Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources

National bias in WP RS re ‘intervention’

Are there any WP RS news media that refer — in reporter’s voice — to their own country’s intervention in other country’s electoral (or other) affairs as ‘interference’? Humanengr (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

By way of example, U.S. news media considered as RS in WP rarely (if ever) refer to U.S. intervention in other countries as ‘interference’. Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Good question! Writing from memory, several members of the Indian press were critical of the Indian takeover of Sikkim. (India had been "interfering" in Sikkim for a long time, apparently legally, but the last election before the take-over was controversial.) Similar sitation applies to allegations of interference in Nepal, esepcially when there are allegations of a blockade. I am sorry that I don't have any references handy, but I can dig them up if it is important. (Mind you that non-interference in other country's affairs is a core principle of India's foreign policy from the days of Jawaharlal Nehru.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. That would seem to run directly opposite to what my searches show for U.S. news media regarded as RS on WP. Any such refs would serve as useful counter-examples, so if you happen across them, great. And thanks for the cite to Nehru’s foreign policy; I see here that he “described the five pillars to be used as a guide for Sino-Indian relations, which were first put forth by Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai Called Panchsheel (five restraints), these principles would later serve as the basis of the Non-Aligned Movement. Jawaharlal Nehru was the architect of the Non-Alignment Movement.” Principle #3: “Mutual non-interference in domestic affairs” invokes ‘non-interference’ explicitly.

But my primary interest is to see if any here can identify similar use of the term ‘interference’ by a U.S. (or, if not that, any Western or allied nation) RS reporter to characterize U.S. intervention abroad? Anyone? tia, Humanengr (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. See also Non-Aligned Movement, of which Nehru was a champion. The Parchsheel agreement did not do much good for India because China still blamed India for CIA's interference in Tibet. This (mis)perception was one of the causes of the Sino-Indian War. Some scholars still believe that India was involved in Tibet. Knowing Nehru, I think it would have been highly unlikely.

The principle of non-interference had its roots in the anti-colonial movements, because colonialism was nothing but interference in the extreme. So, the former colonies would appreciate the worth of non-interference. The former colonial powers probably think it is a yawn. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

References

And they continue to yawn while effectively pursuing similar ends under the heading of ‘foreign intervention’ (a neutral or positive term) rather than labeling it ‘interference’ (a more negative term). (Thx for the various details re Soviet, China, Tibet, India, CIA; that all rings bells.) Humanengr (talk) 10:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Please remember that the question asked is not: “Did country X interfere in country Y?” ... but “Did the media of country X use the term “interfere” when talking about what X was doing?” Most media would use more positive sounding terms if they approve of what X is doing... and would only use “interfere” if they disapprove. So... you would have to look at opposition media for the usage. Blueboar (talk) 12:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Thx, Blueboar, and you’re exactly on point that the question is “Did the media of country X use the term ‘interfere’ when talking about what X was doing?”. Also thank you for the phrasing “if they approve” and “if they disapprove”. Using that, imagine two situations: 1) nation A takes action in nation B, and 2) nation C takes action in nation A. Media in nation A overwhelmingly approve #1 and characterize it as ‘intervention’ and disapprove #2 as ‘interference’. Just checking that makes sense before proceeding further. Humanengr (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, "intervention" does not necessarily indicate approval... but "interference" almost always indicates disapproval. I would suggest you explore media reports from the late 1960s regarding the US involvement in Vietnam... I doubt many US media outlets would have used "interference" in the early 1960s (when involvement was generally approved of in the US). However, by the late 1960s or 1970s attitudes had changed, and the chance that an outlet used "interference" goes way up. Do I know of a specific instance of the word being used? No... but I would be surprised if no one used it. Blueboar (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Basically agree re ‘intervention’ and ‘interference’; the former typically neutral or positive, the latter negative. Also, thx for enunciating the temporal element.

Backing up a step, I’m realizing I should amend the § title to “National bias in WP RS re foreign ‘intervention’”. I struggled with the title as it is a compound topic, bringing in effects of national bias in news media, WP criteria for identifying media as RS, and weighing of RS for use. Your statement of the question captures the first part of that, but I wanted to indicate the broader context. Will write after further research. Humanengr (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────┘@Blueboar and all, Offered for consideration:

A WP search for <"Russia interfered" OR "Russian interference”> yields 470 hits, the phrase appears in 3 as an article title; in many of the news media sources cited therein; and in the title of a WP ’Sister Project”, … . The phrase is freely used by U.S. reporters and editors to describe Russian actions.

In contrast, a WP search for <"America interfered" OR "American interference" OR "U.S. interfered" OR "U.S. interference”> yields 61 hits. In 0 of those 61 does the phrase appear with a supporting citation of a U.S. reporter using that phrase to characterize U.S. actions. Where it does appear, it is used, e.g., to characterize foreign perceptions of U.S. actions; with citation not to news media but to a book or an academic work; or without citation to a source.

(A search for <Vietnam “American interference”> yielded 5 hits, one of which was relevant. The mention was, again, that of foreign perception of U.S. actions.)

For further context, note that, per Foreign electoral intervention,

A 2016 study by Dov Levin found that, among 938 global elections examined, [fn: These covered the period between 1946 and 2000, and included 148 countries, all with populations above 100,000.] the United States and Russia [fn: including the former Soviet Union] combined had involved themselves in about one out of nine (117), with the majority of those (68%) being through covert, rather than overt, actions. The same study found that "on average, an electoral intervention in favor of one side contesting the election will increase its vote share by about 3 percent," an effect large enough to have potentially changed the results in seven out of 14 U.S. presidential elections occurring after 1960.[cite; fn: This is, as the author points out, "Assuming, of course, a similar shift in the relevant swing states and, accordingly, the electoral college." Others cites have argued that foreign electoral intervention is likely to have the opposite effect.] According to the study, the U.S. intervened in 81 foreign elections between 1946 and 2000, while the Soviet Union or Russia intervened in 36.[cite to Levin]

Further searches welcome.

To what does anyone attribute the above discrepancy between “Russian interference” and “American interference” in WP? Humanengr (talk) 02:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

People not creating articles.Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

And to what do you attribute the dearth of U.S. news media articles that characterize U.S. ‘interference’ as such? Humanengr (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven, How can users create articles that indicate the U.S. ‘interfered’ when so-called ‘Reliable Sources’ characterize U.S. actions as ‘intervention’ rather than ‘interference’? Humanengr (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Which sources, what exactly are you talking about?Slatersteven (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The point is that, AFAICS, there are -no- U.S. news media cited in WP that refer to U.S. actions in other nations as ‘interference’ rather than ‘intervention’. As I said above:

a WP search for <"America interfered" OR "American interference" OR "U.S. interfered" OR "U.S. interference”> yields 61 hits. In 0 of those 61 does the phrase appear with a supporting citation of a U.S. reporter using that phrase to characterize U.S. actions.

Can you find any instances where U.S. news media are cited in WP to refer to U.S. actions in other nations as ‘interference’ rather than ‘intervention’? Humanengr (talk) 01:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven, Does that clarify? Humanengr (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven or anyone, Do you dispute that Russian actions are consistently characterized in WP as ‘interference’ whereas analogous U.S. actions are not? Humanengr (talk) 21:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

It is not what we say but what the sources say that matters. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Exactly...and so what. RS in each language will tend to have a national bias. The Russian Wikipedia no doubt has the opposite bias because it uses Russian sources. So what? Just document what RS say. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

The 'so what' is that it needlessly fractionates 'RS' as a standard and promotes conflict. Who does that serve? Humanengr (talk) 05:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer, re: “RS in each language” — right, ‘WP:RS’ is not a WP designation, but rather a WP-en, WP-ru, … designation. To label it as WP:RS is misleading. Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 05:01, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

 ??? Is this still alive? After my "so what", I thought you'd get the point, but I guess this really means something to you, but I'm not sure what you want to do with it, if and when you get it figured out.

I could edit in the Scandinavian language Wikipedias, besides this English version, but I assume that the standards for what are RS follow similar principles. I haven't noticed any difference. I'm speaking of the language in the source, not just the particular country's wiki. (The RS used in each language's wiki will tend to be sources written in that language, with few exceptions.) Therefore, your comment "To label it as WP:RS is misleading." is confusing to me. What on earth are you talking about? All along, since the beginning of this section, all who commented here have been using the term RS to mean the policy WP:RS. Are you now referring to something else? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Your assumption — “the standards for what are RS follow similar standards” — is incorrect. RS on WP-ru includes TASS per Russian Wikipedia Authoritative sources. The standards for inclusion as RS differ. Humanengr (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

But the English Wikipedia also considers TASS a RS, but recognizes it is under the control of Putin, and thus far from neutral. American and British news media may have their biases, but they are not under government control, with the exception of Trump's channel Real News Update. (Trump controls it, but Fox News controls Trump's POV.) TASS is thus, as with many RS, reliable for its own POV. This is just a good example of how national bias exists, and how that bias is affected by many societal and political factors. With TASS, RT, and Sputnik, we're dealing with Russian propaganda and misinformation, which goes beyond mere national bias. Their actual "reliability" is questioned by those outside Russia, while Russians have little choice but to accept them, and not voice disagreement too loudly. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:11, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

[Cont’d in new section below] Humanengr (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

[Should’ve asked before starting new section; apologies] Perhaps I missed it, but I didn’t see reference in WP policy, guideline, essay pages to considering TASS as RS or for characterization as “far from neutral”, “propaganda”, and “misinformation”. Or is that from article or talk pages? Just curious as to your sources. Humanengr (talk) 01:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

LOL! That's national bias, experience, and then western intelligence agencies. TASS is a RS for its own opinions, and some of the time also for general news. When it comes to politics and east/west relations, they only print what Putin, FSB, and GRU allow. Unlike most western European nations and allies, Russia does not have a free press. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Humanengr, replying to your deleted comment, yes, we do have articles which address the subject of press freedom in Russia. They are filled with RS for further research: Media freedom in Russia and List of journalists killed in Russia. In 2013 Russia ranked 148th out of 179 countries in the Press Freedom Index from Reporters Without Borders. In 2015 Freedom House report Russia got score of 83 (100 being the worst), mostly because of new laws introduced in 2014 that further extended the state control over mass-media. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Thx for responding to my question. (Undeleted here: Do you have a reference in WP policy, guideline, or essay pages for ‘free press’?) That clarification might prove helpful later. For now, I’ll continue below. Humanengr (talk) 06:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

See WP:PRESERVEBIAS (essay). -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Should such gross bias be indicated or remain hidden? Humanengr (talk) 06:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

It would violate NPOV to interject editorial opinion or to hide it through censorship. Editors are supposed to remain neutral and faithfully document what RS say. Direct quotes are obviously what they are, and paraphrases should not deviate from a quote by whitewashing out any bias. It should be preserved. A lot of what we do here involves documenting bias, without taking sides. It is editors, not sources and content, which must be unbiased and neutral. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:PRESERVEBIAS: "This does not mean that no attempt should ever be made to rectify gross imbalance …". We seem to agree there is persistent national bias. To expect readers to accept such biased characterizations — when presented persistently — as 'verified' much less 'true' seems to be asking a lot. Humanengr (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that type of bias exists, cannot be avoided, and it is our job to document it, not neuter it, hide it, censor it, or even point it out (with our own comments or way of including it). That bias just might be the correct POV, because the correct POV is rarely in the middle. It's nearly always somewhere off-center. BUT, whether it's true or the correct POV or not is not our concern. We document all POV.

Each country, culture, and language will tend to have its own biases, ways of looking at things, and ways of expressing biases (IOW its view of what is true). Sometimes those biases are built right into the language. It is not our business to interfere in that. We must remain neutral and simply document it. We literally document a worldview. At the English Wikipedia, we document the worldview as presented primarily in English language sources, although no wiki is bound to only use their own language sources. We are allowed to translate and use sources from other languages.

Regarding "as 'verified' much less 'true'", we must prioritize "verifiability, not truth". That phrase used to be part of policy, and is still a fundamentally important concept to understand. There is an essay about it: [[WP:VNT. Our job as editors is not to allow our own ideas of truth (which are subjective) to influence our editing. We are not here to "right great wrongs". See the policy about that: WP:RGW. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Re your 2nd para: A claim of 'verifiable' is quite an overreach when 'worldviews' conflict across 'countries, cultures, and languages'. 'Reliability' is certainly not assured. For such cases, the guidance in WP:NEWSORG and WP:SOURCE is inadequate. (Aside: Do you have a reference for the 'worldviews' term in WP policies, … ?) Humanengr (talk) 19:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

"Interference" to some extent implies not only the action but success at it. For all of these cases, why not just neutral words that still convey the information? E.G "Efforts to influence".North8000 (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Because that would violate NPOV. We must preserve the meaning, bias, and intent of our sources. Articles are not OUR articles. We can use our own websites, blogs, Facebook, and Twitter for that. No, our job is to neutrally present biased content, warts and all. We aren't allowed to remove the warts first or put make-up on them. We must present content accurately to readers, without the content being affected by our filters. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer, You acknowledged that “American and British news media may have their biases”. The problem is that articles on international disputes do not acknowledge that bias and readers are left unaware. How do we address that? Humanengr (talk) 02:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? You're still obsessing over this? Just get over it. It's part of life. English language sources will tend to have their biases; Russian sources will have their biases; Arabic sources will have theirs. That means there will be contradictory information between sources and the Wikipedias in each language. For really serious matters, like lying about factual matters, then use fact checkers. English language fact checkers are objective enough so their bias is so much toward truth thay they openly call Trump a liar. You won't find Russian fact checkers getting away with that, and if Trump remains in power much longer, American fact checkers won't be allowed to serve truth to that degree much longer either. Relish this fact and use those fact checkers. They surpass and transcend these national/language/cultural biases. Thanks to them, especially on the news sources which Trump calls "fake news", there you will come closer to truth than anywhere else on earth. The sources he likes disdain fact checkers. During the presidential campaign Trump even warned not to trust fact checkers. Only dishonest people do that. That's my last on this subject. Get over it. Life goes on. Use fact checkers. That's the only way to get closer to truth. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Re: “English language sources will tend to have their biases; Russian sources will have their biases; Arabic sources will have theirs. That means there will be contradictory information between sources and the Wikipedias in each language.” Why do you want to hide the existence of such contradictory information? Shouldn’t an encyclopedia that ostensibly offers the world’s knowledge want to highlight the existence of such differences in order to further a more common global understanding? What gain is there to reinforcing biases by constructing each language version as an echo chamber? Why not have, say, a template at the top of all articles involving an ongoing international dispute identifying it as such? Humanengr (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Who benefits from 'contradictory information’? Anybody other than those who want to sow discord and support military tension or conflict? Humanengr (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

This is a NPOV-related issue, so it belongs on another noticeboard. NPOV is based on a rationale of proportional representation, so, hypothetically, if the body of RSs on a topic has a certain bias, then WP should mirror that bias to comply with NPOV. We're here to reflect RSs, not to "debias" them. It may be that the body of RSs published in one country is more substantial than that in another country, based on international reputation of the publishers and authors -- that's another NPOV factor. In this particular case, I'm not sure there's a problem of nationalistic bias in RSs. Major news outlets may be subject to it, but there are also reputable academics and journalists in the US and UK who have written about this topic without a "patriotic" slant. In fact, I would venture that most historical studies on US interventions probably take care not to sugarcoat its actions. Eperoton (talk) 04:30, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@Eperoton Thx for your thoughts and also for your noticeboard suggestion; will consider. Follow-up q on your other comments: It seems we agree it is reasonable to presume news media have nationalistic bias, historical sources less so. Correct? Humanengr (talk) 06:28, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Humanengr That has been a tendency I personal observed, but I don't think we can edit based on such an assumption. Rather, we should seek to reflect a balance of different perspectives found in RSs based on the WP:NPOV notion of prominence, which favors majority views over minority views but also more authoritative sources over less authoritative sources. For example, if we find different analyses of a historical event in a newspaper article and a peer-reviewed academic publication, the latter view should get more prominence. On the other hand, if we find one perspective in a broad swath of news media and another one in one academic publication, that's a trickier case to handle. If it's a prominent source, we should present both those views, but there's no simple formula on how to do that in the most policy-compliant way. Eperoton (talk) 13:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Eperoton Thx, I think you’ve hit the ‘nub’. The difficulty is, in disputes between governments, determining ‘preponderance’ when one side by virtue of its favoring individualism/corporatism over society as a whole has more ‘news media’ than the other. (In the case of ongoing disputes, news media are seemingly the only source category.) Humanengr (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────┘@Eperoton, What I was hoping to get to was this: Given that ‘RS’ news media are biased as I indicated (no contemporaneous characterization in WP of U.S. actions as ‘interference’), then for those articles that rely on news media to describe such actions by either U.S. or those it treats as opponents, should there not be a template that makes that bias clear? 1st cut:

Humanengr (talk) 17:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@Humanengr: Hmm, I doubt you'd be able to get consensus for something like that. I don't think WP policies give us a mandate for dealing with biased sources beyond WP:BIASED. Eperoton (talk) 04:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:RS is a misleading designation

[Picking up on this issue as discussed above]

The fact that RS standards vary between language editions, as indicated in the example above, shows that identifying the WP-en RS standard as ‘WP:RS’ misleadingly presents it as a global WP standard rather than a WP-en standard. This subsection focuses on the misleading nature of that shortcut identifier. Humanengr (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't see you as making any point not assumed already (you're just pointing it out). Is this really a "problem"? Do you have a better suggestion? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, enwp.org is pretty enwp-centric... Nearly none of the policies mention that they're enwp policies, and don't apply to other Wikipedia projects! Misleading! Bright☀ 17:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

But that is the fault of those who don't know that. engwp.org doesn't make such a claim, so it's incorrect to assume it, and yet there will still be many similarities. Each has its own version of RS and NPOV. National bias will also affect how local editors word their policies. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I was being sarcastic. Bright☀ 09:11, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh! Thanks for the clarification. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:46, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I really think this forum should be used for specific cases of specific edits citing specific sources in specific articles. To discuss general philosophies is above our pay-grade, or if really necessary, something for discussion on a policy page. Personally I think the simplest way to approach the problem on WP is to say that we summarize what the best sources we can find say, and if we find no decent sources we say nothing. The sources do not have to be neutral or on any particular side. It tends to be easiest to try doing this first and then discuss difficult cases as specific cases. (Apparently when it comes down to working on something practical, people apparently agree about a lot of things. When it comes to deciding on general policies they never do.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster: The Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is for “posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context.” Humanengr (talk) 06:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Note the "particular" and the "in context". There are far too many generalized discussions now, and these rarely achieve anything. Wikipedia is not a forum for philosophical discussions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah. Now I see what you mean. Yes, it seems I wrongly thought this discussion was on that forum! However, while that may make my wording look silly, I still think my point is relevant. I do not think WP wins anything by having very specifically defined and generalized rules, and I think the RSN approach is the right one for WP generally: case by case. We are nowhere near a level of perfection where for example it becomes realistic to expect that all language versions have similar opinions, not only for controversial subjects but even for surprisingly simple ones. In that context I think the differences between WP versions can even be helpful.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster, Assuming that the differences can be helpful, have you seen the differences being highlighted in WP? Humanengr (talk) 01:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Seeking an indication of NPOV

Can anyone identify -any- action by the U.S. on any of the following or related pages — Foreign interventions by the United States or United States involvement in regime change or Foreign electoral intervention or Interventionism (politics)#Foreign_interventionism — where news media considered as RS per WP-en characterize the U.S. action as 'interference'? Humanengr (talk) 01:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Tharoor, Ishan (October 13, 2016). "The long history of the U.S. interfering with elections elsewhere". The Washington Post. Retrieved 23 April 2018. --GRuban (talk) 04:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• "The U.S. is no stranger to interfering in the elections of other countries". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 23 April 2018.
• "Russia Isn't the Only One Meddling in Elections. We Do It, Too". The New York Times. Retrieved 23 April 2018. --GRuban (talk) 04:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Right, those are the only ones I found. Note that all 3 are distantly historical, drawing on Dov Levin’s journal article that addresses Russian and U.S. electoral intervention from 1946-2000.

No WP articles cite any contemporaneous RS to portray U.S. intervention as 'interference'.

Yet we have near uniform characterization of Russian actions as ‘interference’.

Further, the Tharoor article states: "While the days of its worst behavior are long behind it, the United States does have a well-documented history of interfering and sometimes interrupting the workings of democracies elsewhere."

On what basis is the underlined claim made? Humanengr (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

For disputes between the U.S. and its opponents, by what measure are U.S. news media any less propaganda or misinformation (BullRangifer's terms above) than those of opponents? Humanengr (talk) 01:00, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

There's a loaded question if there ever was one. The answer is, depending on the context, specifically meaning of "the U.S. and its opponents" and "U.S. news media". If the dispute is between the governments, then government-controlled media is a directly involved party, while media that happens to be published in one of the countries, but is not government-controlled is less involved. If the dispute involves all facets of a society - say WWII - then the lines blur. But I'm guessing you're talking about the Syrian Civil War, and why RT (TV network) and TASS are not considered reliable; well, because the Russian government is directly involved in the war, and TASS is directly owned by the Russian government, and RT is widely considered to be controlled by the Russian government. The extent to which the U.S. Government is directly involved is debatable, and in any case the New York Times, etc., are not directly controlled by the U.S. Government. --GRuban (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Thx; to clarify if you care to answer: re ‘loaded question’, how would you express the ‘controversial or unjustified assumption‘; re ‘extent to which’, does that include ‘whether’? Humanengr (talk) 10:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Er ... what? Sorry, I didn't understand that question. --GRuban (talk) 19:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

[re our prior 2 posts, we can set that aside for now.]

Presenting information using loaded language is propaganda. Using negative terms (e.g., ‘interference’) to describe A’s actions while using neutral or positive terms (e.g., ‘intervention’) to describe analogous B’s actions is loaded language, hence propaganda.

Adding qualifiers to classify actions by ‘direct involvement’, ‘extent of involvement’, etc., doesn’t change that. It’s still loaded language.

Those qualifiers are at best distractions from the base issue — description in negative vs neutral or positive terms.

Western media use the former to characterize Russia actions but -never- characterize U.S. actions in those terms. This is inappropriate bias for an encyclopedia ostensibly trying to capture the ‘world’s knowledge’.

(I can address each of your ‘qualifiers’ (my term) if needed, but wanted to address in summary first.) Humanengr (talk) 14:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:RS is a misleading designation? Y'all have been out in the real world too long

Judging from the above discussion, many folks have been out in the real world too long. :-) That's where "reliable" source means reliable. That would mean objectivity and expertise on the topic/text in question.....two things that have been kept out of Wikipedia reliable source policies and guidelines, where "reliable" just means having other trappings. A tongue-in-cheek way of saying that we should start to introduce those things, and this guideline would be a good place to start that. I tried it on a small scale a few months back and got reverted. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Reliable doesn't have completely different meaning. The WP policies simply define the best proxy for reliability in the real world. Since WP is an open system with unknown authors such a proxy is necessary.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

How was the standard for "reliability in the real world" in the specific case of ongoing international disputes determined? Humanengr (talk) 20:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@North8000 and Kmhkmh: One strange thing about Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources is that the definition begins in a circular fashion: "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources …” as if the common meaning of ‘reliable’ is being invoked. Humanengr (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@Humanengr:Yes, for clarity it should say wp:reliable instead of "reliable"; in some areas there is little correlation between wp:reliable and real world reliability. Again the missing link is objectivity and expertise with respect to the item which cited it. North8000 (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree re "in some areas there is little correlation between wp:reliable and real world reliability."

Re "for clarity it should say wp:reliable instead of 'reliable'": That would yield:

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources: "Base articles on WP:RELIABLE, third-party, published sources …”

citing WP:RELIABLE which begins::

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources …

Where from there? Humanengr (talk) 02:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@Humanengr: Good point. I guess my idea was really pointing out the problem rather than fixing it. The big fix would be relatively simple, but Wikipedia has lost it's ability to make big fixes. It would have two parts. Amend WP:VER to say that more controversial claims require stronger sourcing. Then amend wp:RS to say that two of the measures of the strength of sourcing are objectivity and expertise with respect to the text which cited it. North8000 (talk) 11:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)-

It already requires the former. --Izno (talk) 11:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

And the latter, mostly. --Izno (talk) 11:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────┘So then we have re the former: "more controversial claims require stronger sourcing" (per North8000) --> WP:EXCEPTIONAL (per Izno) leads to:

Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Red flags that should prompt extra caution include:

• surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;
  
• challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest;[9]
  
• reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, or against an interest they had previously defended;
  
• claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

References

[Note included for completeness.]

Anything strike you about WP:EXCEPTIONAL? Humanengr (talk) 14:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Humanengr: Well, if you mean replacing my two part idea, it does not do that. The cornerstone of my idea is to introduce "objectivity and expertise with respect to the item which cited it" as a factor in determining strength of a source in context. And that requires a new idea/metric .....overall strength of a source in that context, which does not currently exist. Second wp:exceptional is narrow special case. I was proposing an overall continuum. Including that text that is not per se challenged would have a lower requirement for source strength. I'm thinking about wiki-lawyering in both putting in and removing material. North8000 (talk) 12:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The cornerstone of my idea is to introduce "objectivity and expertise with respect to the item which cited it" as a factor in determining strength of a source in context. See WP:BIASED. We already have a policy that explicitly says that objectivity is unimportant (in a general sense). I doubt you will get any such proposal passed, as too many people will see the potential for citing it to justify, for example, barring the use of CNN as a source for Trump related material, as CNN is quite obviously not objective when it comes to Trump. This, applied across politics and fringe subjects as a whole, would result in site-wide WP:GEVAL problems. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Taking that as an example, CNN would rate high "objectivity and expertise" if cited on "Trump introduced XYZ tariffs on August 20th" text and low as a cite for a "Trump is a bad president" statement. Both as it should be. Similarly, a book by Britney Spears would have sufficiently strong objectivity & expertise for a "Britney Spear's favorite color is red" statement but not for a "Britney Spears makes great music" statement nor a "String theory is a mistake" statement.North8000 (talk) 13:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@North8000, Thx for elaborating that context; apologies for not making clearer that I wanted to focus only on WP:EXCEPTIONAL for provenance and definition/understanding/… of 'wp:reliable'. I'm pre-occupied with other matters but hope to return after not too long. Humanengr (talk) 03:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────┘The first thing that strikes me re WP:EXCEPTIONAL is that 'mainstream' appears and that it appears twice: 1) "claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources" and 2) "claims … that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions". Looking at #1 first: it looks like that 'mainstream sources' (the WP:EXCEPTIONAL phrasing above) was added 4 February 2008 by SlimVirgin as part of a longer phrase, “mainstream sources such as news media or historiography") with this edit. That was a change from "mainstream news media or historiography” which had been inserted 4 December 2007 by Francis Schonken with this edit that changed from the single bullet

• Surprising or apparently important claims or reports, not widely known or not covered by reliable sources

to two bullets

• surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known;
  
• surprising or apparently important reports of historical events not covered by mainstream news media or historiography;

with edit summary: "WP:ATT version (WP:ATT#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources), avoiding circular reasoning: no RS coverage? then use MULTIPLE RS!”, which does not provide specific rationale for mainstream.

As of that date, WP:ATT carried those same two bullets. The text there had been added a month earlier by Francis Schonken with this edit and this edit summary: "'developing current events' exception, using exact wording of ArbCom case".

I haven't yet tried to track down the Arbcom case or checked whether this was the first occurrence of 'mainstream' wrt #1. Does that provenance look right so far? Humanengr (talk) 21:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Should this guideline contain a link to WP:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Strong consensus for Y inclusion.∯WBG^converse 16:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

---

Should this guideline contain a link to WP:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources?- MrX 🖋 18:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

---

• Yes - The list of perennially discussed sources is a useful supplement to the Identifying reliable sources guideline. He helps organize and index discussions that have taken place on the 246 pages at WP:RS/N.- MrX 🖋 18:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - both directly (for the ones listed) and indirectly (for similar sites) a useful guideline/addendum. Note, I'd also add a link to WP:ELPEREN in the see also, and maybe these two should be brought into relation to each other. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• No - The list which MrX created two days ago contains opinions of MrX as to what previous WP:RSN discussions have concluded regardless of context, despite the fact that (like most such discussions) they didn't get formal conclusion or were specific to particular cases because context matters. This No applies to the other misuses of WP links -- there's now one from WP:V and MrX has even pointed WP:DAILYMAIL to MrX's page, despite objection. I hope other editors will examine and comment on those links as well. By the way, the earlier discussion of this matter, including MrX's false claim of agreement by everyone, is above in section "Casual musings", so I hope the participants there are following this new thread. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - This list will be very useful. I don't think it is fair to call it opinion-based, when every entry on there has links to associated discussions. The list is merely a summary of what the community has deemed reliable/maybe reliable/unreliable. Above all else, some sources like the Daily Mail (maybe that's the only one?) are actually prohibited (generally). This is a rule and/or guideline, whatever you want to call it, so it must be documented somewhere. Where better than in a list of other sources that the community has taken positions on? — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• Not Yet - A list would be very useful, and I think it should eventually be linked when it is ready. I don't feel it is ready yet. If this were an article, I would label it WP:STARTCLASS. I believe a link to a guideline should be at a higher standard. I think there is much to work out, such as the specifics on how discussions that have not gone through wp:RFC should be categorized and summarized in the table. Linking now may just cause confusion. Work permit (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• The problem with a list like this is that it gives the appearance that reliability is a black and white issue. It does not take context into account... there is no such thing as a 100% reliable or a 100% unreliable source. You ALWAYS have to ask: is it reliable in context. To give an example: While the Daily Mail is only reliable in a very narrow set of circumstances, it is reliable IN those circumstances. And there will always be borderline circumstances. So NO... the list is not helpful. Blueboar (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

  Nothing on the list is categorized as 100% reliable or unreliable. Yes, context matters which is why it says that at the top of the list. The list is intended as a non-binding guide and an index to previous discussions. I'm sorry that you don't find it helpful.- MrX 🖋 21:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

  Is there a better way to present it that would make it more clear about context? Indeed this is clearly written at the top. Maybe it should be in bold? The notes meanwhile nicely summarize the consensus (or lack of) gathered from the discussions. This concise, easy-to-read list seems a lot better than having to comb through all those discussions manually to get the same information. — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• Yes and I would suggest adding an "ownership" column too, just in case someone needs to check on potential dependency issues. (We have WP:VG/S for video game sources that we've used for years for this same purpose; this just makes it more clear for all topics, broadly) --Masem (t) 21:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Also to Bluebore's comment, I think the fact that it links to all previous known discussions about a source it helpful to show that things are black and white. But it helps to avoid questions like why we can't use Forbes contributors or the like without caution. --Masem (t) 21:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - quite useful; a good start. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:12, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - If some entries are questioned then we could revise the inclusion criteria and/or those entries. If the status field can be improved, that could also be worked on. This seems like a good alternative to searching the RSN archives for sources which have been discussed over and over. —PaleoNeonate – 01:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - If this happens, the page will inevitably expand and become the "official" record of which sources are reliable or not. People will refer to it in RS arguments. It will then attract a lot of contention as editors seek to move sources between the three categories. FenceSitter (talk) 03:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - I found the page very useful, gives good real-life examples of what's reliable and what's not in 95% of the cases (there will always be exceptions). I see it as a net improvement. As with everything, it is work in progress and if there are any specific grievances, they can be worked out. Suggestion: add more genealogy websites. Renata (talk) 03:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - Changed my vote from above. I believe this list is now ready for more general distribution. Certainly it will benefit from more changes which will come with more editors having their eyes on it. Work permit (talk) 23:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - The phrases "generally reliable" and "generally unreliable" provide strong guidance, but still give editors leeway to argue against the classification of a source in the context of a particular article. — Newslinger talk 14:04, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - When should we close this discussion? It seems we have a broad consensus to add this page as a link? Work permit (talk) 19:47, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• No [will change to Yes if change is made to title per Work permit, below] - The list seems quite incomplete in that 1) it lists only a very few ‘popular press’ (using the term in the NY Times ‘Notes’ entry) and 2) there is no indication of corporate ownership. Also, as that page has a template that says “This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.”, is this link promoting that page unduly — at least until such fixes are addressed? Humanengr (talk) 21:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

This is meant to be a list of sources that are frequent topics of discussion. I agree we will need to have some guideline on what is a "perennial source". Per the talk page, "The guideline that I used was at least two discussions at WP:RSN, or at least one WP:RSN discussion and multiple talk page discussions about the source. I believe that all of the sources currently on the list meet those criteria, and probably several more that have not yet made it to the list." Work permit (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

imo, the name ‘Perennial sources’ provides a bit too much imprimatur. By your description, perhaps something like ‘Frequently discussed sources’? I agree a list is useful because as others (including GreenMeansGo below) have said, searching is a hassle. But I’d like to be careful in how it is couched/presented as I don’t believe there are other such ‘not thoroughly vetted’ lists linked to from this policy page. Humanengr (talk) 22:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Meh, would a rose by any other name be any less useful for building an encyclopedia? The nature and content of the list may change significantly over time, but the fact of the matter is that having some list is useful, especially for new users. So we should work to form some list and try to mold that to be as useful as possible. GMG^talk 22:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Many are not roses — they are recommended against — Ancestry, Breitbart, … . Per WorkPermit’s worthy efforts and description, it’s a search result summary — of both ‘roses’ and ‘not roses’. Neither are ‘perennials’. They have just been ‘Previously discussed’ Humanengr (talk) 22:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps “recurringly” discussed? Work permit (talk) 00:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Glad we're on same page. Your call. With that fix, I've changed my vote. Humanengr (talk) 02:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

See further discussion carried over by Work permit re title of page here. Humanengr (talk) 10:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Yes - In case that wasn't clear already. Problems with the content of the list can be fixed like everything else here is. Fact of the matter is, the search function for RSN is pretty crap, and there's no reason to expect new users to be willing to figure it out, because half of experienced users can't be bothered to half the time. Any disputes over the content of the list will be beneficial in the end, since they'll likely lead to their own discussions and RfCs that can then be linked to from the list. Add all the daylight and then just record the results. GMG^talk 21:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - Emir of Wikipedia (talk) has included this link in WP:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources. I fully support his edit[1], which happens to be a reversion of mine. Work permit (talk) 18:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

My edit was just based on what the consensus appears to be here right now. Feel free to revert in the unlikely case that this changes. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - Copying over my suggestion from the discussion I referred to above: ‘Perennially discussed sources’ markedly clarifies the intent of the page. See, in particular this comment from Sunrise and my response. Humanengr (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
• Yes This is a useful list, though future additions and the wording of future additions should be made through consensus on the list's Talk page referencing a discussion in the RS noticeboard (or some other relevant place) and not unilateral editor action. Chetsford (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
• No - it's too young about at just a month old, and also notes of 'what MrX thinks' might be helpful for him but is not policy, consensus, nor fully complete. Ultimately a source is only judged RS in some context and is subject to RSN. This list could only get in the way of that. Really now, this is looking a bit of a censorship board or enemies list. There is no consistent and predefined criteria, no explained method, no consensus, do not convey the entries, and are not complete consensus. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
• As this RfC has run for 30 days, I've submitted a request for closure. — Newslinger talk 23:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

RfC: Should Template:Supplement be added to WP:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources?

Closure in progress.∯WBG^converse 14:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

RfC: Should Template:Supplement be added to WP:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources, in place of Template:Essay? - MrX 🖋 12:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

---

• Support - The page mostly indexes previous discussions and reinforces the WP:RS guideline, thus it's a supplement. It would be inaccurate to refer to it as just an essay. For comparison, please see WP:EL/P. - MrX 🖋 12:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Three points: 1) ’Reinforces’ indicates to me a desire to grant higher status than this page warrants. This page is merely a collection of ‘advice or opinions’ —> See WP:ESSAYS: “Essays, as used by Wikipedia editors, typically contain advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors.” The same applies to WP:EL/P. 2) Both this page and WP:EL/P are misleadingly misnamed — they are not ‘Perennial’ websites or sources; they are ‘Perenially discussed’ websites or sources. See this comment from Sunrise and my response. 3) Any change in status should come after title change to clarify the character of the page. Humanengr (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support - The page is not an essay, since it does not provide "advice or opinions". The page consists of two parts: an introductory text and a table. The text is an English language description, hyperlinked, to several existing policies. The table is a list of frequently discussed sources with links to existing discussions as well a a summary of the consensus in said discussions.Work permit (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Work permit - the whole table comments column seems to be opinion. And picking 'red' seems an informal opinion based on part of the archive items for a site. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:04, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Implementing this would save a lot of research time in AfD discussions. Consensus has already been established for the entries on the list, and this page is just a centralized repository that saves editors from having to use the search feature in WP:RSN. — Newslinger talk 22:04, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Useful page for tracking recurring source discussions. Alsee (talk) 10:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. I guess this is due to this change by Moxy who changed from MrX's preference "Supplement" to "Essay". The page contains opinions, it does not meet the requirements for Template:Supplement#Current usage. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Template:Supplement#Current usage tells us to use this template "only when there is a well-established consensus at the relevant policy or guideline page to use this template on an essay that links from the relevant policy or guideline." That's the intention of this RfC. The section also links to WP:SUPPLEMENTAL, which states: "while not policies or guidelines themselves, they are intended to supplement or clarify Wikipedia guidelines, policies, or other Wikipedia processes and practices that are communal norms." Since the page is a compilation of discussions at WP:RSN, I think the "supplement" classification would be appropriate for this page if this RfC passes. — Newslinger talk 17:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: The distinguishing factor between an essay and a supplement, "essay+consensus=supplement", is disingenuous. If supplements truly have community-wide consensus, they need to be policies or guidelines. If they don't, they're essays. Middle ground "kinda-sorta-consensus" does not exist. Delete the "supplement" category and template, put all essays on equal footing, since they are without community-wide consensus. Bright☀ 15:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • This page is an index that is continuously updated to factor in new discussions at WP:RSN. Since the page is dynamic, it wouldn't be practical to make it a policy or a guideline. The supplement tag is probably the strongest community endorsement available. — Newslinger talk 17:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear.....I do not oppose the use of the template in this case....just reverted till Rfc is over and page is stable . As for its usage pls review Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays#Notes.....this is a great example of over info that simply does not need to be labeled a policy our guideline. Side note about layout.....not sure about others but there's got to be a better format to not have all the main text for each item squished into a column that makes accessibility a concern.--Moxy (talk) 20:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

That note pretty much outright admits that "supplements" are instruction creep. If it's not a policy or guideline, it's an essay. Adding another "layer" of policies is indeed instruction creep. Bright☀ 11:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

You sort of got it ..a bit backwards but close...yes only two types of pages those approved by the community at large and all the others. The point is to avoid instruction creep in policy pages by have some essays handle overly detailed or instructional material. All agree "supplements" are just essays..... been this way for over a decade WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. --Moxy (talk) 14:15, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

All agree "supplements" are just essays and yet there's this, so I guess when you say "all agree" you mean "I say that." Maybe you're the one who's not getting it. Bright☀ 14:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Pretty sure I get it considering I am one of the ones that wrote all of it. So to be clear supplements are essays that link from a policy or guidelines...... we do this so random essays are not spanned all over our protocols without minor consideration. It's a way of indicating to the community that an essay is link from a policy or guideline and directly related to said protocol. it's not a upgraded in status but an indicator of its usage aND purpose.. Perhaps suggest some better wording to make this more clear for WP:Policies and or many others pages that metion the type of pages we have. See Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays] as I explain more there. -Moxy (talk) 14:39, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Based on what you say, if this page is linked to the policy, it should be tagged a supplement. If it is not, it should be tagged an essay. Is that correct? Work permit (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

The tag is one of the various ways we control essay spam and determine if linking is valid.....there are many other ways. The main question is not if it links..... but does it further elaborate on Wikipedia's policies or guidelines in an impartial and informative manner?--Moxy (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

This one and WP:EL/P are perhaps more properly characterized as ‘Summary of discussions’. Would it be useful to consider such a template? hth, Humanengr (talk) 01:17, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not opposed to anything that makes project pages more clear. We can also use something like {{notice}} or similar parameter optional template that we use on project pages that are unique like Wikipedia:Principles.--Moxy (talk) 02:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Pretty sure I get it Nah it seems you're contradicting yourself which is pretty much a surefire demonstration you're not getting it. If it's not an upgraded status then the difference between an essay and a supplement is merely technical and this entire discussion is redundant. If there is a consensus-level difference between an essay and a supplement then you have created another category of policies and guidelines that merely encumbers existing policies and guidelines with less-accepted worse-worded more-verbose documents. Either supplements are equal to essays and the difference is technical (supplements talk about a specific policy, essays are general) or they're not equal to essays and they require being "upgraded" to supplements through consensus. Bright☀ 12:40, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose for reasons stated here. I also note that WP:SUPPLEMENTAL repeats my point #1 there in this broader context: “Informative and instructional pages are typically edited by the community; while not policies or guidelines themselves, they are intended to supplement or clarify Wikipedia guidelines, policies, or other Wikipedia processes and practices that are communal norms. Where essay pages offer advice or opinions through viewpoints, information pages should supplement or clarify technical or factual information about Wikipedia in an impartial way. In comparison to policies and guidelines, information pages, like essay pages, have a limited status, as they have not been thoroughly vetted by the community. These pages are typically marked with the {{Information page}}, {{Wikipedia how-to}}, or {{Supplement}} template.” While I very much appreciate the efforts to collect these discussions, they are merely, again, ‘advice or opinions’ and should not be ‘reinforced’.Humanengr (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support. While this isn't a binding document approved by the community, it is informational in nature, rather than merely opinion-based. This appears to be the appropriate categorization. Tamwin (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I Note that this speaks in terms of opinions: “Explaining why you have a certain opinion helps to demonstrate its validity to others and reach consensus.” Is there anything ‘informational’ beyond presentation of opinions and current consensus re said opinions? Humanengr (talk) 22:49, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

    Well, I sort of took it as a given that information about current consensus was information. I struggle to see a meaningful difference between this and, for instance, WP:Perennial proposals, which is marked as an information page (although it's cited and accepted as authoritative often enough that it could probably be a guideline if the community were less resistant to making guidelines). Tamwin (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

    WP:Perennial proposals is like WP:OUTCOMES and (ironically) WP:RS/P. All of these pages reflect past consensus, and all of these pages note that consensus can change. The results of this RfC will determine the current consensus. — Newslinger talk 20:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

    Thx Tamwin and Newslinger. I still think there's an appropriate/helpful distinction to be made. WP:PERENNIAL PROPOSALS concerns proposals for WP policies; WP:OUTCOMES enumerates consensus of deletion decisions by category of page, which strikes me as very similar to policy. In contrast, PERENNIAL SOURCES and PERENNIAL WEBSITES cover discussions particular to specific external entities and are therefore, of this set, most subject to change. Above I made a suggestion for another template for the latter two. Would that, in your view, satisfy Moxy's criterion of making "project pages more clear"? Humanengr (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

    The idea of introducing a new categorization seems quite agreeable to me. This type of page has some common concerns, such as WP:CCC, and may be best addressed as a group. I'd tend to classify all four of the pages you mentioned as summaries of consensus, but that isn't something that needs to be worked out immediately. I'm for the below proposal to discuss this on WT:Project namespace. Thank you Humanengr for figuring out that we are all just looking for clarity. Tamwin (talk) 03:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

We can easily make the info template say what is needed like below...or make a new....should talk about this at main project namespace page...-Moxy (talk) 00:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, lets discuss it there. Work permit (talk) 01:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I've started a discussion on the subject there. Tamwin (talk) 03:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

How about

• Support -- the information on the page supplements the guideline by identifying the discussions that already took place; it does not establish a new policy or guideline. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Re ‘supplement’, Template:Supplement#Current usage says: “… The noun ‘supplement' does not mean an interpretation’ nor just ‘something added’. It means precisely ‘something added, especially to make up for a deficiency’, in this case a lack or gap in an official Wikipedia's policy or guideline. …’. [emphasis in orig] Humanengr (talk) 06:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• (summoned by ping) Support. The page is intended as a source of information that points to and summarizes existing discussions. Categorizing this as "advice or opinions" would improperly devalue existing consensus. It might be reasonable to make a new template to describe this type of information page, but not to apply to this page alone. Sunrise (talk) 11:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The issue perhaps is how to most appropriately and clearly indicate the value-add of 'existing consensus'. Re number of pages, it looks like the current count of candidate pages that summarize existing consensuses is between 2 and 4, where Tamwin made an RfC re the template. Humanengr (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support - so long as the content continues to merely report the results of RfCs and other discussions, it is a supplement. "Categorizing this as "advice or opinions" would improperly devalue existing consensus.", as Sunrise says above, is correct. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, noting existing consensus does add value. In view of Template:Supplement#Current usage as noted above, which ‘deficiency’ is being addressed? Humanengr (talk) 00:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - it's opinions and too young a draft version. Also I just think it's a bad idea to have something that looks like a censorship board or enemies list. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support. For the reasons stated above, supplement is the best classification for this page. The gap is in the identification of whether specific sources are reliable. This is precisely one of the purposes of supplements. --Bsherr (talk) 17:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
• As this RfC has run for approximately 30 days, I've submitted a request for closure. — Newslinger talk 05:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose — I looked there and saw an unsigned essay. My main concern is that items on that page will immediately start to be cited by editors as if they are policy, despite it never have gone through the exhaustive evaluation process that policy pages go through. I'm not saying that it isn't a useful page, only that it shouldn't be promoted to official status. It should be labeled as an essay, with its authors listed. Zero^talk 01:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for comment on reliability of InfoWars

There is a request for comment on the reliability of InfoWars:

1. Is InfoWars a generally unreliable source?
2. Should the use of InfoWars as a reference be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist?
3. Should InfoWars be used for determining notability?
4. Should InfoWars be used as a secondary source in articles?
5. Should an edit filter be put in place going forward to warn editors attempting to use InfoWars as a reference?

If you are interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC on reliability of InfoWars. — Newslinger talk 07:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:Genetics_references Jytdog (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

References citing wikipedia articles

I've undertaken a fool's errand; trying to ferret out all the unsourced material from Wormholes in fiction. The project has grown to looking at a bunch of related articles, most of which are a quagmire of WP:OR. I'm currently looking at Stargate (device), which has many instances of references that just cite other wikipedia articles. This fails WP:UGC. To my amazement, we have templates which encourage exactly this! Template:Sgcite has show=ref, and Template:Cite episode has episode-link, which leads to abuses like:

<ref name="Avalon">{{cite episode|title=Avalon|episodelink=Avalon (Stargate SG-1)| series=Stargate SG-1|serieslink=Stargate SG-1}}</ref>

It's unclear what direction I should be moving. I've started tearing out those references manually. I'm going to continue doing that, but I'm working on some bits of automation to help find and destroy them. Should we also be looking at changing those templates to eliminate the ability (and thus the tempation) to generate references? Or are there legitimate uses for those capabilities? -- RoySmith (talk) 20:57, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

That's not referencing the article, that's referencing the episode, with a link to the article for convenience. (I tear these out for other reasons--WP:WEIGHT/WP:TRIVIA/WP:PRIMARY kind of direction, but the cite template and its use here as a referencing item is fine.) --Izno (talk) 21:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not following you. For example, this edit which reverted one of my changes. How is citing List of Andromeda episodes#ep62 a valid reference which verifies the statement, Owing to organic "intuition", a living pilot has a 99.97% chance of guessing the correct route to take? -- RoySmith (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The link is not what is being cited--that link is a matter of convenience. The external work Andromeda, "Episode 62", is the citation, which is allowed in various forms per WP:WAF/WP:PRIMARY. --Izno (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The content in those ref tags reeeeeeeally should be a proper "cite episode", and if that can't be done, it is better to strip out the inter-wiki link and just state for the time being "Season X, episode X, "Title"". Ultimately, for quality, the cite episode should be used, but I'd rather not see the improper use of inter-wiki links in reference tags. --Masem (t) 22:04, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's one way to improve the situation (the use of cite episode), and would prevent another well-meaning editor like Roy from confusing the issue. I don't agree that we should remove the convenience links, so I would definitely prefer the use of cite episode to that of stripping down these references. The best correction of course is to come down on the side of WP:WEIGHT/WP:PRIMARY and say "this content is really inappropriate for Wikipedia unless it has some secondary sourcing (preferably sprinkled with some independence)", but that requires a bit more work than Roy has been putting into it, I imagine. --Izno (talk) 22:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

It looks like Template:Xsgcite can be used to fix that to some degree. I would recommend TFDing the Sgcite template on the grounds that it does not appropriately provide the parameters it should. --Izno (talk) 22:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Nommed the template for deletion. --Izno (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

RFC:Should the wording of the "Context Matters" subsection be changed?

In light of WP:DAILYMAIL and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources should it be changed to better explain current practice? This section has been directly cited or referred to in numerous discussions about the general reliability of a source perhaps, because it is not quite clear enough. Endercase (talk) 01:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support As nominator, I believe it should be changed to better convey that is is not just the context of any particular article but also the historical reliability of the publication that need to be taken into consideration. Personally, I suggest adding a couplet to Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. Something like "Whenever possible editors should not cite information contained in sources from a publisher that is historically unreliable even when the particular article being sourced may be reliable; often sources from more reputable publications can and should be found and used instead." It is possible that the perennial sources essay also should be directly referred to in this section. Conceivably it could be referred to as a living document that should hold the current consensus on the reliability of any particular, often discussed, publisher based on the previous discussions at RS/N (context). Endercase (talk) 01:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
• @Endercase: You may want to insert an {{rfc}} tag to list your RfC in the issue categories. (See instructions at WP:RFCST.) This will draw attention from other editors. Be sure to reset the timestamp of your comments if you decide to do this. — Newslinger talk 04:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Are liner notes a reliable source for non-credits-type info?

I'm asking specifically about the article for Five or Six - an obscure band for whom a "Best of" anthology was released in 2008. A significant portion of the article is dedicated to detailing what happened to various band members after they left the band. It's sourced to the liner notes of the equally obscure CD.

Only one of the supposed former members, John Yorke, has a Wikipedia article. I'm not even sure it's the same John Yorke, because I can't find anything online confirming that the TV producer was also in the band, and it's a common name. The rest are totally unverifiable online as well. What do we do in this case? Do we just take someone's word for it that says, "Trust me, I have the liner notes, and it's all in there"? Even if that's true, are liner notes on a best-of compilation considered a reliable source for this type of info? Amsgearing (talk) 21:03, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Disclaimer, I have been improving the article in question since I am familiar with the band in question.

"unverifiable online as well"

It is perfectly acceptable to use print or otherwise unavailable on the Internet sources on Wikipedia. There is a specific guideline about this - WP:SOURCEACCESS.

"Do we just take someone's word for it that says, "Trust me, I have the liner notes, and it's all in there"?"

Per assuming good faith, yes. How is this fundamentally different from using any other reference not on the Internet? In addition to the editor who added it, I have confirmed it through a partial reprint I own. You first reverted the source with the odd comment "that is not a source", then "unsourced original research" twice. The reprint I own confirms it is the same person: "One became head of drama at the BCC [sic], John Yorke."

"Even if that's true, are liner notes on a best-of compilation considered a reliable source for this type of info?"

Yes, it's a perfectly fine primary source. If the record label published this information online for free, would you be against using it as a source for the band members further career? Your main issue seems not to be about the reliability of the source, but the fact that it's only available in libraries, retailers and personal CD collections instead free of charge on the Internet. RoseCherry64 (talk) 00:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'm well aware of your opinion on the subject already, as you're waging a campaign to save the article on a non-notable band for reasons that are unclear to me. That's why I came here, to seek out the opinions of editors not so emotionally involved in the topic. Thanks for the redundant input, though. Amsgearing (talk) 14:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

The above comment was replaced with (Personal attack removed) by me, but Amsgearing put it back. I won't personally replace it again, but you should consider if the above is "my opinion" or multiple references to Wikipedia guidelines. RoseCherry64 (talk) 17:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Amsgearing: You may want to take this question to the reliable sources noticeboard, which gets about 20 times the amount of traffic as this talk page does. — Newslinger talk 04:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, I'll do that. Amsgearing (talk) 17:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to change WP policy on sources: Verifiable, not reliable

I hope this is the right place for such an endeavor.

Full disclosure: I am neither right-wing nor left-wing nor interested in any such ideological bickering. My goal is accuracy and, as much as possible, truth.

This issue has been on my mind for quite a while now. Often have I come across articles that include information that, with just a few minutes of research, can be shown to be false.

The current policy, as far as I understand it, creates a category of so-called "reliable sources" which do to not have to back up their claims because they are deemed trustworthy and reputable. While this is most likely done with good intentions it facilitates situations where "inconsistencies with the facts" (fact defined as 'a true statement about reality') easily remain undetected due to misplaced trust.

Nobody should be above scrutiny.

Point in case that I remember: Toronto Sun vs. Proud Boys

In this situation the "reliable sources" policy allowed the Toronto Sun, a "reliable source", to be used as "source" for claims about an entity that contradict the entity's own description. In the article, the Sun's journalist did not justify nor source anything of their claims. It is impossible to know where the journalist got their information from. Even worse: the journalist's name isn't even mentioned anywhere! (I know there is a journalist mentioned in the article, but that's not necessarily the person who wrote the TSun article) What if the journalist was wrong in any given claim? What if he, for whatever reason, was misstating or ommitting important information? What if no journalism occurred at all? We simply cannot know.

A reader of the WP article in question will see it sourced and think "Well, it has sources. It's probably true then." not realising that the so-called "sources" seem to be making up claims.

Given that even for the most trustworthy person or news outlet imaginable errare humanum est, and without even going into people's tendency to lie for profit, ideology or even mere convenience, we should want to at the very least be sceptical and able to verify. Just in case...

In order to determine the veracity of a given claim, what we have to do is compare that claim to observed reality, as best as we can. In this case that might be the BP website's own description, which according to WP policy is acceptable.

The example merely happens to be of bias towards the Right. That is irrelevant. I do not want this to happen to the Left or anyone else either.

Thus, I would like to propose this relatively basic change: that WP only use material from media "sources" that themselves list the source of their claims. This source in turn may not be another media "source".

I.e. using Guardian article without sources would not be valid. A HuffPo article that links to a WaPo article as its source wouldn't be acceptable either, unless the WaPo article itself had a valid source such as a scientific paper. A NYT article having as its source a WHO statistic would be ok.

Basically, at the end of the "source chain" there ultimately must be a non-media source given for it to be valid. One of the responses in the previously mentioned discussion seems to have put it very succinctly: The media are not sources. The media provide a connexion (mediate) between the source and the receiver. That's why they're called the media.

I fully understand that this would create quite a lot of work in the beginning, but apart from that see no other disadvantages. It seems to me that it will only make WP itself more accurate, and thus more trustworthy.

I would like to hear others' views on the matter, preferably more than just an opinionated no or not possible/feasible. Why not? Is there a better way? Please, relevant and constructive ideas and/or criticism. Thank you. 191.114.178.27 (talk) 09:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

First, please answer a question: Are you a sockpuppet of a blocked user?- MrX 🖋 10:27, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

A what? 191.114.178.27 (talk) 10:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:SOCK.—Mythdon (トーク) 10:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't have an account. Nor am I trying to manipulate if that's what you want to imply. What a warm welcome... 191.114.178.27 (talk) 11:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

The only edits I have done are small corrections in orthography or grammar. 191.114.178.27 (talk) 11:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Your suggestion would basically eliminate every source, whatsoever. So, basically, it's not possible/feasible. --Izno (talk) 14:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

That would be true temporarily until better sources are found. But even now a lot of material on WP is still unsourced and nobody seems to mind. 191.114.19.122 (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Many people mind, it's just that we don't have time to fix it because there are not so many of us. Don't let the clearly-bad (unsourced articles) be the enemy of the okay (sourced articles that don't meet your particular arbitrary standard). Your concern has a WP:NOTNEWS aspect to it that has been beaten over and over that might reasonably need fixing, here and elsewhere, but that's not what you're proposing to fix anyway, so your proposal has 0 chance of being implemented. --Izno (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I guess "nobody seems to mind" might not be the case. I don't know. Point is, it's not an arbitrary standard. It's not based on either opinion or consensus. It is the most objective way of sourcing that I find possible. I do not see the "WP:NOTNEWS aspect" since non of what that section contains is what I'm proposing. Please enlighten me. 191.114.222.82 (talk) 00:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• The problem with proposals like these (aside from being obviously motivated by a desire to push a political spin on a WP article) is that the proposers inevitably forget than when one gazes into the naval, the naval gazes back. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Obvious political motivation? How does wanting greater verifiability push a political spin? I honestly do not see the connexion. It seems to me a Non Sequitur at best and an Ad Hominem at worst. And I don't see what navelgazing has to do with anything I'm proposing either. Do you actually have any constructive criticism? I would love to hear it. 191.114.19.122 (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I see you misusing "strawman" below. Do you know what any of these terms you are throwing around mean? I mean, I linked to the precise definition of "naval gazing" I was referring to, and you still had to ask what I meant? Okay, I'll bite: I meant to suggest that you've spent so much time thinking about how to suggest this that you completely lost track of any context, and completely forgot to stop and ask yourself what the potential drawbacks are. So to put it bluntly: No, this is an incredibly stupid suggestion that would inevitably harm this project were it implemented, possibly fatally so. And yeah, your political motivations are completely fucking obvious to anyone capable of remembering the last time this was brought up, or who has ever watchlisted the talk page of anything to do with white supremacy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Not a misuse. I am doing here exactly what you acuse me of not having done. That's the sole purpose of me posting my proposal. I am stopping and asking as to what criticism other people might have. Unfortunately, so far there's not been a lot of on-topic discussion going on though. Of course my political motivations are obvious... You think I'm a white supremacist? Lol... I do not believe in the superiority of any race above another. Racism is irrational and immoral. 191.114.39.251 (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

How one would get from me wanting to achieve more objectivity through verifiability to calling me a white supremacist is beyond me. 191.114.135.66 (talk) 21:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• This issue was beat to death last fall and summer with regard to people having a cow over WP summarizing reliable sources that say that white nationalists/supremacists/whatever are indeed white nationalists/supremacists/whatever, even though said white nationalists/supremacists/whatever have said "i am not a white nationalist/supremacist/whatever". (e.g here is one of the several). What the community has decided over and over (and over and over and over) is that No. We will not remove reliably sourced content about a subject because said subject doesn't like it. Big shocker that we are having this conversation again, over the same issue, about the same kind of subjects. Jytdog (talk)

Great job strawmanning my proposal. If you compare with my original post you should notice that what you think I'm proposing (removing reliably sourced content about a subject because said subject doesn't like it) is not what I'm actually proposing (changing the standards as to what sources are deemed valid). I couldn't care less who doesn't like what. What I worry about is media publishing non-factual statements when the contrary is clearly visible. As was the case in the example I mentioned above where a TSun reporter invented tenets that the PB did not hold as their own. How is that not a problem? The least WP could do is not use such sources. 191.114.222.82 (talk) 00:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

hm. Jytdog (talk) 04:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

That's neither an argument nor is it correctly applied in this case anyway. I explained the strawman quite plainly in my last post to you. Answering with an unrelated joke is not constructive at all. I try to be respectful and respond as honestly and frankly as I can. It would be nice if you showed me the same respect. Btw, is there no policy that requires for constructive and relevant posts concerning serious topics? There should be one... 191.114.148.13 (talk) 10:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• Professional journalists and their organizations are paid to vet and fact check the stories they publish. If they don't do this with regularity, then they're not a reliable source. This solves the problem this proposal is intended to address. GMG^talk 01:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree that they should be doing this but I don't think that's going to happen any time soon... Which is why I'm proposing a change in WP policy, because the media likely won't change. 191.114.148.13 (talk) 10:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

In other words, your motivation for doing this is your firm conviction that the mainstream media can't be trusted. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Please don't misquote me. I'm saying that individuals who naturally act in their own self-interest should not be trusted to use the power to influence public opinion objectively when given it because they will use it to their own self-interest. That's not an outlandish or "conspiratorial" claim. Non-mainstream sources are not excluded from this. That's why we developed concepts such as defamation, burden of proof and presumption of innocence. I don't think it's preferable to elevate a group of entities (the "reliable sources") above that standard. 191.114.39.251 (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• No. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: unrealistic, impractical, questionable. —PaleoNeonate – 18:03, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Why should media sources be given extra scrutiny, as opposed to any other type of secondary source? All secondary sources "mediate" information between a primary source and the audience. The principle being proposed here would seem to also exclude all other types of secondary sources, such as encyclopedias, treatises, literature reviews, and so on. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 20:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

No, I think those should be included under the new policy. I think the misunderstanding might have ocurred because I don't know the WP use of the terms primary and secondary source and as such did not express my ideas as precisely as I might have. 191.114.135.66 (talk) 21:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Those aren't WP exclusive terms, a basic fact I would expect anyone able to converse intelligently on the subject of media bias and epistemology (or a half dozen other subjects) to know. But then, this is a remarkably poorly thought-out proposal, so perhaps I shouldn't be surprised.

For your edification:

• When I post to my blog that I've done experiments proving that a teapot orbits the earth and present my results: That is a primary source.
• When a newspaper writes a story about my blog post and experiments; That is a secondary source.
• When Encyclopedia Britannica uses that news story and a dozen others to put together an entry on the "Earth-Orbiting Teapot"; That is a tertiary source.

I hope this helps. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I actually am familiar the distinction you present, I just haven't been associating those specific terms with it. What you call primary source I would simply call a source (where the information comes from). Secondary and tertiary source would both be a medium (only transmits information, does not discover or discern it). On a purely epistemological level, I don't think the latter two differ. Only in terms of organising and presenting information. Anyways, I will try and add them to my vocabulary. Using them probably would have made my proposal a bit clearer. About the second part of your comment, simply stating that it's poorly thought-out is not very helpful. It would be very kind of you if you could detail what it lacks, why and how one might go about improving it. 191.114.136.128 (talk) 04:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, at least the proposal acknowledges that wp:RS and an actually reliable source are often not the same thing. But a retreat that simply acknowledges that isn't enough....Wikipedia needs actually reliable sources. IMO the Rosetta stone is a three part fix. First add that that expertise and objectivity with respect to the item which cited it are additional measures of degree of reliability and strength of sourcing. Next is to acknowledge that reliability / strength of sourcing is a matter of degree, not some simpleton black/white ("RS or not") situation. Finally, modify wp:ver to say that the more contentious the claim, the stronger the souring needs to be. And vice versa. North8000 (talk) 00:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Speaking to your final point WP:V already says exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Perhaps that's not quite what you had in mind; if so, please elaborate. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)