Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Desperate help needed at the Black people article! Please get involved!!

This article is an absolute mess. It provides no coherent well sourced definition of a Black person and just rambles on and on about various people who were labled Black in different times, places, and languages, and tries to merge them all together as a coherent ethnic group. It would be like trying to merge Native Americans and people from India into a coherent article called Indian people. It makes no sense. We had requested mediation and the mediator said we should use the census as our source. Here's what the U.S. census says:

A Black is “ a person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as "Black, African Am., or Negro,"or provide written entries such as African American, Afro American, Kenyan, Nigerian, or Haitian.”

Black Africa is a synonym of sub-Saharan Africa and all of the non-African groups mentioned (i.e. African-Americans, Haitains) are descendents of the recent African diasporas. And yet we still have editors insisting that South Asians be given equal weight in the article and be considered Black. These people provide no cited definitions or census classifications to defend their assertions, instead they cherry pick from different sources in different countries for examples of South Asians being labeled Black, often in different languages. But by the same logic, I could argue that the Black Irish are Black. The point is the people editing that article need to be forced to adheare to a coherent sourced authoritative definition of a Black person, or the entire article should just be deleted as POV and unencyclopedic.

Dictionary.com[[1]], the free dictionary online[[2]]., the U.S. census[[3]], and the British census[[4]] all emphasize the idea that Blacks are of African origin-in fact it is against the law for a dark-skinned person of South Asian or Australian origin to claim to be black in the census. An article by the BBC makes a clear distinction between Blacks and the dark skinned people of South Asian ancestry[[5]]. This article about race in biomedicines says “The entities we call ‘racial groups’ essentially represent individuals united by a common descent — a huge extended family, as evolutionary biologists like to say. Blacks, for example, are a racial group defined by their possessing some degree of recent African ancestry (recent because, after all, everyone of us is out of Africa, the origin of Homo sapiens)."[[6]]. I really need help getting the editors of that article to stick to a coherent definition, instead of just pushing their own POV. Editingoprah 06:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like you have quite a number of reliable sources that you can use. I'm not sure what more you are asking us to do. Blueboar 16:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources are useless if the people editing the article refuse to follow wikipedia policiy and simply give their own personal opinions more weight than authoritative references. As a person of African ancestry I'm disturbed that my ethnic identity is being watered down and misapplied to people who are not defined as Black by any reliable source, but more importantly, as a fan of wikipedia, I don't wish to see this encyclopedia's credibility destroyed by POV warriors. The article has been hijacked by a bunch of people who all share the same POV and so I'm trying to get new editors who are familliar with wikipedia policy to examine the article from a "Reliable Sources" and "no undue weight" point of view. I feel the article is being used as a soap box to REDEFINE what Black means instead of accurately and PROPORTIONALLY reflecting what it means to be Black. The people who are editing the article are too passionate and ideological to apply wikipedia policily objectively. The article needs new editors to question the assertions being made, remove uncited statements, and it needs moderators who will get in their face and force them to not violate no undue weight rules. I've tried to remove uncited statements and replace them with census, scientific, and dictionary definitions and my edits are constantly reverted. I need help from as many people as possible. You don't have to be Black to participate in the article, you just have to have an understanding of wikipedia's no undue weight rules and a preference for RELIABLE SOURCES. What the article needs most are outsiders who can look at it from a neutral perspective. The people editing now are too emotionally invested in the topic to do a good job. Editingoprah 17:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

If I may say so, I think you're taking a rather America-centric (and Africa-centric?) view of it. The line you quoted from the US Census applies, obviously, to the US. But what about south-east Asia or Australasia, where peoples such as the Papuans, Negritos and Aborigines have skins at least as dark as any black Africans? The article needs to be referenced better at a number of points, but its basic premise - that the concept of "blackness" is merely a social construct - seems to be reasonable enough. -- ChrisO 17:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Well if anyone can find an official or reputable definition calling South East Asians and Australoids Black then I have no problem including them but I don't believe the census of even their own countries defines them as Black and no dictionary I have ever read has explicitly mentioned them. Arbitrarily drawing a color line and subjectively deciding that certain groups are of the Black ethnicity because their skin happens to be dark seems unencyclopedic to me. And just because Black literally means "very dark" does not mean that's the definition of the term in a racial ethnic context. For example, Northern Chinese people have lighter skin than many Europeans, but that doesn't mean they're considered "White people". Now you might argue that based on logic they should be considered White, but wikipedia isn't based on logic, it's based on verifiable authoritative sources. Now it's easy to find examples of almost anyone being called Black in one time or place or another including the Black Irish, but an encyclopedic article about Blacks should be based on a well sourced DEFINITION. The long term integrity of wikipedia depends on our ability to consistently enforce clear standards. Editingoprah 19:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Australian aborigines have certainly been called "blacks" for a very long time - at least 200 years. There was even a conflict called the "Black War" between Europeans and native Tasmanians. There's a number of black peoples in south-east Asia called the Negritos, Spanish for "little Blacks". People don't generally call northern Chinese "white", despite their being whiter than (say) southern Europeans, simply because the whole concept of race is largely a cultural artifact in the first place. I suggest you read chapter 26 of Richard Dawkins' book The Ancestor's Tale, which I think you might find quite enlightening on the question of classification. You might also like to register with books.google.com and do a search for "black people australia". There are a lot of results! -- ChrisO 23:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

We could also read the book "How the Irish became White" and we could also google "Black Irish". The point is you can always find examples of different groups being called by the same name but that doesn't mean they should be lumped into the same article. Should Native American Indians and Indians from India be lumped together in one article just because they've both been called Indian? It makes about as much sense as grouping the black Australoids in with Black as defined by African ancestry or for that matter the swarthy Black Irish who for years were regarded as low class. The problem I have with the Black people article is that they're taking a very well understood definition of Blackness that is backed by official census records in more than one country, dictionaries, and science articles, and mixing it with several less common uses and confusing the issue in the process. Peoples of African ancestry are completely different culturall, socially, and genetically from Australoids and negritoes, and the fact that we all happen to look alike, and have historically been confused with one another, does not mean we're all one of the same and should be discussed jointly. We let Native American Indians and Indians from India have separate articles. Editingoprah 00:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Please... this is not the place for arguing for or against any particular definition. If you have a question about a particular source, or about a category of sources, please ask it. Otherwise, move back to the talk page at the article. Blueboar 01:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean for this to turn into a debate. If Chris O has anything more to add he & anyone else is welcome to continue this debate on my talk page. Editingoprah 02:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Copyright Question

Copyright is a complex issue, so that would be a better question for WT:C. However, I think UK Crown copyright (am I correct in saying that is an English piece?) lasts 50 years from the date of publication, so that would go into public domain in 2018. See WP:C#UK_Crown_Copyright. Disclaimer: I am not a legal expert, and could be completly wrong. (Also, I'm not sure what the fair use laws are in the UK. For that matter, I don't even understand the US fair use laws.) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 21:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It depends on where you want to make the copy. Since Wikipedia servers are in the U.S., U.S. copyright is important if the item is to be added to Wikipedia. According to www.nolo.com an item first published in 1969 has a copyright lasting 95 years, or 2063. If the expiration date were closer, you could examine the issue of when it was officially published, but I think we can let our grandchildren worry about that. --Gerry Ashton 22:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The copyright for that issue of The Auditor probably still stands, but reproduction of a single page in conjunction with an article about Scientology, Hubbard, etc., is almost certainly within the bounds of "fair use." So, unless I have a serious misunderstanding of the law, copyright isn't an issue when it comes to citing that page on Wikipedia, or to reproducing it in a relevant article. BTfromLA 01:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that copyright law is different. There are countries where you may have to wait up to 130 years for copyrights to expire (e.g. Chile-->if a daughter of the author is a widow, she inherits the rights and the time is extended until her death).

Can secondary sources be considered primary sources "about the author's beliefs?"

There is some debate over the inclusion of the self-published website of Jim Hoffman, http://911research.wtc7.net, as a reference or source in the Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center article. Hoffman's site is clearly a secondary source by the definition, he was not an eyewitness to the events in question and his site is an aggregation and interpretation of other accounts and reports. Some editors are arguing for an exemption to the guideline on not using self-published secondary sources because they argue it is a "primary source for his beliefs".

So what do editors feel about this? I believe it would set a poor precedent, a "backdoor", as you were, for inclusion of unreliable secondary sources under the guise of discussing their "beliefs". In fact, I argued for the deletion of that article on those exact grounds, in that it introduces assertions about events under the weaker basis of "discussing people's beliefs". The AfD vote reached no consensus, but WP:RS must still apply. --Mmx1 01:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The term "primary source" is not a definition so much as a description of how something is used. Although I would hesistate to say any document could be used in both ways, it is certainly quite normal to have a particular document which may be used as either a primary or secondary source. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 05:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I am always warry of the "We can use this source because it shows someone has this opinion/belief" justification for a citation. The opinion needs to be both notable and widely held (or at least held by a sizable minority). In this case, the key is how notable Mr. Hoffman's opinions are. If he is an expert on controlled demolition or in structural engineering (etc.) then his opinions are notable. In which case, using his website to cite his opinion or belief is appropriate. If, on the otherhand, he is simply a proponant of the hypothisis who happens to have a good web site, then his opinions are not significant. His website should not be used. To give you another example, I could create a website that claimed the WTC towers were actually destroyed by a Martian Death Ray. While one could claim that this website was a "primary source for Blueboar's belief/opinion"... it would not be appropriate as a source because my "belief/opinion" is not notable in any way. Blueboar 12:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

There are reliable secondary sources (e.g. a New Yorker article) that quote him on a few aspects of the theory, as a conspiracy theorist (no, he does not qualify as a reliable source on the subject of collapse; he's considered a reliable source on controlled demolition hypotheses). The current debate is whether or not we are free to go to his website and detail any and all of his beliefs beyond those outlined in reliable secondary sources. --Mmx1 15:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Foo's writings can be used as primary sources of foo's beliefs whether or not they qualify as a reliable secondary source. There are two questions to answer to decide whether this should be added to the article? 1) Do foo's beliefs belong in the article per WP:NPOV. 2)Is it verifiable that these are actually foo's writings?--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 15:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

That strikes me as precisely correct. And about half the length I would have taken to say it. William Pietri 16:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with this. More precisely, Foo's writings may be used as a primary source to establish Foo's beliefs in an an article about Foo. It's fine to use Jim Hoffman's self-published writingings to establish "Jim Hoffman believes X" in an article about Jim Hoffman, but in order to get them in an article about X, you need to establish that Jim Hoffman is a published expert, writing within the area of his expertise. TheronJ 19:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. The article is being made into one about foo: Hoffmann, and a few others. They are Hoffman's opinions, and they are attributed to him, not presented as facts. But they are being presented as representative of conspiracy theorists in general. This has the effect of exaggerating his influence and minimizing the influence of those presented as fringe players. He is a reliable source for his own beliefs, but not for the beliefs of others. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Tom harrison: That seems like an WP:NPOV issue rather than a "source" issue. TheronJ: What is the reasoning for your position? It seems rather arbitrary to me. Especially when you consider how more general articles are supposed to made "summary style" from more specific articles. I don't see why the rules should change just because the title of the articles does.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 20:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Tom, I haven't looked at the article in question. But if you're concerned about over-promoting one person in a section on conspiracy theories, I don't think it's necessary to quote him by name as long as you have references. E.g., "A common fringe belief is that Illuminati agents can fly. [1] Writes one supporter, 'Up until 1930, the Men in Black had leathery wings, with a wingspan of more than 30 feet. Since then, they they have used jetpacks.'[2]" The first ref would be to something that establishes the belief is common; the second would be to the otherwise unreliable source as an illustration of the belief. Would that help? William Pietri 21:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

1)Yes, that does help. What might be a reliable source to establish that the belief is common? I would argue that an example of someone holding that belief is not such a source, even if it reliably represents the views of the person. I think that requires a secondary source. 2)Birgitte may be right that this involves issues of neutrality and due weight as well as sources. It is interesting to consider how the title and the content of the article relate to each other and to appropriate sourcing. 3)We're not supposed to talk about the jet-packs. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

A key consideration here is that Hoffman is a software engineer and lacks expertise in structural engineering. He's not a "published expert, writing within the area of his expertise", as concerns his conspiracy theories websites. --Aude (talk) 00:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to question where this is going... while I am not quite as hardlined on this as TheronJ, I do think it contradicts the section on Self-published sources. It is worth quoting in full:

A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

Exceptions to this may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own name or known pen-name and not anonymously.

However, editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking.

In general it is preferable to wait until other sources have had time to review or comment on self-published sources.

This seems fairly clear in stateing that personal websites should not be used except in very specific situations. I am not sure this Mr. Hoffman meets the conditions. Can you justify saying that he is a well known expert or journalist? It also makes clear that if he is a key source for a view point on this particular theory, his comments will be mentioned in more reliable sources, and that you should use those instead. Blueboar 00:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

If a reliable source says that view V is a common view of group G, and that person P is a prominent member of G, I think it's reasonable to quote P's expression of V as an example of V. For example, let's say we have a reliable source that says that a particular cardinal is a prominent member of a liberal movement in the Catholic church. Then we have another source that says a common view of the movement is that women should be ordained. I think it's fair to use a quote from the cardinal about the ordination of women when describing the movement's view. This would be equally true if it were a prominent lay member of the church instead of the cardinal. Either way the person is an expert on their own views and they're an important part of a movement around those views, so using a quote from them as an example seems reasonable to me. However, I wouldn't analyze their statements to make generalizations about the movement's views, as that would be original research. William Pietri 01:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

What you say is logical to an extent... but it does not always match the guideline. It only does so provided that person P is indeed be a prominent and well known member of group G. Your example falls under the "well known expert" category... a Cardinal is both an expert on Catholic doctrine and well known. So his personal page might be acceptable. Again, to relate it to Mr. Hoffman, is he a well known expert or journalist? if you can justify a "yes" answer, then his page might be acceptable. That said the last part of the guideline section is important... if someone is worth quoting, it is likely that a third party reliable source has done so. Blueboar 13:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's why I mentioned the lay member as well. We are all expert on our own views, in the same way a frog is a reliable source for the sound of that frog croaking. 99% of the time, some random person's views aren't appropriate for an encyclopedia article. But when reliable sources tell us that the view is common and that a person is a prominent or representative member of the group holding the view, I think it's fair to quote them as an illustration of the view. But it's appropriate not to quote them name, as the person isn't the focus; it's just an example of the view. I'd agree, though, that it would be better to pull the quote from a secondary source. Even then, though, I'd be careful; whether I'm pulling from a blog or a piece of testimony to Congress, either way their statement of a view is only proof that they hold that view, and nothing more. William Pietri 15:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

In practice, I'm concerned that that exception will swallow the rule. What is going to stop, for example Global warming or United States presidential election, 2004 from being buried under "Foo, Bar, and Baz each believe that [global warming/the 2004 election] is a fraud"? How are we supposed to put those views in context if they're not published, so that no reliable source is likely to have addressed them directly? My feeling is that if Foo, Bar, and Baz are sufficiently notable that their non-expert, non-published views are themselves notable, they're only relevant on Foo, Bar, and Baz's own page. TheronJ 14:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a very reasonable concern. I think you can only do this if you have all the facts you need from reliable sources, and are using the quote as an illustration. In the pretty limited case I'm talking about, it's not that the speaker is notable; it's that the view is notable and we're using somebody's original words to convey color. You'll see this all the time in newspaper reporting where they'll get a quote from some random person and introduce the quote with "one fan in attendance said". I think the difference on Wikipedia is that while a journalist can pick the person and the quote as they see fit, here we need a reliable source to tell us that the view is notable, and another one to tell us the person is typical of the group holding the view. That the quote matches the (already documented as notable) view should be obvious by inspection. Is that enough to allay your concern? William Pietri 15:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you are jumping to conclusions here, just because we do not wish to allow "Foo, Bar, and Baz each believe that [global warming/the 2004 election] is a fraud" in the bracketed article does not mean "[the primary source views are] only relevant on Foo, Bar, and Baz's own page." In all honesty I think issue you are worried about can be dealt with through WP:NPOV. It really seems arbitrary to me to say we can address Foo's views with his own writings in the article "Foo", but in any other article where Foo's views are relavant we can only use other peoples writings (or other people's choice quotes of Foo) to address them. I believe the key to this issue here is whether the views are relevant to an article not whether we use a primary or secondary source. If the view's are relevant (required by WP:NPOV to balance different views) we should be able to use the best source availble for such views, whatever the title of the article is.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I do believe in most of the examples discussed the individual's views are probably irrevlevant to the article. Just because Foo is a prominent officer of the Sierra Club does not mean we should claim he is representative of the enviromental movement and quote his personal blog in Global warming. If that article has something that need to be added about enviromental views we should instead use a press release of the Sierra Club to state the enviromentalists viewpoint. However, Foo's views of the internal workings of the Sierra Club (for example his election platform hypothectically posted on his blog) may be relevant in the article on the Sierra Club. A clearer example is and article on a group of people that is much less formal than the Sierra Club (like those bipartisan Senators that banded together during conformation hearings). Such an article should probably have parts of it summarized from the articles on individual members. And if those article used a member's primary source writings it seems silly to force the summary to exclude them soloey for this reason--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

William, you have not really eased my concerns. The guideline seems clear that the only exceptions to the "No Personal Webpages" rule is when the website is owned by a person who is well known... ie notable in themselves. I don't see it supporting your "Group A is notable, Person P is in Group A, so we can reference to Person P" concept. In fact, I read it as stating exactly the opposite... that Person P has to be more than just a representitive of a viewpoint... he/she needs to have some reliability standing in his/her own right. I think the guideline is there, in part, to guard against exactly the use you are arguing for.

I think the major difference between TheronJ's take on this (and Theron, correct me if I am wrong) and mine is that I would allow the personal page if (and only if) the person had become notable (in other, reliable sources) for having a specific view... in this specific case, if other reliable sources (books, newspapers, magazines etc.) have discussed Mr. Hoffman's oppinions on the Controled Demolition Theory... If you have cited those sources to establish this, then the door might be open for citing to his webpage, as these reliable sources have made him and his views notable. From what you have told me so far, I am not sure that this has been established. Blueboar 18:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that is very flawed to say an individual's view should be treated as "representative" of a group they belong too. I don't we should ever do this. We should only include an individual's view when it deserves to be there on the individual's merit not riding the coat-tails of "representing a group" Not matter what kind of source it is coming from.Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Not completely true, in my opinion. To use an example from above, if we wish to include a statement from some "representative" of a group, we can use a quote from a newpaper. That quote is allowable because the newspaper is considered a reliable source. In other words, we have to consider where something is said, just as much as who said it. The problem in this specific case is NOT that Mr. Hoffman has an opinion... it is the use of his website as a citation for that opinion. It's not him, or what he says that violates WP:RS... it's where he says it. If he is quoted as saying the same thing in a newspaper it would be considered reliable. Blueboar 19:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you have some reason to doubt that he said it? It seems to me that we can verify that he said it, so I don't have a problem with it from that perspective. WP:RS is a guideline, but it's rooted in WP:V and WP:NPOV. The thing that would scare me about quoting directly from a person's website is being able to verify that we are quoting the right material and that we have selected the right person to quote. Both of those would need to be verifiable and neutral.

Turning to the other folks here, it could be that the guideline doesn't allow the (again, very narrow and rare) circumstance I mention. Personally, I think it does. But the guideline is an expression of the core policies, and I think the small case I mention is legit under the policies. Regardless, I don't think it matters much; unless somebody is planning to make an edit like I described (in which case we'd all benefit from the exact quote in question and an explanation of how it would fit into the article) then this is academic. I'm perfectly willing to let it go for now. William Pietri 06:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say that the existing guideline doesn't (and shouldn't) permit the use of blogs as primary sources of non-expert blogger's opinions in articles not about the blogger, maybe with an exception or two. I can think of a couple cases in which this does routinely come up.

In Case 1, the blog posting is itself notable, and its notability is established by reliable source coverage. A good example is "Buckhead's" initial criticism of the "Killian documents" -- the posting itself was the subject of reliable source media coverage, so I have no objection to also linking directly to Buckhead's original post.
In Case 2, the blog is offered as evidence that a certain opinion is notable. Even if you can find a blog posting from foo.blogspot.com saying that "Sasuke Uchiha is the h0wt!!!" or "Prince suxx!!!", those blog posts can't bootstrap their own notability. If, as in the case of Buckhead, you had some examples of several media outlets holding up Foo's posts as noteworthy examples of Naruto or Prince criticism, then the posts might get in.

In Hoffman's case, if his opinions are noteworthy, they should be reported in a reliable source. If they're not, then they're not noteworthy enough to end up in the larger 9/11 articles. TheronJ 15:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

That all seems very reasonable to me; I completely agree that the judgement of notability of opinions should always come from a reliable source. William Pietri 22:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Who vs That

Wee seem to be having a minor revert war on two versions of one section:

In general, Wikipedia articles should not depend on primary sources but rather on reliable secondary sources who have made careful use of the primary-source material. Most primary-source material requires training to use correctly, especially on historical topics.

Vs.

In general, Wikipedia articles should not depend on primary sources but rather on reliable secondary sources that have made careful use of the primary-source material. Most primary-source material requires training to use correctly, especially on historical topics.

Personally, I like using "that". The first focuses the the reader on the the person who created the source, while the second focuses on the source itself. Comments? Blueboar 16:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

If one insists on being logical, Wikipedia relies on published sources, not interviews. Publications are things, not people, so we should say that. On the other hand, things cannot be careful, only people can, so we should say who. A logical rewrite would be:

In general, Wikipedia articles should not depend on primary sources but rather on reliable secondary sources that were written by carefully using primary-source material. Most primary-source material requires training to use correctly, especially on historical topics.

--Gerry Ashton 17:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I like it! Blueboar 18:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Drugereport reliable?

I thought there was a proviso on here about not using blog sites, but can't find it now, admittedly I skimmed, but anyway, question is, for an article reporting current events, is the drudgereport a RS? Article in question is a new one posted: Jordan Edmund -- I found it doing New Page patrol and tagged it with some relevent tags at the time, and this link to the drudgereport just got added. --plange 19:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced of Drudge's reliability by itself, I have therefore deleted the article for now per WP:BIO. JoshuaZ 19:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It just got re-created - I tagged it for speedy --plange 19:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I deleted it, I don't remember what the template is to protect a page (haha) against recreation, but I will try and find it and put it there. If anyone thinks that this is the wrong thing to do at the moment let me know and I'll restore the version sourced from Drudge. JoshuaZ 19:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

{{deletedpage}} — TKD::Talk 19:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The article was ok and based on a news report from Oklahoma, but then some other editor added that link but added no more data. But I don't really care if it exists or not, especially for something so current-newsy... --plange 19:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

About the law

Dear fellow editors: The section about the law is currently worded as follows:

First of all, remember there are several legal traditions and that laws are only valid in their own jurisdiction. The opinion of local experts is therefore preferred, in general, to that of outside commentators, due to variances across areas of jurisdiction.

When discussing legal texts, it is in general better to quote from the text, or quote from reputable jurists, than to quote from newspaper reports, although newspaper reports in good newspapers are acceptable too. The journalist who wrote the paper may not be trained as a lawyer, although s/he may have access to a wider variety of legal experts than many lawyers do, so judge the quality of the report according to how well that journalist, or that newspaper, has covered legal issues in the past.

We have had so many problems with people editing in the law-related areas (especially in tax law related areas) that I would suggest that we consider adding something like the following to this section:

With respect to citing reliable sources for the law in English common law jurisdictions (such as the United States) [Canada, Australia, etc.], Primary authority is usually considered more reliable than Secondary authority. Weblogs (blogs) and personal web sites are not generally considered reliable sources for the law for any jurisdiction.

With respect to case law in English common law systems, particular care should be taken, when discussing cases and providing quotations from court opinions, to adhere to the rules of formal legal analysis. Court opinions differ from statutes and regulations in an important respect. Portions of court opinions in English common law systems are non-binding obiter dicta. Further, the portion of the text of the court opinion that is binding -- called the holding(s), or ruling(s) -- may be difficult to discern, or may not even be explicitly stated. See generally Ratio decidendi; Stare decisis; and Precedent. Therefore, care should be taken when quoting from the text of a court opinion to determine whether the quoted material is actually part of the holding of the case or is, alternatively, non-binding obiter dicta. As Wikipedia is used by many persons who are not legal scholars, the fact that the language is not binding should be disclosed with the notation "(dicta)", where applicable.

The background for this proposal is the persistent, repeated and incorrect practice of some editors of copying and pasting materials from web logs and tax protester web sites -- materials that purport to be quotations from court opinions but which, upon inspection are (even if accurate "quotations") not part of the court's holding (the actual ruling or rulings) in the case. However, this is not merely a problem of where the copying and pasting occurred. It is more fundamentally a problem of how to perform legal analysis.

Analysis of case law differs from statutory and regulatory analysis in an important respect: unlike the texts of statutes and regs, much of the text of a court opinion is very largely non-binding material that, in the English common law system, is called obiter dicta (plural of obiter dictum). Obiter dicta are non-binding "words said in passing" by the court in the text of the opinion. The obiter dicta may be a correct statement of the law, but are not part of the holding (the ruling) in that particular case. While it is common for courts and legal scholars to quote from obiter dicta (often without even disclosing that the words are non-binding), legal experts have already learned to distill the holding (the binding ruling) in a case and identifying the non-binding obiter dicta. These are skills developed over years of studying the verbatim texts of literally thousands of cases in law school, and in law practice.

In Wikipedia, however, non-experts are allowed to edit in fields of expertise such as law, and this poses something of a problem in law related articles (at least those relating to United States law, where I edit). We cannot do anything about the fact that most editors have not developed the skill of English common law "case law analysis." I am just thinking, however, that maybe if we work up some sort of rule or guideline to which all editors can refer on legal analysis, it might be a bit helpful.

Again, this particular proposal relates only to the use of reliable sources when quoting from case law (not statutes or regulations), in an English common law jurisdiction such as the USA.

A separate but somewhat related problem is that many editors do copy and paste so-called "legal" materials from personal web sites or even weblogs and try to pass these materials off as being reliable statements of the law. Although the reliability of personal web sites and weblogs is already addressed in various places, I included a reiteration of that concept in my proposal.

Any ideas, anyone? Yours, Famspear 19:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I want to add that we cannot of course teach all Wikipedians all the ins and outs of legal analysis, even if we wanted to. The above proposal is, I believe, fairly narrowly drawn to reflect a particularized problem. Yours, Famspear 19:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

This all sounds reasonable to me... Blueboar 20:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Famspear proposed "With respect to citing reliable sources for the law in English common law jurisdictions (such as the United States) [Canada, Australia, etc.], Primary authority is usually considered more reliable than Secondary authority." I would say that an article that is written by non-lawyers which relies on good secondary sources is more likely to be a good article than one that relies on primary authority, because the legal system in general makes no attempt to present the law in an understandable way in the primary authorities. Indeed, when elections approach, some legislators deliberately obscure the primary authority by passing laws they know will be found redundant or unconstitutional, so they can create favorable sound bites for use during the election campaign. --Gerry Ashton 20:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Two comments. Firstly, I disagree that Wikipedia should be including the notation (dicta). Readers without legal training won't have a clue what it means. Explain it in English instead.

Secondly, I'm slightly confused as to what is being proposed here. Are you suggesting that Wikipedians should perform legal analysis in this way? That would seem to contradict no original research. Jakew 21:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the proposal is attempting to prevent Wikipedians from performing legal analysis. At least that is how I read it. Blueboar 22:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in the sense of coming up with or evaluating arguments on their own. Of course, one needs to perform some level of analysis to know that book A is by a reputable scholar and book B is by a crank, but that is normal source-based research. We also run into the definitional question of when a published court opinion is a primary and when it is a secondary source. It can take some expertise (or at least a clear head and experience in detailed logical argument) to tease out what is ratio decidendi (basis of decision) and what is obiter dictum (commentary) from a decision. As in all technical topics, it helps to have editors who can read the sources with understanding, but we want to avoid doing too much of our own analysis, and that is where texts can be helpful. There is a certain amount of art and judgment involved. Robert A.West (Talk) 23:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, it's been over a week since the last comment. I will try to come up with a revised proposal for wording that incorporates the comments above, and put it here for further study. Yours, Famspear 20:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, reliable secondary authority is preferable to primary authority in legal topics, as in elsewhere. I would much rather see articles cited to the leading tax treatise than directly to tax cases, for the general reasons that Wikipedia prefers secondary sources to primary where possible. The problem that Famspear describes sounds like people are using unreliable secondary sources, which will probably already fail under the "self-published" sections of WP:V and WP:RS. TheronJ 21:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I sort of agree with you that treatises are preferable for most legal points, particularly in technical areas like tax. However, in every area of the law there are certain landmark cases that are so well-known that it makes more sense to cite them directly. For example, it is better to cite Campbell v. Acuff-Rose directly for the proposition that parody is fair use in the music context, rather than Nimmer on Copyright. But if I wanted to discuss "parody=fair use" in other contexts (in terms of the rules developed by the Courts of Appeals after Campbell), then Nimmer would probably be the superior source. So I think any rule that we develop needs to take that into consideration.--Coolcaesar 04:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Popular culture and fiction II

I must take exception to User:Sean Black's edit to the "Popular culture and fiction" section; the new version would allow personal websites, wikis, and posts on bulletin boards, if they are the best source available. Sorry, but if there are no quality sources, just don't write about it. --Gerry Ashton 02:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, the referenced Arbcom decision is much less explicit. In fact, I would accept nixing the subsection altogether. Film and other art criticism are an academic pursuit, and even mere "popular culture" reviews in print media are reliable secondary sources. Self-published sources are fraught with reliability issues and the lack of better sources does not mitigate them; merely point to the difficulty of substantiating these facts. The referenced arbcom decision was fairly pointless, too; there are reliable sources that state Dean was a bisexual, and an amass of internet blogs is not an appropriate substitute.--Mmx1 03:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence speaks directly to this issue. "If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." Robert A.West (Talk) 16:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources, Notable sources and WP:NPOV

Proposed:

Reliable sources refers to sources upon which may be based footnoted findings of fact. This can also include a representation of someone else's opinions, for example, "Deconstructionists believe…," where the author is an acknowledged authority on the history and beliefs of deconsructionists.

Notable sources are not necessarily reliable sources of fact; rather, their POV is notable because the soures themselves are notable, for example, "The Dalai Lama claims that Tibet…", and should always be presented with explicit attribution in the text of the articles.

Often, reliable sources contain significant elements of subjective opinion in addition to findings of fact within the authors' fields of acknowledged expertise. In these cases, care should be taken to distinguish expert findings of fact from non-expert or extraneous opinion. Esteemed scholars can be notable sources of opinion, but like other notable sources, this opinion should be explicitly attributed rather than footnoted.Proabivouac 06:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Who will decide that when reliable resource is giving its expert opinion or subjective opinion? It will mess up thing all over the wikipedia and will promote new edit wars. You proposal is not realistic and acceptable. --- ابراهيم 10:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

My point is that if Stephen Hawkings says, "Black holes are really cool, and Bush sucks" it doesn't mean we can write, Black holes are really cool and Bush sucks <ref>Hawkings 1999</ref> simply because his is an acknowledged expert opinion in his field. It has become a game in some quarters to search favorable reliable sources for POV to include in articles, and then speciously accuse those who bring it down to earth of marring the wisdom of the sources, or even vandalism. We're not obliged to reflect every psychological tic and prejudice of expert sources, only to reference findings of fact based upon their expertise. That's no more "original research" on our part than is agreeing upon which sources are reliable to begin with. The text of my proposal is entirely negotiable; I am only trying to prevent the wikilawyering of WP:RS to evade WP:NPOV (in fact, the inverse is a bigger problem, but as we're on this talk page rather than that of NPOV...), based upon an intuitive framework in which reliablity is qualitatively distinguished from notability.Proabivouac 10:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

if Stephen Hawking says "Bush sucks" then it violates the "beware false authority" clause, as Hawking would only be relevant for referencing opinion on (astro)physics. i think it's important for editors to note the intended spirit in which the reliable source makes a statement, if it by doing that reflects an opinion of the author which is questionable then sources which opine differently can be used to balance it out. when there will be opposing POV's on an issue, it is especially important to make sure the opinions are properly attributed. this adds more depth to an article over stripping it of everything an editor may deem to be "subjective", which in itself may be a subjective analysis. ITAQALLAH 16:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Copy edit

Francis, please leave my copy edit in place. There has been a lot of deterioration with this page and it needs to be fixed. Just to give one example: "Wikipedia cannot cite itself as a source—that would be a self-reference." But the issue of self-reference is not why we can't use it. We can't use it because anyone can edit it.

There's a lot of stuff like this: words for the sake of words, which either don't mean anything or are actually wrong. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Re. "We can't use it because anyone can edit it." - I don't agree with you on that one. It assumes there's a causal relation between "editable by anyone" and "unreliability", which I don't think there is. If you think there is, you're of course free to join Larry Sanger's new project. But as far as Wikipedia is concerned, none of this assumption is proven. "Wikipedia cannot cite itself as a source—that would be a self-reference." has been in this guideline for a long time now. I agree with it. It is not wrong, as far as I can see. You have the opportunity here on this talk page to explain, and try to convince other wikipedians, why you think it wrong. Until other wikipedians are convinced it is "wrong" (and there's a general consensus about it), it stays in the guideline. For reference on this particular point, see for instance also Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/archive6#Using long passages from an article in another article, particularily what I wrote about the "Reliable source" aspect in that talk page section. No self-references is, among others, a basic systemic bias avoidance system. IMHO, even when Wikipedia has gotten rid of its inaccuracies and faults to the same level as any other encyclopedia, Wikipedia could still not use itself as a reference for this reason. --Francis Schonken 09:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC) - updated 10:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It's nonsense to say that something can't cite itself. Authors and publishers do it all the time. We can't cite Wikipedia because it's a wiki, just as we can't cite other wikis. It has nothing to do with self-reference. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Quite correct, SV. What do you think of my proposal above?Proabivouac 10:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look, Proab. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Re. "It's nonsense to say that something can't cite itself." - I never said that, in general, something can't cite itself. I'd like to ask you not to use inflammatory language like nonsense about something I contend. At least try to comment on what I actually said. Further, for encyclopedias, I think there's a tradition not to cite themselves as a source (for instance, I've never seen Britannica do that). Also Wikipedia:Avoid self-references is a guideline, which, as a corollary, implies Wikipedia can not cite itself as a source. --Francis Schonken 10:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Some other examples of problems:

"There are many ways in which factual errors can be introduced into reports": patronizing, stating the obvious, words for the sake of words.
"When wikipedians have the ambition to write a better encyclopedia entry than those extant, it does not suffice to rely on the content of such tertiary sources. Therefore, in general, as primary sources are also to be treated with caution (see above), secondary sources are the stock material on which Wikipedia articles depend for their references": almost meaningless.
"When reporting that an opinion is held by a particular individual or group, the best citation will be to a direct quote ..." Not so. We don't want articles to be lists of quotes.
"Advanced degrees give authority in the topic of the degree": no, they don't. PhDs might; MAs don't, at least not much, and sometimes not at all.

These are just examples picked out at random. The overall problem is that it's far too wordy and very patronizing. We're not talking to 10-year-olds. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Still wanted to say, I agree tightening would be a good thing for this guideline. But that is not the same as saying I necessarily agree with each and every of your tightening proposals. I'd take out other things. Until there is consensus on what to take out, what to keep in, and on how to rewrite certain passages, it is best to keep these discussions to this talk page.

Regarding the four points you mention, in the same order:

I'd keep that in: maybe self-evident to many... but when for instance when I see people clinging to the NYT as if every word contained in it is above suspicion, it might be a good idea to repeat this for the many people of all skill and level of awareness to keep this in.
I think this very meaningful. We're never going to get better than Britannica (and other tertiary sources), if we keep repeating their errors too. And Britannica contains many errors, as the quoted Nature article shows.
It is best to avoid citations in the sense of "newpaper XYZ said that on a televised speech Bush used the term Islamofascism". I think it more efficient in that case, to give the quote, and make a link to the transcript of that speech on the presidential website.
Agree with you on that one. I left it out to in the intermediate version, which you reverted. I reverted back to an older version, while this might go to an edit war otherwise, so that we have the opportunity to discuss these matters, until we agree enough for a change. --Francis Schonken 10:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

1) It's so self-evident, it almost doesn't mean anything. There are many ways to introduce mistakes. There are many ways to hold a knife. There are many ways to write pointless sentences. :-)

2) True, but it could be expressed simply e.g. Try to avoid relying on other tertiary sources such as encyclopedias.

3) Sometimes it's good to quote, but sometimes not. Depends on context. Some of our worst articles are lists of quotes with almost no linking narrative.

I think we're trying to be too algorithmic: trying to find advice for every occasion. At some point, we have to let people use their editorial judgment. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I like having examples in some cases. Here they are up and down. "Don't, for instance, remove a reference to "earth's elliptical orbit" simply because the writer has not supported the assertion that planetary orbits are elliptical" is a good one that warns against an abuse of citation tags for statements of common knowledge. The example in the "issues to look out for" section that groups Al Qaeda with Stormfront.org and The UK Socialist Workers Party as extremists I find to be flawed, because it is not the role of the reliable sources page to identify who is extremist and who is not, and while I understand that Al Qaeda is terrorist and Stormfront is racist, I'm not clear on why we group UK SWP with that motley duo, and why they are any more extreme than, say, the French socialists.

A related comment on that last, IMO it amounts to a self reference to wikilink the word "extremist" at the extremist websites section, because Wikipedia is not the authority on what an extremist is, and that I think is how the link is going to be interpreted and used if you link it in the guideline.

On the whole I think the guideline has issues with organization and uneveness. There's the use of bolding here and there, apparently to drive home a key point, but I think that really a steady factual tone is needed. It's a guideline after all. There is some undue redundancy. There are a lot of headings and look at the TOC they seem to run on in a list with no particular logic to it. Not to agree with all of SlimVirgin's edits or not, but I think he has a point that some major changes need to be made. DanielM 14:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC) PS: Perhaps we could make use of three to five superheadings to reshuffle all the topics in the TOC into. DanielM 14:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the main reason Wikipedia can't cite itself is that like all encyclopedias, it's a tertiary source. We shouldn't cite Britannica or Encarta or any other encyclopedia either; rather, we should be tracking down the primary and secondary sources and citing them. Angr 08:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that we can broadly say to not to cite tertiary sources. Older encyclopedias are very valuble for history sections as they sum up everything considered important on a subject at the time.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Encyclodedias are indeed good reliable sources. Wikis are not. The difference being that a wiki can change at a moments notice. A statement that is included in an article one day, might not be in the article the next. This means that any citation to the wiki is not verifiable. Also, since we do not know who the editors of the article are, nor what degree of expertese they might have in the subject, we can not be sure that the article states reliable information at any given moment. (Picture an article you regulary edit here on wikipedia... now imagine it has just been hit with a POV vandal attack. Now suppose someone was, at that moment, trying to use that article as a source... and you will see why wikis can never be considered reliable.) Blueboar 17:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I never intended to imply I supported citing Wikipedia. I was only reply to the comment We shouldn't cite Britannica or Encarta or any other encyclopedia either; rather, we should be tracking down the primary and secondary sources and citing them. I would never want to see Wikipedia cite itself and believe citations should be fully copied over from daughter articles when writing summary style. Sorry for any confusion.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem with copying citations from daughter articles when writing summary style is that, in my opinion, an editor should not copy a citation unless the editor has read the source. But if the editor who is writing the summary article did not write the daughter articles, this could be a heavy burden that would strongly discourage the creation of summary articles. --Gerry Ashton 18:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

These reverts to consensus destroy improvements to language

I made a fuss about reverting mania here a few weeks ago when Mikka's edits were reverted on grounds of consensus, even though most of his changes were to do with expression and improved the text. The reverts in effect disimproved the article by restoring infelicities and language mistakes. In a small way, I've had the same problem: my edit of "who" to "that" was reverted by Jossi as part of a revert to a consensus version (I've just ventured the edit again). The pattern of edits between Slim Virgin and Francis Schonken replicates that between Mikka and his reverters: many good style edits have been removed for no reason. To take the first, very simple, example, this change was reverted:

The policy pages that discuss the need to use sources are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

to this:

The two policy pages that discuss the need to use sources are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

In other words, a redundancy has been restored (and of course, more than two pages discuss this). The same pattern appears throughout the restored consensus version: restoration of inferior versions of phrasing.

This isn't as trivial matter as it may appear. Both reverting and the notion of consensus are being used, albeit in good faith, to repress improvement. Reverting should be used largely for vandalism and stupid mistakes; otherwise, editing should be used—in other words, other peoples' edits should be picked through individually and improved, left, or removed on their individual merits. Matters of content can be addressed on the talk page, but language changes don't need to be; good writers are best given their heads as far as prose is concerned and not baulked, or the policy will never be well-written.

Reverting to distant consensus is in any case suspect: consensus cannot be stored; consensus must be fresh. Otherwise consensus becomes tradition, conservatism, a justification for repression; it's political. For all that people have affixed consensus advice at the top of these policies, the notion makes little, if any, appearance in the founding principles: "You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred" (from User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles). Note that freedom to edit is the check, not consensus; consensus has the potential to become a tyrant. Of course, the core policies and essential details of those policies need to be protected by agreement, but does anyone really believe that refinements of the sort reverted in the last six weeks represent an assault on core policy? qp10qp 15:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

While it is true that "You can edit this page right now" is a guiding principle of Wikipedia, you have to remember that the same principle allows others to revert or change your edit "right now" if they do not like it. On an established page such as this, with many long term editors contributing, it is natural that changes are resisted. For a change to be retained, others need to be convinced that it is worthwhile and needed. I agree that doing this is difficlult and sometimes very frustrating. You have to remember, however, that the language you read now often came about after heated debate and is the result of compromise... i.e. consensus. Now, once concensus is reached it is indeed conservative in the traditional sense of the word. It changes very slowly. But it CAN change. This is called building a new concensus.

My advice, go slowly... discuss and explain each change before you make the edit. Find out what the objections are, and work them through on the talk page... reach a new concensus and THEN make the edit. Blueboar 20:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Consensus for language changes is impossible because no one is interested: you can go mad suggesting language changes on policy talk pages and being ignored. It is up to editors to look at changes individually in the text and decide whether to keep, improve, or change them back. This way the text progresses, not by consensus but by a collaborative process which is equally virtuous. My point about language changes is that they get lost in reverts, whereas they stand a chance of surviving in collaborative editing.

I entirely disagree with you that editors have the same freedom to revert that they do to edit.

"Be bold in contributions, but not in destructions. Editing is a collaborative effort, so editing boldly should not be confused with reverting boldly." (WP:BOLD).

"Reverting should be used primarily for fighting vandalism." (Help:revert).

"Revert is a failure on their part not yours: While it isn't something you want to mention, if your edits are not preposterous and they are reverted, that person is essentially saying, "I think your edits need improvement, but I can't think of a better way to incorporate their view point into the page". (Essay:Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.)

Reverting is a manifestly inferior method of proceeding, a form of smackdown which, in contrast to the edits it cancels, takes little time or effort and advances the text precisely nowhere. I've never done it, except to remove vandalism.qp10qp 21:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism is done with an intent to do damage. It is possible for a good faith edit to be mostly poor quality. When poor quality is combined with the limitations of the software that shows the difference between edits, it may be more appropriate to revert than individually edit. If the editor doing the reversion notices any improvements amongst the poor quality edits, the reverting editor could make those changes immediately after the reversion. --Gerry Ashton 21:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The real trouble is the reverting of good quality edits.qp10qp 21:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

In response to Blueboar, here are some examples from the policy text of what I consider poor and in some cases semi-literate writing (and the list could be ten times as long). The problem is that one would most certainly be reverted in trying to improve them. Even if I present them here in advance, discuss them, and then change them, I know that most if not all of these examples would resurface in their present form due to reverts to consensus versions, even if those reverts weren't aimed precisely at my changes.

When reporting that an opinion is held by a particular individual or group, the best citation will be to a direct quote…

Most primary-source material requires training to use correctly

And do be skeptical about claims of "common knowledge" about people, especially living people.

In general, higher education textbooks are frequently revised and try to be authoritative.

However, that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it

If not, inclusion is probably not appropriate

Live news footage during disasters and major incidents are primary sources that often contain highly speculative reports and commentary, some which may later turn out to be false

Neither online nor print sources deserve an automatic assumption of reliability by virtue of the medium they are printed in

With any source, multiple independent confirmation is one good guideline to reliability, if several sources have independently checked a fact or assertion, then it is more reliable than one which is not checked.

Reliable sources also are ones which differentiate within their own information stream between assertions which are backed by observation, those that are theoretical but highly likely, and those which are speculative, conjectural and rumor.

However, while reliability is to some extent fungible, peer reviewed publications make errors, professional publications vary widely in quality and have their own POVs and other sources have to be evaluated based on the particular assertion.

While reputable and reliable have considerable overlap, one is not a substitute for the other.

There are a growing number of sources on the web that publish...

The article is in my opinion full of such stuff. Its built-in resistance to copyediting does it no favours. qp10qp 22:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

OK... now we have a list of things you think need re-wording. Great! We can now discuss them in a reasonable way. So let's go through them one at a time and see if a new concensus can be reached on each one. Let's start with your first example...

When reporting that an opinion is held by a particular individual or group, the best citation will be to a direct quote…

First, can you point out which section this line comes from? (We need to be able to put it into context.) Second, please explain what you find objectionable with the current wording. And thrid, what is your proposed language? Blueboar 00:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It's good of you to respond. But this really is a tedious way of going about things. My point, after all, was that consensus is an unsuitable process for mere language changes. Anyway, this one's from the section "Some definitions":

When reporting that an opinion is held by a particular individual or group, the best citation will be to a direct quote, citing the source of the quote in full after the sentence, using a Harvard reference, a footnote, or an embedded link.

Because the sentence starts with an unattached preamble, "the best citation" attaches itself to the converted participle and becomes the subject of the sentence by default. But a participle should relate to a noun that is truly capable of performing the participle's action, which here "the best citation" plainly cannot. The implied actor of the sentence needs to be stated for the sentence to become adequate English:

When reporting that an opinion is held by a particular individual or group, editors should preferably make a citation to a direct quote and cite the source of the quote in full after the sentence, using a Harvard reference, a footnote, or an embedded link.

But there are fifty of these...we could go on forever. qp10qp 01:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Because there are fifty of these, if you try to change them all at once you will overwhelm the other editors, who will not be able to reflect on whether the changes make sense or not. You increase the chance that people will react badly and will simply revert. (although perhaps we can do this in small chunks of say two or three changes just to speed it up a little bit) Please have patience.

As for the proposed change... while your language is gramatically more accurate, it does comes across as a bit clunky to my ear. That said, I have no real objection to such a change... Let's what a while and see if anyone else has a comment. If not, make the change and we can move on to the next few.Blueboar 12:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, of course it's clunky, because it's a bodge job on a badly constructed sentence. The whole sentence needs redrafting, with the main subject and verb at the beginning; but that might require adjusting some of the surrounding sentences. I think the reverters would regard such editing as impertinent and step in to crush it at birth.

But I want to end this process here, because I have no interest in trying to rewrite this article phrase by phrase. After all, my point in bringing those examples up here was to show that the talk page is not the best place to address them. However, I genuinely appreciate your response. If there were twenty more like you, consensus might indeed be a viable approach to editing the policy's language. qp10qp 15:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem... just trying to help. "Have fun storming the castle!" Blueboar 17:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Top-to-bottom rewrite proposed

section break

Re. replacing the "When reporting [...]" sentence, here's my proposal:

When reporting that an opinion is held by a particular individual or group, the best citation will often be a direct quote, that is: the text as it was spoken, written or published by the individual or group holding that opinion. Such quotes can be enclosed in <blockquote> tags. For direct quotes the best source is often (but not always) a primary source.

I think Qp's proposal not so very well phrased (especially the "[...] citation to a direct quote [...]" part, which is not so clear to me). --Francis Schonken 08:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not my phrase. The whole sentence needs redrafting. Your version is still grammatically incorrect.qp10qp 09:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Most of the problem with WP:RS is that SlimVirgin sees the world in black and white, and will edit-war in perfect good faith sincerity to her preferred version. (This is the behaviour that keeps seeing her hauled up before the arbitration committee.) This means we end up with a didactic text that is then misapplied robotically with disastrous consequences for article content and public relations. I would seriously move that this page be re-designated from "guideline" to "essay", because the editing history shows pretty clearly that it is a personal essay. There's nothing wrong with a personal essay, but there is something wrong with edit-warring a guideline until dissenters give up and go away in disgust then acting as though that constitutes "consensus" - David Gerard 10:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean that sincerely? From your tone I'm taking that as an expression of frustration rather than a serious proposal. William Pietri 10:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm serious. The page needs a top-to-bottom rewrite: its fundamental assumptions - that a one-size-fits-all approach to reliability of sources can work at all - is a fringe academic POV. Slim is a librarian, not a researcher. Essentially it's an essay from Librarian Point Of View, and librarians don't write encyclopedias; ideally, experts do. I'll see what can be done in terms of a draft. I know Phil Sandifer was working on one, but I also know he and Slim didn't agree on a damn thing about sources ... even though Phil teaches a course in referencing and sourcing at U.Florida. Hopefully something that makes sense and is useful as a guideline without being fodder for pathological robots will be able to be produced - David Gerard 10:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

This is unbelievable. I don't support the content or tone of this page and never have. My preference would be to delete it because it's not needed; and mostly it just causes confusion. All I've ever managed to achieve with it is copy editing to get rid of the worst of the writing and trying to make sure it stays consistent with the content policies.

But you're right that I don't agree with Phil on sources. He wanted to add something to an article recently based on a claim left on a talk page! If you think that's the kind of sourcing anyone will support, you're going to have a struggle on your hands, and not just with me. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I just asked Phil to come by, wearing his academic hat, to critique the present version of WP:RS. It should produce material for thought for all of us - David Gerard 10:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. Phil Sandifer 17:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Qp10qp, could you say again what you're asking for here? I agree that improved clarity in the writing would be good. But for key guidlines and policies, I think a gradual approach is important to maintain strong consensus. I agree that's frustrating, but I don't yet understand what solution you propose. Thanks, William Pietri 10:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The examples are pretty blatantly maintaining "consensus" by driving away dissenters and blindly edit-warring to a preferred version. Seeing the process as something to be defended at all costs and assuming bad faith by default. That's the sign of a process that's going off the rails, in danger of becoming way too introverted and in need of being brought back into touch with the outside world - David Gerard 10:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

My proposal—and I've decided to say it here forever and a day, since the edit summaries of reverts usually insist on consensus and the talk page—is that reverting is unhelpful on this policy because it wipes out all changes not just the one or two objected to. Many good-faith, often useful, language edits are lost and weaker versions restored. Content edits should be proposed on the talk page but not necessarily language edits. The examples of weak writing I presented above would be much more readily dealt with by good copyedits than by discussion on this page; however such copyedits are at the moment not treated on their merits but as non-consensus edits. The result of all this is that it's almost impossible to improve the prose of this deadly piece of writing. In short, my proposal is: don't revert except for vandalism; instead make your editing response piecemeal. And to those I call the flying reverters (editors who to judge from their contribution pages tarry here only a moment before scurrying off without talking to us on this page) I say, stop being control freaks. Not that they will read this. qp10qp 10:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I have an essay I wrote suggesting signs of a pathological process. So far this is ticking off 1 (susceptible to being used as a bludgeon to POV-push), 2 (prescriptive when it could be phrased as a guideline), 3 (fails to assume good faith; excludes non-regulars) and 5 (works through a committee or inadvertent committee structure). It didn't tick off 3. until just now. This is a Really Bad Thing, by the way.

I've posted to wikien-l asking for further opinions. Getting a professional opinion from Phil will be of great help and will be a contribution from a position of expertise - David Gerard 11:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

How about we do the same thing as you did at the blocking policy - make a subpage, rewrite as needed, discuss a bit and cut/paste over the main page? It seemed to work out fine there, so it shuld do the trick here. >Radiant< 11:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't start that, InkSplotch did, so credit to him :-) But that's the sorta thing I was thinking of. A back-to-fundamentals that states its assumptions and acts like the guideline it is. This will require contribution from all interested parties and as many actual experts as we can find - David Gerard 11:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Tx for the common sense. I'm all in for a rewrite on a draft page. Let's start Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Temp (or anything more suitable) as the page where we put the rewrite draft.

Two points:

Don't demote the current guideline to "essay", until the new draft is successful enough to put on the guideline page. I'm wary of the "Notability"-style edit wars of demoting-promoting to guideline/essay/proposal/whatever on the actual page where it should be possible to find guidance at any moment (it's not as if we're asking all editors to stop editing the encyclopedia until we figured out what we understand by "reliable sources"). Advertise the rewrite proposal widely, in the usual places like RfC, current surveys and village pump.
Note that the rewrite proposal should probably give some attention to the "reliable source"-defining sections of WP:V too. I mean the three last subsections of WP:V#Sources: "Sources of dubious reliability", "Self-published sources (online and paper)" and "Self-published and dubious sources in articles about themselves". Note that these three subsections qualify as "personal essay" in the meaning given to that expression by David above. --Francis Schonken 12:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the new page (after discussion and copyed) should simply overwrite the present page. >Radiant< 12:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest a discussion instead as to whether this page is worth keeping at all. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

A somewhat interminable list of flaws

As requested, an inventory of the flaws in this page. I hope you will see that the flaws are deeply rooted, affecting the organization and goal of the page. Not only is this an inadequate guideline for sourcing, it is an inadequate foundation for a guideline. David is correct - this needs to be rewritten from the ground up.

There are three basic flaws of this page, and they'll recur throughout the below.

The page arbitrarily attempts to rule out subjective judgment in some cases while mandating it in others. The cases where it mandates it are often masked as didactic guidelines that depend on phrases like "reliable X," "common Y," or a mushy definition of fact. These phrases could be defined in the same way that "reliable source" has been, but such definitions would necessarily run into the same problems of subjectivity. It's turtles all the way down.
The page is, at numerous points, clearly written for a narrow range of topics. When applied to other topics, it ranges from the merely unhelpful to the completely wrong.
Sections flatly contradict each other.

(Moved to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Flaws)

That's all I've got. Phil Sandifer 17:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Dissertations

Are unpublished Ph.D. dissertations considered reliable sources? On the one hand, they certainly are widely cited in academic writing; on the other hand, the fact that they're unpublished can make them extremely difficult for nonspecialists to get hold of for verification. And what about papers published in conference proceedings? These too are widely cited in academic writing, but in most cases they haven't been peer-reviewed. Angr 08:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

One must remember that this guideline is a sub-page of WP:V... Verification is key. Since an unpublished dissertation can not be verified, I do not think it should be used as a source on Wikipedia. Papers published in conference proceedings, on the other hand, are often posted on the website of the organization hosting the conference... thus "published" and verifiable. I would say these can be used, but should be treated as primary sources for the thoughts of the author. Blueboar 12:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say unpublished dissertations can't be verified at all, just that they're difficult to verify. Most universities libraries keep copies of dissertations submitted there, and often have copies of dissertations submitted at other universities too, so in a pinch you can find some there. You can order copies made from microfilms of any dissertation submitted to American universities can be ordered. Printed book-form dissertations are often available from the university department where they were submitted. More recent dissertations are often available in PDF format online (mine is, for example). But they don't have ISBNs and can't be ordered through Amazon. Angr 12:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

PhD dissertations are highly reliable sources. They are all "published" by their universities (and in USA by Dissertation Abstracts, which makes it very easy to buy a copy.) More important they are all vetted by a dissertation committee who actually sign the title page to legitimize the quality of the contents. Rjensen 12:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hold on ... I am confused... I would call what Angr and Rjensen are talking about: "Published"... I thought we were talking about pre-submission versions of dissertations (essentially drafts that have not been submitted to peer review.) I think we need clarification on what consitutes an "Unpublished" disseration. Blueboar 13:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

By unpublished I meant not published by an actual publisher, complete with ISBN number and the like. I wouldn't think of citing a dissertation that hasn't been submitted yet. My own dissertation was submitted and accepted by the Cornell University Graduate School in 1997, but it's never been published by a publisher, so I consider it unpublished. Angr 14:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Dissertations are available through the usual channels (UMI, interlibrary loan); if anyone wants a copy they can get it. As for them being reviewed, I find that Wikipedia overrates peer review and underrates the informal post-publication review, the "invisible boot", as Broad & Wade call it. Dr Zak 17:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The finished dissertation is validated by an official committee of scholars, and is officially made available by the university library. In USA they are (almost) all published by a company, UMI that will sell you a copy today of 1.6 million titles see [7] That's publication on demand and it's for real. Rjensen 15:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, a finished dissertation is "published" and verifiable, and therefore a valid source. I would also say that any Master's Thesis that also goes through the same vetting and publication by their university is also valid. --plange 16:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Having read Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Flaws, I suspect that User:Phil Sandifer would object to using Ph.D. dissertations as sources on the grounds that they're academic sources on paper. Can't have that! Angr 18:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Angr, PhD dissertations are published by the university in the sense of being made available to any member of the public who asks for them, so they count as valid sources, although I'd say we should generally avoid them in favor of more widely published material, but that's a matter of personal preference. However, I think I'd strongly oppose using an M.A. dissertation. Are they also published as a matter of course? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It depends a lot on what you're working on. I'm working on improving Irish phonology right now, and so far I've succeeded in not citing any dissertations, but doing so is definitely cramping what I want to say about it. Angr 22:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'd say go ahead and cite them if they're relevant and if you're having difficulty avoiding them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course I wouldn't say that. Phil Sandifer 22:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Contest

How about a contest for who can produce the best replacement for WP:RS? 4.250.132.226 19:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The best thing for it, in my view, is deletion. We already have WP:V, which is the policy. This page, if it's needed at all, should only provide advice to people about where to find good sources, but it shouldn't go over issues that are covered by the policy; at best, it'll be repetitive and at worst contradictory. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

But WP:V references this guideline in so many places; the two are heavily intertwined. Much wikilawyering goes on as to what is a reliable source, after all. We all think that reliable sources are like pornography--we know them when we see them--but there is widespread disagreement among editors as to what is reliable. (Other than the general principle that "my sources are reliable and yours are not", which many Wikipedians heartily agree with). --EngineerScotty 19:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:V wouldn't reference this guideline ideally, Engineer, and the two are not at all entwined. I can't think of a single thing we'd lose by deleting RS. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

As a starting point; see Wikipedia:Acceptable sources. This is not a replacement for WP:RS; instead it is intended as a broader guideline (which might even become policy) as to what sorts of sources are clearly not acceptable. All reliable sources should meet Wikipedia:Acceptable sources, but the converse is certainly not true. --EngineerScotty 20:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Engineer, I like what you're written, but please try to help get this page in order rather than create an almost identical fork, which will only add to the confusion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:V is not identical to what usually is meant with reliable sources: even unreliable sources should be cited to verify that they indeed state what the article claims that they state (see for example Holocaust denial). However this distinction is obscure in the policy. Harald88 20:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The distinction is clear in the policy, Harald. Sources of dubious reliability may be cited in articles about themselves; therefore, Holocaust deniers may be cited in articles about the theories of Holocaust deniers. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I see what you're saying - and indeed, I agree with you that Holocaust denial has no place in, say, Holocaust. On the other hand, this, to my mind, requires a more subtle judgment than you seem to be willing to give credit for. A judgment no less subtle than many others that need to be made, and that we currently frown on making. Phil Sandifer 00:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure - sources that are deemed reliable about themselves may be cited in that context, without any suggestion that they are otherwise reliable. I just don't think that this is sufficiently clearly explained. Harald88 22:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Harald88 I agree what you are say about WP:V dealing with a seperate issue than WP:RS. Verifiabilty is much more basic than reliabilty. One of the main points at WP:V is "Verifiabilty, not truth". This guideline is about the next step after verifiabilty, and should be more restrictive. For example any editor can remove an unsourced statement per WP:V, the burden is not on the remover. I do not believe any editor should be remove all statements sourced from X indie rock magazine because they don't believe it reliable. They should have the burden of proving the magazine unreliable before making wholesale removals of the edits in that case. This is why WP:V needs to be seperate, as it places such a strong burden on good-faith editors it needs to remain limited to verifiabilty alone. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 22:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Birgitte, this page and V actually should say the same thing, and do make the same point (insofar as the point on this page can be worked out). The point is that edits must be "verifiable" in relation to reliable sources. "Verifiable" is actually a poor choice of word; what is meant is simply that we must attribute edits to reliable sources. What do you see the difference as between this page and RS? I'be interested to know as I think this page only serves to cause confusion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I do see the difference. Verifiability focuses on the requirement that there should be a traceable source for what is written for which there seems to be little grey areas. This article focuses on the quality of sources. This article has an enormous amount of grey area. Assessing sources and applying this article requires a lot of common sense and knowledge of the subject and knowledge of the literature/sources of a subject. Andries 23:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[Edcon] A veriable source is one that we can be reasonably assured represents the opinion or belief of some person or body. A reliable (authoritative) source is one that we can further assume accurately represents the state of the world. On some topics--many things involving politics, religion--truly reliable sources are probably not possible; thus we fall back to verifiable ones, and (per WP:NPOV) attribute beliefs to sources in prose. On others--science, for instance--we can find sources which are both verifiable and reliable (authoritative), and we often present claims based on that type of source as fact. (We don't write "According to Alan Turing, the halting problem is undecideable on a Turing Machine"--presenting what has been mathematically proven as an opinion). In the field of pop culture, we depend (unfortunately) on much which is reliable, but not very verifiable. The concepts of verifiability and reliablity address different issues. We can have V without RS if we attribute per NPOV: we should not accept sources IMHO which do not pass V (or the "acceptable sources") proposal outlined above. --EngineerScotty 23:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Engineer, there's no difference between a "verifiable" source and a reliable one, in the way the terms are used on Wikipedia. The belief/fact distinction you're trying to make is not one we can observe. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree. Many political polemics are verifiable in that they represent their author's views. Few of them should be quoted as representing any more than that. On the other hand, a computer science paper published in Communications of the ACM, containing proofs of some proposition X, can reasonably considered firm evidence that X is indeed true. A grey area, which you are no doubt familiar with, is when scholarship and polemics collide, as they do all to frequently--often times academic principles suffer at the hands of political principles; and it's damn hard to tell the real research from the propaganda.--EngineerScotty 00:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No, look, all the policy says is that material has to be "verifiable" with references to reliable published sources. Forget the word "verifiable." It's a bad choice of word, inherited from years ago. We just mean that material has to be attributable to reliable sources. True, false, belief, opinion, fact, or feeling: we don't distinguish. It just has to be attributable to reliable published sources. It must have been published by a reliable source, in other words. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

(unindent; edit conflict)As said above this is the next step after WP:V. But I think it is the fact that the pages are not as clear as they could be on the separation between them that leads to the confusion. I have even been told that a sourced statement that doesn't follow WP:CITE to the letter (page numbers) should be removed per WP:V. Because WP:V says you must use WP:RS which say you need to follow WP:CITE. The confusion is from the boundaries being fuzzy. I will try and explain this better. WP:V is really about burden of sourcing being on the person who wants to add or maintain a piece of information. That is the policy bit the rest is all just explaining different applications of that bit sometimes clearly sometimes not. Now we do not wish to allow information from low quality sources as that defeats the purpose of asking for a source. However we do not want to make an editor have prove the source is reliable before he may add the material with the same strength we want to make him provide the source. That is why there needs to be separation. If the source is unreliable someone can a expose it as unreliable or unrecognised and remove the information, but they should not demand it be proved reliable per WP:V to prevent removal.

If we roll these two pages together I do not see how we will be able to draw the line between these two issues (sourcing of material, quality of the source). So this is how I see the pages as building on each other. First you absolutely must source your information if you want to ensure it stays is in the article (WP:V). Second you need to use the most reliable sources possible or your information will be replaced with something from a more reliable source or if you use something completely unreliable like a tabloid someone will remove it pointing out that the source was unreliable (WP:RS).

Another way of explaining it is this. Foo sees unsourced information that strikes him as wrong but he is not sure it is wrong. Per WP:V he should remove it to the talk page and ask for a source. Foo sees sourced information from a periodical he never heard of that strikes him as wrong but he is not sure it is wrong. He should not remove it, but ask questions on the talk and do some research into the periodical on his own. If he find reasons to support the periodical is unreliable, then he removes the information and leaves a note on the talk page about what he found out about the periodical, and hopefully searches WP for more articles sourced from this unreliable periodical and removes all information from that source. Because these two issues call for different handling, they should be clearly separated so that there is less confusion about what one should do in a given case. Remember these pages are read and taken to heart to people who are not so experienced with how things work at WP, so we should make it extra hard for them to be misunderstood.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 23:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Copy edit (2)

Francis, rather that reverting my copy edit, can you say what I've left out that needs to stay? I was very conversative in what I trimmed; ideally, it needs to be cut back further, so I did this as a first step. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

See #Copy edit above.

Further, if you want a top-to-bottom rewrite, I suggested Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Temp in the #Top-to-bottom rewrite proposed section above. --Francis Schonken 07:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

This policy in general terms

After reading Phil's analysis, the thing that I have come to realize is the main flaw of this guideline is that it believes sources are either reliable or not. When like most things in this world, sources vary in their reliabilty within a large spectrum. Of course now that Phil has pointed out how it is problamatic to force a broad white line, I feel it very obvious this guideline should about two things.

1) How to evaluate the reliabilty of a source and find the most reliable source possible on a subject. There is an interesting post on foudation-l on evaluating the authority of sources which is few steps ahead of us here, but something to keep in mind.

2) When the sources available are not as reliable we would like, how can we mitigate this problem. This may involve having multiple sources where, if they were more reliable only one would be needed. Or it could involve a subject specific assesment of sources with the idea what would quallify as a "Grade A" source on the subject of buffalo nickels, would not even be considered for assement on the subject of global warming.

I think an important thing for everyone to remember is that a piece of information must pass several different evalutions before someone can say it is suitable for an article. Some material unsuitable for an article qp10qp 14:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)should pass this guideline, but fail to be included for other reasons such as NPOV or simple consensus. Many of the problems with this guideline are because it is trying to make sure all unsuitable material fails here, but this is really only one test of many.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 22:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

You might also link to this page on meta. An interesting project; though whether it will get off the ground or get to a point where it is useful, is an interesting question. (And who would get to edit it?)--EngineerScotty 22:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere does this policy state or imply that there's a firm line between a category called "reliable sources" and another category called "unreliable sources." Of course it's a spectrum. Surely we don't have to state things as obvious as that? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

We do state that reliabilty is a spectrum actually. Unfortunately it is not until halfway down the page, instead of in the introduction. A paragraph on this concept would be a much more appropriate introduction than what has currently been copied over from WP:V. Don't you think this guideline should open up discussing the variety in the quality of sources rather than the whole responsibility of finding sources being on the editor who want to add . . . schtick? --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 03:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

This guideline tries to be prescriptive by going in my opinion into tedious, contradictory, and vague detail. It's largely a waste of words because article editors are better off not worrying about micropolicy; so long as they grasp the basic principle, they should go ahead and edit their articles; the chances are no-one will object to their methods (and if they do, matters normally resolve themselves at the article). I don't think guidelines should be seen as the little brothers and sisters of policies; they should instead, in my opinion, work as a sort of helpdesk FAQ resource, which readers may scan till they find their own circumstance. If that was accepted, we could worry a lot less about this page and concentrate instead on the policy pages. At the moment it's a dog dressed up for a weddiing. --qp10qp 14:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Well put. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Orphaning

Links to this page are being removed from other Wikipedia policies. Should this be disscussed centrally here? Or somewhere else instead?--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 03:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

This page and wiki mail indicate a lot of people don't think it should be a guideline. In particular there is circular thinking that it should be a guideline because policies link to it and policies should link to it because it is a guideline. For now, it should be de-linked and allowed to find its place on its own. When what it is is settled, the linking can be reconsidered. There is growing momentum to delete it altogether; thinking WP:V is fine without it. WAS 4.250 05:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I would definitely support this not being a guideline anymore. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Attribution, a new proposal to replace this, WP:V, and WP:NOR. --EngineerScotty 05:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"Extremists"

Isn't this just one huge argumentum ad hominem? A group can be considered "extremist" by the mainstream and yet be COMPLETELY correct - 50 years ago agitators against Female Genital Mutilation would have been considered "extremists", but they were (and still are) absolutely correct. I don't see how wikipedia considers argumentum ad hominem a valid objection to a citation. Lordkazan 20:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You're confusing different meanings of correct. The meaning you propose--morally correct--is generally not the business of Wikipedia. The use of "extremist" here is construed narrowly, and is generally applied to groups, such as Stormfront, that have demonstrated wanton disregard for any norms of intellectual honesty in debate, and whose claims are little more than manufactured bullshit. Perhaps it can be removed, and replaced with "groups known to be dishonest". At any rate, sources known to have biases should be used with caution--they may be "correct" in some instances, but many of them are unlikely to publish results other than that which suits their agenda. --EngineerScotty 20:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes i think "groups known to be dishonest" would be a MUCH better terminology - because in some of the articles I edit the term "extremist" gets thrown out about any minority group that disagrees with the practice Lordkazan 20:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You might advance the above on Wikipedia talk:Attribution--an active policy proposal to replace WP:RS. --EngineerScotty 20:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion there are groups not generally seen as extremist that are dishonest and then there are extreme groups that aren't particularly dishonest, for example extremists that believe their own preposterous message. Switching out occurrences of "extremists" for "groups known to be dishonest" in Wikipedia guidelines and policies is not going to be a good or workable change IMO. Also I think that "known to be dishonest" is weasel phrasing. Known by whom? We can't stop that people disagree what an extremist is, that is something that no-one can stop. Even if you built an exhaustive list, it would be torn apart and rewritten by others who disagree with you (and really the same thing would happen with "groups known to be dishonest.") However the term "extremist" is still useful, though imprecise, because in fact there is often agreement among editors of a given article on who is an extremist. DanielM 10:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If the term "extremist" is so vague and debatable then does it make sense to use it in policy? When writing about e.g. religions, I am not aware of any person, scholar that does not have biases. I do not have a solution for all of this. Andries 11:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:ATTRIBUTE

You are welcome to check the work-in-progress of a proposed policy that attempts to consolidate WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS, into one policy. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Youtube

Where can I get up to speed on Youtube as a source? I've never actually watched a Youtube clip, don't understand all the excitement, don't know what it's about, but I'm cleaning up a lot of references in election articles and need to understand:

Is it a WP:RS?
If an upload violates copyright, how can it be a WP:RS?
If it is a WP:RS, how is it cited in a footnote?
Do we have a page, guideline, description anywhere?

I need to know whether Youtube is reliable source for critical content in a BLP, and how to cite it. Thanks, Sandy 21:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I can take this one.

Youtube is not a source, reliable or otherwise. Youtube is more like a library; a place where sources may be found. The reliability of sources found on Youtube (like the reliability of books found in a library) must be judged on a case-by-case basis. Most of the sources found on Youtube are no more reliable than your average blog, though.
Whether an illegal copy has been made of a source has no bearing on whether that source is reliable or not. However it does linking to that copy of the source may be inappropriate, especially since it greatly increases the chance that the link will go dead soon. The Internet Archive's video collection, which is all public domain or freely licensed material, may be better source for stuff to link to Wikipedia. Although it is a much smaller collection, what with them respecting copyright and all.
If a source on Youtube was found that actually seemed to be a reliable source for a given context, I would link it like any other web reference, pretty much. There might be better ways, but I don't think it comes up very often in practice.
This is the only question I can't answer, but I suspect the answer is no. I suspect that most people just muddle through.

Hope that helps. Xtifr _tälk 13:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Copy edit (3)

I've restored the copy edit; the reverting to an even more bloated version with bad writing is one of the reasons this page is effectively having to be abandoned, because it's no longer possible to do any sensible editing here without a revert war. Protecting guidelines and policies is important, but when the version being protected contains nonsense and poor writing, it makes the guideline unusable. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Re. "it's no longer possible to do any sensible editing here without a revert war". mmmh. With great reluctance, but I suppose this is ripe for WP:RfAr. Above in #Top-to-bottom rewrite proposed and in #Copy edit (2), Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Temp has been suggested as a way out without revert-warring. This proposal still holds:

Slimvirgin, would you be prepared to consider this option, avoiding the "revert war" option?
Anyone prepared to mediate between Slimvirgin and myself?
Note that I had also proposed a (partially) cleaned-up version, Revision as of 09:30, 8 October 2006, which was reverted within two minutes by SlimVirgin. I haven't reverted to that version of 09:30, 8 October 2006 again. Does anyone think it has any merit?

I think what Gene Nygaard wrote on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability ([8]) applies here too: "I'm getting tired of people coming up with their cure-all proposal somewhere else, and then sneaking in the back door to accomplish their desires when they don't have consensus for their changes." At least that's what I would say here. In the same edit Gene also wrote: "if you have problems with the reliable sources page, the obvious thing to try to do is to improve it." - describing "edit war" as unavoidable, like SlimVirgin does above, is not what generally would be seen as an acceptable method for improving the WP:RS page, especially when other more acceptable methods (like a "Temp" page as suggested multiple times above) are still unexplored. --Francis Schonken 10:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

A point of discussion: rationale regarding "Using Wikipedia as a source"

The current content of Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Using Wikipedia as a source reads:

Wikipedia articles may not cite Wikipedia as a source, because it is a wiki that may be edited by anyone and is therefore not reliable.

I oppose to that content (not the "Wikipedia can't use itself as a source" part, to which I agree of course, but the part with the rationale given for that "can't use itself as a source"), for the reasons explained above in #Copy edit.

Note that the topic of "using Wikipedia as a source" is currently also treated in the Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ proposal, most prominently in the section Are wikis reliable sources?. I don't completely agree with the rationale given there, but I just want to point out that,

The rationale in the Attribution/FAQ proposal is different from the rationale given by SlimVirgin in her version of the WP:RS guideline;
The rationale in the Attribution/FAQ proposal is proposal, therefore not the rationale "already adopted by Wikipedia".

I think the "may be edited by anyone and is therefore not reliable" rationale unacceptable. It should be removed from WP:RS, as far as I'm concerned.

A different rationale, currently a simple corollary of an operational guideline (Wikipedia:Avoid self-references) would be: "Wikipedia can't use itself as a source while that would be a self-reference". With a link to the "Avoid self-references" guideline such rationale would be acceptable to me. Anybody any thoughts? --Francis Schonken 11:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I think there are really two issues here... one is the self-referencing issue, the other is the "anyone can edit" issue. The second isse IS valid in my opinion, but needs further explanation as to why this is a bad thing.

Perhaps it isn't though. The measured error rate in the wikipedia is not much worse than the Encyclopedia Brittanica. The Wikipedia doesn't work in theory, but does in practice, after all. Seems to me this part is purely theoretical. "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is."WolfKeeper 11:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It applies not just to Wikipedia, but to any wiki type website. To my way of thinking the problem is not that anyone can edit such sites (after all the "anyone" could be a well informed expert just as easily as an ill informed moron), but that they can be edited at any time.

That's not the same thing, and that's not what it says.WolfKeeper 11:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

A statement that was referenced in one of our articles might not be there an hour later. Thus using any wiki as a citation is not reliable under WP:V (or even WP: Attribution) as it is not verifiable. Blueboar 18:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

What about the fact that quite a lot of the references are online articles, which might not be there an hour later or might be altered? According to WP:V they're reliable, but the wikipedia isn't? We're horribly inconsistent here.WolfKeeper 11:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Wolfkeeper, maybe have a look at the Wikipedia:Don't use internal sources for verification essay. Does that settle this issue? --Francis Schonken 11:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

What about the fact that Meta:Translation of the Week is based on precisely that, using Wikipedia as a source? Gene Nygaard 19:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Simply copy the original references when translating, even if they are in a language other than the one you are translating to. Of course, the translation won't be any better referenced than the original was, but I'm guessing there is a greater interest in translating higher-quality articles anyways. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 21:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If you read Wikipedia:Avoid self-references, it's about a different, and less serious, issue - not citing another Wikipedia article as a source, but saying things like "This Wikipedia article discusses...." The fact that Wikipedia may be edited by anyone at any time is one concern, but I think what you are thinkig of is circular logic, which would occur if two Wikipedia articles cited each other as sources for the same fact. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 21:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Citing Wikipedia - an exception to the rule?

Though the current text says, "Wikipedia articles may not cite Wikipedia as a source, because it is a wiki that may be edited by anyone and is therefore not reliable", does anyone actually have a problem quoting an essay on Meta written by User:Larry Sanger as evidence of what Larry Sanger thinks? It can be linked to a diff or static verison to avoid the "anyone can edit" problem. A particular user is using that part of RS to justify removing certain relevant material from Jimmy Wales. Dragons flight 02:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The parallel issue in this particular case is that the information is being used to add negative information to a biography of a living person, who is not the author of the opinion. I don't believe something from Meta can be cited as reliable, but if it could, it would be a self-published source, which can only be used as a primary in the author's bio, but not to add negative information into a third party's bio. Crockspot 02:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It is preposterous to me that you argue the statement "Sanger referred to himself as the co-founder of Wikipedia as early as January 2002" shouldn't be sourced to Meta material Sanger wrote in 2002. Beyond that, the dispute was already sourced to the Boston Globe and Wired, and could easily be sourced to other places as well. I'd add more sources (like The Register, The Times, etc.) but I'd like to first resolve the dispute over the ones we have. Dragons flight 03:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia as a source

(edit conflict, making this a subsection of conflicting edit, since related)

I am recommending that the section be changed from:

Wikipedia articles may not cite Wikipedia as a source, because it is a wiki that may be edited by anyone and is therefore not reliable.

to:

Wikipedia articles in the main namespace may not cite Wikipedia as a source, because it is not reliable.

I believe the existing sentence is intended to help us understand why Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but some editors use it as a loophole to allow diffs to be used in articles as reliable sources, or comments made on user pages as self-published sources. I feel that this contravenes the spirit of the policy, and that it should be worded in no uncertain terms. Wikipedia should never be used as a source, not diffs, not articles, not user pages. The only possible exception that seems usable would be official pdf legal documents of the Foundation, for example, quoting the Wikimedia Foundation By-laws to source a statement of fact about the Foundation or its officers. The policy should probably also clarify any other sister wikimedia projects that are or are not considered reliable. I have seen cites of emails from the mailing list, cites from meta.wiki, and cites from the wikimedia website. I do not know how reliable these other projects are, but I would presume that they should also be off limits as RS for main namespace articles. For a real time docudrama of this issue in play, see Talk:Jimmy Wales#BLP Noticeboard response. The "main namespace" addition is because diffs are used routinely in the WP namespace for administrative purposes, as they should be. Perhaps other namespaces would need to be specified. - Crockspot 02:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia as a source (continued)

Adapted from Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/archive6#Using long passages from an article in another article:

Content displayed in Main namespace

It should generally be avoided to use one Wikipedia page for the verification of the content of another Wikipedia page. Some principal reasons for that are:

Wikipedia content is not above all suspicion reliability-wise: there was a relative success with the report published in Nature late 2005, but errors in Wikipedia are still legion. One of the tactics against systemic errors is not basing one part of a system on another, possibly erroneous, part of the same system: in that case an error might be reproduced within the same system, which would be turning a one time error into a systemic one.
Wikipedia:Avoid self-references: Self-references should be avoided for various reasons, one of these reasons is countering systemic bias. Systemic bias can be initiated, for instance, by circularity, that is articles referring to each other for some information, without support from external sources. In other words: circularity might make it difficult to uncover de facto original research.

Stabilising and improving Wikipedia's content by verification or attribution is done by basing Wikipedia's content on reliable and published external sources, not by basing it on other content in Wikipedia. Even if at some point in the future Wikipedia would be 99,99% error-free, self-referential sourcing should still be avoided in order to avoid that 0,01% errors would be multiplied into systemic errors. This doesn't mean that content can't be copied from one article to another. However, for any content on a page in main namespace (including transcluded content visible on that page) the verifiability of that content depends on the external sources indicated on that same page. Using external sources is instrumental in the avoidance of systemic errors. Or at least the systemic error won't be Wikipedia's but the external source's.

This also doesn't mean that the content of one Wikipedia article shouldn't be compared to the content of another article. On the contrary: avoiding POV forks by syncronising the content of articles (see for instance the {{sync}} template) or by merging the content of articles is also a way to improve the encyclopedia. The point is that for each individual page, whether syncronised or merged or whatever, compliance to Wikipedia:Verifiability or Wikipedia:Attribution can only be achieved by the external sources presented on that page.

An overview:

Wikilinks and Interwiki links effectuated with double square brackets, and visible in main namespace, play no role in the verification or attribution process for main namespace content.
In main namespace, links to content of Wikimedia projects in external link format should generally be avoided (use Wikilinks or Interwiki links instead) and thus also play no role in the verification/attribution process. The only exception to that is data retrieved from accredited Wikimedia research projects in articles on covered Wikimedia projects. And even there such internal information should be used sparingly, but it is, for instance, allowed to use certain statistical data about Wikipedia in the article about Wikipedia, insofar as such data are covered by the Wikidemia project. But that's an exception, not the rule: if external data (for instance Alexa's) can be used that is largely preferred.
When copying, moving or translating content from whatever wiki page governed by the Wikimedia Foundation to whatever other page with content appearing in Wikipedia's main namespace, a copyrights-related attribution of the source needs to be given in the edit summary (see for instance Wikipedia:Summary style#Always mention in the edit summary when splitting). If the edit history of the source page is obliterated (which usually happens in a transwiki process), at least a number of principal authors need to be mentioned on the talk page of the target article (see for instance m:Help:Transwiki#Procedure). Such attributions in edit history or on the talk page are no main namespace content and play no role for the compliance to Wikipedia's core content policies. Such attributions only relate to copyright obligations and the application of the Gnu Free Documentation License. The compliance to Wikipedia:Verifiability or Wikipedia:Attribution can, depending on case, be achieved by copying, moving or translating references together with the content, or by providing references to more appropriate or additional sources supporting the content on the target page.
Avoid circular sourcing via external sources. An external source may be based on the content of a WikiMedia project. Such "recycled" content has no value in a verification logic. For example, a publication discussing Wikipedia only has value as a source for Wikipedia's encyclopedia entry on Wikipedia for that part of the content of that external publication that is not a repeat of what can be found in Wikipedia itself.

Other namespaces

Other namespaces follow the same rules regarding avoidance of relying on internal sources as main namespace, apart from these exceptions:

Content visible in category namespace: usually, items listed in a category take their references (that is, external sources that justify the inclusion in the category) from Main namespace. So the reference is external, but accessed via Main namespace, not directly from Category namespace.
Image namespace: the author and/or copyright holder of an image may be a Wikipedian: in image namespace that is usually indicated by a link to User namespace. Some Image namespace content is sourced to a page with the same name at Wikimedia Commons.
Talk, Project, Help and User namespaces: in these namespaces there are legion verification links. For example if an article was listed for deletion, and the decision was "keep", a link to the page with that deletion discussion will be displayed on the talk page of the kept article.
Template namespace and transcluded content: Generally, verification is operated according to the verification rules of the namespace where the transcluded content is displayed. For instance, the {{featured}} template (intended for use on pages in talk namespace) contains a link to a page in Project namespace where it can be verified that the related article was indeed a featured article. A limited exception to the rule that the namespace where the transcluded content is displayed defines the rules is contained in Wikipedia:Avoid self-references: some templates may contain internal links that play a temporary role in verification, in namespaces where this usually would not be allowed (for instance, a link from main namespace to a related talk page from the {{disputed}} template can be used to "verify" whether there is indeed an ongoing dispute over the article's content: when there is none, or the dispute has been resolved, the template should be removed from that page in Main namespace).
Media, Special and MediaWiki namespaces: have a completely different ruleset: they are highly self-referential (e.g. Special:DoubleRedirects is nothing but links to internal content) and rarely contain external references (Some do: e.g. MediaWiki:Sorbsreason contains a reference to http://www.sorbs.net).

Anyone having a problem with that? --Francis Schonken 09:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Rewritten 09:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC) - 11:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC) by Francis Schonken. Same question: anyone having a problem? --Francis Schonken 14:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

This has grown a bit, I'm thinking about putting the text above on a page called Wikipedia:Don't use internal sources for verification, an essay. Feel free to comment. --Francis Schonken 11:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Guideline

I've been bold and removed the guideline tag from this page. Everything in it that matters is in WP:V or WP:NOR, which are policy. The rest is just advice, which may or may not be good advice, about where to look for sources, and a lot of it consists of platitudes. It doesn't seem to have the support of the community as a guideline. Therefore, I suggest we leave it here as a page of advice only. Any thoughts? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Isn't "a page of advice" what a "guideline" really is? On that point I go along with Qp10qp (11 October). Harald88 12:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Pending discussions I'm going to revert to Gwernol's version of 12:30, 13 October 2006

SlimVirgin, you're free to propose your major changes in Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Temp, or whatever place you think appropriate.

See also above #Copy edit (3). --Francis Schonken 08:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Francis, it is because of you and one other person that this page is having to be abandoned. Every attempt anyone makes to clean it up is met by reverting, even though it's badly written and almost meaningless in places. Do you realize how badly written it is?

Examples:

"As far as the encyclopedia is concerned, a fact is a statement agreed to by the consensus of scholars or experts working on a topic. New evidence might emerge so that the statement is no longer accepted as a fact; at that time the encyclopedia should be revised."

Problem: A fact is not a statement agreed to by a consensus of scholars; that's just plain wrong. And what is the point of adding our opinion as to when this or any other encyclopedia should be revised? It's words for the sake of words.

"Wikipedia cannot cite itself as a source — that would be a self-reference."

Problem: There's nothing wrong with self-reference. You think good publications don't cite themselves?

"When wikipedians have the ambition to write a better encyclopedia entry than those extant, it does not suffice to rely on the content of such tertiary sources."

Problem: I can work out what it means, but what's the point of it and why can't it be properly written?

There are dozens of these platitudes; long-winded, sometimes almost meaningless, at times inconsistent. Please stop reverting to such nonsense and allow this page to be cleaned up. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps some people find meanings in these statements. The use of the words 'meaningless' and 'irrelevant' are subjective. Disprove the statements on a factual level without using connotations. - Akaneon 02:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You might even prefer the final version if only you would allow the copy edit to be done. Why not wait and see what it turns out like? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Please use Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Temp or whatever page you think more appropriate to propose your major changes. Such temp page would be ideal to get an overall idea of where you want to take this.
Re. your points, in the same order:
- In philosophy of science a fact is sometimes defined as a statement agreed to by a consensus of scholars. (reference: H. Roelants, Wetenschapsleer, Acco, 1977). I've no problem to discuss whether that angle should be taken up by Wikipedia. This is the talk page to do that. Note that in my work on the Poincaré conjecture this angle on how "facts" are seen in science was really helpful. Don't say of my former professor of philosophy of science (H. Roelants) that he would have been "plain wrong", or whatever of your other derogatory verbiage.
- Why Wikipedia cannot cite itself as a source was treated extensively above on this page. If you want to take part in those discussions, please do. I see no need to start a 3rd or 4th place to discuss the same.
- The point is, usually better to rely on secondary sources when available. So now (1) you have worked out what it means, and (2) I explained you what the point is: you can proceed with proposing the same "more properly written", if you think it isn't properly written (IMHO the current phrasing is "properly written").
Again, please abstain from inflammatory language like "nonsense", "platitudes", "meaningless",... These expressions don't seem justified. There are surely better and less offensive ways to voice your objections. Re. inconsistency: yes, there is some inconsistency that should be worked away in WP:RS. I think Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ good platforms to work on that too (apart from the temp page proposed above). But don't jump ahead, there is still plenty of "inconsistency" in those proposals that needs working away. --Francis Schonken 09:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The expressions are completely justified.

Wikipedia should not use a view that is "sometimes" held in the philosophy of science as its definition of a fact.
Since Wikipedia has articles on itself, it is a perfectly acceptable primary source, and it's stupid to suggest otherwise.
I would take your declarations about the comparative value of primary and secondary sources more seriously if this page actually made useful or accurate distinctions between the two.

Allow me to be blunt: this page is a useless piece of crap. I (speaking here as a college-level English teacher who has taught courses on writing the research paper) would fail a paper that held to these standards of sourcing. There is no point in fixing this page "point by point." It is not worth that degree of effort. Phil Sandifer 21:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia can't be used as a source on itself since it would be trivial of me to edit the Wikipedia article to include a false fact. Or is that stupid? Fagstein 06:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You can't expect people to discuss each and every point of bad English before correcting it. I'm sorry if you find "platitudes" and "meaningless" offensive, but the page is full of sentences that fit those descriptions. This is one of the least respected guidelines on WP, and it probably shouldn't even be a guideline; it has unfortunately gone the way of the MoS. It needs at the very least to be copy edited. I don't see anyone other than you objecting to that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Please, again, consider using Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Temp or whatever page you think more appropriate to propose your major changes. What would be your problem with that?

Further, above on this page I expressed multiple times I too think copyediting and updating of this page is a good idea. Only, I don't always agree whit your cuts (often I would cut other parts). I had a partially updated version too, which you reverted within two minutes. So please proceed with your overall proposal on a temp page, I don't see what would we the problem with that. --Francis Schonken 09:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Francis, we shouldn't have to create draft pages whenever we want to copy edit. This is a wiki, and this article is in dire need of a good copy edit. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with SlimVirgin that a consenus of scholars do not make a fact. For example, scholars can state in consensus that murder is morally wrong, but this remains an opinion. One scholar can state that someone wrote somehing in a certain book or in his homepage. The latter can be verified in seconds with google and hence is not an opinion. Andries 09:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

A fact is a true proposition. Facts don't change over time. If it is true now that E=mc², it was always true, even before anyone had formulated it; and if it is not true now, it was never true, even when everyone believed it. What is true is not connected to the beliefs of any set of people, scholars or otherwise. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The ease of verification makes something a fact, even if one scholar has stated something. Suppose there is only one scholar who write in a peer reviewed journal that Hitler had moustache at a certain time then this can be stated as a fact because this can be verified extremely easily. Andries 12:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Facts are true propositions. It doesn't matter who can verify them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

That is a senseless definition because the big question of course is how do you know whether a proposition is true. If a proposition can be verified in seconds to be true then it is a fact and if it is sourced to a reputable source (even if this is one reputable source) then it can and should be stated as a fact in Wikipedia. Andries 12:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not a senseless definition at all. It's what the word means. We report what reliable sources say (and it is a fact that they have said those things), and there are certain other things (common knowledge, for the want of a better term) that we don't require sources for. I think we both agree on that. But that is not a reason to introduce a false definition and bad writing into a guideline. Clarity of writing = clarity of thought, and vice versa, so it's important. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you provided circular definition of the word fact. Saying that something must be true to be a fact is not helpful and in fact a .... platitude :). Andries 12:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Definitons used in policies and guidelines have to be operationalized otherwise they make no sense. Andries 14:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

See here for an alternative wording User:Andries/Wikipedia:Definition_of_a_fact Andries 16:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies and guidelines need to be about process and not epistemology. The goal of the written versions of policy and the guidelines is to help wikipedia editors make editing choices; and not to lay the foundation for a school of thought or a wikicult. WAS 4.250 16:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that the question how to distinguish facts from non-facts should be treated. Circular definitions of the word fact, such as proposed by SlimVirgin are not helpful. Andries 17:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course this article is closely related to epistomology. How can it be otherwise?. Andries 17:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Better editing. WAS 4.250 18:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

An alternative to defining fact is to avoid the word in WP:RS. --Gerry Ashton 17:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Gerry makes a very good point. This guideline is about reliability of sources, not facts. A completely nonfactual statement ("The moon is made of green cheese" for example) might well be citable to a reliable source. We should not even mention the word "fact". Blueboar 17:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

We have to distinguish between opinions and facts because opinions have to be attributed to a person or organziation voicing them, unlike facts. So we have to define the word fact, whether it is easy or like it or not. Andries 18:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Not so, Andries. You've misunderstood the very content policies you want to help edit. We need sources for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. That pertains to facts (insofar as we know which ones are facts), opinions, arguments, ideas etc etc etc. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You have a definition already there in your statement. A fact needs to be verifiable. An opinions needs to be attributable. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we need another word other than "fact"... as one could argue that an opinion is also a fact. After all, it is a "fact" that someone holds the "opinion". I think we are getting tangled up because many people think of the word "fact" as being the same as "true". That is not where we want to go. As a subpage of WP:V (which says that truth is not a criteria for verifiability), we need to avoid such connotations. Any suggestion? Blueboar 20:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

<<<Fact carry connotations of either verifiability (that an event has happened) or that it can be proved:

piece of information about circumstances that exist or events that have occurred;
a statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened;
an event known to have happened or something known to have existed;
a concept whose truth can be proved;

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

None of this philosophy about the nature of truth matters for our purposes. We need sources for any edit that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and for quotations. Period. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this removal of the guideline tag and have re-done this. First off, anything really important that needs to be said should be said in our content policies, not here. Second, this page is a complete mess. Third, significant portions of this page don't reflect actual Wikipedia practice; if you interpreted everything on this page literally you'd need access to a university library and scholarly journals in order to be able to contribute to Wikipedia, which I'm sure most of our contributors don't have. Fourth, this page doesn't really represent consensus because changes are resisted far too much, even when they would actually improve the page. JYolkowski // talk 01:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree as well, and there doesn't seem to be anything of value in here that isn't already expressed better in WP:V. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking back, the guideline tag was added without any kind of discussion; it seems to have crept under the radar. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

We need reliable sources in our articles, but this page is a serious mess, unclear, contradictory, verbose and unusable as is. I will support demoting it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I am surprised to be in agreement with Francis! Both on the philosophy ("In philosophy of science a fact is sometimes defined as a statement agreed to by a consensus of scholars.") and with his suggestion that if this page is a badly written guideline then fix it or write a well written replacement and get agreement to replace this one, but do not throw out the baby with the bathwater. SlimVirgin, E=mc² is only a fact in the current widely accepted Physics paradigm. It was not always so and probably will not be in the future (see paradigm shift). In the area I tend to contribute on Wikipedia, as Napoleon said "History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon." and as his nemesis said "The history of a battle, is not unlike the history of a ball. Some individuals may recollect all the little events of which the great result is the battle won or lost, but no individual can recollect the order in which, or the exact moment at which, they occurred, which makes all the difference as to their value or importance". The best we can do in this encyclopaedia is fairly report the current consensus on "facts" and when there is a significant level of disagreement is report those to comply with NPOV. Deciding on what is the current consensus involves value judgements on how reliable a source is. To paraphrase the old Heineken advertising campaign: This guidline while far from perfect 'covers areas that other guidlines do not reach'. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Philip, please read what I wrote. E=mc², if true now, was always true; if not true now, was never true. Whether it's regarded as true within the current paradigm does not affect whether it is true. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the quote you gave — "History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon" — that's correct, but you're confusing truth with narrative. We may pick out certain aspects of a story to emphasize or minimize, or ignore entirely, and we may invent others; but our creation of a narrative doesn't change what happened. The U.S. says 60,000 people have died in Iraq. The Lancet says 600,000. We will likely never know the truth. But there is a truth. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

SV you state below in the consensus section "Anyone arguing that this should be a guideline needs to say what points of importance are here that aren't in V and NOR. rather than reply there I'll do it here as it keeps the two threads separate: The sections by topic eg the History section. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

But the subject sections are simply giving advice about where to look for sources. They're not guidelines. The page would remain as an essay for anyone who wanted to read it and follow its advice. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

My concern is not with those who want to read it but those who don't. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

People who don't want to read it won't do so just because you call it a guideline. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

A guideline is advice. I do read guidelines for advice, but not essays. Harald88 12:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Citing forums in articles about themselves

We have many articles about internet forums, bulletin boards, and Usenet groups. I don't see any previous discussion about using postings to those sites as primary sources about the sites themselves. I'd assume that official postings stating forum policies would be allowed. What about informal comments by the site owners or moderators? Characterizing the nature of forum postings on our own would be original research, but should we quote the postings to illustrate nature of a forum? These and similar issues often come up and it'd be helpful to have more clarity. -Will Beback 18:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

PS: There was some discussion in July (Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/archive5#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis.2C_and_posts_to_Usenet), but it doesn't seem to reached a consensus. -Will Beback 18:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

This is common-sense OK. Ignore the guideline and go work on the encyclopedia. Phil Sandifer 21:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Ummmmm.... There's a practical issue about this to do with the article wikiturfing - etymology of an internet based word - and a specific suspected instance of wikiturfing - whether or not the main wikipedia english language mailing list is a reliable, editorially supervised source for suspicions of wikiturfing - see:

Personally i agree with "common-sense", but User:Stbalbach feels that WP:RS overrides what to me is common sense. It would be good to have some independent third parties look at both these pages. According to stbalbach, we would have to consense on modifying the WP:RS policy in order to convince him to accept what to me is common sense. Boud 22:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

When the topic is "Internet terminology" or "Internet forum terminology" — as it also is in Disemvoweling — then Usenet posts and blog comments might be fairly cited as primary sources, showing that a term was actually used, with such-and-such meaning, on such-and-such dates. Note that I'm referring to the archived original posts or comments which did so, not to later posts or comments asserting that the term had been used earlier. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 23:23, 9 Nov 2006 (UTC).

Also, looking at the discussions Boud points to, I think the sticking point was not the meaning of the term "wikiturfing" or whether & when & where it was used with a given meaning, for all of which the post using it could be fairly cited. The sticking point was clearly any assertion along the lines that a named company either had committed or had been accused/suspected of committing wikiturfing. This latter type of assertion might be actionable (and ruinous to Wikipedia if pursued by a company with deep pockets) — but it doesn't further the purpose of explaining the meaning of the term — which makes it all drawback and no advantage. I'd agree with omitting that assertion from the mainspace pages. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 23:38, 9 Nov 2006 (UTC).

Consensus

(copied from above) I've been bold and removed the guideline tag from this page. Everything in it that matters is in WP:V or WP:NOR, which are policy. The rest is just advice, which may or may not be good advice, about where to look for sources, and a lot of it consists of platitudes. It doesn't seem to have the support of the community as a guideline. Therefore, I suggest we leave it here as a page of advice only. Any thoughts? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Pending discussions I'm going to revert to Gwernol's version of 12:30, 13 October 2006

SlimVirgin, you're free to propose your major changes in Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Temp, or whatever place you think appropriate.

See also above #Copy edit (3). --Francis Schonken 08:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this removal of the guideline tag and have re-done this. First off, anything really important that needs to be said should be said in our content policies, not here. Second, this page is a complete mess. Third, significant portions of this page don't reflect actual Wikipedia practice; if you interpreted everything on this page literally you'd need access to a university library and scholarly journals in order to be able to contribute to Wikipedia, which I'm sure most of our contributors don't have. Fourth, this page doesn't really represent consensus because changes are resisted far too much, even when they would actually improve the page. JYolkowski // talk 01:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree as well, and there doesn't seem to be anything of value in here that isn't already expressed better in WP:V. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking back, the guideline tag was added without any kind of discussion; it seems to have crept under the radar. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

We need reliable sources in our articles, but this page is a serious mess, unclear, contradictory, verbose and unusable as is. I will support demoting it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This essay lacks consensus to be a guideline. WAS 4.250 05:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

That's simply not correct. The nineteen months from SlimVirgin's 24 August 2005 (style guide => guideline) edit to JYolkowski's 16 October 2006 (guideline->essay) shows this has had widespread and almost unequivical community support. I quit counting Special:Whatlinkshere/WP:RS after 2,000 pages. That a small contingent has suddenly decided it's not a guideline and has stated so here is a poor indicator of consensus. - 152.91.9.144 05:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't promote it to a guideline; that was done by Radiant in May 2005. [9] All I did in August 2005 was fix the tag. Far from having almost unequivocal community support, it has always been problematic and has gotten worse in recent months. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yet another person supporting identifying this page as an essay, not a guideline. It's simply not followed, and not helpful. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't really have a strong opinion on whether this page should be a guideline, essay, policy, or whatever, but I do feel like Wikipedia ought to have some sort of policy addressing the selection and use of reliable sources, and I'm not convinced that NOR and V are really sufficient to cover that. Perhaps someone who understands the percieved problems here would take a stab at writing a new guideline. Dragons flight 07:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

See WP:ATT and WT:ATTFAQ. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that this should remain a guideline, because I see a difference between a verifiable source and a reliable source. If this article is broken then it should be fixed not demoted. I think that a lot of the problems arise because different people view these thinks from the perspective of the area of the articles they specialise in editing on Wikipedia. For example if an article is on a subject to do with physics then usually peer reivewed articles are the way to go, and there is little difference between a veifiable source and a reliable source, but in some subjects, like: "was the droping of the atomic bombs a war crime?" or "Were the attacks on civilians during the Bangladesh War of 1971 a genocide", then the reputation of the person or the organization expressing a view has to be considered even if the views expressed are in a verifiable source. -- Philip Baird Shearer 08:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Philip, there is no difference at all between what you're calling a "verifiable" source and a "reliable" one. They are expressions used interchangeably on Wikipedia to signify sources regarded as acceptable for our purposes, regardless of subject matter. What you say above simply makes no sense. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

For a proposed alternative, see Wikipedia:Attribution. There's no question that the topic of reliable sources is an important one, and one which we should have a guideline on; the question is, is this page, with it's history and current editors, a useful implementation of the topic. Consensus, which I agree with, seems to be that it is not. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

There has been a parallel discussion taking place on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#"reliable sources" where the consensus was that the link to this page should remain, so I am not sure if there is a consensus to demote this page from a guideline. I have now added a comment to that conversation "For those who have expressed a view that the link should remain, unless they join in the discussion on Wikipedia Talk:Reliable sources#Consensus (and address some of the concerns of SlimVirgin and others) then there is little point in the link remaining." So I am going to restore the guideline template at the top of this article and ask that it remains for 24 hours until other editors have had a chance to express their view on this subject. If at the end of 24 hours there the consensus expressed here is that this should not remain a guideline I will not oppose it. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You can just as easily leave the tag off and discuss it. Anyone arguing that this should be a guideline needs to say what points of importance are here that aren't in V and NOR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see that 'V' or 'NOR' addresses (in an adequate matter) the issue of exceptional claims. There seems to be no guideline prohibiting the insertion of a generally unaccepted/unsupported claim into a given Wiki article, as long as one (1) reference is given. There should be a guideline stipulating that exception claims require multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to historical events or politically-charged issues. As long as that concern is adequately met, I have no preference as to which guideline remains. Cheers!--Black Flag 13:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It clearly is at least an essay. I think the burden is on those who say it is a guideline to show it is the generally accepted standard. I don't think it is anymore, but giving it a day is probably harmless. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Whether this is a guideline or an essay is, frankly, shuffling the deckchairs. All very amusing for some but fundamentally not addressing the issue. Although I'm not clear on whats caused this latest hobby horsing, although given reputaitons and previous experience of certain protagonists I'm not convinced that this is entirely for the benefit of Wikipedia as a whole.

First establish is there a requirement for some amplification around how sources might support verifiability? I would suggest that there is, many editors are clearly schoolkids whereas some have first or higher degrees and by implication have much better training in the selection and description of sources. Unless everyone is playing in the same game with regard to source quality then many articles will never reach a stable state, it's too easy to self publish something in support of your own argument, and then cite yourself as an authority.
Secondly, should that additional guidance be embedded within the policy regarding verifiability or should it exist as an annex/ appendix to the policy? Personally I see a discrete existence as useful as the discussion around assured sources will result in more dynamism than one would hope for in a policy.
Thirdly, how should the amplification be styled? As advice, or as a description of cases where sources have been agreed to be assured to a sufficiently high level? Bearing in mind that the book on research methods currently on my desk is about 4 centimetres thick and aimed at doctorates we need to find some method more easily digestible for the average editor.

Everything else is just grandstanding.ALR 13:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Until we reach a consensus on whether to do a replacement guideline or a re-write of this guideline (and I don't see that yet), I don't think we should demote this page to an essay. Also, if we do end up adopting a replacement (such as the WP:Attribution proposal), I don't think we should demote this page until that one is in final form and promoted in its place.

I have to ask why people feel there is a rush to demote this page? Wouldn't it be better to take the time to get any replacement/rewrite right first? Blueboar 13:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

A reasonable course of action; no need to move so fast here. Until "Attribution" is sorted out, or something else is put in place, we need this page. Sandy 14:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

That's my point. Until you identify a requirement and establish something to fulfil that requirement then changing the label is a waste of time. (OK I'll admit to having some experience in requirements engineering)ALR 14:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Should be a guideline. Where in the policy is the part that says "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (A piece of important advice). - Francis Tyers · 14:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, I agree with Blueboar, no point in demoting this until something better is in place. - Francis Tyers · 14:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This is important in many articles I edit, and helps keep the "pseudoscience" out. Plenty of books and reputable medical .orgs spout non-peer-reviewed medical information: this guideline helps combat those sources. Is this covered at WP:V? Sandy 14:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, this page no longer carries the consensus of the community. Keeping the "guideline" tag is no longer appropriate and it is misleading. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

What is the harm in keeping this as an essay? There are may exc ellent and useful essays in WP. As it stands now, this page no longer has the consensus it once had, mainly because of the bloat and the endless additions and variations. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I will quibble with your last statement Jossi... this has been a guideline for months. So making it an essay is a change, not a keep. You either have to say "what is the harm of changing this to an essay" or say "what is the harm of keeping this as a guideline". Blueboar 19:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

For those of us who have resolved many, many editor difficulties on this page, it is clear that this guideline needs to remain a guideline. The issues which arise will be confronted somewhere. This is the best and most likely page to resolve many issues about sources of information. Even if the guideline becomes more abbreviated, this discussion page is a valuable place to discuss obvious issues of "which reliable source is better" and things like, "I can verify this but my neighbor can't" (what shall we do?) and so on. Keep this guideline, its useful. Terryeo 22:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how not having this as a guideline will make it harder to resolve editor disputes, or remove this as a good place for discussion. JYolkowski // talk 23:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

For one thing, people out there editing articles look on the guidelines as being the rules. When a dispute occurs, people look to these guidelines to settle them. This is especially true with WP:RS, which is referred to a lot. If we demote this to an essay before agreeing on what will replace it, we leave disputing editors with no rule to refer to. I don't mind working on a revised guideline... whether a rewrite of this article or something new, but we need to have something in force at any one time. I se

e it as being like a law... an old law is in force until a new one takes effect. Thus, we should leave this version in place as a guideline until a replacement is ready to roll. For those of you who do not like this version, leaving it as the "opperative" version should be an incentive to work all the quicker on drafting a replacement.

Furthermore, there are some statements made on this page that have had a great impact throughout Wikipedia because they are part of a guideline (ie a rule) ... an impact that would be lost if were changed to a mere essay. To give just one example: The guideline, as it is now, repeatedly states that blogs are not considered reliable (a statement which I do not find in many of the proposed replacements by the way). This has been a major topic on this page, and after a lot of back and forth, consensus seems clear that blogs are not considered reliable. This section of the guideline has been referred to in countless disputes, in article after article. If we demote this page to essay status, those editors who have had citations to their favorite blogs removed as being "unreliable" will have a field day returning them to articles with the comment "WP:RS is just an essay... its not a valid reason to bar my citation". There are other parts of this guideline that will face similar reactions. Blueboar 00:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

BB, the blog thing is in V and/or NOR. There was no point discussing it on this page. It sometimes seemed as though the editors on this page didn't realize there was a corresponding policy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Here it is. [10] Are you saying you weren't aware of that? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I was indeed aware that the no blog satement was in WP:V (although it is stronger in tone here) ... What I am saying that it is the fact that this is contained in this guideline is important. People cite to this to resolve their disputes. Blueboar 00:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Guideline or Essay?

Let's please stop the revert warring on whether this is a Guideline or an Essay ... We seem to have a dilemma. A few editors wish this article to be demoted to "essay" status (stating that they do not see consensus for it to be a guideline). On the other hand, there does not seem to be any consensus for demoting it to essay either. My personal preference is to leave it as a guideline. Things are too much in flux right now to demote it. I think many of us agree that, as a guideline, it has problems... but we have not yet reached any consensus on what to do about it. Do we clean up what exists? Do we do a complete rewrite under the same heading? Or do we trash WP:RS and go with another concept such as "Attribute"? Until that question is decided, we have to leave something in place for peple to refer to. Since a ton of article discussion pages currently refer to this as a guideline, I really think we should be reluctant to demote it until we have something ready to go in its place.

And what is the harm of keeping this as a guideline? Even in its bloated form it serves its purpose. Yes it needs work, but why the rush to demote it? Blueboar 19:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Blueboar, we don't need consensus to demote it; there only needs to be a lack of consensus that it should be a guideline. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is a dilemma, but maintaining a status quo for the sake of it, is never a good idea as it stiffles improvements. The promotion to guideline was done with very little support from the community and since then it has grown to something that is more confusing than helpful. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, so eom up with some constructive material rather than grandstanding on what label to apply.ALR 20:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I consider essay a compromise between guideline and rejected/historical... Phil Sandifer 19:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd refer back to establishing a requirement first. Until you know if you have a requirement or not, and what that requirement is, anything else is so much hot air (proverbially)ALR 20:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

How about Guessay? Ducking Dpbsmith (talk) 20:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, I am not so sure that you are correct in thinking that the promotion to guideline was done with very little support from the community... and if it was, it has subsequently gained a LOT of support since then. This guideline is constantly being refered to by editors trying to settle disputes over citations. I would say that that shows that the community at large supports it (or at least the concept of it).

I am trying to be open minded here, but to me it looks like a few editors have decided that they dislike aspects of the guideline, and are trying to force through a change that others are not comfortable with (at least not yet). I am not saying that this is actually true, just that this is how it looks to one who has, till now, been only tangentially involved. The pace of that change seems to be awfully quick, too quick for my comfort. I would like more discussion on exactly what is wrong with the existing guideline, and some suggestions on how to fix these problems. I also think we need a firmer consensus on where we should go before we throw the baby out with the bath water. Blueboar 20:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Flaws offers a pretty good accounting of the problems. Phil Sandifer 20:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Creating a criticsm is less useful than resolving the difficulties. It matters not a whit how many the criticisms be created, what matters is resolving the difficulties. I don't agree with all of your essey, Phil, and I feel it is dispersive and non-productive to create such an essey instead of attempting to resolve the difficulties which are extant whether you criticize them or not. The problem revolves around the issues which WP:RS has long confronted, this is a discussion page for such issues. Whether you, or anyone, criticizes this guideline, the issues which drove the forming of this guideline still happen. A criticsm, by itself, doesn't help resolve the issues which this guideline addresses. Terryeo 22:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I support having a guideline on sourcing. I don't support basing it on this. This page is so deeply flawed that it is preferable to start over. Phil Sandifer 22:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. SchmuckyTheCat 00:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Slim Virgin, you stated in an edit summary: there doesn't have to be consensus to demote; there needs only to be a lack of consensus to retain as a guideline Can you point to where that is policy? Blueboar 00:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You'll have to look for yourself, BB, though I doubt anyone has written it down because it would be stating the obvious. If a guideline no longer has the support of the community in that most people ignore it; if a small number of editors won't even allow the page to be copy edited; if it doesn't contain anything that the related policies don't cover; if it's long and confusing and embarrassing; and if most of those posting on its talk page want it to be an essay, then clearly there is no longer consensus that it should be a guideline. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't find it obvious at all. I think you also need consensus to demote a guideline. A lack of consensus on the wording of a guideline means that we need to work on the guideline... not get rid of it. What is obvious to me is that a LOT of people support this guideline, but understand that it needs improvement. That may mean a complete rewrite, but it may not. I see perhaps five people who disagree with the rest and are pushing an agenda here (demoting the article). I would prefer to leave this in place for now, and have those of you who have problems with it draft a proposed rewrite, and post it for us to think about? For that reason, I am going to revert back to guideline. I really hope we can avoid a revert war here, but there is clearly not a consensus to demote at this time. Blueboar 00:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:V is the policy, not this page, and it is WP:V that says blogs are not allowed; I copied that to this page simply to make sure the two were consistent. The fact that people are discussing on this page whether to remove it without realizing that it's the policy page it would need to be removed from is indicative of the problem. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You have a good point, although the problem is not this particular guideline. More and more people start to use phrases like "enforcing guideline so-and-so". There seems to be a tendency to regard guidelines as a kind of policy... When people start regarding more-or-less generally accepted advice as something that can be enforced instead of applied, then it becomes a big mess.

Nevertheless, a good solution could be to make this article similar to the WP:NPOVT that is not marked as guideline but is linked from WP:NPOV. Big chunks that repeate WP:V can then be simply deleted, giving space for more practical advice. Harald88 12:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

For my two cents, I've long considered this page to be a guideline, and think that it should remain in that status until there is clear consensus to change. It is easy to locate a handful of editors (which is all we see so far) that are in disagreement with anything. It is a lot harder to truly measure whether consensus still exists. Thorough analysis of the pages that link here is the way to evaluate that, not just the appearance of a few people pro or con on this talk page. This has been around so long that any demotion should be discussed in the general policy discussion forums prior to demoting. In short, I see no reason to believe that this is not still a guideline. GRBerry 20:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

So are you saying, lets keep it as a guideline because that's what you're used to? Could you at least advance some reasons for keeping it that relate to the content; then its critics can get their teeth into showing that where it duplicates policy it is superfluous to policy, that where it adds to policy it usurps policy, and that where it contradicts policy it damages policy. In my opinion, this page would make more sense as an FAQ; even under that moniker, its defenders, in my opinion, should consider opening it up to a major rewrite and tightening. qp10qp 21:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Guidelines are only guidelines because there is consensus to follow them to some degree or another. If, for whatever reason, a guideline is no longer widely followed, then it ceases to be a guideline. There doesn't need to be consensus against the guideline in order to "demote" it. This guideline is in fact not widely followed at all, so it really isn't a guideline. JYolkowski // talk 21:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

My two cents: if discussion of this page demonstrates anything, then it is that drawing up a general guideline on what is reliable and what is not is a terribly difficult task. What is applicable to physics is not applicable to history, what is applicable to history is not applicable to popular culture etc. Preference for academic sources is a good idea, but we'll never write an article on Pokemons solely from peer-reviewed journals. Instead, I would prefer to see some topic-specific research advice; the narrower its scope, the better. For example, existing Wiki projects could provide lists of journals dedicated to their subjects. Most of all I'd hate to see blanket support for some sources to the detriment of others, and this page as it stands is doing just that: works by an academic crank are considered reliable (Ward Churchill was an academic last time I checked), but those by a highly respected non-academic scholar are not (where did Josephus earn his Ph. d.?). Of course, such guidance is disregarded in practice, and articles on the ancient history make heavy use of Tacitus, Suetonius et al. even though the latter are not considered reliable sources by this guidance. In a nutshell, we need something that people respect and find useful instead something they disregard. Beit Or 18:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Must say I've been tossing around in my head the idea that more involvement from the Projects would be a good idea here. Didn't know how to formulate that idea, tx Beit for doing that.

Like you say, the current rules work a bit awkward when one wants to do a serious job when writing about Antiquity, for instance. Reliable sources are, in that area, judged by completely different standards than whether or not something is "self-published". There are more academic standards than that for Antiquity, for instance, how compatible an Ancient historian's writings are with excavations, and how dependent the Ancient historian is on superstition (which is for instance a reason why Dio Cassius is generally regarded less "reliable" than Suetonius and Tacitus: Dio swims in a host of trivial and unlikely supernatural story-telling, which isn't the best recommendation to be taken serious as an historian). "Self-published" or not is a useless distinction when discussing reliability of authors before, say, the invention of book-printing. It even is a quite useless distinction when discussing more recent re-publications of these ancient authors, see for instance the confused & confusing answers I got here, asking about, among others, two generally respected re-publishers of Ancient sources.

I do think Projects giving attention to this, like Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)#Sources, a really good idea. But that leads to a question. Suppose one is writing an article about a conflict between, say, followers of Islam and followers of another religion: if the Project on that other religion also defines "good sources", you could bet on it that these are going to be somewhat incompatible with the "good sources" according to "Islam-related" Projects. Have we gained anything then? Or should we not worry too much and confide in it that discussions between the participants of both Projects would be preferable over sorting it out by ArbCom (like Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon or /Deir Yassin massacre)? --Francis Schonken 21:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, Francis, and this is the problem I wanted to avoid most of all: unwarranted support of some sources to the exclusion of others. Just out of a top of my head I can name more scholars of Islam than the project page does, including those who have no Wikipedia entries: Ignaz Goldziher, Joseph Schacht, Claude Cahen, Arthur Stanley Tritton, Oleg Grabar, Clifford Edmund Bosworth, Yohanan Friedmann, Laura Vecchia-Vaglieri, Meir Moshe Bravmann, Leone Caetani, Evariste Lévi-Provençal, Shelomo Dov Goitein, Rudi Paret, and I could proceed further). The only purpose that has been achieved on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)#Sources is the endorsement of some scholars to the exclusion of others. The folks who have compiled the list did not even attempt to hide their political motivations: see a section below on how to defend Islam against criticism. Funnily, they've even managed to call Understanding-Islam.com a reliable source because it is associated with a certain organization that calls itself an institute. Beit Or 09:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a very bad idea to demote this. It serves an important purpose and whether or not that's the intention, demotion will be seen as a signal that "hey, we don't really know what reliable means". Actually, I just came up to that page after pointing someone to it when he was using an internet forum in Russian and telling me that it's reliable even though it's in Russian. I wanted to get the right quote for him to indicate that I'm not bothered about Russian sources but about internet forum sources. Inevitably, if this were to be demoted his response would have been: it's just an essay, not a guideline. If it needs a fix, let's fix it. But why be rash and go for demotion? Pascal.Tesson 21:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I lean towards supporting it, because I believe a separate guideline will be drawn up elsewhere, at Wikipedia:Citing sources. I'm not convinced we can detail what exactly constitutes a reliable source. I think it changes in context and we need a reflexive approach. A reliable source is one which, ultimately, we rely on for the information. The reliability can only be judged depending on what is sourced from it, since we don't know how reliable it has to be until we see what's sourced from it. Is Jeffrey Archer a reliable source? Depends what you source from him. If we don't allow flexibility in our guidelines, we risk losing them to the crashing waves of consensus. I think this can be downgraded. I think we need a new approach. Hiding Talk 16:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

A few editors wish this article to be demoted to "essay" status (stating that they do not see consensus for it to be a guideline). On the other hand, there does not seem to be any consensus for demoting it to essay either.

You do not need a "consensus for demotion" to remove the guideline tag from a page. Without a consensus (and there is clearly no consensus here) there is no guideline.

This page should have a {{rejected}} tag if consensus cannot be reached. {{Essay}} is not appropriate, either, since this page is actionable.

"there doesn't have to be consensus to demote; there needs only to be a lack of consensus to retain as a guideline" Can you point to where that is policy?

You shouldn't have to look too hard. It's clearly stated in Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines:

A rejected page is any proposal for which consensus support is not present. Consensus need not be fully opposed; if consensus is neutral on the issue and unlikely to improve, the proposal is likewise rejected. Making small changes will not change this fact, nor will repetitive arguments. Generally it is wiser to rewrite a rejected proposal from scratch and start in a different direction.

SlimVirgin, you're free to propose your major changes in Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Temp, or whatever place you think appropriate.

"Amendments to a guideline should be discussed on its talk page, not on a new page ... it's generally acceptable to edit a guideline to improve it." Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines

Also read through Wikipedia:How to create policy. — Omegatron 21:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Something wrong here

On Oct 10 there were 67 postings to this discussion page. Something is wrong here. WP:RS has been used to resolve innumerable editor disputes. Quoting WP:RS has been useful by a number of editors over a long period of time. It may not be perfect but it has been useful. And, in addition, this discussion page has served as a platform where editors come to resolve difficulties. The difficulties of what exactly a reliable source is will happen. Editors will need to resolve them. Whether that is done here or done on some other page, such conflicts of opinion and difficulties will continue and need a discussion page such as this one to discuss. Why are we going to lose this page? Who or what happened which caused so much difficulty that issues can not be discussed ? Terryeo 22:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

One of the difficulties is that we're not even able to copy edit the page, even though the writing is not good and the contents confusing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

We're not going to lose this page; it's just that there's no consensus for it to be a guideline anymore. Furthermore, blindly quoting WP:RS instead of thinking for yourself causes problems too because the content of this page is so problematic. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Flaws, which Phil mentioned above, for some examples. JYolkowski // talk 23:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, which parts of RS have been used to resolve disputes that aren't in V or NOR? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)
WP:RS has been used to resolve innumerable editor disputes. As an essay it can still be used to resolve disputes; just not as a tool of force that substitutes for communication.
Quoting WP:RS has been useful by a number of editors over a long period of time. It may not be perfect but it has been useful. And, in addition, this discussion page has served as a platform where editors come to resolve difficulties. The difficulties of what exactly a reliable source is will happen. Editors will need to resolve them. Whether that is done here or done on some other page, such conflicts of opinion and difficulties will continue and need a discussion page such as this one to discuss. As an essay all this is still true. You just don't get to use this page to not communicate. As just an essay you actually have to justify your claims rather than rely on what someone added to the page yesterday.
Why are we going to lose this page? It was called a guideline then added to without regard for consensus. WAS 4.250 00:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I made sure that everything important that was in V and NOR was repeated on this page. I think the only exception is "exceptional claims require exceptional evidence," but that's sometimes trivially true and sometimes wrong, so by all means add it to V, though leaving it out will make no difference. The rest is either fluff or advice about different subject areas, which would be just as useful tagged as an essay. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Blueboar, as a disputed policy it has zero value. As an essay it retains some value. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

How does it have no value? It is opperative until a replacement comes along. And an essay have very little value as it is simply an opinion. What do you have against leaving it in place while the replacement is drafted? Blueboar 01:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

If it carries the disputed tag it measn that it is not operative, as its validity is disputed. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

not operative=blatantly ignored. SchmuckyTheCat 02:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Wikipedia needs a policy like this, please save it, changed as necessary, but do not demote. In particular, the policy on self-published sources is extremely valuable. --Uncle Bungle 04:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Uncle Bungle, what is in here on self-published sources that isn't in WP:V or WP:NOR, which are policy? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Self published secondary sources. As I understand it, a self published source (such as a website), even if it cites primary sources, can not be used as a source of information in an article. --Uncle Bungle 22:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

That's in the policies. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Some other sections I've found useful are: false authority and non-english sources. --Uncle Bungle 22:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Non-English sources used to be in the policy but someone moved it. False authority isn't something that can be policy; it's just advice. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

WOO HOO! Yeah let's ditch this and start exalting blogs and self pubs to their rightful place in the empire of knowledge. 205.157.110.11 00:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I also have found this page useful in informing my edits. I agree that there are some problems with it overall, but some have come lately and made sweeping and brusque changes, as well as tried to demote it to an "essay" which as far as I know strips it of any authority. These are attacks on the page itself which I find to be unwarranted. The best thing to do, like I think some have said and worked on, is to build a replacement draft, then seek consensus (for instance with a straw poll) to replace RS with the draft. DanielM 09:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

There are always going to be details to hammer out, but I've found this guideline very helpful overall in judging whether a source is appropriate. I also believe on the whole it is a very sensible extension of WP:V. I would entirely support keeping the guideline status. As to preventing even copy-editing of the page, that is an issue with the editor(s) in question, not an argument against the policy. Seraphimblade 05:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm jumping in the discussion a little late, and I've tried to read all the comments above, but please do forgive me if I have missed a point or rehashed a statement (as there was a lot to read). In my mind this page has helped make Wikipedia better. If I look at my edits over my wiki-lifetime, after reading this article, I've striven to use better sources because of this page. It has also helped greatly in combating POV warriers, who either do not cite material, or cite material of dubious value. I've just skimmed this article, and it is bloated, but I would say, let's either take out the portions that are disputed right away, and work on them, and then bring them back in, or let's work on a new page while this one remains a guideline, and then replace it once there is consensus. I would hate to lose a page that has helped, in my mind, Wikipedia become more authoritative. Regards, -- Jeff3000 14:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Reliable Sources in AfD for neologism

The use of a humour book being used as a reliable source for a neologism is being discussed in a current AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dyke_tyke. It would be appreciated if those who've been thinking about the appropriateness of pop culture sources might comment there (or here.) --Leflyman^Talk 03:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Convenience links essay

I just wrote an essay on Wikipedia:Convenience links, one of the frequent topics here, and would love to hear any thoughts. Thanks, TheronJ 21:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, Theron. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Good start. One thing however doesn't make sense to me:

"In cases where an editor reads only an "intermediate source" such as an on-line copy of a print publication, the editor should cite intermediate source, but may also mention the original source. In such a case, the intermediate source must itself be reliable."

That may be good for Talk page discussion but not for the article, as it boils down to relying on anonymous Wikipidia editors as source. There is no reason to trust the accuracy of citations by a Wikipedia editor more than citations by unknown websites, especially if the text is hand-copied from paper. A convenience link to an unknown intermediate source that editors agree on including is just as (un)reliable as a direct citation or paraphrase of the original paper in Wikipedia. Harald88 12:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Exceptional claims

"Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to historical events or politically-charged issues." -- A contradiction here -- if a claim fulfills these criteria then doesn't it cease to be exceptional?

No. Blueboar 12:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I think what user blueboar is trying to say is just because multiple people claim something, it doesn't mean it isn't exceptional. For example, if I were to state George Bush is gay, it is pretty exceptional. If I evidence of him going away with a guy for a long time, and this guy is alot younger and thought of to be homosexual, and had evidence for this (along with a few other people who agree), it is still exceptional. By providing multiple sources, Wikipedia avoids slander, stating "These people claim this", rather than "this is a fact".-- ¢² Connor K. 15:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Media Matters for America

Media Matters for America is an US-based wesbite that makes available controversial audio, video, and book statements from political pundits and politicians who are pushing an agenda. Recently, at the Sean Hannity article, which once contained sourced controversy and criticism including Media Matters clips' of Hannity's radio and TV show, everything is gone.[11] (I restored some now.)

This happened over several days with two editors claiming Media Matters is not a RS because "it has a slant". These two editors slowly pulled apart the criticism section. Then a few days later Sandy deletes what was left with an edit summary: "This sections says nothing, goodbye".

Media Matters for America is a good informative site, that while its political, it is certainly a RS as it contains audio and video clips of controversial statements. Using this site to source controversial claims. Example: Hannity said "the anti-war left" for protested at soldier's funeral, but it was actually organized by anti-gay church. This included Hannity original words with the before context and its anaylsis contains various third party sources including the anti-gay church, The Indianapolis Star, etc. Arbusto 01:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Covered in a discussion on Jossi's talk page, and the article talk page, involving consensus among several editors working on Hannity at the time, Media Matters is not a neutral source, per their own website statement that their mission is to is to "monitor, analyze, and correct conservative misinformation in the U.S. media." Discussion from Jossi's talk page, much of it repeated on the article talk page, where poorly-sourced content was deleted by numerous editors. Arbustoo is re-inserting content which was deleted after consensual discussions among several editors: if WP:ATT now is heading in the direction of allowing biased sources as reliable sources, clarification is welcomed. Other biased sources were also removed; all have been re-inserted. Sandy (Talk) 02:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, let us review this "consensus" you speak of. Two editors (Sandy and Getaway) want that material removed, and two don't (Kuzaar and plange).

An incorrect characterization of several positions on the article talk page and on Jossi's talk page. Sandy (Talk) 13:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I again ask, what specific claims do you dispute? While it has a slant, how it not reliable? Should we begin removing all things cited with Fox News links because it leans right? Arbusto 02:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

On a side note, Sandy, at Michael Moore controversies that whole article is sourced with conservative blogs (DaveKopel.com, Moorewatch.com, SpinSanity.com, Nationalreview.com, HardyLaw.net). If those sources are removed from the Moore article there whould be no criticism in it. Are you going to actively remove those sources and that article as well or just focus on Hannity? Arbusto 02:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

OK folks... Before this gets out of hand, I want to remind you that the ONLY question relevant here is this: "Is Media Matters for America a reliable source?" Having looked at their website, including their page on Who we are and staff/advisors, I have to say that I do not think that it is. First, this has nothing to do with slant or bias. that issue should be raised at WP:NPOV. As far as bias goes: a biased source can be reliable, and a reliable source can be biased. However, I do find other problems... The first is the issue of Verification. While the site does tell us who is on the staff, none of the articles on the site tell us who actually wrote the peice or compiled the information. The second is that given that the articles provides commontary, it can not be used as a neutral "convinience link" for what Hannity (or another conservative media personality) has said, we can not be sure that they have not taken his statements out of context. Third is that this comes very close to being a blog (I see it as borderline between an "editorial" page and a blog.) Blogs are not considered reliable. At best, I would say that the material on this site is "opinion", which requires attribution to be used. Blueboar 12:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any issue with #1, #2 is easily dealt with, and #3 is irrelevant, "close" doesn't mean" is. I see no problem with it being one. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Media Matters for America is clearly a biased Reliable Source. Blogs are not reliable because they are written by someguy. The website in question is written by Eric Alterman ph.D, Duncan B. Black ph.D, David Brock, Eric Burns (journalist), and others listed at their staf page, invalidating 3. Articles are signed (initials at the bottom), invalidating 1. 2 has no relevence to reliability. JBKramer 13:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

To add to this - sure, it's biased. So is National Review, The New Republic, [Mother Jones]], etc. We wouldn't (and shouldn't) hesitate to use them as reliable sources. Some would make the argument that the New York Times or Fox News are biased, too, but no one would hesitate to call them reliable, either. As long as we recognize the biases, there shouldn't be an issue. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The editors originally seeking help on Jossi's talk page per WP:BLP said that #2 was *not* easily dealt with: that the content was only available on MediaMatters, and that it couldn't be verified as complete, neutral or in context. In general, unless some clarity is provided about the new proposal being developed at WP:ATT, upholding WP:BLP opens editors applying the requirement for only the highest-quality sources to accusations of abusive editing. Clarification on exactly how we are to determine these high-quality sources is welcomed, considering several editors previously indicated that MediaMatters was not a reliable source, and other editors in other places are now questioning WP:RS. If issues regarding similar sites are not clarified, WP:BLP becomes at best difficult to uphold, and at worst, moot. From the explanations given above, I am seeing that WP:ATT is leading us in a direction that will open the door to many shaky sources, even in BLPs. This seems contrary to the specific statements made by Jimbo: clarity is needed. Sandy (Talk) 13:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Then you cite your sources. 2 isn't relevent because it is dealt with by saying "according to Media Matters for America, <statement>. No parties not in interest have doubted the reliability of MMFA. JBKramer 13:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think Media Matters normally qualifies as a reliable source, with the caveats that reliable source decisions occur on a case by case basis. IMHO, while clearly partisan and biased, Media Matters is not so extremist as to merit a blanket ban, although I would be uncomfortable using it to support exceptional claims. The major grey area with regard to Media Matters is its fact checking and editorial oversight -- it seems to have some, but I don't know the details.

In short, I would think Media Matters' hosted clips from the MSM are fine, provided that the linking editors are comfortable that the hosted videos don't violate copyright. Some of the editorials are inappropriate because they are editorials and therefore not appropriate sources, but that's a trickier issue. I would also question whether any individual "gotcha" post by Media Matters establishes notability of whatever the gotcha issue is, particularly if it wasn't picked up by a more mainstream source. Most challenging , the Sean Hannity article smacks of serious POV and battleground issues, but I don't think the reliable source policy will solve those problems in this case. TheronJ 13:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

On the issue of verification, ie signing the articles... of the pieces currently on the website, two are signed SMM... I assume this is Simon Maloy who they say "most recently worked for Kaplan Higher Education Online in New York as an editorial intern. He has been published in The Raw Story, a progressive news website. Maloy holds a bachelor's degree in history from Williams College and is a Senior Researcher at Media Matters for America." Hardly an expert. Another is signed RSK - I do not find anyone with these initials on their staff. Another is unsigned. So, perhaps the reliability will depend on who wrote the piece? I still say that any citation to this site should at minimum be attributed as an opinion, and not cited as fact. Blueboar 13:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

No. The site itself lends it's name and editorial reliability to it's peices. That one piece was authored by person z instead of person x is not relevent. I note your old argument, that the pieces were unsigned, has gone by the wayside - when you are proven mistaken, do you always adapt your arguments to leave your conclusion unchanged, or are you reevaluating? JBKramer 13:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I adapt if my conclusion still seems valid to me, and I reevaluate if not. In this case, I admit that (most of) the pieces are indeed signed (and that I was in error on that point), but am still not convinced that this meets the standards of WP:RS. In any case, I have given you my view, which is what you came here to ask... what you do with it is up to you. Blueboar 17:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

As I understood the issue when it was first raised on Jossi's talk page, the content was not available in *any* other source, mainstream or otherwise, so there was a clear issue of notability and "gotcha". I am also unclear in the conversation above if the implication is that, for example, we now consider National Review a reliable source. I have been working under the impression that such sites were not. Sandy (Talk) 13:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The National Review is a reliable source, though as it is partisan, when it is used as a source, it should be noted - IE - "According to The National Review, <fact>. JBKramer 13:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. For further clarification, Arbustoo lists above several sources that he says are used on Michael Moore. Of those sources, National Review is the only one I know: can you elucidate which of those would or would not be reliable sources, comparing and contrasting them to National Review, to help clarify why some partisan sources are considered reliable, while others possibly not? And, I still have no answer as to the issue of insisting upon highest quality sources on BLPs, and where this leaves enforcement of WP:BLP. Clarification is still welcomed, as the only reason I happened into the Hannity article was a request for BLP clarification and help, which we are supposed to take seriously. Sandy (Talk) 14:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sandy, responding to your WP:BLP question, let me give you a slew of answers:

Whether a given source is reliable in a given context is very much up to community consensus within the limitations of policy. You seem to be doing exactly the right thing in asking for additional opinions to get some outside input in the dispute between you and Arbustoo. As far as I can tell, consensus seems to be emerging that in the specific example offered (a Media Matters article pointing out that Sean Hannity inaccurately referred to a hyper-right-wing protest group as "left wing", plus a MM hosted video of Hannity's statement[12]) is reliable enough an that MM generally meets WP:RS minimum standards. Assuming that I've got the ultimate consensus broadly right, I hope that you and Arbustoo are able to take it and work together to improve the Hannity article.
Wikipedia's reliable source guideline and biography of living person policy are separate things, and a page that concentrates excessively on relatively trivial negative information can violate WP:BLP and Wikipedia:Attack page even if it's sources are all reliable. (See, for example the emerging decision in an arbitration regarding Rachel Marsden).
As I've said above, I have serious questions about the Hannity page. I think the citation in question is fine with regard to WP:RS, but I wonder if every time Hannity says something wrong, that's notable. I also wonder whether the page as written complies with WP:BLP, Wikipedia:Attack page, and undue weight. You and Arbustoo are both good editors, so I would suggest that the two of you take a look at the Rachel Marsden arbitration, then try to come up with a constructive way to improve the Hannity page. If that fails, there are a variety of dispute resolution procedures available.

Good luck to both of you, TheronJ 14:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

If you provide me a list of articles, I will tell you which can be used to the truth of an assertion without attribution (Wall Street Journal/New York Times News Pages), with attribution (WSJ/NYT Editorial Pages), and never (www.someguysblog.com). JBKramer 14:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't do that now, as I'm traveling and am on a miserably slow, dialup connection, and have to catch a flight now. That's why I gave the Michael Moore example from above: it was the most easily accessible right now. Sandy (Talk) 14:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I see him listing The Indianapolis Star. It is always a reliable source, and does not require attribution, except for it's editorial page. He also lists godhatesamerica.com, which is not a reliable source and should not be used to the truth of an assertion, except to source the position or statements of godhatesamerica.com, or whoever owns it, in an article about, or very closely related to, godhatesamerica.com. JBKramer 14:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. DaveKopel.com - unnaceptabe, some guys blog, Moorewatch.com - unnaceptabe, some guys blog, SpinSanity.com - unnaceptabe, some guys blog, Nationalreview.com, acceptable with attribution, HardyLaw.net, unnaceptable, some guys blog. JBKramer 14:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

On Kopel and Hardy in particular, they have a published book which could/should probably work as a filler for most of it. Our hatred of blogs is one of the major problems with our RS guideline, however. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that we all are missing an important point: Reliable sources is not a black and white thing. Context is needed. A source that may be reliable for A in articla X may not be reliable for B in article Z. For example, I do not see the use of Media Matters (or National Review as a source for George W. Bush, and rightly so. Same would apply for Lawton Foundation as a reliable source for Fidel Castro. The [WP:BLP]] policy tell us specifically about being cautious when using partisan sources in biographies, and we should. The good judgement of editors, as well being responsible editors, is also needed. POV warriors would excericies POV pushing regardeless of how many guidelines and policies we have in Wikipedia. In Spanish we say "Hecha la ley, hecha la trampa", meaning "Make a law, and you have made a way to break it." ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

tell us specifically about being cautious when using partisan sources in biographies, and we should Which is how I interpreted the application of BLP on Hannity, particularly since other editors stated the information was not available in any other source, mainstream or otherwise. Have to go now, but this area needs to be better clarified: editors attempting to help uphold the strong requirements in BLP should not be continually accused of abusive editing. Sandy (Talk) 14:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Somehow I seem to have been a crusader for BLP but have never ran into that problem. Perhaps it's because I don't only focus on removing things that don't reflect my POV? JBKramer 14:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree on the general, but disagree on the particulars. Both MMFA and NR would be good sources (that would require attribution) for articles about the popular reception of George W. Bush. This is a section of our biographies about living people that is typically weak, because the POV warriors often focus on ruining it. JBKramer 14:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

"Be cautious" doesn't mean "don't use." "Be cautious" simply means be careful how you use them. Any source can be protested as partisan or biased, so it's about proper use of the source. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I ten d to disagree with your position. As WP editors we need to excercise caution in BLPs for all the reasons stated in that policy. Wikipedia is not a place to amplify rumors, or to assasinate the character of living people. If there is material in partisan sources, these may be used, and if so with great caution and with full attributtion. One can argue that an Al Quaeda website is a reliable source for Al Quaeda viewpoints, but we do not use that website as a reliable source to add to George W. Bush a statement "According to Al Quaeda, George W. Bush is a war criminal." Even with full attribution, that kind of edit is not acceptable as per WP:BLP.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we actually agree. No one's talking unreliable extremists here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well; wikipedia is not the place for rumors. The discussion here is Media Matters; why can't it be used as a RS? If you are claiming that Media Matters consists of poor material that pushes rumors, please offer sources. Media Matters has been cited by many news outlets, such as MSNBC. Arbusto 18:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

(De-indenting) TheronJ, thanks so much for the most constructive information and the well wishes. Now that I understand that reliable sources isn't always black-and-white territory, I still have several questions about the important matter of reliable sources as they relate to BLPs — but first the necessities of clearing up a misrepresentation/misunderstanding.

You have wished me well in resolving issues on the Hannity article: apparently others have succeeded in casting me in a principle role in a drama in which my involvement can barely be described as minimal. I have little interest in Hannity: I am interesting in understanding how to protect living persons per WP:BLP. My interest in the Hannity article was a passing one, and the contentious talk page environment which exists on Hannity since JBKramer and Arbustoo have decided to reinstate the Media Matters information is not the sort of environment I'm interested in working with, though I appreciate your well wishes.

My (very limited) involvement in the Hannity article came about because I follow Jossi's talk page; he is an editor I respect, who was involved early on in BLP and has shed light on WP:BLP and WP:RS issues several times for me, over many months. Several Hannity editors approached Jossi about Media Matters as a reliable source, the tone on the talk page seemed congenial, and they all seemed legitimately interested in resolving BLP and RS issues, so I offered to help. I made a grand total of 2 meaningful edits to the article, and 8 other edits to clean up reference formatting, add cite tags, delete white space, clean up headings, and the usual sort of cleanup work I do on many articles. A contentious debate over MediaMatters has now evolved on Hannity, when consensus was against its use before this discussion, and is (as far as I can tell) still against it. Before this discussion, Kuzaar supported the use of MediaMatters; while EmmSeeMusic, Getaway, PTR, Jossi, and myself opined that its use wasn't appropriate, and Plange appeared to concur. There was consensus to delete the material; it was deleted. As far as I can tell, Arbustoo misunderstood or misstated the consensus which existed above, as he has misstated several issues regarding my edit history. Since this discussion, additional supporters have been Arbustoo, BJKramer, and badlydrawnjeff (I think); while Ramsquire and Blueboar have said Media Matters shouldn't be used, and other editors (such as yourself, TheronJ) have said it could be a reliable source, but questioned the notability of the issues being raised on Hannity, sourced to Media Matters. So, it still appears that consensus is against the use of the material; yet Arbustoo continues to accuse me of acting against consensus when I removed the material with clear consensus the first time. In other words, it still doesn't seem that WP:BLP has any teeth, nor does it appear that consensus is useful in determining if a source should be considered reliable for use in a BLP. So, I'm not sure I'm any clearer on how to enforce BLPs than I was before, but I'm definitely clear that I won't offer to help out again. From what I've seen on several BLP issues posted to the noticeboard, enforcement of highest quality sources isn't happening, while people attempting enforcement put themselves in harm's way.

My questions:

I understand the WP:RS and WP:BLP are separate things, but they overlap in that BLP calls for being "very firm about high quality references". I'm sorry some of my questions overlap, and might be better placed at BLP, but I'm trying to understand the "highest quality sources" relative to reliable sources. I'm not seeing highest quality sources being used in practice, with respect to reliable sources, and this is a concern on BLPs. Still confused, but at least you've given me some direction for how to proceed in the future. I think (?) it roughly amounts to - no blogs, (some?) opinion may be used if it's attributed, and consensus for any other marginal sources.
There is no agreement or consensus above as to enforcement of the highest quality sources on BLPs, and sources agreed by consensus not to be reliable are still being used. The consensus you mention about Media Matters is in the opposite direction of what I see, when accounting for everyone who participated in the discussion here and on other talk pages, including an editor who is traveling right now (PTR). I still don't know where this leaves BLP enforcement, other than contentious. I'm wondering why none of this is more clearly spelled out in some Wiki guideline, other than Jossi's hecha la ley, hecha la trampa.
Arbustoo seems to have found his way to the Hannity article after I edited it; he has been upset since I reverted an edit in which he inaccurately attributed as a direct quote to a living person words never uttered by this person. I now understand that BLP enforcement is variable; is it correct that we must quote living persons accurately, and direct misquotes can be removed?
If I am understanding correctly the commentary above, it is OK to use editorials, as long as they are attributed as opinion. Is this correct? I have seen many deletions of NYTimes and Wall Street Journal editorial statements—even when correctly attributed—from articles, and have probably deleted some myself, as I understood opinion was never acceptable: is this incorrect? Does it only apply to editorials of "high quality" (e.g.; New York Times)? Can others elaborate on circumstances when it is appropriate to include editorial opinions, and from what sources?
Is it ever OK to use a personal letter to the editor from "Joe Bloe", printed in a local paper, as a source for criticism on a BLP? I've deleted those as non-reliable sources. Is it correct that "Joe Bloe's" letter to anytown newspaper doesn't carry the same "reliability" as a NYT or WSJ editorial, and shouldn't be used?
When cleaning up the BLPs of *all* of the participants in election campaigns in the August primaries and current elections (not just "things that don't reflect my POV" as claimed by BJKramer), I am no longer clear if I did that correctly. Should I outright delete any content sourced to a blog (that's usually what I do, although I'm not always sure if something is a blog), or should I only remove the blog source and put a cite tag on the text, if the text is not highly defamatory, just unverified? Or do I outright delete anything sourced to a blog on a BLP (or anywhere else)?
Are blogs from known "reliable" sources (e.g.; CBS News) ever allowed as reliable sources? I'm asking because I'm not sure what badlydrawnjeff meant by "Our hatred of blogs is one of the major problems with our RS guideline, however."

I think that's all my questions: in the future, when enforcing BLPs, I'll post all issues to the BLP noticeboard, and let some other brave person deal with them, so as not to become the target of false accusations. Thanks, Sandy (Talk) 02:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Sandy, I'll respond on your talk page. Thanks, TheronJ 03:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm just curious if anyone has a documented case of MM getting something wrong. Lot's of folks have it in for them; Bill O'Reilly openly hates them; so I imagine they're getting worked over pretty good. Has a case of unreliability popped up? That's not determinative; all newspapers have corrections sections. But, it would be helpful to know. It's kind of ironic in the context of this conversation that MM's stated purpose is to check the reliability of (conservative) media statements. Derex 09:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal on Primary sources

I started a new proposal, Wikipedia:Use of primary sources in Wikipedia, relating to some of the recent and ongoing developments re. WP:RS, WP:V, WP:ATT, etc. Comments and contributions welcome! --Francis Schonken 12:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Is Wired News a reliable source?

Hey gurus,

Can I get a judgment call on whether Wired News stories are likely to be reliable sources? The debate centers around a Wired News article regarding Clint Curtis. For the cite, see this diff, or the talk page starting here. Thanks, TheronJ 19:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

If it helps, Wired News apparently has a fact checking department, the head of which is able to get gigs teaching fact checking,[13] so I lean strongly towards baseline reliable. Thanks again, TheronJ 20:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

There is 0 doubt that Wired, a major magazine, is a reliable source. JBKramer 20:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

If you go to the New York Times web site and search on "Wired News" (include the double quotes) you will find numerous citations to Wired News articles. --Gerry Ashton 20:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Non English sources

I have got a question about non english sources. I am writing an article about Czech cross country skier Kateřina Neumannová. There are some English sources about her late career when she won olympics and maybe lists of results. But most of these sources will not provide any details and there will be no sources for her early carier when she did not belong among top ten. So most of my sources will be in Czech. How are these sources viewed. I ask especialy concerning potential peer-reviews as I hope that one day the article will get there (now it is just a mere stub). Having an in-line citation for every fact is a hard work and I will probably do not go through it, when peer reviewers will just say they do not understand cited newpaper. --Jan Smolik 21:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is an adjuct to Verifiability. If the information is verifiable from a foreign language than it is verifiable. The only question is if the sources are reliable and if they are major media, respected sports statistics generators, etc, then the answer is an unqualified yes without any regard to their language. SchmuckyTheCat 21:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

However, as this is the english version of Wikipedia, and (shamefully) most native english speakers (Englishmen, North Americans and Australians alike) do not speak other languages (and for those who do, Czech is unlikely)... if you can provide a translation for any of the material it would be appreciated. Also, if you include any quotations in the main text of the article, a translation should be a must (for authenticity and verification of the translation, I would also have the original Czech in a foot note with the citation). Blueboar 01:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the replys, it is much clearer for me now. --Jan Smolik 13:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

What is enough to substantiate an "exceptional" claim?

I added the following text to the article on the German city of Treuenbrietzen.

During the last days of April and first days of May, 1945, Red Army soldiers executed approximately 1000 civilian inhabitants of the city, mostly men.[14] They were taken into the forest and shot. A memorial commemorates the fate of the 1000 civilians executed by the Red Army, as well as that of the 127 Italian POWs executed by the Wehrmacht.

I sourced it with two copies of the same article, used by two online newspapers. The one inserted in the text, and this one which I put in the external links, in case the one in the text stoped working, or vice versa.

"Stadt ohne Männer" (the city without men) Der Tagesspiegel 21-06-2006 (in German)

All evidence of my edit were removed, with the explanation that: "for such stuff a more solid ref than an article in a popular press is required" diff 1, diff 2

I realise that the references might be borderline, since they are in German, and both point to the same article. I have however been unable to find an English article dealing with the subject. I am unsure if the references are good enough to source the claim, or if more/better sources are indeed necessary. So, any opinions, do I have any grounds for challenging the removal, or might I as well give up? --Stor stark7 ^Talk 19:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

A bare web reference is of marginal usefulness in any case, and suspect for an exceptional claim. A non-German speaker can't really tell the nature of the citation. The two websites apparently present exactly the same article. Where was the article published originally? Why does it appear on two different websites? Are the two websites affiliated? --Gerry Ashton 21:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The newspaper seems a reasonably reliable source. Perhaps the statement can be voiced as an opinion of the newspaper, not voiced as a fact. Andries 21:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The Chicago Manual of Style 14th ed. gives this example, in §15.228, for a footnote of a foreign-language journal article with a translated title:

27. W. Kern, "Waar verzamelde Pigafetta zijn Maleise woorden?" (Where did Pigafetta collect his Malaysian words?>, Tijdschrift voor Indische taal-, land-, en volkenkunde 78 (1938): 271-73.

I would write an equivalent footnote for the place the article originally came from, and then add something like this

Reprinted in Potsdamer Neucote Nachrichten 21 October 2006, viewed 26 October 2006 at [15]. Also reprinted in Der Tagesspiegel online 21 October 2006 viewed 26 October 2006 at [16]

--Gerry Ashton 22:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Cite the original relevant German excerpt accompanied with an English translation. Andries 22:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll give it a shot and see what hapens... thanks for the suggestions. --Stor stark7 ^Talk 16:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

DISPUTED-tag

hello? where is the discussion? i'm lost. please help me. outside, there was - like this big sign saying that something is disputed here, and there is a discussion? can you help me? it would be very nice.-- ExpImp^talkcon 20:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a fair bit of discussion above, probably under a section heading entitled "Guideline" or "Essay vs. guideline" or something like that (can't check right now as I'm editing the article (-: ) I don't think we ever came to an agreement so the disputed tag is still here. If anyone can suggest a way of moving forward, that would be cool, but it's kind of hard to do so because several people (myself included) want to junk the guideline completely while others want to keep it as-is. JYolkowski // talk 20:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

thanks, but reading that was not satifying. i think "We need sources for any edit that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and for quotations. Period." is really all you need to say. isn't it?-- ExpImp^talkcon 00:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

No. Because some sources are better than others; and some sources are completely unreliable. For example, I might state that "atomic radiation is good for one's sex life" on my personal webpage. However, since I am not an expert in the field of atomic radiation (I am not even a scientist) you should not use my statement to back such a claim in any wikipedia article. Blueboar 00:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

But i can use your statement to back up the claim "Blueboar believes atomic radiation is good for one's sex life". Thats all we need, or am i missing s/th here? I don't care if you are a scientist or not, i care for a source... And i beg to differ that "some sources are better than others". -- ExpImp^talkcon 13:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

ok, granted, we can't include your view into the article on Ionizing radiation, we need something to distinguish sources as to their reliability. but, i believe the most straightforward way to solve that problem is searching for multiple sources: if two independent publications claim s/th it seems to have at most a marginal probability of being outright fabrication.-- ExpImp^talkcon 14:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

And precisely what do you think should be the standard for verifying that two publications that claim the same thing are actually "independent"? In my experience, so-called independent publications very often repeat each other's claims without deigning to spend any effort on independent verification.—DCGeist 06:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

See the proposal at WP:ATT. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks quite good. Thanks.-- ExpImp^talkcon 13:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

From WP:V: This page does not say some things that could well be said; there are whole books on source criticism out there. There are some things I would say differently; that's true of most WP pages. But I join in the consensus which makes this a guideline, marked or not. Its opponents should remember the difference between {{guideline}}s and policy Septentrionalis 23:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiIslam.org

i think it is abundantly clear from WP policy in general that wikis are not legitimate sources for citation (even self-citing can be dubious). it goes without saying that the same rule applies to WikiIslam.org (alternatively known as wiki.faithfreedom.org, a branch of faithfreedom.org). i have however run into a new editor who insists that removals of this non-notable website from being used as citations (and external links, for that matter) in articles is merely a Muslim conspiracy against him (even though non-Muslim editors have also objected to his wiki advertising) and his wiki website under which he edits extensively as "Whale". because of this, he ardently refuses to accept any citation of policy that i provide for him, claiming that the WP:RS and WP:V actually allow for its use. just to ensure that my sanity has not escaped me, could i get some more opinions on the usability of wikiislam (most importantly) as a citation for assertions in articles? ITAQALLAH 19:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Your sanity is fine. Wikis are not reliable for many reasons. Note that this is not the same as providing a wikilink ... that is fine (and, in fact, encouraged). but as a citation... definitely not. Blueboar 19:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

OK... I have recieved a related question on my talk page that I want to pass by the entire WP:RS editing group... What about linking another (non-wikipedia) wiki in the "External Links" section of an article? My normally strict reading of the guideline says no, links to unreliable sources should never be used ... but I do see the possible argument that links in the "External Links" section might be different, as they is not being used as a source for any particular statement, but simply as links to related sites with further information on the topic. What say you? Blueboar 21:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Blueboar, thanks for your message on Bhaisaab's talk page. I believe that yes it is acceptable to include a link to an external wiki on the 'External Links' section of a WP article. It cannot be denied that external wiki websites are excellent sources of information, because like Wikipedia they are continuously edited and made better by its editing community. To demonstrate this to others, I'll give the same example to others which I gave to you:

If there's an article on Guitars on WP, there's nothing wrong with including a link to an external website such as GuitarWiki.com on the 'External Links' section of a WP article. I don’t think anyone will disagree with me here. If you do, please explain why its not acceptable to include a link for GuitarWiki.com on a page on Wikipedia that is about Guitars.

Further, I have read WP:RS where it states that even as a cite source, Wikis may be used a source, as long as they are not self-published sources. But here we are not even talking about cite sources - we're talking about a link in the 'External Links' section where the reader may go for more information on the subject.

I believe my Guitar example is sufficient to make this point.

thanks

--JohnsAr 21:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with your reading of WP:EL, Blogs and wikis are not acceptable as external links.ALR 22:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

JohnsAr, the policy you're citing actually states the exact opposite: "Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources...For exceptions, see the section on self-published sources."

So if we look at the self-published sources section we find the following: "Exceptions to this may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material..." What does this have anything to do with W.I.?

If we look at the policy regarding external links, WP:EL, we find that it states "An article can link to pages that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article." W.I. is certainly not in anyway neutral nor accurate. We further find we should avoid pages that "contain factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources." Wikis have no control mechanism to stop original research from being inserted into articles. BhaiSaab ^talk 22:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

<indent reset>

This is John. Please note that external wiki links already exist on hundreds of WikiPedia articles. To those who think external wikis should not be allowed as links on Wikipedia, please justify the following evidence:

This Wikipedia article on Feathered dinosaurs lists the following external wiki article on its External links:

http://www.evowiki.org/index.php/Downy_Dinos

227 more mentions of this external wiki on Wikipedia on Google

These Wikipedia articles on Varactyl, Deak and Opee Sea Killer link the following external wiki on their External Links pages:

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Varactyl

Here are 35 more mentions of this external wiki on Google

Need I go on?

American Petroleum Institute links to the following external wiki:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch

131 MORE mentions of this external wiki on Wikipedia on Google

These are just a handful of examples I was able to gather where external wikis have been linked on articles on Wikipedia. They're usually found in the External Links section.

To those who are saying that wikis should be included as External Links, lets first start taking out all the hundreds of existing links on Wikipedia to external wikis so we can make sure this policy is followed consistently. What do you say?

Though external wikis change more frequently than regular websites, they are excellent sources of information because of this same reason. Hence, people include external wiki links all over Wikipedia and I have given ample evidence of this happening.

The protestors who are making this complaint (Itaqullah, BhaiSaab and others), are doing so because the wiki in question (WikiIslam.org) does not coincide with their opinions on controversial issues of religion. It must be mentioned that these articles naturally already contain links for many external websites which state their differing and opposite opinion on these controversial religious issues.

As to BhaiSaab protesting that "An article can link to pages that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article.", I would ask him: Are other links on the Islam articles neutral? Frequently, they are not and thats ok - the issues being discussed are controversial and people have widely differing opinions and these are reflected by the links they insert into WP. That is okay. Do the articles not contain information already present in the WP article? Yes, they do partially. Some information can be found on more than one websites and thats ok too. Its impossible to cite a website which doesnt have some information common. So, please don’t apply a policy to WikiIslam.org, that does not apply to other external links already existing on Wikipedia.

Regards to BhaiSaab quoting WP:RS: "well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise", I would ask others: Are OTHER external links given on articles about Islam written by "well-known professional researchers" ? No they are not. Again, please don’t apply a policy to WikiIslam which does not apply to other already existing external links on WP articles.

In summary: - WikiPedia.org articles already contain hundreds of links to external wikis, the evidence for which I have provided. - Thus, it is not a surprise that linking to external wikis is not against Wikipedia's policy at WP:RS which states that wikis can be reliable sources as long as they are not self-published sources. However again, I am not even defending wikis to be used as Citing sources - they should not be. But it is acceptable to link them in the External Links section, just like many of the external wikis already being linked on Wikipedia.org. They too are not self-published sources and WikiIslam.org also follows this guideline. WikiIslam.org is just one of the many websites linked on WP that have opinions critical of Islam. There is nothing special about it in any other way, except that its a wiki website. And like I said, there are already hundreds of existing links to external wikis on Wikipedia.org.

Now, is there any one else who says links for external Wikis should not be included in External Links? If so, please start by taking out the existing hundreds of links on Wikipedia to external wikis and I'll join your effort as well so we can make sure this "policy" is implemented fairly. You would also have to prove that those wikis already linked are not self-published sources and are not being written by professional well-known researchers'.

Can this debate be finalized or do we need more intervention?

thank you --JohnsAr 23:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You'll have to see the logical fallacy at negative proof. It is up to you to prove that this wiki is written by professional well-known researchers. The existence of other wiki links is certainly not a reason to continue contravening policy when it is obvious in this case; see appeal to tradition. BhaiSaab ^talk 23:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

"...states that wikis can be reliable sources as long as they are not self-published sources" Where? BhaiSaab ^talk 23:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Self-published sources are not acceptable as sources[17]. The present external wiki links do not contravene policy as they are not self-published sources.

It is not against wiki policy to include external wikis in External Links. Thus its no surprise that there are hundreds of existing links to external wikis on Wikipedia.

The fact that the wiki in question does not coincide with your religious views, is obviously no reason for you to propose that it should not be linked.

--JohnsAr 23:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that everything that isn't self-published is necessarily a reliable source while at the same time ignoring this very clear policy statement: "Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources." BhaiSaab ^talk 00:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

In the same paragraph it says "For exceptions, see the section on self-published sources." Also, please do not forget the hundreds of existing links on Wikipedia to external wikis.

Explain why the external wiki site linked on Opee Sea Killer should not be there.

--JohnsAr 00:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

So basically, you're interpreting the policy like this: "Although there is a statement that clearly states wikis are not to be used as sources, the other sentence in the same section indicates that wikis are not self-published sources. Hence, this policy contradicts itself and wikis are allowed."

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. The exceptions, as I've noted above, have nothing to do with wikis. BhaiSaab ^talk 00:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

They do. Read the whole article on WP:RS. I gave you link already. So you are unable to explain why the external wiki on Opee Sea Killer should not be linked. --JohnsAr 00:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

How do "they do?" You can certainly remove the link from Opee Sea Killer if it's bothering you; it's not my area of editing. BhaiSaab ^talk 00:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thats my point, the link to the external wiki in Opee Sea Killer (and hundreds of other links to external wikis on WikiPedia) is not against policy (WP:RS) as it is not self-published. Why have those links not been removed? Because its not against policy. We're going in circles. I will wait for more people to respond to this. --JohnsAr 00:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

(unindent) One can argue that when a person writes a passage, and that unchanged passage is published with no review by any other person (as on a wiki), the passage is self-published. Since the paragraph that says not to use wikis refers to the self-published section for exceptions, the Reliable sources guideline apparently considers wikis to either be self-published, or functionally equivalent to self-published works. --Gerry Ashton 01:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Gerry, thanks for responding to this issue. Infact material on wikis is frequently reviewed by other people and edited by the community. Thats why Wikis are excellent sources of information because they are continually improved. The Policy page WP:RS also mentions to use commonsense while applying the guidelines. Further and most importantly, when 100's of articles on Wikipedia already contain links to external wikis (I provided evidence above), I cannot see any reason for the original complaint by ItaqAllah and BhaiSaab.

Is there anything wrong with including a link to an external wiki, in the External Links section?

If so, what justification can be given to support the assertion that the existing external wiki link present right now on Opee Sea Killer should be taken out?

As I said wikis are excellent sources of information. No wonder everyone else in Wikipedia uses them as links in other articles. One might say that I should assume good faith, but in this case it is obvious that the complainants ItaqAllah and BhaiSaab are only opposed to linking WikiIslam because its against their religious views. This is another of their attempt to censor content on WikiPedia. It is clear that had I included a link to IslamPedia, a pro-Islamic website, we would not have seen a protest by anyone. Articles on Islam already contain links to many websites which are critical of Islam and WikiIslam is just one of them.

Again, if anyone thinks external wikis should not be linked, lets please start by first taking out the hundreds of already existing links to external wikis on WikiPedia.

A wiki is just another website. No one is saying that its ok to cite sources (using ref tags and such, where statements are being refered to) from a wiki therefore the concern that "a wiki may change anytime so it should not be cited" is only applying to statements made on the Wiki quoted with "Ref" tags where statements are being quoted. But there is nothing wrong with linking to an external wiki in the External Links section. Thats why we have 100's of existing external wiki links on WikiPedia.org

I cant understand the big commotion ItaqAllah and BhaiSaab have put up, when external wikis are already being linked on WikiPedia in large numbers. Also, common sense says there is nothing wrong in linking a wiki in the External links section.

--JohnsAr 01:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

JohnsAr - First, You will find that the "but lots of other articles do it" argument holds very little water here... my reply to that is: lots of other articles are wrong. Also, to publish a link to WP:RS on the talk page for WP:RS is a bit silly... we (those who regularly edit this page) know what the guideline says and means... we wrote it!

The intent of this section is that Wikis are NOT acceptable as sources, ever. The exceptions clause is for self-published works. Now Gerry has pushed the envelope and said that you could consider a wiki to be a form of self published work. But even if one considers Wikis to be equivilant to self published works, they would have to be demonstratably written by noted experts to be usable as sources.

More importantly, the ban on wikis is repeated (clearly) at WP:V (see [WP:V#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 here] - That is a POLICY page and can not be wiggled around no matter how much you argue.

About the ONLY argument that one could make to allow links to wikis is the one I asked about at the start of this discussion: That such links placed in the "external links" section are not being used as "sources" but simply as a way to say "for further information, see...". I do not think that is a good argument, but it is at least arguable. Face it, you are wrong on this one. Blueboar 01:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

BlueBoar, that is exactly what I have been saying all along: "such links placed in the "external links" section are not being used as "sources" but simply as a way to say "for further information, see..."."

This is why we have 100's of other external wiki links. They are all being used as "For further information, see...". WikiIslam is not an exception.

--JohnsAr 01:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)