Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources

Editors, please note:

After four months of discussion at Wikipedia:Attribution, editors at Wikipedia talk:Attribution have agreed on a means of merging Wikipedia:Verifiability with Wikipedia:No original research, while also streamlining Wikipedia:Reliable sources into a simpler FAQ.

There are no policy innovations suggested: WP:ATT is intended to be a more cohesive version of the core content policies with which the Wikipedia community is already familiar.

Archives

The issue is not the language being non-English

Reputable newspapers are reliable sources to be used in article about current events. There is no doubt about that. The issue here is whether they can be used as sources for the historic articles thus putting them on equal footing with reputable academic sources, such as peer-reviewed publications or history books published by reputable publishers. I say, if the newspaper article devoted to history is written by an otherwise established author, it is usable. If, however, it is written by we do not who, we can't use it. If that not known personal got his work through a peer-review scrutiny, no matter what the language of the work is, it is fine. If we know nothing about the author, the source is of the publicist nature and the subject is history, we cannot allow this to an encyclopedia. --Irpen 07:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Are we talking about an Op-ed piece, or a regular article? A regular article published in a major newspaper (in any language) is a reliable sources... Newspapers have fact checking which is equivalent to an accademic peer review as far as Wikipedia's requirements are concerned. The fact that we may not know the name of the reporter who actually wrote the piece does not matter... the newspaper stands behind the reporter, and we can say that the "author" is the newspaper itself. If we are talking about an Op-ed piece, then the identity of the contributer is indeed important (by definition, an Op-ed is opinion and the reputation and qualifications of the author is a factor in determining the reliability of his/her opinions). Blueboar 14:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

A regular article.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Then we must assume that the publishers have fact checking mechanisms in place, and that they stand behind their writers. It is a reliable source. How much weight to give it is a different matter... if what the newpaper says in the article goes against the consensus of historians, or if it reflects outdated information or something, then it may be less reliable as a source than other sources and their information. To figure that out make sure you read WP:NPOV, and apply it to the specifics of the article in question. But on the abstract issue of "are things like this reliable?" the answer is yes, they are. Blueboar 20:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you take a look at the page in question and comment there? We are still in a deadlock... -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. I looked at that article, and decided I don’t want to get into the middle of that mess. However, for the purposes of RS, I find I tend to agree more with Irpen’s comment: “Scholarly sources includes peer-reviewed journals, books published by academic publishers or by the unversity presses. If, however, the author who is otherwise established in academia publishes the article in a normally non-academic source, web-site or political tygodnyk (newspaper), this would also be acceptable. What is non-acceptable is non-academic publications authored by people with no confirmed credentials.” I do have to make a reservation, though, regarding the reference to a “political tygodnyk” since I’m unclear just what kind of newspaper that is supposed to be. “Reliability”, of course, is a matter of degree, not necessarily “is” or “isn’t”.

When it comes to the foreign press, it is my experience that foreign mainstream press is about as reliable as English-language press as long as the country practices a generally reliable “freedom of the press” and the source has a basic fact-checking policy. When it comes to state-owned press or press subject to censorship as a normal working practice, they are in principle unreliable (at least in such areas as the state finds “sensitive”). In the case of even free press with an openly embraced political perspective, I’d not consider them “reliable” except insofar as they present, define or describe their side’s viewpoint on an issue – and this is true not just for foreign-language press. An exception could be made, however, for a journal addressing political issues that invites the contributions of a wide range of viewpoints from noted scholars or experts. In any case, the nature and orientation of the foreign-language source should be identified in the citation, since its perspective would not be easily accessible to a reader who is not fluent in that language. This is particularly true in the special case where there’s a paucity of English-language sources. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that politically-biased newspapers may not be reliable; however note that the newspapers in question have articles on them: they are mainstream Polish newspapers, obviously with fact-checking and such, independent of the government and operating in free press society. Thus they are reliable, and articles about history published in them are reliable, too.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Then I have to say I'm unclear what the precise issue is that you two are feuding over. I'm unfamiliar with the Polish press myself. Are you saying that an article you wish to cite is in a politically biased newspaper? If so, then you still have to be careful with even an article written by a scholar because the editorial process will usually lean toward favoring the selection of writings by scholars (or respected, knowledgeable non-scholarly authors) sympathetic to their views. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The issue here is not the political bias even but whether one reasonably expects the articles on the historic subject published in a regular newspaper to be by default as much usable in an encyclopedia as the article on the current political events, published in the similar newspaper. My answer is, possibly, but not universally, since the historic research is not the field of experitse of the general press. Fact checking applies to the facts provided by the journalist in his report on what he saw or received from his sources. The whole concept of "fact checking", in the context of regular journalism, is inapplicable when we talk about the events from the remote past as the writing based not on the facts established by journalists who write this papers, but people long before that. This should is the work of a historian and not a journalist (who may as well be a historian but may be not.) Non-academic publications, and especially everyday newspapers, are written not with an intent to be a source of the historic info, but the current one. Our expectations to the fact checking in newspapers applies to reporting. Current news is reporting. Thei analysis is reporting. A writing about something long ago is not reporting but a history science. The author may be an otherwise established historian. This would of course matter. But if the journalist decided to try himself in a history science he has to go the same path as when an engineer does it, submit his work to a peer-reviewed journal. This is where the reputation is established. Once it is established, even the academic's personal web-site is an OK source. --Irpen 21:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

even if the article is written by the author whose name is not in any way established in historic research (a jorunalist.)

Ah. So, the issue is whether a history article published in a general, but respected newspaper can be reliable if it is written by a journalist with no established record of writing on historical topics? By implication, I take it that no suitable source is available from a reputable scholar on the subject. Is the author by any chance a noted and respected investigative journalist? If so, he will be trained in research techniques that are similar to those of a professional historian, as well as have some expertise in weighing the relative merits of different sources. And, yes, first-rate newspapers do perform some “fact-checking” on the esteem with which such a writer is held; the quality of their contributors reflects on the paper’s reputation. While I would rate the “reliability” of such an author lower than that of an expert scholar, I wouldn’t dismiss his or her work out of hand. Their product might very well be something “mid-way” between the reliability of secondary and tertiary sources, since they lack some of the breadth and depth of familiarity with the subject matter that a scholar would be expected to have. They might even be more objective and neutral in viewpoint than some scholarly experts. Another key question is whether it is desired to use the article in question as a citation for non-controversial aspects of the topic; an accomplished journalist with good investigative skills could be expected to handle these well, but if what is being cited is controversial, the journalist might be out of their league, and even if they aren’t “out of their league”, they often will run into the “problem of space” inherent in their media, which precludes a fair and balanced treatment of the differing viewpoints. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"no suitable source is available from a reputable scholar on the subject". Not quite - most of the facts have been confirmed with a scholarly source from Institute of National Remembrance.

"Is the author by any chance a noted and respected investigative journalist?" I couldn't find much information on 3 out of 4 journalists; fourth one is a notable person (Kazimierz Kutz). While I agree that author's reputation is important, our primary criteria is a publishing source, not the person: a new scholar publishing his first paper in an academic journal may not have even a bio online, but he is reliable; while a reputable scholar starting a new blog may be much more controversial. Those articles were published in major newspapers with no noticeable bias, therefore they should be considered reliable.

Per my post from 21:39, 20 April 2007 at Talk:Przyszowice massacre the newspaper details don't contradict the scholarly ref, only add a few more details (for example that many houses were burned). As such I don't think that reliablity is a serious concern anymore, but my attempts to remove the unreliable tag are still being reverted (and my recent posts on talk page are ignored).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  06:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Institute of National Remembrance, while "scholarly" is hardly neutral. Being a political branch of the governmental that carries the law enforcement (prosecution) and lustration functions greatly undermines its neutrality and credibility. However, even IPN does not support most of the content which is referenced purely to the publicist level writing by we still don't know who.

Finally, I agree with what Askari Mark wrote above about the topic being a controversial one being important to this case. This is extremely controversial issue.

But overall, I get a feeling that this is an attempt to amend the policy to fit the article. --Irpen 06:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Unneutrality or unreliability of IPN is your personal opinion; it is recognized as a neutral and reliable scholarly institution by the Polish government and criticism of lustration branch of IPN, estabilished in March 2007, is irrelevant to research conducted since 1998. I have noted on article's talk page that IPN supports most of the content, articles provide only superficial details. Feel free to reply there and dispute those details, I offered a compromise that we can note in text that those details come from newspaper, a compromise which you are ignoring since 20 April. And yes, our debate certainly shows flows in RS and the need to amend it with clear examples and answers when newspapers are reliable and when not.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I have some knowledge of the lustration issue, and it was a poor decision to also give prosecutorial powers to a government organization with investigative responsibility; it begs abuse as a political tool by whatever party controls it. I agree with Irpen that it cannot be considered neutral from that point on; however, that in of itself does not necessarily make the IPN an unreliable source, according to the standards of WP:RS. WP:NPOV addresses the kind of article Wikipedia’s editors are supposed to produce – one with a neutral POV; WP:NPOV guides how we use sources, whether they themselves are neutral or not. WP:ATT calls for having sources for facts and assertions, particularly contentious ones; it does not ask us to determine whether their content is “objective truth,” though.

The main concern WP:RS has in this particular case is whether the enticement for political abuse of the IPN through potential falsification of its published material renders it no longer reliable. In my opinion, based on Wikipedia’s guidelines of what qualifies a source – even a non-neutral source – as “reliable”, I do not think we can judge IPN to be an unreliable source unless and until there is a revelation of such activity. Let me explain why I believe this (besides from what WP:RS says). The cunning political approach to abusing the powers of the IPN is not to produce falsified information on an opponent; the odds are that it will be found out and “blow up” in the face of whoever gets caught. The ways in which it is most likely to be abused is by who gets reported on and with what timing, along with who doesn’t get reported on; the government can control the agenda of its publication, yet maintain “plausible deniability”. Granted, there are indeed stupid politicians who do stupid things, so the potential for fraud is only low, not zero.

My recommendation is to treat any material published by IPN before 15 March 2007 as fully “reliable,” and any published thereafter as “conditionally reliable.” By the latter, I mean that any material that does not clearly import political damage to an opponent of the sitting government should be treated as generally reliable; however, in any case where the reputation of someone who is a critic, competitor or opponent of the sitting government’s leaders should be treated as “suspect” in its reliability. If there is call to use it at all in such a case, either the text or the citation should be annotated to point out that critics claim the IPN may not be a trustworthy source in this instance.

I hope this helps the two of you resolve your issue. Best regards, Askari Mark (Talk) 01:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

as I see it,and discuss below in another context, there are no absolutely reliable sources, and the WP idea of RS has to be interpreted as "sufficiently reliable for the purpose at hand," and as a question of relative reliability. I do not think in most topics being academic or newspaper is definitive: It depends on the academic publication in question, and the newspaper. Many academics of high reputation in their fields have published articles much influenced by their prejudices, and even good journals have published them. This is true not only of totalitarian regimes but in ordinary times. Similarly, some newspapers, even those emanating from a political partisan group, have an enviable record of reliability--and some do not. In cases of ethnic conflict, no source associated with either side can be assumed reliable in all things.

thus in practice I agree with the similar but not identical advice of Askira Mark: use what you have, and indicate the possible prejudice. It is WP's job to provide accurate reports of what others say. DGG 05:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the comment of Askira Mark is really important with regard to biographies of Russian activists who are in opposition to Putin's government. Askira said that "any material that does not clearly import political damage to an opponent of the sitting government should be treated as generally reliable. However, in any case where the reputation of someone who is a critic, competitor or opponent of the sitting government’s leaders should be treated as “suspect” in its reliability". It means that publications of pro-Putin journalists who smear opposition figures and opposition journalists are not reliable and can not be used in biographies of the corresponding living person (say an opposition journalist) or even other persons (such as Politkovskaya). Do I understand correctly?Biophys 14:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC) Just to clarify. I am talking about empty-worded statements of pro-Putin journalists like "his writings are worse than Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler" or "she focused more on accusing [authorities] and less on reporting". Biophys 15:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly. I think the best description I've read about what we do here on Wikipedia is "We don't really write about our topics; we write about what others have written about them." The purpose of WP:RS is to define what our general standards for "reliability" are. We are the ones, after all, who choose the sources. Since this is an encyclopedia, it would be inappropriate to present the common insults of partisan writers, but not all partisans are the same. A principled partisan wouldn't need to rely on insults and unproven or unprovable accusations, but would present a more carefully reasoned and evidenced critism. It might be appropriate to include this – along with the identification of their partisan leanings – in an article. A sweeping rule banning all publications that feature articles by one partisan faction is overly broad. If we did, then partisan editors could rule against otherwise trustworthy sources simply because related partisan publications subsequently picked up the legitimate issue themselves. Where it is appropriate to include a partisan viewpoint in an article, we need to find the source with the best-reasoned presentation of that view – which will be something that source will be a "reliable source" for, even if they are an unreliable source for the opposition's views. There is a great tendency to conflate "neutral source" with "reliable source", but they are not the same thing; a partisan source can be a "reliable source" for its own side's viewpoint, while at the same time being an unreliable source for the opposition's viewpoint. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Letters to the editor of peer-reviewed journals: automatically reliable?

I am involved in a dispute regarding the use of a published letter to the editor of a peer-reviewed journal as a reliable source. The other editors claim that such a letter is (quoting WP:RS): "material published by peer-reviewed journals" and therefore is reliable. It seems to me to ignore the intent behind the quoted phrase to include material, such as letters, published in such a journal but not peer-reviewed. In essence, I believe that inherent in the phrase is the notion that the material in question is peer-reviewed; the fact that the journal's articles are peer-reviewed become irrelevant if letters to the editor are automatically considered just as reliable. User Blueboar has provided one interpretation on this talk page with which I fully agree; but not having any other official policy or guidelines to point to, and with the other editors steadfast in their opposition, I seem bound to the literal interpretation of the phrase. I am seeking a consensus regarding this issue and an end to the dispute. I also point it out as an area of the guideline possibly requiring clarification. Thoughts? Suggestions? Blackworm 17:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you know my interpretation... but to make sure it is clear: I would consider it reliable for a statement of opinion (as it is verifiable that the person wrote the letter)... but I would not nescessarily consider it reliable for a statement of fact. Its reliability for a citation of fact will depend on the reputation of the person who wrote it... it does not get an automatic approval by virtue of where it is published, but it also does not get an automatic disqualification because it is only a "letter". A letter written by the formost expert in his field does carry a degree of weight, and should be more reliable than a letter written by Joe Undergrad. As a hypothetical, it falls in the grey zone. Blueboar 20:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Due to the interaction between law and the operating methods of published journals, sometimes peer-reviewed texts can be marked as "letter to the editor" or even "advertisement"(!). So peer review and marking do not correlate. You need to check separately to see if something is in fact peer reviewed. --Kim Bruning 20:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

For disclosure purposes, I am one of the editors who disagrees with Blackworm. As I see it, in the case in question, the sentence is attributed to the authors. The quotation is verifiable, as it is linked to the peer-reviewed journal, which is itself a reliable source. As WP:RS states: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." The peer reveiwed journal in question here eminently fulfills the above. Further, in my opinion, this is not "Letters to the Editor" in The New York Post, but the selected letters published BY the peer reviewed journal, which themselves are listed in PubMed. Further, as stated in WP:RS "Using reliable sources assures the reader that what is being presented meets the Wikipedia standards for verifiability and originality. Accurate citation allows the reader to go to those sources and gives appropriate credit to the author of the work." Once again, these letters, which are commentary on previously published articles in the journal, are completely verifiable and demonstrate no original research. The journal is a scholarly source, and neither the journal, nor the article or the comments on it are fringe. I still fail to see the issue, other than an attempt to remove well-cited, verified information for WP:POV purposes. Unfortunately, as I have pointed out on the articles talk page, there are a number of sources that are far worse than this, but I do not see Blackworm discussing those as they happen to support his exogenous position. -- Avi 22:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yet again, please do me the courtesy of assuming good faith and not attacking me personally. The letter to the editor you use as a source has not been shown to be peer-reviewed nor even fact-checked. That you believe it is "not fringe," a "scholarly source," and "demonstrate no original research" is interesting, but (a) it is not supported by any evidence, not knowing the criteria the journal uses for publishing letters, and (b) even if true, in the absence of peer review it has not been demonstrated that these authors are in any way notable enough to warrant a paragraph in an encyclopedia, with direct quotes and statements of fact. Blackworm 22:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

If a letter to the editor (or any other source that would be considered not a RS) is reproduced in a peer reviewed article, it would be OK to cite the peer review article as the source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. You seem to take for granted that the letter to the editor would be considered as not a reliable source. I do, as well, but the opposite seems to be asserted by the opposing editors in this dispute -- i.e. that the mere fact of the letter's publication in the otherwise peer-reviewed journal makes it a RS. As I hope I have made clear, there is no evidence that the letter at the heart of this dispute underwent peer review, nor is peer review of the letter even claimed by the editors opposing me in this matter. Blackworm 23:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, especially as the letter itself cites their published works in Am Fam Physician as well as JAMA (although the JAMA too is a letter and not an article. Both of these authors have been published a number of times in peer-reviewed journals, both articles and letters as can by checking for "Shechet (R)J" (J and RJ are the same person) and "Tanenbaum B" in PubMed search. The letter in and of itself should be considered reliable, based on its authors and its publication location. Much better than some of the fringe websites that are in that article. -- Avi 01:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Further, as mentioned, WP:RS itself states "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." In this case, I have yet to see a valid argument as to why the source quoted fails the above sentence. -- Avi 01:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

In a nutshell, the question here is not whether published commentary in peer-reviewed journals are as good as the original articles themselves, but whether said commentary acheives the standards of WP:RS. If minimal standards for reliable sources were actual peer-reviewed articles, then I daresay fully 85% of all sources in wikipedia would fail. Once again, it boils down to what wikipedia requires in a reliable source, and I have yet to hear how commentary on a peer-reviewed article, published in that very same peer reveiwed journal, does not conform to our standards, even if we all agree that a peer-reveiwed article is an even better source (than letters, news sites, CNN homepage, and most other, accepted, sources here). -- Avi 04:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Here, I believe we are somewhat closer to reaching an agreement, although you do not seem to be clearly addressing the points raised, while introducing new clauses ("commentary on a peer-reviewed article," "published in that very same [...] journal"). These only seem to serve to add confusion. Are you now willing to agree that a published letter in a peer-reviewed journal is not necessarily a reliable source, i.e. that it may indeed fail the minimum standard for statements of fact? If so, could it also additionally fail the minimum standard for statements of opinion notable enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia? It seems we must at least agree on these questions before we may proceed to the additional clauses and conditions required to meet the minimum standard(s). Blackworm 05:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the letter and the journal. in many cases, such letters are reviewed by the editor, the original author is given an opportunity to respond, and such letters are the means by which improper results are challenged They then have the same reliability as anything else in the journal. I note that Medline and other indexing services scrupulously index all substantative letters of this sort.

In other cases, as with the typical letters to the editor of a newspaper, they represent individual opinion, selected for representativeness or interest. (And of course there are the "letters" which are simply short articles.) Nothing about peer-review is black and white. DGG 07:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

According to an e-mail I received back from Pediatrics, all letters are shown to article author's to allow them to respond, should they wish. -- Avi 21:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

What is the relevance of that, Avi? Please respond to my questions above. Thanks. Blackworm 22:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Supports DDG's assertion that they have similar reliability to the article itself. -- Avi 14:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

DGG: I disagree with your assertion that the letters "have the same reliability as anything else in the journal" under those circumstances. It is not the responsibility of the author to fact-check every statement made by every published letter to the editor responding to their peer-reviewed article, nor the responsibility (nor practice) of the journal to subject such letters to peer review. Blackworm 23:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are right that my wording was exaggerated, and I apologize: I should have said they have similar standing, not equal standing. It depends on the journal and the type of letter. Some medical journals do it fact always give the author an opportunity to reply., especially if the letter alleges serious breeches of scientific ethics. Nature too often does this. Every time people I know have been involved, the author has a chance to reply. In the old days, sometimes the authors reply ended up in the following issue, and the chain could go on like a WP discussion, except over several months rather than several days. Typically letters to the editor of this sort are rare--they are not writted or printed for trivia. If you like, I can find some illusrative chains--Avi, do you have one at hand?

The more general comments are these days handled by a blog of some sort--and even here they are reviewed--not to peer review standards, but still reviewed. Again, to start at the top end, the Nature web discussions on each article is very much under the control of the journal. As a more general example, the Letters to the editor in the NY Times is also under editorial page control--the ones that are printed are because they are either of particular human interest or subject important or a necessary conterbalancing view.

The only general statement is that nothing about peer review is black and white. For that matter, nothing about RS is really black and white. DGG 07:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your insight on this. I do understand this process; there is no need to further illustrate it. In this particular case, the original authors did not reply to the authors of the particular letter under dispute. I do not take this to imply silent agreement; in fact in their reply to other letters they refute the particular claim by the letter's authors which is under dispute. Blackworm 08:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Au contraire. As the authors saw fit to try and respond/refute other letters and not this, the case could be made that they agree. Regardless, interpretations of their silence is pure original research. What we do know is:

1. The letter was printed in a respected, scholarly peer-reviwed journal.
2. The source is not being used to support the claim itself, but to support the fact that it was made by Tannenbaum and Shechet.
3. To add further strength (but still, IMO, unnecessary), according to Pediatrics the author's had the opportunity to see the letter and respond should they have chosen.

I see no reason whatsoever for any serious claim against the reliability and verifiability of the source as regards its supporting the sentence in the article. --Avi 14:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

As you say, we can't infer agreement nor disagreement, so your third point is null and void. The first point is the reason I asked for opinions here; and so far no one has claimed that this makes it automatically a reliable source; in fact the consensus here seems to be that at best it is not as good a source as a peer-reviewed article. Your second point is the strongest IMO; however, it isn't clear to me that the authors of this letter are either "generally regarded as trustworthy," or "authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" (quoted from WP:RS). Whether they should have a paragraph in an encyclopedia dedicated to their opinions is at issue. Perhaps we can reach a compromise by the inclusion of a balancing claim supported one or more major medical associations. I will suggest an edit on the talk page of the article. Blackworm 23:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Its hard to infer from silence: I can fail to respond because I know you have driven me out of court, or because I think I've refuted you so effectively that anything further you may say doesn't matter. And your solution seems very reasonable, both here and as a good practice in general. DGG 05:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems obvious to me that if the only academic source is a letter to the editor in a jounral, which are very certainly not reviewed by two or three independent referees, then the ref is somewhat dubious. I would personally think that anyone trying to insert a disputed opinion substantiated only by such a letter is pushing things a bit. From experience I can say that journals occasionally publish letters from somewhat fringe-y people in order to have their views stomped on in a reply. Hornplease 02:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Letters are not peer reviewed, aren't they? They can be cited, but certainly merit a clarification like "Person X in a letter published in publication Y stated that...".-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  06:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, it depends on the journal and the importance of the matter--often journals list their policies on this somewhere on the information to authors section of their site. But, to skip up one, no I would never rest a matter solely on a letter to the editor, but I would certainly regard such a letter in a good journal as evidence that the question was still controversial. There are no foolproof RS rules: the people who apply them can't be fools. We have to proceed on the evidence that the eds. here are neither fools nor bigots. some will be, but since this is a wiki and most of us I hope are neither, those who are will get corrected. Fortunately, it is not our responsibility to settle the truth of controversial questions, but just accurately report what others say. (I suppose this discussion had its origin in a discussion of one particular point, and I am not commenting on it specifically.)DGG 06:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Any source that is a "letter to the editor" should be marked as such, that should be the default. Especially those sources claiming the status of a peer reviewed scientific journal as a reliable source. This standard should be the default no matter what the journal's policy (to peer review or not) to letters are. I also think that an editor is free to check any source he/she wants to make sure it is crystal clear. In particular, with regard to checking one source instead of each and every one, one does not have to use a NPOV in choosing what to edit (whatever that means), only in making sure that the edit is made in a NPOV (and accurate) fashion. R. Baley 22:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Articles about a controversy

I would like to propose an explicit addition. I think this probably meets the spirit of reliable sources, no original research, verifiability, and neutral POV.

Specifically, in articles about a controversy, if a party to the controversy is used as a source in describing or characterizing an argument used by an opposing party to the controversy, the fact that the source is a party to the controversy should be disclosed in the article, and not left as an exercise to the diligent reader to determine.

Hypothetical Example 1: Pop versus Soda Controversy The pop versus soda controversy pits Christian fundamentalists from the Midwest who prefer the term pop over the term soda, against scientists and linguists from around the world who state that the correct term is soda pop or just soda... Scientists are against the family, as evidenced against their disdain for the term 'pop', which is also a homonym for father. ^[1]

^[1]<ref>See www.talkpop.com/ScientistsAreAntiFamily.htm</ref>

Clearly, this would be better written as:

Hypothetical Example 2: Pop versus Soda Controversy The pop versus soda controversy pits Christian fundamentalists from the Midwest who prefer the term pop over the term soda, against scientists and linguists from around the world who state that the correct term is soda pop or just soda.....According to Pop-advocates, scientists and linguists are against the family, as evidenced, they say, by their disdain for the term 'pop', which is also a homonym for father. ^[2]

^[2]<ref>See www.talkpop.com/ScientistsAreAntiFamily.htm</ref>

However, in this second example, I think this is original research, requiring an NPOV RS not a party to the controversy to make the observation that pop-advocates believe scientists are anti-family.

The best approach would be

Hypothetical Example 3: Pop versus Soda Controversy The pop versus soda controversy pits Christian fundamentalists from the Midwest who prefer the term pop over the term soda, against scientists and linguists from around the world who state that the correct term is soda pop or just soda.....According to Pop-advocates, scientists and linguists are against the family, as evidenced, they say, by their disdain for the term 'pop', which is also a homonym for father. ^[3]

^[3]<ref>See AP article news.yahoo.com/SomeArticle.htm, citing www.talkpop.com/ScientistsAreAntiFamily.htm</ref>

If others agree, I will try to reword this into a more consise but explicit statement. Comments? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.62.0.252 (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

I Agree with your reasoning (framing the statement as a statement of opinion as opposed to a statement of fact)... but this is already covered in WP:NPOV and does not need to be repeated in this guideline. Blueboar 14:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

template for non-neutral source?

Is there a template for tagging a citation that is not a neutral, reliable source? I don't mean {{fact}} - that just asks for a citation - I'm looking for something that would say "neutral source needed" or something like that. Than ks for any help! Tvoz |talk 18:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

{{POV-statement}}? -- Avi 18:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

{{POV-assertion}} perhaps -- Avi 18:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You could also try {{fixpov}} Blueboar 18:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both! Excellent options. Tvoz |talk 04:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Virtual Library

This site is listed as a source for many wikipedia articles. I've been checking it out and it seems that it does not conform to WP:RS guidelines. Many of the entries list wikipedia as its source. For instance [1], [2], [3], [4]. Notmyrealname 20:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

While individual articles may rely on wikipedia for information (and thus be unreliable as a source in wikipedia), I don't think that we can call the entire JVL unreliable. Other articles seem quite reliable, and some are even written by noted experts. Probably best taken on a case by case, citation by citation basis. Blueboar 20:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Blueboar. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Blueboar, could you give some examples? Almost all of the articles (especially the biographical ones) there seem to be poorly sourced summaries from other places, such as Wikipedia. I take it as a major red flag regarding their lack of any editorial oversight. Notmyrealname 19:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure... Just picking a few articles at random... this article seems to be a very relaible source... as are this, this,this,this, and this.

I do note that the site seems to be really more of an article hosting site (thus the "Library" part of the name, I suppose). Some of the articles do seem to be simply copies of things written elsewhere. So in that sense it may be better to use it for "convenience links" more than for the original citation. But some of the articles seem to be original to the library, or summaries of stuff written elsewhere ... Again, this looks to be a site who's reliability must be judged on a case by case basis. Some times the answer will be "Sorry, that isn't reliable", some times the answer will be "Yes, that is reliable". Blueboar 19:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Online distribution services and directories as sources

I cannot find how online distribution services -- prnewswire, businesswire, findarticles, for example -- are viewed and used as sources. I have been treating them as tertiary sources and when I find an article that uses them as a source, I try to find the primary or secondary source -- publication, company website, etc. -- to include instead. Can anyone direct me? Flowanda 19:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Note on newspapers needed

Per discussions here, and here, I would like to add a note along the lines that major newspapers are considered reliable unless a particular article is contradicted by other more reliable (academic) sources or the author is known to be unreliable on that subject. Perhaps also a note that in case of controversial articles it is recommended to note in text that particular info is referenced to an article may be a good idea?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly per these discussions such addition is highly unwarranted, unless specifically stated that mainstream news sources (such as major newspapers) are acceptable on the subjects of the current or recent events which is their primary field of coverage anyway. --Irpen 04:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, you are the only person raising this objection; nobody else who commented in relevant threads thinks it's appopriate. Newspapers and magazines often have background articles about not-current events that are somehow connected to current events (ex. anniversairies, new research, etc.) and are perfectly reliable sources for this unless they are contradicting more reliable (academic) research - which reliable newspapers with editorial oversight are very unlikely to do.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

One only has to read the discussions above to see that your "nobody" claim is false. --Irpen 05:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Let "one" make decision whose claims are false for themselves, this is why I linked the previous disussions in my opening post.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I find it amusing that user Piotrus who claims that all Russian sources are unreliable at the article Institute of National Remembrance talk page, and delights by his POV, suddenly forgets such links as this.Vlad fedorov 06:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, just because Polish legislation provides for obligatory lustration of all journalists we should discard all Polish sources then, applying Piotrus logic? Vlad fedorov 06:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

A reliable source committee?

Since quite a few disputes seem to occur over whether something constitutes a reliable source or not, would it perhaps be useful to have some sort of committee appointed just to arbitrate such disputes? It could circumvent a lot of unnecessary angst between users with opposing views.

The committee could be appointed from admins who have an excellent reputation for edit quality and impartiality. Any comments? Gatoclass 06:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Certainly a good idea.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  06:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. I aspire to resolve all my disputes over "unreliable" sources in Boris Stomakhin article with Biophys. Vlad fedorov 07:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not ^demon^{[omg plz]} 11:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No. This is the job of the editing community for a specific article/topic area, because only those editors are likely to have the specific interest and expertise to understand the specific sourcing issues. For those rare cases in which the parties are utterly unable resolve their disputes like adult human beings, we have Arbcom. -- Visviva 11:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No need for a committee... there are several avenues one can take to resolve questions and debates over the reliability of a source: You can ask about it here, you can post an RfC or Third Party request, you can request a mediator, etc. Blueboar 12:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You are right only in theory. Real life is very different. In the case of Boris Stomakhin article mentioned above, I did asked for advice at this talk page, and the source was clearly decided to be inappropriate. That did not help (Vlad Fedorov continued inserting the source). Vlad asked for a Cabal mediation, but the mediator did not tell if the source is reliable or not. Just to explain: the "source" (extremist web site) say: "Kill, kill, kill!" (citizens of Russian Federation) and I am against of using that kind of "sources" in WP articles. Yes, we need such committee.Biophys 15:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a note to clarify what is really happening. This website with "Kill!Kill!Kill!" statements is a site of Boris Stomakhin organization - RKO. And "KillKillKill" is a statement made by Boris Stomakhin. Biophys wants to exclude these words of Boris Stomakhin who was sentenced for extremist activities, in order to present Boris Stomakhin as an innocent dissident who was prosecuted by bloody KGB regime and stuff. Biophys wages propaganda campaign here in Wikipedia by inserting allegations,myths and legends in the articles on GRU, SVR, FSB, KGB, Human rights in Russia, Boris Stomakhin, and other. That's why Biophys falsely claims that "the source was clearly decided to be inappropriate", he omits that it was only him, who decided it. Vlad fedorov 16:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It would appear that this issue is already clarified under the current policy esp the section on "Exceptional claims" which states that "Surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reliable news media." should be "supported by multiple reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and biographies of living people." Pending coverage from other sources the claim should not be made and the source should not be used. A compromise could be "some sources claim" with the ref attached and it made clear that it is not a fact and clearyl establishing the possible POV so as to avoid the impression of weasel words. NeoFreak 16:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No. If a policy isn't clear it needs to be amended. There are already plenty of different routes a editor can take for dispute resolution and dictating policy by committee is contrary to the tried and true concept of consensus formed policy. Not to mention cabal creep ;) NeoFreak 14:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Content RFC's are useless, I've tried them. No-one responds to them. "Third party" intervention is not binding and unable to resolve such disputes either. Perhaps you are right though NeoFreak that the policy needs to be made clearer. That would certainly be a start. Gatoclass 14:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I've found WP:3O to be a great tool. If the editor in the minority refuses to accept a neutrally achevied consensus, is reverting all others and has refused mediation then it is reasonable to assume that administrator intervention or arbitration is required to avoid further disruption. NeoFreak 16:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

RFC and 3O are not that helfpul: first, in 50% of cases they fail to attract outside interest, and when they do, I still see some previous discutants ignore the newcomers for various reasons, and their will to stay in the article almost always outlasts the newcomers. We need a place where community comments on reliability of a particular source to an article would be clearly visible.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words

Why is this article in the weasel words category? --Blue Tie 14:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Because of a comment by Itayb about half way past the page, where he cites another editor and points out a lot of alleged weasel words and POV in the citation. Not a very good reason, I suppose, but there you go. >Radiant< 14:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• • In the guideline itself or on the talk page? If it is on the talk page, I don't see the tag as applying... we can be a weasly as anything on a talk page... different rules apply. Should we delete the tag? Blueboar 17:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
    • This talk page. Scroll up a bit or do a text search. I suppose it shouldn't be categorizing this page, to say the least. >Radiant< 08:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

In which case, I will remove the tag. I really don't think such tags apply to talk pages. Blueboar 13:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see the problem... Solved by adding "no-wiki" formatting to his flags.

Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan) exceptional claims

On the Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan) article an editor is using the "exceptional claims" provision to exclude information that was published in Metropolis (English magazine in Japan). The removed claims are here: [5] Talk about the claim is here: [6]. In this case my position is that the removed claims support the major claim that Baker lied to the public, and that the removed claims are not exceptional claims in their own right. Another way to put this is: do supporting claims on a BLP also need multiple sources?

I have had some confirmation that these claims are not exceptional before[7] but the issue keeps coming up and I would be very grateful some more advice and comments. Thank you. Sparkzilla 06:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

This item has been moved to an RFC on the article's talk page. Talk:Nick_Baker_(prisoner_in_Japan)#Request_for_comments I appreciate your comments. Sparkzilla 02:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

If the...FBI and GAO don't write Government Reports... who does?

The past two days have seen some pretty strange editing on List of groups referred to as cults in government reports with different editors giving different reasons why this is not a government report: Cover Page CRS Report No. 79-24 GOV 1/23/79 Addendum II CRS-45 and why the ...FBI and GAO don't write Government Reports... I'm sorry but that is a very odd statement, on top of odd logic implying it was my idea to remove them. I've been asking this editor and some others to explain why CRS a division of the LOC isn't WP:RS or WP:V. Can someone explain why it isn't a RS? (Granted it should not be used to imply that all groups in the report are still even in existence and those that are may have changed so it needs to be qualified.) I realize WP:V is discussed on that page, so I'm not bringing it up except to say that they are pretty easily verfied. Anynobody 09:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't read much of it without my eyes glazing over. Seems to me like much ado about nothing – an inability to distinguish between a "government report" and a "Government Report". I've read a great many U.S. "government reports" of a wide range of types, but I cannot recall ever coming across one called a "Government Report", per se. Usually if it is produced by a U.S. government organization or agency or employee (writing at the direction of a government official) and printed by the GPO, it's considered a government report. Perhaps those arguing against the contested "government reports" being "Government Reports" can provide a link to a U.S. Govt. site that defines what is and what isn't a formal "Government Report". All that nonsense aside, it's hard to credit the CRS and FBI as not being "reliable sources" as WP:RS defines them. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with your definition of a government report, and have asked them to provide some examples of their definition of a "Government Report". Their main contentions are that it should represent the opinion of "the government" and hold it's Imprimatur. They have also indicated a belief that CRS is a "private" arm of the LOC. The example provided of what they consider it to be was a Congressional report. When I pointed out that a Congressional report fails their own definition (it only represents Congress) it seemed to make no difference.

I've tried explaining that their are no reports which express the opinion of the entire federal government. Such a report would need to be from all three branches (Executive, Legislative, and Judicial) and that's not really possible because the Constitution, the only official document which affects all three, makes no provisions for it.

The whole situation is almost surreal because if they are right, all the articles citing anything produced by the government has gotta go. Anynobody 01:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I have dealt with the CRS from time to time. They are not a "private" arm of the LOC; more like they're the "dedicated" research arm of the Congress. They are supposed to be non-partisan, and their analytical products are certainly more respected than, say, those of the GAO. You are correct that the three branches of the U.S. government publish separately. I've never heard of an imprimatur for the U.S. government. I've only heard of the Roman Catholic church using it. We're a democracy, so we don't need to have such a thing. If there were, then there would be a formal government organization tasked with the duty to prepare, vet and promulgate a document reviewed and approved by all three branches, as well as to maintain the "official version". If the critics you're dealing with cannot identify this organization and provide a link to its website that confirms its charter, then it doesn't exist. End of story. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Government Reports are reasonably reliable sources, from any branch. I would not say that CRS is more respected than the GAO, but if either of them were less respected, the lesser respected service would still be a reliable source. There should be no problem using them as sources. --Blue Tie 03:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I really appreciate your input, Askari Mark (Talk) and Blue Tie. Do you know if anyone has ever doubted the reliability of this type of information? I found that there isn't much said about gov't sources, probably because it's assumed most people "understand". Anynobody 04:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

There are good reasons to doubt its REAL reliability SOMETIMES, but from WP:RS perspective, there is no reason to doubt it. If someone objects, they probably do not like what it says. In that case NPOV comes into play and they can find another source that presents a different perspective.--Blue Tie 04:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Anynobody 04:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Hi. As one of those doing what Mr. Anynobody calls "pretty strange editing", I asked the Director of the CRS whether he writes "Government Reports" and I got a very enlightening response from his Coordinator of Communications. Please see Talk:Groups referred to as cults in government reports#Straight from the source, the CRS weighs in. Here is the interesting part:

  CRS, like the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Government Accountability Office (GAO), as parts of the Legislative Branch, serve the Congress but do not “speak for it.” Only documents provided by these agencies pursuant to specific statutory mandates might be said to be “official government reports” – an imprecise term. Even those documents, however, cannot necessarily be said to “carry the weight or tacit approval” of the Congress.
  
  CRS reports represent our response to congressional legislative needs and in no way represent “what the legislative branch of government says” on a given topic. The 435 members of the House, the 100 Senators, and the delegates and committees that together make up the Congress have no single voice, save through legislation, nor has the Congress vested in CRS the authority to speak for it on any matter.

  So, do they write good reports? Probably. Are their reports respected? Probably. Do their reports "speak for the government"? Absolutely not! Their reports are no more "special" than the reports of any expert or academic. Remember please where Anynobody et al would use these reports. In an article entitled Groups referred to as cults in government reports and since we already have the more general article, List of groups referred to as cults, the opposing editors want to reserve the former for actual reports that bear the seal, literally or figuratively, of the issuing government. The CRS reports clearly do not fit in that category. --Justanother 00:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that you're going through some logical gymnastics to try to exclude something you don't happen to agree with. I've received lots of communications from government functionaries, and that reply is typical of the way these guys qualify everything they say. If we followed your reasoning to its logical conclusion, very few government-produced documents would be allowed as sources. For example, the reports of the Warren Commission or the 9/11 Commission would be excluded, because we couldn't say definitively that those reports "speak for the government", because I am sure there could be found a congresscritter or two that did not agree with the conclusions. - Crockspot 01:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Crockspot. That's one of the things I've been saying. Anynobody 01:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No one is disputing that these reports are reliable sources that can be used in Wikipedia articles. They are, of course. The dispute is about the labeling of these as "Government Reports", as if they represent the view of the government or an official commission. When asked, the Coordinator of Communications of the CRS responded with this unequivocal statement: ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mr. ----,

The Director has asked me to respond to your email regarding the “status” of CRS reports. While I’m not sure I can “settle an argument” for you, I can provide you some general thoughts regarding the role of the Congressional Research Service (CRS) vis a vis the Congress and the nature of its reports.

CRS works exclusively for the Congress of the United States. It has no public mission. All of its reports are therefore produced for and provided to Members who are then free to distribute them as they deem appropriate.

As you know, the Congress is a body made up of individual Members – Senators, Representatives, and Delegates – and there is no single voice for the Congress, either for the body as whole or for the individual chambers. Only through the passage of legislation can it be said that the Congress “has spoken.”

CRS, like the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Government Accountability Office (GAO), as parts of the Legislative Branch, serve the Congress but do not “speak for it.” Only documents provided by these agencies pursuant to specific statutory mandates might be said to be “official government reports” – an imprecise term. Even those documents, however, cannot necessarily be said to “carry the weight or tacit approval” of the Congress.

CRS reports represent our response to congressional legislative needs and in no way represent “what the legislative branch of government says” on a given topic. The 435 members of the House, the 100 Senators, and the delegates and committees that together make up the Congress have no single voice, save through legislation, nor has the Congress vested in CRS the authority to speak for it on any matter.

_______________

(name removed)
Coordinator of Communications
Congressional Research Service

I would think that there is no agency of any sort that provides a report of the position of the whole government. They provide reports of the position of that agency. These are still government reports. But I do not think there is such a thing as a report from the whole government. The US has 3 branches of government and sometimes reports from one branch are intentionally created to counter a report from another branch. This does not make either of them unreliable for purposes of RS. The FBI will issue a report that is contradicted by the CIA. Which one represents what the "Executive Branch" says? Maybe neither. But they are still government reports. --Blue Tie 01:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that calling these "government reports" is misleading to our readers. The obvious connotations for a reader would be that a "government report" represents the view of the government, or an official commission appointed by it, particularly when such documents are placed alongside other documents from other governments reports (such as from France, for example) that are indeed official government reports. That is the dispute, Blue Tie. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It appears that List of groups referred to as cults in government reports is a redirect to List of groups referred to as cults in government documents. So what's the problem? Maybe it should further redirect to List of groups referred to as cults in government-produced documents? This is hair-splitting to the extreme. Come up with a name for the list that suits everyone, and move on. - Crockspot 01:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, somebody messed up trying to undo a move... A suitable article name for its contents is surely the way out. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Next! :) - Crockspot 01:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Do I disagree that a 28-year-old report by an agency that does not speak for anyone has been cherry-picked to be included as something that appears to be the position of the United States government? Especially when it specifically is NOT the position of the United States govenement as regards Scientology, my area of interest. Well, yes, I guess I do disagree. And there is little point in renaming to "documents" as we already have the more general article. So what is the point? But we will sort it out. Your'alls help is welcome. --Justanother 02:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Attacking the source as outdated is a different ball of wax, and one you may have better luck arguing. Views do change over decades. - Crockspot 02:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue Anynobody wants it to be is whether CRS writes WP:RS. The real issue is the definition (or implication) of government reports. A government report, (at minimum suggests that it), represents the view or opinion of a government, or an official sub-section of a government which is authorized to release reports and opinions. The Congress would write and release Government reports for that sub-section of the Unites States government. The CRS works for the Congress and per an email from the CRS, it is not authorized, without specific statutory mandates, to write official government reports. The only question is whether or not the wiki-LIST implies the word official. I submit that a goverment report implies official. Lsi john 02:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Justanother has a point about the age of the list report in question, which is why I've been saying it needs to be mentioned because indeed the groups may have changed. As a historical document though, there is no reason it should be excluded (discussing the phrasing of a source is all that's needed. Removing it is overkill and actually is against WP:NPOV. Anynobody 07:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

These emails are unverifiable and therefore completely moot to the article and the argument. I would think Jossi you'd be the first one to point that out. The arguments based on the emails would, if used to modify the article in any way, go against our policy. If the agency were willing to *post* their responses to their own verifiable website that would be a different situation.Wjhonson 19:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Curious question. Would it be considered WP:V if they wrote an email to wiki staff, objecting to the use of their report being cited as a government report? I have no idea if they would do this or not, I'm just curious, mostly for curiosity sake. Lsi john 20:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The essence of verifiability is that any editor *could* independently confirm that the attribution is accurate. None of us can confirm that wiki staff got an email. Just like none of us can confirm that you did. And none of us can confirm who sent it. Any of us however *could* confirm public records, newspapers, books, etc. Sometimes it might not be easy to do, but we could. However with private emails we cannot. Wjhonson 04:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

My recent Edit

Lsi john added this to the guideline: It is important to note that, while 'Reliable Sources' is a guideline, and verifiability is a policy, neither should be used to justify including (or keeping) material in an article. Regardless of how well sourced an item is, satisfying the criteria for reliable source and verifiability alone does not provide sufficient reason to include material in an article. Common sense must be applied, and editors should ask themselves if the material being cited is both relevant and noteworthy.

- the following was originally to Anynobody's userpage, and was relocated here by him.

Lsi john 03:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Anynobody, with all due respect, I do not appreciate being followed to WP:RS. Due to our past history, I believe it is inappropriate for you to revert my edits in unrelated articles.

I will be making a slight change to my edit and putting it back. There are numerous editors and admins who watch that page and it would be more appropriate for them to revert my edit, if a revert is necessary.

As there are a sufficient number of other editors who watch that page, I believe your revert is COI and borders on stalking and harassment. Please leave the edit for someone else to handle.

Thank you.

Peace in God.

Lsi john 01:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Lsi john, I was actually editing there first so "following" somehow fails to describe the sequence of events.
As I said in the edit summary, your edit should have been discussed on the talk page first. That being said if you do add your comment to the project page, without discussing it on the talk page, I'll revert it again. In a WP:3RR situation it's up to you to prove a consensus when adding new material. Anynobody 01:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Anynobody, as I said on your talk page (which you moved here), given the large number of people who watch this guideline page, your immediate revert was unnecessary. Regarding discussion first, the page says do not make major changed, it does not say 'do not make any changes. My change was not major.

Given our edit history, it was COI for you to revert my change here. There are a substantial number of other editors and admins who can revert if my edit is not in keeping with wiki policy or guidelines.

Wiki says be bold and I was bold.

Lsi john 02:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a guideline that says "It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow." Your addition was not bold, it was presumptuous. A single user should never assert what is "generally accepted". Please revert it and start a discussion since it plainly is not a minor edit. 2005 02:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not see this as a major change. It does not have any impact on what WP:RS is. It does not change or affect what can be included in an article. It merely clarifies that WP:RS is not justification to include something. The material being cited, must also be relevant and notable. I have opened a discussion about this below. Lsi john 02:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Adding a full paragraph to a fairly short document is obviously a major change. If it's not a major chnage, you'll easily get a consensus. The world won't catch fire in the next few days while is is discussed. 2005 02:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, as I said below: if you disagree with the statement I added, then you are saying WP:RS IS justification solely by itself to include or keep material. That would imply that you would agree to including citable plumbing facts in sewing articles, solely on the basis of WP:RS. Lsi john 02:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Please focus on the issue. You should not make a major change to a guideline without starting a discussion. Whether or not it is a good idea is irrelevant. Discuss it, then if it gets agreement it will be in the document because it DOES represent a consensus, rather than an unsupported edit by a single editor. 2005 02:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

2005, I apologize for projecting the Anynobody situation onto you. I have no problem with discussing at all. In fact, my post to Anynobody clearly stated that a neutral editor was welcome to revert me. Based on my frustration at being reverted by someone with COI, I responded to your post with frustration and that was improper. As i said above, I have opened discussion below. Lsi john 03:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm honestly not trying to hassle you Lsi john, after all I didn't say it couldn't ever be added just that it needed discussion as 2005 is saying. Are you forgetting that even though it's a guideline the entire wiki will be using it? WP:BOLD applies to articles, not policies and guidelines. If it did, I could boldly remove all of them and cite it as an excuse. Anynobody 04:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Is RS sufficient justification for including (or keeping) material in an article?

In my short history at wikipedia, I have witnessed a large number of editors revert with edit comments like: "the material is highly sourced", "do not remove sourced material", "highly sourced".

To me, these seem to be falacious and circular arguments. Based on the fact that so many of these arguments are presented in edit-comments for reverts, it seems to me that there is a general misunderstanding and misapplication of the WP:RS guideline.

For example, if WP:RS is justification for including material, then we could include the fact that a second stage scuba mouthpiece works at roughly 100psi, in an article about the mating habits of the North East Woodpecker.

Because so many editors are using WP:RS as a reason to include or keep material, it seems that there is a general misunderstanding of what WP:RS is and what it is not.

By giving a definition for what is acceptable, it is basically a guideline for what not to include.

It is not a guidline for what to include. And does not provide justification for including material solely on the basis of WP:RS.

I believe that it will be both beneficial and helpful to the wiki community to include a brief paragraph on this in the guideline.

Lsi john 02:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Answer

Yes, with very few exceptions¹, one of which I will discuss. The ONLY time a WP:RS should be automatically excluded or removed is if it has nothing at all to do with the article.

Example of appropriate removal

Removing a NASA report on space debris from an article about Napoleon.

Example of inappropriate removal

A CRS report outlining perceived cults operating in America and abroad circa the mid to late 1970's in an article discussing groups identified as a cult in government documents.

¹There are probably other exceptions I haven't thought of. Anynobody 06:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Anynobody, this really has nothing to do with that article or that debate. My question is Is it ever appropriate to justify material solely on the basis of Reliable Source? Your answer contained the provision that it must also be relevant to the article, which is exactly what my proposed wording says. Not meeting RS would be a reason to remove something, but simply meeting RS is not sufficient justification to include or retain it. Lsi john 22:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

My question is Is it ever appropriate to justify material solely on the basis of Reliable Source?

Actually sounds more like you're asking if WP:RS should ever be allowed to trump WP:V or WP:OR concerns. There are several policies and guidelines which could conceivably affect the worthiness of a source for inclusion. (For example, a source for an article on a living person must also meet WP:BLP concerns.) I must also point out that the clarification you provided probably should be added to the section title in order to replace the question that's already there.

Is RS sufficient justification for including (or keeping) material in an article?

Yes, with very few exceptions. Anynobody 04:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion to modify WP:RS Lead

Specifically I suggest the following wording be added as a 3rd paragraph:

"It is important to note that, while 'Reliable Sources' is a guideline, and verifiability is a policy, neither should be used as sufficient reason to justify including (or keeping) material in an article. Regardless of how well sourced an item is, satisfying the criteria for reliable source and verifiability does not provide sufficient grounds, by itself, to include, or retain, material in an article. Common sense must be applied, and editors should ask themselves if the material being cited is both relevant and noteworthy."

Lsi john 03:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, this seems a bit pointless to me. WP:RS and V are about what types of sources it is appropriate to use, relevancy is another question altogether and it would seem to me that it's already self evident that material added to a page must be relevant to the article topic. Gatoclass 07:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Gatoclass, to be honest, I agree so much that I would have used the word silly rather than pointless. To me, the difference between relevant and reliable is clearly obvious. In the same way that WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are obvious, yet both of those exist in order to guide editors toward resolution.

I see 'numerous' editors cite WP:RS as the sole reason for restoring material, even when the reliability is not being challenged. Perhaps it is isolated to the the area of contentious articles where I edit, but it is done often enough that I believe a paragraph here might help clarify the issue and thus help to reduce edit warring. Which is, afterall , the purpose of guidelines.

[Here]is one quick example where an editor (whom I do not know) uses WP:RS as the reason to keep an article. There are countless others but I did not feel a litany of examples would be productive. (I can produce a quick dozen or two if anyone requests). At the very least, it won't hurt to include this text. And at its best, the wording will help remind editors in highly contested articles to address and discuss the issues rather than using WP:RS as 'justification' for reverts and edit warring. Lsi john 12:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Your example is a non-example. Several editors have commented that the article is noteworthy independent of there being RS or not. There being RS is a requirement, but not the sole one, and it's not the sole reason for Keep votes on the AFD either. Wjhonson 20:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't explain very well (that happens with me too often) I wasn't debating the value of that article. I was only referring to this one specific reason given for keep:

"*Keep. This death was discussed in reliable sources, so it should be included"

With the multitude of other reasons s/he could have cited, s/he chose WP:RS. This speaks directly to what I have seen numerous times. It demonstrates that people use WP:RS as a justification, which it isn't. WP:RS is a requirement, not a justification and just because something meets WP:RS does not mean we must include it.

Specifically, rather than look at my example, what is your opinion of the wording I have proposed? Lsi john 21:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't like it. And I'll tell you why. Once an article has passed muster to be in Wikipedia at all, trying to fall back on noteworthiness for each detail would basically say, we can't include the birthdate unless it's exceptional, we can't mention their occupation unless it's unusual, we can't say where they were born unless it's extraordinary. It's not the material in the article that must pass noteworthiness, it's the *subject* of the article. Once that bar has been passed, the material of the article should only be required to pass undue weight. Wjhonson 04:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You raise a good point. Specifically I'm speaking about articles that have not 'passed muster' but are still under development. I used the AfD as an example, but I see WP:RS cited far too often in regular article editing rather than addressing the objection to the material which was deleted. To me, citing Notable or Relevant would at least address the issue. Citing RS doesn't. And, even for articles which have passed muster, it would be just as easy (and more correct) to cite notability or relevance. Lsi john 19:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

For example, in the article on Anna Nicole Smith we can mention that she had a daughter. Not because having a daughter is noteworthy, but because the article is meant to be a biography and children are part of your life story. Wjhonson 04:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Lsi john are you assuming that the article in your example is failing some other policy or guideline?. If it isn't, WHY NOT cite the reliability of the source? A bible is WP:V but not a reliable source on science or anything of a concrete nature that can be reliably quoted by it. Anynobody 04:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Anynobody, I'm not assuming anything at all about that article. RS is a requirement for material to be included. Relevantce or Notability would be justification. Using a requirement as justification is an invalid and circular argument.

Arguing to keep information on the mating habits of the raccoon, in an article on airplanes, based solely on the fact that the information is reliably sourced, is obviously absurd and everyone sees it. However, in less obvious examples, it seems that some editors believe RS is justification. When material is deleted based on Notability or Relevance, the specific objection is ignored and RS is cited as justificiation for a revert. It is simply a bad and circular argument.

My desire to add wording is for clarification, not to change how anything works. Lsi john 19:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a problem with this proposal--the link to WP:N creates a circular reference, because there it says:

...These guidelines do not specifically regulate the content of articles, which is governed by other Wikipedia's guidelines, such as those on the reliability of sources...

I would also avoid referring to that guideline anyway, as it has been perpetually disputed. I think the point about relevance is valid, but such a long winded lede is over-the-top. A brief mention in the body, or a footnote should suffice. Dhaluza 10:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not hung up on how it gets worded. I just believe that some clarification should be included in order to preclude using RS as justification (see above). Lsi john 19:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

We could just add the word relevant to the opening sentence:(Changes in bold)

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable and relevant published sources. This page is a guideline, not a policy, and is mandatory only insofar as it repeats material from policy pages. The related policies on sources are Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Neutral point-of-view.

Anynobody 01:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

We could, except that doesn't really address my concern and would raise additional concerns by tying relevance into RS. I'm suggesting a disclaimer statement which clarifies' that RS is a requirement but is insufficient as justification. Lsi john 01:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You do understand that this guideline refers to the sources used in articles, if you're concerned about WP:RS being used as a justification to keep an article in a WP:AFD you really ought to be voicing these concerns on Wikipedia Deletion Policy. Up until now I assumed you were talking about sources which WP:RS covers, justification to keep an article is not what WP:RS is about. Anynobody 01:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion, but you have misunderstood and misstated my concern. Lsi john 01:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Please correct me where I've interpreted your proposal and example incorrectly. Anynobody 01:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Per your request I have corrected your interpretation. Lsi john 02:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You are saying that WP:RS is not justification on it's own to add or keep a source in an article. There is no policy or guideline that can be used on it's own to justify inclusion though. A source that is only WP:V does not justify inclusion, no more than a a solely WP:RS source would. Anynobody 02:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Now you've got it. And, since quite a few people do cite RS as justification, I believe we need something here to let them know that its insufficient. Lsi john 02:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That goes back to what I asked about your earlier example, as long as a source also meets WP:V and isn't WP:OR why not cite the nature of a WP:RS? If the source in your example didn't meet WP:V, then one could point that out to an editor arguing for the source's WP:RS. Anynobody 02:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. And to help prevent editors from incorrectly citing WP:RS as justification in the first place, a short comment on the WP:RS page which better explains that WP:RS should not be used as justification. How about giving a hand with the wording? Lsi john 02:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think such a statement would be too restrictive. There are probably times when WP:RS shouldn't be cited, but there are many more times when it would be acceptable. Suggesting it should not be cited assumes the exceptions define the rule. Anynobody 02:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Name one single situation when WP:RS alone, by itself, is sole justification (not permission) for adding or keeping a citation, where no other reason applies. Lsi john 03:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Now you are misunderstanding me, if a source meets WP:V, WP:RS, and is not WP:OR citing the WP:RS as a particularly strong point in favor of the source is fine with me. If a source doesn't meet WP:V, but is a WP:RS and isn't WP:OR and an editor argues the WP:RS is strong; All you need to do is point out that it can't be verified per WP:V. Anynobody 03:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I asked you to give an example where WP:RS can be used as the only reason for including material. You added WP:V, which I'll concede. Are you willing to stand by this statement unconditionally, without bringing in any other requirements? A simple yes or no will do.

"If a source meets WP:V, WP:RS, and is not WP:OR citing the WP:RS as the only reason for including or keeping the source is fine with me."

Lsi john 03:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Which again goes back to the example you tried to use and my question about whether it failed other relevant policies and guidelines. No single policy or guideline by itself can justify a source. As long as it meets all necessary requirements, citing one requirement as an especially strong reason to keep said source is ok. Your idea about saying people should not cite WP:RS ignores that aspect and is too restrictive. Anynobody 03:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Why do you continually change my words? I never once said that people could not cite WP:RS. I said that WP:RS cannot be used as the only reason for adding or keeping something. But people are using it as the only reason. My suggestion doesn't change anything. It clarifies exactly what you and I are both saying.

Hopefully someone else can explain this to you, because I really don't know how to explain it in any other way. I'm sorry. Lsi john 03:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, never mind. I think your claim that WP:RS, alone, can be used to justify including material only further illustrates the need for a statement here. WP:RS is not justification. There are lots of reliably sourced things which are not relevant, not significant, and not important.

Justification is a reason, which stands on its own merits and needs nothing else to support it.

WP:RS only means that the person who said it is qualified to make the claim. WP:V means that the information is verifiable. If material isn't WP:RS then we can't include it. But just because it meets WP:RS doesn't mean we must allow it, and thus WP:RS isn't justification.

I really can't explain it any better than that. Perhaps someone else can. Lsi john 03:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Forum threads as surveys?

More specifically, "as primary-source qualitative statistical surveys". I'm trying to source a statement along the lines of "The acronym SNES can be pronounced in several different ways" to satisfy a disagreement. I can't find anywhere that anyone has done a scholarly survey, and I can't find an official pronunciation anywhere (AFAICT, "SNES" was officially discouraged in favor of "Super NES"), but I can find many forum threads where someone has asked "How do you pronounce SNES?" and many people have replied with the different pronunciations they individually use. This supports the statement, but I fear someone will come along and say "forum posts are never reliable sources!" and start the whole mess over again.

This echos the seemingly-common question asked here as to whether a post of someone's opinion can only be used in an article about the person, or if it can be used anywhere to support a statement that that person holds that opinion. My generalization only works for certain types of statements (e.g. "some people believe X", "people's opinions differ regarding X", but not "many/most/few/everybody/nobody believe X"), but that's the type of statement I have here. Anomie 21:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Misuse of online voting

CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and other news sites regularly have online votes on a whole range of issues. Although these news sites are generally considered reliable sources, these online votes are completely unreliable. The news sites even state that they are unscientific polls. The problem is that online voting contains very significant self-selection bias. Some political campaigns specifically email supporters and ask them to go the the news sites and "vote for candidate X" after a political debate. I believe Wikipedia needs to clearly state its policy regarding the use of unscientific online voting. These unscientific poll results are already being used in the some of the articles about Presidential candidates. --JHP 07:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:How_to_create_policy#How_to_propose_a_new_policy Jeepday (talk) 12:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent issue with reliable sources

Recently a number of experts testified that there might be some issues with our reliable sources guideline, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James D. Nicoll (2nd nomination).

While many wikipedians interpret this guideline as saying that this article is either "non-notable" or has no "reliable sources", experts in the field have been so kind as to point out that this is a notable person who deserves an encyclopedia article.

--Kim Bruning 18:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Kim Bruning, can you point to a diff there that illustrates your claim? I see lots of discussion and opinion about whether or not the sources met WP:RS, but I didn't see that issues with the guidelines were raised. Whether or not the sources that are cited in that article meet WP:RS wouldn't necessarily affect the guidelines. I'm not sure that I'd agree with some of those editors who were saying 'not reliable source' regarding some of the sources.

Are you suggesting a change to the WP:RS guideline? Lsi john 19:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, Let me provide a link on the AFD, so interested folks can drop by, and maybe explain for themselves :) --Kim Bruning 19:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, the problem in this case was that an Usenet source on this subject was not seen as reliable, as per the guidelines when in fact this was the primary source and highly relevant to the article in question. The guidelines as they currently stand promote a mistrust of Usenet as source for anything, without considering the context. For example,

Usenet can be a good source for things that happened on Usenet --Martin Wisse 19:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the main issue most people had there was that many editors were disputing the acceptability of usenet sources to substantiate that the subject of the article is, essentially, a usenet celebrity. Clearly, this kind of source ought to be considered acceptable, as it is the medium such sources are most likely to be published in. Other issues were the recent removal of a number of self-published sources from the article that had provided key biographical details about the subject. Clearly, again, these should be accepted. There is little or no doubt that they were originally written by the subject, and if he isn't authorititive on (e.g.) his own date of birth, I don't know who would be. See, for instance the comment by User:121a0012 [8]. Also see User:Shimgray here and User:Pnh (Patrick Nielsen Hayden) here (although his comments speak more to notability requirements than reliable sourcing requirements). Also see Shimgray here and User:Bth here.

The other comment is that when we're writing an article about a subculture that doesn't get discussed in traditional reliable sources in very much detail, the type of source you need to use is likely to be non-traditional. This doesn't mean it's unreliable; in this case the reliability of the sources wasn't questionable, only whether or not they conformed to the rules. Frankly, that's not how this project is supposed to be run and there's a good reason for that. One of Wikipedia's strengths is that it can harness all of these unusual sources to provide coverage that is much broader and much deeper than any other encyclopedia ever has. We can cover the personalities of online science fiction fandom if we want, because there are authorititive sources that talk about them. Unfortunately, the rules we have here (and, to a lesser extent, at WP:V) tend to get in the way of that. JulesH 20:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

JulesH hits the nail on the head, particularly about "traditional reliable sources". The "printed matter uber alles" attitude of some editors risks Wikipedia missing the opportunity to give useful, notable, verifiable information on subjects that people might well expect to find here, simply because they're not of interest to print media. I've recently changed my user page to explain a thought experiment on just how silly this is; anyone interested can go and have a look.

I was particularly irritated in the particular AfD we're discussing here by the assertion in the nomination that LiveJournal links weren't acceptable as a source. WP:BLP states that a subject's blog can be used a source on the subject given certain conditions, all of which are satisfied by the James Nicoll's blog, which happens to be hosted on LJ. I'm fairly prejudiced against LJ myself, as it happens, but that opinion is irrelevant to the sourcing question.

Having said all which, the fact that these things keep seeming to come up over and over again every time I get within a mile of returning to Wikipedia has crystallised my disenchantment with the current state of the project. I don't feel I have the time, patience or emotional energy to fight this fight myself. I wish the best of luck to those clear-sighted people who have kept their eye on the main goal of Improving Wikipedia as opposed to sticking to rules for the sake of sticking to rules. --Bth 20:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)