Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 9

Wikiislam part II

 * OK... that is indeed a different issue. Here is the argument for and against as I see them...
 * For: As said, the links in the "External Links" section are not being used as sources but simply as "further information". So WP:RS may not fully apply.  I see this as being somewhat analoguous to how, while we do not allow wikipedia to be used as source for citations in articles, we do allow a list of "See Also" links to other related wikipedia articles.  An "External Links" section sort of follows the same idea but for non-wikipedia pages.
 * Against: Both WP:RS and WP:V make a point of listing wikis as things that are unreliable and not to be used. Any link is in some way a source, perhaps not for a specific statement, but for information.  If the information is not reliable (and it is clear that the policy is that wikis are not reliable) it should not be included in wikipedia.  Even as a "For further information" link.
 * OK... I have said my peace. Let's let others speak. Blueboar 02:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that if we decide against including external wiki links on External Links, I will ask permission of SysOps (you, if you are one and others as well) to start deleting all external wiki links on WP as this is against Wiki policy and the WP policy will also be changed to clearly state that external wikis are not allowed as links on WikiPedia in any shape, form or way.


 * You have given good reasons for the "For" and they are reasonable.--JohnsAr 02:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You don't need anyones permission to double away smartly and enforce the policy as it is currently interpreted. You quite reasonably point out that there are lots of articles where editors either do not understand the policy, or choose to ignore it for whatever purposes they might have.  There are a relatively small number of people who are prepared to enforce the policies, partly because its a pretty reliable way to end up in conflict with other editors a lot of the time.
 * In any case I would dispute your suggestion that consensus editing implies accuracy. The editing group is self selecting and in general there is no barrier to entry associated with knowledge and understanding of a topic.  Wikipedia itself has a very clear problem related to this, where editorial control is subject to an essentially anarchic system whereby content can be included because its kewl and interesting to individuals, not because it has extensible interest, intrinsic value or accuracy.
 * As to the point about an absolute rule, I'm not a fan of absolutes. Life is more complicated, particularly when you're talking about knowledge management.  Some wikis might have a place, but that is very much the exception and needs considered carefully.  A wiki with a gated entry policy clearly implies a greater degree of accuracy and reliability, but it is still lower than a peer reviewed article in a journal, or a published book.  I'd suggest in any case that a wiki used for concept development is still subject to change as that concept itself develops and should be avoided until such time as the concept is finalised and published.
 * ALR 09:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ALR, I get your point and can agree with you that editing consensues doesnt imply accuracy. However, there is nothing wrong with including a link to a good article on an external wiki in "External Links" - Wikipedia policy does not say this. Like BlueBoar also said, we are all agreeing on not citing from wikis because they change all the time. But having a link on External Links is a separate debateable matter. For example, it makes perfect sense to include an external wiki link on Opee Sea Killer. Such a link is likely to include a lot of information as its a wiki. There is NO ONE here that has been able to give good reasons as to why that external link should not be there in Opee Sea Killer. Why should WikiIslam be an exception? You are right that linking to a wiki should be done when it has been developed more. WikiIslam is being developed and there are some great articles on it right now and they are being refined with time. Its only going to become better.
 * To those who oppose the inclusion of an external wiki link, I ask: How is a static website better than an external wiki link? The latter infact has more refined content and higher quality because of continous editing. I believe its ridiculous for anyone to suggest that external wikis cannot be included in External Links.
 * The fact is simple - Muslims are opposing the inclusion of an external wiki because it has great potential and is against their religious views. I have no doubt that WikiIslam will grow and become famous and editors like me are working hard to do this. Other people will start linking to it themselves and Muslims will not be able to stop it. This is a new site, which is why this has happened. I dont see anyone else opposing external wiki links here. Its not a matter of good faith but the fact is, Muslims have always attempted to censor any powerful criticism of Islam and this is what is what they are trying to do in this case as well. I will take this up with higher authorities later, if not now and will get this policy cleared with them of external wiki links.
 * Also, I have no doubt that links from WikiIslam will eventually find their way in articles on Islam on WP. Muslims have always failed to censor content which is critical of Islam. Freedom of expression eventually and inevitably wins.
 * --JohnsAr 12:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You misinterpret my position, I don't believe that Wikis are in any way reliable without significant quality assurance process which provide gated entry, a barrier to entry based on expertise and competence in the topic, and rather more rigid constraints on information assurance than is available here in Wikipedia. There could be an argument that a sufficiently highly assured wiki could be included, but that should be dealt with on a case by case basis.  My personal view is that the current position on Blogs and Wikis is too weak.
 * I don't believe that any articles with wikis listed should continue to hald that position, but I have other things to do with my time than rake around and start arguments like this every time I do it. I have enough just keeping the cruft out of the article portfolio I do monitor.
 * On the one hand you agree that consensus editing doesn't imply accuracy, you then turn round and say the opposite, the continual editing implies reliability. I have difficulty in reconciling your inconsistency in this.
 * Content Managed websites may or may not be sufficiently reliable to be used as sources, but not always. What CM does is provide the authors of that site a method for assuring the integrity of the content, we need to assess the author to determine it's reliability and accuracy.  Wikis and blogs have none of those controls.
 * I would thank you to avoid political posturing in this debate, I am interested in the informational integrity of the corpus of material which is mitigated through a number of policies and guidelines, this being one of them.
 * ALR 15:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * ALR, whatever it is - if WikiIslam is dismissed from Wikipedia as a link just because its a Wiki: I will make sure that, (1) WikiPedia updates its policy on external wiki links and states clearly and explicitly that external wiki links may not be used in any shape, way or form on WikiPedia. (2) The hundreds of external wiki links present right now on Wikipedia are taken out.
 * If all wikis are unreliable and unreliable sources must not be used on WikiPedia, then all external wiki links should be taken out. The policy is not to apply only on WikiIslam. It is to be applied consistently to all wikis, while following clear guidelines.


 * If an article from WikiIslam is dismissed because it doesnt cite its sources or is not reliable, thats another separate issue. The fact that its a wiki, should then not matter.
 * --JohnsAr 15:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

i assume by JohnsAr's focusing on external linking that he has agreed that wikis may not be used for citation (and so will no longer be supporting edits like these). with regards to external linking, i generally don't agree with using wikis, especially if they are neither notable nor reputed for being a resource in that subject field, and certainly not when it is a vehicle for original research and unencyclopaedic, highly opinionated viewpoints. i don't believe that the majority of wikis would pass WP:EL (that includes John's website wikiislam.org which he edits frequently), the only real exception i can envisage is where the wiki linked to is both notable and reputable as a good resource for information, implements standards similar to Wikipedia, and would be considered acceptable for external linking in a featured article. those kind of wikis are extremely rare, which is why i don't believe the floodgates for generally accepting wiki external links should be opened.  ITAQALLAH  07:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * These websites have no place in wikipedia whatsoever. Their goal is not doing an scholarly work but rather propaganda. --Aminz 09:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Both of you are Muslims and I dont find it surprising that you're opposing the including of WikiIslam. Like I said before, had I included Islampedia, a pro-Islamic wiki, we would have seen no protests of any kind at all. Now if people started included WikiIslam, you people are protesting. Aminz, you are wrong - there are great scholarly works on WikiIslam, for example the article on Aisha (the website is currently out of service but I'm sure you've seen it). Also to be noted was the page on Islam where its correct entymology was explained with different arabic words. This is a new website and its growing. Its potential is vast and you are aware of this.


 * Muslims are opposing the inclusion of WikiIslam only because it is critical of Islam. This is a fact, not a matter of "assuming good faith". There are hundreds of other external wikis linked on WP right now. No one protested against those - why not? Its ridiculous to suggest that an external wiki website cant be linked in "External Links". Thats what that section is for and thats what it is being used for right now all over WikiPedia.
 * --JohnsAr 12:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Johns, leave your accusations of POV bias for another forum (they do your argument no good, and are likely to turn fence sitters like me against your case) ... as far as we are concerned it does not matter if an editor is Muslem, Jewish, Christian, or Church of Bob. What matters here is reliablility of sources. Both Itaqallah and Aminz have been arguing their side of the issue from solid reasoning and their understanding of the guidelines and policy.
 * A question for both sides: WP:EL contains the following line on what not to link - A page that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources.  How does this relate to external wikis in your view (both in general and in the case of wikiIslam specificly)?
 * I know from my own experience here at wikipedia that keeping factually inaccurate material and unverified OR out of our articles is a never ending battle... and if we have trouble dealing with this, I doubt another wiki can do any better. This is another reason why I am leaning towards saying that wikis should never be linked.  Would you comment please (and keep it civil). Blueboar 13:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not on either side, and not a big fan of the WP:EL guideline, but I would interpret "unverified original research" as new ideas that have not been verified by a suitable fact-checking process such as peer review or the processes used by reputable news publications. Ideally a wiki with policies similar to Wikipedia would not contain new ideas, only previously published ideas, but this ideal is not reliably achieved. --Gerry Ashton 13:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi BlueBoar, you are right "what matters here is reliablility of sources" (not the fact that its a wiki). As an example, see the article on Aisha at WikiIslam. It cites authentic hadiths and makes multiple references to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. These are both reliable sources on which the article is based on. The article is as 'reliable' as other articles critical of Islam on a regular website. As for you stressing on the importance of a website citing its source, I agree but I also ask: Do other websites listed as critical of Islam such as Faithfreedom.org and many others, also cite their sources? Are they being subjected to the same scrutiny? They should and they also cite their sources. Only good links should be linked on Wikipedia. The article on Aisha cites its sources - WikiIslam is meant to be a reliable source of knowledge about Islam and it is improving itself daily. All of us editors are constantly trying to improve articles and include references. In the past subjective material has even been deleted on WikiIslam, even though it was critical of Islam. So again, there are many good articles on WikiIslam such as the one on Aisha, which is a masterpiece and even more improvements are planned for this article such as dealing with arguments of different types against the issue.


 * WikiIslam has just started, I mean - people have seen nothing yet. I linked the Aisha article on the Aisha page over here and the link was taken out by others without any reason, when infact the article cites its source very well. WikiIslam also has templates created for citing sources, infact we plan to include extra edit buttons at the top of the edit box just for that purpose. This shows just part of our commitment to creating reliable well-sourced articles on WikiIslam. There is no doubt that as we edit the website with time, it will improve daily just like WikiPedia - such is the advantage of having such a wiki website.
 * I have no problem with anyone taking out an article link because its not well-sourced.


 * --JohnsAr 15:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

i detailed above what i interpret a suitable wikilink to be... although even then the problem of factually dubious information or original research persists. maybe something more akin to Larry Sanger's project (citizendium) would be suitable? you don't find websites based on that kind of model frequently, if at all, so perhaps it's merely an exceptional instance. in general, then, i agree with Blueboar.

how the clause relates to wikiislam? well i detailed at the beginning of the section that it seems to be a project started by users on the 'faithfreedom.org' forum, incidently their base for collaborating on articles on wikiislam.org (also hosted under the domain wiki.faithfreedom.org). i don't believe that the wiki is committed to providing accurate, scholarly and verified material (as would be expect under WP:RS) per having looked at the articles in general (problems related to style, referencing, verification, a lot of material copy-pasted from unreliable websites etc) and at a few FFI posts ('Whale' = User:JohnsAr). these points suggest to me that it is unlikely that one would see material adhering to the general standards outlined in WP:EL (and subsequently WP:RS). a number of wikis, whatever their ideological, political, religious etc. leaning will no doubt be of the same essence as wikiislam, in that it will be a vehicle for opinion without regard for academic standards, and they in the same way as wikiislam are not really suitable for being used as external links in my opinion.  ITAQALLAH  14:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * ItaqAllah,
 * FaithFreedom.org is already linked on many places on WikiPedia. Infact there's a whole article on the author of the website Ali Sina. If you are dismissing WikiIslam just because its a branch of FaithFreedom.org, you must also dismiss FaithFreedom.org. As far as citing sources are concerned, there are a number of good articles on WikiIslam such as the one on Aisha. This article cites its sources well and has no reason not to be included on Aisha's age at marriage.
 * To make your point of excluding WikiIslam, you will have to work hard at disqualifying all present hundreds of external wiki links on WP. You cant just apply the exclusion principle to WikiIslam. Only two things can happen:
 * 1) A good well-sourced article on WikiIslam is accepted as a link (among many other links critical of Islam already present on articles on Islam).
 * OR
 * 2) Wiki Policy is updated to disqualify external wikis as links in any way and hundreds of external wiki links present on WikiPedia are taken out from Wikipedia.
 * I dont see (2) happening, so good luck.
 * --JohnsAr 15:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * take a look at WP:EL and WP:OR. faithfreedom.org becomes a usable primary source on Ali Sina for telling us about itself (i.e. FFI and Mr. Sina). needless to say: wikiislam is a wiki, FFI is not. FFI is notable, wikiislam is not. FFI is not reputed for factual accuracy or verifiability, and neither is wikiislam. FFI is only ever included anywhere to balance out POV weightage in external links (or to attribute a statement to Sina) - something wikiislam is not needed for. that the forum posts convey nothing but a lack of interest for factual accuracy and encyclopedic quality (and this is reflected in your articles), focusing mainly upon rehashing polemic and encouraging members to insert their own original research, shows that wikiislam doesn't really conform to what would be expected of an external link. that FFI itself isn't committed to factual accuracy, verifiability (and is not a reliable source) etc. suggests that its brainchild will be no different. all that merged together with the lack of credibility assigned to wikis in general, and you have a rather hideous picture..   ITAQALLAH   16:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * re the parading of this "Aisha" article: it is a sludge of original research. it illustrates exactly how you're not understanding what scholarly material actually is. you said "you will have to work hard at disqualifying all present hundreds of external wiki links on WP", i think ALR's response to that was astute. i will not be responding to you further to allow others to present their views.  ITAQALLAH   16:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * ItaqAllah, now you're changing arguments. Where is your original argument from which you started this discussion by saying "WP policy in general that wikis are not legitimate sources for citation" ?
 * First we must settle whether its ok to include external wiki links in "External Links" or not. After that we can determine whether its ok to cite a certain WikiIslam article because its not well sourced - which is a completely different argument.


 * Now, is there any reason to disqualify WikiIslam to be linked on WP, just because its a wiki? This has to be settled first.


 * --JohnsAr 16:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Given what I am being told about the site's history and unreliability of information, I think my initial impression was correct ... WikiIslam should NOT be used as a source, and should NOT be listed as an "External Link" either. And yes, Johns, that does mean that 100s of articles here are linking to wikis incorrectly and should be changed. I doubt you will accept my reasoning... but you asked for a neutral opinion and I gave it to you after hearing from both sides. Unless someone else (ie not JohnsAr or Itaqalla) has anything to say, that should close the matter. If you want to keep fighting about it, do so else-where please. In any case For me the discussion is over. Thanks for listening. Blueboar 17:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * (1) NO ONE said a wiki should be used as a cite source so please dont mention that again. The 'External Links' section is a separate issue. (2) If you think the hundreds of links to external wikis should be taken out, then Wiki policy must be changed to completely and explictly ban external wiki links without exception. (3) The article I linked on Aisha from WikiIslam is not unreliable. Did you read the article? It has genuine hadith citations and links to official websites for DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders).
 * Yes, lets wait for others to respond. I will take this matter to higher authorities if one of the 2 conditions I mentioned in bold above to ItaqAllah are not met, which in summary are: If there's a good article on WikiIslam, there's nothing wrong in linking it. Either that, or alter WP policy to fully ban external wikis from WP and start taking out all external wiki links.--JohnsAr 17:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Take it to whoever you want. I'm done. Blueboar 18:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Whilst use of links as externals to amplify or illuminate articles may be subject to a lower level of specificity with regard to their contribution to the article one would infer from their placement that they comply with the same, or very similar, levels of confidence as citations. With that in mind one would not have carte blanche to insert material as an external link because it doesn't have the degree of reliability that a citation is held to, which appears to be what you are arguing for.
 * Given that position, and the current policy, then wikis and blogs are not reliable as either sources or external links. I'm not convinced that the policy and associated guidelines needs to be more specific than that but you are at liberty to suggest that it becomes so, in the appropriate places.  If you manage to achieve that then it becomes incumbent on every editor to uphold the policies and remove non-compliant links, so you'll have to promote that more explicit reference in a number of places on Wikipedia.
 * Have fun.
 * ALR 18:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Its utterly ridiculous to group Wikis and blogs together. A blog is a personal site which is usually for "rants" and subjective opinions of a single user. A wiki is a community-edited and refined website and thus vastly different from a blog.
 * I will plan this now that I have seen this scenario and will see later if I can get external wiki banned from linking in WP - either that or WikiIslam will be back, the latter being more probable, you can count on it. Its impossible to take our external wiki links - no sane unbiased person will agree to it as I see it, hence I told the Muslim ItaqAllah that its not probable that external wiki links will be banned and hence to be sure, WikiIslam will be back. Even now I believe Muslims can have a hard time taking out these links - their argument is weak, because wikis are already being linked and there is NO strict policy against using Wikis in external links. If external wikis will not be banned, WikiIslam can be linked. In the mean time me and other editors will continue the refine the material on WikiIslam and there's no doubt its links will eventually find their way into articles 'protected' by Muslims. Yes, do I see anyone ELSE protesting about including of a wiki website? Right. Dont anyone give me that "Assume Good faith" stuff then. No one in their right unbiased mind would ban external wiki links and I'll see to it that this remains so. POV or whatever, the fact is - these are Muslims and they will do anything to silence a critic of Islam.
 * Even this debate is a small victory for this new site WikiIslam because it has gotten the attention of people and there's bound to more as the site grows. Each of their attempt to silence the critics of Islam results in only the reverse happening.
 * --JohnsAr 18:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * For the purposes of source reliability it is reasonable to group wikis and blogs, in fact wikis are worse from a reliability prespective, a blog might be inaccurate but it is, roughly, static. It becomes even more dififcult to meaningfully change it once a conversation thread is attached, since these threads are contextualised by the blog entry itself.  A wiki is subject to constant fluidity of its content, and to appreciate that requires one to actually investigate it's life, rather than just accept whats on the page at a point in time.
 * As with the others, I'm only really interested in this from the source reliability perspective, knowledge management is my line of work so you're getting my advice at a significant discount here (normally I charge about $2000 per day), and the general point is that wikis are insufficiently reliable or consistent to be useful to wikipedia.
 * ALR 21:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * We can't group all wiki's together and make a single rule banning them all. We need to judge them based on current importance in their field of study.  This can only be decided by a group discussion on the talk-page of the article.  If your the only one who thinks it's "worthy" of being included then you need to back down and let it go... for now.  That's how consensus works.  But things change.  There's no reason why you couldn't bring up the issue again at a latter date. But this page is about using Wiki's as a soruce in an article and not about includeing them in the "External Links" section. ---J.S (t|c) 19:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's the problem as far as "consensus" is concerned: The wiki being linked has religious views of one side of the editing team. It is critical of the religion in question. Thats why consensus among the editors is out of question. --JohnsAr 19:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That is a problem of POV writing and not of reliable sources. Perhaps you should take your discussion to WP:NPOV. Blueboar 20:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * But see, bias on a website is ok. We don't require the sites we link too to be unbiased or NPOV.  The main question, when evaluating an external link is: "Does this link provide useful and factual information about the subject that isn't already covered by wikipedia?"  If the site is highly POV but makes a clear distinction between editorial content and factual content then it's likely to a good choice for a link.  But, if the site is largely inaccurrate and tries to pass off editorial as fact then its not really going to be of much use to Wikipedia's audience.
 * As for the second part... Consensus needs to be reached for inclusion, not exclusion. If no consensus can be reached the default solution is to not include it.  WP:EL and WP:NOT both make it clear that our preferences is to exist with few external links with the preference being to include content on wikipedia.
 * Please note I'm not taking a stance on "Wikiislam". I don't really know know enough about it to make a judgement. The above is simply my take on the related policy & guidelines. ---J.S (t|c) 20:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have two points, which I'll aggregate together here.
 * I'd disagree that external links and sources are unrelated. If an external link is unreliable then it doesn't usefully illustrate or amplify on the article.  It should be bound by the same general principles of reliability and accuracy with respect to the subject.
 * One of the biggest issues with Wikis is that they're not stable, whlst the content may be factually accurate today, but tommorow it may no longer be so. If it's linked from an article then it is implicit that it meets the standards, but that cannot be assured without a responsible editor going back and checking for continuity at regular intervals, regularity being subject to the rate of change at the link.  That's in addition to my concerns about general assurance on the wikis being linked to which are discussed upthread.
 * ALR 21:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:NPOV applies to articles, not external links. The policies that apply here are WP:V (Publicly edited wikis aren't reliable) and WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a link farm). If the wiki is an important resource for further information about the subject, then it's appropriate. Otherwise we shouldn't be linking to it. I know many of the articles on the independent net-games link to Wikis in an appropriate manner.  ---J.S (t|c) 20:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * JS wrote:
 * "If the wiki is an important resource for further information about the subject, then it's appropriate".
 * This is a reasonable policy but WP Policy doesnt state this explictly. I believe that the policy should have a section on "External Links" which makes this differentiation and allows wikis to be linked on External Links, as long as they are good sources of "further information". I believe too that it is ok to link wikis on External Links but not for citing in the article itself and this needs to be clearly stated in the current policy.
 * This doesnt mean I'll start linking WikiIslam as soon as the policy is published. A link should not be made on External Links unless it provides good information on the related topic. In other words, for External Links, the same guidelines should be applied as for other websites as are applied for wiki websites. Citing websites in an article however is an exception - wikis cannot be allowed there, as wiki content changes from time to time. Like I stressed, this change is not of concern if the external wiki is included in External Links.
 * --JohnsAr 01:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * We already have the policies in place to deal with bad/good websites. A guideline, like WP:RS, is here to help us apply those policies.  The sentence you quoted from me is actually in fact backed up by policy, and no more policy is needed. ---J.S (t|c) 01:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about WP:NOT ---J.S (t|c) 01:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I couldnt find that policy anywhere that explicity says its ok to include wikis as sources if they are good sources. The people who initiated this discussion were refering to WP:RS and quoting that "wikis are not good sources of information". They have used that to rejecting linking to an external wiki even in the External Links. Is it mentioned anywhere that wikis can be included as External Links if they are good sources of information? --JohnsAr 01:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ummm... No, wikis do make horable refrences. But you would need to talk about on the talk page of the article. This isn't the kind of thing we need to make a policy about. ---J.S (t|c) 02:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, they do make honorable references which has been my point throughout this debate but the people who complained and started this discussion said wikis were not allowed. If there was a clear statement in a policy that wikis may be allowed as External Links if they contain good information, this case would be solved. I'm not saying we should change the policy just to support the inclusion of the wiki in question, but the policy should be such that it cannot be used in any way to disqualify legitimate links, like the complainants have tried to do in this case. We did talk on the Talk pages and it was not fruitful. Infact the complainants initiated this whole issue by first taking out the wiki link in question and then proceeded to say that Wikis are not acceptable as sources according to WP:RS. I believe like you and many people said, that they are acceptable in External Links, but not as Cite courses since their content keeps changing.
 * How can we stop these people from disqualifying a wiki being used as an Ext. Link? Unless there is no authority presence to make a final decision here, it is for sure that we cannot get them to agree on including wiki links. I plan to look into starting a fresh debate at some point about altering the policy and atleast make the point explictly in the policy that it is OK to mention wikis as Ext Links, if they are good sources of information and that, wikis are subject to the same rules of quality as other statis websites are - as long as they are being used in the External Links.
 * --JohnsAr 03:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Take it to Dispute Resolution. WP:R3O, WP:RFC, WP:Mediation and then the final step: ArbCom. We need to try to keep policies as general as possible. But another thing to think about is.... if everyone is against the inclusion of a link... then perhaps there is a problem with it. Remember: No Wikipedia article needs an external links section. In fact, they are discouraged by policy. Explicitly allowing a class of link would be contrary to the philosophy. On the other hand, SOME external links are helpful. But I'd rather see the link left out of the article completely then see an edit war break out. ---J.S (t|c) 03:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * JS, thankyou for that. I will go through the process you mentioned at some point. In the meanwhile, we as editors of that wiki will be trying hard to improve the quality on that site so it will be a greater useful resource than it is right now. The vast majority of people opposing the inclusion of this wiki are those who dont agree with its views. That certainly is no reason to reject its inclusion. I will make the case in the process. Thanks again.
 * To the Complainants who started this issue: I believe this case is closed for now. Certainly, including a good article on the wiki in External Links is not a violation of policy as has been stated by other users. Again this is supported by the fact that hundreds of wiki's are already linked on WP. It is not against policy. Like JS said, "If the wiki is an important resource for further information about the subject, then it's appropriate" (to link it). I myself will not include any links to that wiki for now but will leave others to link the wiki if they want to. At some point in the future, I will pursue this issue through the Arbitration process JS mentioned.
 * --JohnsAr 04:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You gotta take the steps in order. ArbCom slow and takes a lot of work to run (4 administrators, 1 clerk, and it can take months.) ... most of the time a dispute is resolved way befor ArbCom. ---J.S (t|c) 05:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, yes I guess it will take time to resolve the issue as they must be very busy. I have copied your steps to my PC so I can refer to them when I need. --JohnsAr 05:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I have been using sources (1.) written by renowned academic scholars (2.)peer-reviewed and (3.) published by university presses. There is no, even one, academic encyclopedia which contains links to such websites. I will definitely consistently remove any such links, either from faithfreedom, or Islamophobe, etc etc. To my mind, they are all garbage no matter whether they are Muslim friendly or not. This is what I promise I'll do. There is almost no topic on which the academic scholars haven't written. --Aminz 10:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

YouTube 2
Currently there are about 11000 links from wikipedia to YouTube. Many of them are being used in articles about as sources. I added a note about avoiding YouTube... but perhapses there is a better way to say it or a better place to put it? There's a big discussion about this on WP:AN right now. ---J.S (t|c) 16:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * YouTube is not a reliable source for 99% of its content for two main reasons: (a) most material that may be useful to articles will be most probably copyvios; (b) it takes very little effort nowadays to alter a video, change the voiceover, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 17:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. In my small research sample I didn't find a single link to YouTube that was unquestionably acceptable. I only checked about 20, so it might not be representative. ---J.S (t|c) 17:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Good change Jossi. ---J.S (t|c) 18:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I likewise concur. I've also researched just a few of the links to YouTube and found lots of amateurish, ad prefixed clips that added nothing to the articles.  I like the approach that a video clip, just like one's own website, should never be used unless it can be reliably verified by a third party as to copyright availability, content accuracy, and value to Wikipedia users.  This would eliminate most of these links.  I also believe that with the Google acquisition, YouTube may be placed under more control.  However, what remains to be seen is how Google monetizes and exploits this high traffic media.  YouTube may be used as another advertising scheme by some members who simply want to generate ad revenue using these clips.  I've already seen Google Adsense ads on some YouTube pages and this will provide another motivation for spammers to place links on Wikipedia to drive traffic to their clips. Calltech 13:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You must alos understand that many famous people or groups, such as Weird Al or Nintendo Wii, posted copies of commertials or music videos on youtube. So, even though there are other ways to find those videos, this is the best way for the averge person. You can't put as a sourse "The Nintendo wii advert that has been spotted on cartoon network and history channel during the hopurs of 1 am- 2 am on november 18"--68.192.188.142 19:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Reliable Sources in Political Election Campaigns
I think it was touched upon before, but I am seeking some clarification. I am of the opinion that including statements of campaign managers as if they were the statements of the candidates is - at best - misleading. Many campaign managers (and unidentifed 'staffers') are political operative who may not be speaking with the candidate's own words.

I think it best to weed them out of entries about the candidate they represent, relying instead on statements made by the candidate him/herself. This tends to be irrefutable, and would cut down the edit wars considerably, as they are rather contentious and diverting. While I understand that newspapers may quote aforementioned folk, it is also newspapers that finally endorse one candidate or another. WP does not - and should not - allow the same to happen here. Primary and secondary source allowances aside, the potential for abuse is enormous.

As well, there seems to be some discussion as to whether offline material regarding the candidate should be allowed if one can 'provide the source, author and page.' I think this view to be skewed and almost certainly lazy research. We live in an age where most information can be found readily online, so long as a little brain power is applied. After all, this is an online encyclopedia. Sources cited should be readily available online as well.

This becomes even more of a consideration when we consider that less than scrupulous folk can astroturf and viral-market propaganda in the form of a quoted, offline source. There are other problems with offline sources, and I am merely pointing out one aspect of the issue as it applies to current political campaigns. There is a color of authority that attends cited information, and a great many times (at least in political campaign entries), these sources are incorrectly attributed, paraphrased, or sometimes simply manufactured.

I would appreciate some insights into this matter. I am interested in learning how to approach these issues with sure knowledge, and not a gut feeling.Arcayne 00:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Statements to a campaign manager or other notable consultant working for a candidate can certainly by included in articles on the candidate they work for ... as long as they come from a reliable source. However, I would strongly suggest that such statements be attributed to the person making the statement (not just in a foot note, but in the main text... something along the lines of: "According to J.Q.Spinmeister, Congressman Doe's campaign manager, 'blah, blah blah blah' ") Blueboar 13:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The bias of the primary source is irrelevant so long as you make it clear to the reader who's making the statement so they can judge the bias for themselves. ---J.S (t|c) 16:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The point about offline source is exactly backwards, however. Use of exclusively full-text-on-net (FUTON) sources, and thereby ignoring the wealth of offline sources, is generally the lazy research technique.  Where an online and offline version both exist, the citation should allow either to be found.  Some online versions become unavailable, or a fee is charged, after a time, while offline sources are usually available at the local free library.


 * Much of the value of Wikipedia is the fact that it digests offline sources and makes the information contained in those sources available online. Attempting to limit Wikipedia to FUTON sourcs would be misguided.  Robert A.West (Talk) 18:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Can't disagree with you there. Both offline and online sources are of huge amounts of value. If an offline version exists we owe it to the reader to produce our citations in a way so the reader would be able to find the book in his/her library.  We must also remember that at some point this encyclopedia may be published as an off-line resource (such as a CD or a paper version).  In those cases simple links provide inadequate information and an offline citation would be better.
 * So, what I'm trying to say is this: Ideally every citation should link online while also being verifiable offline. (But then again, we don't always get the ideal situation... so we gotta cite things the best we can) --J.S. 18:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

JSmith's recent BOLD edit
Reverted... actually some of the edits were quite good in my opinion, but taken as a lump I have to disagree. Some of them i definitely disagree with. For example, one of the things cut was the bit about Wikipedia itself (and by extension other wikis) not being a reliable source ... which I think is very important to include. May I suggest discussing each change one at a time? Blueboar 23:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's actually in there. (My working copy is here if anyone doesn't want to check the history.) Check the "#Tertiary_Sources" section. I make a general plea not to use them, the general reason why and I even specifically mention Wikipedia under "examples" of bad sources.  My list of "Unreliable Sources" indicators talks about "unstable content" as well.  I'm was trying to make the entire format easy to read and it's intentions clearer.  Concise means more people read it and more people will understand it. (That's why I removed the warning from the definition section...) Was there anything else you didn't like? Was there something in it I could make better? ---J.S (t|c) 23:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Guideline or not?
We seem to once again be edit waring on the status of this page. Omegatron contends that there is consensus to demote this to an essay. I contend that there is consensus to keep it as a guideline (although I agree that it need work). One problem is that this debate is somewhat spread out... with those for demoting posting in one area and those for keeping posting in another. I know that "polls are evil"... but the only way to get a clear sense of how people are falling on the issue is to consolidate the debate. So... I am going to propose a poll. Please add your signature to which ever option you support (they are not mutually exclusive, so if you agree with more than one, add your name to any that apply). Add comments if you feel the need to do so, and feel free to add a new option if none of the ones I post reflect your oppinion. Thanks Blueboar 01:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't put words in my mouth.
 * I never said that this should be labeled an essay; I would oppose anyone who tries to do so.
 * I did not say there is "consensus to demote", either. That's a phrase that you invented that does not appear anywhere in Wikipedia policy.


 * This page is simply not a guideline because there is not consensus for it. You don't need a "consensus to demote".  That's not my opinion; that's the way Wikipedia policy works.  The fact that you're taking a poll demonstrates that there's no consensus.  After you've achieved consensus (which consists of discussing what's wrong with the page, not taking a poll to see if your favored plurality can force everyone else into submission), then you can put the guideline tag back on.  In the meantime, the disputed tag should be the only thing there.  You can't have a "disputed guideline".  It's not possible.  You can have a guideline or you can have a page whose status is disputed.  They are mutually exclusive.


 * I'm not even debating the merits of this page. I'm not even that familiar with it.  I'm just looking at the talk page and seeing a profound lack of consensus.  Almost everyone here agrees that the page requires a major rewrite.  Until that happens, and most of the people here agree with the result, the guideline tag comes off.


 * Those of you voting need to brush up on how Wikipedia works. Start here:


 * Consensus comes first. Then a guideline tag. — Omegatron 14:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not a huge fan of polls but maybe this'll be a quick way of seeing where everyone stands and help us move forward. JYolkowski // talk 01:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Omegatron, my appologies if I put words in your mouth. Perhaps I misunderstood your intent.  The point is that I disagree with your contention that this guideline has lost community consensus.  As the poll is demonstrating, so far the consensus seems to be in favor of keeping this as a quideline but editing it.  I completely agree with you that the way forward is to listen to objections and resolve them.  But to my mind, this should be done within the framework of this guideline.  I think the consensus agrees.  Blueboar 18:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * But you're going about things backwards. You don't say "this page is a guideline and we're going to rewrite it".  That doesn't make sense.  You say "This page needs to be rewritten.  After it's finished, we can decide if we want it to be a guideline."  How can you call something a guideline when you don't even know what it says yet? — Omegatron 03:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd disagree with that process. First determine the requirement: There is a requirement for guidance on how the reliability of sources might be assessed to inform editors in supporting their contributions and to facilitate debate around the editing process where sources used have differing or contested levels of assurance.  Once you have a requirement then you write something to fulfill that requirement.
 * As I see it there are a number of questions to be answered in this current dispute, although I think there is general agreement that there is a requirement for this guidance to exist somewhere; should this guidance be embedded in an existing policy?; should existing policies be aggregated and this guidance be included there?; does the guidance have a status as enforcable material?; is consensus within large groups a fallacy?;
 * Until there is a clear direction there is no general agreement to maintain or alter the status quo.
 * Personally I think that for the sake of the ongoing development of encyclopedic content (yes some editors are actually doing that out there in Wikipedia) it is better to have something in place rather than withdraw it until something else can be developed. It would be a more useful and efficient use of resource to concentrate on that rather than bickering over the label.
 * ALR 10:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Omegatron, you miss one important point... this is already a guideline, not a new proposal. That makes a difference. It gained the approval and consensus of the community a long time ago, and it is my contention that it still has that approval and consensus, dispite its flaws.  I also disagree with your concept of the process... I see this as being similar to how an AfD works (where if there is no clear consensus to delete, the proposal fails and the article is kept).  Under this analogy, unless there is a clear consensus to demote (which there isn't), the guideline should maintain its status.  Finally, you misinterpret what I have been saying... I don't think "we should decide if we want it to be a guideline after its finished"... I think it should remain a guideline throughout the process of working on it.  All that said, ALR is correct... we should be working on improving the guideline, not arguing over it's status. Blueboar 13:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Blueboar on all the points in the last paragraph. Pehapse the Policies and guidelines needs a slight amendment to say that once a proposal becomes a guideline there must be clear consensus to demote it, which is how AfD and WP work. Making it sticky in this way would stop the guideline equivalent of a move war. --Philip Baird Shearer 02:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Poll

 * Option 1) Demote to Essay status:
 * 1) JYolkowski // talk 01:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Option 2) Keep as a Guideline:
 * 1) Blueboar 01:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Pascal.Tesson 03:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC) Serves a useful purpose. When explaining the need for references to newbies, this is a good place to point them to. Even if I agree that there are concerns with it.
 * 3) Cedars 06:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Francis Schonken 08:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Noel S McFerran 10:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Philip Baird Shearer 10:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC) I have just added some comments to WP:V at the moment there is no definition for what is a reliable source on that policy page. I think this guidline is needed to explain concept of "reliable source" expressed in WP:V.
 * 7) Second choice - I would prefer this as policy, given how central it is to our mission. To not even have it as a guideline is a huge step towards losing project focus. --Improv 14:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) We cannot have it as policy while there are substantial calls for a major rewrite. Keep it as a guideline; it points in the right direction. Septentrionalis 17:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) DanielM 11:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC) I'm splitting my vote between this and "keep and major rewrite" below. I want to specifically keep it as a guideline and rewrite/reorganize/restructure it.
 * 10) W.marsh 02:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC) Probably the best option. We need a solid definition or at least concept of reliable sources as a part of ongoing maintenence of articles. --W.marsh 02:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Visviva 12:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)  Keep as a guideline, keep it now.  It is absolutely absurd that this is even labeled as "disputed," when the concerns that have been raised are so trivial and the underlying principle is so fundamental.  Rewrites are fine, but we don't really need to have a poll about that, do we?  Rewriting is what Wikipedians do best.  :-)
 * 12) Gene Nygaard 13:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC) Keep as a guidline, and like Visviva says, that disputed tag doesn't belong there.
 * 13) Keep per Septentrionalis and Visvia. Also, there are enough sensible exceptions to this guideline that I'd rather not make it policy at the moment. JoshuaZ 04:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Option 3) Trash and replace with something else:
 * 1) JYolkowski // talk 01:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC) Add the relevant portions to one of our other content policies.  WP:ATT already contains everything I think is important from this so if that's accepted that solves this problem.
 * 2) ---J.S (t|c) 06:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC) when att is ready....
 * 3) Replace with WP:ATT when it is ready. Brimba 07:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Option 4) Trash and don't replace:


 * Option 5) Keep but do a complete re-write:


 * Option 6) Keep but do a Major re-write:
 * 1) Blueboar 01:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) JYolkowski // talk 01:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC), "Major" here involving removing everything except a bit about self-published sources.
 * 3) Francis Schonken 08:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC) with "Major" rewrites to be proposed on appropriate temp pages (or proposal pages under a different name).
 * 4) ALR 10:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC) I'd suggest that the information needs the authority of a guideline to be useful in illuminating policy and resolving difficulties in provision of evidence. However the current wording is clumsy and unhelpful.
 * 5) Philip Baird Shearer 10:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) badlydrawnjeff talk 14:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC).  This needs to have some sort of way to handle blogs and web sources in a better way to become a useful guideline or policy.
 * 7) DanielM 11:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC) I split my vote between this and "keep as guideline" above, because this choice does not specify keep as guideline and I do not want it to become an "essay."
 * 8) JamesMLane t c 05:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC).  There's often important information about (for example) a political campaign that can't be found in refereed journals, or even in the mainstream media.  There are MSM sources that everyone seems to accept without hesitation, but that have lied to me more often than some of the so-called "questionable" sources.  This page is definitely not ready to be a policy.
 * 9) Derex We need this, but the current version is not well thought out. Certainly nowhere near the basis for a policy yet. 07:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Grand Slam 7 21:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC) It seems like this is important, but some parts need fixing.
 * 11) On a sidenote, as part of that rewrite I want it to be mentioned that not passing a guideline is not a grounds for deletion. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 05:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Option 7) Re-write where needed:
 * 1) Pascal.Tesson 03:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)No need to go crazy. Let's figure out what needs to be done and do this nice and slow. In any case, we might have to do a more focused rewrite (or scrap it altogether) once WP:ATT is up and ready to go. Until then, no urgency to do an extensive rewrite.
 * 2) Francis Schonken 08:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Philip Baird Shearer 10:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) All right, where is rewriting needed?  Septentrionalis 17:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Would vote for option 6, but I'm not sure we could all agree on that much. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 00:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Option 8) Fine as is:


 * Option 9) Promote into a policy rather than a guidline; the consistent violation of which would be even punishable:
 * 1) Proposed. It is shameful when one compares the quality of wikipedia with other encyclopedias such as Encyclopedia of Islam, The Cambridge History of Islam, etc, etc. --Aminz 10:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) First choice - This is so central to our mission that to not have it as policy is an incredible embarassment. --Improv 14:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Wholeheartedly support. In disputes where this needs to be cited, disruptive editors are apt to cite its guideline status in defense of their hope to use frivolous material in an encyclopedia.  Durova  16:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) This needs to be a policy, in conjunction with WP:V and WP:ATT, if consensus develops for that. Wikipedia, as a whole, needs to focus on improving article quality.  Reliable sources are essential towards that goal. --Aude (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Considering that WP:V is policy, this should be a companion policy that helps to enforce it. Demotion is unacceptable, and is only an attempt at an end run around WP:V and WP:OR.  Oh, and voting is evil.  User:Zoe|(talk) 02:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Promote into policy. If we cannot require editors to rely upon mainstream reputable sources, then we are nothing more than a pathetic mirror of the subjectivity and innuendo present in blogs and private websites.  We do not give any extra weight to experts on our website -- everyone gets an equal voice.  Because of that, we have to ensure that our editors are relying upon the words of people who ARE experts in their fields or in the gathering and analysis of facts and the presentation of material, whether edited news sources or peer-reviewed scientific journals.  Blogs and private websites must not be allowed to be referenced on Wikipedia, except incidentally.  Without an official rules editors will continue to rely upon the notion of "guideline" to include their citations from unreliable blogs and the like.  This is one of the most important rules in Wikipedia, more important than assume good faith and edit boldly.  Morton devonshire 06:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Promote. How can this not be policy? To echo Zoe, it's a fundamental pillar of WP:V. Just because it is policy does not mean that it can never be changed or adapted (consider the deletion policies, for example). --MCB 07:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Promote. As others have stated, it is an underlying concept that supports things which are policy. The idea that it should be a guideline and not a policy is odd.--Rosicrucian 19:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Promote (and rewrite). WP:V is meaningless without a working definition of a reliable source.  This seems to be a good start at a workable policy.  (Is there a tag we could put on WP:V to indicate that the policy is meaningless because the underlying terms are undefined?).  (Note: it is a guideline unless there is concensus to demote.  User:SlimVirgin is absoluting wrong that guidelines are demoted if concensus is lost, especially core guidelines such as this one.)  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)  WP:ATT may be a better start for a policy than this document, but it needs to be policy now .  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Promote It is time that we take this encyclopedia more seriously and start requiring people use reliable sources to back up their claims, promoting this would make it apparent that this is more then some little project and a show just how serious Wikipedians are about the content here. --Nuclear Zer0 15:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Promote "Reliable Sources" is a reference used by WP:V. The definition of RS and it's use within Wikipedia should be firm policy. -- Electric  Eye  ( talk ) 04:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Promote Without providing independently verifiable sources, Wikipedia's credibility goes out the window. I'd like preference given to non-partisan sources, especially when it comes to controversial subjects. Wikipedia's reputation is in the toilet unless readers can trust the verifiability and factuality of what they are reading. This isn't English composition 101. This is an encyclopedia.--FidesetRatio 03:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Option 10) Merge everything salvageable into WP:V or another policy.
 * 1) Proposed. If WP:V is not operational without a working definition of a "reliable source", then this definition must be in WP:V or another policy that requires attribution of edits to sources. Any further research advice, for example, where to look for good sources, should find its place elsewhere, for example, on relevant wikiprojects. Beit Or 12:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
I honestly don't think the problem is defining whether we need "reliable sources," but simply that WP is woefully behind regarding what can and should be considered a reliable source. Should this be guideline or even policy? Undoubtedly. Should it be before we make it into something that makes logical sense? Of course not. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think a long-term course of action would be to rebuild the page. Half the current page is specific guidelines for very small sections of articles... I'm not really sure that's needed. What I think this page should be is a very general guide on how to judge the difference between reliable and unreliable. Any specific details should be taken care of on the project/portal level. ---J.S (t|c) 17:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe not project/portal level... but it might be a good idea to keep the uncontroversial / less controversial material here, and move the more controversial material into essays about aspects of reliable sources. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 14:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That is a possibility worthy of consideration. To carry it out, we would need to determine which material is less / uncontroversial.  So, what material would you move into essays? Blueboar 14:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is an essay I made as a result of the discussions now in /archive8: Don't use internal sources for verification. Is that the kind of thing we're talking about now? --Francis Schonken 14:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) I alone do not determine the consensus is - we all do. However, I would expect that we would all be more likely to agree on overall concepts (the spirit of the guideline), than on details (the letter of the guideline). Alternatively, if all of the sub-essays are too many to handle, we could have Reliable sources as a guideline, and Reliable sources (extended) as an essay. I guess one way to do it would be to move the entire thing over to essays except for a broad statement that some sources are better than others, and then move unconversial / less contoversial material back here after discussion. And yes, Francis, that is the sort of thing I'm talking about. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 14:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Structurally the page leaves a lot to be desired, it doesn't at present discuss reliability per se but after a couple of light definitions goes straight into examples. There are a small number of principles which any trained researcher or serious amateur would apply to their assessment of sources and it would seem sensible to identify and elaborate on these in the early part of the guideline before going on to demonstrate how they might be applied in various situations.  These principles are discussed in the basic text books about how to conduct research so should be reasonably uncontentious.
 * I'll agree that applying those principles can be more contentious, witness the more recent arguments in this talk page about specific examples.
 * The biggest difficulty is that reliability is not a binary condition, and many editors appear to see it as such. That probably reflects the demographic of WP users more than anything else.  With that in mind actually understanding, and elucidating, what reliability is should help with those discussions.
 * ALR 14:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * reliability is not a binary condition Hear hear! Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 14:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * A good line to put in the revised version. Blueboar 02:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I am condsidering option 9, Promote into a policy rather than a guidline, because we need to tighten up on sourcing. I wonder if it is best as a separate page here, or as part of WP:V and WP:ATT. Thoughts? Tom Harrison Talk 20:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I seriously doubt we will be able to reach a consensus for much of WP:RS strong enough to promote it to policy. Even if we did, it would be more likely to be the overall ideas, not the details or the practical application.  When it comes to practical application, I'm pretty sure there are many situations when we will have very different opinions. If we can't agree, how can we block people for having a different opinion / interpretation? (And on situations we can all agree on, I'm pretty sure you could find other reasons to block the person, such as ignoring community consensus.) Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 06:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I am honestly mystified how anyone could seriously propose promoting this page to policy. I'm not opposed to a sourcing policy, but this page is so fundamentally flawed and broken as to be unsuitable as the foundation for any such policy. It is replete with inaccuracies and poor judgments. To oppose this page is not, as some would have it, to oppose sourcing, or to make an end run around NOR and V. It's to oppose a bad guideline that gives bad guidance. Nobody is seriously proposing a complete lack of sourcing or of consideration of what a good source is. The question is merely whether this page actually describes those issues well. It doesn't. It absolutely, 100% doesn't. Phil Sandifer 06:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I generally agree with Phil that as the guideline currently stands, there is no way it can be policy...but it should be, and egregious violations of a reliable sources policy should be a blockable offense. It is mandatory that examples of what are and what are not reliable sources needs to be presented, in a simple and easy to follow manner. It is an easy case...simply show what are reliable sources and what aren't by providing examples of each...if that is 20 or 30 examples, then that is fine. The rest of the wording on the page simply needs to discuss the best ways to determine a reliable source and why this is important to the project. I suppose I can work on a draft in my userspace in the next couple of weeks.--MONGO 09:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

 It has come about that policies and guidelines first present a sort of nutshell or carefully worded, brief description and then expand it and present the reasoning. It has often been discussed that Reliable Sources should include the elements which, when appearing together, constitute a reliable source. To my thinking these elements are: Attributability, declared legal liability (sometimes by implication), degree of establishment (Ford Motor Company better than Bide-a-wee Biscuits) and an established history (trackrecord). If we placed this sort of reasoning early in the guideline, I think it would be helpful. Terryeo 17:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

So there are three questions. Should the content of this page be the foundation of a sourcing policy? While this page has some good information that can go in a policy, we might do better to start from scratch. Should we have a sourcing policy separate from what is covered in our policies on verifiability and attribution? and should the sourcing policy (or WP:V and WP:ATT) be enforced by blocks? We already enforce sourcing for living people. We might next expand that to other areas: on-going enterprises, or numerical information like populations. Any expansion like this could have its own page like WP:BLP, or a section in attribution: "All population figures must be cited to a reliable source. Removing uncited changes to population figures is exempt from 3RR. Persistently adding them is grounds for blocking." Tom Harrison Talk 14:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Policy dispute regarding primary sources and OR (requested comment)
Cross posted to WP:RS, WP:OR and WikiProject Medicine. There is a dispute going on at Talk:Depo Provera. One user found primary sources, reliable journal articles, that said depo provera may do certain negative things. Another user is disputing this, citing original research. The argument, I guess, is that the 1st user is interpreting the source, and drawing conclusions not published anywhere else. The studies only dealt with rats (not humans), and there is nothing in the patient drug information (or any other way to verify the claims outside of the studies in question). The logic goes that making a connection that a study dealing with rats may effect the use of this drug in humans as a contraception is original research. Furthermore, it may be pushing a POV that this drug is unsafe by mentioning these studies (that are not verified outside of the individual study, and not mentioned in patient drug information). I feel like I am repeating myself, sorry. The counter argument is that a) citing primary sources is a good thing b) the claims are cited and verifiable and reliable, fulfilling almost every wikipedia criteria for inclusion. So I guess there are two issues. Is using the information in this manner original research? And is it giving undue weight to a minority view by citing obscure studies like this? Sorry if I am missing anything or misrepresenting a side. Please direct comments to Talk:Depo Provera. Thanks!--Andrew c 03:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I took a look at the journal articles in question. They certainly meet the standard for being reliable sources.  I will not get into the POV and OR issues as these are better discussed on other pages. Blueboar 13:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Concur. Sources are reliable; other questions fall outside the scope of this page.  I hope your cross posts at other pages are more fruitful.  You might also try WP:RFC.  Durova  15:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

What sources are more reliable?
There is an interesting discussion at Talk:Operation Minsk, where we are discussing what to do if academic sources are contradicting each other. Comments about solution appreciated.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This one is easy... Assuming that everyone agrees that these are reliable academic sources, the solution is to keep the article NPOV and present both (or all) of the viewpoints. Blueboar 18:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Usually, yes, but in this case we seem to have majority of schoolars involved in in depth research of this particular issue in the past 2-3 decades increasingly saying 'A', while in the past they seemed to have been divided into 'A' and 'B'; further, encyclopedias like EB and scholars mentioning the fact in question in passing tend to say 'B'. Last but not least, common logic dictates 'A', but that's just my POV :) 'A' and 'B' refer to the start date of the war (Polish-Soviet War) - 1920 was the old 'B' variant, 1919 is the newer 'A' variant, and and the issue is should we have a footnote in every article which mentions PSW in 1919 that some scholars tend not to see those events as part of the war (because they completly ignore them or were unaware of them, as it appears). So modern experts tend to say 'A' and I think we should go with the modern view in subarticles and discuss the controversy only in the main article, without the need to footnote the issue in all subarticles (battles, etc.).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is really a WP:NPOV issue and not a reliability issue (I don't see any argument that the 1920 sources are unreliable... only that they do not reflect current thinking). But to try to answer your question, why not say something along the lines of: "In the past, academic sources such as A, B, and C have said that the war started in 1920 (citations to A, B and C) but, more recent sources such as D, E, and F have stated that the war started in 1919 (citations)." Blueboar 18:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well said. ---J.S (t|c) 18:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it is reasonable to illustrate the development of academic thought on the subject, showing the convergence of the two schools over time. I think that is a question of understanding the topic fully though and appreciate that not all editors can or will do that.ALR 14:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

"Convergence of the two schools over time", or the replacement of one school with another, as discussed in the article "historical revisionism", which also might throw some light on the issue --Philip Baird Shearer 15:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Should the existence of misinformation require (as) reliable sources to document?
I ran into an interesting situation recently that got me thinking. Very often Wikipedia's most valuable role isn't merely telling us things we didn't know, it's also telling us which things we thought we knew about the subject aren't correct. With that in mind, I'd like to ask: when the point of discussing a certain claim is to identify that it is actually an urban legend, misunderstanding or misconception, should we require that that urban legend, misunderstanding or misconception be published by as reliable a source as we would require for anything we were presenting as true, or at least not debunked?

A true but simplified example: Two Congressmen were censured by the House for inappropriate behavior. One chose to face the main body of the House, thus turning him away from the Speaker of the House who was reading the censure. The other chose to face the Speaker of the House who was reading the censure, thus turning him away from the main body of the House. Memories of politicians being as subject they are to unconscious (and sometimes conscious) "reinterpretation", the second Congressman's action mutated from "faced the Speaker who was reading the censure and not the rest of the House" to "turned his back on the House" to "turned his back and ignored the censure as it was being read."

Now, in this case, it was easy to find a reliable source -- contemporary reports from the New York Times -- to refute the idea that the Congressman had "ignored" the censure as it was read. However, it was not as easy finding a reliable source which discussed the idea that he did do so! It's a widespread belief but principally widespread among those whom Wikipedia would not regard as a reliable source -- highly partisan websites, and private blogs. In a situation like this, it seems Wikipedia has three choices:


 * 1) Refuse to discuss the matter at all, since we cannot find reliable sources for both sides including the one that is in the wrong;
 * 2) Include the refutation of a popular misunderstanding or misconception when the refutation comes from a reliable source, but do not include mention of what the misunderstanding/misconception is;
 * 3) Include both the misunderstanding/misconception, even if we have only less-reliable sources discussing it, and include the information from reliable sources which refutes it.

I feel that the third makes the most sense. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Somehow, I think that if the so-called misinformation were supported by a reliable source, then we would have a problem saying it is wrong. Of course, the refutation itself is a source that the opposing point of view does exist, but how much can we trust them to accurately represent an opposing point of view?  I guess what we are looking for (ideally) is a source that we can trust to accurately represent the point of view, but cannot trust to be right. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 15:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You might want to take a look at WP:FRINGE. While not completely discussing what you are talking about, it does uphold the concept that a refutation can be used as a citation that the theory it refutes exists. Blueboar 15:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you have some links we can look at? I would want to see specifics, but I would be concerned that without reliable sources, the whole thing might spin off into original research -- in particular, you might need a source establishing whether the normal practice in these circumstances was to face the House, the Speaker, or whether there was no normal practice.  My instinct is that careful research and/or writing will normally be able to get around the RS problem of establishing the "misconception" without the need to break RS, but in an appropriate case, you can always do so if you can convince the people on the Studds page that it's the right thing to do.  (If you're going to rely on IAR, though, I would (1) discuss it on the talk page first, and (2) if you get consensus, put a comment in the main article explaining your reasoning for future editors).  TheronJ 15:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Obviously, the best thing would be if a reliable source said, "The blogosphere alleged that the Congressman ignored the censure by turning his back on the House." Finding such a source may require a lot of work, but in such a prominent case, it is likely to exist.  Failing that, just state what happened and note in comments or on the talk page why you think the detailed story is important.  We need to be very careful about living persons: repeating a falsehood even for the purpose of refuting it can cause damage. Robert A.West (Talk) 16:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Blogs, redux
What about something like slog, the blog maintained by ''The Stranger? (The Stranger is a Seattle alternative weekly, probably the most important chronicler of the city's youth culture, and quite good on other culture and politics as well.) It would seem to me that the pieces in there that are signed by the newspaper's staff are exactly as attributable as items in the paper itself (so the usual blog issue of not knowing who wrote it is gone). On the other hand, they are probably less subject to editorial review than articles published in the paper. - Jmabel | Talk 08:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd think it depended on the context. Blogs are usually not ok, but a few are boarder line. What exactly is it being used for? Since the blog is notable, I'd say you could make the argument that the opinion is notable. ---J.S (t|c) 10:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Blogs generally can only be RS as a primary source in an article about the blog, or its parent organization (to source claims about the blog or its parent org). Blogs belonging to notable organizations, such as newspapers, can be reliable sources, depending on the context and author. Obviously, something written and signed by staff (if it can be verified that they did indeed author it) would lean to the reliable side, a rant posted by a reader would not. It's a grey area that would need to be hashed out on a case by case basis. As far as using such a source to cite negative information about someone living goes, I do not think it would be a solid enough source. WP:BLP requires solid, unquestionable reliable secondary sources. - Crockspot 15:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I do think we need to differentiate between a blog, an article posted to the online edition of a newspaper, and an online editorial posted on a reputable newspaper's website and written by a member of the newpaper's staff. All three have different levels of oversight and fact checking.  Blogs are obviously not reliable.  An article placed on the online edition of a newpaper is obviously reliable (or at least as reliable as the print edition).  The online editorial is the grey zone ... half way between a blog and an online report.  While such are opinion, and not the reporting of fact, they do have the same level of reliablility as a printed editorial or op-ed piece.  I would lean towards accepting such as being from a reliable source ... with the cavets and attribution that would go along with any other editorial opinion piece.  The hard part is determining which of the three you are dealing with.  Blueboar 20:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Just because the article is in a print source doesn't mean we should stop thinking about the author/contents. Letters to the editor aren't considered reliable sources either.  ColourBurst 14:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In the end, the intention is to ensure that all sources are reliable. If a particular blog is reliable (for example, Bill Thompson's blog for the BBC), where the author is identifiable and has a provable authority, then there is to my mind no compelling reason not to allow it.  I would be very wary of any article sourced only from a blog or blogs, but as a supporting source for subjects on which the blogger has known and respected expertise, what is the problem? Surely the benchmark is how confident we can be in the accuracy of the information. Guy 13:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What about a blog that isn't attached to a newspaper? eg Neil Gaiman's blog has been agreed elsewhere to be reliable when talking about Neil Gaiman, but is he an expert on comics?  There's a specific example where Gene Yang's National Book Award nomination was contested by Tony Long in Wired online, and Neil Gaiman rebutted it by pointing out examples where comics have won literary awards (most famously Maus by Art Spiegelman).  Is Tony Long "more reliable" just because he's attached to Wired (even though he admits he hasn't even read the NBA nominee in question and is prejudicial)?  ColourBurst 17:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I would be inclined to consider Neil's statement as reliable, when issued within that particular contect, given his notability within the field. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

IMDB
This guideline currently lists the IMDB as a reliable source for movie credits. I propose this be removed. IMDB credits are just as unreliable as anything else on the IMDB, and often user submitted. 6 years ago, I uploaded the full cast and crew of a Christopher Walken film called "The Prophecy 3: The Ascent" into the IMDB. As a joke, I added popular B-movie actress Linnea Quigley to the cast, credited as a "Hooker". The IMDB fully accepted my addition. Quigley is still listed on that page (although she has been downgraded to "uncredited"). This credit is now also listed all over the net. Quigley was even asked about the role in this interview: "You had a small part as a hooker in The Prophecy 3 in 2000, did you have any scenes with Christopher Walken and what was he like? I don’t think unless they used old footage that I’m in Prophecy 3. I have to see it sometime but I wish I could have worked with them. Damn, if you have seen it and I’m in it let me know." Mad Jack 22:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

New draft location
Moved from elsewhere to bring this to everyones attention.ALR 23:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I was bold and created Reliable sources/rewrite and Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/rewrite. The former doesn't say much right now, and I suggest only adding things which we have a high degree of consensus on to it. It's talk page is divided up pretty much like the current WP:RS's table of contents. Assuming people like this idea (which they might not), we can still put anything we don't keep in the guideline in essays. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 16:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've added a section about aspects of reliability, it's really a list of bullets to expand on right now, and I'm not at home so don't have access to my research textbooks to substantiate. However I am at business school doing a short refresher so should be able to find something in the library ;)
 * I think it's a little confusing to have two articles there, I'd suggest blanking the article content from the talk page and just using it as a talk page.ALR 23:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The idea was to have a more topic-based, rather than chronological, talk page. But considering we aren't even using the same subject headings as before, I think you are right.  I left you a message about there about some of the bullets in "Aspects of reliability" before I read your above message, but I'm sure you will clarify once you get ahold of your research textbooks.  Overall, I like it much better - much more principle-based than our present guideline. : ) Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 00:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The draft at Reliable sources/rewrite is now reasonably mature, although it needs a section on convenience links. I'd welcome some views because I think that the rest is getting ready to port it across to the main page.ALR 08:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you talking about replacing the existing WP:RS with the rewrite? Is there sufficient support among editors for that. The existing guideline has very little in common with the rewrite. The existing guideline is much more explicit. The rewrite takes a "a number of aspects should be considered" approach.


 * The existing version allows an editor in many situations to point directly to part of it and say the article needs to be sourced this way and source X in does/doesn't comply. The rewrite doesn't accomodate this as well, for example editors are asked to evaluate whether there are "any indication of gaps in the thinking or process of derivation" of the source, a much more difficult task. I can think of instances where I could effectively challenge CNN and the Economist and other mainstream media now regarded as reliable sources with that text in hand. It'll be more complicated to use the rewrite for dispute resolution, IMO. I acknowledge there are many weaknesses in the current guideline but I also don't know if this rewrite (and maybe it's a misnomer to call it that, it's so utterly different) is going to do the things a guideline needs to do. Recommend a straw poll or other consensus-seeking effort before you attempt to supersede the existing guideline with the rewrite. DanielM 14:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that the existing version is a collection of specifics and doesn't actually deal with Reliability just examples of different common law-like perceptions of reliability. I wouldn't actually describe what is currently there as a guideline at all, since it lacks any real substance.
 * I'd personally get rid of most of it and replace it with general principles, but I appreciate that is a paradigm shift for many editors and probably quite disruptive. People don't tend to respond well to being treated as adults but instead prefer to be led around by the nose as long as someone else takes responsibility for them.  The suggestions I've made leave editors very responsible for their own contributions, I'll concede that it does leave some scope for difficult discussions, but that's what mature, civilised, society is all about isn't it?
 * I'm not wedded to including examples of sources in the text and we could quite reasonably take them out of the draft.
 * In terms of process I'm quite happy with the concept of slotting the material in at the top as the meat of the guideline, then supplementing it with specific examples. Then we can move on to weeding the specifics to a manageable level without the internal inconsistency and bulk.  We need to think about readability, people aren't going to get to the bottom of the current article because of the length and the opacity.
 * ALR 07:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Can the Convenience links essay (see above ) be of any use? --Francis Schonken 09:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's useful, but a bit wordy. If we can condense down to a paragraph, based on the principles then that's useful.  I'm wary of making a reader scroll through reams of text so it's best if the guideline is quite pithy.  I'll have a think but would welcome anyone elses view.ALR 13:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Other new draft to simplify policies and guidelines
At the same time that the discussions here are going on and the above rewrite by ALR is being done, also a replacement for WP:V, WP:NOR as well as WP:RS is being discussed on Attribution. Please give your opinion on that attempt to reduce the burden of an ever growing mass of policy. Harald88 07:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not so mucg being done by me, but I happen to specialise in knowledge management, so know more about the topic than many.ALR 08:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Advice needed on ghost ramp
Can, a roadgeek fansite, be a reliable source for the definition of a ghost ramp? If not, what happens if the poll on talk:ghost ramp finishes with a majority in favor? --NE2 19:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * At a quick glance, it looks like a reliable site for such slang terminology. Blueboar 20:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Majority isn't the same thing as consensus.... ---J.S (t|c) 20:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * An amendation to my prior comment: the site you linked to (a subpage of AARoads.com) looks reliable... the other one you talk about at the poll - Gribblethingamy.bob (I don't remember the exact site name) does not. I don't think you can state that all roadgeek sites, as a blanket group, are either reliable or not ... it is a case-by-case call with each cite. Blueboar 20:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Why would AARoads be reliable? It's a fansite. Should we use the term "neutered shield": "Those shields that do not carry the state name are referred to as "neutered shields" on AARoads." because they use it? --NE2 22:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Fan-sites can be reliable. They have a long history (10 years) and it looks like they have support from travaelocity (that might have just been an add? not sure).  I could be wrong, but if they are a respected website then they might be a RS under some contexts. ---J.S (t|c) 00:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * They don't have support from travelocity; that's just some sort of affiliate program. This is literally a self-published fansite, with content written by a few people and reflecting their views. --NE2 00:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Amazon.com Reviews
On the Dave Ramsey page, someone keeps using this review of one of his books from Amazon.com as a source for all sorts of criticsms, some not even talked about in the article. Would a review from Amazon be considered a reliable source? I don't see why, but can I get a consensus?


 * Such reviews can be regarded as reliable about themselves. But that is, if I understand well, not what that editor uses it for... Harald88 07:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The only legitimate use for an Amazon review would be in a passage about a controversy involving that review (as when Rob Neyer received some media criticism for writing an anonymous, negative review of another author's work). Anybody who wants to post an Amazon review can do so, and a lack of editorial oversight prevents the use of their reviews as legitimate literary criticism. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Results of Straw Poll on Status of Reliable Sources Guideline
Nobody appears to have summed up the results of the straw poll up above. The poll had some methodology problems, for example it provided choices that were not mutually exclusive so a person who favored two or more choices could either vote for more than one choice or not have his or her position adequately captured, and no guidance was provided on this. All the same there's enough there to get a rough picture of what participating editors think ought to happen:

The most popular choices, a tie with 11 each, were KEEP AS GUIDELINE and KEEP BUT MAJORLY REWRITE. The third most popular choice PROMOTE TO POLICY received 9 votes. All of these choices are reasonably construed as "supportive" of the guideline. If we remove from the pool of those three choices the double counting of editors who split their votes, you get a total of 27 unique editors.

When we do the same figuring with the choices reasonably construed as "not supportive" of the guideline, DEMOTE TO ESSAY, TRASH AND REPLACE, and MERGE EVERYTHING SALVAGEABLE INTO WP:V, we get a total of 4 unique editors. The remaining choice REWRITE WHERE NEEDED is neither supportive nor not supportive of the guideline as far as I can tell. It has 5 votes, but if you look at the votes they all expressed support either by also voting for one of the aforementioned "supportive" choices, or by expressing support (ArmedBlowFish) in this particular vote.

In summary, I'm making the case that, of those editors that participated in the poll, 4 are "not supportive" whereas at least 27 are "supportive" of the guideline. Those not supportive are in a distinct minority. On this basis I propose removing both the "disputed" and "protected" tags from this guideline and letting editors go back to improving it in good faith. DanielM 13:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

PS: All my tabulations were done informally and are of the "back-of-the-napkin" variety. I think I was accurate but I welcome any corrections to my counts.DanielM 13:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * With the caveat of the difficulty of interpreting the poll, as explained by Daniel, I endorse both the removal of the "disputed" tag and of the page protection. As a side remark, for those who favoured update and/or rewrite, alternative proposals are being worked on in places like WP:ATT and Reliable sources/rewrite (should provide the full list of active proposals in that respect, but I think I picked the two most prominent ones). --Francis Schonken 14:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Since the point of the poll was to determine if there was consensus for retaining this guideline or not, and since this has clearly been determined in favor of keeping it, I completely agree with removing the "disputed" tag and unprotecting the page. I also support those who have been working on WP:ATT and Reliable sources/rewrite...  these proposals contain some very good language that could well be incorporated here.  If you have not already done so, take a look at them. Blueboar 15:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Aside from the fact that polls do not "determine" consensus, I take strong issue with treating "keep but majorly rewrite" as support for the guideline in its current form. Considering also that most of the people working over at WP:ATT didn't vote in the poll, I take serious issue with the methadology here. There is clearly a grave dispute over this page, and the use of the poll to shoehorn a desired result into place is exactly why we don't use polls for this. Phil Sandifer 17:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * (sigh) This is getting repetative... there is not a "grave dispute" over this page. The point of the poll was not to shoehorn any desired result, but simply to demonstrate that the page enjoys the support of the community.  It also shows that the consensus is for us to work on the page and improve it.  May I suggest that we stop debating the status of the page, and start the process of that improvement? Blueboar 18:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's probably unwarranted to draw any conclusions from the poll, not least because the people who objected most vocally to the status of this page as a guideline did not bother to vote. Beit Or 18:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The process of that improvement has started, so I'm not sure what the point of your call to arms is. The question is whether, under a wide consensus that the page needs serious improvement, it is appropriate to point to it as an accurate description of how things should be done. It is very obvious that the current version of the page, in the eyes of many, many people, provides poor guidance. As such, it is inappropriate to point to it unambiguously as a guideline. And the poll demonstrated that. Phil Sandifer 18:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Phil, I was going to ask how you interpret the results and what you think we ought to do, but you are the editor who wrote "this page is a useless piece of crap" (up above, BTW is that what you tell your students who don't measure up in your estimation?) so I can guess. Still, if the people who voted for KEEP AND MAJORLY REWRITE were against the page in its current form, wouldn't they have voted TRASH AND REPLACE instead? I stand by my point that among the poll participants it is a distinct minority disputing this page. Your logic that the results don't measure those at WP:ATT or elsewhere who didn't participate in the poll is incredibly self-evident and obvious. Nobody is beating anybody over the head with the poll. We proposed modestly that the protection and disputed tag be removed. DanielM 18:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Daniel, I was going to respond to your points, but I noticed that you're questioning my professional integrity and quallifications instead of really addressing my points. The page has an obvious lack of consensus in its current form, requiring anything from trashing to major rewriting. Until this has happened, it cannot be said to have consensus. There is a consensus to have a reliable sources guideline. But no consensus to have this one. Phil Sandifer 18:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Phil, please take a look at what it says at Policy dispute - especially the second part where it states clearly:
 * ... declaring a policy or guideline to be in dispute can only be effectuated
 * if it can be demonstrated that there has been a reasonable effort to establish consensus;
 * if it can be established that there is a consensus that the best option forward is to declare the policy in dispute. This means broad consensus, for policy even very broad consensus.
 * All other attempts to declare a policy or guideline in dispute after it became accepted or operational will be considered vandalism or "highly disruptive egregious disruption".
 * As I see it, there has been a reasonable effort to establish consensus... but, as the poll shows, that consensus is that the best option forward is to Keep the page as a quideline and work on it... and NOT to declare the policy in dispute, replace it with something else or get rid of it, etc. Face it, there is no "broad" (and certainly no "very broad") consensus for continuing to declare the guideline in dispute.
 * Now, you say that "There is a consensus to have a reliable sources guideline. But no consensus to have this one." That is the function of editing, which is what we need to start doing in order to move forward.  So... is there a particular part of the guideline that you feel should be worked on first? Blueboar 18:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No. Phil Sandifer 18:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Just so others don't mistake your simple "No" for a refusal to participate... I want to point out that it links to Reliable sources/Flaws ... I assume that I am correct in interpreting that as meaning (essentially) "My issues with the current verson of the guideline are presented here" (please correct me if I am misinterpreting).
 * OK, that's fair. But we do have to start somewhere... Does anyone else have a particular section that they want to address first? Blueboar 19:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You interpret correctly, with a dash of "Every paragraph of this guideline is badly flawed, just to remind you, and it needs to be flagged as such." Which is the message of the dispute tag. It's not an attack on the guideline - it's a temporary measure so that people who reference the guideline while it's being worked on know that there are some very big problems with it. Until the guideline is accurate and helpful, people deserve to know that it has major problems necessitating a major rewrite. Phil Sandifer 19:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah... NOW I understand better why you feel the need to have the dispute tag. I don't agree, but at least I understand.
 * An unrelated question... have you taken a look at ALR's rewrite page? I feel it is getting very close to being a potential replacement and/or merger for the current wording that you object to.  Would you be able to support such a replacement and/or merger?  Blueboar 21:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Phil. Perhaps the reason some of us have given up on trying to improve this one is because we couldn't get so much as half a sentence edited without it being reverted. It became technically impossible to improve this guideline, even though it was and is wretched.  Excellent edits by Mikkal, who gave up here, and by Slim Virgin, who was forced to work on the issues on a new page, were trashed by editors restoring manifestly inferior versions. All respect to Blueboar, who would have been prepared to work with me (albeit only a tiny bit at a time) to improve this text, but he will remember that no one else, no, not one of these people who have voted for a rewrite of this page, was prepared to work with us in the slightest. A lot of people have now been working very hard to improve the Wikipedia reliable-sources guidelines, but, as you know, they're not doing it here; they're doing it at a policy proposal page called  Attribution; but (might be wrong here) I don't think Blueboar, Daniel, or Francis have helped with that process at all. What is more important, messing about here with polls or getting stuck into improving Wikipedia policy? (And it's the policy that needs working on, the venue is irrelevant.) If consensus is totted up, clearly there are more people working on the issues of this guideline at the Attribution page than here. This is a decaying lot; too right it needs a condemned tag on it. qp10qp 21:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Because of this page's history as mentioned immediately above, if people think that the best course of action is to significantly rewrite the page, I think this needs to be done and stabilized before the removal of the dispute tags. JYolkowski // talk 23:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've asked this before, and I don't think it was answered. To the people who want it to remain a guideline, what exactly is in here that you feel matters, that isn't in WP:V or WP:NOR? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Personally, I want it as a guideline in the sense that the Manual of Style is a guideline. Nothing that you must fully comply to or your article will perish, but something with a bit of official status so that you aren't allowed to blatantly disregard it. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 23:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Qp10qp, If you have given up on this page as you say then I'm not sure why you come here to argue with those still trying to improve it. Why is your perspective that Mikkal and SlimVirgin did manifestly superior edits more valid than those editors who restored previous text? What makes you say that all of the people who voted to rewrite were unwilling to work with you in the slightest, when it is you who just said you gave up? Why do you fault me for not helping on WP:ATT, did you ever ask me? You might as well fault me for not working on Cucumber. That's fine if you think this guideline is decayed and should be condemned, participate in the poll next time and we'll understand that without having to read 2000 comments to figure out where you and the other naysayers stand. DanielM 22:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It is in general helpful to remember that Polls are evil in the eyes of many. Furthermore, it appears to be the case that those who believe polls to be evil and those who have a general distaste of instruction creep and guideline bloat correspond. Thus that view tends to be underrepresented in polls, leaving false impressions of consensus. Phil Sandifer 23:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Daniel, I used the word "manifestly" because we had the depressing experience here of punctuation and grammar mistakes and poor expression being restored by kneejerk reverting, apart from anything else.


 * Let me follow on from Slim Virgin's question, which continues to be ignored. The main reason why this page should cease to be a guideline and should preferably, in my opinion, cease to exist entirely is that it doesn't do anything. It has grown like a slag heap over the Verifiability, No Original Research, and, come to that, Neutral Point of View policies, which cover the ground perfectly adequately. That wouldn't be so bad, but because this page has become so bloated and ramshackle, it has gained a spurious importance of its own (which I can see that some people are attached to) and, worse still, has taken to diverging in places from the policies it was intended to assist; the latter means it is now actively damaging to policy coherence, since it provides a source of contradiction. And since it calls itself a guideline, the page makes itself seem more canonical than it really is.


 * Although I think it would be better if the Attribution policy superseded Verifiability, No Original Research, and Reliable Sources, I'd be willing enough to continue with Verifiability and No Original research as the key policies on sources, if necessary; but I would still argue for Reliable Sources to go. I can fully understand why some of the commentators higher up this page saw the tag and came here to say how useful they'd found the guidance on this page; but the Attribution proposal places various useful examples and specific cases in an FAQ (see Attribution/FAQ), which wouldn't claim to be a guideline. Useful examples from the present page, if they are not already covered, could be transferred there, where they would be of just as much use to editors. Have a look there for a moment. Do you not think it is a vast improvement?  qp10qp 00:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There are a lot of good aspects to that page and the main WP:ATT page. If consensus is reached to replace WP:RS with something else, this might be found to be a good candidate. I'll try to be a part of that discussion when it comes. Other people have been working on a rewrite page that I commented on up above. An hour and a half passed and it's too soon to say everybody is ignoring Slim Virgin's question. Just because a person doesn't respond to this or that question doesn't mean he or she's ignoring it anymore than the idea that a person is "unwilling to help" on . Slim would get better odds of responses if he or she started a line break and new header.


 * You want to replace Verifiability, No Original Research, and Reliable Sources with WP:ATT and its sub-page, that a question that requires a lot of reading and study and discussion. IMO that doesn't require attacks on Reliable Sources or locking it up or demoting it. A straw poll is a useful tool to gauge the opinions of editors. Maybe the "polls are evil" crowd has working on the straw poll page, it used to be a guideline, now its an essay. Maybe it'll be a guideline again. Polls are benevolent. A straw poll can illustrate the strength of editorial opinion about a particular question. Perhaps a distinct minority is kicking up a fuss of a change when the majority of editors are in favor of preserving the existing text, or vice versa. It's not a wacky idea to make the changes you advocate but a lot of times a distinct minority or just one or two maroons may be pushing for a wacky change and a straw poll will illuminate that a preponderance of editors disagree with it. What else? If the disputed tag must stay up for now then let it stay, but the article should be unlocked or editors are deprived of the opportunity to improve it. DanielM 01:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * FYI - I have already requested an unlock so we can begin work. While we are waiting... please pop over to Reliable sources/rewrite and take a look.  It takes a very different approach to things.  It is actually a very good rewrite in my opinion, and quickly becoming worthy of consideration to replace the current text.  At minimum it is at a stage where constructive commentary is needed. I would especially ask those working on WP:ATT to comment.  If you are successful at your efforts to combine WP:V, and WP:NOR (thus making WP:ATT a Policy) I could see this rewrite as being a supporting guideline. Blueboar 01:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * (moved from above where it was lost... I did reply to SlimVirgin): SV, I know that almost everything here is in WP:V and WP:NOR... This is intentional. Guidelines are to supposed to repeat what is said on the Policy pages.  Essentially, a Guideline should be though of as a sub-page of the policy page - expanding on it in a particular area (In this case reliability).  For example, WP:V states that blogs, personal websites, usenet posts etc. are unreliable and should not be used.  This Guideline expands on that in more detail and tells you WHY they are unreliable. Blueboar 23:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The rewrite is problematic, e.g. "Replicability — Can the conclusions of the source be reached using the information available or is there any indication of gaps in the thinking or process of derivation." It doesn't matter if the NYT article displays a "gap in thinking." It's a reliable source, period. And "process of derivation" doesn't really mean anything. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see that rewrite as a page that could stand on its own, but its solutions could certainly be proposed as part of the improvement drive.


 * I must admit that I didn't notice that page before, even though it has been mentioned further up this page. Since some people didn't notice the Attribution proposal pages either, I wonder if this Talk page needs a statement at the top, advising people of the various rewrites in progress. Few of us manage to read every word here, and so it might be a help. qp10qp 15:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've first got to thank Blueboar for drawing attention to the suggestions at the rewrite page. Clearly it does need significant work and it is a major change in direction.  Personally I'm all for treating editors as adults and recognising that in an academic pursuit there are few absolutes.
 * By way of demonstrating that I'd suggest that the NYT is not a Reliable Source per se in all circumstances, which the point is intended to illustrate. It's as reliable as it's written and frequently media reporting contains many caveats or does not attribute its own sources.
 * I'm unclear on what your background is with respect to the subject, it would be useful to know that. Clearly in this particular debate we're potentially dealing with everyone from schoolkids to post-doctoral experience, I'm sort of midrange as a post-Masters degree (twice) and management consultant.
 * ALR 22:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Centralized discussion of sources
Following the example of Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org I created a centralized discussion regarding salon.com as a source for Wikipedia after a dispute arose on using salon.com for the article Sathya Sai Baba. See Talk:Salon.com/as_a_source_for_Wikipedia. I intend to make more centralized discussions of specific sources. Andries 09:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that's a centralized discussion; that's more like a subdiscussion. It may or may not be a good idea but I'm not sure how well it will work to attack each particular source on its own page.


 * I think we really do need to accept the fact that sources are not merely okay or not okay. Some sources are better than others. We'd like to have the best possible at any time. John Reid ° 11:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

With centralized discussion about specific sources, I mean that the generic dicussions about specific sources should not be fragmented over diverse article talk pages. The contributors may not be aware that more or less the same discussion is taking place on other article talk pages. Andries 14:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You're trying to settle an imponderable. Is Salon.com a reliable source? On whole, I might be tempted to say no. But Salon.com is not a source; it's a website that contains multiple pages. For any given article, some Salon page might be a good reference for some bit of information. For others, not.


 * This whole effort is pointless -- I'm sorry. You do not get to avoid attacking the problem of sourcing on a case-by-case basis. Neither do you really get to label sources as "okay" and "not okay". Some references are better than others; that's all. Each reference must be evaluated individually. It's a lot of work; that's why not many people become real encyclopedia editors. John Reid ° 06:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * By parallel: the New York Times (or periodical of your choice) is a reliable source &mdash; in its fact-reporting articles... but that same periodical also contains editorials, guest opinion columns, letters to the editor, and advertisements, which are not subject to the same standards of fact-checking or objectivity. It would be foolish to consider the entire contents equally reliable, or equally cite-worthy to support fact claims. Likewise for an online "periodical" such as Salon or Slate. – SAJordan talkcontribs 08:39, 12 Nov 2006 (UTC).
 * I understand and I agree. Salon.com as whole was attacked because it was a self-professed tabloid and appeared not in print, but only online. I think it is useful to have at least some centralized discussion. The dispute originated with an article written by a respected regular journalist of salon.com Michelle Goldberg and the article in question was not a editorial, guest opinion, letter to the editor. Andries 10:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * (minor remark:) maybe best to follow the format recommended at Centralized discussion, that is: Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Some topic - so, if you don't mind I'd move the Talk:Salon.com/as_a_source_for_Wikipedia page away from article talk namespace to something like: Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/source reliability/Salon.com. --Francis Schonken 11:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Question on WP:RS and peer-reviewed acedemic sources.
Some editors, including admins User:Fred Bauder and User:MONGO, have suggested that peer-reviewed academic publications from prestigious universities are not acceptable under WP:RS if the author subsequently becomes politically active in an area they define as 'disinformation'.

The specific case is Dr Ganser of the ETH Zurich who wrote a peer-reviewed book on Operation Gladio. Two years later he also wrote a chapter for a book on 9/11. Does this make his previous work unacceptable under WP:RS? Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 20:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for once again misrepresenting my comments...I did not say this.--MONGO 08:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Unacceptable as what? He is certainly entitled to his opinion.  He should be attributed when he gives it and his outrageous views pointed out.  In this case, he's an extreme leftist who almost certainly pushing a political agenda either through his leftist 9/11 Conspiracy BS or his leftist attacks on western countries and views during the cold war.  Under no circumstances should his opinions/conclusions be taken as unquestioned fact without substantial sources backing it up.   Use common sense.  --Tbeatty 22:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * My question was whether his views and research can be quoted in wikipedia. Tbeatty - why do you say his criticism is 'leftist'? I found no trace of 'leftism' in his commentary, and I'm sure you have not read the book in question. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 22:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Once again, this seems to be a WP:NPOV issue rather than a reliablility issue. In this instance, Ganser's work on Operation Gladio is POV but reliable (in that it was indeed peer-reviewed and published by an academic institution - ETH Zurich.)  I would say that he can be cited, but that this should be done as an opinion not as undisputed fact.  Blueboar 22:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Blueboar. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 22:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Common sense, Tbeatty, is that your frothing about "leftist" opinion and your refusal to acknowledge that it IS backed-up suggests that you want to transform the article into a whitewash. His "leftist attacks" were so outrageous that up to and including NATO invited him to speak at conferences. Your disrespect for sources contrary to your own opinions suggest that you are pushing your own POV here. Please do so in your own private blog or webpage. This isn't the forum for slander nor politically motivated defamation campaigns. If he's ok for NATO, the Swiss government and the ICRC, then you are in no position to attack him. --OliverH 13:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Blissfully unaware of the situation, and thus unable to make statements that address the specifics, I can think of a handful of academics that have peer reviewed publications that are so discredited as to not really be citeable at all - the Bogdanov affair being the most obvious. I can also think of ones, including very important ones (Jacques Derrida) who are far from discredited, but are of sufficient controversy that virtually nothing they say can be stated point blank. Phil Sandifer 15:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You can quote the views of someone like this, because the threshhold in Wikipedia is verifiability. But ""threshhold"" is another word for "minimum requirement" to be cited; a further requirement, though, is the consensus of editors, and if other editors replace that quote with one from a less controversial source, the quote can be deemed not to have been worth having. For example, I should think that many of the facts in the books by David Irving, who was once thought a respectable historian, are sound and soundly sourced, but I suspect that most editors here would rather have quotations from less obnoxious historians than him. (I mean, if Titus Andronicus served it, I wouldn't even eat beans on toast.) qp10qp 17:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Use of Bogdanov-derived physics in any science article ought to fail to meet any acceptable test of sourcing. If it does not, then our sourcing tests are broken. Phil Sandifer 18:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Disputed? Fighting the wrong battle...
Sorry, I don't care if this guideline is redundant. It should be kept as a guideline. There is a distressing seepage of cruft onto Wikipedia, and we could use every single rule, guideline etc. to stop it. If you wanna fight redundancy and meaninglessness, then go fight it where it should be fought.. out there among the crufty pseudo-articles. Thanks, --Ling.Nut 20:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Explain what this page has to do with cruft. This page is about how to resolve real-world citation disputes. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 22:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Mmm, if I wikilinked to articles, I might start a foodfight. Let's say that I'm aware of at least one important (in my view) article which links to a tabloid newspaper and a vanity book in order to justify an entire section. The section is... charitably ... speculative. But it has emotional appeal to the contributors to that article. Does that make a connection? Reliable sources are a bulwark against cruft. Weakening that bulwark in any way is, in my opinion, not a good thing.
 * But I'm not suggesting this discussion isn't valid or shouldn't take place. I was tossing in a comment. I look forward to seeing the outcome (if any) of this discussion.
 * --Ling.Nut 22:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably true, absolutely not "reliable" by our rules
What do people think we should do with something like this? I have no reason at all to doubt a word this person is saying, but "My father translated and read the names and dates to me as I wrote them down in 1974…My father's mother, Teodora Vazquez Molenar Gonzalez was close to Pasqual as their mothers were sisters" isn't exactly what we usually accept. - Jmabel | Talk 02:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In this case we have what the antiques dealers call "Provinance"... a direct line of written documentation to someone who is reliable (a relative of the subject of the article). This is not the same as reliability, but it is close.  In this case, I think you have to ask, is there a reason to think the material is inaccurate or faulty in some way?  If the the answer is no, and if the consensus on the article is to accept it... then this is a perfect example of a case where WP:Ignore all rules can apply.  Remember, this is a guideline and not Law.  If there is a good reason to ignore it, and no one objects, then do so. (did I actually just say that! 8>0 ) Blueboar 03:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's inadmissable. If it's true, maybe some reliable sources can be found for it. In my opinion, it should be placed on the Talk page, where it may give leads to future editors. The editor should, of course, be treated with the utmost respect and the information preserved as potentially verifiable. qp10qp 17:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The provenance argument actually militates against inclusion, not for it. A dealer would want to see the diary, have it authenticated and translated by an expert, and only then would evaluate whether the claims in the diary were relevant to the provenance of the item being sold.  If a recognized expert had already opined on the subject, a dealer could take the expert's word, provided that there was no doubt about the authenticity of the opinion.  The first option is not available to Wikipedia for three reasons: the diary is unavailable, Wikipedia avoids original research and any expert hired by the family might (for all we know) be biased.  The second option is available only if the expert's opinion is verifiable: which means that it has been published so that future Wikipedians can check that it exists and check the expert's qualifications and reputation.  Robert A.West (Talk) 18:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

A Nobel effort but...

 * I just can't seem to make my point clearly today. Maybe it's something I ate.


 * Salon is not a reliable source. NYT is not a reliable source. Scientific American is not a reliable source. JCT is not a reliable source, although it is nearer the gods than most mortals. There are no reliable sources. This effort to try to push our vegetables around on our plate is embarrassing.


 * Every individual reference, in every individual article, must be evaluated individually, in light of the claim made in the article and the strength of the connection between claim and citation. There is not really any point evaluating the reference itself, in any definitive way; the only question to address is Does this reference support one or more claims in this article? Now, "support" in this context is a huge word and I won't get into it all. But it goes far beyond flashing a little green ticket that says, "I'm okay."


 * By extension, there is no point at all in handing out these little green tickets to entire journals or periodicals -- or little red ones, either. Any particular issue of Nature can, and sometimes does, contain a mixture of fine research, dubious speculation, and crank science that will come back to haunt authors, editors, and reviewers alike. All we can say certainly is that Nature has a good track record, while National Lampoon, quite deliberately, does not. Still, the former can contain blatant bullshit and the latter True Facts. No year passes without some fine academic's reputation going down in flames.


 * Let me stress that it is especially foolish to label references based solely on the reputation of the source -- or even on the merit of the citation -- in vacuo. Nothing is easier than to shore up a weak article with authoritative sources. The journal is well-respected, the authors are eminent, the citation well-written, the math heavy. Even better, a search reveals that the citation has itself been cited many times in other articles. Ahhhh. Trouble is, if you actually read and understand the cited paper and the citing article, you see there is no support given.


 * Citing and reviewing sources is one of the most highly developed faculties of humankind. The process has developed over literally five hundred years and engages some of our finest brains. Every year, tens of thousands of grad students are broken upon this wheel. Please stop trying to reinvent it -- especially, don't try to build a square one. Thank you. John Reid ° 19:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but what to do when there is a dispute about the question whether a certain article is a good source in a publication with a reasonable to good reputatation? It only leads to endless discussions with editors coming not a millimeter closer. Andries 20:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * On a more practical note saying that nothing is absolutely reliable seems to invite all sorts of pedantry about "A is a reliable source because I said so (or some equivalent, like "we can trust this dude, trust me"), and X Y and Z are not guidelines or policy." What you're saying is fine from a theoretical perspective, but it gets fuzzier and fuzzier outside of academic areas.  ColourBurst 02:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but whilst there are a disproportionate number of schoolchildren involved in Wikipedia the guidance on how to contribute should not cater for the lowest common denominator. Trying to pin things down to absolutes leads to a general undermining of the effort because someone with credible understanding of the research process can pull it apart without much effort.
 * General principle, do we treat editors as idiots and spoon feed them, or do we treat them as adults and provide a real world environment to negotiate within?
 * If you're suggesting that many of those who are responsible for enforcing policy and guideline usage aren't capable of working in a mature environment then that is a different issue, one battle at a time.
 * ALR 07:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, ALR, that sounds reasonable. --Francis Schonken 08:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

"Reliable source" does not mean "flawless and omniscient".

And what does any of this have to do with Nobel (title of section). - Jmabel | Talk 00:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Moving forward
Before we can move forward with any rewrite, I think we need to address a fundamental question: What exactly are guidelines? Are guidelines a set of "rules" which should be followed, or are they "advice" that can be ignored?

Ideally, Policies should be considered as "rules" to be followed, and guidelines should be considered "advice" on how to implement specific sections of a policy. Thus, WP:RS should be a page of advice on how to impliment the rule stated in WP:V (ie: that statements made in articles should be cited to reliable sources.) Ideally, editors come here, read what we have to say, and go off and make their own determinations as to how reliable things are.

Unfortunately, that is not how guidelines are used in reality. When disputes arise, editors quote gidelines as if they were rules. This is understandable. Because policies tend to be very broad in scope, they do not cover specifics. But when a question or dispute over specifics arises, editors want to know how to resolve them. They want a rule that tells them if something is OK or not. In the case of this guideline, editors want some place where they can go to determine whether a given source is reliable or not. Look at the typical discussion on this page... most of the discussions start with someone posting a question such as: "Is source A a reliable source in article B?" In other words, the editors who come here don't want advice... they want a determination (to be cynical, they often don't just want a determination, they want one that in in sync with their own POV, but that is another issue).

To sum up... guidelines often are written as advice, but they are used as rules.

So the big question for us is... do we go with the ideal and write advice, or do we go with reality and write a set of rules? My personal oppinion is that we need to do something in-between. The bulk of any guideline should continue to be advice... but we should be clear that there are a few rules, and state them clearly. The advice part needs to be written as advice... It should be couched in flexible terms that encourages the reader to think on his or her own and reach their own conclusions. The rules part needs to be written as rules ... blunt, clear and concise, with little "wiggle room" or interpretation. Rules should basically repeat what is stated on the policy pages, with perhaps a bit of expansion as it relates to the subject of the guideline. For example: As advice, I would include something like: "When a dispute about the reliablility of a source arises, editors should first attempt to resolve the issue on the article talk page or on the project page relating to that article. Often disputes over sources are actually disputes over POV, and can be resolved by rephrasing the statement the citation is being used to support as the opinion of the source." (Not really good wording... but you get the idea). As a rule, I would include the following: "As is stated in WP:V, 'Self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.' This is Wikipedia policy and should always be followed.  Such sources may be used in articles about themselves, (ie articles about the book, website or blog, or when another article directly discusses the book, website or blog.)  Such sources may also be used when the author can be confirmed to be a well respected expert writing in his own field of experties." (again... the wording is not perfect, but you get the idea).

OK... that's my view... what's yours? Blueboar 19:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Have you looked at WP:ATT and WP:ATT/FAQ ? ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 20:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes.Blueboar 20:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You have said that guidelines are advice about how to implement policies; but that is just your deduction—there's actually no foundation reason to call such advice "guidelines". In my opinion, the issue is this: advice that supports a policy should not make supplementary rulings of its own; everything should be covered in the policy. If a guideline makes rulings, it becomes a form of policy; then (as is the case now) the editor needs to follow both the policy and the guideline and becomes over-instructed. Of course, we do need some FAQs to address practical applications of policy for specific instances, but that may be done without titling the help "guideline". One advantage of dropping the name "guideline" is that where such guidance appears to contradict policy, we know to defer to policy; at the moment, this guideline can be used to challenge and obfuscate policy.


 * In my opinion, we must give editors some elbow room rather than attempting to tell them precisely what to do in every instance; a firm grasp of the policy principles is the best guidance. An FAQ could then work as a help desk for specific cases. qp10qp 20:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Qp10qp - I think we actually agree, but are simply stating things differently. I certainly agree that a guidline should never contain rules that are contradictary to a policy.  I would even go a step further... any "rule" included in a guideline should be a repetition and extension of something already said in a policy.  The rule making should be done on policy pages... rule explaining can be done in guidelines.  You take exception to my saying that guidelines are advice about how to implement policies... OK... how would you define a guideline? Blueboar 20:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't take exception to it; I just think you are making an assumption that there is some Wikipedia structure that says "Policy plus Guideline is the system"—and there isn't. By a species of cognitive dissonance (this is here and called a guideline so its status must be explicable) you (and those who wrote the word at the top of the page) give the innocuous word "guideline", in your loyalty to it as a title, an importance it doesn't merit. "Guideline", basically, means a few bits of guidance. The implication of this page is that a guideline is more that—in effect, a set of instructions. But the policies are the instructions.


 * You say that a guideline should never contain rules that are contradictory to a policy; but why should it contain any rules, then, if the rules are in policy? Why can't it just give the advice without insisting on this title "guideline"? qp10qp 21:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As for the title "guideline", see guideline, which says they're not carved in stone; for an account of how they come to be written, as approximations made out of Scotch tape and piano wire, see WP:PR; I can testify that it is accurate for the guidelines I have seen written. Septentrionalis 01:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

How to
If anyone is interested, I think a short discussion of how real encyclopedia editors and other academics make and verify credible references might be in order. Entire books have been written about this topic, some straying far into metaphysics, but let's just cover the basics.

There is no such thing as an utterly definitive reference. All must be subjected to a balancing test. Many ingredients go into the soup and all must be tasted. Here are a few:


 * Reputation of the publication. Most of the discussion here seems to touch on this so I'll not beat it to death.


 * Reputation of the authors. Some academics have established themselves as authorities; their papers are highly regarded. In non-academic fields, there is still an emphasis on authors who have previously shown themselves responsible.


 * Relevance of the publication's field. I would not give a plugged nickel for a paper in Cell on the topic of topology, no matter who wrote it.


 * Relevance of the author's field. I highly respect Stephen Hawking but I would not pay too much attention to his "History of Spaghetti Sauce". I wouldn't even take Justin Wilson's too seriously.


 * Relevance of the citation itself. Perhaps the publication normally and respectably deals with, say, Cetacea; perhaps the authors are respected marine biologists; perhaps the paper describes the migrations of the Humpback Whale. Well and good. But if the paper is used to bolster an argument made about the mating habits of Sea turtles, I will not rate it so highly -- in this context.


 * Correspondence between the claim and the supporting citation. This is key. It's extremely easy to cite a paper that comes from a good journal, good authors; a paper in the same field as the article itself -- even one whose title strongly suggests support of the article's thesis. I may need to have good knowledge of the underlying discipline to see that the cited paper doesn't really support the article's claim.


 * Prior citations. I like to see that a cited paper has been cited in other papers published in peer-reviewed journals. This is good but not definitive. I actually question those which have been very widely cited; it suggests a lazy author.


 * Post-publication review. It's always good to see a citation that's been picked up in other journals and reviewed, if only briefly.


 * Agreement among citations. Two citations that support the same claim are stronger than either one alone. The whole is more than the sum of its parts. This is somewhat weakened if one paper cites the other one in order to prop up its own claims. It's fine if it just mentions the other to be complete.


 * Strength of the citation's citations. The process of verifying citations is recursive. The most august paper, if it is not itself well-sourced, is not a particularly good citation. Of course, in the case of papers which present original research, another criterion is paramount.


 * Availability of raw data. This is that other criterion. Papers which present original research need to document data gathering. They do not ordinarily publish raw data itself but it should be clear from context whether this is available for review.

About this time, you are wondering how in the world any citation can meet all these criteria. Short answer: Few do. Certainly, in the world of popular culture, you are not likely to get anything nearly as good as this standard. Deal with it. Either refuse to accept articles on such topics or lower citation standards for them. There really isn't much choice.

Try to keep in mind that none of this is remotely fun. All the fun of writing for publication comes from actually writing the article. All that boring research in the stacks is hard on the eyes and taxes one's patience. You cannot really hope to do it without access to a good university library. Most of what's available online gratis is garbage. If you have access to certain databases, you may do better but most of the important stuff is only in print -- or worse, on fiche.

I close with a serious caution. Most of us are simply not qualified to judge the merit of most citations. In order to do this, you need to be qualified in the field. I am a generalist, with very broad experience that cuts across many fields. Still, I would hesitate to make a final statement on any citation not in a field in which I have deep experience -- which such are rather few.

I've said it before: Let's try not to reinvent the wheel. Citing sources is a discipline that's evolved over a very long time and has had many hands in the development. There are many authoritative references on the topic. If you intend to develop a rigorous, comprehensive citation policy, you need to start by sourcing the claims you make here. John Reid ° 11:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, everything you say is true (I would like to see you post it at Citing Sources). However, the mistake you make is to believe that Wikipedia should cite like a scholarly journal; in fact, if it resembles print forms at all, it resembles popular non-fiction. The reason for citing on Wikipedia is nothing to do with scholarship but to do with what we (clumsily, in my opinion) call "verification". Our imperative is only this: whatever we say here should have already been said in a reliable published work. So long as we keep to that principle, the production of a reliable article on Wikipedia need not be as difficult as you make out.


 * Of course, even then, there are still many judgement calls for editors to make; but we don't necessarily have to behave like professional scholars (in fact, that would make us original researchers). If we can find a secondary source published by a standard publisher, we may use its information without inquiring into how that book found its information; instead, we feed like a parasite off that book's editing and publishing process. To produce articles of the highest quality, of course, we may go further and check every source possible, including primary ones (I have sometimes done this myself), using library resources, and this may lead us to question some of the normally accepted secondary sources—but this is far from being a requirement in what, for want of a better term, has been called a tertiary medium. In other words, it's monkey see, monkey do.


 * In fields where fully exposed information isn't available—some topics in popular culture, for example—we shouldn't give up but use the best sources we can in the circumstances.


 * Having said all this, I agree with you if you feel that the present page is naive in talking of "reliable sources" as if that's the criterion; it isn't, it's the threshhold (we might take the NYT seriously but disqualify its gossip column). People who merely parrot some of the advice on this page will certainly make bad decisions. qp10qp 13:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * John, have you taken a look at Reliable sources/rewrite? I'd be interested in your opinion on it.  JYolkowski // talk 00:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Most of what has gone into that has been based on this, Research Methods for Business Students by Saunders and Thornhill which I used as a student and still use when I'm teaching research methods to young managers. Notwithstanding that I'd welcome some other views on my particular distillation of the content.ALR 07:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

A vast improvement. John Reid ° 09:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

A B C
Oh, okay. We're not trying to meet academic standards for peer-reviewed journal articles. We're just trying to write the best articles possible and support them as best we can. Sorry; for a minute there, I thought we were serious about all this reliable sources bumf.

If we're not going to try to reinvent the wheel and streamline the process of researching and verifying citations, then we can scale back to what is practical in an open community full of untrained editors. I made this suggestion before but it didn't catch fire. I honestly do believe people would rather play at academia and force some random collection of "rules" into policy, trying to cover the entire field of human knowledge with straight lines and wobbly restrictions. If I'm wrong, I'll try again.

No matter what, every citation must be evaluated on its own merits. There is no bypassing this. No amount of huffing and puffing is going to result in a short, easy-to-read standard against which every citation can be measured. You may not like this, but yes, every single citation is an opportunity for a little bitty war. You say it's okay, I say it's not, we argue, we cite more sources to support our views. The merits of the individual citation in its individual context absolutely trump any project-wide standard.

Not only that, we must face up realistically to the fact that some articles are going to be better sourced than others. Worthwhile articles can and should be written on topics where fair sources are all that are available. If we thrash out some high standard for "reliable" sources, we cut off all lesser ones. If we settle for a minimum standard, we fail to push for the best available when we have many from which to choose. The only thing crazier than trying to set one bar for the entire project is to try to set a zillion little bars, one each for every category of article -- here, in one central space. Most editors will simply ignore this effort. You take, for example, Classical Music. Editors who work in that area have no interest at all in this general effort; they will ignore it, too, if it conflicts with the system they have already settled upon.

With this in mind, all that remains of general, project-wide interest is some sort of rudimentary source rating scheme. Having admitted that some sources are better than others, I propose a simple grading system: A, B, and C.


 * (A) - sa
 * (B) - sb
 * (C) - sc

Go to articles one at a time; check sources given one at a time; and grade them appropriately if you think you have enough understanding to do so. Then move on. If somebody else changes the rating, let it go. In fact, I will say that if you are here, you almost certainly have a generalist bent of mind, which means that although you may have a better grasp of why it is important to have some sort of project-wide standards for sources, any specialist is probably a better judge than you are in his specific area. So let it go.

There is no point at all in warring over a source's grade so long as there are hundreds of thousands of unrated sources in the project. When all sources have grades and you want to dispute another editor's change to one of your grades, do so politely; argue your case rationally and on individual merits. Do not hope to kill the entire beast on this one page in one week.

That's all. John Reid ° 08:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

There; I've documented the process and the series of templates. See Source grading. I've also included a new placeholder template for use when editors simply can't agree. John Reid ° 09:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I would add a source code "F"... for when totally unreliable sources are used. (It does happen). Blueboar 13:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Please make that comment at Wikipedia talk:Source grading. The short answer is no; just remove it. John Reid ° 11:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Strawman arguments
Few types of sources make me more uncomfortable than those of any stripe that rely upon strawman arguments, innuendo, ad hominem arguments, etc. My opinion is they cheapen Wikipedia's reliability as an overall resource, and they furthermore exacerbate partisanship. Is there any way we could tighten the requirements surrounding partisan or religious sources to ensure they at least have a shred of indisputable fact in them? I have seen pages of different stripes with unsubstantiated rants supporting them, which seem to weaken Wikipedia's overall credibility. Encyclopedias stake their reputations on being factual, not opinionated, at least traditionally. Just the facts ma'am.--FidesetRatio 03:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What you are talking about is often a NPOV issue and not an issue about the reliablility of sources. In other words, the sources are reliable, but it depends on how the sources are used. To keep articles NPOV, we must often discuss the allegations or opinions of those who use strawman arguments, innuendo and ad hominem arguments.  The key is to state these as oppinions and allegations, and not as facts.
 * We can say someting like "According to author I. M. Looney, 'Lobsters are evil because... (insert inuendo, strawman, or ad hominem argument here)...' " But we should not say "Lobsters are evil because (insert inuendo, strawman or adhominem argument ". Blueboar 15:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I wish that the sentiment you express could be hammered into the heads of RS-nazis everywhere. An unconfirmable source ought to be acceptable for inclusion if it is attributed in the prose as being from that source. The reader can then research the source and make up their own minds. - Keith D. Tyler &para; (AMA) 17:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems the exception rather than the rule on Wikipedia. Too many articles in my opinion seem to be propaganda pieces for different POVs that the editors and admins who work on them guard jealously. I define reliable as accurate or truthful.--FidesetRatio 17:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Then you're not understanding what reliable means in the wikisense. "Truth" has nothing to do with what we do here.  We are reporters, stating what other sources say.  We are not here to impose or impute "truth" into the mix. Wjhonson 17:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * FidesetRatio does have a point however. An overabundance of articles are POV (and poorly sourced POV at that).  That is not really an issue for this page, but it is a problem.  Fideset, I would recommend that you raise the issue at WP:NPOV.


 * I'm raising the point here because the use of specious articles based upon people's emotive behavior without a lick of facts to support them makes Wikipedia look foolish. Things like "According to x, John Smith has ties to the hated group Y." However, the author doesn't provide any hard evidence to back up his or her claims.
 * Or, I frequently find sources that say something like "John Smith is x because he talked with person Y at Z conference." Nothing has been proven because Mr. Smith hasn't come out and said he is x.
 * If truth has "nothing to do with what we do here," this is it okay to spin falsehoods, distortions or deceptions?
 * If you were a reporter, then you would simply report without entering into the argument. I am a reporter in work a day life, and if I published something that was false, misleading, etc., I could get fired for a breach of journalstic ethics. It's one thing to argue over the clear facts, but it's quite another to allow sources that base themselves 100 percent upon emotion and say, "The facts be damned."
 * Using that "truth has nothing to do with what we do here" line, then logically there would be nothing wrong with including materials from Holocaust deniers in the articles on WWII, the Nazis or the Holocaust itself. Because if there isn't any absolute truth, then there was nothing wrong with what the Nazis did. (I'm playing devil's advocate here to illustrate my point.)
 * If Wikipedia wants to eschew accuracy or factual content, then it deserves the less than stellar reputation it has. I'm here to be a part of helping Wikipedia attain respectability. Traditional encyclopedias reject innuendo because it's not verifiable, unless it's part of the biography of the person or group making the innuendo remarks.
 * I say a source is reliable, in my professional opinion as a paid journalist, if the assertions being made can be demonstrated to have a factual basis separate from the person making the statement. If you want to rely upon crappy 3rd-rate sources, then Wikipedia deserves the reputation it has. I want to make a positive contribution here to improve standards, so that Wikipedia's reputation will improve.--FidesetRatio 01:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's neutrality requires to include information about Holocaust denials according to WP:NPOV policy. As it's a very small minority opinion, it isn't a "problem". And Wikipdia doesn't make moral judgments but reports about them; as a reporter that may sound familiar to you. An IMO good example of a news organization that apparently attempts a similar policy is BBC World.
 * Note that Wikipdia already has a manual that informs and warns about such things as strawmen arguments and that is linked from the NPOV policy page: NPOV_tutorial
 * Harald88 00:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:EL revisions
Please note that WP:EL has been revised... there is one section that may impact this guideline or the various rewrites being drafted:
 * Links normally to be avoided
 * Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or is an official page of the subject of the article, one should avoid:


 * 2 Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources.

This is the first time that I can think of where factually inaccurate material has been discussed in such a explicitly negative way in a guideline. OUR guideline certainly doesn't (nor the draft rewrites that might replace it). Given this, Perhaps the time has come for us to address the issue of sources that contain factually inaccurate material as well.

I know that we have to be careful not to contradict the priciples expressed in WP:NPOV... but I think we could state something similar to what is on WP:EL. I.E. any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research should not be considered reliable. Any thoughts on this? Blueboar 19:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Wikipedia needs some sort of quality-control mechanism. I'm a reporter, and if my source gives me bad information, I still get killed by my readers, even if it wasn't my fault the information was misleading. What do you think about banning political or religious propaganda as reliable sources, save for if we are discussing say Socialist, Fascist, Communist, Catholic, atheist propaganda, etc.? Propaganda doesn't require any factual basis to it, and my journalistic instincts say that a third-party, non-partisan source needs to be provided to verify any opinion-based claims. If you say that so-and-so belongs to a certain group, you had better have independed verification from a non-partisan source, such as a reputable newspaper, journal, etc., otherwise letting that slide allows Wikipedia's articles to degenerate to the level of trash and uselessness. With Citizendium on the horizon, Wikipedia needs to be competitive, or suffer Nupedia's fate. Contributors and readers will go elsewhere if they don't trust Wikipedia's content.--FidesetRatio 03:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

On the change to WP:EL: Seems utterly misguided to judge this at the level of a site. By this logic, we can't link IMDB for basic info on the cast of a film because it may have inaccurate or misleading reviews; we can't link a newspaper because it runs misleading personals ads; etc. Surely this cannot mean what it says. - Jmabel | Talk 00:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

On FidesetRatio's remarks: Do I read you as saying that centrist, capitalist (and perhaps Protestant?) viewpoints are trusted and other viewpoints are inherently "propaganda"? Are you saying, for example, that we should distrust George Orwell as a source because he was a socialist? No thanks. The issue is intellectual honesty, not someone's politics. For example, I trust the BBC, Wall Street Journal, The Nation, and The National Review about equally on factual reporting, which is to say I assume them all to be trying to get their facts right, and usually succeeding, at least in outline. Conversely, I don't trust Fox News any more than Stalinist-era Pravda. - Jmabel | Talk 00:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)