Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources

Archives

Published by subject - relevant to notability?

I'd like to take issue with one of the criteria for use of sources written by the article subject. I'm working on Michael Ignatieff, and there's an editor there who has been calling alot of basic facts into question - including the existence of Mr. Ignatieff's spouse, and other basic biographical details. These facts are best available in the biography at Ignatieff's website (he is an elected official), and yet we face the criterion: "relevant to the person's notability, or, if the material is self-published by a group or organisation, relevant to the notability of that group or organisation" These basic biographical details are not controversial, but nor are they inherently relevant to his notability. And yet we cannot reasonably exclude the man's biography from consideration as a source. Might we change the policy wording here? -Joshuapaquin 02:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Clearly his own web site is a reliable source for this sort of information. To pretend otherwise is sophistry. This page is intended as a guideline, not a straitjacket. - Jmabel | Talk 01:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I wholehartedly agree. So what is the value in this statement at all? -Joshuapaquin 02:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the guy says he six foot tall and prefers peas over string beans, well, big deal. Take his word for it. On rare occassion there could possibly be some quibble regarding a controversial datum. "Where was he at 8 PM on Wed, 2001" or something. In those sorts of situations, then cited sources are important, but for general interest, human interest things, an elected offical's site reflects the degree of responsibility he means to serve his job with. Certainly, for general interest information the man's website is plenty good enough. Were he a criminal, publishing from a jail cell, perhaps different standards would be applicable. But a man going for election? His website is reasonably good information. Terryeo 02:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Trivial attributions should be treated trivially, that is they don't require iron sources. A resume is a sufficient source for "worked at company x", but it's not a sufficient source for "was abducted by aliens and became the Emperor of Xenu". For that you should cite the Washington Post article. Wjhonson 03:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Long Standing

Long standing doesn't mean correct. I made a valid point for changing that text. Though it should be noted that people do inflate credentials and lie about such material from time to time. This sentence is formed in such a way to give the impression that everyone inflates credentials all the time. This is not a proper impression to give.--Crossmr 05:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• The "Long Standing" argument is moot: the text was introduced 04:22, 15 August 2006 (less than an hour before Crossmr tried to change it).
• I'd propose something like: "not contentious, such as basic biographical information, or that a person holds a certain opinion. Note that people may exaggerate or be too modest about their own involvement in certain facts or opinions." --Francis Schonken 07:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd noted the short standing and reverted to Crossmr's version before I saw this talk page thread, sorry. Both Crossmr's wording and Francis's suggestion are a lot better than casting aspersions about lying. -- JimR 11:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Crossmr's version implies even more lying than my version. Stirling Newberry 11:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

All I said was that information of a self-published nature should be looked at critically, as in you should evaluate it before blindly accepting it. The previous implied everyone who self-published something was a liar.--Crossmr 15:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I like the tone of Francis' statement, but think it needs to be worded more simply. But I confess I'm not sure how to do that. Terryeo 23:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

AHBL.ORG

Is AHBL considered a reliable source? --HResearcher 15:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a bit difficult to answer that without knowing the context of how you wish to use it... In general terms, just looking at the site, I would say it is reliable ... at least as a primary source on the organization itself and what it claims. It really does depends on what you are trying to say in the article. To be on the safe side, I would make sure to attribute statements in the article text (by saying "According to the web site AHBL.org...") as well as simply adding a citation... ie, make it clear who is making any claims you wish to include. Blueboar 15:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The website is a business' website. The business maintains 2 offices, tells of its affiliations, how long it has been in business, etc. I would say, therefore, the quality of the website included the elements of attribution, legal responsibility and so on that would allow it to be used as a secondary source of information in an article. Terryeo 03:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It is being used as a source for negative material on a biography of a living person: Barbara Schwarz. --HResearcher 08:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Does repitition make something reliable?

Here is an interesting situation. An editor wishes to include a convinience link to a controvercial document. He has difficulty finding a reliable source that hosts the document (We know that you can not include a convenience link pointing to an unreliable web site). But what if there are multiple unreliable sites that host the same document... can they be cited together? In other words, while each site is unreliable if taken alone, do they become reliable if cited as a group? My inclination is no... since they all could be copying from the same original unreliable source. Comments? Blueboar 14:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

My stance would be NO. I have spent a little time searching through unusual phrases of such a documentation. I found about half a dozen personal websites with the same rendition of a piece of information. In some, attribution was given to the source. In others, attribution was not given to the source. My guess is that such people communicate on google groups or newsgroups and find themselves thinking the same thoughts. Then several personal websites suddenly use exactly the same piece of information to reproduce the information. And too, it is not uncommon to see a document transmitted via a google group which is encoded and of a length which would at least lead to the suspicion that people are using a single source and popularizing a single document.

reliable?

would this be considered a reliable source? http://berkeleyinthe70s.homestead.com/

it was written by someone that "was there" and is probably the most detailed source on berkeley, california 1970's politics available.

Justforasecond 15:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It is an interesting read. It is published and verifiable (my opinion). However it would appear to be a personal webpage. The bottom of the page says, Questions, Complaints, Corrections, Suggestions, or Comments? E-mail me at: davidmundstock@msn.com. An article about "davidmundstock@msn.com" could use that information but an article about Berkley could not. Because "personal websites can not be used as secondary sources". (my opinion). Terryeo 16:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The author is a relatively well known local character in Berkeley. It could certainly be cited as "according to David Mundstock". It has been linked to by The Berkeley Historical Society and other work by the same author has been linked to bey commercial sites as About.com. There are personal web sites and personal web sites. Check who has linked to a web site to determine the level of credibility. Sites without links from reliable sources, are probably not reliable enough to be used. Sites with lots of reliable citations, probably have met the test of reliabilty, because they are treated as reliable. Note that use by wikipedia and its mirrors wouldn't count, but use by publications certainly would. Stirling Newberry 04:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

"Note: Web links are a subjective assessment of merit or interest. Inclusion does not imply endorsement by the Berkeley Historical Society. Links are updated or added frequently. Send comments, corrections, or suggestions for additional links to Web editor Nelly Coplan." That would imply that they might not look at each link they add that thoroughly. On the other hand, it might just be a disclaimer to cover them if they make a mistake. Being linked to from a few other reliable/respected websites would help. Saying "according to David Mundstock" would help, but there is still the concern of whether or not he is in fact David Mundstock. But hopefully, if the real David Mundstock was an expert on Berkeley, but was not the creator of the website, he would notice and tell the Berkeley Historical Society. (Pseudonyms are okay - stealing someone else's name isn't.) WP:RS#Self-published_sources discusses this. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 12:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Reliable or not?

I am not sure if anyone here is familiar with this topic, but I thought it worth asking... would anyone consider anti-masonic author Stephen Knight to be a reliable source for statements about Freemasonry? His ideas on the subject are speculative at best, but they are published, and did make quite a stir when they first came out. Blueboar 19:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

In this case, attribution is needed, as in "According to Stephen Knight, this and that", but it would not be acceptable if the edit attempts to make an assertion of fact about the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Since he has published books, his words fulfill WP:V and therefore yes. However, NPOV would require a single author's publication to be presented as much less than the broad, generally held point of view in regards to the subject. Terryeo 03:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually it was WP:V that caused me to ask about this... specificly:

Sources of dubious reliability

In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight.

Sometimes a statement can only be found in a publication of dubious reliability, such as a tabloid newspaper. If the statement is relatively unimportant, remove it. If it is important enough to keep, attribute it to the source in question. For example: "According to the British tabloid newspaper The Sun..."

As a rule of thumb, sources of dubious reliability should only be used in articles about themselves.

Knight's reliability is definitely dubious (he makes all sorts of bizzar and erroneous allegations without listing any sources of his own or backup to say how he arrived at his conclusions... ie poor fact-checking). I tend to agree with Jossi's interpretation here. Blueboar 13:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Patent literature as a reliable source

Obtaining a patent requires a long and expensive examination process. Further, there is no point in patenting anything that doesn't work and there are all sort of legal penalties enforcing veracity in patent applications. All these make the published patent literature a pretty reliable source. Certainly at least as reliable as the published scientific literature. Also, many commmercially viable developments appear in the patent literature long befor the scinetific or popular literature. I suggest patents be incorporated formally as "Reliable sources". Pproctor 06:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay with me, but I can come to you in order to translate them? heh. Terryeo 23:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Even though some junk slips through the examination process, the process is certainly as rigorous, or more so, that many publications that would be considered reliable for Wikipedia purposes. However, I'd much rather rely on an article in Science than a patent. --Gerry Ashton 00:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I am OK with this as long as the texts (and possibly images) of such patents are verifiable, as in the United States Patent and Trademark Office at http://www.uspto.gov/ ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Patents are essentially privately composed documents that undergo a huge amount of scrutiny and editing (similar to peer review) before they are approved by a government official and published. Although some junk does get through, most patents are reliable. --Coolcaesar 06:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, someone from a pretty large international electronics company (no names here) admitted to me that with his semiconductor technology, it's pretty easy to get a patent because it's sufficient to show they might work, not that they actually do work reliably in application. Basically, if it looks like it works a couple of times, you can patent it. There's scores of patents that rot in drawers because while they establish proof of principle, they don't really show that it would make sense to use the patented technology. So no, I would definitely not say that patents are as reliable as scientific literature. As reliable as SOME scientific literature, sure. But I recommended rejection of a manuscript submitted to a scientific journal myself because the method didn't live up to the promises of the author with positive results not crossing the threshold he established himself and significant controls missing. With parts of the results, he might have submitted a patent application, but for a scientific publication, I didn't find the method to be publishable in this shape -and the second reviewer agreed with me and the manuscript was consequentially rejected. --OliverH 11:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

RFC

I am having a debate at Catholicism and Freemasonry. It relates to the section entitled "Non-Catholic discouragement of Freemasonry" that says:

• A number of Protestant and Eastern Orthodox denominations discourage their congregants from joining Masonic lodges, although this differs in intensity according to the denomination. Churches that, in some form or other, discourage membership of Freemasons include:

This is followed by a long bullet point list of various denominations. This in itself is not the problem... the problem is in the verification. In quite a few cases, the citations are to articles and websites that have no connection to the denomination they are being used to support. For example, the Church of England is listed, but the citation is to the website of an Australian evangelical Church that quotes a statement from the C of E out of context. The debate is this: Can an article or website tied to Church X be used as verification to say that Church Y says something about Freemasonry. My contention is that in this case you should either find a statement directly from Church Y, or you need to attribute the statement to Church X. The other editor says the citations are OK. Comments? Please pop over to the article, take a look at the section, take a look at the sources and comment. Blueboar 18:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• • I agree with your contention: either find a statement directly from Church Y, or you need to attribute the statement to Church X. - Jmabel | Talk 19:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

H2G2?

Does H2G2's Edited Guide count as a wiki for the purposes of Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Bulletin boards, wikis and posts to Usenet? Could use some clarification on that. Captainktainer * Talk 00:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Self-published sources as secondary sources

This section of the project page actually means what it says? I'm running into people saying, "its only a guideline" and citing personal websites as secondary sources, anyway. I hope it also means all the information on the site, such as "reposited" newspaper articles, hand typed replications of court documents, etc. Terryeo 07:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

My take on it is that it is only a guideline... but it is also a guideline that is a central component of a Rule (WP:V). This means that WP:RS may be ignored if all editors working on an article feel that ignoring it is in the best interest of the article... but it should not be ingnored if the editors do not agree. As for information on a Self-published source... This actually gets back to the "Convinience Link" issue. If feel that if the host site is unreliable, then the information hosted on it is unreliable as well. I would never trust a hand typed replica of a court document, etc. In our modern electronic society, one can obtain a verified PDF version from most courts' websites. Blueboar 13:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo has an interesting problem, which probably should be addressed, either here or (eventually) by ArbCom. Roughly summarized, the Scientology/Dianetics articles are unusually likely to use documents posted on blogs and websites as sources. The Scientology editors often call these links "convenience links," but I don't think there's a formal section of any policy or guideline dealing with them.

The documents are generally either scans or purported "transcriptions" of one of several varieties of documents:

1. Purported Church of Scientology internal documents. (My initial instinct is that these docs don't meet either WP:RS or WP:V - the COS won't confirm that they're authentic, so all we know is that a self published website alleges them to be actual COS documents)
2. Court documents, principally posted by aggrieved ex-COS members from their personal lawsuits with the COS. (My instinct is that these documents are probably ok, if the original court documents would be verifiable, even with difficulty. However, if the Court files are sealed, I would say no, as in Case 1 above)
3. Newspaper articles. (If properly cited, I would say these are ok, at least until some tries to verify them and fails).

Terryeo, if I could make some suggestions:

1. Is it possible for you to catalogue several examples of the sources you have problems with on one of your subpages?
2. After that, I would recommend the course you're taking now - get input on the policy pages and through dispute resolution.

Thanks, TheronJ 14:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Terryeo/Scientology_article_corrections Terryeo 21:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Re. "Terryeo has an interesting problem ... (eventually) by ArbCom": One of the possibilities would be asking to re-open Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo:

• That ArbCom case considered evidence regarding the removal of references to personal websites. That evidence contained statements like "Terryeo appears to be arguing that anything hosted on a "personal website" should not be cited (...)", see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo/Evidence#Removal of references for POV reasons;
• That evidence was retained in the "Findings of fact": Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo#Terryeo has removed references;
• But the arbitrators did not take a specific decision regarding which level of reliability of a source would be sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Francis Schonken 15:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for quite a good understanding and statement of the situation, it must have taken some time to figure out. Here is my subpage link in response. User:Terryeo/Scientology article corrections Terryeo 18:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Scientology is not the only article where this issue pops up. It arises (in different forms perhaps) on a number of articles that deal with controvercial topics. Editors with a particular POV want to "prove" that POV, and will go skipping through the internet looking for "evidence" without really annalyzing the reliability of the sources that provide the "evidence". I think we need to work up a section of the guideline that specificly discusses what is an acceptable "Convenience Link" and what is not. I would suggest something along the line of what I said above... "If the host site is deemed unreliable, then the information hosted on it should be deemed unreliable as well. One must link to a reliable source even as a convenience." Blueboar 15:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If Terryeo's concern about "personal websites" as sources is going to be arbitrated, I think we must acknowledge that the situation with regard to reliable sources of information about Scientology is highly unusual, if not unique. (This should give pause about using this example to set global policy--"tough cases make bad law," as the saying goes.) The issue with the Scientology articles isn't a simple matter of biased editors resorting to low-quality internet sources that confirm their bias. The Scientology organization's secrecy, their reputation for litigiousness and legal threats directed at church critics (including journalists and their publishers), and their well-documented record of harassment of their perceived "enemies" has a chilling effect on the publication of scholarly research about Scientology (see, for example, one scholar's thoughts on the reasons Scientology has been the subject of so little academic study). This may help to account for the fact that a disproportionate amount of the available documentary material about Scientology (much of which contradicts the Church of Scientology's official versions of their history) is archived and published on privately held websites. BTfromLA 01:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

A word of caution is needed here - the situation isn't quite as simple as Terryeo claims. There certainly are some sourcing problems with Scientology articles, and some of those articles are quite badly written. However, the solution to this is to get more editors involved, not to pick fights with a small number people with whom Terryeo already has a number of disputes. The Scientology articles are part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology, of which many experienced editors are members. Terryeo hasn't made any use of this to raise awareness of issues that need to be resolved, nor has he tried to make use of dispute resolution processes such as RfCs on articles. I suggest that he should try to get more editors (and especially more outside editors) involved using existing article improvement mechanisms, rather than trying to rewrite WP:RS. -- ChrisO 19:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Some of those sources, point to ChrisO (Chris Owen's) personal essays. For example, User:ChrisO posts to newsgroups, his words are archived and then editors cite his words and reference to the newgroup archive. Sure anyone can see the simplicity of removing Google groups references when used as secondary sources in articles? For example, last week, User:ChrisO removed such a cite. This week we have [1], quoting User:ChrisO's posting on Scientology's Secret War Against Psychiatry at [2] which appears as reference number [80] in the list of Scientology references. Certainly that is simple enough, is it not? And then there is the next layer, the layer just above google groups references. The layer of personal websites, stating personal opinion and being referenced. My subpage, User:Terryeo/Scientology_article_corrections#Scientology lists those 11 direct violations of WP:RS. Certainly the complexity of these kinds of references are not beyond the ken of the common editor ! Terryeo 21:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You see, this is exactly the kind of lie-by-implication that makes you such a frustrating editor to deal with. For the record, I don't believe my own essays should be cited in Wikipedia articles. But you're implying here that I've been adding such citations to articles, which is plainly not the case. Where such citations have been included, that's the work of other editors, not myself. Is that completely clear? -- ChrisO 00:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

To be perfectly clear, and because User:ChrisO suggests additional editors, the issue I am raising is not ecclesiastical, but are issues addressed and defined by WP:V and WP:RS. Issues about the quality of sourced information, issues of how secondary sources may be cited, issues about personal POV creeping into the articles via newsgroups, blogs and personal webpages. These are simple issues which any editor can confront. One looks at a cited sources and determines its quality. This is not about the validity of information coming from a source, but about the quality of the source of information used. Terryeo 22:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's about both (and please don't use Scientology jargon like "confront"; we're not Scientologists and it'll only cause confusion). WP:NPOV's undue weight clause applies as well as WP:V and WP:RS. It's also worth noting that these policies apply to both sides, which I'm not sure you've fully understood. One of the things that led to an RFAr being brought against you was the way that you regularly deleted sourced material that contradicted the Scientology line and replaced it with unsourced Scientology-friendly blurb. When you make contributions to talk pages you routinely make unsourced claims (e.g. [3]), which doesn't help anybody. Since the arbitration case, instead of suggesting new content for articles, all you've been doing for the last few months is sitting on talk pages sniping at other users and using policy pages as part of your campaign. I think you're getting very, very close to violating the terms of your probation. -- ChrisO 00:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not ecclesiastical, the issue has never been ecclesiastical, the issue couldn't possibly become ecclesiastical because the issue revolves around removing poor references from otherwise fine articles. Specifically, the removal of personal webiste opinion, per WP:RS, the removal of newsgroup archives quoted as secondary sources, the removal of hand typed "duplications" of offical court documents which present no attribution for their duplication, and the like. If we are to have good articles, the over-cited, (80 + references) of Scientology (3 of which are in a foreign language), must be improved. This is not special knowledge, this is not an ecclesiastical issue. Terryeo 00:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

May I ask that we not turn this into the talk page for the Scientology articles... if you two wish to argue, take it elsewhere. Here is my take on the situation ... I took a look at some of the Scientology articles, and Terryeo has a point... there are unreliable sources being used. Quite a few of them. I would also agree with ChrisO that this does apply to both sides of your POV squabble. I don't have any authority to inforce anything, I would be willing to go through the articles with both sides, and point to those citations that I think run afoul of WP:RS. This way you have a completely neutral view of what should be removed (or re-referenced) and what can stay. Blueboar 00:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do, editors don't always listen to me when I point out the most obvious situation where personal opinion, even google groups are quoted from and cited as references. Here's a dozen or so which I spell out in the Scientology [4] Terryeo 00:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that unreliable sources are being used, but I'll also point out (despite Terryeo's baseless innuendo) that I don't link to my own writings and I do insist on reliable sources being used. The real issue here is that a small number of other editors are in conflict with Terryeo for POV reasons and that he in turn is seeking to use these policy pages to get ammunition for his side of the argument. It's very noticable that he isn't bothering to use dispute resolution processes, contacting other participants in Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology or inviting outside editors to contribute. This policy page and others have become proxies for his attempt to widen the editing disputes in which he's been involved for the last eight months. This debate needs to move off this policy discussion page and onto Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scientology, where it should have been in the first place. If you want to get involved, please do - it would be a relief to have a sane neutral participant! -- ChrisO 01:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out that this editing difference doesn't actually exist, Mr. Owen. [5] User:ChrisO cites [6]. That is an archived newsgroup posting created by Chris Owen. User:ChrisO has previously stated his identity while commenting about his own developed, personal website, Narconon exposed. Terryeo 03:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I won't guarentee sane ... but I will guarentee neutral :>)

OK, I will see if I can help. See you on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scientology Blueboar 01:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Threshold for "Personal website"

At what point does a website change from being a personal website to an organizational website? In this case I am talking about "Personal Ministry" and "Church" websites. Does the website of a "church" consisting of five people and a minister count as a "Personal" site (which would not be reliable under WP:RS), or is it an "Organizational" site (which is somewhat reliable, at least as to statements of the Church's own beliefs)? And where do you draw the line between these two categories? How big does a Church have to be to have its website be "organizational"? This is the site that raises the question... It looks to be a small evangelical church, but we are not sure how big it is and thus how WP:RS relates to citing something said on the website. Blueboar 18:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be hard to set a number, you would always have arguement and exceptions. I'm not sure there is an easy answer for this one. --Crossmr 18:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that in situations where the size or importance of the organization is not clear from its own site, the safer route would be to exclude the organization from Wikipedia until other verifiable sources become available. For example, if a charismatic minister fresh out of theology school founded his own church, which then became a megachurch within five years, and started getting extensive press coverage, then we could cite the press coverage to show that the new church is important and notable. But we need to avoid relying solely on the Web sites of very small organizations as the primary source about them, or else Wikipedia will become Cultipedia! --Coolcaesar 19:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Which makes sense, but we also have to avoid assuming bad faith about people and setting up a standard that implies that everyone is lying about themselves and no one is to be trusted. Unless an organization or individual has a history of misleading people or making false statements, we probably shouldn't just assume the information they provide is unreliable.--Crossmr 19:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Often mentioned here on the discussion page, but never spelled out explicity on the article page are the elements which would graduate a website from "unreliable" to "reliable". Since all websites may be considered published (I think) and verifiable (I think) then the last remaining element would be "Reliable" (I think). If the Guideline could present the elements which together compose reliable, it could be useful. "Legal responsibility" would be one. "Fact checking by experts" might be another. "A motiviation toward being reliable" (such as Ford Motor Company serving their stockholders) yet another. Terryeo 20:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact checking by experts sounds good, but what procedures are used for fact checking and do these procedures ensure that the purported facts are true? What criteria would establish expertise? What criteria would comprise legal responsibility? A motivation toward being reliable is very dicey: Corporations have been known to mislead stockholders, so Terryeo's example is shaky.--Fahrenheit451 23:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

If my statement communicates something to you, then by all means come up with an example which is never "shaky". I will continue to maintain that corporations, generally, mean to inform their stockholders rather than to mislead their stockholders. When they mislead their stockholders they become subject to applicable laws which punish the people involved in the crime. That action is unlawful. Rather than to suspect every corperation of unlawful conduct and thus eliminate altogether every corperation from being used as a source of information because they are "shaky" because in the past a handful have been proven to have broken the law and misled their stockholders, I am suggesting normal, good faith. Thus, I suggest that Ford Motor Company has a motivation to serve their stockholders, presenting good information on their site. [7] Terryeo 11:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal websites are published, personal websites are verifiable. But, the information on personal websites might change at the whim of the owner. Still, if a personal website is attributable, it would make a difference. Without the quality of attribution, on a personal website, I would argue that a piece of information can not be considered reliable. If we can hammer the qualities that together create "reliable", perhaps we can make a more substantial guideline. Terryeo 16:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Is TheocracyWatch a reliable source?

(The following was deleted... I don't know why, but it is usually considered bad form to delete from talk pages so I have put it back Blueboar 22:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC) )

Would TheocracyWatch be considered a reliable source for use as an objective descriptor about it's opponents under Wikipedia rules? I would like to know if it would be appropriate to treat its opinions as facts even when there is an intro such as "According to TheocracyWatch, John Smith is linked to movement x." However, on its webpage no concrete links are established about John Smith except for his friends are members of movement x. Such a link in my opinion would be guilt by association Here's my example in a discussion that I've been having. [5]

The author calls Paul Weyricha Dominionist, but never provides evidence to back up that assertion. TheocracyWatch never really defines what a Dominionist is in the article, although it usually refers to a fringe group of Christian Reconstructionists. Unlike User:CBerlet who eloquently points out there are different factions of the Christian Right.

The problem is this Mr. Weyrich is a Melkite Catholic who believes in Eastern Orthodox theology, and Ms. Yurica never shows where Mr. Weyrich has espoused Reconstructionist thought in the article. Saying he's a Dominionist is a bit like saying someone is a Communist without concrete evidence the person is such. Nor does she, unlike Chip Berlet, distinguish betweent he various factions of the Christian Right. --146.145.70.200 21:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, PravKnight, why not edit under your nick? Could it be because of the RfC? •Jim62sch• 09:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources"

Normally, I am skeptical about any site that calls itself "___ watch" as they tend to be extremely unreliable and are often operated by one or two people with a POV agenda. I am not so sure in this case, however. The site says:

• TheocracyWatch is a project of the Center for Religion, Ethics and Social Policy (CRESP) at Cornell University.

which gives it some degree of credibility. It lists those who participate on the site (most "Watch" sites are run anonomously). You can read more about it here. Looking at the site, I would say they are baised, and so should be treated with skepticism... but that does not mean the site is automatically an unreliable source. Any statement from it should certainly be attributed, and I would probably want independant confirmation of anything the site claimed. My take... it should be treated as a primary source to back the fact that TheocracyWatch makes a claim, but not as a secondary source to "prove" a claim that they make. Blueboar 22:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not even academic in tone, and I'm shocked that Cornell gives this lady money. In my opinion it's just like a university signing up with PETA or the John Birch Society on the other extreme.

What about the fact a known preponderance of Ivy League faculty are left-leaning? --146.145.70.200 00:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, what about it? It's natural that the educated will tend to be progressive, given that greater enlightenment tends to banish the fear that breeds conservativism. Grace Note 03:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

None of which has any relevance on whether the site is reliable as a source or not. Remember, Wikipedia tries to be NPOV... even extreme views are presented if they are notable and come from reliable sources. Without looking at them, I would guess that the official websites of PETA or the John Birch Society are both biased, but reliable sources as well. As with TheologyWatch, I would call them both reliable PRIMARY sources (ie you can use them for attributed statements of their oppinion on things, but not for statements of unattributed fact). Blueboar 12:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It is obviously a special interest site with a specific point of view which it hopes to disseminate widely. It has attribution, people's names and a brief history are spelled out, email contact is possible. The individuals (including a lawyer) listed have some credibility, they are known-about people, from all apperearences. Their reputations in day-to-day life include their allience with the website's organization. Myself, I don't see any reason the site could not be considered reliable with the single exception that it is a vanity or special interest site. Terryeo 16:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Review request

On United Kingdom Special Forces I requested a citation for the structure of the Special Air Service Regiment, ie one regular regiment and two territorial regiments. This has been presented as a reference, although it doesnt actually satisfy the citation request it does state the two TA regiments, elsewhere on the site it highlights the regular regiment so overall the site answers the question although the reader has to do some work. That's about the only accurate bit on the page and whilst I realise that WP requires verifiability, not accuracy, I'm loathe to accept it. It strikes me that there is no independent refereeing of the content, particularly that which is inherently unverifiable in any case, being Special Forces related. TIA.ALR 07:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if SOC.com can be called reliable... I can find no indication of who runs the site, so it probably sould be considered a "personal website". Do we know if it is run by an expert in the field, or just by some fan of weapons and special ops? If the site gets a significant portion of other facts wrong, I would say you should err on the side of it being unreliable. If it is simply a matter of difference of oppinion in interpreting accepted facts, then you might allow it, but with attribution. Blueboar 13:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

To me it looks like a partisan website. So you could cite it for a) information about itself (if you were writing about SpecialOperations.com) or b) the opinions on the website (stated with attribution as opinions, not facts). If there was something significant on there, you could state it with attribution, but if it's really worth writing about, a more reliable source will probably have done so. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 17:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

On Primary sources...

(NB:This gets quite long, but for the clarity of future readers, please make any comments at the end)
Over on WP:NOR, there has been a quite heated debate over the use of primary sources. In attempt to be definative about the matter, I wrote quite a long post on the matter. What follows are my thoughts on the use of primary sources, and an attempt to define how a primary source can and cannot be used:

---

There is often some confusion over what the primary source for a subject is. For example, when referencing a song, I have seen people attempting to use YouTube as a reference. However this is not the correct reference - the recording of the song itself that is depicted in the sample is the reference. If a politician makes a speach, it is the speach that is the reference, not the politician (although the speach is a work by the politician). The original painting is the reference for the painting, not a photograph of it. However the photograph of the painting is a reference for the photographic work of the photographer.

This confusion continues into the realm of secondary sources. here, however, it gets more difficult as we have to consider the purpose that a reference is being used for. For example, let us return to that photograph of a painting. it certainly does class as a secondary source for the existance of the painting - for the photographer has documented it. However it may not be used as a secondary source for the evaluation of the painting, as the photograph makes no attempt to do this. It is interesting to note that when an expert evaluates something, they become a secondary source on something, but also a primary source for their evaluation.

Finally, come come onto the crux of the matter. In my opinion, based on WP:VERIFY, WP:RS and WP:NOT (the intent of, rather):

• Primary sources may be used for referencing:
  1. That a statement was made or something does exist within the reference. For example, that...
     • ...a book contains a character
     • ...a recipe contains an ingredient
     • ...within a speech, a politican said the quote "Education, Education, Education"
  2. That something exists within a work that can be determined by observation not analysis and is entirely non-contentious. This must be something that can be determined through casual observation. For example, that...
     • ...A painting contains the colour blue (this is not definate existance, as colour is to an exent subjective)
     • ...A note was hit within a song (this requires identification of the note, but in clear cases there is no debate over this)
     • ...A person within a photograph has red hair
     • ...Within a song, the chorus is sung significantly louder than the verses
     • ...A politican said "Education" many times within a speech
     • ...A politican said "Education" more than "Healthcare", when it is casually observable that only a single refernce to "healthcare" was made in a speach about school reforms.
  3. With respect to statements by people, that they hold an opinion
• Primary sources may not be used for referencing:
  1. That something exists within a work that can be determined by observation not analysis, but there is any reasonable doubt over the observation. For example, that...
     • ...A note was hit within a song, but it is unclear which of two notes it is
     • ...A person in a photograph has black hair, but they could just as easily have dark brown or purple hair
     • ...A shape within an abstract painting represents a house (by definition in this case, the shape is abstract)
     • ...A person within a video is running slowly rather than jogging
  2. That a non-trival count of something exists within a reference. By non-trivial, I refer to both the ease of counting and the number to count. For example...
     • ...A politican said "Education" exactly 12 times within a speech. Given that a speach normally features more than just a single word, it is hard to casually count the use of a specific word (due to the separation between instances), making this non-trivial.
     • ...Noting that a painting has 11 hot-air ballons depicted is reasonable, however if the number was significantly higher it would not be (as counting would then become non-trivial)
  3. That any element within a work is, on a non-trivial level, bigger, quieter, higher, than any other element within the work. Such a non-trvial statement implies a prolonged analysis quite different from allowable casual observation. For example, that...
     • ...The highest note reached within a recording of a song was E6. This implies a comparison between all the notes within a song, which is clearly a major undertaking
     • ...Within a painting, the hot-air ballon 5cm from the left hand edge and 37cm down from the top is the smallest. If a short description cannot be used to locate something, there is a strong possibility that it was a non-trivial venture to find it and it is not casually observable
     • ...A speaker said "Education" more than "Healthcare" witin a speech about education and healthcare reforms (hence featuring both words regularly)
  4. That a narative is predominantly of a certain type. For example, that...
     • ...A character in a book is 'surly' or 'brash', but no third-person description of the character exists describing them as this.

---

At this point, I ran out of steam, and hence decided to stop. The key idea with the above is to allow trivial observation of primary sources to be used as a reference. Whilst this is not ideal, it is often the case that trivial details, such as the a note reached by a singer or the colour of someone's hair, are not actually explicitly detailed by a secondary source, as they consider these things to be implicit within the primary source. LinaMishima 19:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Lina take a breath ;). In general I agree with you on the notions of "observation not analysis" and on the notions of "trivial / non-trivial". However I vehemently object (after coffee) with your statement that a direct observation must be "non-contentious". If a primary source says "Bush is a wimp" then we can certainly quote that source wherever appropriate, for example on Bush's own page, the author's page, the source's page, a page about what this source thought of various presidents, etc. To attempt to restrict primary source quotations to only what is non-contentious, is to neuter them. I'm sure you didn't mean to do that. Wjhonson 19:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Lisa's guidelines forbid that. If you could find the primary source, you could say "Bob Dole once remarked that 'Phil Graham is like a cockroach. You can step on him and step on him, but you just can't squish him'", but you couldn't say "Phil Graham is like a cockroach <ref>Bob Dole, Observations on Phil Graham, 08-18-96</ref>." TheronJ 19:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

By non-contentious, I did not mean the material being observed but rather the observation itself. No-one can argue that if a politian insults someone on the record, that they have insulted someone. However where an observation can be reasonably questioned, such as if the speech was mumbled, this cannot be used as a reference. Finding a sensible wording for this is hard. LinaMishima 01:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course, what constitutes trivial analysis depends on the form of the primary source. If it is on-line text, it is trivial to count how many times a word or phrase occurs. --Gerry Ashton 21:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Automated processing would create a new secondary reference, which should instead be used. Trivial should really mean what can be casually done by a human with little thought. But yes, a good point non-the-less. LinaMishima 01:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Lina it's a slippery slope to say that if someone "reasonably questions" a primary source on an issue that they view as "contentious" that that is enough to disqualify it from being used here. I think that the standard to use here is more regarding the *who* who is speaking, rather than the *what* they say. Wjhonson 02:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Also I agree that what they said is what they said, but I truly think Lina was trying to get at the issue of preventing contentious things from being said. It is the content of the quote that is contentious. Wikeditors are always prevented from expressing their own point-of-view so that is a non-starter. So without that, there is no reason to limit contentious quotes. Wjhonson 02:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It appears that people are repeatedly failing to understand my point. Contentious material have never been an issue, and nothing I have written says otherwise. Contention over what is or is not contained within the material is a problem, however. the first is with respect to the material itself, the second is with respect to the observation of the material. Take, for example, the image on the right. It is clearly not Contentious material (unless you have a question over the existance of cats). However in observing the image, I could say that it depicts a cat stretching. Another person may contest this, and suggest the cat is play-fighting. Clearly, the issue of what is depicted is Contentious, whilst the content is not. Does this help you understand? LinaMishima 03:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

But that point isn't relevant. You, the wikeditor cannot state "this is a funny cat" or "this is a pretty cat" or any other evaluation of the cat. You could state "here is a picture of a cat". Any opinion, evaluation, etc by a wikeditor is invalid for wikinclusion. That is why I failed to see your point. I believe you are suggesting that we can post our own opinions or observations into the articles and that's just not so. We report what other primary and secondary sources have stated, and we can make simple inferences, but we cannot make judgements of the material in our own words. We can however summarize judgemental works of others, "He claimed to be a very important person, however John Brown, noted psychologist, stated in his own work that 'this man is loony'". In this example, I am not added any of my own opinion or evaluation, I am stating what the primary and secondary sources state themselves. Wjhonson 07:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It appeared to me to be the point you were arguing. In most cases, what you say is entirely and utterly correct. However go up and read the examples for can-1 and not-3 again. These examples attempt to deal with the case of trivial knowledge within the source that secondary commentator may often assume as known facts, and hence a secondary reference for these does not exist. An example of this can be easily formed. The following word is blue: Word. As long as I've got the hex code correct, this is obviously the case, and I'm sure all observers would agree this is a fact, not an observation - even though we have had to observe this and determine ourselves if the colour matches the definition of 'blue'. The following word is red: Word. This statement, however, will probably be contested, since magenta, as most people refer to this hue as, is often seen as pink or purple, not red. Obviously, this is a trivial problem when html is involved, as you can get the hex code and answer it that way. But for books, paintings, photographs, etc this is a valid point. Much like hair or eye colour. I am currently involved in a debate over sourcing for a catagory, and although it turns out notes themselves are not an applicable means to test for inclusion, editors have been wanting to reference the note a singer reaches within a recording. However finding a reference for this is next to impossible, as secondary sources consider notes to be an obvious and un-notable aspect on the whole. Due to the human nature of most secondary sources, there will always be things that they choose to not cover as they are firm enough in their conviction that everybody knows it. LinaMishima 13:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I would go ever further however. If a primary work says "George Bush is purple" then all we can quote is "George Bush is purple". If we are summarizing a work, and therefore using some of our own words, we have to be as non-judgemental as possible in how the summary goes. So if a work says "Cats are the spawn of Satan" we can't necessary say the work is "anti-Cat", we can say however that it claims that "Cats are children of Satan" since "spawn" and "children" are reasonable synonyms in this context. But at any rate I was only, ever, referring to QUOTING a primary source exactly with quotation marks. I was never referring to what you are, that is, an evaluation of something contained in a source. So for example you say we can't say that a cat is smaller than a dog unless we quote "a cat is smaller than a dog" (John Brown, "Cats", p 12) which is how I personally would do it. If the source says "the typical cat is 14 inches at the shoulder" then I would quote that exactly without paraphrasing or summarizing or altering. Wjhonson 08:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if we quote too much, we cross over into the realm of copyright violations. Sourcing is good, but unless its a freely-licensed work compatible with the GFDL, we do need to be vaguely original. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 17:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

If we are using a non-fiction work we can quote 500 to 1000 words with no copyright problems. the issue is: do we damage the sale value of the quoted work. That is unlikely (unless--unless it is a brand-new newsworthy story.) Rjensen 17:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Fair_use#Text. Also, it's my understanding of fair use that it's generally more fair use if you provide your own commentary (especially for some types of images). Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 17:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Rjensen that exact quotes never violate copyright fair use (up to 500 words say), and I don't see any value in the phrase "more fair". When in doubt, quote exactly. When challenged, quote exactly. Instead of getting in an edit war about whether cats are smaller than dogs, quote your source, with a citation and be done with it. The other side can then quote their source with a citation. If they can't provide a citation then the sourced side has the more useable information. Wjhonson 16:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with a limitted number of quotes, but if we fill an article with quotes because we are afraid to paraphrase or summarize, we could raise questions about copyright. I guess I'm not really sure which Rjensen is suggesting. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 21:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

"streetpress"

Especially with regards to pop culture (certainly, music and bands) is street press acceptable source for citing? Obviously - it would have to be more than a press release from the band in question and it would have to be reasonably independant from the subject of the article (ie, no quoting utter fancruft articles, nor articles written by the sister of the lead singer). Garrie 07:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Examples of "streetpress" and links to them, please ? Terryeo 10:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Dispute about reference format and verifiablity in other languages

I have a dispute at Lousewies van der Laan with user:Electionworld about proper referencing. See here for the diff [8]. See here User_talk:Electionworld#Please_do_not_remove_references for the discussion What is the best way of referencing? Andries 21:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I would be gladd to hear opinions. Electionworld Talk? 21:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

unrecorded radio talk shows

The "Notes and References" of R2-45, at number [7] provides a Convenience link to [9]. That webpage sources a google group message and provides a link to it, [10]. At the very bottom of that webpage appears the referenced text, On a Vancouver radio show this past March.... The article's edit was made by in June 2006 and its edit summary says: User:Raymond Hill: (added cite to a scan of The Auditor #37, added statements by church representatives) That appears at this editing difference. A review of the referenced website, xenu-directory.net, leads to an invitation by Raymond Hill himself to email "povmec@xenu-directory.net" on the website's home page. I have commented on this sort of reference many times in Scientology talk pages. Would editors here be so kind as to comment on this reference? Terryeo 15:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe the exact reference for R2-45 can be found in the original Creation of Human Ability. Miscavige's entourage may have edited it out in the most recent printing, but it is definitely in the original. I think Hubbard stated it as a joke, but many folks don't think it is joke-worthy. If there is no accessible transcript or recording of the radio program, then it does not meet WP:V. --Fahrenheit451 21:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

For the radio show, assuming I understand correctly (that the editor used the google group message for information about the radio), I don't think you could attribute/cite the radio show directly. Instead, you would have to cite the google group. Since the google group isn't a reliable/reputable, in line attribution would be required (e.g. According to a posting on a google group, XXX was said by X on the radio.) That makes a rather weak statement (a lot of readers would think "According to to a posting on a google group? Then I won't believe it."), and therefore probably shouldn't be included unless is has significance to the article.

Also, the format of the convenience link in the citation does not make it completely clear that the editor used the original reference from the LA Times instead of the xenu.com site. Assuming they did look at the LA times, I would reccomend rewriting the citation to make it clear.

— Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 22:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting. It is so easy to overlook: 1. Raymond Hill goes to Google Groups, finds a message he likes and posts it on his personal website. Then, 2. User:Raymond Hill comes here to Wikipedia and quotes the message he has just archived from Google Groups in a Wikipedia article and cites his personal website, thus increasing his personal website traffic, you see? While this is but one example of such archived Google Group messages, there are others in the articles. Terryeo 12:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Self Published Sources

The self-published sources section makes no sense what so ever. Before the present a large number of publications were "self-published" - for example Bach' "Art of the Fugue". By the defintions offered here bastardized pirated versions of the Art of the Fugue would be regarded as secondary sources, where as Bach's own plates would not be (self-published vanity press!). Examples of this problem continue all the way up to the present, where original sources are "self-published" and inaccurate assertions are made in the "respectable" press. Consider that under the standards presented here "Swift Boat Veterans For Truth" counts as a reliable source, where as John Kerry's personal accounts of being in Vietnam don't.

In short, this section is geared to weeding out say millions of web sites, and creates a reverse problem - it weeds out huge amounts of reliable data which just happens not to have gone through the corporate publishing mill. A recent example is proposed proof of Poincare's Conjecture - self published on the internet.

The current language an open invitation to abuse. Self-published sources have the credibility of the people publishing them - no more, but also no less. If person X has a website that says he's married, we should not "look at this with a critical eye" and demand to see the public records looked up.

Stirling Newberry 23:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Notice that one of the sentences in the self-published sources section is "In general it is preferable to wait until other sources have had time to review or comment on self-published sources." So if other (reliable) sources have commented favorably on a self-published source, the self-published source becomes reliable. Also, if a work that was originally self-published is reprinted by a reputable publishing house (such as Dover) it is then reliable. --Gerry Ashton 00:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to laugh out loud here, Dover often publishes editions which are not reliable, because those are the ones which are available in the public domain. You've made my point for me - passing through "official" hands does not necessarily improve reliability. The language present is sweeping, over generalized and just plain foolish. I can appreciate wanting to keep out the millions and millions of little web sites out there, but the current guidelines neither include all good material nor exclude all bad material. Stirling Newberry 02:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Then where do you get half of your info Stirling? Many of your sources are not reliable either, or you just place information into this encyclopedia which, to put it in a nice way, could be construed as "Original Research." Please, if a publishing house is not reliable, should we consider some history blog that you read your latest tidbit from? T Turner 11:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, notable self published work can be cited... as a primary source. Bach's original plates would be eminently citable in this fashion. The same would be said for Kerry's personal accounts of being in Vietnam. The key is a) the notablility of the primary source (both Bach and Kerry would count as being notable, and b) attribution to the primary source (if citing the original, one should mention that in the article).

Yes, we prefer secondary sources, for exactly the reasons Gerry points to above... but that does not mean we can never cite to a primary sources if appropriate. Blueboar 01:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)