Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 16

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 10

←

Archive 14

→

There is new, clear evidence that Fox News manipulates understanding of the news. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/fox-news-runs-digitally-altered-images-in-coverage-of-seattles-protests-capitol-hill-autonomous-zone/?amp=1&__twitter_impression=true

Fox News. Reliable Source?

I was wondering the community view on this. Some consider the network to be conservative biased and at worst a propaganda network and that believe they edit certain material so using them as a citation is not reliable. Some may make the argument that other news networks are biased and follow these same practices. I do not think they are any better or worse than CNN or MSNBC for verification purposes and they are not without accusations of biases themselves. Does the contention of editing their programming when they store it on their website constitute lack of reliability or is this normal practice blown out of proportion by partisans? Just curious. MrMurph101 20:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I have yet to be shown any evidence of stories Fox published that were factually incorrect, or had to be retracted, that would show them to be any less reliable than any other news network. People may have an issue with what stories they choose to report on, or what aspects of those stories they choose to emphasize, but that in no way reflects on the reliability or accuracy of the facts they report. In my opinion, calling Fox News "unreliable" is simply partisan hackery. I notice no one has a problem with Fox being cited in Sicko. Probably because they gave the film a glowing review. - Crockspot 21:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with you. They should be given equal weight as the other networks. If they do report something it increases the notablity of the subject since the network is broadcast worldwide. We should not blantantly dismiss a source due to perceived biases. It seems the alleged post-production editing is used as an excuse not to use them as a source. I was wondering what the deal is with that. MrMurph101 21:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, dear. Gentleman, if there's time for some vacation reading, I commend Walter Lippmann's Public Opinion 1921. It even exists online, and studying it will save many from naivity about what these networks do. He was no fanatic, a centrist, but a clear-eyed realist about how reporting functions Nishidani 21:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice and I will consider it. I wonder what he would think of wikipedia? However, I'm not here to discuss the more general debate of the philosophies or methods of mass media. I just wanted to know the consensus of using Fox News as a source as opposed to other news networks. MrMurph101 22:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

We treat The Guardian as a reliable source, though it's far more to the left than Fox is to the right, and The Guardian, unlike Fox, has been repeatedly demonstrated inaccurate on controversial political topics. We may not enforce WP:NPA consistently vis-a-vis left-wing and right-wing, but NPOV suggests we should at least try to do with respect to sources. THF 01:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hm. Googling "Fox News" brings up these rather lengthy lists in the first page of results:

On the other hand, there is not a whit of criticism in the first five pages of the Google results for "The Guardian". Is Google in on it? ←Ben^B4 20:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The first 2 are George Soros fronts the third isPOV by it's name.65.96.135.42 18:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Fox News is a major mainstream network news program, for goodness sake. If you excluded someone like Fox as an outlier you would have to exclude about 1/2 of all sources we now permit. Most Americans consider it right of center, and it's owned by people who own other conservatives outlet and have an agenda, probably an agenda for owning Fox, but that's not the question. It has extensive editorial oversight, journalism standards, a method and tone that's comparable to other mainstream news sources, etc. Of course there are biased and inaccurate stories, many of them. Name a network that doesn't. ABC? NPR? CNN? Disney? As a source it is only as good as the specific work being cited. There's a big difference between citing a Bill O'Reilly rant or attack interview, and a standard news item. In fact, from time to time it has broken scoops or provided significant, usable, balanced coverage of subjects that people could consider liberal ones. Judge each for itself.Wikidemo 20:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that is an interesting point - judge each for itself. The various media all have their strengths and weaknesses, and perhaps reliable source is not the correct term, better to simply say usable source. With that qualification we then see that editorial judgement is required. In one of my little editing spats with someone of note in the world of policy, that someone wanted the article to say:

Gerhard Schroeder, then German Chancellor, called for an end to factory farming...

Two sources were provided. The BBC said this:

In Germany,..., Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has called for a re-think of farming policy.
He told parliament that the current practice of factory farming must stop, 
in favour of a more consumer-friendly policy.

and another, CNN/Reuters which said, reporting on a similar issue:

But to end the spread and kill off the disease, Europe has to start farming in a different way, they said. 
"The German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder is calling for the end of factory farming," they said.

Note that one source does not directly paraphrase the Chancellor, it is hearsay. However, that is the quote more suited to our editors POV so that is selected. IF we assume the BBC is equally reliable, we can still make a judgement that the first source is more relevant as it (a) is a direct attribution, and (b) is not a third party hearsay.

Neither source is mis-representing. Both are sound sources, but note that one is less useful as it is arguably using a trick to make the Chancellor to say something that I suspect he did not. Careful quoting could drop the trailing in favour... to bias that one too - and I think it is just enough of a clue to see that our CNN scientists were being economical with their quotations. I'd love the primary source on that one. Editing is not an easy task, and trying to reduce it to some policy rules doesn't really work. It needs skill and judgement. If the test really is reliable then none of the media qualify in the same way as scientific journals and the like, the editing process has different aims. Spenny 20:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Crucial aspects of reliability

Reading over the guideline I am surprised to see two essential aspects of reliability near completely absent from the description. Revised. 22:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Relevance. A reliable source should be written purposefully to inform about the subject they are being cited for. Passing references, asides and similar statements should not be used. When a reference is written specifically for the topic, the editorial focus (and therefore the "fact checking" and resulting "accuracy") is on that topic, helping to ensure the reliability of the information. For example, a book about breast cancer is not a reliable source of information about heart attacks, except perhaps as correlated with breast cancer specifically. The author could be a well-respected doctor, but the focus of the work is on breast cancer and cardiology is likely outside the author's direct expertise in oncology.
Credibility. A reliable source should represent current knowledge and views of the topic, including information and opinions about historical views. Some sources lack reliability, as they will tend to represent obsolete, disproved and inaccurate information in relation to current knowledge and views. A book about particle physics from the 1960s would be significantly out-of-date and out-of-step with a modern understanding of particle physics. A book about ancient Christian history from the 1860s would be similarly obsolete and contrary to the current understanding of the subject. Some such sources have been explicitly discredited, but others omit and/or lack the context of significant discoveries and revisions of the claims and theories presented since their publication. There are surely exceptions to such a rule, but they are exceptions, not the common example.

Thoughts? Vassyana 21:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I dislike the term "Recency", but would agree to something along the lines of Credible. Some sources have been explicitly discredited, and others obviously cannot be credited due to the ommission more current knowledge. Alot depends on the field, "recency" would be a good description in some areas but not others. I think "credible" is more accurate in general. I do believe "relevance" is very important concept when choosing sources. I always thought of it in terms NOR rather than RS, but I do see how it can be dealt with in terms of reliability.--BirgitteSB 21:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You raise a very good point. I have revised my presentation appropriately. Vassyana 22:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Are there actual examples of disagreements about sources based on these concerns? I think when these kinds of issues come up, people generally use common sense. I'm wondering if being explicit about these factors would be useful or WP:CREEPy. ←Ben^B4 22:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the prominence of passing and out-of-context mentions cited to support reliable sourcing and notability in AfDs demonstrates the need for a relevance criteria, as an example. It terms of credibility, I've regularly encountered people looking to use historical and obsolete sources for direct citation of claims. That may be biased by my exposure, as I largely edit and watch religious articles, so such problems may be less prominent in other areas than the "liberal arts". However, considering the vast portion of encyclopedic knowledge that is "historical" and "social" in subject, it would be useful to have some guidance in the guideline. I hope that helps clarify my perception of need. Cheers! Vassyana 23:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I personally would alter the above wording by stressing that less-relevant sources should not be given equal weight -- if there is a more-relevant source that says the same thing, use that, and if that more-relevant source contradicts it, toss the info. Separately, I partly agree with BenB4 -- how explicitly do all these things need to be said? It's my feeling you could probably generalize your above two paragraphs to about four sentences and get the point across just as well.--Father Goose 20:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand that they seem obvious to you and Ben. However, it's really not that obvious to many people. As I said, even passing mentions are often cited as proof of the availability of reliable sources in many AfDs. It is not uncommon for people to directly cite Tacitus, Origen and similar historical figures for facts and context, without modern reliable third-party sources to verify the claims cited. Given those trends, I would say it is important to make the clarification in this guideline. If you both feel the distinction is correct, just a bit obvious, it would not hurt to include it in the guideline for those who don't see it as obvious. Vassyana 02:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not know whether this proposal was written (partially) in response to the disagreements that we had (as far as I am concerned still have) the article Prem Rawat (e.g. the quote by Jan van der Lans about him), but I see very little problem when using sources that could possibly be somewhat obsolete as long as we clearly and explicitly state the year of who said what. Andries 16:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

With regards to credibility, there should be some indication that the view that the source presents is obsolete. I do not see any indication that the view of the source is obsolete in Jan van der Lans view on Rawat. Wat Van der Lans said at that time about Rawat was, I believe, quite credible for Rawat at that time. Andries 16:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a dispute long gone, for me at least. It's also more than a little rude to make such assumptions. Regardless, I don't think van der Lans would qualify as an "obsolete" source under the proposed idea. However, that would be an issue for the appropriate article's talk page, not here. Vassyana 04:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

<undent> Old sources can still be valid sources of information: for example, The Origin of Species gives information on Baden Powell (mathematician) that is entirely credible, giving more detail while in no way conflicting with information from modern historians. .. dave souza, talk 18:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Since this is a guideline, and we're encouraged to use some sense, a small handful of exceptions would really have little bearing. Additionally, in my reasoning I explicitly stated there exceptions, but they are just that ... exceptions. Remember, we're supposed to present a summary of what modern reliable references state about a given topic. A "further references" section would be an appropriate place to point people towards other information and historical sources for the topic, so they may do some research of their own. As a general rule, historical and obsolete sources are not reliable indicators of current knowledge. There may be cases where such sources are useful for illustrating or discussing a topic. In most such instances, it's simply a matter of referring to the historical source(s) as used in reliable third-party sources. In that case, the "credibility" standard would change nothing, since a reliable third-party reference is the source. Vassyana 21:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for these being a "small handful" of exceptions? ;) It's a judgement call as to what is credible, and the most recent reference isn't necessarily the best - for example, Weikart may be the most recent historian writing about Darwin, but his work has roughly nil credibility. A more valid approach is to ask that sources be regarded as accurate and authoritative by current expert opinion in the relevant area of study. .. dave souza, talk 22:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed from project page

The statement under discussion was added to the policy page and I removed it. We have barely discussed the issue and it is a big mistake.

The proposition that to be a reliable source, the source in question must be about the subject it is cited for is patently wrong. For example, we cite news articles all the time for statements they make on any subject treated in the article. Any serious source applies fact checking to all its statements, not just those on the subject. About the farthest you can go is that everything else being the same, a source about an issue is more reliable than one in which the issue is merely mentioned. That affects notability as well.

There are millions and millions of citations on Wikipedia to sources that are not about the subject in question. Pick any well-written article and look at the citations. A new rule like this, if enforced, would be catastrophically disruptive. Wikidemo 06:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I put the statement back. There is strong agreement demonstrated for it on this page, to the point that some people thought it was too obvious. One person expressed some concern, but the example they cite was well-within the bounds of the language used. Just because you disagree does not destroy the consensus demonstrated for the concept. Vassyana 20:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Responding to your particular points, your example is exactly what it is intended to combat. Passing mentions from the media are among the worst kind of "accurate" citations. As expressed throughout Wikipedia by many users, news media is among the least reliable of reliable sources, barring the exemplary examples of journalistic integrity. Passing mentions in news media are hardly as trustworthy. To be sure, serious sources do a full fact-checking. However, passing mentions and tangential comments are generally given very little scrutiny. Editors and fact-checkers are overworked and underpaid, and focus their scrutiny the most on the central topic and assertions made. Passing mentions and anecdotes tend to be glossed over. Personally, I'm not aware of any well-written and properly sourced article that relies on passing mentions. Could you perhaps provide some examples? Regardless, it's lazy, sloppy and poor scholarship to rely on passing mentions. Heck, in most secondary schools I'm aware of, that would not be acceptable sourcing, let alone in post-secondary education or an encyclopedia. Vassyana 20:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not I who disagree. It is millions of editors who have written millions of articles. It is simply a wrong statement about how articles are constructed. Even if it had consensus on this page, which it does not, it is wildly incorrect. Wikidemo 00:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensus can change. As for consensus on this page, you're the first person to have expressed direct disagreement with the principle espoused. The main complain was that it might be too obvious, and therefore a bit creepy. Vassyana 02:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll expand on the point that the rationale above represents a severe misunderstanding of how newspapers and sources work. here is a typical case in point, an article about efforts to combat graffiti. It is citable, and I have cited it, for the proposition that a flight attendant killed on 9/11 used to skateboard down a particular street, that a certain gentleman used to perform at a 1940s all-Asian nightclub, and that a famous columnist made a certain waiter famous. The reason this is all reliable is that the Chronicle has pretty good fact checking and research for local matters. The same authors who write about one aspect of local history write about other aspects as well. There is a considerable store of research notes at the paper. They get things like birth dates, death dates, cities of residence, people's occupations, who is related to whom, and the background historical milestones and cultural landmarks right no matter what the article is about. The article may be the only reliable source out there for the proposition that Romolo Place, a 2-block long alleyway, is a steep street. Reliable sources generally do not wax extensively about the steepness of alleys and if the issue is relevant and you find a good source for it, you should use it. Wikipedia does not, and cannot, make it a prerequisite that the article has to be about those subjects to be citable. That would close Wikipedia to 90-95% of all of the reliable information out there in the world.

You may have a valid point to make, that when weighing the relative reliability of sources where multiple sources are available, everything else being equal the source devoted to a particular topic is the more reliable one. But note the caveats - multiple sources available, everything else being equal, and more reliable as opposed to reliable only if. Phrasing this as an outright prohibition against citing articles for other than the subject of the article is taking the issue an order of magnitude too far, a case of losing the reality for the abstract theory about sources. Wikidemo 01:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If you can't find a reliable source about the lives of the flight crews of the 9/11 flights, Larry Ching & Forbidden City, or Caen's writing about Sam Wo (and its oh so rude waiter), you're just not looking very hard. The same goes for Romolo Place, which is mentioned in at least a few travel guides as having a sharp incline. Are those source difficult to find online for free? Sure. Are they difficult to find with a minimal investment of time and/or money? Not really. Vassyana 02:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I found a reliable source, the San Francisco Chronicle. For the flight attendant the article was about graffiti but the origin of the statement is its in-person interview with a man who knew her as a child. You won't find a better. The Chronicle is also the best source for Herb Caen's writing and the people thereby made famous (they're the successor to the Examiner, where he wrote, they own his archive, they publish his books, and their editors and writers knew him personally). It's clearly the best source for Larry Ching the singer - Ben Fong Torres, their entertainment editor, was the one who befriended and rediscovered Ching in his later years and who produced his only album. A travel guide is a better source than the newspaper about the steepness of a street? Hardly. So in short, bzzzxz. Wrong. Next? Wikidemo 03:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with Wikidemo on the addition of this section to the guideline. The problem is that the focus of a source is an indicator of probable reliability rather than a giving a cut-and-dried determination. I would be fine with the proposed addition if it were phrased to say that it is preferable that the focus of the source be the subject under comment - as it currently stands, I think Vassyana's addition is too severe in its proscription of other sources. CIreland 13:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

"Think tanks" and "Media watchdogs"

I've been investigating a POV conflict and I've seen some debate over the inclusion of material sourced to think tanks and media watchdogs. Usually these kinds of sources have a bias to the left or right. Examples: Media Matters (left-leaning watchdog), FAIR (left-leaning watchdog), AEI (right-leaning think tank), Brookings Institution (left-leaning think tank), John Stossel (right-leaning reporter, who frequently presents "watchdog-like" commentary).

Are these reliable sources? These entities seem to be somewhere in the middle ground between unreliable blogs and the mainstream media. We accept mainstream media as a source, we generally reject blogs, but these sources are neither - so what do we do about them? I scanned through the RS policy and I didn't find anything specific (though I may have missed it). Any thoughts? ATren 14:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that they can be used for verification purposes but should be used with other sources that would help establish the importance of what is being included. I believe the problem comes when you, let's say, "soapbox the source." In other words, we should not portray these inclusions as "the truth" or use them for POV pushing purposes. MrMurph101 01:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I've seen web sites such as these excluded on their face for being blogs by advocacy editors. Since their content is presented in reverse time order, they fit the definition of a blog (gotcha!). The policy could be improved by further qualifying what makes a web site with content presented in reverse time order reliable and what makes it not reliable. patsw 12:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Can a source be out of date?

If so when? and how can this be decided? For instance if a book written a number of years ago is used as a citation but is not necessarily accurate any longer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neon white (talk • contribs) 22:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course. New discoveries are made, new data is compiled, old data is reinterpreted in new ways. However, you can not just put a time frame to it. Some very old sources are still considered the best in their field, and even discredited sources can be used in some circumstances (such as discribing past views on a topic). Determining "when" a source is too out of date to be used is a very tough thing to deterimine and depends on the individual source and the statement it is suporting. Blueboar 23:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Bauer is very important in the studies of early Christian history. However, his extreme position has been repudiated, while the general idea of his theory (a diverse marketplace of sects, with no overriding orthodoxy) has been generally accepted with some revisions and updates. We should rely on modern authors to tell us how (and which of) his ideas have endured and how they've been revised, or what context they're placed in, in relation to current theories. Murray's pan-European witchcult theory has been thoroughly rejected by the vast majority of scholars. However, her work in Middle Eastern studies is generally well-regarded, though critiqued and revised (much as Bauer's theories). Again, modern reliable third-party references are necessary to let us know what the actual legacy of her work is and how it is incorporated & revised in modern thought. Considering the "hard" sciences move faster than the "social" sciences, the need for more current review literature is even more important in the "hard" sciences. The best way to find out whether a source is obsolete or not, in what way and how it impacted modern studies, is to review current literature. The most up-to-date literature is not necessarily important, or best, since peers and other authors may have not yet have time to review any novel claims or statements. Something relatively recent, preferably reviewing & compiling existing research and literature, would probably be most desirable and appropriate. Just some thoughts. Vassyana 00:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The first edition of Encyclopædia Britannica (circa 1771) might be used in the history of chemistry and physics. The periodic table of the elements was not described but the chemical classifications which led to the periodic table are present. Although much of that material is obsolete, I used that same edition as a source for Armillary sphere (although the material was in the Geography chapter which is rather obsolete for that topic). (SEWilco 01:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC))

certainly, but this is not the problem. The intelligent use of historical sources to show the historical state of knowledge is of course very desirable, and makes for good articles. But the real problem is that the century old Brittanica and Catholic encyclopedia are still used to support an amazing array of humanities and history articles, though they generally support them in an incomplete and over-interpreted fashion. Personally, I think all such content should be clearly labelled for exactly what has been copied, and moved to the talk page. Better a stubbified article than a misleading one. Yes, there's a tag at the bottom, but it doesnt even say honestly what part it is that is likely to wrong. DGG (talk) 03:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, it is one of the issues I have long argued should be included in this policy. Wales said himself ([1]): ...we thought we could use the 1911 Britannica which is in the public domain. Use that as a base to get some articles. And frankly they were unusable. They were just out of date.. First, modern research is better then old research. If they contradict each other, we should assume old one is wrong. And also, lot of old research is highly POVed - 1911 EB shows us British Imperial white men's POV, Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary shows us Russian Imperial POV, Soviet Encyclopedia shows us guess what POV, and even academic works from that period are much less usable then modern ones.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

An issue that hasn't been raised is that very old sources may be hard to evaluate for reliabilility. For example, a hundred years ago there was little objective, non-partisan journalism. Newspapers were usually active players in partisan politics, much more so than today. Readers at the time would have been aware of the prejudices of a particular paper. If we were to dig out a newspaper or magazine story from an archive today we might not be in a position to judge its biases without a long review of the entire paper's contents. I know of one article on a political/economic topic that has a half dozen sources from magazines over a 100 years old. While they may be of interest as primary sources for the viewpoints of the authors, they shouldn't be used as secondary sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe Piotr's gripe is with famous encyclopaedias rather than old newspapers (although he has been known to advocate modern Polish newspapers as a legitimate source of anti-Russian rants). If we talk about historical events (for example, medieval battles), encyclopaedia is always preferrable to newspaper, because the latter does not involve any scholarship. Piotr's quest to impeach all pre-1991 sources as "fraudulent" is nothing new. From the fact that there were no Polish historical writings of considerable scholarship a century ago, he infers that there were no such writings in other languages, including Russian and English. This methodology blurs the line between supposedly outdated scholarship and newspaper editorials. It is not the age of a source but the level of its scholarly reliability that do matter. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit late to this, but isn't your characterization of Piotr's position rather a misrepresentation? I believe the issue really revolves around "encyclopedic" Soviet sources (indeed, any Soviet source) being cited as a factual accounting of anything unless it is validated from non-Soviet sources. The "Concise Encyclopedia of the Latvian SSR", for example, is full of complete fabrications. It's fine to say "In the CELSSR is written...". It's another thing to say, "XYZ happened" <ref>Concise Encyclopedia of the Latvian SSR, pg...</ref>. Similarly, Soviet era papers have been unequivocally proven to print outright lies (e.g., outcomes of trials, what witnesses testified, what judges ruled, before the trial was ever conducted). Where it comes to "history", the Soviets declared that "the purpose of history to serve politics"--meaning that Soviet-originated sources (and anything new but still indicating the same as Soviet sources in the face of contrary reputable scholarship) is null and void as a reliable source. It can only be written that the "Soviet account of ABC is XYZ." Or "ABC's position regarding XYZ reflects the historic Soviet position 123." Soviet historiography is a fascinating topic, and I have no issue with referencing it as much as people like. However, it summarily cannot be taken as representative of hard facts (did, or did not, something specific happen; was, or was not, something specific said). — Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

One thing is porting 1911 EB, "using it" properly is something different. Properly is the key here. It all depends how you use the old sources. It was imperative in the older times to not only present facts, but also to be big on judging them. This is frown upon in modern research which, if gives judgments, only does so when the judgment is unquestionably mainstream, like "the Holocaust" was a crime against humanity or that the communist economy appeared to be less effective than the capitalist one.

You cannot talk about antiquity and ignore Edward Gibbon. If you use the classical sources to refer to facts, you are doing the right thing, exactly the same way as any other scholar does. If you are using the old sources' mentoring tone to pass their judgments in order to POV-push, you are to be reverted.

That scholars often refer to newest sources, when the older ones have the same info, simply to demonstrate to the reader and their peers that they read everything that has been published on the topic.

If, of course, the old facts are proven false in new sources, this becomes important. But if the facts are not disputed and only the facts are passed from old sources, they are just as good as the new ones. Readers may check this for the older context of this debate. --Irpen 21:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

So if somebody inserts statements from XIX century about how nation X is an "inferior race" then one needs to find a counter argument that "nation X isn't an inferior race". That means every fable, propaganda can be inserted at will, as people usually don't respond to non-existing things(for example is there a book disproving that politician Y is NOT a reptilian(a conspiracy theory)). Basically Irpen your proposal would make any piece of Nazi, Soviet or nationalist or racist propaganda that never was countered in serious books a reliable source.--Molobo 21:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. The problem is that certain editors like to POV push using some fringe old publications. For example, in Warsaw Uprising (1794) (now a FA) it took us weeks to find out that that the Russian unarmed soldiers slaughtered in a church - according to the 19th century Russian Imperial source - where neither unarmed, nor in a chuch, nor slaughtered. But it's hard to disprove such fringe theories, which are simply ignored by modern scholars. The correct solution is to agree that old sources, as well as those from totalitarian regimes, are not reliable for any controversial statements, because they were too often serving a political agenda.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"Inferior race" is a judgment. If someone states that the "according to the Chronicle X" the people A settled the territory B at the year C, it is a fact. If by now new sources appeared based on a more recently found chronicle, we would update this finding. --Irpen

Then what is a tale about "five hundred unarmed soldiers murdered in only one of the Warsaw Ortodox Chuuches"? Other then a proof that old historians liked to invent fiction to suit their political masters?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

If another source shows that the account is false, we have a whole different story. This may happen with the modern source as well. It sometimes happens that the modern source can be disproved in a similar fashion. --Irpen 22:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Our job isn't to dig through every obscure XIX century source, Stalinist source, Nazi source somebody finds and try to find books contradicting whatever fantastic claim the source makes. To avoid such situations policy on reliable sources was created. Fantastic claims and fringe theories should be moved to articles about their makes.--Molobo 01:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Molobo, your abstruse thoughts and high-minded ideas are getting increasingly difficult to parse. You will be well-served to return to mainspace editing, which has been your specialty. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the reliability of a source is a matter of editorial judgement. For many historical topics the older sources are IMHO more reliable. Lets consider as an example the ethnic composition of Karabakh region. I bet that almost all modern publications would have easily identifiable either Armenian or Azeri bias since the topic is quite politically loaded. On the other hand for the 1907 Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary it was just a question of statistics. Thus, the data from Brockhaus is way more reliable in that case (as it was recognized by both Azari and Armenian editors). The other problem is postmodernism, many authors believe that producing versions of the well known historical events different from the mainstream they would get better commercial success of their publications. Often if we are looking for the mainstream the older sources may be a proof that the theory is not a recent invention of an alternative historian. It is especially important for the xSU an Eastern Europe - when we want to use national historiography, we must take into account that most of the 20th century sources are Soviet ones (often strongly censured and distorted), the 21st century sources are often alternative history, national romanticism and imperial dreams. On the hand the second-half of the 19th century while marred with the fight with "imperial conservatives" and "progressivists" are often more free from the bias (and their bias is easier to identify). Still obviously the style of the historic research have changed dramatically, the new primary sources are introduced every day, etc. Still in many cases the older sources are obviously usable Alex Bakharev 02:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Statistics from a century past are certainly out-of-date when discussing the current population of an area. We should not be avoiding POVs in our articles. We should represent all notable POVs in fair proportion. Compensating for the failures of modern sources is not our purpose here. We're supposed to build an encyclopedia using information verifiable in reliable sources, in proportion, without our own views. Nothing more or less. Vassyana 07:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

And your point is?.. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty plain response. The "need" for historical/obsolete sources based on POV problems of modern sources is no need at all, and is contradictory to the policies and goals of Wikipedia. Vassyana 19:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Even statistics in old 19th century sources are often questionable, including the very assumptions made to collect them. Thus Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary in its article on Jew provides statistics about Jews like the supposed fact that up to 30% have crooked noses ( "нос вообще довольно большой, часто (до 30%) кривой"), among other antisemitic and racist filth prevalent in the viewpoints of the time. Should this statistic be proudly cited in Wikipedia as well? If someone cites it, on what grounds could we reject it? By finding research that contradicts the finding, as Irpen demands above? But where to find the research that is measuring the shape of people's noses these days? Obviously nowhere, because that type of research has been totally discredited.

This is the danger of using 19th century sources - it will sneak 19th century POV into Wikipedia if we permit it. This danger is compounded by the fact that many old sources are now public domain and online, so inserting information from them into Wikipedia is a matter of copy and paste. Meanwhile, due to the current situation in copyright law, modern books containing up to date research can only be accessed in university libraries in paper form, making them inaccessible to most people writing on Wikipedia, who simply don't have the time to spend hours in university libraries chasing down references. Balcer 17:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Technical note: gotta love Google Books.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

A very inadequate remedy at this point, unfortunately. Only a small proportion of text in a book is accessible, and anyway it cannot be used directly in Wikipedia because it is still copyrighted. Balcer 17:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed additions to the guideline

I'd like to propose the following additions to the guideline:

Modern sources are on average more reliable then old ones
The older the source, the more likely it is to have problems with neutrality
Sources written under non-democratic regimes often have a political agenda and are on average less reliable then sources written under democratic regimes

What do you think?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no guarantee that sources written under democratic regimes don't have a political agenda. Plus, no country had a true democratic system before the XX century, when women got the vote. So, I would change that to "sources written under regimes where the government controlled or censored most publications". Other than that, it sounds like a reasonable, common sense proposal for a guideline. Balcer 18:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

So if in a country most of publications censored by private owners, the sources are more reliable? --Dojarca 00:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, although it couldn't hurt to stress that totalitarian regimes sources are very unreliable.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Totally inappropriately sweeping statement. What matters most is the scholarly integrity of the source's author. Some highest quality academic work came out from the authors who worked in the USSR. At the same time, some total bullshit came out at the same time as well. We should judge the authors individually. We should judge the sources individually, not construct some universal excuse to disregard them. Finally, it matters a lot for such judgment whether the article merely references pure facts or passes judgments from the sources and different standards apply. Sourced facts have higher validity than sourced judgments. It does not mean that certain sources are not prone to factual errors (even the modern EB is) or to the falsification. But sweeping generalizations such as the ones by Piotrus are unhealthy and unhelpful. Good faith editing, reasonable judgment based on source's quality, avoidance of double standards like greater scrutiny to the info not to one's liking and a more persmissive attitude otherwise. These all are important keys to resolve such disputes rather than throwing buckets of black paint in the wide areas of sources. --Irpen 21:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Per Balcer comments below, nobody is proposing to ban all Soviet sources. But it is a fact that if we were to pick at random five academic works on history, published in modern USA, Soviet Union, imperial Britain and Nazi Germany, they would not be equally good - with USA being the most reliable, and Nazis - least (which does not mean that there are no poor modern USA academic work, or good ones created under Nazis - but those will be exception to the rule). Bottom line is that if one can chose to read a modern Western academic work, or 50-year old Soviet publication, one should not think they (on average) present equal reliability. The RS is based on generalizations and the above one is a reasonable one; that said I have long argued that we should have a more specific sections on reliability by time/period/author and publisher.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Section break

I think that the reliability of sources is a matter of an editorial judgment and the good faith of editors becomes important. Is an editor here to develop and encyclopedia or to fulfill the nationalist agenda through cherry-picked sources?

For instance, the Piotrus' note above amazingly omits the scholarly argument as a whole. The source produced by a reputable scholar is infinitely more reliable than the source produce by a practical no one, be it the blog or even the newspaper (if we are dealing not with current events but history.) Mainstream newspapers with editorial oversight is a good source for the articles on the current events. Quality news and analysis is what makes a newspaper reputable. But newspapers are not expected to be sources of the material on the remote history. There are professional publications in the field of history, books, etc. Non-peer-reviewed source (that is anything except the scholarly journal and conference) can only be valid if its author has a scholarly reputation, be it a blog, an unaffiliated web-site or a newspaper. If a blog can be confirmed to a known scholar, it is an OK source. If a scholar writes an article and publish it in a daily (or weekly) newspaper, it is an OK source. If the same paper publishes article by no one otherwise established, the source is unacceptable. If a virtual no one still makes it to publish his work in the peer-reviewed journal, it becomes acceptable. If a virtual no one writes a book and self-publishes it, it is unacceptable. If an established scholar writes a book and gets it published by a leading academic publisher (or a University Press), the book is acceptable even though it may not be strictly speaking "peer-reviewed".

Brilliant academics leaved under any regime. We have to look at their scholarly achievements to judge their integrity.

Finally, I agree w/ Balcer re Google book. There is another huge problem with google books or using any books one did not read for obvious reasons. Searching for an isolated phrase one likes to find, picking it through google books and referring to it is a common in WP trick. --Irpen 18:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You are changing the topic, Irpen. I'd love to discuss the reliablity of authors and publishers but this is not the section for it. For the record, I don't see why mainstream newspapers w/ editorial oversight cannot produce good articles on history. But if you want to continue this avenue of thought, please start a new section.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not changing the topic, Piotrus. This all boils down back to the question of academic integrity and good judgment. If there is a reason to believe that the old sources may be compromised by institutional biased of their time (India-related topics in 1911 EB or overall antisemitic policies of the Russian Empire) the respective sources' reliability is questionable. However, Edward Gibbon (old source) remains an authority on the Old Rome, Boris Piotrovsky (Soviet source) is the unquestionable authority on Scythia and Irakliy Andronnikov, also Soviet, remains the authority on Lermontov despite he also worked in the USSR.

So, academic integrity, good judgment and distinction to whether facts or opinions from sources are being passed will take you a long way. --Irpen 21:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a bit of a straw man argument. No one is proposing that Wikipedia forbids citing works of such famous scholars as Edward Gibbon in some instances where their research is still valid and has not been surpassed to this day (though obviously there are plenty of modern authors with much greater knowledge writing about Roman history, so there is no special reason to rely on Gibbon to any great extent, for example). For such scholars, their biases and mistakes have been studied by other authors and are well understood, and hence manageable. The problems arise when, for example, someone tries to use an old compendium like Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary, written by anonymous or totally unknown authors, and certainly tainted to some degree by the outlook prevalent in the 19th century. A source like that certainly may contain some correct facts, but also other facts which are no longer relevant and useful today, or which are tainted by POV prevalent at the time, or by some dead ideology that the author was beholden to. The guidelines would simply suggest that when dealing with a little known author from the 19th century, or one writing under totalitarian dictatorship, special care should be taken when judging the reliability of his works. I think this is entirely reasonable. Balcer 21:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The question stemmed from a discussion i had concerning a statement made about a current situation which cited a quote from a book that was no more than a few years ago but even so, in my opinion, it no longer accurately represented the current situation and yet it seemed to fit all the current guidelines for a credible source. Obviously, as an author, you do write as a snapshot of the present time of writing and some books are out of date even before they are published. For example i have many computer books from only a few years ago that make statements that are no completely inaccurate do to fast improvements in technology. --Neon white 22:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

A very good point; it was brought up before when we were suggesting a more specific list of examples, where we would note that some areas - like computer science or medicine - tend to evolve much faster compared to likes one history.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 00:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Can a source be out of date? It's a surprise to me that such a questions could be even raised. Even if a source is a Scroll or anything from the 19th century etc. , the only thing needed is adding "according to" , that should do it. So in case you're not sure if the source is a reliable one, just consider specifying "who says so"--Termer 08:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Irpen's: "I think that the reliability of sources is a matter of an editorial judgment and the good faith of editors becomes important. Is an editor here to develop and encyclopedia or to fulfill the nationalist agenda through cherry-picked sources?" [my emphasis]

I believe I've answered this for the most part with my reply on Soviet sources. "Good faith" only extends to the discussion of reputable sources and honest differences in interpretation. "Good faith" does not extend to rendering every possible contention of reality in the absence of supporting sources and ascribing to them the attributes of honest differences in interpretation, and then alleging that the resulting editing conflicts reflect some genuine controversy.

Sources have been denounced as "nationalist" simply by a person's name, including quoting book reviews totally out of context--in one case, arguing against a "nationalist" editor's source--and when you read the book review in full, it used "nationalist" ONLY in the context of (a) MOTIVATED to find all available reputable sources regarding historical facts and presenting them, and (b) IN FACT, FAULTED THE "NATIONALIST" EDITOR FOR NOT PROVIDING ENOUGH INTERPRETATION."

The "nationalist"="unreliable/POV/cherry-picked" mantra is a complete misrepresentation, and, as in my particular example, a misrepresentation so gross that it can only be intentional.

Only in WP are Soviet accounts with no other validation (or, in fact, completely unsourced editorial contentions) called "neutral" and Baltic/Eastern European accounts validated by western sources called "POV." I apologize, Irpen, that I personally find this to be a complete perversion of the concept of "good faith." — Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I just hope it's obvious that source being "modern" or "Western" does not automatically translate to "objective" by virtue of its origin. These are as much affected with prejudices, political determinism, silly errors and misconceptions as anything. This is more so the case when dealing with Eastern Europe matters. Survival of many a precious myth depends on being selectively blind to the inconvenient evidence. Yury Tarasievich 09:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know a lot of detail about eastern Europe. However, keep in mind that Wikipedia is a compendium of human knowledge at the present time, not truth in any deep sense, and not human knowledge at some point in the past or at one particular place or culture. To choose an extreme example, if by some miracle there were a Wikipedia in the 15th Century, it would be only fair to present that there were two competing theories in Europe about the relationship of the earth and the sun, and which one was orbiting around the other. Those who could find reliable sources could add the mainstream theories arising from Asia, Africa, and the Americas on the subject. Now of course, we would not seriously present these as alternate theories but we could cover them as historical issues if suitably notable. There's an inherent risk in using old sources that you're covering something that is simply not accepted wisdom anymore, or has been further refined through intervening events and research. That's not to say that a very old source is inherently unreliable. I just used a 100+ year old book to cite something about a particular Native American tribe because it was written by an expert and was the most direct account of something. There is a deep and unanswerable question behind all this. Wikipedia tries very hard not to be Western-centric, and to be open to views of all of humanity. However, the majority of editors are from the English-speaking world, and even if they try hard to be fair and balanced there is a bias that creeps in. Perhaps Jossi's statement on another subject, below, is useful in considering whether a dated source is appropriate: He says, "You can always think of the reader: Does that viewpoint improve the understanding of the subject?" We're after understanding, not truth. -- Wikidemo 01:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed additions

I would like to see the following two additions to "Aspects of reliability".

Relevance. A reliable source should be written purposefully to inform about the subject they are being cited for. When a reference is written specifically for the topic, the editorial focus (and therefore the "fact checking" and resulting "accuracy") is on that topic, helping to ensure the reliability of the information. Passing references, asides and similar statements should not be used.

Credibility. A reliable source should represent current accepted knowledge and views of the topic, including information and opinions about historical views. Some out-of-date sources have been explicitly discredited, but others lack the context of significant discoveries and theories presented since their publication, as well as revisions of the claims presented. The most recent sources may not be desirable, with some exceptions such as textbooks. New sources are not yet reviewed by peers and have not allowed time for rebuttals or critiques.

Thoughts? Vassyana 19:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree on relevance proposal. I saw too often editors going to google books searching for a particular phrase they want to add to the article in a content dispute, and then using such "referencing" to sources whose topic are totally different and certain issue were mentioned in passing. This (last two paragpraphs of the entry) is one example when references to books specifically devoted to the subject were countered by citing the books whose subject is totally irrelevant. Here is the lengthy thread that represents an attempt to impeach the source by googling the phrase "authorname+nationalist" and citing those irrelevant sources to counter the facts referenced to narrow studies of the subjects.

The credibility proposal, as it is now is too strong, though. It is OK to say that the modern sources are more reliable than the older ones that is if they contradict, the claim referenced to the newer source is stronger. However, the undisputed claim referenced to the old source is better than to not have any info on the subject. In some fields the state of the art did not change significantly, while in some it did. When the new discoveries discredited the old claims, it is a one thing. However, it is not always the case. --Irpen 03:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The only way to reflect whether or not dated sources are still accurate and relevant is through modern sources. Textbooks and review literature are usually two of the best sources for judging the reliability and historical context of out-of-date works. It is extremely notable if a work is accepted as-is for more than a couple decades, in every field with which I am familiar. (Please correct me if you're aware of a field that differs in that regard.) The usual best-case scenario is a criticism of a handful of core assumptions or conclusions, and significant revision of the theories and claims presented. Also, WP:V clearly makes allowance for undisputed claims, so I really feel such an example is not salient to the discussion. Vassyana 06:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the relevance proposal would allow people to challenge and remove sources from topics for which there are no directly relevant sources. We use a lot of those, e.g., in the featured Plug-in hybrid where several sources talk about batteries or conventional hybrids but not specifically plug-ins. ←Ben^B4 04:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

to deal with this, replace "Passing references, asides and similar statements should not be used. " with "the most precise available source should be used." DGG (talk) 04:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

If there are no directly relevant sources, it is highly questionable whether Wikipedia should have an article on such a topic. However, that article seems to mostly rely on sources that deal with plug-in hybrids. The claims about hybrid batteries and general hybrid design often cite sources that directly deal with those topics. So, all in all, the article seems to reference sources that were "written purposefully to inform about the subject they are being cited for". In essence, I don't see any conflict. Vassyana 06:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I would add a carve out for the Credibility section... some articles include history sections that talk about the evolving state of thought about the topic. In those cases, we have to be able to cite old/discredited/out of date sources - because that is exactly what we are talking about in the section. Blueboar 12:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe we "have to" use historical sources to discuss the historical development of the subject. On the contrary, it's important that we use relatively recent sources to place those obsolete theories and ideas in context. We need to know why that obsolete theory was (and is) important, and also how those claims were discredited or revised. Margaret Murray's pan-European witchcult and luminiferous aether are both thoroughly discredited, or "obsolete", but it's not difficult at all to find recent references discussing their historical context and failings. If modern sources do not discuss those thoughts and claims at all, it is unlikely they are important or notable enough to include in the article. There may be exceptions, but I'd imagine they're rare. Since this is a guideline (and we can use some sense), I don't see that as a problem. Of course, that is my understanding and perception of the matter. Vassyana 23:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

See also [[Wikipedia:There is no common sense, WP:CREEP and WP:PAPER. Has anyone ever really suggested using some science textbook from 100 years ago over one made available today for a reference? It seems like instruction creep to me--I haven't seen the issue come up. It also seems unnecessary to assume anything about notability historically speaking, especially considering Wikipedia is not paper. If something was notable in the past, does it really matter how notable it is today? Should we reduce the size of luminiferous aether every few years simply because it is garners less interest as time goes on? You seem to be assuming that historical sources only pertain to science and that everything of historical value will necessarily continue to be covered by the most modern sources. At some point, people may stop rehashing certain historical topics, especially as they get very old. It's information overload--we only gain more and more information over time and only so much author-brain-power to cover it all. What people believed and their perceptions of things in their own time period (or time periods other than their own) are certainly worth documenting. -Nathan J. Yoder 05:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I would agree on relevance. Obviously, on scientific topics it is possible to "extend" the implications of sources to topics which they do not specifically speak about--because the laws of the universe apply. In the end, that makes the source being quoted relevant.

Unfortunately, in the geopolitical arena, "reliable" sources are often quoted with great flourishes to argue a point, Q.E.D. when in fact it is only the contender's personal interpretation that the source even applies. That is, we wind up with: "I quoted an authoritative source therefore what I say is authoritative too"-itis. Discussing history requires reliable sources dealing with the specific topic at hand. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The second proposed addition:

- in part superfluous: where we discuss and cite the current view, that would already covered by the first proposed addition. Obviously an outdated source is not useful for citing current opinions. Thus, the opinion part will just waste space and time.

- in part it's also wrong, even for the reasons mentioned in the first proposed addition: Generally the original documents (with the exception of erata and information loss) provide the most accurate and reliable information source of facts about what those documents state. This is so well known that it's usually a requirement for serious articles (newspapers, science journal articles, historical reviews, ...). Harald88 19:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I've added relevance as there is clear agreement with the point. I will be revising credibility for further review, as there are obvious issues to many editors as it is current proposed. Vassyana 04:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Revised credibility

Credibility. Reliable sources should acturately reflect what is being discussed. When discussing the current state of affairs in a topic, the sources cited should reflect current accepted knowledge and views of the topic. When discussing historical views, the references should represent a modern understanding of the context and importance of those views. Some sources are obsolete in relation to modern information. The most recent sources may not be desirable, with some exceptions such as textbooks, as they have not yet allowed time for rebuttals and review. Some topics, such as discredited theories, have reduced coverage over time and editors should use the best available references. Generally, original sources provide the most accurate reference for what those documents state and may be useful for illustrating historical views, but analysis and interpretation of those sources should be rely on modern third-party references. (updated 22:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC))

I've tried my hand at a revision, based on concerns expressed above. Is this an improvement? Is this worse? What concerns does this version bring up? Vassyana 05:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Any comments? Vassyana 20:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Two comments... both relating to your first sentence. The first is simple: The reliability of a source often depends on what you are talking about. I agree that a source being used as a citation for a statement about current accepted knowledge and views should represent that knowledge and those views... but the way you phrase it, it makes it sound like this is the only kind of reliable source. But if you are discussing old views or the evolution of views, then a source that expresses what you are discussing is reliable. It depends on what you are talking about. The second is the requirement that the source includes information and opinions about historical views... a source can be reliable (and even current) without discussing old views. Blueboar 21:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. It was an error of poor phrasing on my part. I have revised the language accordingly. Does the revision clarify the point sufficiently? Vassyana 22:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if you were to say: "Reliable sources should acturately reflect what is being discussed. When discussing the current state of affairs in a topic, the sources cited should reflect current accepted knowledge and views of the topic." Blueboar 14:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Your suggestion has been incorporated. Vassyana 22:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I am still not sure of the need to say this... but you now say it very well. I agree with what it says... and I will bow to the rest of you to determine if it should be said. Blueboar 14:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: This approach makes sense in articles on science and similar topics, in articles on religion, philosophy, and other topics there are significant potential WP:NPOV problems which the language needs to take into account. We've already had significant problems with anti-religious editors claiming that well-regarded religious sources are not reliable for information on their own religion on grounds that religious belief is not "modern" and religious believers are not reliable. We need to use language which does not add ammunition to POV claims. Best, --Shirahadasha 13:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't see how it's any less important in the humanities. It's quite important to provide an accurate presentation. For example, the works of Bauer only gained prominence in English-speaking academics during the 1970s. A very vigorous debate has lead to a rejection of his extreme position, but affirmation of his central claims, among the general body of academics. If we're going to discuss orthodoxy and heterodoxy in early Christianity, in a way that presents the claims as established fact and/or consensus opinion, we will generally have to cite sources from the 1980s and on to reflect the current state of scholarship. Philosophy has similar cases, such as any article representing the current state of the philosophy of emotion would necessarily have to refer to Ronald de Sousa. It doesn't matter if religious belief is modern, only that we represent the modern view unless we're specifically discussing historical views of that religion. Additionally, this policy says nothing about religious people not being reliable. If that were the case, quite a broad amount of scholarship would be unreliable, and that's just ridiculous. Vassyana 00:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia:Reliable sources a policy?

One of the issues I came across with regard to duplicate content between Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:verifiability is that one is policy and the other is a guideline. WP:V defines what a reliable source is using content shared from WP:RS and because WP:V is a policy, would that then make WP:RS effectively policy? It's for this reason that information shouldn't be duplicated, unless it is a) via a template and b) there is a disclaimer that it's a guideline (e.g. "this section is part of a guideline and not a policy"). Because the Wikipedia community deemed WP:RS a guideline, I would say that invalidates the shared information as being policy, because WP:RS was created to define what reliable sources are, not WP:V.

Otherwise, we're at a standstill. In either case, I really think this needs to be rectified, as per my proposal on WP:RS to separate the content between the two pages further. As noted on Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Consensus_on_alterations_to_policy, there doesn't seem to be much consensus either way over having this content shared as it is, which is why various people are now debating what to do with regard to the duplicate content.

I have to wonder how many other policy/guideline pages this is an issue for, because I haven't seen any sections tagged "this was copied from a [policy or guideline] and should be treated as such" on policy/guideline pages. -Nathan J. Yoder 19:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a false conflict. WP:V only contains the broad definition of reliable sources, which I believe has the kind of broad consensus needed for a policy. The specific details are left to the guideline, as is appropriate. Vassyana 23:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The requirement that we cite to reliable sources is policy... stated not only in WP:V but also at WP:NOR. However, as Vassyana says, those policy pages do not go into details as to how to determine if a given sources is a reliable source. That is left to this guideline page. In other words the concept of RS (without the WP: in front) is to some degree policy... the page WP:RS however is a guideline. Blueboar 00:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:V covers most of the scholarship details directly under the 'Sources' heading. The section on self-published sources for WP:RS actually links back to WP:V, so at least that detail is part of WP:V. The most difficult-to-judge sources are the "self-published" ones, including many non-news/academic websites edited by multiple people. That's why I see it as problematic, because the harder sources are covered completely by WP:V. -Nathan J. Yoder 00:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they're difficult to judge at all. They lack the professionalism and editorial oversight required of reliable sources. Fairly simple. Vassyana 01:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Application of policy requires the good judgment of editors and consensus. No guideline will remove the needed for that and the effort needed to go through that process. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Vassyana - That kind of generalization (the "simple" one) is one of the reasons why I would like the guideline to use general descriptions of criteria, as well as the contrary assumption (judgment of news articles as inherently reliable). An approach treating it so black-and-white leads to the inclusion of many bad sources and exclusion of many good ones. Plus, none of this changes the fact that WP:V does cover a substantial portion of the details which aren't supposed to be there--if this weren't an issue, why wouldn't it all be made policy? How is self-published being defined anyway? I've seen different definitions--ones inclusive of basically all websites not accompanied by print medium and ones just limited to personal websites.

I'd be much more likely to trust an article "self-published" written by someone with a strong academic and/or professional background related to what they're writing about (not necessarily an expert per se), than some journalist covering some hot topic of science/engineering/technology and having their interns do some fact-checking for them. One of the issues brought up before was constant misreporting of science and technically related things (technical things being one of the most commonly reported on web-based mediums) in popular news--they often sensationalize, exaggerate, misrepresent or otherwise get things wrong. That's because their job is to sell ad space and professionalism or even expertise for that matter, get to play second fiddle.

What's even worse is that journalists are also used to establish notability of something in many cases where it's just something they mistakenly thought would be a good thing to cover, but ultimately wasn't as a popular subject as they made it out be.

With "self-published" sources you get ones that run the whole gamut, from the worst of the worst to almost the best (perhaps with scientific studies falling under "best"), which is why I was saying it's the hardest to judge. In any case, like I said in my essay, another problem is that we're violating NPOV by applying our judgment of the accuracy (veracity) of content instead of relying on the general public'c perception of it. It's kind of funny considering Wales denounced SPOV (scientific POV) along with many others, even though the relegation of scientific studies to this high level of status makes it mostly SPOV.

Jossi - Of course it always requires that, but it doesn't mean we should add needless confusion to policies and guidelines, otherwise everything would just be stuck under a policy headline with a strict list of 'dos and don'ts.' -Nathan J. Yoder 05:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:SPS already covers self-published information by established experts, as an exception to the rule. I also don't think there's any real debate going on about the (plainly apparent) definition of self-published. Regarding the SPOV, what you see is the result of the sciences generally having the editorial oversight, peer review and professionalism expected of what we consider the most reliable sources. I don't particularly see the issue with it, nor do I see a better way to establish the basic reliability of sources in a somewhat neutral fashion. Vassyana 05:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I know that, but it doesn't really address the main issues well. If it is uncontested, what is "self-published" then? Anything not available in print mediums? This still doesn't answer the question as to whether or not RS is policy--because you're pointing directly to V for a source on details of this, it suggests that it is policy (in a sense), leading to a contradiction. As I stated, there are plenty of professionals or researchers who aren't "experts" (which isn't really well defined anyway--do they need a Ph.D.? X number of books published?) that certainly know their stuff--this isn't something that can be glossed over. Likewise, we are blanket treating random journalists as experts which doesn't make sense considering their lack of expertise. Why would it be ok to make a blanket assumption that all this fact checking, especially when much of it done by interns and such, is equal? Hell, I can think of a few highly biased political organizations that publish fact-checked news with editorial oversight.

The SPOV issue is that way because the policies/guidelines were intentionally set to favor scientific POV and no other reason. The fact scientists tend to have good peer review is irrelevant to the fact that the people setting the policy made the choice that the scientific approach is the superior approach, meaning they have chosen that the scientific POV overrides the non-scientific POV.

My original essay included an NPOV-compliant solution to this. Reliability is to be assessed in an analogous fashion to how due-weight is (and similar to my proposal on notability a long time ago). How reliable the population considers a given source is the determining factor in whether or not Wikipedia will consider it reliable. Usually this means favoring sources with good peer review because that's what the population general favors, but just as we'd have to accept with due weight policy, if some major view creeps in supporting something like creationism, we are required to give creationist sources proportionate consideration in reliability. After all, why would we write an encyclopedia that has the minority decide reliability overriding the majority opinion? To do that would be to go against the most fundamental policy on all of Wikipedia--NPOV. (Random side note: I saw a quote from Wales saying this is supposed to be the sum of all human knowledge, but it's actually intentionally desigend to only be a certain subset of it.) -Nathan J. Yoder 06:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent) It appears, from my perspective, that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of NPOV, and also of the "knowledge" spoken of by Mr. Wales. NPOV is not what public opinion polls tell us is the "majority opinion", which is essentially what you argue. Even if it were, what particular polls would we use? What about the vast majority of subjects which have no appreciable measure of public opinion? What about those subjects, particularly in science, where the public opinion is grossly inaccurate? NPOV is predicated on representing the corpus of published sources with editorial oversight and a reputation for accuracy, as well it should be. Also, you seem to conflate knowledge with information, which are not at all the same concepts. Vassyana 20:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

(Sorry for the late reply, I've been on a semi-break). You seem to be avoiding the primary question: is reliable sources policy? Regardless of the answer, it is problematic: if it is policy, then it's against consensus (as evidenced by the tag indicating such) and if it's not, then it conflicts with verifiability because they share the same content under both guideline and policy.

Whether or not popular opinion is wrong is entirely irrelevant, because Wikipedia doesn't exist to assess the veracity of anything. Your suggestion of priotizing science is advocacy of SPOV (scientific POV), which has been repeatedly rejected by many editors, including Wales himself. I should add, going against popular opinion wouldn't make any sense anyway (if it's supposed to be 'neutral' to society rather than experts like a traditional encyclopedia is).

There seems to be an assumption by some Wikipedia editors that a universal, objective standard for this exists, but that's impossible without a simple, straightforward measure (such as mine) or with a hypothetical massive catalog of rules (just look at the size of the U.S. Code). I didn't say you need to conduct an opinion poll, but you do need to assess the level of popularity of views to properly proportion them. How else would you assess "due weight"? How would you determine the proportions? You are conflating NPOV policy with verifiability/reliable sources, but they are clearly different.

Take a look at articles covering Creationism/ID vs. evolution as a good example--they are required to weigh them in proportion ot how they're believed, else it would be SPOV. Why would we even reject SPOV if it, in effect, the same as current policies? It would avoid giving extra weight to very unscientific ideas in articles that contrast them.

Even in V/RS, editors still have to assess degree of reputation, fact checking and editorial overview--and we hardly have a remotely scientific survey of those for 99% of sources. Thus, editors are left with assessing via indirect, usually unscientific measures. Please propose a method of doing this without relying on editors using their own judgment (based on what minimal information may be available) of the degree to which these various factors exist?

What is the difference between 'information' and 'knowledge'? I'm interested to see how you're differentiating them. All human created information is also human knowledge, because it is formed from the things people know. 'Knowledge' has never been a synonym for 'encyclopedic information.' -Nathan J. Yoder 03:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Relevance

The following statement was recently added to this guideline:

"A reliable source should be written purposefully to inform about the subject they are being cited for. When a reference is written specifically for the topic, the editorial focus (and therefore the "fact checking" and resulting "accuracy") is on that topic, helping to ensure the reliability of the information. Passing references, asides and similar statements should not be used."

I don't see much discussion here at the talk page to and certainly not a consensus to warrant such a major change in content inclusion. I think this is dangerous. The rext was boldy added and now twice reverted. --Kevin Murray 00:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The proposal was raised multiple times and advertised on the village pump. People were generally either supportive of the "relevance" criteria, or expressed concern it was such common sense that it might be a bit creepy. One person raised a mild concern, but the kind of example they raised was perfectly within the bounds of the proposed language. So no, it was not boldly added, but rather added after more than one discussion and advertisement on the village pump, resulting in broad agreement with the principle and no direct opposition to it. No one raised actual opposition to the principle until Wikidemo unilaterally reverted the criteria when it was added. Why did you choose to revert it? How is it a dangerous principle? Vassyana 01:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This duplicates or continues a discussion above. Citations to statements that are not the subject of the source article are reliable and absolutely can and should be used here. It's an established and correct practice used in most of our articles. I'm not unilateral on this. The discussion on this talk page is perfunctory and clearly not consensus - I ignored it for a few days like I ignore a number of stray ideas in their gestation stages, hoping it would go away. There is no mention here of a parallel discussion on Village Pump (where is it?) so that is not pertinent for a claim of consensus. And it's just plain wrong. You need more than that to overturn an accepted sourcing practice. I don't see a good reason yet for such a prohibition but if you want to talk about it, go ahead and talk. Wikidemo 02:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have a hard time swallowing that a practice that isn't permissable for most high school students is reliable sourcing. Also, you ignored it for well more than a few days. In fact, you ignored it, or just failed to take note, for two weeks,[2] while it was raised twice on this page.[3][4] There was no "parallel discussion" just advertisement of the discussion here. I've waded through a bunch of featured articles and I have yet to find one that relies on passing mentions for a citation. If it's a proper practice within reliable sources, surely at least some featured articles must use it. Can you find a few to show your point? Also, your assertion appears to deny the fact that standards (and consensus) can change. Additionally, if you could, I would like a few examples of important facts that cannot be cited except through passing mentions to support your claim that it would be ruinous to Wikipedia. The examples you used above were quite lacking in that regard. Vassyana 02:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That's it? Okay, clearly not consensus. The August 31 proposal died on the vine and when you reposted the same proposal on Sept. 8 it didn't get any more traction. Consensus can change but as I said, consensus to invalidate a massive number of solid articles does not change quickly. Instead of trying to argue process with me or telling me I don't know what a high school student should know, why don't you actually say why you think this is a good idea? Issues like featured articles and "important" facts are beside the point. These are sources and they're good. I've already argued and demonstrated why it is not a good idea (see examples in "Removed from project page" section above) - there are literally, more than a million examples. Point me to a random list of articles and I'm sure I could find plenty of others. Wikidemo 03:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, "silence is the ultimate measure of consensus". However, there wasn't silence, but rather a clear agreement that the principle is correct. If the exact language used is flawed, that's one thing. But you're arguing against a principle that more than couple of the commenting editors thought was so obvious that including it as criteria might be instruction creep. It's a good idea, because it's standard good citation practice (in the real world). It's a good idea, because passing mentions do not receive the editorial scrutiny the main focus of a reference receives. It's a good idea, because it's plain common sense. You haven't demonstrated anything. On the contrary, your examples were very poor. Featured articles are the accepted measure of good practice on Wikipedia, so they're far from beside the point. On the contrary, they're our measuring stick. I already pointed you to a list of articles ... featured articles. So please, find those "plenty" of examples. Vassyana 03:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

On a constructive note, would it be helpful or reassuring to you, if I filed for an RfC to solicit a broader audience and more comments? Vassyana 03:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If you can find consensus for your proposal in this page you're being very creative indeed. People who consider a controversial proposal too obvious to include are not endorsing it, and if they don't see why people are opposing it they're missing something. My examples are sterling. Nobody in their right mind would say I would need to remove that source from those articles. It demonstrate that the proposal breaks down in the face of real sources in real articles. Wikipedia does not ban everything that isn't fit for a featured article, that's not any kind of standard. But a featured article too should use the best available source, not the one that happens to be on a given topic. If you want to discuss further be my guest. Indeed, if you're really proposing something as radical as excluding San Francisco Chroncile local news stories as sources about local people, yes, you would need a very thorough discussion to get anywhere with that. Wikidemo 03:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Sterling? It's poor sourcing that's not acceptable in the real world. Regardless, we're just going back and forth here, and that's not productive. *ponders* Would you agree that "relevance" is indicative of the best kind of sourcing, if not as a defining quality of reliable sources? For example, instead of saying "A reliable source should be written purposefully to inform about the subject they are being cited for." stating "The most reliable sources are written purposefully to inform about the subject they are being cited for." And instead of saying "Passing references, asides and similar statements should not be used." stating "Passing references, asides and similar statements should not be used when more relevant sources are available." Do you think something along those lines would be more indicate of common accepted practice? Vassyana 03:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

On the question of assessing the reliability of an article, I would agree to something like: "Relevance. Consider the relation between the source and the proposition for which it is cited. Authors knowledgeable in the field, publications with editorial strength in the field, and sources that devote substantial attention to the subject of a citation make stronger sources. An affirmative statement is a more reliable source than a passing reference, aside, example, quotation, hearsay, speculation, etc." The secondary question of choosing the best source affects all criteria for reliability, not just relevance. We could add a comment near the top that applies to all: When multiple sources are available to verify the same article content (and even more importantly, when sources conflict), choose the most reliable. When two are equivalent choose the most accessible. Add more reliable sources to existing articles for propositions, but only delete the less reliable source if it is no longer necessary to confirm the proposition or adds perspective. Wikidemo 06:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe that sources need to be substantially on the topic in order to establish that the topic is notable. I also agree that sources substantially on topic are to be preferred. But outside of the notability context, I don't see why material that's otherwise reliable can't be used, and I wouldn't support a blanket prohibition. Best, --Shirahadasha 16:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Since WP:NOT#PAPER, I really don't see much damage from having too many sources for an article, as long as all are reliable, and hence not much benefit from culling them. Such a policy could have negative consequences from a WP:NPOV point of view if editors use it to cull sources and POVs they disagree with. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that reliable sources sometimes make hasty generalizations or unreliable claims, and these sometimes get written into Wikipedia articles. Jacob Haller 21:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

life africa

this is in regards to the death of a three week old named Life Africa who was born into the MOVE organization in 1976. this child was killed during a physical conflict between the organization and the philadelphia police department. whether or not the death was due to police can be debated. however, groupthink is not letting me post the death on the MOVE page. MOVE lived outside the system so the baby was never registered. however, many police and neighbors were invited into their home to view the body. I CAN'T FIND A CREDIBLE SOURCE BECAUSE MASS MEDIA DID'NT COVER THE EVENT. the baby was killed, that is fact. we all know that dissident anarchist groups who get in gun fights with the system are going to be marginalized. special interests own most of the press and the public ones have long forgotten about this event. i am upset that the truth is being cut-off because this group is victimized by repression and underrepresentation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.113.175 (talk) 03:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

MOVE is extensively covered, mainly for the 1985 police bombing. You would think someone has written books about the organization and mentioned this. Most anything there is won't be online because it's so old, so I would look in university libraries, etc. You might be right that no mainstream press has covered it. Wikipedia may not be the first place to uncover conspiracies of silence even if they're true, it's just not out front on that. If the story is true, a faster way to justice is to see that it gets written about, investigated, or covered by someone in the press or a book. Alternately, if the controversy about Life Africa dn whether the child actually existed is significant enough, it might be possible to mention here that there is an allegation or controversy even if there's not enough to prove who is right. I know that doesn't help much, but maybe it clarifies things. Wikidemo 17:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunatly this happens. But WP:V makes it clear... If there are no reliable sources, we can't have an article on it. Furthermore, with so few reliable sources, an article on the topic would probalby run a serious risk of violating WP:NOR. - anything written would end up being "your" version of events and interpretation of them. I understand that you want to get the "truth" out about what happened in 1976... but Wikipedia isn't the place to do that. Wikipedia is a tertiary source... meaning that it reports and summarizes what others say on a topic. What I would suggest is that you continue to research the event, and write a book or academic paper about it. Then, other Wikipedians who care about the issue can cite you. Good luck.Blueboar 17:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Are papers presented at scientific conferences reliable?

Can I cite a paper presented at a scientific conference? The papers have to be submitted to the conference in advance, which is a form of peer review, although weaker than publishing in a scientific journal.--TDKehoe 18:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That depends. In what context are they being presented? Is it simply "Hey I have this idea, so I'm putting it out there" or are these papers being presented being viewed as authoritative or notable in the field?--Crossmr 05:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Depends on the conference. If it's a decent conference, then if they're not notable in the field, they don't get presented at the conference. --Kim Bruning 19:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Depends more than that. The American Geophysical Union's Fall Meeting is the largest earth science conference, but there is essentially no filtering. Anyone who pays a fee can have their abstract included in the published conference proceedings (which leads to the occasional quackpottery). In general, cranks don't get speaking presentations (only about 1/3 to 1/4 of abstracts are given speaking time), but all the abstracts are nominally considered to have been "presented" and published at the conference. So a lot depends on the rules of the individual conference to say whether there is any meaningful review. 169.229.142.213 19:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

IMDB

I've noticed that there's a lot of IMDb cropping has cropped up in Wikipedia over the years. Since IMDb is very notorious for its lack of actual fact checking (add to the fact that it is a user-edited resource), I don't particularly like the use it seems to have. However, there are editors out there who believe that IMDb should be used as one would use a reliable source. Since there's nothing out there that explicitly states that IMDb should not be used, I'd like to see some sort of list of unreliable sources for information be defined. Thoughts? -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 04:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It fails as a reliable source. I've never seen any evidence that what is user submitted is fact-checked by the powers that be. As such, its no different than a forum, blog, or anything else. Random Joe can work whatever he wants on to the site.--Crossmr 04:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd bring this up at the films wikiproject. Wrad 05:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It's reliable, just not especially so. Nothing wrong with a well-placed citation. It's also in a way a tertiary source, just like Wikipedia. I wouldn't use it as the only source to establish notability or a dubious fact, but as an ancillary source to back something up, I don't see the problem. Wikidemo 06:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

How is it a tertiary source? I don't see any sources for a lot of that stuff on the website. Anyone reading it has absolutely no idea who added it, where they got it from, or whether they're just making it up.--Crossmr 13:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a tertiary source because it fails to be a primary or secondary source. The fact that IMDb doesn't provide their sources for their information only makes them more worthless as a reference. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 16:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

IMDB is an appropriate external link as a useful resource, but is not generally considered to be a reliable source for citations. JavaTenor 06:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a policy/guideline link that discourages IMDB citations? I suspect the database information has considerable editorial oversight and is pretty reliable. The biographies are so-so. They are typically written by insiders and experts. Not just anyone can post a biography up there. The agents, studios, etc., pay a lot of attention to IMDB and see it as a directory and PR medium, so if information there is inaccurate it will likely get corrected. The "trivia" sections are user-generated, tertiary (like Wikipedia) in the sense that people are repeating information they read from secondary sources like newspapers and blogs - that makes these sections less reliable, not more. I suspect there are several reason you don't see IMDB as a citation more often. There's a preference against citing commercial directory sites like this. We usually don't cite dictionaries, databases, listings, directories, information services, etc. I don't remember why. Although not a terrible source, if something is in IMDB there is likely a better source and so people will use the better citation. Wikidemo 15:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

IMDb isn't that great due to the fact that it is rife with inaccuracies. In my personal experience with dealing with IMDb, there seems to be very little editorial oversight, or little care for it. I suspect that it's a combination of manpower versus the sheer number of submissions they have to go through and "verify" that is the root of their editorial problems.

Regardless, we run into the problem of quoting a resource, not a primary or secondary source -- because IMDb is a tertiary resource like we are, relying on submissions from editors very much like a wiki, blog, or web forum. On merely that basis alone, we need to dissuade editors from using it as a source, which is the primary problem we have here now. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 16:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that the database info is also untrustworthy - who worked on what film, the roles they played, what year, etc? That's a real question, not a rhetorical one....If so, we're not the only ones reprinting inaccurate info; many news writers probably get their info from IMDB and so the errors will propagate. Wikidemo 17:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

To an extent, the IMDb is no more or less reliable at any one time than any Wikipedia entry; I would venture to say less, given the lack of active oversight from contributors. Regardless, it's still a user-editable resource -- which is, again, the reason why I believe IMDb should be barred from being used for use as a source in any sort of references section. Otherwise, I find that the filmographies are probably the most accurate pieces of information on IMDb; it's the biographies and other personal information I find to be questionable, particularly for the lesser known actors, crew members, and the like. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 18:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It's user-edited, but the submitted information is checked and not automatically added like it is on Wikipedia. Filmography refers to the credits and such right? I submitted a random piece of "filmography" to IMDB once (an actress' appearance in a TV show) and it took about a day for it to get approved. I'm assuming that the editor who approved it at least bothered to look it up (it's quick and easy to check "filmography facts"), but it's possible the editors just filter out spam and obviously wrong information. Anyway, I've found the filmography to reasonably accurate and I actually recall either a discussion or mention on a guideline saying that they considered IMDB ok to use strictly for the filmography. Lets think of this a different way: a reliable source doesn't need to be a perfect source, just one that's reasonably accurate. The people who make the movies/TV shows do check IMDB to make sure the filmographies are correct. In the worst case realistic scenario, you might get the names of the more minor people involved and dates wrong. -Nathan J. Yoder 04:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I recently posted segments of an email conversation I had with Jimbo Wales which touched in IMDB to User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr., but I'm reposting it here as it's relevant. My original email to him::

About a year ago, you blanked the talk page for Aurora Snow - as seen on this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAurora_Snow&diff=40062305&oldid=38744606

Which was presumed to be related to Aurora's real name coming up in the discussion. Can you clarify what is intended by this? Are we to keep ANY mention of Aurora's real name, irregardless of whether it is right or not, out of the Talk page and out of the article? Reason for this is that we got someone who is attempting to introduce the name for her which is listed on IMDB into the article.

Jimbo's reply in its entirety (dated April 2, 2007):

Is there any better source than the IMDB article? IMDB relies on user-contributed content, and I see no reason why it would count as a remotely valid source in this case.

If there is a valid source (newspaper, magazine, book?) then I would assume it can be introduced no problem.

But as it stands now, we are likely to simply be echoing someone's smear campaign against someone else entirely if we just quote IMDB.

And from later on in the email exchange (I'm quoting only the portions regarding IMDB here), my statement:

Personally, my feelings are that IMDB is not a reliable source by itself for something such as a person's real name, so Rebecca cannot be used in that sense.

And Jimbo's reply which specifically referenced that statement:

You are 100% correct. IMDB is not a reliable source in a case like this. It can be relied upon cautiously for many uncontroversial points, but...

So there's Jimbo's POV. And I also mentioned in my last email to him: "...with your consent I would like to reproduce the relevant segments of your answer on the Talk:Aurora Snow pages as well as on the WP:P* page as guidance to others on this topic." Tabercil 17:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It is quite clear that IMDB cannot be considered a reliable source for dubious material in particular in [[WP:BLP]s. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Veterans history

I don't know if anyone on Wikipedia has been using the Library of Congress's Veteran's History Project, if anyone is it should really be supplemented by further secondary sources anyway. But I had to point out, in case anyone was unaware, that the accuracy of that project has been brought into question. See: MSNBC story and the Library of Congress blog for more information. IvoShandor 23:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

But this is also true of many things 'history' related as well. Some historical authors have obvious 'mistakes' in their historical texts, often disproven by subsequent authors or additional 'primary source' material (like the data in the old Soviet archives) in the same subject area. When presented with it, the original author refuses to discuss or otherwise correct the information for whatever reason (being polite here), and some people still insist on using factually flawed text to support their claims or POV. This is nothing new, it just helps highlight that the more and varied the sources, the more likely you will achieve NPOV and V, but even that is not always guaranteed. wbfergus^Talk 11:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

What is a reliable source?

I've made a small, but, I think, important, clarification of the wording of the first sentence of the subject section[5].

The clarification is based on the fact that both the policy on verifiability and this guideline are referring to sources as citations of articles or books, rather than the individuals themselves, (who might be writing Wikipedia articles). As the policy states:

"In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is."

So the source is the citation of a reliable published work. Clearer, I hope. Sunray 05:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikidemo pointed out in a subsequent edit that the "wording was still subject to multiple meanings." His edit and the following one by Kevin Murray have considerably strengthened that section. Thanks to both for bringing clarity to the problem. Sunray 19:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks. I wanted to make clear that we're using the word "source" to refer to a specific work, as opposed to a publication (e.g. a newspaper), or an author. This page addresses all three issues, but for clarity of wording we need to let the reader know which one we mean. I fixed the lead paragraph but the following few paragraphs are still ambiguous. You'll find that if we use the terms consistently they're redundant and can be shortened by about half without sacrificing any meaning. I'd do that, but I'm making another change to the page (see below) and want to take one thing at a time rather than overwhelm anyone with too many page edits.Wikidemo 12:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Clean-up

This page is a mess. Very little actual content and a lot of quoting other things. Just so nobody freaks out (or you can get your freak-out started), I'm going to start cleaning it up. The goal is that if it's salvageable at all, it will be a lean framework to actually tell people what sources are most reliable and they should include. There are some proposals floating around to beef this guideline up by offloading some policy sections here, but people are reluctant to touch WP:RS in its present form.

My method will be roughly according to my guideline proposal/essay at WP:PGS. The first step is to reorganize the headings and sections, which should be uncontroversial. You'll see that if you title sections appropriately and put like things next to each other, a lot of redundancy and/or contradiction gets exposed.

I'll be gentle, one thing at a time to see what flies. Happy Wiki-ing. -- Wikidemo 12:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason that there is very little content is that this Guideline only refers to existing policies. I do not see anything that needs to be "fixed" here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not an argument against. Even as a restatement of policy it needs a clean-up. I'm reinstating my edits. If you have any specific improvements or complaints, please let me know. Wikidemo 01:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

No, Wikidemo. It is exactly the other way around. You want to make changes, and wide randing ones such as removing material, wording, re-structuring, etc, then the burden is on you to seek consensus. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You removed the lead
You removed the very pertinent text about the fact that this page is not policy. Many people think it is when it is not.
You added text about and which to choose among multiple complementary or contradicting sources
You changed the structure of the page

Want to propose that? Do so here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look at this. Sure, I'll do a combination of smaller changes intended to be noncontroversial, and mini-discussions here. Just so you understand the modesty of my changes (and not by way of floating a proposal), I split the lead section in two rather than removing it, the first sentence moving to a new nutshell and the rest to the "Reason for this guideline" section immediately below. I deliberately kept the (rather unusual) warning that this is a guideline page by starting the very first paragraph of prose, "This guideline...". True, pointing out that RS directs users to choose among sources is an addition, and we can discuss that later. Reordering a messy page to put like sections together is a crucial first step to getting it organized properly and condensing out redundancies and contradictions -- If you stay with this, you'll see. Please stand by, I'll have a few preliminary proposals ready in a little bit. Thx, Wikidemo 02:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The warning that this is a guideline page is needed, and was added to address the concern that many editors think that this is a policy page, when actually WP:V is the policy page related to reliability of sources. See WP:V#Sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yikes, that casts the sentence that follows in a new light. Are people that fuzzy? I'm wondering if at some point we should create a template like {{relevant policies|<policy1, policy2, etc>}} that makes a box for that. I'll leave that alone for now b/c that's a separate issue.Wikidemo 03:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

All content policies are related, as clearly explained in the lead of our central content policies:

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's three content policies. The other two are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. Because the policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Their policy pages may be edited only to improve the application and explanation of the principles.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the pointer. That's a nice box but maybe a little TMI for this page. Perhaps at some point put the warning that is already on this page in a box so it is more clearly a notice. In due time.... Wikidemo 13:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I was not proposing to add this, Wikidemo. I was only expressing that all policies are relevant when discussing RS. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Further small cleanup steps

Highlighting a few proposals.

Headings - for purposes of clarity divided "aspects of reliability" into two sections, "in general" and "specific contexts". That way, if anyone wants to add or move anything in the article, it's clear whether they're talking about all reliability issues or just specific points. Implemented on project page as a proposal.
Headings 2 - if the above is okay, I'd like to a new section out of "specific contexts", "reliability of specific types of sources". Exceptional claims, BLP, and claims of consensus would remain in "contexts", and scholarship, OR, self-published, and extreme would be in the new section for specific types. "Examples" would be renamed "other examples" and moved to "specific contexts." This involves no rewording of the prose, just the headings. Not implemented, just proposing; would involve reordering the section
Nutshell. Propose moving the lead sentence from the project page to a nutshell: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources." It would be more prominent and instructive there and instantly identify to casual readers what this is about. No rewording, just nutshelling. Not implemented, just proposing.
Footnote. Propose moving our page's brief explanatory footnote into the body of the page where it appears. No point having a whole footnote section for a single 16-word footnote.

Pls feel free to comment, revert, improve, etc. as per above. If I don't hear for a few days and/or get feedback sounding like consensus, I'll implement these to the extent people have agreed. Thx, Wikidemo 22:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Above implemented as proposed after no objections raised. Wikidemo 02:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

That does not all work for me. The lead of the policy needs to be a summary, not a line about what is not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

More small steps

A few more small proposals. I won't implement any until people have had a few days to comment. Note that none of these proposals involve any change to the prose. It's all formatting, headers, and linking.

Headings. Group "What is a reliable source?" and "Why use reliable sources?" as sub-sections within a new master section, "Background". Flip order so that "why us" comes before "what is".
De-listify "Exceptional claims". Put it in one prose paragraph, for sake of clarity of the page's overall format.
See also. Change format of first WP:BLP citation in the very first sentence to state full policy name, as we do with WP:V and WP:NOR. Take all of the "further reading" templated references from the two above subsections and put it in a single template at the top of the new "Headings" section. For consistency and clarity, change the "Wikipedia's neutrality policy" hyperlink to clearly refer to WP:NPOV, and change similar references throughout to state the name of the policy or guideline at issue. Within "aspects of reliability" move several of the "see" and "see also" sections to fall at the end of the paragraph rather than as a separate indented paragraph.

-- Wikidemo 02:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Do not see these as necessary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

A discussion point

Has anyone gone through the "see also" section and the "external links" section here? At a minimum we should collect all the policies and guidelines referred to throughout the article and list them under "see also." Either that, or take them out on the theory that they're already mentioned in the body of this page. Right now it lists some but not all, which is confusing.Wikidemo 02:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Essays. What about the various essays listed? "Check your facts" is short and sweet - but it's got a "merge" tag on it. "Independent sources" doesn't seem to say a lot, just advocate for the importance of reliable sourcing. "Common knowledge" is a 2 1/2 year fork from this policy that doesn't seem to be getting much traffic. Does anyone use it? Not to denigrate the quality of these essays, they're all fine. But do we agree with and want to endorse this particular set of three essays as the things people should refer to? Are there any we should remove and let people find on their own if they wish? Any better essay pages to include? Wikidemo 02:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Re. Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check, is this an active wikiproject we should continue to refer to?Wikidemo 02:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

External links Regarding the external links, is that the best summary we can find of how to read primary and secondary sources, and do we want to endorse that site as the place people should go to read up on it? If not, is there a better site? Should we just remove the two external links? Wikidemo 02:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

NOR discussions that may have an effect with the interaction of this guideline

Please see this for a brief synopsis of what is being discussed and why. To see everything in it's proper context, then much reading will be required, including going through the Archives for the page. In short, we are not attempting to weaken the policy, but to make clearer by moving WP:PSTS somewhere more appropriate, and linking to it's new location (wherever that is). The types of sources and their definitions are not really part of a policy that discusses "No Original Research", much like your house insurance policy's definition of "Acts of God" don't really pertain to your insurance policy. It's just included for further clarity, but the actual definition has nothing to do with your policy, just its final interpretation of what is covered (or not). This is not something that some are trying to impose overnight, much discussion still needs to be done, but the sooner others participate and help, the quicker the additional work can progress. wbfergus^Talk 13:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Errors

I've dealt with two cases now of "reliable" sources (in one case, the subject of the article!) making statements which a normal person's evaluation of the evidence would determine to be incorrect. In both cases the preferred secondary source contradicted a primary source as well as circumstantial evidence. (As it happens, both cases involved WP:BLP.) I'm concerned about this because the current drift in WP:NOR discussion is tending to privilege secondary sources absolutely. Conversely, the current version of this policy doesn't treat errors in our sources at all. The synthesis I've seen of these two "policies" is that we are obligated to repeat errors in our sources even when it can be demonstrated that they are incorrect.

This is an obviously stupid (not to mention unencyclopedic) position to find ourselves in. It is obvious that we shouldn't be repeating our sources' errors, and yet people are applying our current policies to essentially deny that those errors even exist. We have an absolute obligation, when we find a mistake in a source, to abjure use of the mistaken material; this is a metaprinciple behind both this policy and WP:V. Therefore we need to address this in this policy and possibly also in WP:NOR. Mangoe 14:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You just made the same point over at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Errors in "reliable sources" to which I responded basically that of course we should not repeat obvious errors, but Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. There is no meta-principle that we should ignore Wikipedia's founding principles in search of a higher truth. If a secondary source makes an error of fact or quotation we should not quote it and degrade our assessment of its reliability. If a secondary source makes what you believe to be an error of analysis, you can't dispute it based on your own analysis; rather, if there are multiple notable schools of thought you may cite the various ones for what they have to say. Wikidemo 15:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This page is not policy, Mangoe. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

"self-published" info: autobiographies and company statements

Could someone please explain where autobiographies fall? Some are not self-published in the sense that an academic publishing house published the book but they are self-published in the sense that someone wrote about themselves. Would such cases still be considered a self-published source that would require third-party sources to substantiate a claim? Or are they reliable third-party published sources?

Also, is a company considered a questionable source? Is it inappropriate to state that Company X states Y and provide a reference from their website when other resources have contradicting information? (This was kind of answered in the previous question but I wanted to check if it applies to self-published company material.)

–panda 13:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

See WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB. The caveats are all explained there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Slayage: reliable source?

Information was recently removed from the Willow Rosenberg article by User:Webwarlock, with the edit summary "rv Blogs do not count as sources per Wikipedia:Verifiability. If it get's published in the Journal of Human Sexuality then you have a case". The information was sourced to Slayage, an online journal about Buffy/Angel studies. I asked User:Bignole if he believed that Slayage was a reliable source. He pointed out that, while it seems the site is basically students posting their analysis on the show, their postings do undergo several reviews before being published (as seen here). Therefore, not anything can be published, it is checked and approved beforehand. I'd like to start a discussion on whether people believe Slayage is a reliable source to use in the Buffyverse pages. Is it simply a blog, or no different from any other reliable online journals? The discussion is occurring here. Thanks. Paul730 23:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"shaka" sign

   this is a newer version of the popular "hang loose"

i was the actual one that started this slang in hawaii in 1986 on hookipa beach with a local surfer who like the group shaka gong (spelling?) he used to stop by and I nicked name my friend shaka and used the hang loose sign with him when he would leave i never knew about the ancient warrier piece of any of this how can I make editing to correct this grave oversight? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill mudd (talk • contribs) 18:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

A reliable, published third-party source that says you coined it would be appropriate, otherwise its your word only, which isn't good enough for an encyclopedia. IvoShandor 17:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

"Extremist sources"

This section invites abuse. In Criticisms of socialism I cited a widely-accepted libertarian socialist text on libertarian socialist views of these criticisms, and another editor removed it as an "extremist source."

The article is about criticisms of socialism
- Ergo, those criticizing and those being criticized are directly relevant to the subject. (In this case, they are both).
There are many different types of socialism (only counting those considered socialist by socialists).
- Many critics target condemn features which one type has and other types don't have. Not covering the different types creates a misleading picture. Covering the different types requires covering the different types, regardless of whether the editor thinks they are extremist or not. Jacob Haller 18:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio

Hi, is this not a copyvio ?
[6]
on commons I would be sure but I don't know what is the exact policy on wp:en. Regards, Alithien 08:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Third-party sources

The references to "third party" sources were just removed with a comment that this attribute has no meaning outside of BLP. However, I think the meaning of "third party" is very clear. A third-party source is material created by a party that is not the subject of the article. We deliberately considered that unreliable for all articles and not just BLP, right? If so, the change is inappropriate.

I'm reverting pending discussion. Also, I'm going to try to edit some of the text here to clear up the confusion. I think the editor is thinking of a "source" as a publisher or publication, as opposed to a piece of material. Wikidemo 12:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Some time ago we made a language clarification in the first paragraph of "what is a reliable source" that by "source" we mean a work used to obtain / verify material in an article, as opposed to the author of that work or the publication in which it appears or its publisher. When we call the work's author or the work's publication a "source" as well, that is just shorthand. The shorthand is causing confusion I've tried to tease out the distinction between works, authors, and publications here, a somewhat overdue project. There is no attempt to change the meaning of the guideline, but rather to use the terminology consistently in order to avoid confusion. Wikidemo 12:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your clarification on Third-Party... however, the word "source" is used in this guideline to mean more than just the piece of material... it also is used to discribe the person creating the work (see the line about the mathematics professor, for example) and, to a lesser extent the location of the work (on an extremist website, or in a peer reviewed journal for examples). All three meanings can affect the reliability of a source. I have added an intro paragraph to try to explain this... but I am sure the wording could be better phrased. Blueboar 12:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any fundamental problems with the revisions as they stand now relating to "third party", if the meaning is understood as described by Wikidemo above. Previous to the revisions, however, there were links from "third party" to the "PSTS" model of WP:NOR, which is highly controversial and under intense revision right now. There is a constituency out there that wants to ban or restrict the use of primary sources in Wikipedia, but this article shouldn't get into that. It should be clear that when we say "reliable, third party source", we are not meaning "reliable secondary source". COGDEN 18:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed the links for the reason you mentioned. The text said "third party sources", which means to me a piece that was not written by the subject of the article. Yet it linked to the PSTS section, which isn't directly related to that. I don't have any strong opinion on the substance of the guideline in this regard, I'm just trying to make sure it's clear. There seemed to be a conflict between what the policy says, and what it happens to link to, and I figured that the actual words of the policy are more likely to be what people intended than the links. Wikidemo 22:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not just replace "third party" with "independent", for clarity? Vassyana 05:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

yes--and third party implies a controversy, which is not always the case with RS questions-- I think "independent" is better all around. DGG (talk) 12:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I like that idea. Note that it does imply a slight change - "third party" means anyone but the subject of the article or their alter-ego (e.g. their company, the company's CEO, etc). "Independent" implies anyone without a conflict of interest, a slightly stronger exclusion. Let's mull over that for a few days and if nobody makes a strong reasonable ojbection, consider it a consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs) 13:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It's been a week, and things have been quiet as a mouse on this thread. Should we change the language, or should we solicit extra input on the village pump and wait a few more days? Vassyana 19:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

"Independent" is a reasonably good descriptor. I can't think of anything better. I don't think there's any need to go to village pump, since this doesn't actually change anything substantive, and shouldn't be controversial. COGDEN 20:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

"controversial, derogatory, or otherwise unverifiable statements"

I posted the following to WT:BLP:

My attention was drawn to this by a change made to WP:RS in order to bring language there more into line with language here. The language here seems to me to be illogical, though. Are controversial statements necessarily unverifiable? Are derogatory statements necessarily unverifiable? I think not. -- Boracay Bill 23:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

If I have my Wikipedia history right, the change to BLP happened a month or two ago, where we loosened up the rules a bit regarding self-published sources. Keep in mind that we already have WP:RS, WP:V, etc. that assesses how reliable a source is and tells us not to use some of them. So the BLP statement is just an extra prohibition on top of that. It seemed strange to automatically exclude self-published sources, as opposed to any other sources, from BLP if the material was neutral. BLP is supposed to be about taking extra steps to avoid committing libel, and perhaps to avoid hurting people or turning into a partisan fighting grounds over current events. Further restricting the range of sources allowed in BLP cases where the material presented is neutral didn't seem to serve any purpose. What's left is a narrower proposition on the specific kind of self-published material that's considered problematic. Hence the list of three types - controversial, derogatory, or otherwise unverifiable. It's supposed to be an either/or. I agree with you that the word "otherwise" is out of place though. Perhaps a slightly sloppy wording in an attempt to make it sound like we have a non-exclusive "or". But we should address that in BLP, not here. This is supposed to be merely a quotation of the policy there. Wikidemo 01:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It was a compromise made by a committee. :-). I'd be all for improving the phrasing if we can keep the meaning... and I guess should discuss that there. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Clarification of Reliable Sources

Could someone clear up the threshold for a reliable source related to paranormal topics not studied by science or ignored by science at the moment. There is presently a discussion at EVP about the authenticity of Dr. Fontana, a pyschologist who has also studied EVP, as a source for history related material about that subject. One editor insists that Dr. Fontana is not a historian or a professor of science history and thereby can't be used by RS standards. My review of the policy is that since Dr. Fontana has studied the phenomena for years, his book on the topic would be a reliable source if it is well research; for material in the article. Maybe some outside input would help from those who are presently engaged with this policy talk page. We seem at an impasse as to what the proper interpretation of RS should be. --Northmeister 14:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it is quite simple. You can attribute the views of that author to him, providing his views are published by a reputable publishing house, and his views are significant enough to be described. One does not have to be a professor to be cited in Wikipedia articles, in fact, some professors would not be citable if their views are not significant or notable to be cited. It all depends on the context in which a source is used. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The man is a psychologist and is being used as a source for a topic of scientific history unrelated to psychology. The sentence currently says "Concerted research on technical means of communication grew rapidly in the latter part of the 20th century (Fontana, p. 366)." (then it's cited again via inline citation for some reason). Should we say "According to David Fontana concerted research on technical means of communication grew rapidly in the latter part of the 20th century."? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

That would work. You can always think of the reader: Does that viewpoint improves the understanding of the subject? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jossi for your advice. I would find that acceptable as well. --Northmeister 15:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this actually above that particular sentence--how can it possibly be controversial? DGG (talk) 05:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

One issue that wikipedia should address is whether to consider academia, esp. the social sciences as non-NPOV given the overwhelmingly left representation of faculty in the social science community, and the not-so-secret political agendas of many which are worked into scholarly publications. Check into the "Sokal affair" of the mid-90s, wherein a scientist submitted pure nonsense about the laws of physics being meaningless patriarchal constructs, filled his paper with leftist ideology without the slightest evidence for any of it and was able to get it published in a "reputable" peer-reviewed social science journal. He did it to prove what was going on, and that peer-review in the field no longer served to maintain scholarly, neutral (non-political bias) inquiry. This is only one example. Once these publications are published, they are treated as though they were "fact" and their authors as credible experts. Disagreement is suppressed, and therefore is rarely published in academic journals regardless of the amount of evidence offered. In short, if published articles/references with a political bias are cited, the wikipedia article should be labeled as non-NPOV, and/or other sources with differing opinions should be cited to offer alternate views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.173.82.81 (talk) 16:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Nazi and Soviet sources

This is discussed to some extent above, however, it continues to come up in numerous places. Reposted from another discussion...

The problem is that both Nazi and particularly Soviet materials, and particularly (yes, had to use the word twice) with respect to the Baltics and Eastern Europe, is that there is so much propaganda, from the Nazis saying how well the locals are supporting the eradication of Jews even before the Nazis arrived (they weren't) to the Soviets reporting the Nazis killed 300,000 in Latvia [alone] (total fabrication) that it's simply better to stick to reputable sources. To contend that the Nazis, for example, as "meticulous" Germans never falsified reports is not supported by the facts.

If reputable scholarship mentions a (corroborated) Nazi or Soviet source, that's fine. But to suggest that Wikipedia editors have the academic wherewithal to properly discriminate between fact and fiction in Nazi and Soviet sources is sheer hubris that will doom our collective efforts to failure.

We should never use Nazi or Soviet sources directly, and certainly not where they have anything even remotely to do with politics and history, other than to report what those sources say (as opposed to representing what they say as fact). This includes any newly discovered "archives"--if Stalin erased people in photographs, why would anyone assume the archives contain the "truth" as opposed to also being subject to the same erasures, etc.? Stalin was, if nothing else, meticulous about his propaganda.

Using any Nazi and Soviet sources directly and drawing conclusions in articles, even if those conclusions are completely accurate, is WP:OR. Is it possible to agree on this point? (re-signed) — Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I should mention that I myself have used a Soviet source in Rainis--sifted based on my own "knowledge" of Rainis. Conforming to my proposal, that source would be applicable only through confirmation in a scholarly (non-Soviet) source, else it would need to be deleted. Losing some facts in this article, as a specific example, is a small price to pay to avoid inserting Soviet fabrications elsewhere. (Even with Rainis, a nationalist literary figure morphed into a Soviet hero, there are Soviet sourced "facts" to avoid.) — Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's an interesting suggestion to dismiss scholars Aron Gurevich who, according to the University of Chicago Press publisher, "has long been considered one of the world's leading medievalists and a pioneer in the field of historical anthropology"[7] or Boris Piotrovsky whose Classical works on Urartu [8] and Scythia remain the leading publications on the subject to this day because Vecrumba considers all Soviet scientists to be "Propagandists". Luckily, historians who write books don't think so. --Irpen 04:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

and not just on controversial subjects. Any individual scholar or book can be challenged for reliability in the usual way, and a frankly political work from a frankly Soviet publisher will if properly cited carry its own warning. Butas a general rule, it makes no sense whatsoever. DGG (talk) 12:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Peters, the problem is not using Nazi or Soviet sources... the problem is misuing them by drawing conclusions from them. That is where there is a violation of WP:NOR. Wikipedia editors should never draw conclusions from sources, but should instead report on the conclusions contained in those sources. Now, some sources may contain conclusions that are obvious propoganda and (of course) that affects the sources reliability. Others sources may have more subtle problems that only someone very familiar with the topic will be awair of. It may be that such a source is unreliable, but the determination of this must be hashed out on an article by article basis, not as a blanket statement in Wikipedia Policies and guidelines. I would agree that most sources that came out of Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia are suspect, and probably not reliable... but not all. There was serious scholarship that took place under both regiemes. The hard part is knowing which is unreliable propaganda and which is serious scholarship. Blueboar 12:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, I'm not surprised you have attempted to paint my suggestion as an uninformed, ill-advised attempt to deny valuable scholarship. You ignore that your compatriots who maintain allegations of Baltic occupation are "politically" motivated insist the Great Soviet Encyclopedia is factual in its accounting of history. You instead paint my suggestion as, who am I to ban great scholarship? Did I actually say "All Soviet SCIENTISTS are propagandists?" For someone who rails against people putting words into your mouth, you do it freely to others, and with a good dose of indignation ("luckily" there are people who know better?).

With that unpleasantry aside, the individuals you cite are perfect examples. Their scholarship and works, through the respect and acknowledgment they have gained on the part of numerous reputable scholars, would count as being corroborated. An eminently simple gating factor.

To Blueboar's point and to the crux of the matter, unless a Soviet source, particularly on geopolitics or done under government sponsorship, is assumed false until proven factual, we will continue to have individuals insist that the Great Soviet Encyclopedia et aliter are a sufficient source, no other source needed, for factual accountings of history. My suggestion does nothing to prevent reputable sources originating in the Soviet era from being fully utilized for encyclopedic purposes. It does put the burden of proof on the editor proposing to use a Soviet era source to produce corroboration of that source in reputable non-Soviet scholarship. Otherwise you will have editors continuing to contend that lies in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia be reported as valid Soviet conclusions of equal value to reputable non-Soviet scholarship painting a completely different picture--and that the "facts" in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia are not to be disputed, just presented like any other "opinion", all "opinions" being equally valid. That is, as long as you properly attribute a lie, you can report it like any other sourced material--leaving it to the reader's judgement whether it is valid. An encyclopedia should have a slighly higher standard of verifiability, don't you think? — Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no, I don't think so. WP:V (the guiding policy that WP:RS is under) says it quite clearly: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." It is not up to us to say whether the Great Soviet Encyclopedia is true or not. Under our guidelines it counts as a reliable source. Having said that... it is a biased source, expressing things from a Soviet viewpoint. It does have to be taken with a grain of salt. The best way to indicate this is through direct text attribution ("according to the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, such and such is the case") as well as citation. In keeping with WP:NPOV we may not eliminate the GSE by fiat. However, also in keeping with NPOV, to the extent that information from the GSE is contradicted by non-Soviet sources, we should also discuss what those sources say and cite them. In short... while the GSE can not be excluded as being unreliable, we can (and should) certainly include information from other reliable sources to raise questions in the readers mind as to it's accuracy.Blueboar 15:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Under the same pretext any sources from the Baltics should be excluded also because there are many state-sponsored researches containing bias and falsifications of history.--Dojarca 15:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Neither should be excluded... when sources disagree, we include all viewpoints (properly cited) and discuss the differences in a neutral manner. It is not Wikipedia's job to determine which is "correct" and which is not. This is really a NPOV debate and not an RS debate. Blueboar 15:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Just make absolutely sure to attribute the text to these sources. Let the user take these sources in their context, and avoid making any assertions of fact from these. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Dojarca, you personally contend the Great Soviet Encyclopedia (no further corroborations produced) as factual and Baltic sources (reputably cited in non-Baltic scholarship) as nationalist POV. "Viewpoints" refer to differing interpretations of the same base of facts. Those should be discussed neutrally, as indicated. "Versions"--which is what we are dealing with here--refer to different sets of purported facts being represented, not verifiable, at odds with another set of reputably verifiable facts. The issue is that editors contend their "viewpoint" must be represented NPOV when, in fact, it is their "version" (otherwise factually unsubstantiated by any reputable source) which they are contending be represented as a "viewpoint", that is, based on facts. The last time I checked the "V" in NPOV referred to "V"iewpoints, not "V"ersions. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Even when two sources disagree as to the "Facts"... both versions of the facts should be represented. Once again, it is not our job as Wikipedia editors to determine which set of "Facts" are true.Blueboar 20:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, then Wikipedia is doomed to portray all "versions" of "facts" as equal. And, arguably, there is not even a concept of what even constitutes a "fact." I quite appreciate that WP is not a truth-maker. Nevertheless, there must be some standard for reputable sources. The question is, what constitutes a reputable, reliable source: does that include ones which have no other corroboration in fact and are disputed by reputable scholarship, or not?

If the Great Soviet Encyclopedia maintains the moon is made of cheese, do we simply report it, regardless of the "fact" that no cheese has been found there? No, on WP we need not produce corroborating sources, we can merely denounce the "moon rockers" and say their "facts" are politically motivated.

I don't mean to be harsh, but even Soviet photographs lie (not all of course). Is there to be no WP:CRUCIBLE to be applied to any source? — Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

There are no "facts" as far as Wikipedia is concerned. We only report what sources say about a subject, and we attribute significant viewpoints to those that hold them. That's it. If you do not like this, you can edit other wikis in which these constrains do not exist, such as Wikiinfo. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, your suggestion ("if you do not like this...") is not at all helpful. Wikipedia is the #1 source returned for every Eastern European country et al. If Wikipedia wishes to retain the dedication and contributions of motivated, informed editors--who are here precisely because of WP's #1 ranking--then there must be governance over quality that is defined, is measurable, and is enforceable.
I quote: "Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight." I would argue, based on reputable sources saying so, that the Great Soviet Encyclopedia (sticking to that theme) does not meet those criteria with regards to historiography. No, let me rephrase that. Under WP guidelines, is one allowed to make the case, based on reputable reliable scholarly sources saying so, that the Great Soviet Encyclopedia should be considered an unreliable source regarding historical facts (facts not in quotes)?
If there are no "facts", what does "reliable" refer to? Are we really prepared to re-phrase fact-checking above as "fact"-checking? — Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Peters, you once again miss the point... Wikipedia has a few longstanding fundamental policies, and what you are talking about is directly related to one of them, in this case WP:NPOV, which clearly tells us that when two sources disagree as to the facts (no quotation marks this time), it is our job to simply note that disagreement. We present what both sources say... Source A says X. Source B, however, disagrees and says Y. That is never going to change. It is why Wikipedia is #1. It isn't biased towards any one view point... you get all the facts here, not just those you agree with.Blueboar 13:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

But Blueboar, the key point is that we present non-fringe, reliable viewpoints. Just as we are not presenting anti-Semitic nazi viewpoint as a 'neutral counterpart to modern Western thought' (for example), we should acknowledge that the party line and marxist bias in much of Soviet research disqualifies it in some regards from being a 'mainstream, reliable viewpoint'.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 22:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Great, except that you leave for you to decide which source is reliable and which isn't. In your opinion all Soviet research is lies, damn lies and communist marxist propaganda and so called "rest of the world" (mainly US and EU, but not for example China or Middle East) is all truth honesty verifiability great great unbiased research! Your understanding of democracy and scientific verifiability is weird to say the least. -- Borism 09:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest reading Soviet historiography article. Soviet publications suffered from numerous problems. That however doesn't mean that there wasn't valuable research done in some areas; in history the rule of thumb holds that the further one goes from 20th century, the better the Soviet research was - but even so much of it was influenced by often irrelevant but "politically correct" Marxist ideology. I don't think we should "ban" Soviet works - but I do agree that we should have a warning that Soviet-era works are less reliable than Western academia works, and should be treated with caution.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 22:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Blueboar, I think you miss my point, which is that Soviet accounts are discredited unreliable sources where the history of Eastern Europe is concerned, their factual misrepresentations of the entire 20th century being the primary problem area. I fail to see the editorial imperative to mix discredited sources with reputable scholarly sources and then represent the resulting utterly confusing mélange as "NPOV" informative. By your suggestion, any article on Eastern Europe not representing the Great Soviet Encyclopedia view as equally valid to non-Soviet sourced scholarship gets tagged as POV--which is exactly the mess all the Eastern European articles are in today.

You say to represent all viewpoints. That is fine. The Russian viewpoint is, for example, scrupulously noted where it follows historical (pre-perestroika) Soviet lines (with no speculation as to motives)--and, I must point out, that not a single reputable source has been brought by any editor to WP to substantiate the factual basis for the Soviet version (not "view") differing from non-Soviet scholarship. But, again, please explain to me exactly where we lost "reliable" along the way to achieving "NPOV"? Viewpoints are based on the same (reputable, verifiable) data, different interpretations. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The articles on Eastern European topics surely deserve the tag because you and your friends constantly remove any sources that do not fit with your POV. Modern sources from Baltic states and Poland are intentionally fabricated to serve political purposes (which was shown multiple times) but nobody calls to remove them. We believe these sources useful to represent their point of view. You and your friends want only to create a situation where sources from Baltics places in priviledged position and Soviet sources labelled incorrect by definition.--Dojarca 00:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Dojarca, care to give an example where Polish and Baltic sources go against international/Western sources? I do believe I've asked that previously from you, but as far as I remember you ignored that request, nor have I seen any of "which was shown multiple times". We have a plenty of sources from Soviet Union, that go against the sources from rest of the world, I do believe I've given about half a dozen examples already for you. -- Sander Säde 06:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

So according to your logic if Soviet (state sponsored) source is contradicted by multiple "rest of the world" (mainly so called "western world", e.g. US an EU, but not for example China) (state sponsored) sources it makes latter sources more valid? Your understanding of democracy and scientific verification is weird to say the least. Your point of view is very limited in this case and shouldn't be a subject of wikipedia, but state sponsored propaganda. -- Borism 09:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstood me completely. My point was about Dojarca's logic, as he has repeatedly advocated to discard Baltic and Polish sources, as - according to him - there are state-sponsored institutes in Poland and Baltic states, which fabricate history. Since he has claimed that three times now, it would be really nice to see some kind of example of those fabrications and how they contradict non-Polish/Baltic Western sources. -- Sander Säde 09:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, regarding Borism's: "So according to your logic if Soviet (state sponsored) source is contradicted by multiple "rest of the world" (mainly so called "western world", e.g. US an EU, but not for example China) (state sponsored) sources it makes latter sources more valid?", I want to make it clear, we are not talking about viewpoint/interpretation. For example, that the Latvian Riflemen defended the Kremlin and Bolshevism, that is a fact. Interpretations and attributions of motivations/interpretations are then viewpoints and can be "sourced" by Western sources, Latvian sources, Soviet sources, discussing that fact. What we are talking about regarding unreliability of Soviet sources is the absence of a basis in fact of Soviet historical contentions, contentions which have continued beyond the demise of the Soviet Union. I will go back to my old saw that Dojarca knows well. The Russian Duma issued a proclamation to "remind deputies of the Latvian Saeima that Latvia's being a part of the Soviet Union was grounded by fact and by law from the international juridical point of view" (reported in Pravda, November 19, 1999). So, legal according to all treaties and obligations in effect, legal according to the constitution of Latvia, legal according to the constitution of the USSR. And therefore, for that reason, no "occupation" (you can't occupy what belongs to you, etc. etc. etc.). I have been asking for months for any reputable factual basis supporting the Duma proclamation--i.e., something that examines the Russian position and in any way discusses how that position might be based on verified facts. No one has produced any sources. No one has produced any facts. The Great Soviet Encyclopedia et al. in portraying this alleged "legality" merely states its legality. It is only through endless repetition that the Soviet position has taken on the mantle of reliability, not through any basis whatsoever in fact. Ergo, the Soviet position is not reliably sourced: not because it is a different "interpretation" of specific verified facts, but because it is not based on verified facts in the first place. The Soviet "version" (not "viewpoint") of history already gets mention despite its demonstrated unreliability in reputable scholarship and, indeed, abject lack of basis in verified facts.PētersV 14:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

So you are proposing that sources should be sourced as well? I'm afraid that you're not getting far with such proposition - in such case you should disregard most articles about modern history and politics (which are based mostly on newspaper articles)

Also, you're seeking truth (in particular case whether Latvia was occupied or not from legal point of view (which of course differs depending on jurisdiction)). Wikipedia is not about truth, it is about verifiability. Verifiability is based on sources. If there are contradicting sources, you leave both, not delete ones that are based on lies in your opinion. Wikipedia reader then can decide herself which is her truth. You can stay true to you beliefs. What is problem with that (besides that you don't like that people have alternative truths)? -- Borism 18:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Look, this is quite simple folks... You can place the GSE in context by commenting that its version of events are influenced by Soviet ideology (I am sure you can find a source that says this)... but NPOV demands that both versions be presented, whether "true" or not. This debate is similar to those that go on at the tons of articles cited to the 1918 Catholic Encyclopedia... which was definitely a biased source, and frequently got its facts wrong, but is, to this day, a valuable resource for presenting how the Church viewed things at the time (and in some cases, how it still views things). The same is true for the GSE. It may be inaccurate or skewed in its bias, but it is a reliable source for the Soviet version of events. I would probably not rely on it as a sole source, but in conjunction with, and juxtaposed by western and baltic sources it is certainly acceptable. All it takes is attribution (as in "According to the GSE..." Having said this (again)...I respectlfully ask that you take the argument to the various article talk pages... you have had a similar answer from several editors who work on this page regularly, and your continued bickering on the topic is getting a bit tiresome. Blueboar 18:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

But, Blueboar, there is one thing to consider. You say - correct me if I misunderstand you - that Soviet point of view is as legitimate as Western. On what is that assumption based? As Soviet historiography or Suppressed research in the Soviet Union show, significant parts of Soviet point of view were corrupted by party line and Marxism. Of course, I agree with you, that to show Soviet POV GSE is as good as CE to show the Catholic POV. However this is not the point. Nobody (I hope) is suggesting to ban all Soviet sources. What the concerned editors are suggesting, however, is that it should be made clear that on average and particularly in areas outlined in Soviet historiography and Suppressed research in the Soviet Union articles, Soviet sources are less reliable than Western works.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 01:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Aren't Westenn works corrupted with anti-Communism, or (for example) Conservatism? This is a motion to portray Soviet sources as incorrect only because they are Soviet. It think if is an attempt to invent political censorship in Wikipedia. --Dojarca 07:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

My dear Dojarca, all that has been asked is what factual basis Soviet accounts have for their contentions/version. Plenty of factual basis has been provided for non-Soviet sources (you being one of the editors who keeps insisting on asking for more). None has been provided for Soviet sources regarding the Soviet version of Baltic/Eastern European history. To Blueboar, I have said repeatedly I am happy to (and I believe it is important to) detail the Soviet account so that readers can be informed. But it is not reliable, it is not an equally valid "viewpoint." The Soviet Union is dead. I was unaware that the purpose of WP was to keep the propaganda of a dead repressive totalitarian state alive--which is essentially what you are suggesting--I should content myself with the situation and stop being tiresome.

And finally again to Dojarca, I myself have used Soviet sources. You, Irpen, et al. paint this as a biased move to summarily dismiss everything Soviet as a lie. It is not. Again, I only ask for factual basis. If that is impossible to be provided, I cannot see how anyone can contend Soviet versions of history are reliable.PētersV 20:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologize that I'm apparently just a dumb Latvian and that the best America has to offer in higher education has not ameliorated my inborn intellectual circumstance. I am more befuddled than ever after re-reading I think it's Borism's question above: "So you are proposing that sources should be sourced as well?"

You see, I was under the impression that the very definition of a "reliable source" was that the "source was sourced" and found to be verifiable based on confirmed facts/highly regarded in reputable scholarly circles/etc.

Accordingly, allow me to put forth two options regarding historical accounts in the GSE et al.:

The Great Soviet Encyclopedia and similar Soviet accounts are to be treated as reliable sources; those accounts to be represented as factually verifiable.
The Great Soviet Encyclopedia and similar Soviet accounts are to be treated as unreliable sources; its accounts to be represented as not factually verifiable; note that there are those who continue to espouse GSE et al. accounts as "correct" as their personal opinions or official positions (no motivations ascribed).

WP indicates what's a reliable source and what isn't and how to determine same. Let's have it. Either way, the GSE goes on the list with regard to historical accounts: reliable or unreliable. No more "Wikipedia doesn't decide the truth" induced limbo. Every source can be discussed as to its reliability. Every source can and is sourced in turn to validate its use as a "reliable source". But sources known for lying (Soviet accounts of history) are off limits in discussing reliability?

"WP doesn't determine the truth" is not applicable. WP offers specific guidelines on how to determine whether a source is reliable. Let's apply them and get this over with, either way. PētersV 23:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought here. Aren't encyclopedias usually compilations of the work of multiple authors? In which case, it might be worth considering whether the authors of individual articles are considered to be reliable sources in their field. I wouldn't trust Soviet historians, for instance, but Soviet scientists had a pretty good reputation. -- ChrisO 00:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Certainly there was much variation. But don't forget how wide was the Suppressed research in the Soviet Union.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 00:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's be clear... the GSE is biased, it does portray history from a particlular POV, it is even inaccurate on some issues... BUT IT IS A RELIABLE SOURCE by our rules. End of discussion. Blueboar 01:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

In other words, citing RS as it is currently written, you are saying: Great Soviet Encyclopedia is "a published work regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" (and since its an encyclopedia, the subject at hand can be anything). GSE has "an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight" and "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Excuse me? GSE quite obviously fails the above; have you ever read any of its masterpieces? Try [9]. Gerovitch notes ([10]) that is served a normative, not descriptive purpose. See also Britannica Entry. Of course, as Duff notes, [11] it is a useful source for some areas - but you cannot say its as reliable as an average Western Encyclopedia. GSE is obviously a "Publications with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight should only be used in articles about the authors or publishers themselves. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the author or publisher has made about third parties."--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 02:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

"BUT IT IS A RELIABLE SOURCE by our rules." I (and I am sure others) await Blueboar's analysis which takes us all through the sequence of steps by which "we" aka Wikipedia logically and with intellectual integrity arrived at the affirmation that the GSE et al. conform to WP rules/requirements for a reliable source. PētersV 02:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I am amused to note that the [link provided by Piotrus above explicitly describes the GSE as 'biased', but the two excerpts from the GSE provided in it appear to be accurate in terms of the facts, and the editorialising surrounding the Soviet contribution to the 'Great Patriotic War' seems to be a perfectly useful statement of the Soviet view of their own contribution. I don't see how that quote invalidates any of the points that an RS is supposed to satisfy. I'd have to agree with Blueboar that our requirements for an RS do not exclude the GSE. Relata refero 19:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, I must point out that I'm afraid Piotrus misquotes Gerovitch: what SG actually says is that the GSE served not only a descriptive but also a normative purpose, the purpose being to delineate what was acceptable knowledge. That is not the same thing as omnipresent bias in presentation, but rather bias in selection. Relata refero 19:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

As I've said, I have no issue with representing the Soviet "contribution to the 'Great Patriotic War'". However, where it comes to specific facts, as in Latvia freely, willingly, can leave the USSR any time it wants joining + Russian Duma proclamations indicating joining the Soviet Union legally according to international law... that is a "version" which is completely unsubstantiated and refuted in reputable scholarship. The discussion is whether the GSE is reliable in encyclopedic detail = reliable source, NOT whether it presents a useful portayal of the Soviet POV (of which it is a reliable source, not to be confused with a "reliable source.") How does abject failure of basis in fact (e.g., detailed "free" Latvian election results were accidentally released 24 hours early and printed in the news in London) have no bearing on GSE et al. being unreliable? This is completely not a conversation about "bias" in interpretation of verified factual events, e.g., Soviet troops crossed border XYZ at ABC, pick "invasion" or "liberation." It is about contentions by/in the GSE et al. which have exactly 0% basis in fact and have been thoroughly debunked by all reputable scholarship. Please explain how the GSE et al. meet RS under those circumstances.

Do not confuse two completely different issues, that is: "POV" over reliably verified fact versus a "version" of events proven completely false (outright lie) by reputable scholarship, or suggest that they are one and the same. They are not. PētersV 21:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Crux of GSE issue

Perhaps I am somehow failing to be clear about the GSE et al. issue:

"BIAS" is a point-of-view interpretation of a reputably verified fact.
"LIE" is contending something reputably proven to have no basis in fact.

Historical accounts in the GSE et al. (and indeed, in all Soviet propaganda) expertly blend both bias and lies. One needs reputable sources to be able to tell bias apart from lies when interpreting the GSE et al. Therefore, the GSE et al. cannot possibly be a reliable source in and of itself. Or is it being suggested that a source which contains outright fabrications is merely guilty of enthusiasm in its bias and is therefore a reliable source nonetheless? —PētersV 21:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but we are not in a place where individual editors are able to make these distinctions. If the GSE claims that the Soviet constitution indicates that Latvia was able to leave at any time, that is relevant encyclopaedic material, however true. It should naturally be followed by a quote from recent scholarship indicating that that 'right' was never exercised, nor even attempted to be exercised. (Your claim that this has been 'debunked' is difficult to comprehend. The soviet constitution itself provided that right, I think, and confirmation can be found for it. Likewise, confirmation can be found for the many reasons why the Constitution itself was not generally followed when it came to relations between Russia and the other republics. That is how an article should be written, not leaving out the complexity of the situation altogether.)

If a claim appears in the GSE which has not been 'debunked' or corroborated by post-1991 scholarship, I nevertheless believe that nothing in our rules allows us to exclude it purely on the grounds that it is in the GSE. (A rule of this nature would exclude considerable very useful anthropological and scientific information, and be untenable.) I would suggest that under such circumstances, you invite disagreeing editors to very seriously consider why this claim is undiscussed elsewhere and thus whether it is, seriously speaking, worth including at all.

I respect your efforts to keep WP free of "outright fabrication", but if we have learnt one thing from Judy Miller and Michael R. Gordon, it is that even sources with a reputation for fact-checking cannot occasionally escape including fabrication of one sort or another in their pages. WP thus works on the basis of broad rules, rather than examples of fabrication such as you provide. Relata refero 04:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I am tired, but let me try to repharse this entire discussion very simply. GSE (as an example of an average Soviet source) is less reliable than an average Western source (lets say, Britannica). Perhaps it is not completly unreliable, but we should make it clear that it is less reliable than most other sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 04:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It is 'less' reliable than the average modern peer-reviewed journal article, but 'more' reliable than, for example, the 1911 Britannica. I hope that clarifies the point that such distinctions must be made on a case-specific basis. Relata refero 07:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I am tired too, the conversation is only around HISTORICAL ACCOUNTS as presented by the GSE et al., not about the GSE as a whole. It's silly to say, for example, the GSE describes atomic structure better than the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, therefore, the GSE is generally more reliable. The "reliability" of the 1911 EB is bounded by the scientific and historic knowledge of its time. In its time, it was a reliable source. To compare that to the GSE's manufacturing historical "facts" with no basis in reliably verified fact is disingenuous to say the least.

So, to Relata refero's point, we are already talking the case by case basis, that case being historical representation. The "case by case" discussions suggested (re: my specific instance et al.) have been held and the GSE is still touted as inviolable in this regard. To Relata refero's contention of relative reliability, I rather doubt the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica (knowingly) presents manufactured information, having no basis in verifiable fact, regarding history. I would take the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica (I have an original volume with some articles in areas of interest to me) regarding history any day over an encyclopedia produced in service of a regime that regularly erased political leaders from pictures, rewrote history on a daily basis, and declared that history served politics. This declaration and demonstrations that history is manufactured to serve political purposes raises absolutely no concerns on anyone's part regarding the systemic reliability of the GSE et al. regarding "history"? I'm sorry, but the 1911 EB is totally irrelevant to this conversation in a comparison regarding the reliability being discsused.PētersV 14:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps posing it differently might help. Packed away somewhere I have the GSE's account (translated into English) of American history. If the GSE is deemed a reliable historical source, there are many items regarding U.S. history in Wikipedia which will require correction, minimally, the addition of the reliably sourced GSE POV. Furthermore, since the GSE is specifically more reliable than the 1911 EB, we'll need to replace any 1911 EB referenced content with GSE referenced content where EB vs. GSE accounts are in conflict, since the GSE is more reliable. PētersV 15:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Peters, no one is arguing that the GSE is more reliable than the 1911 EB, so please do not confuse the issue with silly arguments. When making evaluations on the reliability or unreliability of a source, we have to look at the source in its entirety, and not just what it says about a specific fact. And Taken in its entirety, the GSE has to be considered a reliable source. It is the product of numerous well regarded Russian scholars. Much of their scholarship in it is highly regarded. The GSE can not be simply written off as being unreliable. That said, I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you that some of the individual facts it asserts are the product of governmental/party dictates, and it may contain fabrications. I think you are absolutely correct in saying that some of its facts need to be questioned or qualified. But that does not make it an unreliable source by Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines.

So what do we, as Wikipedia editors, do when we suspect that a fact is a fabrication? Several of our Core Policies give an answer... The first thing you can do is raise the issue on the talk page of an article that discusses this fact. If there is consensus that this fact should not be relied on, then there is no problem simply omitting it. Consensus rules. However, when (as in this case) there is no consensus we look to what the policy says... WP:V states: "The criteria for inclusion is verification not truth"... Which means that it does not matter if the GSE is lieing or not... as long as we can verify that it says the what it is reported to have said. WP:NPOV tells us to present both sides of the debate and place them in context through attribution. In other words, we leave the "truthfullness" of the statement out of the equation, and simply report on what the various sources say. We can include qualifing remarks that tell the reader that the fact being asserted is not accepted by the majority of other scholars, and we can word things so as to not give the questionable fact udue weight. In the example you have been talking about we can say something along the lines of:

"According to the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, the Soviet Constitution stated that Latvia could leave at any time <citation>, The majority of Western and Baltic scholars, however, strongly disagree with this assertion. For example: Noted scholar X discusses the issue in depth in his book, title of book, and concludes that Latvia was not free to leave <citation>; and noted scholar Y is quoted as saying: 'quote from Y'<citation>."

The one thing our Policies do not let us do is completely discount and ignore the disputed source. To put it another way... what the GSE says on any given topic may or may not be a premeditated lie... but the fact that it says it is verifiable, and this should be reported. You then qualify things by reporting on what other sources say. This is Policy in Wikipedia. You may not like this policy, but you do have to follow it. Blueboar 17:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Aren't we confusing verifiability with reliability here? Of course GSE can be verified with itself. But that doesn't make it as reliable as modern Britannica, for example. In any case, to end this - since I do think we are reaching some form of understanding - what do you think about a note that would state, more or less, that obsolete sources (ex. pre-first half of the 20th century) or ones from publishers with obvious bias / methodology problems (ex. Soviet) should be, by a rule of thumb, considered less reliable than modern Western academic sources?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not confusing reliability with verifiability... they work in tandem on Wikipedia. However, Verifiability takes precidence since both it is a Policy, while RS is simply a guideline that explains one aspect of the policy. In the case of citing the GSE, we also have to apply WP:NPOV. Basically, what I am trying to say is that I agree that one should not simply state "Latvia could leave at any time" as a statement of fact cited to the GSE... but we can and should say "According to the GSE, Latvia could leave at any time." Phrased this way (with attribution) it becomes a statement of opinion and not a statement of fact. The GSE is certainly reliable in that context (even when what it says is a demonstratable fabrication). As for including a statement about old, or state sponcered encyclopedias... no, I don't think we should do that. In some cases such sources are the best resource there is. In other cases, a more modern source is best... it is a judgement call that should be made at the local article level and not by fiat in our guidelines and policies. Blueboar 21:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, since we are writing modern encyclopedia, we should not talk about 1911EB reliability in 1911, but today - and today it is certainly rather unreliable, more or less just as GSE. As I noted in previous discussions, we should have a note on the old sources being unreliable (I can even provide a Wales interview criticizing 1911EB if it is not linked somewhere above). But for the same token we should note that more modern sources - Soviet ones - are as unreliable, even if they are newer.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

"To compare that (the 1911 EB) to the GSE's manufacturing historical "facts" with no basis in reliably verified fact is disingenuous to say the least." On the contrary. The GSE is actually considerably more accurate and unbiased on matters dealing with the history of Asia and Africa in the nineteenth century, for example, than the 1911 EB. If you think that this is a small matter, let me inform you that vast parts of the historical articles in those areas were - and are - heavily dependent on articles in the 1911 EB that contain various racially and culturally supremacist inaccuracies, and yet no editors in the area have attempted to rewrite this policy to indicate that that the encyclopaedia itself is unreliable per se, merely removing from relevant articles the more excessive editorialising.

Let me make this crystal clear: No policy permits us to make any blanket prohibition on using the GSE; and writing an addendum to this policy gerrymandered to exclude the GSE and such sources would be problematic, and unnecessary given that we already privilege modern academic sources. I take strong exception to the phrase Piotrus uses: "modern Western academic sources"; we cannot permit the privileging certain geographical areas in this manner. We are concerned with the source's review procedures here, not its geographical origin.

As for the philosophical point about the Soviet system and the rewriting of history, I'm afraid that the "modern Western academic" world we are so happy to cite would claim that all narratives are useful, so no help there.... again, I am not being glib: claims of 'reliably verified fact', such as X crossed Y border are very different from claims of interpretation, such as X was a major cause for Y, or that A 'could not do' B; according to many active historians today, the latter depends upon the 'chosen narrative'. This is not a minority viewpoint; every major history department's recent hires in non-European world history have been heavily biased towards groups such as the subalterns.

To sum up: no help here. If the official Soviet perspective seems relevant to a particular point, the GSE cannot be ruled out as a source. For history articles where it is in a clear minority of opinions, the reader will be able to make up his or her own mind. Relata refero 20:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Since there's no help here, how is it proposed to deal with situations where, regarding some specific situation or event:

GSE says "A", no reputable basis for "A" (or often, no basis at all, just the statement)
Numerous western references reliably sourced pointing to verified facts/events say "B"
Pro-GSE editors say "A" and "B" must be represented equally, noting source; GSE account "A" is not to be disputed as unreliable based on facts or lack thereof (proposed in arbitrations by pro-GSE historical rendition editors)

Please feel free to respond on my talk page as I'm sure the topic has been pretty much exhausted here. PētersV 01:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Modern Britannica

Modern Britannica says in an article about Stalin that he was paranoid. There was no reputable medical research to confirm Stalin suffered from paranoia. Does it mean we should exclude Britannica as well?--Dojarca 23:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm, there is this, "Hitler, Lenin, and Stalin—A Study in Personality's Impact on History" (Excerpted from a draft of a book written with Renato Alarcon and Edward Foulks on Personality Disorders and Culture), which says about Stalin, "How could a man so paranoid that he had murdered many of his closest allies and former friends ally himself with ..." and "... inconsistent with his paranoid personality features until one also considers his deep sociopathy."

This identifies Edward Foulks as "Edward Foulks, M.D., Ph.D., the Sellars-Polchow Professor of Psychiatry and associate dean for graduate medical education at Tulane University School of Medicine in New Orleans." this prominently mentions both Renato Alarcon and Edward Foulks as, apparently, respected persons in the world of Clinical Psychiatry.

The foregoing might be difficult/clumsy to cite as supporting sources regarding whether or not Stalin was clinically paranoid, but my guess is that citeable sources beyond Britannica probably do exist. However, does not Britannica have a reputation as a reliable source (quoting this project page) "with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight"? -- Boracay Bill 01:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

As you quote: "How could a man so paranoid that he had murdered many of his closest allies and former friends ally himself with a dictator whose very rise to power was on a platform of anti-Semitism and anticommunism?" This is a question, not a statement. Work you cite is indeed raising a question whether he was paranoid, but I don't see an answer there. Frankly, I'm not too optimistic about power of psychohistory to psychoanalyze person who is dead for more than half a century and whose attributed actions are largely a collection of many peoples' and organizations' collective actions, not his singlehanded decisions as is popularly thought. -- Borism 11:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If there is a question as to the factual accuracy of the EB, then restate it as a statement of opinion, with attribution. Blueboar 14:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think there are enough examples at Britannica#Criticisms, but I guess the point is not banning this or that encyclopedia but avoidance of such politically opinionated debates in the future for NPOV sake. -- Borism 19:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikitruth as a reliable source

Wikitruth appears to be a notable website, but is it a reliable source? I remember reading somewhere that even Conservapedia could constitute a reliable source. If the same could be said about Wikitruth, then we have yet another reason why the Brian Peppers article should never have been deleted, as they actually cover the deletion of the Brian Peppers article...--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I mean, Wikitruth is used as a source in the Wikitruth article, so why not for Brian Peppers? I don't think Jimbo would take well to this idea, but I may indeed ask him on his talk page, and hope for a response.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

See WP:SPS. These self-published sources can only be used in article(s) about themselves and under certain caveats. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone recently defended the use of Wikitruth (or a similar site, I don't recall) because it is not an open wiki, per WP:SPS:

Articles and posts on Wikipedia or other open wikis should never be used as third-party sources.

Perhaps we should rethink that exemption. Are there any closed wikis we'd use as a reliable source? If all closed wikis are self-published then it should be removed due to the implication that they are allowed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Good point. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be sufficient to say:

Articles and posts on Wikipedia or other ~~open~~ wikis should never be used as third-party sources.

While some wikis may be more reliable than others, I can't imagine any that wouldn't be considered self-published. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Without wanting to suport Wikitruth as generally reliable source, I don't think we should change the guideline like that. A wiki is just a publishing platform, unenecessarily institutionalizing a prejudice against a particular form of software isn't ideal. Removing the open doesn't autmoatically make closed wikis reliable sources, the rest of the guideline still applies. If somewhere good authors and editorial process do end up creating a wiki with a real reputation for reliability, it would be a shame to have people have to fight to use it as a source just becasue historically wikis have been used for more informal infromation gathering. I think it would be better to change the focus from wikis and put it on the fact that sources that can be easily changed by non-experts are not reliable. -- SiobhanHansa 23:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

While your point is valid, I'm not sure how we'd translate that into policy language without a major re-write. Most (if not all) wikis are self-published, in most cases there's no way of assessing the reliability of the author of any particular passage, and in all cases the material is subject to constant revision. Can you give an example of a closed wiki that we should regard as reliable and stable? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Not off the top of my head. But I think it is fairer to look at from the other perspective - if the only thing you can say against a source's reliability is that it is published on a particular sort of software, then you probably shouldn't be trying to keep it out. All sources need to be evaluated in regards to the particular situation - the fact there is discussion about tightening the guideline because people can't already tell that Wikitruth is virtually always inappropriate scares me. If that's the case we do need a major re-write. The question should be "what makes it reliable?" - not "does it break one of a list of narrow prohibitions?" I'm getting too far off topic. What I should be writing is - why isn't this bit of the guideline already sufficient? -- SiobhanHansa 00:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that specifying "open wikis" leaves the implication that closed wikis are acceptable. If there aren't any closed wiki that we'd want to accept then we don't need to make the distinction. We should avoid the confusion by simply saying that wikis are not allowed, which is consistent with the overall exclusion of self-published, unstable sources. Recall, too, that the actual policy is at WP:SPS, part of WP:V. WP:RS simply provides additional guidance. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the mention of "open wikis". All the language we need is available at WP:SPS. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I've made the parallel change to WP:V, and have posted a note at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Open wikis about it. Since I'm going camping (really!) I won't be able to address comments there until my return. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

That change to WP:V has been reverted. Please note that (1) this project page is a guideline article, (2) WP:V is a policy article. (3) there is a discussion regarding this currently in progress on WT:V. -- Boracay Bill 23:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Will here. Even if an organization closed a wiki down and claimed there was editorial oversight, if anyone within the group can edit it at any time, is there really editorial oversight? I don't think so. The editorial oversight we're looking for is that someone writes it, an editor reads it and then stands by that work when its published. I can't possibly imagine a scenario where one would WANT to use wiki software and have it set up in a way that would be considered reliable.--Crossmr 13:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This strikes me as being overly paranoid. Any website, maintained by any technology can be edited at any time by anyone with write permission to the content. Just because you can't think of a closed wiki you'd consider reliable doesn't mean it can't exist. The point is self-published sources shouldn't (in general) be used. The technology used for self-publishing doesn't matter. Could be blog. Could be wiki. Could be privately maintained website. Could be self-published book. Open wikis are a technology allowing self-publishing. Closed wikis may or may not be. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Using biased sources in articles on Wikipedia

I was curious- I have read the standards set forth by Wikipedia regarding extremist sources, but I really did not see anything regarding biased sources. One day last week I happened to go to History of Israel for a glance and saw that almost every source was from the POV of someone from the country itself, which to me doesn't give it a good worldview at all. What is the clear use of sources in this manner? I didn't bother to say anything there because it is not in my interest to get into a fiery debate, so I took my question here where it can be answered without much rancor. Thanks! Monsieurdl 16:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Arguably this is an issue for WP:NPOV though clearly these issues are interconnected. It is an important general point in that you can use these sources to avoid being accused of original research, but it is difficult to write a genuinely neutral article using extremist viewpoints. There isn't a good criteria of reliable sources, and when you have vague statements such as mainstream newspapers being reliable sources when their content is so varied, then it is not surprising that there are issues.

Most sensible people know what a reliable source is, especially compared with other sources, but trying to write a set of criteria to disqualify sources is a big problem, especially when there are those who want to push a viewpoint. Spenny 17:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

If you think a specific source is overly biased, raise the issue on the talk page of the article in question. Perhaps the statement being sourced can be rephrased and given a text attribution, so that readers can be made awair of who the author is and how his view point might be biased. I don't think we can make generalizations on this issue. You can not just say that because an author comes from Israel, they have an automatic bias. As bias generally relates to reliability... I don't think bias makes something completely unreliable. For example, I might question the use of an ovbiously biased source as support for a statement of fact, but as support for a statement of opinion, it is probably quite reliable. If a source is obviously POV, find a reliable source with a different POV and compare and contrast what they have to say. Blueboar 17:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't going to go into it on that page because it just isn't worth it to me to get into that kind of a heated debate when it isn't normally a page I go on. I just used it as an example because it just sounded funny to me that those sources would be used. The article needs work anyways, but I'll stick to ancient times for now :P Monsieurdl 11:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

"Anti-religious"

I read the following: "Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature..."

By anti-religious do you mean opposed to one religion, all religions or both. For example would a source that is vehemently anti-Jewish, but pro-Christian, be considered "anti-religious"?Bless sins 04:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I would venture to guess any statement by extremist groups or persons that uses any religious references, whether pro or anti. I mean, it doesn't matter in what context or what subject- extremist is extremist. I'd automatically prefer another source anyways. Monsieurdl 11:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

To answer the question... yes, a vehimently Anti-Jewish, but Pro-Christian extremist group would count... probably as both an extremist religious group (the pro-Christian side of their extremism) and as an extremist anti-religious group (the Anti-Jewish side of their extremism). As Monsieurdl says, Extremist is Extremist. The intent is to be inclusive of all extremist groups, of what ever nature. Blueboar 16:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Language of sources

I'm sure this has been discussed but I can't find it: What is the general attitude toward foreign-language sources for uncontroversial facts? For example, the vast majority of sources for Klaas-Jan Huntelaar are in Dutch, but they don't appear to be for claims that are likely to be disputed. However, they don't really meet the "verifiability" requirement because English-language readers cannot verify. --Bloodzombie 14:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This is commented on in the WP:Verifiability policy. English language references are preferred but foreign language sources are not disallowed. I think that there is a presumption that if the claims were contentious it should be feasible to get hold of someone familiar with the language to assist in verification. Verification is not instant, and it is perfectly reasonable to quote sources that are not readily available on line, which also causes issues of verification. Spenny 14:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thank you. --Bloodzombie 14:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

What about the application of foreign-language sources for the establishment of notability? This issue has been raised in several AfDs where few English-language sources exist (and has also been raised on the WP:N talk page). --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)Tell me what you think! 05:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Biology, Ecology and Medicine

Seems I’ve found a hot bed of contention here in Talk of Reliable Sources, and I’m glad I did; it seems I’m not the only one. On to my take on it:

Consider the sciences of biology and ecology for a moment. Analyses in these fields, and in medicine also, are often expressed as “seems to be“, “seems likely”, “may be” “possibly” and such as that. This is done for good reason. The subject is life, at least in part, and life is dynamic, ever-changing. And for contrast consider ... Oh, the melting point of iron. The melting point of iron, to my knowledge, does not change.

An academic pursuit of absolute definition, as “reliable” can suggest, in some things seems fine but in other not practical. I don’t know how to otherwise express this; sometimes, as in the life sciences, absolute definition is not practical.

It seems to me we have a choice of adopt two sets of criteria or trying to subject every subject, observation and article to one. The difference between the two seems not to be of different items in the sets but more one of emphasis of such items. The observations and methods of observation differ in different fields of study; reliable then should have different meanings. I see no alternative to this other than ceasing to class and even think of biology, ecology and medicine as sciences. listenin 02:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be addressing the degree of absoluteness of claims in those fields, which has little to nothing to do with reliability. A heavily qualified but broadly known theory about brain function has no distinction in and of itself from the laws of thermodynamics. The ideas themselves are not reliable or unreliable. The publications that contain those claims are reliable or unreliable. For example, if both were contained in reputable textbooks published by Oxford University Press, both would be equally reliable. Vassyana 21:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Back to the starting point, it seems, a full circle. A specific source, though, does not indicate reliability. You're assuming that Oxford University Press or whatever source is reliable; you didn't actually qualify the assumption. Seems your discourse is more the realm of what is original research and why is it proscribed at Wikipedia than it is exploring “reliable source”.

Reliable and Source are two ideas, and together make a third. It seems much of the debate on this page is over “source”, which may be the easier of the two to address. I hold to the observation that reliable should have two ( or more ) meanings dependent upon the context in which it is applied.

A third meaning of reliable may be found in interviews, where an article may be comprised largely of perception and emphasis and little actual fact. Even consensus derived through the highly exalted democratic process is still opinion. I propose that we not seek finality between us but see if the debates continue; that is what may uphold the observation, the "theory", that reliable should have two ( and perhaps more ) acceptable meanings as unresolved conflict would indicate that one meaning is not enough. -- listenin (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Are book publishers reliable sources anymore?

Consider this excerpt from Publishers Say Fact-Checking Is Too Costly, By Jeffrey A. Trachtenberg, Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal, January 30, 2006:

Indeed, many members of the publishing industry have rallied around Ms. [Nan] Talese and Random House, saying that they would have published "A Million Little Pieces" as well and could have been duped just as easily. Unlike journalists, publishers have never seen it as their purview to verify that the information in nonfiction books is true. Editors and publishers say the profit-margins in publishing don't allow for hiring fact-checkers. Instead, they rely on authors to be honest, and on their legal staffs to avoid libels suits. "An author brings a manuscript saying it represents the truth, and that relationship is one of trust," says Ms. Talese.

There is an expectation by many editors that books, especially academic press books, are peer-reviewed and fact-checked, like respected professional journals are supposed to be, but it appears that there has been a distinct collapse of such standards due largely to rising costs. For these reasons I propose to qualify the statements in the main article about this. Jon Roland 19:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It would behoove you to more completely read the article. It notes that a number of measures are being considered to help reduce such problems. Additionally, the article states this type of problem is not universal to non-fiction, but rather especially problematic in memoirs because of a lack of the "adversarial" editorial process that is common in other non-fiction fields. I sincerely hope that Wikipedia is not that reliant on memoirs. If it was, that's a failing of editorial judgment and common sense, not a failing of the rules. Guidelines provide just that ... guidelines. We're expected to use our reason on a case-by-case basis, because even the most comprehensive policy cannot possibly cover every exception and circumstance. Vassyana 21:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I did read the entire article, but "measures are being considered" is not an answer to the point that editors should not presume a book from a "respectable" publisher such as an academic press is always to be considered more reliable than one from a less "respectable" publisher, such as a newspaper. What is happening is that the editors of major newspapers are often doing a better job of fact-checking, at least their lead articles, than academic publishers are for their books. But none of these issue some kind of warning label "fact-checked by ..." or "not fact-checked". It is also becoming more common for scholars in obscure fields to use low-volume, on-demand publishers for writings too long for a journal and not popular enough for a book publisher who has to sell enough copies to earn back its investment. Editors need to put more weight on the reputation of authors than of publishers. Jon Roland 23:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow the logic. diff. In the first sentence, Jon Roland talks of 'an academic press'. Of this I imagine Oxford University Press, etc.. Then in the third sentence Jon Roland talks of 'on-demand publishers' Edwin Mellen Press There are questions about reliability of Mellen. Sorry there is a big difference between on-demand publishers and the academic press. -- SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Paper doesn't have the magical ability to turn truthiness into truth. Printed works can be just as unreliable as personal blogs. - Jehochman ^Talk 22:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes they can, but academic publishers set higher standards as to the sort of material they will consider for publication in the first place, so as a general rule I think they can still be considered more reliable than run-of-the-mill commercial publishers. Gatoclass (talk) 01:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

To clarify Gatoclass's statement, I think we need to look at the process rather than the material. Academic publishers do have higher standards because they have prepublication peer review and there is an extensive tradition of publishing book reviews of other professors' works in many academic fields. Many journals have half the pages filled with substantive research and the other half filled with book reviews of recently published books. So there is a constant filtering process going on. Either garbage doesn't get published, or if it does get published, it is quickly attacked in print by four or five other professors looking to build their own careers by climbing over the corpses of their peers. The academic world is very ruthless (everyone is trying to (1) get tenure and then (2) get famous). Of course, there are silly exceptions in certain very specialized fields that lead to scandals like the Sokal Hoax, but that involved a journal with no peer review. --Coolcaesar (talk) 02:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews Interviews as Reliable Sources

I have been conducting a variety of interviews with people on Wikinews. A few have been Republican Presidential candidates Senator Sam Brownback and Tom Tancredo; ACLU President Nadine Strossen; writers Gay Talese and Augusten Burroughs; musicians Natasha Khan and Bang Camaro; the High Priest of the Church of Satan; Al Sharpton; PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk; journalist Craig Unger; et. al. The interviews are recorded and transcribed on the Wikimedia sister project Wikinews. I typically use Wikipedia pages as sources and ask information gleaned from them (in addition to other research). After a few weeks they are archived and unable to be edited. Links to the interviews are forwarded to the interviewees (indeed, Tom Tancredo featured our interview on his blog). Are these reliable sources? --David Shankbone 20:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course they are. They are reliable sources for the people interviewed. But interviewees' views on third parties are not reliable sources for those third parties. But you know what I think, so this will be my last comment here. See also Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Paul_Wolfowitz.E2.80.8E Cool Hand Luke 21:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

As much as I absolutely despise wiki~~tabloid~~news, and as much as I absolutely despise some of the vomitous filth that spews from some of these subjects, (Craig Unger's rantings come to mind), as long as they are accurate transcriptions of the interview they should be reliable once they are locked down from editing. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

How can they be used, though? Let's take Craig Unger out of the equation. I put Sam Brownback's interview on the traditional marriage page. If a box is inappropriate (since it was only one aspect of the interview) is quoting from it appropriate in that article, since he is a notable person who is known for his anti-gay marriage views? --David Shankbone 21:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Assuming that there is some mechanism in place to ensure that these are indeed accurate transcriptions (i.e. that we aren't simply taking someone's word for it) then I'm fine with the content being used as a source for the author's views. I'm not comfortable with them being treated in the same preferential way as Wikinews news content which attempts to achieve a NPOV. Christopher Parham (talk)

Okay. They aren't designed to be a critical analysis of a notable person's views, but a recordation of their views. So instead of Wikinews templates, the preference is for inline citation? "Sam Brownback said...{cite}"? --David Shankbone 21:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

yes, subject to normal considerations about whether the view is worth mentioning in the given context. For most people you could probably find much better sources, however; e.g. the views of an author are best sourced to their own works where at all possible. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Got it and roger "whether the view is worth mentioning". These interviews were completely a new undertaking on my part so I was unsure how they could or should be used on Wikipedia. Do you see a problem with the Dalai Lama's representative's interview included as a "See also" on Gedhun Choekyi Nyima where we discuss his situation at length? --David Shankbone 22:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think two issues are being confused here - the reliability of Wikinews and that of any given interview. Wikinews can be assumed to be a reliable account of the interview, but we should link to interviews with some caution - be they by Wikinews or Time magazine. Interviews of the article subject will usually be a good reference or external link. Those of a third party raise different questions. The interview is effectively hearsay - it is evidence that the interviewee believes certain things, not that those things are true. If the subject of the interview - person X's accusations about person Y are notable and discussed in the article, then the article will be a good reference. But we wouldn't cite every interview of everyone who has critcised George W Bush in his article. Trying to resolve this question in the abstract seems the wrong approach - the inclusion of any given interview will be a matter of editorial discretion. But generally it is the suitabilty of the interview itself (not where it is hosted or who asked the questions) that is the key matter. How much did the interviewee know about the subject he was discussing? Have his claims been denied? Have they been reported in reliable sources? How relevant are they in the article? etc. Another way to look at this might be, if the subject had written and published an article instead of giving an interview, would that article be a reliable source/ valid external link. WjBscribe 22:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Scribe, that helps. --David Shankbone 22:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

WJBscribe makes a good point; if this same interview happened to be in a reliable source. Which brings us to the question of whether or not these interviews in themselves are reliable. I'm leaning towards allowing them, but we have to be careful about what making sure that nothing is skewed to create POV. However, the same can be said of other references, and other interviews. Wizardman 01:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

To me the reliability of wikinews interviews comes down to one basic question, do we know who conducted the interview? In an interview by Time Magazine or some other reliable source, we usually know who the interviewer is, they have a byline... in cases when a byline is not given, we at least know that he or she is backed by real live people (the editors of the magazine) that are accountable for the material. In otherwords, there is a known person behind the text that appears in the source. I don't know if this true with Wikinews. Do the interviewers use their real names, or do they post their material by anonimous User IDs? Is there an actual known person who is accountable if they misquote the subject (or worse make something up)? Blueboar 03:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Convenience links?

I have boldly deleted the section on convenience links because I don't think they're commonly used. In fact I had never even heard of them until I got to this page. The Wikipedia:Convenience links essay page was almost completely moribund until a slight flurry of activity in the past couple weeks. Looking at that page it seems counter to the way nearly everybody categorizes hyperlinks as either wikilinks, citation links, or external links. Convenience links seem to be a flavor of external links, but perhaps ones that would not quite fit the WP:EL limitation that we only link to material that would not be suitable for inclusion in articles. I don't think we should encourage a style fork by expanding the number of kinds of links r the number of different sections on the bottom of the page. Also, encouraging these links might tend to turn articles into link lists, which we try to avoid.Wikidemo (talk) 00:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I've had people whine about a link to a 404 page because it was not a convenience link to a source. Sometimes the links are for historical purposes, as they might be useful for (perhaps later) accessing the information. So sometimes they're inconvenience links because you can't tell they are 404 until you click on them. SEWilco (talk) 00:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Convenience links are links to content available on a site that would not otherwise qualify as a reliable source. These may be copies of court judgments hosted on POV activists' sites, copies of out-of-print books hosted with the consent of the copyright holder, etc. There have been recurrent arguments over the years about linking to sites that would not be deemed reputable for anything but the hosted third-party information -- here is one that I was involved in just a short while ago. Convenience links, I am sure, are used in many places; often, people do not buy a book or journal, but quote from excerpts they have seen on a website (unfortunately). Hence I think the section is very much needed. I would also like the section to make clear that if various sites are available, the most reputable one should be used. For example, if a historical document concerning slavery is available on several sites, among them a white supremacist's website as well as the website of a university's History Department, then our guidelines should state clearly that the site used for the convenience link should be the one that is most in line with NPOV and RS. Otherwise you get Wikipedia linking to all sorts of extremist sites just because they host a document considered useful in a particular context; that should not happen, if there is a more balanced site available that offers the same content. I'll reinstate the section for now. Jayen 466 00:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

That is, by definition, a subset of "external links", in which case WP:EL is the appropriate guideline page, not this essay, and WP:RS has nothing to say about them at all. The notion of "convenience links" as distinct from "external links" seems to have died down and I don't think it's something we should revive. Wikidemo (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC) Nevermind. I just reread the section in isolation from the essay.....standing by itself that section makes sense. I think the essay confused me. Nevertheless, perhaps convenience links is more a matter of citation style than reliability of sources, in which case might we want to ship that section off to WP:CITE? Wikidemo (talk) 01:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

You know, I think you may have a point. This sort of thing usually is a citation/reference issue, and the para might well be better housed there. Let's first see though if there are any objections. -- Jayen 466 01:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with moving it. It more clearly relates to the form of citation than to the reliability per se. Marskell (talk) 08:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Convenience links have there own reliability issues however. A transcription of an original document (say the US constitution) may be a reliable source but hosted on a site that is not reliable. If we are citing the document, the reliability of the hosting site becomes a secondary issue. Alternatively, a site that meets our reliability criteria may host a version of the document that is not a "true and accurate copy" of the original (it may contain additional editorial commentary or only provide selected parts of the original), thus making it unreliable. Shouldn't these issues be discussed in our guideline? Blueboar (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Until very recently, we had a link to an essay at the top of this section which discusses these aspects in more detail. -- Jayen 466 16:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for new section

As I said a week or two ago, I'm concerned by what I see as a growing degree of inflexibility in this guideline.

Partly to counter that, but also to better reflect current Wikipedia practices, I would like to propose a new section for this guideline, along the following lines:

Enthusiast websites

There are many sources on the internet maintained by amateur enthusiasts of a particular topic. While such sources cannot automatically be assumed to be reliable, they may be used in cases where:

(a) the material on the website is itself appropriately cited to sources which would meet the definition of "reliable" as outlined by the other sections on this guideline page.
(b) the material consists of non-controversial facts. Opinions presented at the website may also be replicated on Wikipedia, but only if they are direct quotations from reliable sources, not merely summaries or syntheses of those opinions by the website operator himself;
(c) the presentation of the material could generally be regarded as conforming to all the usual Wiki policies on content such as WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV and so on;

Such websites should however never be considered as definitive references. They may only be used in situations where no better references are immediately available, and users should always strive to confirm the material presented at such websites from the original sources quoted by the website rather than relying on the websites themselves.

The logic behind this clause is as follows. If these people had decided to post their material directly to Wikipedia instead of maintaining their own website, their contributions would be accepted since they attribute the material to appropriate reliable sources - indeed their expertise would probably be highly valued here. To put it another way, almost all Wiki editors are amateur enthusiasts, so why should we exclude the work of other enthusiasts - many of whom obviously have obviously done a great deal of research in their particular field of interest - just because they choose to post on their own website rather than directly to Wikipedia?

The other reason for adding a new section along these lines is that this only conforms with current Wikipedia practice, and I think it's better we formalize the use of such material rather than leave it in the no-mans-land in which it currently resides. Gatoclass (talk) 02:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

This is already covered in WP:SPS and I do not see any reason to lower the standards in this guideline. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not really clear at WP:SPS what an "established expert" is, so I think some clarification is needed. What I posted above is only meant to be a rough draft to illustrate the point, not a definitive version, but I agree the original proposal was a bit wishy-washy so I've tightened it up with an additional clause. Gatoclass (talk) 03:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the pop cult exception rears its head. Oppose. Particularly the first point. That something is hard to obtain elsewhere is not a good rationale for lowering standards. That little nugget has bedeviled attempts to reform P&Gs. The above would be badly misused. Marskell (talk) 08:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

This is pretty similar to the convenience link issue in the discussion above, isn't it? Beyond that, I don't quite like the sound of this either, sorry. -- Jayen 466 09:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Pop cult exception? What the heck is that?

The sites I am talking about are sites like Achtung Panzer!, an extremely thoroughly researched site used extensively as a resource in articles about World War II German tanks, or the Destroyer History website, or DANFS Online - used as a reference on literally hundreds, if not thousands of Wiki web pages, or Matthew White's Historical Atlas website, again used as a reference on a great many Wiki pages.

These are all excellent resources of reliable information, they represent thousands of hours of dedicated research that few if any Wikipedians are ever likely to match or even approach, and they are extensively referenced all over the project. And yet as the policy pages are currently written there is little if any formal support for the use of such resources. I'm simply arguing for formalizing in policy what already exists as a de facto practice - and a justifiable one in my view.

So whether you happen to like my rough draft proposal above or not, I think this is an issue that deserves to be taken seriously. Gatoclass (talk) 11:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, grabbing your second link, I think Destroyer History already meets policy. It cites its own sources, which is critical, and it's "an on-line museum prepared in collaboration with shipmates, organizations, active duty naval officers and others," suggesting editorial oversight. Note that policy doesn't explicitly bar such sites; it provides a general framework to judge them. And this has been taken seriously before. The question is always: will this cause greater harm by allowing people to include weak fan sites? Quite probably, yes. Marskell (talk) 11:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that, and I understand that any such addition to the guideline would need to be carefully worded in order for that not to occur. And I certainly don't think my current proposal is well enough crafted to avoid such abuse. Still, I think in theory at least it out to be possible to come up with a phrasing that does not encourage such abuse.

As to whether or not current policy already supports the use of the type of websites I've mentioned, it seems to me that policy as it is currently written implies that only academics can be regarded as experts on a subject, and that the policy pages actually give little if any support to the use of such websites. So if nothing else, I think the guideline needs to be tweaked a bit. Gatoclass (talk) 12:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

A new practice re:Sources?

Hello all, there is some discussion over at Talk:Giovanni_di_Stefano about sources, their reliability, and application. I thought I'd bring this here, where editors familiar with the policy and practice may be able to shed some light and help us move forward over there.

There is a new practice emerging - which may ultimately require mention in this policy. Summarised by Fred as "Don't link to sources which imply information we lack a good source for" - in other words an otherwise reliable source which implies an unsourced statement cannot be considered reliable (my analysis).

To illustrate - use of this source has led to page and talk page deletion - it has been considered not suitable in the strongest possible terms.

Discussion of this matter has intense legal ramifications, and all editors would be wise to read the talk page fully before commenting. The importance of this matter to our sourcing policy stands, in my opinion. Privatemusings (talk) 21:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Fred is suggesting a new policy or practice. I suspect he's just urging caution in this particular case, given that the situation is complex and we're dealing with a BLP. If even the Guardian and the British legal establishment are finding the situation confusing, Wikipedian need to be extra careful. Also, for future reference, WP:V is the policy on sources. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Caution and sensitivity are both very very important in this case, but I suppose what I am questioning is how far can they be stretched to impose editing practices on articles. A sourced statement regarding a conviction will tend to have real world implications - we can legitimately assume that many such statements will cause distress to their subjects. Hence my concern over this practice, whereby a source universally acknowledged as reliable become unreliable due to what it may imply. I struggle to see where the line could be drawn clearly in this approach. Privatemusings (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Specific cases on the application of WP:V#Sources need to be discussed in the article's talk page ant not on in here. We have policies, yes. But we have a process by which we apply policies to articles, and that includes sound editorial judgment and consesus of involved editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense - I do not wish to discuss this article issue specifically here. I would like to discuss "Don't link to sources which imply information we lack a good source for" in general terms, pertinently whether or not this should be included in WP:V post merge. Privatemusings (talk) 23:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that the wording you suggest is too narrow for a policy page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Deciding whether a particular source is a reliable source is a matter of sound editorial judgment. Someone such as Privatemusing, who does not have reliable judgment regarding this particular matter should not be editing the article or commenting on it. Or posting about it to wiken, or to policy pages. If voluntary recognition of his limitations is not forthcoming, an indefinite ban would be appropriate. He says over and over that he doesn't understand, and I agree. Fred Bauder (talk) 00:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Pop theories given precedence over modern academic views

There are some WP articles where old discredited ideas are given precedence over modern academic views. I would like to blow these away and replace them with the current ideas. But I have encountered people who insist on featuring the old discredited ideas and will only agree to a brief mention that they are "disputed". I can't find any WP policy to support my position (except maybe "common sense"). I think there should be an article explaining the difference between peer reviewed academic journals and WP's bizarre notions of "Neutrality", etc. Fourtildas 06:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Good luck; my experience is that you'll need it. (Not that I'm bitter or anything.) Raymond Arritt 06:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Find a reliable source of your own that not only announces the new theory, but says that the old theory is discredited, a non-serious pop theory, etc. Based on that, say so in the article or move the discredited theory to a section on historical views, or simply mention it on the talk page and delete it. Unless your field is very obscure, or the "modern" academic view is brand new or shaky, there will be some record of how the modern view came to predominate. Cite that record. If you have sources strong enough under the circumstances, they should trump the other sources. Try working it out on the talk page and if that doesn't work use the mediation processes. That's what I would do. If you're right you can win these things. Like science, Wikipedia favors the patient and the persistent. Wikidemo 10:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

In this item you wrote about problems to overcome myths. I have similar problem. There is a myth in computer science, mathematics and computer chemistry. The majority considers graph isomorphism problem as NP complete, at the same time nobody can prove it. Very short article “Graph isomorphism” notes this fact, but it is not sufficient. In this situation every opposite fact is very important to keep the neutral point of view. In 7 October 2007, I wrote to Talk:Graph isomorphism#IMHO: “following new important result may be added to the article: An effective algorithm for graph isomorphism testing was used for organic chemistry tasks, the algorithm complexity does not depend directly on the number of vertices of given graphs. Authors tested this algorithm for ~95,000,000 graphs, and did not find any limitation to use this approach for other types of graphs. M.I.Trofimov, E.A.Smolenskii, Russian Chemical Bulletin, 2005, Vol. 54, 9, 2235. ( http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11172-006-0105-6 ).”

I had been waiting for any reply during two weeks – nobody said anything, and in 22 October 2007 I inserted the text into the article. (Note, please, I did not delete something from the article). Just after the page was updated, David Eppstein deleted my contribution from the article. He wrote: “I'm not convinced that this is a sufficiently notable contribution to the problem to include in the article. I note for instance that Google scholar doesn't find any citations.[…]”. It was very strange because: “Search engines cannot:[...] Guarantee that little mentioned or unmentioned items are automatically unimportant” WP:GOOGLE. From that time a few users sent their comments to support Eppstein’s position. They try to discuss the article in the Russian Chem. Bulletin, but all of them said that they had not read this text! In the result we wasted a lot of time, because I was forced to explain them many items from the text, which text they had not read. But IMHO, it was redundant, because “The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.” WP:V The source had been printed in scientific academic journal by well-known publisher (Springer). IMHO, it is reliable source! And nobody in Wiki should try to test results from reliable source, nobody should define is it true, or false info. It is not Wiki function. So, not only “Pop theories given precedence over modern academic views”, but also old academic views given precedence over modern academic views.--Tim32 (talk) 17:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Request For Comment opened at WP:PW regarding spoilers and sources

[12]. Per a comment on the ANI board, I am informing you guys about this in case you may wish to comment. Thanks, Dav nel 03 21:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Exceptional claims

Convenience links has been moved to CITE and the mention of plagiarism and copyvio moved to V. Not much left here, but we do have the exceptional claims section. I think we should scrutinize it before moving to V:

Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim.

Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known.
Surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reliable news media.
Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended.
Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and in material about living people.

My first thought is about the use of the word "multiple". In general, tacking three or four citations to the end of a sentence is discouraged. However, in some situations—such as claims of scientific consensus—more than one may be required. Do we want to unpack this further? Also, the first bullet may be so generic that it's not really useful. Marskell (talk) 10:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I would move as is and then continue the discussion at WP:V after the merge. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense. Done. I also added the three part definition of source from here and cut that section as the rest was redundant.

So. So that's basically it. The audit complete, there's nothing to RS. A handful of individual sentences might also go over. Marskell (talk) 16:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The proposal for merging has been posted in the mailing list and the village pump. Let's wait for a few days and see what the response would be. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding naive, has anyone asked Jimbo to join this discussion? As I recall, he had missed the entire WP:ATT discussion and construction work until the changes went live, then axed the whole thing (subject to very extensive community-wide discussion and consensus). Dismantling the WP:RS page by subsuming its already overlapping content into WP:V and reducing RS to a redirect to a section of V may not look very similar to those working on it, but (as also implied here earlier this week) Jimbo may beg to differ. Avb 12:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

A comment to Jimbo was indeed the next step, after we gather comments on the various threads. Marskell (talk) 07:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

supplement

following some comments on the VP [[13],] I have BOLDly moved the former supplement Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Examples to Wikipedia:Reliable source examples and given it the status of an essay. I think this preserves the material and puts it in the proper non-prescriptive perspective. If anyone wants to revert this, please discuss it on the talk page there first, because I think this a reasonable approach no matter what the decision is in general. DGG (talk) 00:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I like "proper non-prescriptive perspective". Used as a mantra it may well beat counting sheep. Avb 00:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC) -- worked fine for me last night, quite inadvertently :) DGG (talk)

Good move. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, fine. Jossi, what happened with the mailing list? Any off-site comments? Marskell (talk) 18:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Only the same comment made by Aude above, plus another comment about the fact that "reliable sources" is a much easier concept to grasp for newbies. That is a red herring as we are not talking about dismissing the concept, rather, we are discussing the redirection of WP:RS to WP:V#Sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Two other options besides full redirect

Following from above conversation with Aude, two options:

A soft redirect. A one sentence description of reliable sources + see V for more. We can link to the RS noticeboard and a retooled examples page.
Cut the sources section from V, move it here and make this a policy. That Wikipedians ought to use reliable sources is, of course, a matter of policy. V would extremely tiny with that done.

Having two descriptions of reliable sources, divergent or redundant, continues to make little sense. Marskell (talk) 12:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

What will be the problem if we redirect this page to ~~WP:RS#Sources~~ WP:V#Sources? None, whatsoever. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

If we redirect WP:RS to WP:RS#Sources then we have a circular redirect - even the MediaWiki software doesn't allow it.

I suppose you just made a material error, wrinting WP:RS(...) where you wanted to write WP:V(...). QED. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I presume he meant redirect to WP:V#Sources. I have no problem with that at all and at last count it was 12-2 in favour, with a couple of people non-committal. I only offered the above as thoughts because it seems to me there is still an attachment to Reliable sources as a title. Marskell (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

My bad, yes. The redirect is WP:RS >>> WP:V#Sources. We keep the concept of RS alive (of course!), only that it will now be located where it belongs: in a policy page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Just imagine a comment to a newbie: "Material in Wikipedia should be based on reliable sources, which is official policy"... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It makes sense to move. The existence of two pages has caused too much confusion, and as a result this page has never been taken as seriously. If we move it to a subpage of V, it'll be easier to harmonize them, yet we don't lose the RS concept or title. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Given what's been shuffled out, there's not much too move. It could be redirected now without loss of info. Marskell (talk) 10:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend keeping WP:V intact. If you split off the Reliable Sources section to its own page, then the newbie still has to look at two pages to get an overview, instead of just one. That alone should offset any perceived advantage that the title might carry.

Two: doing this now creates two short “half empty” pages (particularly V) that many will be tempted to use by addressing some important issue (in their own view) now that the real estate is “available”.

Three: you once again have two pages to police, and history is not in favor of success.

Four: it moves us away from K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid). The goal should be fewer policy pages -better integrated together. Kind of the whole idea of WP:ATT

Disclaimer: I am address something that may or may not be what is being proposed. Brimba (talk) 11:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm with you, Brimba. What's striking is that the people who have most heavily edited RS don't even like it. Marskell (talk) 12:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be awkward to have Wikipedia:Reliable source examples and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard without this page to tie things together. Right now, this is the page that ties all that together. It is highly useful (for me and others) as a guideline. A soft redirect is not at all useful as a guideline. Keeping WP:V as-is, is good. Please, let's keep this page as a guideline about what, why, and aspects of reliable sources, along with pointers to the examples page, the noticeboard, and relevant policies. --Aude (talk) 17:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You will have WP:RS redirecting to WP:V#Sources. No confusion and one solid policy about sourcing. The RS noticeboard is already available at WP:V/N ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Jossi's revert of Aude

Revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources&diff=next&oldid=173706869

revert reason: "rv. Already described in WP:V."
Contentious, while, for instance, the revert removed these links to which WP:V does not link:
- Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
- Wikipedia:Reliable source examples
OK, we can make this a self-fulfilling prophesy: WP:RS has no content, while any useful content is removed from it on the spot. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The second sentence of the page links to the noticeboard. The rest is already on V. Redundant. When the redirect is done, we can certainly link to the noticeboard from V; in fact, we can do so right now. Marskell (talk) 18:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and the examples page shouldn't be linked from anywhere until it receives a good, multiple person audit. Marskell (talk) 18:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Francis, hello. Please do not dramatize this. It is not needed. Make your arguments without assessing my edits as contentious, as that is not helpful, please. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I have linked to the noticeboard from V. I don't see why not: it doesn't actually dispense policy and thus can't be in contradiction to V. We're all good. Marskell (talk) 19:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

There is not consensus for redirecting the page. I notice recent edits by a few editors, cutting material from this page and making it so " There’s basically nothing to it at the moment." [14] This guideline has been highly useful. Please stop cutting material from the guideline. If people are looking for the Wikipedia:Reliable source examples, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, or the general guideline on reliable sources, the logical place to look or to think to look is Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I understand that you do not use the guideline page. That's fine. But others refer to the page. It needs to stay, and not be depleted of content. --Aude (talk) 19:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hm, well, you're the only editor that is actively disagreeing. There's ten or twelve above who are pleased with what's happened. You have yet to prove what is "highly useful" about RS (beyond the existence of the name) or the "many" editors you speak for.

But I don't want this. Aude is a good editor from where I'm sitting. I'll ask again: what, exactly, have you quoted from this page that makes it necessary? What does V, NOR, NPOV, and BLP not cover? But please, don't just tell me it's easier to link. We can still perfectly easily link to V with a crystal clear section heading that is policy. Marskell (talk) 19:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

When telling someone, their edits or sources are not reliable sources, linking to a page that is called "Reliable sources" is better. It is a concept of utmost importance, which is emphasized when the page title has that name and "Reliable sources" as a h1 header. A section header on another page is not as clear as an h1 header. Why not have a page about it under that title? It's a useful place to point users - simply say "what", "why" - link to policies, give some guidance about reliable sources, link to the examples page and the noticeboard. Why take this away? --Aude (talk) 20:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

There was discussion about this issue in July - Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/archive_15. A number of users (User:Tim Vickers, User:Raymond arritt, User:SandyGeorgia, User:DGG, User:Adrian M. H., User:Tom harrison, User:Piotrus, etc.) weighed in then. Also, look at Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll#In_broad_opposition_to_WP:ATT. Numerous oppose changes to WP:RS, yet alone merging it. --Aude (talk) 20:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The title itself is enough reason to keep it. Yes, we heard that at ATT. And the links I've seen. I'll reask my questions: "what, exactly, have you quoted from this page that makes it necessary? What does V, NOR, NPOV, and BLP not cover?" Marskell (talk) 20:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The title is enough of a reason to keep it. Also, the content (the type of content that has been removed) and pointers to policy. The examples that used to be here were also helpful. Now they are a separate page. I'm not pleased that this guideline has been depleted to make it so "There’s basically nothing to it at the moment." That's not helping. --Aude (talk) 20:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

And if it's not clear, you might have added User:Marskell to your list. I was involved with the discussion in July. It is only incidental to what is at issue here and you are misrepresenting with your list of users. Adrian M. H. has supported the idea of redirecting last week, for instance; SandyG supported it during the ATT poll. I've read every oppose on that poll, so you don't need to explain it to me. An answer to the question above would be good. Marskell (talk) 20:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh good Christ: "The title itself is enough reason to keep it." Seriously? Marskell (talk) 20:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

We even have policies like that. Ever wondered lately what the content of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules consists of? Any attempts of fleshing out that page have been abandoned long ago. And yes, half of the content of that policy page (apart from the template) consists of a link to a page that explains the policy, without that explanation even being a guideline (leave alone policy). --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

This page has been a guideline on how to apply policy, with examples and links to policies. Also, simply explaining what reliable sources (guidelines on how to judge that) and why they are important. Anyway, arguing is a waste of my time, as is digging up specific examples from my edit history. You are welcome to look through my edits and see how I have linked to this policy and referred to it. I'll check in later. --Aude (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

See my reply to Marskell above. In fact most policy pages appear to have such page, other example: Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial linked from the first lines of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Aude, the actual content of this guideline has sucked for a long time. That's the point. You like linking to two words, but I'm asking what specifically has this page produced. You haven't answered. You haven't answered because you can't—this page has produced nothing canonical.

"What, exactly, have you quoted from this page that makes it necessary? What does V, NOR, NPOV, and BLP not cover?" Seriously, someone needs to answer, or this oppose is moot. As it stands, it's the only serious oppose going and it has yet to be substantiated. Marskell (talk) 20:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

See my replies above, you seem obsessed with eradicating something for WP:V that never has been the object of an eradication attempt for many policy pages (i.e. its primary auxiliary guideline or essay page). --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand you, sorry. Marskell (talk) 20:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if the two points I tried to make in my last three posts above didn't come out too clear:

"The title itself is enough reason to keep it." can be a valid argument: it was, for example, for the policy page Wikipedia:Ignore all rules.
Re. "This page has been a guideline on how to apply policy (...)" - there are other policies which have such auxiliary page on how to apply the related policy, e.g.:

Policy page	primary auxiliary page	Status?	First link to auxiliary page on policy page
WP:NPOV	Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial	tutorial	second paragraph under templates
WP:IAR	Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means	essay	3rd line under policy template (well, this is also the last line: the policy itself is not much more than a title)
WP:V	WP:RS	guideline	2nd sentence under templates and boilerplate

Hope this makes more sense now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Francis, can you show me some content on this page (this version or previous versions) that is worth keeping, and is not in V, NOR, or BLP?

If all that we want to preserve is the title and the concept, we can redirect it to the reliable sources section of V. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Francis, looking at your table above, the NPOV tutorial is clearly linked via its title to NPOV. The IAR tutorial is linked through its title to IAR. The problem with RS is that it has almost set itself up in opposition to V, and indeed it was originally created as a fork. So how about we create a tutorial subpage of V, that is about reliable sources -- how to identify them, and so on? We could call it WP:V/Reliable sources, thereby retaining the title and the concept, and creating a page whereby people can outline how to define "reliable source," without setting itself up as a rival to V? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

We could also turn this page into a disambig for the timebeing. No novel guideline wording but just links. All three of V, NOR, and BLP have a sources section. See User talk:Jossi#Jimbo. Marskell (talk) 07:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)