Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 2

Decision Memory
I was directed here from John Vandenberg's page after suggesting that a definitive list or 'scale' of Reliable Sources makes good sense for the community. His response is here. I'm really glad to see the existence of this noticeboard and that it's being used. I've a few questions? This page and it's archive are likely to become very large in deed in no time at all. Is anyone summarising the decisions and outcomes anywhere, or will people have to search archives? How is it going - any problems, any changes need making etc.? Nemonoman's point above is interested regarding sources even from respected publishers are not necessarily reliable, and John mentioned initiatives in the academic world such as Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification and Research Assessment Exercise to establish reliability of sources. Are the findings of such bodies being considered here? --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, we have chosen not to summarize the discussions or create a listing of "reliable" or "unreliable" sources. The reason why is that we need to examine each source being discussed in the context of a specific article... how it is used and why... no source is universally unreliable (nor universally reliable)... a source might be deemed unreliable in one context but reliable when used in a different context.  While this may lead to some repetition of discussions, it makes sure that we look at each question raised on its own merits. Blueboar (talk) 13:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * OTOH, a list of sources generally found not to be RS in discussions for specific categories of artcles is likely utile (avoiding repetitious discussions). Thus the National Enquirer and its ilk are not RS for any claims in a BLP (IMHO) nor as a science reference. Political columns and blogs are not RS for claims about science (again IMHO), but are RS for claims about positions in the political arena. Encyclopedias and dictionaries are not RS for anything more than pronunciations.  And so on. Collect (talk) 14:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I could see having such a list attached to a Wikiproject... similar to the way Wikiprojects have project specific notability guidelines, they could have project specific reliability lists. But I don't think it would be helpful to have such a list attached to the main RS guideline or this notice board.  Too many variables. Blueboar (talk) 14:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it is useful for projects to have lists of sources that have been detemined generally reliable. However, as Bluueboar says context is all important.  Lists of sources that are considered generally not reliable are used by some projects; I think Wikiproject Albums has one.  Experience, challlenges by other other editors all lead to editors achieveing the confidence to make their own determinations.  Past questions/discussions on the noticeboard can be useful and you can search the archives of the noticeboard as there is an archive search box. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds a bit too fuzzy - surely you just need to add an extra column to your chart? --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I would think you would need to add a column headed "Exact sentence within the article that the source is used to support" (which is often key to contextual determinations of whether a source is or is not reliable) to account for all the discussions we have here... which would make charting very unweildy and somewhat pointless. Blueboar (talk) 18:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a problem regarding relevant (an WP:OR issue) rather than reliable. A source can be reliable all the way down the line but not relevant.  Miner, Horace (1956) "Body Ritual among the Nacirema," American Anthropologist 58: 503-507 is reliable, period; but you cannot use "The holy waters are secured from the Water Temple of the community, where the priests conduct elaborate ceremonies to make the liquid ritually pure." to claim water purification is a crock for several reasons all of which are WP:OR issues and NOT WP:RS ones.


 * So first we need to change the lead in to: This is a guideline discussing the reliability of particular types of sources.  It does not deal with a source being relevant.  For issues of relevancy see Verifiability and No original research, and the additional restrictions in biographies of living people.


 * With that we now can have a very broad ranking with regards to reliability without worrying (here at least) about relevancy.


 * That was a little off the cuff but I think it would help.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Bruce: I think that's a very nice stab at challenging problem. I'd like you to have a look at my comments above if you have not already done so, and consider how increasing use of Self Publishing is changing the face of scholarly writing. It seems wrong to expect that publishers as listed in your graph will survive as exemplars of reliability. Although your graph is better than nothing and then some, and should become a prominent part of this noticeboard after a little tweaking IMO. --Nemonoman (talk) 14:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Above is good, but omits books such as Beevor, Antony (2009). D-Day: The Battle for Normandy. Viking ISBN-13: 978-0670887033 or Tzouliadis, Tim (2008). The Forsaken: From the Great Depression to the Gulags - Hope and Betrayal in Stalin's Russia. Little, Brown. ISBN-13: 978-0316727242.


 * These are well reserached, referenced works but not published by academic publishers. There are countless others.  I would suggest taht they rank above newspapers. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see my comments on such publications above. Shelby Foote, Cornelius Ryan, William L. Shirer -- even Edward Gibbon (Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire), etc., etc., etc. must ALSO be accomodated, although none of these respected historians would fall into any of the Reliable Sources table above. I've used history examples, but current events such as recent well researched books on 9/11, Iraq war, etc., also need to be considered. Also well-researched popular science books, economics books, etc., etc., that smack of reliability but don't fall into any of the boxes above. --Nemonoman (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I was trying to make the table match the current structure of WP:RS with one tweek (the "favorably sited" part) to address some of the above. I will admit that anything dealing with the social sciences (history, anthropology, archeology, etc) is going to have problems largely to the fact that they are so badly fragmented--read Trigger, Bruce (2006) A History of Archaeological Thought Cambridge: Cambridge University Press for a rough idea on how badly fragmented the historical division of the social sciences were and still are.  Anthropology didn't even understand the concept that the very model they used could influence the outcome of their research until the mid 1950s in the US (as in Minor's brilliantly sarcastic "Body Ritual among the Nacirema" and didn't even come up with the concept of historical anthropology until nearly a decade later.   Nevermind that thanks to the whole emic/etic paradigm history, anthropology, and archeology are not uniform around the world.  So what is scholarly in Russia may be considered out of date methodology in Europe who may also consider some of the "cutting edge stuff out of the US to be New Age nonsense.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, I suggest that [my comments above provide a way to establish standards on those and other works. The current scale of Journal/University/Academic Press/News/Self published is bizarre. It's no wonder editors find themselves underwater. --[[User:Nemonoman|Nemonoman]] (talk) 12:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It may look bizarre but there is a reason for it. Read Cole, John R. (1980) "Cult Archaeology and Unscientific Method and Theory" in Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory. Vol. 3. Michael B. Schiffer, editor, New York: Academic Press, Inc. especially the parts about the ancient astronauts and pre-historical North America and you will see why the ranking is the way it is.


 * Dr. E. Jerry Vardaman and his claims regarding micro lettering on a certain coin that is supported by fellow archeologist John McRay is another case in point. On the surface the claims looke like good solid scholarship--until you read Carrier, Richard C. (2002) "Pseudohistory in Jerry Vardaman's magic coins: the nonsense of micro graphic letters - Critical Essay"  Skeptical Inquirer March 1st, 2002 that in turn points you to peer-reviewed Hendlin, David (1991) wrote "Theory of Secret Inscriptions on Coins is Disputed," The Celator 5:3, March 1991, 28-32) and find the claims have no basis in reality.  As Carl Sagan said regarding the famous astronomer Percival Lowell:  "There is no doubt that Lowell's Martian canals were of intelligent origin.  The problem is which end of the telescope that intelligence was on.  When we have strong emotions we are libel to fool ourselves."


 * These and many other examples are why the Journal/University/Academic Press/News/Self published scale is set up the way it is. Hendlin is the better source because his report has been peer reviewed while Vardaman as far as we know never published his claims in any form of peer reviewed publication and neither has McRay.  Peer reviewing helps separate the wheat from the chaff and make sure the information presented as fact meets the standards of the period they were written in.


 * Those standards are another issue. Edward Gibbon belonged to a different age of scholarship--when they were basically establishing the standards now used in the all the sciences.  This was a time when universities did NOT fund research and so research tended to be limited to those with the time (read money) to do so and therefore were highly respected men in the community.  Museums as we know them didn't exist--the British Museum was effectively one gigantic public private collection with what today would be classified as non experts doing most of the donating.  Peer reviewed journals as we know them didn't really exist for the social sciences until the nineteenth century.


 * Schliemann the discoverer of Troy was self taught in archeology as the field really didn't exist as a scientific discipline at that time (1871). Lord Carnarvon and Howard Carter can be looked as the final transition between the social sciences being a rich man's hobby (Carnarvon) and serious scientific discipline (Carter) and even then the scholarly paper that Carter should have written out of that endeavor never materialized.  What did come out of it was Discovery of the Tomb of Tutankhamen a good mixture of fields notes and emotional description.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * @Bruce: You have managed to produce an example that to your mind suggests that your paradigm is correct. Good for you.


 * I am well-versed in Mughal history and architecture. There are dozens of well-written reliable sources on the subject. See Taj Mahal for examples. None in peer-reviewed journals. One or two from university presses. Good reliable sources on Mughal history and architecture are available from mainstream and not so mainstream publishers. But apparently by your table these would be doubtful self-published sources.


 * You may have a good paradigm for some mainstream research-based sciences. With history and the arts, your paradigm has a lot of gaps. Get into arcane subjects, and your paradigm falls apart. --Nemonoman (talk) 04:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Bad example as the above article DOES have a peer reviewed journal article reference:
 * Begley, Wayne E. (1979) "The Myth of the Taj Mahal and a New Theory of Its Symbolic Meaning" The Art Bulletin, Vol. 61, No. 1, pp. 7-37
 * "The Art Bulletin publishes leading scholarship in the English language in all aspects of art history as practiced in the academy, museums, and other institutions. From its founding in 1913, the journal has published, through rigorous peer review, scholarly articles and critical reviews of the highest quality in all areas and periods of the history of art." The Art Bulletin Not good when your example blows up in your face.  Also a little searching produced
 * Hoag, John D. (1968) "The Tomb of Ulugh Beg and Abdu Razzaq at Ghazni, A Model for the Taj Mahal" The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 234-248
 * Taj Mahal, the Illumined Tomb: An Anthology of Seventeenth-Century Mughal and European Documentary Sources by W. E. Begley; Z. A. Desai (through a review in The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 51, No. 3 (Sep., 1992), pp. 341-344)
 * There are also well as some reviews on some of the other books used. Also any "mainstream publisher" worth the name is going to have an academic division and I would trust stuff out of one of those more than the main publisher.  As for being my paradigm ii is NOT; it is simple a table version of what is already at WP:RS.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

This has turned into a rather interesting discussion. For info, Begley is rather old hat these days in terms of the Taj scholarship. Koch is the money now and whilst building on his work, she rebuts some of his conclusions. So here's another tricky issue. I know Koch is published in peer reviewed journals, and Begley is too. When does new scholarship, which rebuts previous scholarship, become the more reliable of the two sources? If it's peer reviewed, one might say at the moment of publication? But in many cases it should be 'after a reasonable time' to allow the academic community to properly assess it. For practical purposes here at WP, it makes sense to me in this instance to describe the disagreement within the article. --Joopercoopers (talk) 03:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a very good point. Sturgeon's Law suggests that the majority of papers sent to peer review boards don't make it to publication and the turn around time is going to make the process slow so noting conflicts between reliable sources.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I liked this but it doesn't help with our Ayn Rand problem. She is all but ignored in the academic literature, and so it is hard to find RS that give a reliable verdict on her. One has to resort to self-published material from reputable philosophers, but that naturally meets with great opposition. Peter Damian (talk) 19:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

In the same vein, it is hard to find RS that comment on subjects such as these Peter Damian (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * A lot of those articles would fall under WP:Fringe and that has its own set of rules because there is so little RS on them.
 * As for something like Ayn Rand this shows why decoupling reliable and relevance is so important. A quick look for Ayn Rand journal at google scholar will produce a lot of hits. You want to trim that mess down so you look for what looks reliable and you a find a surprise.  The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies:  "Only contributions not under consideration elsewhere will be accepted, and these will be subject to double-blind peer review.  Replies and rejoinders are not usually subject to such review, but they will be evaluated by the editorial board for appropriateness. All submitted papers must conform to the style guidelines below."  "The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies Foundation has entered into an electronic licensing relationship with EBSCO Publishing, the world's most prolific aggregator of full-text journals, magazines, and other sources."
 * This shows why getting rid of the reliably issue first is so important. Sure you are going to get a lot of non relevant stuff like references or quotes but you can at least weed down the list to something a lot more manageable to what you know is reliable (and in this case get something you likely didn't even know existed) and then worry about relevance.  For example, whatever is in Journal of Popular Culture is likely going to be more relevant than whatever is in Academy of Management Review.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure of the point you are making. Are you saying that JARS is a reliable source because it has 'double-blind peer review.'?  I checked out this journal carefully - I emailed the editor who is a nice enough guy and was very helpful - and I made a list of all the contributors and their qualifications and these turned out to be dubious - many of them have no academic credentials, and some of those who do, have them in unrelated subjects (drama, journalism &c).  There is a pecking order among journals that everyone in that subject area will know and understand, but which may not be obvious to outsiders. Peter Damian (talk) 08:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Remember "Because policies take precedence over guidelines, in the case of an inconsistency between this page (Verifiability)and that one (WP:RS, 'this page has priority, and WP:RS should be updated accordingly." Verifiability simply states  "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers."  Unfortunately  Verifiability doesn't qualify anything regarding peer-reviewed journals other that they are generally the most reliable sources.
 * With regards to the The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies; ok it is not up to the standards of American Anthropologist but it certainly a lot better than having to "resort to self-published material from reputable philosophers". The more esoteric the subject the more headaches you are going to have.  Take the mess that is the Christ myth theory article for instance what RS we can find can't even agree on what the freaking definition of what the very subject of the article even is.  We have Dodd, C. H. (1938) of Manchester University, Farmer through Brill, Horbury of Oxford, and Price (who has written in relevant peer reviewed Journals galore) all giving different definition and no blasted way to reconcile them.  How I may ask do you sort through the reliable of that mess?--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't agree - if some reputable philosophers who would not submit to JARS because of its image and because Rand is not perceived as 'serious', but have made negative comments on their websites or blogs or whatever, what do you choose. If only JARS, you have a serious case of selection bias.  Our problem was to reflect the fact that Rand is not taken seriously, and almost entirely ignored by the majority of philosophers.  How do you reliably source a fact like that?  A reliable reference work will reflect the fact by not having an article about Rand at all.  But that is an editorial judgment that is not permitted on Wikipedia.  On Christ myth theory that is an interesting subject and is indeed one I looked at years ago for my theology diploma.  I can't believe you are having a problem with that.  I will take a look.  Peter Damian (talk) 11:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The flaw in this argument is absence of evidence is not evidence of absence as I showed over at the talk:MLM page.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. The amount of space dedicated to any subject or author in a standard reference work is strictly controlled by the editor in chief.  Subjects or authors considered important have many pages devoted to them, those considered not important received less space.  Those considered not important at all received no space.  Thus absence of evidence is (in the case of a reliable standard reference work) evidence of absence, as it were.  Peter Damian (talk) 14:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)The flaw in the argument is suggesting that ANY "journal" ipso facto is a source more reliable than others, a flaw demonstrated by the (1) attempt to find an Ayn Rand Journal and (2) the actual make up of that Journal.

That flaw worms through the whole theory of RS above. The Ayn Rand article lists 9 sources; only one is an ipso facto reliable University Press. The rest are actual books put together by actual authors. (You may have heard of these? Once a book was considered a pretty useful way of storing knowledge.) None of these books is published by an overtly academic press. Why? because the SUBJECT has popular commercial value. None of these books looks remotely interesting to a guy like me. Why? Because the titles and subjects suggest that these are factual compendia about a subject I know little about and enjoy less. A book title like: "Skinny Dipping at the Fountainhead: the Wild Sex Antics of Ayn Rand" -- THAT I might read. But a title like that would not be as likely to be an RS as Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (The Ayn Rand Library, Volume 6) by Leonard Peikoff (which IS cited). Not peer-reviewed, not university press, not academic press, not a news organization. Just a commercial book, published by a commercial publisher. Yet even though he's not a reliable source, Leonard Peikoff gets his own article in Wikipedia. In fact, as described above, he's a self-published source, and ipso facto unreliable.

THAT's the flaw. --Nemonoman (talk) 12:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Leonard Peikoff is covered under WP:BLP and it definitively has problems under that.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * So any other ideas on how to improve the Reliable sources guidelines to where they are actually useful as a guide?--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines, but not guides
I've been reading through what you guys have been writing, and it's rather agonizing. It's agonizing because principles of Greggian bibliography and general scholarship can lead us to guidelines for reliability, but, in a pinch, there are always exceptions. For example, peer reviewed journals are generally reliable. However, that doesn't make them necessarily better than academic press books. Academic press books are reliable, but some things begin that way and become classics and go to mass presses (Thorstein Verblen, e.g.). In general, peer reviewed journals should always go with the most recent over the oldest, but not always. (In my own field, too much has been said, and it's simply inevitable that a new article has just plain skipped over whole approaches from the past, and so an article from the 1970's may be the last word on an approach.)

Then we have geniuses outside the academy. Then we have cranks inside the academy. Then we have vanity presses that disguise themselves. Then we have a middle ground of sponsored presses, such as Liberty Fund and others, where the press exists to foment an ideological goal and will publish with that in mind. We assess reliability upon, if we strip all the hoo-ha away, 1. The presence of an organization that will be responsible for the content (get sued, for example -- one of the reasons people don't trust Wikipedia) 2. The expertise of the author (usually guaranteed by the institution, further attested by peer review) 3. The expertise/presence of an editor 4. Time (yes, in contradiction to the "newest is best," the things that get reviewed and get a good reception are more 'reliable' than the ones that vanish without a reader).

All you can do, though, is get a feel for it. There is no rule to make. Ultimately, you have to use human judgment, investigation, and assessment, and then you can still be fooled. There is no substitution for skepticism, in general, and that's why encyclopedia's try to restrain themselves to reporting old news and not being on the cutting edge. It's better to be conservative than a sucker. Geogre (talk) 20:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thats why WP:RS is a guideline, and not a Policy. Blueboar (talk) 21:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Blueboar, but (1) the reasonable comments made by Geogre above are NOT inherent in the guidelines being discussed and (2) when editors come to blows over article content, one of the weapons used is WP:RS; and drawing distinction between a guideline and a Policy does little to blunt the weapon's edge or soften its blow. So making the guidelines more intelligent (along the lines of what Geogre says here, or I have said earlier) is a desirable goal. Also (3) stating much more obviously, prominently and consistently that what is being developed here is NOT a policy but a guideline. --Nemonoman (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * So perhaps one of you would propose alternative language that we can consider? Blueboar (talk) 21:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I tried two different tacks both that went exactly nowhere:
 * This is a guideline discussing the reliability of particular types of sources. It does not deal with a source being relevant. For issues of relevancy see Verifiability and No original research, and the additional restrictions in biographies of living people.
 * This is a guideline discussing the reliability of particular types of sources. Source reliability depends on all three policies of Verifiability, No original research and WP:NPOV working together.
 * Neither sparked an interest and so far nothing else has come up. Let's brainstorm a little here.  SUre we may get a few clunkers but at least we will have something--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC).


 * Let me give you an example, ok? We know that the most common wars over RS are at the "fringe science" and "minority philosophy" articles, but those are a walk in the park with flowers in one's lapel compared to the nationalist wars.  When the Polish-Russian editors begin warring over a matter of history, we end up in some serious horror.  The problem is that both will have U. press material, both will have peer reviewed journals, both will have eminences, and these will say very different things.  From the point of view of someone in the West, it looks like both sides are eager to cast their history in the roles of victim and savior, and we're likely skeptics of both, but their historians aren't.  For them, the politics of the present and the ideology of emerging identity are bound up in these stories, and the "reliable sources" will produce nothing but a bloody mass.  The editors will, nevertheless, go on to accuse each others' historians of being Marxist stooges, or discredited hacks, or aparatchiks or what have you.  RS will be cited and tossed around like a bomb.
 * We need to remember that we can offer people a guide to a general method of knowing better from worse, but there is no definitive method. When there is a big mess among experts, we have to retrench and run away, either saying that there is confusion among sources or retreating to the last position that shared common points of view.  "All accounts agree that X died that day, but the reasons for the deaths vary according to historian and witness" solves some problems and disallows a winner.
 * Skepticism should be a fall back position, because there are always exceptions, always mistakes, always places where the immortals nod and where the unexplainable genius strikes. No academic worth his or her salt would deny that.  None would ignore E. P. Thompson, for example, because he was working on the docks, or Frank Warnke because he was working as a jazz critic.  Geogre (talk) 00:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If I understand your proposal, you would change WP:RS from being a content guideline (supporting WP:V) to being a style guideline (supporting WP:NPOV). That would be a huge change... and I doubt that you could get a consensus for it.  However, the idea of creating a new style guieline to support NPOV might be worth exploring.  To be honest, I don't think it would work... No matter how we tinker with policy, POV warriors are going to attempt to use the rules to omit statements and sources they don't like. Blueboar (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Old version of proposal (if you haven't read this, don't)
I wonder what you folks think about this proposal: Suppose there were a single page where lazy editors can go to view 1) all the currently identified public domain, encyclopedic, html-text sources that have not yet been integrated into articles, 2) all the articles that correspond to those sources. Among lazy editors like myself, such sources are highly coveted; for example, over the last month I created approximately 1000 articles using this Congressional Research Service Report, and credited the source using CRS, a new template created for the purpose.

I've made a rudimentary effort to create such a mechanism, using the template refideas. The template was imperfectly written, so consider this a proof of concept.

You insert refideas at the top of an article's discussion page, and identify sources that have not yet been entirely "assimilated" into the article. If any of these sources are public domain and encyclopedic, you identify them with special code. This changes the template to remind editors that such content, properly cited, can be added to an article without infringing copyright. In addition, the page will now automatically be listed in Category:Articles which could have free content incorporated from elsewhere.

A future edition of the template should allow you to indicate which of these sources have been "squeezed dry" of content (e.g., entries from the 11th edition of the Britannica would fit this condition.)

Thoughts? Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 17:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting that we try to list every reliable source that has not been used? I would think that would be impossible. Blueboar (talk) 21:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's sort of a silly interpretation -- but I've rewritten my proposal to make that interpretation less likely. Thanks. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 23:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I still am not sure what you are proposing... what do you mean by: "all the currently identified public domain, encyclopedic, html-text sources that have not yet been integrated into articles"? Blueboar (talk) 23:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that's my fault. Essentially, I'm referring to content that can be copy-pasted into an article and simply needs to be properly cited.

For example: currently, if an article contains stuff from the 1911 Britannica, we mark it with 1911; those articles are listed in this category. Other examples of sources contain this sort of content have been listed here. However, that list is backward-looking, and new resources of this character are constantly being "discovered" (for a description of the phenomenon, do a full-text search for "Britannica" in this article); CRS Reports are an example of an untapped source of this character.

The process of importing this content will be much easier if it is organized systematically -- e.g., suppose there were a corresponding template before the import -- say, 1911-pending, which said, "Relevant content has not yet been added to this article from page 120, article "George Washington" of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica]." Now, that specific proposal would look very unprofessional, but it gives you an idea of the function that needs to be performed. refideas is somewhat more professional because it appears on the talk page.

In the long run, with the help of the category generated by this template, I expect that some of the most transformative edits to articles like Coalworker's pneumoconiosis will be made by middle-school students who have no knowledge of the topic whatsoever. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 00:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Reworded proposal
As you know, much of Wikipedia's growth has come from swallowing up & citing other encyclopedic, public domain sources. (For example: articles marked with 1911 contain stuff from the 1911 Britannica; similar sources have been listed here.   For a journalist's description of the phenomenon, do a full-text search for "Britannica" in this article.)

I think we should try to systematize the process by which these special sources are identified, assigned to articles, and then incorporated into these articles. If we did so, this content would be incorporated into Wikipedia at a much faster rate, and yet also in a more controlled and supervised fashion.

I created a template that performs these functions in a rudimentary way. The template was imperfectly written, so consider this a proof of concept; I just am looking to find people who might collaborate with me to improve this system.

You insert refideas at the top of an article's discussion page, and include a hyperlink to one or more of these special sources. The text of the template reminds editors that such content, properly cited, can be added to an article without infringing copyright.

Here's the important part: the page will now automatically be aggregated in a single category. Hopefully, some people will view this category as a "portal" for to articles where it's possible to make mindless, yet high-quality, contributions. For example, over the last month I created approximately 1000 articles using this Congressional Research Service Report, and credited the source using CRS, a new template created for the purpose. I expect that some of the most transformative edits to articles on this list will be made by middle-school students who have no knowledge of the topic whatsoever -- simply by copying, pasting, and citing.

Thoughts? Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 03:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Your reworded proposals is as incomprehensible as your original. As best as I can figure, however, this "much of Wikipedia's growth has come from swallowing up & citing other encyclopedic, public domain sources" is a incrrect statement and suggesting that anyone take any source and "simply by copying, pasting, and citing" is called plagiarism. Just because it is public domain or "free content" does not mean - go steal it because we're too lazy to properly source an article. These are not "special sources" nor often the best to be used. Encyclopedia's are tertiary sources and their use is not encouraged for actual article growth, and should not just be incorporated into any article. The best sources for most articles are quality, scholarly works, published media, and journal articles - not public domain sources. Looking at the articles you created, I can't help but wonder how many should have been created. If the only source discussing them is a single Congressional report, is the topic even remotely notable? --  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 12:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with AnmaFinotera... we should not encourage copying content from other sources... even if they are "Free". This is a bad idea. Blueboar (talk) 13:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * AnmaFinotera, I have issues with two things you said. First, this isn't plagiarism.  Plagiarism is copying and pasting; the key difference is the citing. PLAGIARISM says, "Material from public domain and free sources is welcome on Wikipedia, but such material must be properly attributed. ...the source can also be copied directly into a Wikipedia article verbatim providing it meets the Wikipedia content policies"
 * Second, you wrote: "If the only source discussing them is a single Congressional report, is the topic even remotely notable?"  What makes you say it's the "only source?"
 * Anyhow, you've expressed privately that I shouldn't have posted this here, so I'll move the discussion elsewhere. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 15:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My problem with this is that we don't want our editors to take the lazy way out and simply cut and paste material from other sources. We want them to read the sources and paraphrase what they say.  Blueboar (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree that they should read the source, but why should they then take the time to paraphrase it? That sounds like a waste of time.  If the statement in the original is better, they should use the statement in the original. Especially when the original source was written by a professional, full-time, paid, scholarly author -- e.g., CRS Reports. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 15:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Because we strive to be unique... we strive to be better than other encyclopedias. We may not always achieve that goal... but it is one of our goals.  I don't mean to be uncivil, but if you can not see the problem with what you are proposing, you really should not be editing an encyclopedia.  Blueboar (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

haha. no offense taken ... it certainly is a tasteless proposal. but I'm still going to edit the encyclopedia ... you according to your conscience, me according to mine ... with the common goal of creating an encyclopedia better than the other encyclopedias, I promise. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 16:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As you've already started it here, you might as well leave it here. And I agree with Blueboar - your proposal is a bad idea, and that you've already done this on some 1000+ articles and actually claim those stolen stubs are "high quality" is an insult to editors who actually have bothered to do real work in crafting high quality articles. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 16:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Andrew... Thank you for understanding the spirit of my comment. And if you can make Wikipedia better than other encyclopeidas you are not only welcome to edit, but valued.  Good editing. Blueboar (talk) 16:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Shouldnt this be taken to the Village Pump (proposals) page instead of here? This isnt really relevant to what this noticeboard is supposed to be used for.Camelbinky (talk) 22:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Using a "discussion system"
I'd like ot propose changing this noticeboard to use a "discussion system" in the same manner that (for example) Articles for deletion does. This would me that individual discussions would occur on subpages. I'm not sure what the technical aspects of such a change would be (I'm not even sure what such a system is named), but sine the "technology" does currently exist I can't imagine that it would be difficult to implement here. — V = I * R  (talk) 04:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, this page is not set up in the same way that AfD is... but it is a discussion system... we have essentially the same system in a different format: editors raise an issue concerning a particular source and other editors discuss it, giving their opinion on the sources reliability. If a consensus is reached, action (if needed) can be taken at the article. Blueboar (talk) 15:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, obviously, but the main advantage of using the same format (whatever it should be called) that AfD discussions use is that the individual discussions occur on their own subpages, which can and are individually watchlisted, maintened, archived, etc... — V = I * R  (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I can see those things being advantages in the context of a deletion debate, which is topic specific... but not when it comes to discussing reliability issues. For one thing, discussions about reliablility are often extremely context specific (is the source reliable as used in a specific article).  A source that is deemed unreliable in one context might be very reliable in another.  You would end up with multiple pages all talking about the same source, and with different determinations... very confusing for people who just want to know if something is reliable. Also, there is a secondary purpose to this page: it alerts editors that care about reliable sourcing to problem articles... so we can go and help fix the problem. Blueboar (talk) 02:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You know you have a serious Wikipedia problem...
...when you're shopping at your local electronics store, you pick up a flier on audio and video cables, and wonder to yourself, "Is this considered a reliable source?". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not for BLP stuff. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Of all the areas where subjective experience defies objective measurement you picked audio cables... what a shame :)) NVO (talk) 02:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What's your Wikiholic score? :-D Colds7ream (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's fascinating to me that audio cables have become an area of mysticism. It's worse than cosmetics and mineral water today. / PerEdman  17:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

nurse nayirah
On the nurse nayirah page commodore sloat is persistantly using editorials as reliable sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nurse_Nayirah&diff=309265055&oldid=309254335 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.166.14.146 (talk) 14:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't make false statements. On that very page, the anon ip is disruptively deleting well sourced information and personally attacking me on the talk page. csloat (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No opinion as of yet, but ". See, for example, Michael Kunczik..." seems a bit odd. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * {EC}Deception on Capitol Hill is an opinion piece and is only reliable for statements of opinion, not fact. You will either need to find other sources or rewrite the article so that each sentence begins with "According to ", " said that" or words to that effect.  If you have any doubts on whether a particular source is reliable and reliable for what, please post specific questions on the WP:RSN. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Quest is right about opinion pieces. They need to be attributed.  It's not that hard. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * While this particular Youtube video looks legit, it does not meet Wikipedia's standards of WP:RS and should be removed from the article. See if you can find some coverage on a major news site, such as BBC News A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * CONGRESSMAN SAYS GIRL WAS CREDIBLE is a reliable source but be careful. Some of the reporting is done with inline attribution (i.e. "According to Tom Lantos,...").  If the New York Times felt the need to use inline attribution, we should probably, too.
 * Kuwaiti Gave Consistent Account of Atrocities appears to be a letter to the editor which should be treated as an opinion piece. It is only reliable for statements of opinions, not facts.  As before, you will either need to find other sources or rewrite the article so that each sentence begins with "According to ", " said that" or words to that effect.
 * Kuwaiti Gave Consistent Account of Atrocities; Retracted Testimony appears to be a letter to the editor which should be treated as an opinion piece. It is only reliable for statements of opinions, not facts.  Again, you will either need to find other sources or rewrite the article so that each sentence begins with "According to ", " said that" or words to that effect. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Here are three more sources which (at quick glance) appear to be reliable for statements of fact that you can use in the article:
 * MIDEAST - Kuwait Story of Babies Removed From Incubators Refuses to Die
 * In war, some facts less factual
 * United we are strong, united we will win A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

not a vote, but
I'm curious how to proceed with a conflict about whether there was consensus on a RS. The discussion wound up with 1 editor saying it was a RS, 6 editors saying it was not and 5 editors noncommital (including discussion of different points, comments that "there are better sources", or saying it can be handled case-by-case). So, it's not a vote, but when there's an argument about whether there was consensus, how do I handle that argument? C RETOG 8(t/c) 20:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It would probably be a good start to post the article, source and links to discussion on this noticeboard. Simonm223 (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * We had this discussion on the noticeboard, and the editor's opinions above come from the noticeboard discussion. To me, I'm willing to say that's consensus, but if another editor disagrees about their being consensus (as is occurring here), then what do I do? C RETOG 8(t/c) 20:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Occasionally, a discussion here does end up with a "no consensus" result, and there is not much more we can do except continue to discuss the source, and seek more opinions. Blueboar (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

re:Heather Harmon questionable sources
How come every article that has been submitted to the notice board has been commented on except Heather Harmon? Is it in violation of some kind of policy? If so, why hasn't somebody left a comment about that? Eagerly awaiting an opinion - Stillwaterising (talk) 00:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I revised my request down to just one source and removed discussion about the article. Can I please have an explanation as to why it was ignored? The Afd discussion ends tomorrow and it's the main source for the article's notability claim. -Stillwaterising (talk) 03:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Nah... not a policy... just the usual conspiracy.
 * Seriously, sometimes it takes a while for questions to get answered... especially on obscure topics. We are volunteers, you know.
 * In any case... I have given an opinion. Blueboar (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No one is required to comment on a request. We try to, but sometimes things slip through or requests are particularly intractable/uninteresting. Protonk (talk) 19:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't forget that a lot of people edit during their lunch hour at work or school and are reluctant to bring up adult-industry trade journals. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of non-questions and outside-the-scope questions
Should entries such as laurie pavitt, brent south, died 1989 be deleted? --Bejnar (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes or if in doubt request clarification. --LexCorp (talk) 16:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Better to request clarification before you delete. Blueboar (talk) 16:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Full Armor of God Broadcast
WP:N Clearifies that "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic" and that "A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject-specific guidelines: Academics, Books, Criminal acts, Events, Films, Music, Numbers, Organizations & companies, People, and Web content."

WP:WEB Clearifies "Web content includes, but is not limited to, blogs, Internet forums, newsgroups, online magazines and other media, podcasts, webcomics, and web portals. Any content which is distributed solely on the Internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content"

WP:RS goes on to state "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources."

Given the information listed form Wikipedia policy, could The Full Armor of God Broadcast achive low importance notability in the area of Christian Metal and /or Christian Radio with its "Self-published or questionable sources or Web content" in the mp3 audio clips of notable guest liners, it's refernces to it's FM, LP and Internet Radio affiliate listings and references form other bands on notable music websites?

The Full Armor of God Broadcast is not a household corporate radio enigma such as "Bob & Tom", but within it's limited genre of Christian Metal and/or Christian radio wouldn't the current refernces be sufficient enough sources to establish a Start Class Low/Mid Importance article? Armorbearer777 (talk) 19:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This board is the expert at assessing whether a specific source X is reliable to use in article Y to support specific statement Z. You are really asking a very different question, namely whether we should have an article on this topic at all.  That question is addressed by the community at AFD, specifically Articles for deletion/Full Armor of God Broadcast (2nd nomination), where you are already participating.
 * What an article really needs to exist here is independent and reliable sources that provide substantial coverage of the article topic. In general, it is best to write an article using only such sources.  If what you have is a real article, you can then fill in minor holes using self published sources.  I strongly recommend that you follow the guidance at Amnesia test - forget everything you know about the subject and try to write an encyclopedia article solely from the independent sources.  If that can't be done, then the topic is not ready to have an article at this time.  GRBerry 19:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I was the one who advised Armorbearer777 to seek advice here to help clarify why the sources given in the article Full Armor of God Broadcast (radio station program listings, advertisements, self-pub materials) either support or fail to support the text. Apologies if this was the wrong forum. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * An affiliate saying it broadcasts the show is reliable for that statement, but it may be trivial coverage per WP:NOTE. The USA Today article isn't about the show, unfortunately.  Basically, some of the sources are reliable, but at a quick glance it doesn't look like they establish notability very well.  Try and find a couple of sources that let you write a few sentences each, and if they're reliable, you may have something. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Village pump proposals: Creation of a new category of established editors called RS-Reviewers
Editors here may be interested in the following discussion going on in the Village Pump: WP:Village_pump_%28proposals%29. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Should we have a warning for users not to use the first opinion they see?
I've seen a number of times on RSN that somebody will ask whether something is RS, thank the first person who responds to them, and go back to their edit war. Sometimes the first response they get is off-base and doesn't examine how the source is used. We really should have some wording in the lead boxes about how people should wait for several opinions before taking an "answer" from RSN. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Totally agree. We should also warn people that this page isn't a form of arbitration.  It is mearly a place to raise issues and discuss them.  We are giving opinions, not "rulings". In the chain of "dispute resolution" it falls under "obtaining third party opinions".  Many (most?) of the participants on this page are not admins.  We are simply editors who care about the issue of reliability.  While we hope those responding to a querry are experienced enough to know the relevant policies and guidelines well... we do need to make it clear that this is NOT guarenteed. Blueboar (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree too. This place is only a central venue for these discussions, and the editors here are not necessarily different than anywhere else. The only practical advantage here is that there is a fair chance of getting an opinion from an uninvolved editor. Crum375 (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I've seen that behavior too.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (e-c x2) Any "disclaimer" put should be worded to encourage the use of common sense when taking into account any opinions. We also shouldnt put any emphasis on "knowledge of policies and guidelines" as simple quoting of them with no explanation of how it is beneficial to apply it to the particular question at hand is no help at all and is blindly applying a pre-cut solution to a unique problem; this can be very bad. The best opinion is one that uses the editor's own words and explains using common sense and not the pre-written regurgitation of policy. Also it should be noted in any disclaimer that being an administrator does not make anyone's posts and opinions more legitimate or knowledgeable than another and should not be automatically used over another. Admins often have better things to do than actual down and dirty everyday editing and us "regular editors" often encounter similar issues that are brought up here and at other noticeboards. Everyone's comments are legitimate and EQUAL. We shouldnt encourage the dismissing of anyone who wants to participate and contribute to a discussion.Camelbinky (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesn't common sense invalidate the sentence "Everyone's comments are legitimate and EQUAL" ? For example, this guy is just one of many editors, an extreme case perhaps, who hasn't quite got the hang of how the policies work. I would say not everyone's comments are legitimate, they aren't equal and they shouldn't be treated as such. This seems particularly important when it comes to establishing the reliability of sources required for highly contentious subjects that attract editors with strong personal opinions and there are certainly many subjects and editors like that.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, let me rephrase- Everyone who wants to contribute has the right and we should encourage this instead of discourage it; this takes care of the editor you linked to. Once we discount such vandals yes I do believe everyone is equal and everyone's comments are legitimate. Legitimate and equal does not mean they are all correct. If I have a good point using common sense and show that something should be done a certain way; an administrator quoting a policy does not make the policy correct in that instance it is possible in that instance policy would be detrimental to use and my common sense solution is the better one. Other than vandals can you show how someone who truly wants to help and contribute can have a post that isnt "legitimate" seeing as how we all have an equal right to post and be heard and have our own opinion. Policies can be interpreted in many ways, there's no correct one true path and editors either "know policies or dont".Camelbinky (talk) 18:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If everyone's comments are equal, there is no point (beyond workload) in having more than one person work the reference desk -- apart from vandals, any randomly selected person's comments would be as valuable as any other's. In fact, there would be no point in the reference desk at all since the *questioner's* comments on his own question would be as valuable as any responder's comment. Wikiant (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * For someone who truly wants to help I agree that their comments should be welcomed. However, I wouldn't necessarily describe them as legitimate. I don't think there's a relationship between the right to express an opinion and the validity of that opinion on this noticeboard. It's the validity that matters. The noticeboard is for establishing the reliability of a source for a particular piece of information in a given context. It's a measurable thing, an actual probability that the information is reliable that could in theory be determined by something like an all-seeing oracle etc. The source either is or it isn't reliable for the information or it's somewhere in between. The noticeboard needs to accurately place the reliability dot on that scale and well intentioned opinions that move it away from the actual position that an oracle could know, that humble people like us are trying to discover, aren't legitimate. It's like asking for opinions about the reliability of an aircraft for it's next flight. There is an actual probability that it will arrive safely and that's what you need so the opinions that introduce error are not legitimate or helpful.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 20:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * We've gotten off-track here. It think we all agree that this is not a venue for arbitration.  However there is a difference between getting a response from someone who's been on RSN for a long time, whose reasoning is based on policy and precedent, and from someone who's just wandered in.  There's also a difference between getting an off-the-cuff response and getting one a few days later based on researching who published the source, what kind of reputation they have and so forth.  I would say the best responses are when there is a debate between RSN regulars, who sometimes take positions akin to opposing counsel, examining the cite and justifying what it is an RS for and what it is not an RS for.  I'd like to remind people that a response like that is possible. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Anyway, it looks like it happened again. Somebody asked about the "open-source intelligence" site Debkafile.  It's pretty clear this is the sort of thing that is RS for some topics but not others, and ought to get a debate.  They got a couple of "no" responses based on it being "neoconservative" and, within less than 24 hours, the OP thanked the responders and went away.  This is the sort of thing I'm talking about. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I see what you mean Squid... the warning not to rely on the first opinion you see is needed more than the warning that we are not a form of arbitration. My call... make it so. Blueboar (talk) 00:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. "This is a good place to get an outside perspective or a second opinion on an issue, but please use common sense; individual answers are not official policies, though an overall consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon." Homunq (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

No consensus yet - more opinions would be very welcome
In regard to WP:RSN, at the moment there isn't a consensus, so more opinions would be very welcome. PhilKnight (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

A request for consistent application of NPOV and BLP
Discussion at Village_pump_(policy). THF (talk) 05:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

RS, Undue weight, Attribute, Book Spam repeat
I am considering asking help to confirm reliable sources on the Noticeboard here, after considerable discussion on the article talk page. However, on the article talk page, some claim the sources aren't creditable, while others claim there is an undue weight issue from a proposed single sentence with attribution. Then, while the view for the published book as a source is properly attributed, there's a claim that the sentence is book spam. I feel confident the reliable source hurdle can be dealt with here first, however given the drama around this and multiple disputes, does anyone have a template or guide to follow so I could make a clear and orderly case here? Maybe even a similar case to reference? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It would help if we knew more details... like which article and which source you are talking about. A diff would be best, as we could then see exactly what the problem is. Blueboar (talk) 03:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I was trying to avoid that; because it would be better discussed on the front page here. (But here is the source ). There are multiple articles covered by this source. For now the trouble is getting the others to even agree they are in a dispute so as to proceed here. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 06:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

An attempt to summarize
I have attempted to summarize our instruction in a bit of a table.

Comments? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ... it's full of grammatical errors, and i think it's far too abbreviated. would you revert it, please? so it can be discussed & polished before it's put in place? thanks Sssoul (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Done and added an attempt at a summary here. IMO what we currently have is WP:TLDR  We have two buttons for adding a new question and we mention the policies both at the top and then again in text.  The instruction as they stand are unclear.  Of course if someone could help me with grammer that would be appreciated. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have cleaned it up a bit. I think something like this would be very helpful. Blueboar (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks and have added it to the page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Figuring this should be uncontroversial and wanting to help trim the page, I have followed suit with other process boards and created Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Header, now transcluded here. If it should prove not to be uncontroversial, it can (of course) easily be remedied. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks very nice. Will look at creating something similar for other notice boards if people agree with this sort of formatting. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussions Archived
I have archived all discussions from 27 Feb to today into Archive 3. Blueboar (talk) 18:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

How to encourage editors to ask better questions?
''What is the url or isbn of the source in question? In which article is the source being used? What is the exact statement in the article that the source is supporting? Where is the relevant talk page discussion?''

Even though we have very clear instructions at the top of the page, stating that editors should include the details and context needed to effectively answer requests, it still seems the majority of requests do not include this information. Which makes answering problematic, leading to pointless hypothetical general discussions like the one just recently archived.

What about something like at WP:ANEW? There, the link Click here to add a report brings up a template with the required elements of a 3RR report. If we could implement something like that here, I think it would help this noticeboard function better.

Comments? Dlabtot (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that's a great idea. ← George talk 20:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As long as using the template isn't required because it's going to scare off the newbies, it might be worth a shot. But honestly, I would guess most editors will just ignore the template.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't get ignored at WP:ANEW; I don't know why it would be different here. Dlabtot (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Template is now located at Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Example (copypasta from 3rr) and the instruction text is at Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Editintro. Add http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Hipocrite/sandbox&oldid=354391965 to our header and those two will go live. Hipocrite (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I definitely like the idea ... but would have to see a more final draft to know for sure.
 * I am not sure that the 3rr template is the right model for us ... sometimes questions are asked here before anything is added to an article (so there is no dif to link to) I don't want to discourage that Blueboar (talk) 21:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * ...something like 'diff or proposed edit'....? Dlabtot (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that this suggestion by N419BH to add an Editnotice is an excellent idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussions Archived
I have archived all discussions from 27 Feb to today into Archive 3. Blueboar (talk) 18:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

How to encourage editors to ask better questions?
''What is the url or isbn of the source in question? In which article is the source being used? What is the exact statement in the article that the source is supporting? Where is the relevant talk page discussion?''

Even though we have very clear instructions at the top of the page, stating that editors should include the details and context needed to effectively answer requests, it still seems the majority of requests do not include this information. Which makes answering problematic, leading to pointless hypothetical general discussions like the one just recently archived.

What about something like at WP:ANEW? There, the link Click here to add a report brings up a template with the required elements of a 3RR report. If we could implement something like that here, I think it would help this noticeboard function better.

Comments? Dlabtot (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that's a great idea. ← George talk 20:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As long as using the template isn't required because it's going to scare off the newbies, it might be worth a shot. But honestly, I would guess most editors will just ignore the template.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't get ignored at WP:ANEW; I don't know why it would be different here. Dlabtot (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Template is now located at Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Example (copypasta from 3rr) and the instruction text is at Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Editintro. Add http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Hipocrite/sandbox&oldid=354391965 to our header and those two will go live. Hipocrite (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I definitely like the idea ... but would have to see a more final draft to know for sure.
 * I am not sure that the 3rr template is the right model for us ... sometimes questions are asked here before anything is added to an article (so there is no dif to link to) I don't want to discourage that Blueboar (talk) 21:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * ...something like 'diff or proposed edit'....? Dlabtot (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that this suggestion by N419BH to add an Editnotice is an excellent idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)