Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources

Transcript of a lecture hosted on a student organization's page

• Note: Moved to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Small format question?

In the intro, The New York Times is used as an example of a reliable source (publisher). Should it be in italics if it is only being named and not given attribution for anything?

Cartoons

Under what circumstances (if any) should a cartoon be cited as a WP:RS? Eg compare talk pages of Big Society and Ed Miliband NBeale (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

This seems like a question about WP:WEIGHT. A cartoon is an RS according to the same criteria as printed material, so it will normally an RS for the views of the cartoonist. However, it will probably only be in unusual cases that it is not WP:UNDUE to use a political cartoon as a source. I think it would need to be shown that the cartoon in question had gained significant attention in its own right, which could be done by looking at third-party sources commenting on it. Even then, I suppose that it would also need to be shown that this attention related directly to the subject of the article, rather that just appraising the cartoon as a great piece of work or whatever. --FormerIP (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Um... the word 'cartoon' has multiple meanings... it can refer to an animated TV show or movie (eg: The Simpsons), a newspaper comic strip (eg: Doonesbury), or a single drawing appearing on a newpaper's editorial page, etc. etc. Which are we talking about here? Blueboar (talk) 22:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The latter kind, apparently.[1] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

There are many types of cartoons, ranging perhaps from simple visual jokes (e.g. in the tabloids) through to the political cartoons in respected newspaper or weekly (i.e. reliable sources) which make a serious point. The latter have a place in public life and are indeed part of the national cultural heritage of GB and the UK, e.g. William Hogarth (starting in the 17th century) through to today's political cartoonists in the broadsheets, e.g. Jak in the Daily Telegraph and Steve Bell at The Guardian. Please follow the links NBeale has provided above and have a look at the article histories. All will become clear. --TraceyR (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I think a cartoon is a reliable source for itself, but are their many articles requiring discussion about what is in individual cartoons? We obviously can't use them as proof that Uncle Sam really exists for example. Cartoons do not seek to show facts normally. We also do not normally use verbal jokes in order to show facts.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Google Snippets Ensuring sufficient contextual information is available

In a recent discussion I initiated at WP:RSN, there appears to be a consensus forming that use of Google Snippets is an unreliable method of sourcing an edit as a sole means of research. This is because it is expected that editors will have access to the source, have read it and understand the context upon which the edit they proposed is based. Google snippets is inherently unreliable in that context is missing.

Would others consider the need to have access to the full source to be something of value to add to the guideline? Wee Curry Monster talk 12:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The source is always the actual reference rather than the google snippet providing a severely restrained copy. However we cannot mandate or control how a reader is reading a particular source and what his personal access is, i.e. whether he reads it on google books or some digitization, in a library or in a personal copy. Common sense suggests anyhow that for you to use a source properly you need to be able to access more than 2 lines from it. However by no means does that implicate that you necessarily need to access to the whole book, but access to to the relevant chapters or pages is often sufficient. Let's say I edit the article about the Roman emperor Caligula and use as a source for my content a book with biographies of roman emperors, then for most purposes access to the chaper about caligula will be sufficient. So while an authors usually needs access beyond a google snippet or a few quoted lines to have some context information needed for correct understanding, this does not translate automatically into a need of access to the whole source (as in the complete journal or the complete book).--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood, when the accuracy of the cite was challenged it transpired the editor in question had done no research whatsoever apart from using google snippets to source a contentious edit. I am not suggesting the complete source needs to be available but rather obviously sufficient to give the edit the relevant context. In this case, common sense that you could see no more than 2 lines and so it could never be a reliable source was lacking.

Rather obviously my intention was not readily apparent, for which I bear the blame for not making my suggestion more succinct. May I change my suggestion that there is a need to have sufficient context information for a correct understanding. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

When the accuracy of a citation or the summary of an editor are questioned, the citations/sources need to be checked (not matter whether it is google snippet or not). We completely agree that sufficient context is required, but I'm not clear what you do you actually want the guideline to say. From my perspective requiring sufficient context is so obvious that there isn't even a need state that explicitly (it's like using correct grammar or spelling properly).

Or do you want to block google snippets from being used in references ? But that is more of format issue and people will simply switsch to giving the exact citation (as they should have done anyway). Whether they actually read only the Google Snippet or more is something you can't tell and have no control over, so you can't really police or enforce it. --Kmhkmh (talk) 08:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

No I certainly don't want to block google snippets being used in references. They can be very useful for illustrating a source online. Sufficient context may seem very obvious to both you and I but in the case I referred to, sadly it was not. When the accuracy was challenged it became apparent that the editor didn't have the source and was relying solely on snippets. I would agree with you, I thought it was as obvious as breathing. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

My take on this is that it is a matter of editorial judgment, and the quality of editorial judgment varies from editor to editor and from case to case. The case exampled in the WP:RSN#Google_Snippets discussion could have occurred in a library by looking up something half-remembered in the index of a book, going to an indexed page, reading a snippet off the page confirming the half-remembrance, re-shelving the book without reading surrounding context, and citing that book as a source. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT indicates that we should note the website that hosts something we read on line... this impacts reliability. Some hosting websites are reliable (presenting an accurate "true copy" of the original text), but others are not. Google snippets is not a reliable host site... as it presents the snipped material out of context. Blueboar (talk) 02:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd say Google snippets are fine, so long as there's no obvious missing context that could change the edit. Using it for basic facts such as nationality, date of birth is fine. But I wouldn't want to see a guideline rule it out entirely, because it should be left to editorial judgment. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Presumably the editor has read enough of the source to ensure the snippet is relevant. That, however, must be taken in good faith. Note that often a page or two is necessary for that (I have seen numerous cases where all relevant information regarding to the specific issue in a source was contained in a page, or a simple para). That said, I have seen cases where editors have cited sentences out of context. The world is not perfect - the solution is to verify when in doubt, and fix when the source is cited improperly. I should also add that direct page links to Google Books are very useful, and should be encouraged. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with others that it is hard to write any general rule for all cases. Snippets vary a lot, so it is hard to say what is inherent in them. They need to be handled case by case and in reality this is not normally going to be an area where common sense is going to lead to very different conclusions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

In answer to User:Piotrus, the case I am involved in the editor had not read anything from the source to ensure the snippet was relevant. They relied solely on the snippet, this was their sole research tool. I agree that snippets are a useful tool to illustrate an edit, provided you actually have the source. On their own, in general, you do not have sufficient context to regard them as a reliable source. Google preview is different.

As a general rule, I would utterly agree that direct page links to Google Books are very useful, I have a policy of doing so myself. I think perhaps I have probably erred in not explaining myself that well. It was not really google snippets that was the issue, rather having sufficient context from the source. I've modified the title in that respect.

I'm wary of drawing too much inference from one incident, so if there is a consensus that the requirement for sufficient context is adequately covered in guidelines I would withdraw the suggestion. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

As per others, and the RS/N discussion, there is no hard and fast rule about snippets; sometimes they may provide enough context, sometimes they may not. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

online retailers, proposed addition

I'd like feedback on the following addition under Self-published and questionable sources

Online retailers
References to websites which only offer a book, album or other product for sale do little to establish notability. These retailers provide little if any oversight in the products they offer for sale. Book, music, movie and other product sales sites like Amazon and iTunes may confirm that something exists but this doesn't tell us how it or the individual or organization that created it may be notable. When referencing a review, use the original source of that review, rather than a link to an online retailer. Also, listing where to buy items associated with an article could be seen as spam whether in an external links or references section.

--RadioFan (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems like this would be more appropriately added to WP:Notability than to RS. A website selling a product might be a perfectly fine, reliable source of information about the product (e.g., product specifications). Such sources are really only useless for determinations of notability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's another "online retailer as RS?" situation that came up. One of the biggest online sellers of Tradtional Chinese medicines (snake oil, human placenta, sulfide of mercury, arsenic, etc.) says what their procducts is believed to treat. Is this RS for a sentence about beliefs of TCM? They are a somewhat secondary source for TCM beliefs, but they also have a profit incentive for promtion. PPdd (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

This really isn't as difficult as you're making it out to be. If a website sells widgets, and says that these widgets are used for ____, then you can report that these widgets are used for ____. It doesn't matter what type of widget you're dealing with: You can trust the software-selling website that says this software is used for ____ just as much as you can trust the power-tools-selling website that says a power tool is used for ____, exactly as must as you can trust a herbal-concoction-selling website that says a given herbal concoction is used for ____.

None of these are ideal sources for this information, and none of them prove that it actually works, but they're all sufficiently reliable sources for the relatively weak statement that the product is "used for ____". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Foreign language sources

A problem has arisen in an article. How does one tell if a Chinese language source is reliable? First, there is a problem of an "English language encyclopedia" user reading it, or reading things about it which may only exist in Chinese script. Second, there is a problem that most such sources are published by the communist government, or censored by it, and the government has an economic stake in everything, so it is effectively always "self published" or "self edited". PPdd (talk) 17:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

If it is written in Chinese, French, German or even Esperanto that should not matter. If the cited source is in a foreign language it is good practise to add a quotation, translated into English; something I often have to do with Spanish language sources. Other than that there is nothing in policy to suggest that simply because it is in a foreign language it is any way unreliable - the language is immaterial.

Secondly, no it is not a WP:SPS. If you suspect it is censored then that is a matter for editorial judgement and discussion on the talk page not a pretext for excluding its use. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Reliability here depends very much on context and I don't think blanket judgements are useful. If the People's Daily reports that the Minister for Agriculture has just visited Mongolia, it would be reasonable to accept it as a reliable source for that statement. On the events of June 1989, probably not, and that has nothing to do with the language; the English-language edition would be just as unreliable as the Chinese. --GenericBob (talk) 02:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Editors can get a copy and translation under WP:V to verify the content came from the source, but how are we to evaluate reliability of the source itself. Even copying and translating a whole book under WP:V would not help. This is a major general problem with foriegn language sources. As far as I have seen, reliability has never been challenged, especially as to Chinese language sources, which are for all practical purposes, either put out by, or censored by the communist government, a big stain on their reliability. PPdd (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't see that reliability is not challegended. If I come across content that looks rather questionable based on a source I suspect to be unreliable as well, I do of course challenge it. But the language doesn't really matter he, rather what I know of the reputation od autghor and publisher of that source. For instance if some article on an ancient chinese history topic makes a claim that appears questionable to me and is based on some chinese sources i can't read. Now if I see the source is written by some proper academic of the concerned (like history or archeology prof) in an academic journal, then I might not challenge it. However if it is just based on some chinese website, a daily newspaper or some non academic book publication, then you can bet that I'm going to challenge it.

Similarly I'm more likely to challenge questionable content sourced by official media of a tolitarian state than mainstream media of a democratic state. In this context it might be also worthwhile to note that Taiwan publishes in Chinese as well and at least more recent Taiwanese publications (since the late 90s) do not have the censorship issue. --Kmhkmh (talk) 20:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

P.S. But in any case if you are not sure yourself as with any other topic, get the attention of a fellow wikipedian with required domain knowledge to have a look (see posting by Six words). Most fields (in particular all major countries/languages) have their ow portals and/pr projects in WP, where you can ask for help or an assessment.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually it's pretty easy, you go to WP:CHINA and post there, asking the participants for their opinion. They can tell you whether a book is published by a good publisher, an article is published in a reliable journal or newspaper, or it isn't. --Six words (talk) 20:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Six. PPdd (talk) 20:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

And you frankly ought to be doing the same thing for English-language sources, since the idea that any person would know the reputation even of just all the English-language academic journals in any major field is laughable. I've heard estimates that more than 10,000 medical journals are being published these days, and a huge fraction of them are in English. There's no way that any human could actually keep track of which ones are reputable and which are dressed-up soapboxes. You've got to check up on your sources, not just say "Oh, English source that disparages alternative medicine, so Y Good source" or "Oh, not English, so N Bad source". Reputable academic publishers produce valuable sources, no matter what language they're published in. Lousy sources are lousy sources, even if they're published in English and support your personal beliefs on the subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Good point, WAID. Is there a place I can post the question regarding English language sources? PPdd (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Usually, the most effective places to ask such questions are at large WikiProjects and at WP:RSN. You should learn to check up on such things yourself, at least within the range of sources that you use regularly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Another good place might be To get help determining if a foreign language source is reliable, the RS board for the wiki of the language of the questioned source may have useful information. This, plus Six words' suggestion, might be good proposal to put in this policy for others to read. PPdd (talk) 00:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I like where you are going on this, but not the execution. You assume that all other versions of wikipedia have RS boards like we do (many don't). Also, the other versions of Wikipedia may have different rules as to what they consider reliable and unreliable. We should keep this in house as much as possible... so I would suggest amending your language to: To get help with questions relating to foreign language sources (including help in determining whether the source is reliable), contact the members of the relevant WikiProjects (eg: for questions relating to sources in Chinese, contact Wikipedia:WikiProject China) (Preceding unsigned comment by Blueboar the ogre)

Proposed addition -

To get help with questions relating to foreign language sources (including help in determining whether the source is reliable), consider contacting the members of the relevant WikiProjects (eg: for questions relating to sources in Chinese, contact Wikipedia:WikiProject China), or contacting someone at the wiki for that language (e.g., if a source occurs in an article, consider posting at that article's talk page in the wiki for that language).

Is there a wiki for some languages that is independent of the English language wiki projects? PPdd (talk) 02:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

@PPdd: Not sure what you mean there, aside from belonging to the same overall project and sharing the basic principles are all the non english WPs independent of us. They all have their own administrators and their own set of guidelines, they do not depend on us for anything.If you look at it from article per capita perspective many of them are even way ahead of us (see [2])--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

@Kmhkmh: Since Blueboar's language only included en wiki projects, not the other language wikis, I thought there may be some kind of automatic tie in between the other languge wikis and en wiki projects that I was unaware of. PPdd (talk) 02:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's a hypothetical case: Let's say I want to use the National Inquirer of Tibet as a source. Nobody here knows anything about it, so I find a editor who speaks Tibetan and ask him or her to go to the Tibetan Wikipedia to ask there about its reliability. He gets some kind of response there (let's say affirmative), which he passes along to me. I then have a third-hand report that it's a reliable source and therefore usable for any assertion it might contain. Is that the idea behind this proposal? Is that how we'd judge an English-language source?   Will Beback  talk  03:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's how I judge unfamiliar English-language sources.

When people ask me whether ____ Journal of Academic Impressiveness is any good, and I can't find hints about the answer myself, I usually head over to DGG's talk page and dump the question on him. He usually (and very kindly) responds when he has time, and I pass the information back. Alternatively, I have asked for help from people in a relevant academic field. It's a rare professor who doesn't know the reputation of a journal they've published in. That's just as third-hand as your example; the language wrinkle doesn't really add anything to the mix. (Additionally, it's frequently the case that if you find someone here who speaks the language, he or she can give you an estimate offhand, without having to trek over to the other-language Wikipedia.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The third pary at foreign language wiki can give reasons why it is reliable. Its up to us to weigh them. That is a good point you make, and it should be claified not to just take their word for it, but to only get evidence to be weighed as to its strength and validity. There is always going to be an infinite regress in establishing reliablity, however; no matter where evidence comes from, it can be the next to be questioned. All we can do is gather evidence, and get direction where we may find some regarding publications in languages we do not speak. PPdd (talk) 06:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have to strongly object to overtly pointing our readers to the non-english versions of Wikipedia. The other versions of Wikipedia have reliability standards that are different from ours (not necessarily worse or better... just different). This will lead to endless arguments along the lines of: "but the guys at the Chinese/German/French/etc. version of Wikipedia say this source is reliable".

I completely agree with including some sort of statement saying that editors faced with non-english sources should seek advice from third parties who a) know the topic in question and b) understand the language ... I just object to overtly pointing our readers and editors to any location beyond en.Wikipedia. (I don't mind if they ask off site... but we should not actually tell them to ask off site). Blueboar (talk) 14:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an entirely reliable source

All sources are unreliable to varying degrees. The use of the term "reliable source" actually encourages a naive credulity with regard to some types of source. It would be better if wikipedia could find alternative terminology. Mowsbury (talk) 17:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

There is not such thing as absolutes in anything. Everything is colored by point of view. Wikipedia is guided by concensus for this reason and reliable sources are no different, they are judged by consensus, not absolutes. You are correct that this project more describes "that which is not known to be unreliable" but to be positive and in the name of brevity, it's titled Reliable Sources. In the end, the top of this project identifies it as a guideline, not law, not fact, not an absolute, but a guideline. I think that's sufficient.--RadioFan (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

You are both absolutely right! PPdd (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Yup... in fact, we already address the point Mowsbury raises in several sections of the guideline... for example, the second paragraph of the guideline states: "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." Blueboar (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but then there is nothing really wrong with the original comment. It is just that there is no easy solution, and reality does not require one.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The phrase as used on Wikipedia is a term of art and it should not be confused with the meaning of the term in common usage. Dlabtot (talk) 00:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Are internet blogs masquerading as news sources really reliable sources

Are internet blogs that pretend to be new sources (Newsbusters, Huffington Post, Pajamas Media, Media Matters, Infowars, FAIR, Accuracy in Media, etc) really reliable sources?

Senior Trend (talk) 05:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, for some stuff, and not for others. As with every question, it depends on what you want to say in the article. These websites, for example, are unquestionably reliable for the fact that they exist, or that they published a given sentence on a given date, or things like that. They're truly lousy sources for the fine points of Einstein's special theory of relativity, or the inner workings of an advanced mathematical proof. And for all the stuff in between those two extremes, you'd have to actually take your question to WP:RSN and pair it with a specific statement that you want to put in an article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

They are certainly reliable for attributed statements of opinion ("According to the Huffington Post...") Blueboar (talk) 14:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

If i'm not mistaken the enumeration above is mixing rather different things. Accuracy in Media and Media Matters are media watchdogs rather than actual news "blogs", Huffington Post is a rather well known news aggregator that however employs some editors and writers as well, I'm not so sure how well thy fit with the rest of the site.

In general it rather meaningless whether somethig is a blog or website (those are format description), but it matters who/which organization/authors with what reputations run that site or blog. Sometimes the term website or blog is used synomously for arbitrary private website or blog, which of course cannot be considered as reliable sources at all. However online representation of reputable major news publishers are also websites strictly speaking and some of them employ a blog format too, but that doesn't mean their reliability is on the level of an arbitrary private website or blog.

So to assess the reliability the reputation of the author/publisher matters not the format. In addition the things apply that have been mentioned above, i.e. considering the sort of information that gets sourced and its context.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not that easy to say that about the Huffington Post. Drudge Report, WorldNetDaily, Canada Free Press, Daily Kos etc. are also well known news aggregators, yet their self published sources fail WP:RS. Considering them RS comparable to that of NYT, WSJ, etc. is a bit much considering they only exist virtually.

Senior Trend (talk) 22:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Senior Trend, it sounds like you didn't understand the responses you received. All of these websites are reliable sources—for some limited purposes—and all of your 'good' examples are not reliable sources—for other specific situations. For example:

The top headline at Huffington Post right now says, "Libya: Pro-Gaddafi Forces Launch New Counteroffensive As Rebels Advance Toward Tripoli". If you are writing in the article Huffington Post, and you want to include a statement that says, "Huffington Post once had a headline that said, 'Libya: Pro-Gaddafi Forces Launch New Counteroffensive As Rebels Advance Toward Tripoli'", then that website is definitely reliable for that statement.

If, instead, you are working on Special theory of relativity, and you want to include a statement that says, "According to the Huffington Post, Einstein said that special relativity explains why extraterrestrial creatures have green skin", then that webpage is not reliable for that statement.

You cannot determine reliability without knowing what statement you're trying to support with the source. Reliability can only be determined in context. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

That is an AP Story. It is not the news aggregating part that I have issues with, it is with the opinions and self-published articles from online blogs that I have issues with. Senior Trend (talk) 06:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

First you need to distinguish between opinion and news and report/describe them as such (no matter in which publication). Now if you report on some opinions then again it depends on the reputability of the author/publication not whether it is online or offline or what format is used. An editorial comment maybe judged the reputability of its author and publisher (as far as formal aspects go), those 2 however having nothing to do with a specific format (portal, website, blog). Btw the Huffington Post or similar sites are not self publishes sources. A self published sourced would be some private blog on wordpress. Note various media outlets offer something similar to self published stuff in form of letters or comments from readers which are often without direct editorial control. Those need to be treated seperate lyof course, i.e. a NYT article is not the same as an arbitrary posting in a reader's forum of the NYT.--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Gaming portals -- need advice

I've been trying to help a bit at RSN, and gaming portals tend to come up. See most recently.[3] A topic such as gaming doesn't typically have types of sources that we value — scholarly articles, books, mainstream media, etc. So websites are often used as sources. In giving feedback, I look at the website to try to get a sense for whether there's some sort of editorial oversight. But there's no way of really knowing. I seem to remember that there's a gaming project that deals with this. Can someone point me to that, or any other relevant guide that one might use in giving feedback when these issues arise? Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 12:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I think there are no easy answer and this needs to judged on case by case based what exact content is sourced, how reputable/known that gaming site is, etc. For general advice/orientation/assessment of sources for video games there are Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games and Portal:Video games.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks much. TimidGuy (talk) 16:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Newspapers of record and reliable sources

I'm looking for some input over at the Newspaper of record article. User:Corbridge is insisting on deleting the New York Times from the list of examples of newspapers of record (the entry is sourced with the Encyclopedia Britannica article on the NYT), on the basis that "It is an opinion supported by an unreliable source. Please provide a reliable source. Another Encylop EB is not a RS". Any thoughts? It's news to me that Encyclopedia Britannica is not a reliable source, but I don't want to edit war with this user. Thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

My thoughts look a lot like the solution is to {{Mergeto|Newspaper}} and lose the list in the process. There are hundreds of newspapers of record just in the United States, and may be thousands around the world. It's silly to have a list of about a dozen (and to not mention the US once). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

While I think that approach has its merits (it's been discussed in the past on the talk page) (I'm not sure that there are 100s of newspapers recognized as newspapers of record in the U.S., though), my experience with this article suggests that a list would be recreated fairly soon, or examples would be inserted into the text. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 75.47.137.71, 11 March 2011

Requested edit. (adds wikilinks for primary, secondary and tertiary sources)

75.47.137.71 (talk) 00:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)