of view in regards to the subject. Terryeo 03:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually it was WP:V that caused me to ask about this... specificly:
 * Sources of dubious reliability
 * In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight.


 * Sometimes a statement can only be found in a publication of dubious reliability, such as a tabloid newspaper. If the statement is relatively unimportant, remove it. If it is important enough to keep, attribute it to the source in question. For example: "According to the British tabloid newspaper The Sun..."


 * As a rule of thumb, sources of dubious reliability should only be used in articles about themselves.
 * Knight's reliability is definitely dubious (he makes all sorts of bizzar and erroneous allegations without listing any sources of his own or backup to say how he arrived at his conclusions... ie poor fact-checking). I tend to agree with Jossi's interpretation here. Blueboar 13:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Patent literature as a reliable source
Obtaining a patent requires a long and expensive examination process. Further, there is no point in patenting anything that doesn't work and there are all sort of legal penalties enforcing veracity in patent applications. All these make the published patent literature a pretty reliable source. Certainly at least as reliable as the published scientific literature. Also, many commmercially viable developments appear in the patent literature long befor the scinetific or popular literature. I suggest patents be incorporated formally as "Reliable sources". Pproctor 06:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay with me, but I can come to you in order to translate them? heh. Terryeo 23:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Even though some junk slips through the examination process, the process is certainly as rigorous, or more so, that many publications that would be considered reliable for Wikipedia purposes. However, I'd much rather rely on an article in Science than a patent. --Gerry Ashton 00:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I am OK with this as long as the texts (and possibly images) of such patents are verifiable, as in the United States Patent and Trademark Office at http://www.uspto.gov/ ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 00:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur. Patents are essentially privately composed documents that undergo a huge amount of scrutiny and editing (similar to peer review) before they are approved by a government official and published.  Although some junk does get through, most patents are reliable.  --Coolcaesar 06:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, someone from a pretty large international electronics company (no names here) admitted to me that with his semiconductor technology, it's pretty easy to get a patent because it's sufficient to show they might work, not that they actually do work reliably in application. Basically, if it looks like it works a couple of times, you can patent it. There's scores of patents that rot in drawers because while they establish proof of principle, they don't really show that it would make sense to use the patented technology. So no, I would definitely not say that patents are as reliable as scientific literature. As reliable as SOME scientific literature, sure. But I recommended rejection of a manuscript submitted to a scientific journal myself because the method didn't live up to the promises of the author with positive results not crossing the threshold he established himself and significant controls missing. With parts of the results, he might have submitted a patent application, but for a scientific publication, I didn't find the method to be publishable in this shape -and the second reviewer agreed with me and the manuscript was consequentially rejected. --OliverH 11:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Patents are reviewed mostly for originality. Inventions certainly don't have to work to be patented.  A patent is not a reliable source for anything other than documenting what the inventor claimed and when. --Ronz 00:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know exactly what the patent examiners look for when granting a patent, but I have personal experience with several patents that were applied for on the basis of computer simulations with software similar to SPICE, without having been built at the time of the application. I don't recall whether they had been built by the time the patent was approved, but there was no process for notifying the patent office that they had been built. As for OliverH's comparison of scientific literature with patents, remember there are sources that are less reliable than scientific literature and yet acceptable for Wikipedia. --Gerry Ashton 01:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

RFC
I am having a debate at Catholicism and Freemasonry. It relates to the section entitled "Non-Catholic discouragement of Freemasonry" that says: This is followed by a long bullet point list of various denominations. This in itself is not the problem... the problem is in the verification. In quite a few cases, the citations are to articles and websites that have no connection to the denomination they are being used to support. For example, the Church of England is listed, but the citation is to the website of an Australian evangelical Church that quotes a statement from the C of E out of context. The debate is this: Can an article or website tied to Church X be used as verification to say that Church Y says something about Freemasonry. My contention is that in this case you should either find a statement directly from Church Y, or you need to attribute the statement to Church X. The other editor says the citations are OK. Comments? Please pop over to the article, take a look at the section, take a look at the sources and comment. Blueboar 18:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * A number of Protestant and Eastern Orthodox denominations discourage their congregants from joining Masonic lodges, although this differs in intensity according to the denomination. Churches that, in some form or other, discourage membership of Freemasons include:
 * I agree with your contention: either find a statement directly from Church Y, or you need to attribute the statement to Church X. - Jmabel | Talk 19:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Or if you can't quote official church policy, at least find a reasonably distanced and neutral statement about that church, not one from another denomination or religion, or other source that has a fair likelihood of being biased against denomination X. --Svartalf 20:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

H2G2?
Does H2G2's Edited Guide count as a wiki for the purposes of Reliable sources? Could use some clarification on that. Captainktainer * Talk 00:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Self-published sources as secondary sources
This section of the project page actually means what it says? I'm running into people saying, "its only a guideline" and citing personal websites as secondary sources, anyway. I hope it also means all the information on the site, such as "reposited" newspaper articles, hand typed replications of court documents, etc. Terryeo 07:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * My take on it is that it is only a guideline... but it is also a guideline that is a central component of a Rule (WP:V). This means that WP:RS may be ignored if all editors working on an article feel that ignoring it is in the best interest of the article... but it should not be ingnored if the editors do not agree.  As for information on a Self-published source... This actually gets back to the "Convinience Link" issue.  If feel that if the host site is unreliable, then the information hosted on it is unreliable as well.   I would never trust a hand typed replica of a court document, etc.  In our modern electronic society, one can obtain a verified PDF version from most courts' websites.  Blueboar 13:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Terryeo has an interesting problem, which probably should be addressed, either here or (eventually) by ArbCom. Roughly summarized, the Scientology/Dianetics articles are unusually likely to use documents posted on blogs and websites as sources.  The Scientology editors often call these links "convenience links," but I don't think there's a formal section of any policy or guideline dealing with them.


 * The documents are generally either scans or purported "transcriptions" of one of several varieties of documents:
 * Purported Church of Scientology internal documents. (My initial instinct is that these docs don't meet either WP:RS or WP:V - the COS won't confirm that they're authentic, so all we know is that a self published website alleges them to be actual COS documents)
 * Court documents, principally posted by aggrieved ex-COS members from their personal lawsuits with the COS. (My instinct is that these documents are probably ok, if the original court documents would be verifiable, even with difficulty.  However, if the Court files are sealed, I would say no, as in Case 1 above)
 * Newspaper articles.  (If properly cited, I would say these are ok, at least until some tries to verify them and fails).


 * Terryeo, if I could make some suggestions:
 * Is it possible for you to catalogue several examples of the sources you have problems with on one of your subpages?
 * After that, I would recommend the course you're taking now - get input on the policy pages and through dispute resolution.
 * Thanks, TheronJ 14:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * User:Terryeo/Scientology_article_corrections Terryeo 21:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Re. "Terryeo has an interesting problem ... (eventually) by ArbCom": One of the possibilities would be asking to re-open Requests for arbitration/Terryeo:
 * That ArbCom case considered evidence regarding the removal of references to personal websites. That evidence contained statements like "Terryeo appears to be arguing that anything hosted on a "personal website" should not be cited (...)", see Requests for arbitration/Terryeo/Evidence;
 * That evidence was retained in the "Findings of fact": Requests for arbitration/Terryeo;
 * But the arbitrators did not take a specific decision regarding which level of reliability of a source would be sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Francis Schonken 15:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for quite a good understanding and statement of the situation, it must have taken some time to figure out. Here is my subpage link in response. User:Terryeo/Scientology article corrections Terryeo 18:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Scientology is not the only article where this issue pops up. It arises (in different forms perhaps) on a number of articles that deal with controvercial topics.  Editors with a particular POV want to "prove" that POV, and will go skipping through the internet looking for "evidence" without really annalyzing the reliability of the sources that provide the "evidence".  I think we need to work up a section of the guideline that specificly discusses what is an acceptable "Convenience Link" and what is not.  I would suggest something along the line of what I said above... "If the host site is deemed unreliable, then the information hosted on it should be deemed unreliable as well. One must link to a reliable source even as a convenience." Blueboar 15:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If Terryeo's concern about "personal websites" as sources is going to be arbitrated, I think we must acknowledge that the situation with regard to reliable sources of information about Scientology is highly unusual, if not unique. (This should give pause about using this example to set global policy--"tough cases make bad law," as the saying goes.) The issue with the Scientology articles isn't a simple matter of biased editors resorting to low-quality internet sources that confirm their bias. The Scientology organization's secrecy, their reputation for litigiousness and legal threats directed at church critics (including journalists and their publishers), and their well-documented record of harassment of their perceived "enemies" has a chilling effect on the publication of scholarly research about Scientology (see, for example, one scholar's thoughts on the reasons Scientology has been the subject of so little academic study).  This may help to account for the fact that a disproportionate amount of the available documentary material about Scientology (much of which contradicts the Church of Scientology's official versions of their history) is archived and published on privately held websites.  BTfromLA 01:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * A word of caution is needed here - the situation isn't quite as simple as Terryeo claims. There certainly are some sourcing problems with Scientology articles, and some of those articles are quite badly written. However, the solution to this is to get more editors involved, not to pick fights with a small number people with whom Terryeo already has a number of disputes. The Scientology articles are part of WikiProject Scientology, of which many experienced editors are members. Terryeo hasn't made any use of this to raise awareness of issues that need to be resolved, nor has he tried to make use of dispute resolution processes such as RfCs on articles. I suggest that he should try to get more editors (and especially more outside editors) involved using existing article improvement mechanisms, rather than trying to rewrite WP:RS. -- ChrisO 19:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Some of those sources, point to ChrisO personal essays. For example, User:ChrisO posts to newsgroups, his words are archived and then editors cite his words and reference to the newgroup archive.  Sure anyone can see the simplicity of removing Google groups references when used as secondary sources in articles?  For example, last week, User:ChrisO removed such a cite.  This week we have, quoting User:ChrisO's posting on Scientology's Secret War Against Psychiatry at  which appears as reference number [80] in the list of Scientology references.  Certainly that is simple enough, is it not?  And then there is the next layer, the layer just above google groups references.  The layer of personal websites, stating personal opinion and being referenced.  My subpage, User:Terryeo/Scientology_article_corrections lists those 11 direct violations of WP:RS.  Certainly the complexity of these kinds of references are not beyond the ken of the common editor ! Terryeo 21:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You see, this is exactly the kind of lie-by-implication that makes you such a frustrating editor to deal with. For the record, I don't believe my own essays should be cited in Wikipedia articles. But you're implying here that I've been adding such citations to articles, which is plainly not the case. Where such citations have been included, that's the work of other editors, not myself. Is that completely clear? -- ChrisO 00:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * When you say "this week", Terryeo, are you by any chance talking about the edit you recently waved around claiming that it was your big smoking gun which showed how right you are to be continually accusing other editors of breaches of policy? You know, that edit from over a year ago?  I'm just curious because I can't think why you would be describing that edit as happening "this week" but then again, there are a lot of edits you make where I can't imagine how you get the idea to describe them as you do. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

To be perfectly clear, and because User:ChrisO suggests additional editors, the issue I am raising is not ecclesiastical, but are issues addressed and defined by WP:V and WP:RS. Issues about the quality of sourced information, issues of how secondary sources may be cited, issues about personal POV creeping into the articles via newsgroups, blogs and personal webpages. These are simple issues which any editor can confront. One looks at a cited sources and determines its quality. This is not about the validity of information coming from a source, but about the quality of the source of information used. Terryeo 22:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually it's about both (and please don't use Scientology jargon like "confront"; we're not Scientologists and it'll only cause confusion). WP:NPOV's undue weight clause applies as well as WP:V and WP:RS. It's also worth noting that these policies apply to both sides, which I'm not sure you've fully understood. One of the things that led to an RFAr being brought against you was the way that you regularly deleted sourced material that contradicted the Scientology line and replaced it with unsourced Scientology-friendly blurb. When you make contributions to talk pages you routinely make unsourced claims (e.g. ), which doesn't help anybody. Since the arbitration case, instead of suggesting new content for articles, all you've been doing for the last few months is sitting on talk pages sniping at other users and using policy pages as part of your campaign. I think you're getting very, very close to violating the terms of your probation. -- ChrisO 00:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The issue is not ecclesiastical, the issue has never been ecclesiastical, the issue couldn't possibly become ecclesiastical because the issue revolves around removing poor references from otherwise fine articles. Specifically, the removal of personal webiste opinion, per WP:RS, the removal of newsgroup archives quoted as secondary sources, the removal of hand typed "duplications" of offical court documents which present no attribution for their duplication, and the like.  If we are to have good articles, the over-cited, (80 + references) of Scientology (3 of which are in a foreign language), must be improved.  This is not special knowledge, this is not an ecclesiastical issue. Terryeo 00:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

May I ask that we not turn this into the talk page for the Scientology articles... if you two wish to argue, take it elsewhere. Here is my take on the situation ... I took a look at some of the Scientology articles, and Terryeo has a point... there are unreliable sources being used. Quite a few of them. I would also agree with ChrisO that this does apply to both sides of your POV squabble. I don't have any authority to inforce anything, I would be willing to go through the articles with both sides, and point to those citations that I think run afoul of WP:RS. This way you have a completely neutral view of what should be removed (or re-referenced) and what can stay. Blueboar 00:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please do, editors don't always listen to me when I point out the most obvious situation where personal opinion, even google groups are quoted from and cited as references. Here's a dozen or so which I spell out in the Scientology Terryeo 00:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that unreliable sources are being used, but I'll also point out (despite Terryeo's baseless innuendo) that I don't link to my own writings and I do insist on reliable sources being used. The real issue here is that a small number of other editors are in conflict with Terryeo for POV reasons and that he in turn is seeking to use these policy pages to get ammunition for his side of the argument. It's very noticable that he isn't bothering to use dispute resolution processes, contacting other participants in WikiProject Scientology or inviting outside editors to contribute. This policy page and others have become proxies for his attempt to widen the editing disputes in which he's been involved for the last eight months. This debate needs to move off this policy discussion page and onto Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scientology, where it should have been in the first place. If you want to get involved, please do - it would be a relief to have a sane neutral participant! -- ChrisO 01:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I won't guarentee sane ... but I will guarentee neutral :>)
 * OK, I will see if I can help. See you on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scientology Blueboar 01:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Threshold for "Personal website"
At what point does a website change from being a personal website to an organizational website? In this case I am talking about "Personal Ministry" and "Church" websites. Does the website of a "church" consisting of five people and a minister count as a "Personal" site (which would not be reliable under WP:RS), or is it an "Organizational" site (which is somewhat reliable, at least as to statements of the Church's own beliefs)? And where do you draw the line between these two categories? How big does a Church have to be to have its website be "organizational"? This is the site that raises the question... It looks to be a small evangelical church, but we are not sure how big it is and thus how WP:RS relates to citing something said on the website. Blueboar 18:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it would be hard to set a number, you would always have arguement and exceptions. I'm not sure there is an easy answer for this one. --Crossmr 18:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that in situations where the size or importance of the organization is not clear from its own site, the safer route would be to exclude the organization from Wikipedia until other verifiable sources become available. For example, if a charismatic minister fresh out of theology school founded his own church, which then became a megachurch within five years, and started getting extensive press coverage, then we could cite the press coverage to show that the new church is important and notable.  But we need to avoid relying solely on the Web sites of very small organizations as the primary source about them, or else Wikipedia will become Cultipedia!  --Coolcaesar 19:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Which makes sense, but we also have to avoid assuming bad faith about people and setting up a standard that implies that everyone is lying about themselves and no one is to be trusted. Unless an organization or individual has a history of misleading people or making false statements, we probably shouldn't just assume the information they provide is unreliable.--Crossmr 19:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Often mentioned here on the discussion page, but never spelled out explicity on the article page are the elements which would graduate a website from "unreliable" to "reliable". Since all websites may be considered published (I think) and verifiable (I think) then the last remaining element would be "Reliable" (I think).  If the Guideline could present the elements which together compose reliable, it could be useful.  "Legal responsibility" would be one.  "Fact checking by experts" might be another.  "A motiviation toward being reliable" (such as Ford Motor Company serving their stockholders) yet another. Terryeo 20:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact checking by experts sounds good, but what procedures are used for fact checking and do these procedures ensure that the purported facts are true? What criteria would establish expertise? What criteria would comprise legal responsibility? A motivation toward being reliable is very dicey:  Corporations have been known to mislead stockholders, so Terryeo's example is shaky.--Fahrenheit451 23:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If my statement communicates something to you, then by all means come up with an example which is never "shaky". I will continue to maintain that corporations, generally, mean to inform their stockholders rather than to mislead their stockholders.  When they mislead their stockholders they become subject to applicable laws which punish the people involved in the crime.  That action is unlawful.  Rather than to suspect every corperation of unlawful conduct and thus eliminate altogether every corperation from being used as a source of information because they are "shaky" because in the past a handful have been proven to have broken the law and misled their stockholders, I am suggesting normal, good faith.  Thus, I suggest that Ford Motor Company has a motivation to serve their stockholders, presenting good information on their site.  Terryeo 11:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal websites are published, personal websites are verifiable. But, the information on personal websites might change at the whim of the owner. Still, if a personal website is attributable, it would make a difference. Without the quality of attribution, on a personal website, I would argue that a piece of information can not be considered reliable. If we can hammer the qualities that together create "reliable", perhaps we can make a more substantial guideline. Terryeo 16:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Is TheocracyWatch a reliable source?
(The following was deleted... I don't know why, but it is usually considered bad form to delete from talk pages so I have put it back Blueboar 22:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC) )

Would TheocracyWatch be considered a reliable source for use as an objective descriptor about it's opponents under Wikipedia rules? I would like to know if it would be appropriate to treat its opinions as facts even when there is an intro such as "According to TheocracyWatch, John Smith is linked to movement x." However, on its webpage no concrete links are established about John Smith except for his friends are members of movement x. Such a link in my opinion would be guilt by association Here's my example in a discussion that I've been having. [5]

The author calls Paul Weyricha Dominionist, but never provides evidence to back up that assertion. TheocracyWatch never really defines what a Dominionist is in the article, although it usually refers to a fringe group of Christian Reconstructionists. Unlike User:CBerlet who eloquently points out there are different factions of the Christian Right.

The problem is this Mr. Weyrich is a Melkite Catholic who believes in Eastern Orthodox theology, and Ms. Yurica never shows where Mr. Weyrich has espoused Reconstructionist thought in the article. Saying he's a Dominionist is a bit like saying someone is a Communist without concrete evidence the person is such. Nor does she, unlike Chip Berlet, distinguish betweent he various factions of the Christian Right. --146.145.70.200 21:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, PravKnight, why not edit under your nick? Could it be because of the RfC?  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  09:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources"


 * Normally, I am skeptical about any site that calls itself "___ watch" as they tend to be extremely unreliable and are often operated by one or two people with a POV agenda. I am not so sure in this case, however.  The site says:


 * TheocracyWatch is a project of the Center for Religion, Ethics and Social Policy (CRESP) at Cornell University.
 * which gives it some degree of credibility. It lists those who participate on the site (most "Watch" sites are run anonomously).  You can read more about it here.  Looking at the site, I would say they are baised, and so should be treated with skepticism... but that does not mean the site is automatically an unreliable source.  Any statement from it should certainly be attributed, and I would probably want independant confirmation of anything the site claimed.  My take... it should be treated as a primary source to back the fact that TheocracyWatch makes a claim, but not as a secondary source to "prove" a claim that they make. Blueboar 22:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not even academic in tone, and I'm shocked that Cornell gives this lady money. In my opinion it's just like a university signing up with PETA or the John Birch Society on the other extreme.

What about the fact a known preponderance of Ivy League faculty are left-leaning? --146.145.70.200 00:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, what about it? It's natural that the educated will tend to be progressive, given that greater enlightenment tends to banish the fear that breeds conservativism. Grace Note 03:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * None of which has any relevance on whether the site is reliable as a source or not. Remember, Wikipedia tries to be NPOV... even extreme views are presented if they are notable and come from reliable sources.  Without looking at them, I would guess that the official websites of PETA or the John Birch Society are both biased, but reliable sources as well.  As with TheologyWatch, I would call them both reliable PRIMARY sources (ie you can use them for attributed statements of their oppinion on things, but not for statements of unattributed fact). Blueboar 12:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It is obviously a special interest site with a specific point of view which it hopes to disseminate widely. It has attribution, people's names and a brief history are spelled out, email contact is possible.  The individuals (including a lawyer) listed have some credibility, they are known-about people, from all apperearences.  Their reputations in day-to-day life include their allience with the website's organization.  Myself, I don't see any reason the site could not be considered reliable with the single exception that it is a vanity or special interest site. Terryeo 16:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Review request
On United Kingdom Special Forces I requested a citation for the structure of the Special Air Service Regiment, ie one regular regiment and two territorial regiments. This has been presented as a reference, although it doesnt actually satisfy the citation request it does state the two TA regiments, elsewhere on the site it highlights the regular regiment so overall the site answers the question although the reader has to do some work. That's about the only accurate bit on the page and whilst I realise that WP requires verifiability, not accuracy, I'm loathe to accept it. It strikes me that there is no independent refereeing of the content, particularly that which is inherently unverifiable in any case, being Special Forces related. TIA.ALR 07:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know if SOC.com can be called reliable... I can find no indication of who runs the site, so it probably sould be considered a "personal website". Do we know if it is run by an expert in the field, or just by some fan of weapons and special ops? If the site gets a significant portion of other facts wrong, I would say you should err on the side of it being unreliable.  If it is simply a matter of difference of oppinion in interpreting accepted facts, then you might allow it, but with attribution. Blueboar 13:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * To me it looks like a partisan website. So you could cite it for a) information about itself (if you were writing about SpecialOperations.com) or b) the opinions on the website (stated with attribution as opinions, not facts). If there was something significant on there, you could state it with attribution, but if it's really worth writing about, a more reliable source will probably have done so. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 17:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The website offers up 2 email addresses, one to webmaster of that site and another to an individual. You might email both and ask them about their source of information, that might lead you to the citation you seek. Terryeo 23:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That would help - of course there's the question of writing the email in the way least likely to offend them. ("Wikipedia doesn't consider your site a reliable source, could you tell us where you got X information?" isn't very nice. "I'm a researcher, and I was interested in X that you mentioned on your website, and I was wondering if you could tell me where you got that information so I could learn more," sounds better.) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 00:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

On Primary sources...
(NB:This gets quite long, but for the clarity of future readers, please make any comments at the end) Over on WP:NOR, there has been a quite heated debate over the use of primary sources. In attempt to be definative about the matter, I wrote quite a long post on the matter. What follows are my thoughts on the use of primary sources, and an attempt to define how a primary source can and cannot be used:

There is often some confusion over what the primary source for a subject is. For example, when referencing a song, I have seen people attempting to use YouTube as a reference. However this is not the correct reference - the recording of the song itself that is depicted in the sample is the reference. If a politician makes a speach, it is the speach that is the reference, not the politician (although the speach is a work by the politician). The original painting is the reference for the painting, not a photograph of it. However the photograph of the painting is a reference for the photographic work of the photographer.

This confusion continues into the realm of secondary sources. here, however, it gets more difficult as we have to consider the purpose that a reference is being used for. For example, let us return to that photograph of a painting. it certainly does class as a secondary source for the existance of the painting - for the photographer has documented it. However it may not be used as a secondary source for the evaluation of the painting, as the photograph makes no attempt to do this. It is interesting to note that when an expert evaluates something, they become a secondary source on something, but also a primary source for their evaluation.

Finally, come come onto the crux of the matter. In my opinion, based on WP:VERIFY, WP:RS and WP:NOT (the intent of, rather):
 * Primary sources may be used for referencing:
 * That a statement was made or something does exist within the reference. For example, that...
 * ...a book contains a character
 * ...a recipe contains an ingredient
 * ...within a speech, a politican said the quote "Education, Education, Education"
 * That something exists within a work that can be determined by observation not analysis and is entirely non-contentious. This must be something that can be determined through casual observation. For example, that...
 * ...A painting contains the colour blue (this is not definate existance, as colour is to an exent subjective)
 * ...A note was hit within a song (this requires identification of the note, but in clear cases there is no debate over this)
 * ...A person within a photograph has red hair
 * ...Within a song, the chorus is sung significantly louder than the verses
 * ...A politican said "Education" many times within a speech
 * ...A politican said "Education" more than "Healthcare", when it is casually observable that only a single refernce to "healthcare" was made in a speach about school reforms.
 * With respect to statements by people, that they hold an opinion
 * Primary sources may not be used for referencing:
 * That something exists within a work that can be determined by observation not analysis, but there is any reasonable doubt over the observation. For example, that...
 * ...A note was hit within a song, but it is unclear which of two notes it is
 * ...A person in a photograph has black hair, but they could just as easily have dark brown or purple hair
 * ...A shape within an abstract painting represents a house (by definition in this case, the shape is abstract)
 * ...A person within a video is running slowly rather than jogging
 * That a non-trival count of something exists within a reference. By non-trivial, I refer to both the ease of counting and the number to count. For example...
 * ...A politican said "Education" exactly 12 times within a speech. Given that a speach normally features more than just a single word, it is hard to casually count the use of a specific word (due to the separation between instances), making this non-trivial.
 * ...Noting that a painting has 11 hot-air ballons depicted is reasonable, however if the number was significantly higher it would not be (as counting would then become non-trivial)
 * That any element within a work is, on a non-trivial level, bigger, quieter, higher, than any other element within the work. Such a non-trvial statement implies a prolonged analysis quite different from allowable casual observation. For example, that...
 * ...The highest note reached within a recording of a song was E6. This implies a comparison between all the notes within a song, which is clearly a major undertaking
 * ...Within a painting, the hot-air ballon 5cm from the left hand edge and 37cm down from the top is the smallest. If a short description cannot be used to locate something, there is a strong possibility that it was a non-trivial venture to find it and it is not casually observable
 * ...A speaker said "Education" more than "Healthcare" witin a speech about education and healthcare reforms (hence featuring both words regularly)
 * That a narative is predominantly of a certain type. For example, that...
 * ...A character in a book is 'surly' or 'brash', but no third-person description of the character exists describing them as this.

At this point, I ran out of steam, and hence decided to stop. The key idea with the above is to allow trivial observation of primary sources to be used as a reference. Whilst this is not ideal, it is often the case that trivial details, such as the a note reached by a singer or the colour of someone's hair, are not actually explicitly detailed by a secondary source, as they consider these things to be implicit within the primary source. LinaMishima 19:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Lina take a breath ;). In general I agree with you on the notions of "observation not analysis" and on the notions of "trivial / non-trivial".  However I vehemently object (after coffee) with your statement that a direct observation must be "non-contentious".  If a primary source says "Bush is a wimp" then we can certainly quote that source wherever appropriate, for example on Bush's own page, the author's page, the source's page, a page about what this source thought of various presidents, etc.  To attempt to restrict primary source quotations to only what is non-contentious, is to neuter them.  I'm sure you didn't mean to do that. Wjhonson 19:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think Lisa's guidelines forbid that. If you could find the primary source, you could say "Bob Dole once remarked that 'Phil Graham is like a cockroach.  You can step on him and step on him, but you just can't squish him'", but you couldn't say "Phil Graham is like a cockroach ." TheronJ 19:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * By non-contentious, I did not mean the material being observed but rather the observation itself. No-one can argue that if a politian insults someone on the record, that they have insulted someone. However where an observation can be reasonably questioned, such as if the speech was mumbled, this cannot be used as a reference. Finding a sensible wording for this is hard. LinaMishima 01:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course, what constitutes trivial analysis depends on the form of the primary source. If it is on-line text, it is trivial to count how many times a word or phrase occurs. --Gerry Ashton 21:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Automated processing would create a new secondary reference, which should instead be used. Trivial should really mean what can be casually done by a human with little thought. But yes, a good point non-the-less. LinaMishima 01:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Lina it's a slippery slope to say that if someone "reasonably questions" a primary source on an issue that they view as "contentious" that that is enough to disqualify it from being used here. I think that the standard to use here is more regarding the *who* who is speaking, rather than the *what* they say. Wjhonson 02:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Also I agree that what they said is what they said, but I truly think Lina was trying to get at the issue of preventing contentious things from being said. It is the content of the quote that is contentious.  Wikeditors are always prevented from expressing their own point-of-view so that is a non-starter.  So without that, there is no reason to limit contentious quotes. Wjhonson 02:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It appears that people are repeatedly failing to understand my point. Contentious material have never been an issue, and nothing I have written says otherwise. Contention over what is or is not contained within the material is a problem, however. the first is with respect to the material itself, the second is with respect to the observation of the material. Take, for example, the image on the right. It is clearly not Contentious material (unless you have a question over the existance of cats). However in observing the image, I could say that it depicts a cat stretching. Another person may contest this, and suggest the cat is play-fighting. Clearly, the issue of what is depicted is Contentious, whilst the content is not. Does this help you understand? LinaMishima 03:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * But that point isn't relevant. You, the wikeditor cannot state "this is a funny cat" or "this is a pretty cat" or any other evaluation of the cat.  You could state "here is a picture of a cat".  Any opinion, evaluation, etc by a wikeditor is invalid for wikinclusion.  That is why I failed to see your point.  I believe you are suggesting that we can post our own opinions or observations into the articles and that's just not so.  We report what other primary and secondary sources have stated, and we can make simple inferences, but we cannot make judgements of the material in our own words.  We can however summarize judgemental works of others, "He claimed to be a very important person, however John Brown, noted psychologist, stated in his own work that 'this man is loony'".  In this example, I am not added any of my own opinion or evaluation, I am stating what the primary and secondary sources state themselves. Wjhonson 07:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It appeared to me to be the point you were arguing. In most cases, what you say is entirely and utterly correct. However go up and read the examples for can-1 and not-3 again. These examples attempt to deal with the case of trivial knowledge within the source that secondary commentator may often assume as known facts, and hence a secondary reference for these does not exist. An example of this can be easily formed. The following word is blue: Word . As long as I've got the hex code correct, this is obviously the case, and I'm sure all observers would agree this is a fact, not an observation - even though we have had to observe this and determine ourselves if the colour matches the definition of 'blue'. The following word is red: Word . This statement, however, will probably be contested, since magenta, as most people refer to this hue as, is often seen as pink or purple, not red. Obviously, this is a trivial problem when html is involved, as you can get the hex code and answer it that way. But for books, paintings, photographs, etc this is a valid point. Much like hair or eye colour. I am currently involved in a debate over sourcing for a catagory, and although it turns out notes themselves are not an applicable means to test for inclusion, editors have been wanting to reference the note a singer reaches within a recording. However finding a reference for this is next to impossible, as secondary sources consider notes to be an obvious and un-notable aspect on the whole. Due to the human nature of most secondary sources, there will always be things that they choose to not cover as they are firm enough in their conviction that everybody knows it. LinaMishima 13:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I would go ever further however. If a primary work says "George Bush is purple" then all we can quote is "George Bush is purple". If we are summarizing a work, and therefore using some of our own words, we have to be as non-judgemental as possible in how the summary goes. So if a work says "Cats are the spawn of Satan" we can't necessary say the work is "anti-Cat", we can say however that it claims that "Cats are children of Satan" since "spawn" and "children" are reasonable synonyms in this context. But at any rate I was only, ever, referring to QUOTING a primary source exactly with quotation marks. I was never referring to what you are, that is, an evaluation of something contained in a source. So for example you say we can't say that a cat is smaller than a dog unless we quote "a cat is smaller than a dog" (John Brown, "Cats", p 12) which is how I personally would do it. If the source says "the typical cat is 14 inches at the shoulder" then I would quote that exactly without paraphrasing or summarizing or altering. Wjhonson 08:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, if we quote too much, we cross over into the realm of copyright violations. Sourcing is good, but unless its a freely-licensed work compatible with the GFDL, we do need to be vaguely original. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 17:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If we are using a non-fiction work we can quote 500 to 1000 words with no copyright problems. the issue is: do we damage the sale value of the quoted work. That is unlikely (unless--unless it is a brand-new newsworthy story.) Rjensen 17:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * See Fair_use. Also, it's my understanding of fair use that it's generally more fair use if you provide your own commentary (especially for some types of images). Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 17:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Rjensen that exact quotes never violate copyright fair use (up to 500 words say), and I don't see any value in the phrase "more fair". When in doubt, quote exactly. When challenged, quote exactly.  Instead of getting in an edit war about whether cats are smaller than dogs, quote your source, with a citation and be done with it.  The other side can then quote their source with a citation.  If they can't provide a citation then the sourced side has the more useable information. Wjhonson 16:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with a limitted number of quotes, but if we fill an article with quotes because we are afraid to paraphrase or summarize, we could raise questions about copyright. I guess I'm not really sure which Rjensen is suggesting. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 21:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

"streetpress"
Especially with regards to pop culture (certainly, music and bands) is street press acceptable source for citing? Obviously - it would have to be more than a press release from the band in question and it would have to be reasonably independant from the subject of the article (ie, no quoting utter fancruft articles, nor articles written by the sister of the lead singer). Garrie 07:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Examples of "streetpress" and links to them, please ? Terryeo 10:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry I dropped off the conversation there, Real Life. Um, I think I was after a more general answer? I don't think much street press has that great a web presence. But in any rate I don't go where it is distributed very often - I was after some other opinions on where to get band reviews so I could inform people trying to improve article related to bands when they are trying to meet WP:BAND.
 * My question relates to the criterion


 * Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...).
 * I think a local example is called "The Drum Media" . The thing about "street press" is it's free so the copy is all paid for by advertisements ... so I'm not sure how independant they are. But most of the ads in this one at least are for venues, and products, generally not for the bands. But I guess in some cases, industry pays for the reporter to ... travel, stay in hotels, eat, buy tools of the trade.... so they may or may not be independant enough to be a reliable source. Hence, my question.
 * Remember: This is a topic I am disinterested in. I won't be fighting for the cause I just want to know how to advise others.Garrie 00:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Dispute about reference format and verifiablity in other languages
I have a dispute at Lousewies van der Laan with user:Electionworld about proper referencing. See here for the diff. See here User_talk:Electionworld for the discussion What is the best way of referencing? Andries 21:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I would be gladd to hear opinions. Electionworld Talk?  21:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, point one, you should cut the whole section. Who gives a shit that she's a vegetarian or what her husband's called? Does it have any bearing on her politics?

Point two, this level of sourcing is a bit much. You don't do it elsewhere in the article. You could provide sources on talk rather than in the article. But it's not wrong. So you boys can have a damned good fight over this if you're not willing to indulge in a bit of common sense because, as so often on Wikipedia, you are both right. Grace Note 07:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Electionworld Talk?  05:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry for butting in here, but I just came across the same issue: If sources in non-English languages are given, is it official policy that they must include a translation as well?
 * And what happens to verifiability if a source is in some fairly rare language that you can't even send through a machine translation? --Frescard 04:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)