Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources

1970s earthquake damage and reconstruction

I was a student there from 1969 until 1973, and my brother was through 1975. During that time there was no earthquakes and no construction was taking place on the campus. If this was happening it was after 1975. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.166.6.147 (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

What article are you talking about? Formerip (talk) 00:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2014

<!Jacoby's Premier Film. "the INVITED". Go to www.theinvitedmovie.com. website to view trailer and stream the feature film .st -->

23.117.33.105 (talk) 00:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Also, I have to think you meant to put this request on some other talk page. Regards, Older and ... well older (talk) 01:06, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Geofry lewis

Hello, I just wanted to add that Geoffry lewis of the movie "Every which way but loose" (juliet lewis' dad) was in a starsky and hutch episode. he played the gangster that kidnapped Hutch and hooked him on herion. Didnt see it in his bio. Thanks, Jimmy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.198.102.32 (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC - are newspaper headlines a reliable source per se?

Are newspaper headlines, in themselves, a "reliable source" as absolutely usable as the publication they appear in? 23:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Prior discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_75#Headlines

discussion

This query arises from a discussion in which one editor avers that

Headlines are subject to a newspaper's editorial control, just like article content, and thus equally reliable. To contend otherwise strikes me as a bizarre example of motivated reasoning, but I suppose you could take it up in a more suitable forum.

with regard to what would normally be considered a contentious claim where the headline is not absolutely congruent with the text of the article. I would note that headlines are not written by reporters as a rule, and that the intent of a headline is to "grab" readers, and IMO, often overstate the content of an article or, in many tabloid format papers, actually misrepresent the content of the article. The current New York Post has "Millennium Falcon Injures Harrison Ford", "Ireland Baldwin's bikini body advice: 'Get your cheeks sandy'", "Is the Earth going to be cooked on Friday the 13th" etc. Daily Mail " Nicole Brown Simpson's sister reveals her close bond with her 'happy' niece and nephew and how they never talk about their mother's murder." LA Times "Double standard when it comes to U.S. banks and foreign transactions ." Including even the highest ranked sources. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Sources must be used as a whole; passages, including headlines, must not be used in a way that misrepresents their meaning in context. This is why using abstracts as sources when one lacks access to the full source is unwise. If an editor only has access to a headline, not the associated article, the editor should not cite the source (unless the only point to be made is that the headline existed, and even that is skating on thin ice).

That said, I never read anything written by Collect before, but as a general pattern, when some one starts a discussion here complaining about another editor's interpretation of this guideline without providing a link to the discussion in question, the editor's characterization of the discussion is seldom accurate. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I linked to the specific pertinent discussion on the RS topic previously held - which is my basis for this RfC. And as I desired a general discussion (else I would have placed an RfC on that article talk p-age) I feared that a specific discussion might not result in a general consensus. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Headlines count as reliable for the purposes of the policy, but should be used with particular caution for the reasons stated. It is wrong to think of headlines as verboten, because there are circumstances where they can be useful. Sometimes it may be appropriate to actually quote a headline. There may be occasions where a headline includes information that is useful to the WP article but is not in the body of the source. For example, a headline might say "Head of Roman Catholic church visits Scunthorpe", whereas the body might refer to "The Pope" and "Francis". In that scenario, you still have a good source for the Pope being the head of the Roman Catholic church (ignoring the issue of religion and self-identification if you dare). Formerip (talk) 00:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

It appears that Collect is quoting User:MastCell at Talk:Marco Rubio#headlines. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion which I find pertinent is the one I directly linked to "above the fold" here. Collect (talk) 01:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, thanks for the notification. My view is that headlines are subject to a newspaper's editorial oversight, just like the rest of the article, and thus they are similarly reliable. Of course, common sense is essential, and I'm not advocating using headlines misleadingly. I'm just opposed to the idea that headlines are completely unreliable. I mean, if we don't trust the accuracy of newspaper's headlines, why do we trust that newspaper at all? Collect makes my point for me, inadvertently; the New York Post and Daily Mail are notoriously poor sources, and their headlines are unsurprisingly no more reliable than the rest of their content. MastCell ^Talk 01:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The headline writer may not be the reporter, and in fact may be writing the headline based only on the information in the article. In a few cases (perhaps a bigger problem with webzines), the headline may be intentionally skewed, sort of like our April Fools' DYKs, but for normal newspapers, I would normally assume the headline was approximately accurate unless there was a good reason not to (e.g., it's in the Daily Mail ). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The answer to the question posed in the section title is imho a rather obvious No. This isn't really a question regarding what type of source is considered reliable, but how to use any source reliable or not to paraphrase or summarize it correctly. As already pointed out by other above, you can never simply (cherry-)pick a single line from a reference to source content in Wikipedia, you always need to consider the context of that line in the given reference to assure that you read that line correctly. Now the headline is nothing but a single line from a reference, if you cannot access the article it belongs to or at least its abstract, you cannot use it for sourcing. If you have access however there is no need to argue with a headline, but you can use the abstract or the article itself. If you have trouble to access the actual article or its abstract of a given headline, you can use Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request or resort to alternative sources. In any case just taking/providing a mere headline as a source is not acceptable.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS I would say that headlines from reliable sources are reliable but always err on the side of context. By this I mean that if a headline reads "Why Successful People are Douchebags" but then goes on to say that they really aren't (Not a hypothetical), then contextual common sense should prevail. SueDonem (talk) 19:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

No! I do have some experience of working with journalists & cannot see any benefit whatsoever in relying on the headline which is simply intended to be very short but eye catching. Any self respecting wp:npov editor will read the whole article and summarise it, including anything any criticised party said in their defence. A simple headline will not suffice. An unintentionally humorous (but very rude) example of a misleading headline was given by the late Fritz Spiegl who as a teenager was shocked by a post D-Day WW2 headline "British push bottles up Germans." JRPG (talk) 19:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

LOL! Ha! Yes, indeed, this is another reason why WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Always use the entire article to provide context to the headline. SueDonem (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Headlines or titles are never reliable sources. In FormerIP's example, the source describes the pope's visit. We are always free to use synonyms for the pope, we do not need the same source to say he is "head of the Catholic Church." A headline in today's Toronto Star" is "Geese gone wild. Why Canada's most loathed icon is a hazard." So we could use it is a source to say Canada geese were not always wild, people hate them and they are inherently hazardous. TFD (talk) 19:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Headlines, titles, and subheadings are never reliable unless, in fact, they reflect the actual content of the article or (sometimes) are written by the author of the article. Headlines represent the opinion of headline-writers as to how titillating they can make the headline without it becoming libelous. Titles and subheadings are sometimes written with the intent to inform, but there is rarely a way to be sure. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Chain of authority

This extends from a specific case but its a more general question and assumed to be outside the bounds of anything to do with BLP:

Nominally reliable source X, for an article, cites a unreliable source Y for a claim Y makes about information that otherwise cannot be verified or corroborated, and nor that Y is a primary/first-party source for. Should we consider this information, as presented by X, reliable?

I've argued that there's a "chain of authority" problem here, with Y's presence being what makes the information unreliable and would fall under rumor/speculation, but others are trying to claim that X's publication automatically makes the information reliable. But I can't point to anything in policy that decides this either way, outside of the fact that such a case, for BLP, would clearly be disallowed. --MASEM (t) 00:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by "unreliable". The common meaning would be that, in the past, the source has frequently provided information that turned out to be wrong, or that there are other reasons to consider the source to be less reliable than average. A different meaning would be that the source does not meet the criteria in this guideline for a reliable source.

If the latter is what you mean, they you have to consider whether X has information about the reliability of Y that has not been published. Maybe Y is a personal friend of a reporter at X. If you can demonstrate that X in New York City read the web page of Y who lives in Yamato Province, and there is no good reason to think that anyone at X is personally acquainted with Y, then I'd tent to be worried about the chain of authority. But I'm not willing to say, in general, that every link in the chain of authority must meet the WP:IRS criteria. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The question might be clearer if I state is as this: Unreliable Y makes a statement, and reliable X re-iterates that statement later citing Y. We'd never allow Y's statement, standalone, as a reliable source for contested information, but does putting that same statement through X, without any additional checking, suddenly make it reliable? --MASEM (t) 00:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Just how exactly do you know that no additional checking has been done? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not even sure that it would be disallowed for a BLP. Imagine that The Times cites Robert Rumor for an assertion that Polly Titian is not expected to run for re-election next year. If that's uncontested, why wouldn't we accept that (attributing it inline appropriately to Robert Rumor, or at least "According to one source")?

We never consider personal communication to be reliable ("I saw Karp in the elevator, and he said..." is not verifiable), but we routinely accept it in sources.

Reliable sources aren't required to cite their sources. It doesn't make sense to accept a source with zero citations at face value, and then say that if exactly the same source were printed with a list of its sources, we'd start picking it apart based on whether we happen to approve of its sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

In the rumor case, we specifically discourage rumor-mongering, even if we can name the entity propagating the rumor.

In the second para, I did try to clarify that we're not talking about the case about Y reporting on information that they should be privy to; if a senior aide for a government official says the official plans to run for re-election, that's reasonable to understand where the information came from. In the case of interest, the party Y should not have privy to the information they are claiming. --MASEM (t) 00:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

There can be no one-size-fits-all answer. If Y says "According to X, Mr. Smith ran naked through Hyde Park, but X has been known to make ridiculous statements in the past" then the statement is no reliable as to the run than if it had not been mentioned by Y. On the other hand, if Y decides that self-published website X should be regarded as a reliable source because it has been cited in dozens of papers in scientific journals, we should regard Y's statement, borrowed from X, as reliable, even WP:IRS does not consider citation by reliable sources to be a method to turn a self-published source into a reliable source. This is because Y is not bound by WP:IRS. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Should not"? As in, the information may have been illegally obtained, or only that you can't think of any reason why Y would know this? And more relevantly, is this contradicted or addressed by anyone else? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

In the specific, the information Y published was claimed to be from a yet-on-the-street publication. --MASEM (t) 02:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Let me ask the question a different way, as I can see the way I asked begs a case-by-case interpretion. More specifically, is the claim "if an article is published by a reliable source, that article must be reliable" a truism? The statements above say, no, you have to consider the case-by-case, but I'm running into people that think that being published by X automatically blesses the material as reliable for inclusion. --MASEM (t) 02:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

If Y is a normally reliable publication, and makes a statement with its own voice, then the statement is normally reliable. The fact that there is a footnote, or equivalent, mentioning that the information came from X does not change this. But if Y gives the information from X in a manner suggesting the information is doubtful or not fully vetted, then the information might not be reliable. Of course, information in usually reliable sources can be refuted if contradicted by other reliable sources. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Is "if an article is published by a reliable source, that article must be reliable" a truism? Of course not. Three words... Dewey Defeats Truman)... We know that the Chicago Tribune got that specific story wrong. Dewey did not in fact defeat Truman. The fact that the Tribune (an otherwise reliable source) reported that he did does not automatically "bless" the material. However, the fact that the Tribune got that story wrong does not make the paper unreliable for all the other stories printed in that day's edition. Blueboar (talk) 11:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The answer to Masem's question is "yes", in general, it is reliable. That's one of the ways we protect againt editor bias. The author and the publication have sufficiently put thier reputation on the line - unlike Wikipedians. But then you go on and ask NPOV and OR questions, like: what do other sources say, do they confirm, refute, or put the "fact" in a different light? Is it the only source etc? Then you consider policy specific concerns, eg. BLP. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC - Do we need a new section on state owned and/or operated news agencies? Are they excluded from RS?

A number of editors have been asserting on thread at RS/N that Russia Today and the Voice of Russia, which are owned or operated by the government of Russia are not RS in an attempt to make a blanket dismissal of the source, preventing its use on Wikipedia for any purpose.

In light of the sprawling thread at the RS/N Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Russia_Today, which appears to involve a lot of contentious assertions not related to the Guideline, it seems that an RfC is needed to prevent the consensus building procedure at RS/N from being impeded for the same reasons.

Aside from the general section on News organizations, the section on Biased or opinionated sources

Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking.

the section on Context matters

The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication.

and the section on Questionable sources

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited.

Biased or opinionated sources
Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.
While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking.

would seem to be relevant passages from the Guideline to this RfC.

It has been established, for example, that RT has a well-established reputation for fact checking on a par with many RS news organizations, and the opposite having no editorial control, the claim is that they have excessive editorial control, making them biased.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 00:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion (state-owned)

I might say something like state owned news agencies are in general reliable but care should be taken when dealing with content from such agencies which directly relates to controversial matters involving that state. The same sort of provisions to my mind should also apply to Xinhua and other state organs even the Voice of America and BBC. John Carter (talk) 01:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with John Carter. There is no such thing as a source that is 100% unreliable for absolutely all possible statements (or one that is 100% reliable, either). Biased reliable sources are still reliable. How and when you use such sources is mostly a matter for WP:NPOV. In terms of state-owned news outlets, I'd normally accept their statements for simple or uncontested facts ("Polly Politician gave a speech on the economy today") but for things that were contested, then WP:INTEXT attribution would be appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

First, this RfC is misfiled, and essentially illegitimate. The relevant guideline, WP:RFC, states: "Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue in the talk page section. Ubikwit's statement with the RfC is neither "brief" nor "neutral". Indeed it contains bad faithed misrepresentations and falsehoods. For example the claim "It has been established, for example, that RT has a on a par with many RS news organizations" is complete nonsense. No such thing has been established; note the link provided is to RT itself, WP:SPS applies, and there's oodles and oodles of editors at WP:RSN trying to get it through to Ubikwit, that no, that is not the case. Basically this is a figment of Ubikwit's imagination.

Another example: "which appears to involve a lot of purely ideologically contentious assertions without addressing the Guideline". This is just a sneaky way of saying "everyone who disagrees with me is just ideologically contentious, while I am the bearer of the one pure truth!". See But I know the truth! . The statement is actually true, but not in the way that Ubikwit things. Taking a long look in the mirror would be useful.

And so on.

This is getting extremely tiresome. This is just another one of Ubikwit's unending and tedious attempts to force his way down Wikipedia's throat by continous WP:FORUMSHOPPING. They didn't get his way at the article on Victoria Nuland. They didn't get his way at WP:BLPN the first time. They didn't get his way at WP:AN/I the first time. They didn't get his way at WP:SPI. They didn't get his way at WP:3RR. They didn't get his He didn't get his way at WP:RSN the first time. They didn't get his way on the talk page of another article. They didn't get his way at WP:AN/I the second time. They didn't get his way posting to an open ArbCom case after the Evidence stage passed. They didn't get his way canvassing admins on their talk pages. They didn't get their way at WP:AN/I the third time. And now... they're not getting their way at WP:RSN the second time. Hence, this attempt to change the guideline to favor one's own position.

This is ridiculous, insane, tiresome, exhausting and time wasting.

At the very least someone please reformat the RfC filing so that it conforms to the actual guidelines at WP:RFC by removing all the WP:BATTLEGROUND language and false assertions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

An RfC is part of the dispute resolution process. I have defined the dispute with respect to which this RfC has been filed in a brief and neutral a manner, with a link to an ongoing RS/N discussion specifically about one such news media outlet, with this RfC addressing all state owned/operated news media outlets.

If you have a problem with the conduct involved with filing the RfC, I suggest you bring that up in the propoer forum and not disrupt the RfC with such tendentious interjections.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 06:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, an RfC is a part of the dispute resolution process when it is filed properly and in good faith. This RfC is neither! It's just more WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:FORUMSHOPPING.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• What is this RFC for? Of course some news agencies are more reliable than others. State control is not black and white, there is a wide spectrum, some governments interfere more than others in the press, some governments use tame media to spread propaganda, some don't. 109.94.137.1 (talk) 11:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

This is an "RfC of the Absurd" (apologies to Samuel Beckett). It is ill-framed and argumentative. The point is that RT is likely usable for some statements of fact, but where it delves into "opinion" it can only be used with proper ascription of such opinions. It is absolutely not RS for everything it prints, but it is RS for some things it prints, and editors are supposed to figure out the difference. The discussion at RS/N is clear, despite the argumentation about other sources -- the only proper issue at RS/N is the specific source in the context of the claim it is being used to support and the fact that it is now Wikipedia's "War and Peace" is not a reason for this RfC, it is a reason to tell the people there that without specifying the claim, no one will ever make an up-or-down decision on much of anything, and the fact it is full of personal attacks is to the shame of those making them. Cheers and Basta! already. Collect (talk) 11:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Some parts of your comment are productive, other parts less so. Why are you trying to impede the progress of this RfC? The discussion at the RfC is anything but clear, and there is no mechanism for determining consensus there, which perpetuates the recurrence of this problem at that board; thus, an RfC! --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

This statement ("It has been established, for example, that RT has a well-established reputation for fact checking on a par with many RS news organizations...") alone should raise serious concerns as to the intent and motivation of the user who is filing this RfC. Limestoneforest (talk) 11:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The comments above by JohnCarter and Whatamidoing have it about right. I think, though, that this has become a serious energy-sink, and adding something clearer to the guideline would be appropriate. I would tentatively suggest something like:

Bias in a source is never a reason to consider it unreliable per se, but consideration should be given to whether a potentially biased source's coverage of a particular event or issue might be slanted or overblown, to such an extent that it should be either excluded or balanced using other sourcing.

Perhaps adding "without prejudice to the guidance set out at WP:FRINGE". Formerip (talk) 11:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this issue has become a serious energy sink, and that is largely the reason for referencing the present thread at RS/N. I think that your suggested addition to the guideline is a good start, let's see what others have to contribute in the way of concrete proposals.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't love that language because bias in a source is often a good reason to consider it unreliable. An example might be WorldNetDaily, which meets the basic qualifications for a "reliable source," but is so biased and out there that we should never, ever use it. Keeping this on topic with state-run media, there's a strong difference between RT and the BBC, for example. The BBC has a good reputation, RT is effectively the government arm of the media in a nation with basically no press freedom. We should be looking at this case by case, yes, but at some point we need to be able to say a source is simply not going to be used here because of the context in which it exists, and RT is an excellent example of this. We're mostly smart people here: if we can't figure out which nations have propaganda arms for media, we have bigger problems to deal with. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree, and I think this is the nub of the problem. There will be instances where RT is reliable and instances where it isn't. Why, for example, should this not be considered a reliable source for our article on polygamy? Isn't it a total waste of everyone's time to be dealing with the issue of people just blindly deleting material sourced to RT?

I'm not a regular reader of World Net Daily, but would I be right in supposing that the reasons why it might not be reliable are to do with its lack of reputation for accuracy, rather than its bias per se? Formerip (talk) 12:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd throw it back at you: given RT's reputation, why should it be considered a reliable source? I don't think it's a waste of time at all to be policing articles for poor use of sources. If RT cannot be trusted to give good information, and there are other sources that provide information on the topic, we should be encouraging the latter usage. Trying to carve out exemptions is exactly why we're forced to have this discussion. Like WND, RT does not have a reputation for accuracy because of its biases: WND lets its right wing ideology stand in the way of accuracy, RT lets it state-sponsored propaganda stand in its way. Why are we even entertaining its usage? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the essay WP:Source pH has it pretty close. Collect (talk) 12:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thargor Orlando, it sounds like you want to reject government-controlled "propaganda" outlets. The thing is, we accept government-controlled sources. Really: press conferences by politicians? Reliable. Government websites? Reliable. Government reports? Reliable. Take a look at the /FAQ: there is no type of published source that is absolutely unreliable for all possible purposes. So if we accept direct government publications as being reliable (for some purposes), then why wouldn't we accept 'indirect' government publications as being reliable (for some purposes)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Context matters, @WhatamIdoing:. When a government source is presenting itself as independent, there's a problem that doesn't exist with, say, a government report or a political press conference. Equating RT with a press conference isn't sensible. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I agree that context matters, but we use that phrase to mean that whether a source is reliable depends on the exact statement that you're making, not that the source's marketing position matters.

I have no reason to believe that state-owned media is "presenting itself as independent" in any effective or meaningful sense, and certainly not any more than any other news outlet can be independent of its owners. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

John Carter and WhatamIdoing are mostly right, but the reality is more complex. For instance imho there is a huge difference between Voice of America and the BBC, though both are state funded in a way. To see the difference you have to look of the history of their reporting, their reputation, their detailed legal set up, reviews by others, etc. . It also depends on the nature of the government they operate under, a stated funded media in totalitarian or semi-totalitarian system tends to be different from state owned in a democratic state with a free press. Similarly being privately owned does by no means guarantee accuracy or reliability in reporting, just consider various yellow press outlets or Fox. There is simply no easy answer to this question, all news outlets can have issues and hence need to be treated with caution in general, however by no means this implies that the overall (reputation for) reliability or accuracy is the same for all. Overall reliability is a scale rather binary categorizations. There outlets that overall tend to be more accurate than others, but that doesn't mean they are necessarily so on a specific issue. Context and conflict of interest matter here as well, which may exist for some topics but not for others.

The suggested wording is imho maybe a bit problematic as "balanced by another source" seems to suggest we simply tell both sides (no matter the reliability of each side) and that is exactly what an encyclopedia should not do. We simply do not give equal footing to evolution and creationism in our science articles (for the sake of balancing sources or describing "both sides"). Similarly we should stay away of seeing something (solely) in a US (mainstream) media versus RT setting or framework. This for one ignores often significant differences within the US mainstream media itself and particular problematic issues of RT. But more importantly it suggests that there are only 2 sides to an issue and that there is no reporting by other media than US mainstream and RT (I mean please ...). Always use several sources on contentious issues and select them carefully considering a variety of criteria and common sense. Avoid simply picking 2 questionable sources to describe "both sides" and each based on a questionable source (that is being questionable in the given context).--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

FWIW I only named those two as examples of state media from Western countries. I freely acknowledge that the BBC is in general much more highly regarded. John Carter (talk) 20:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is an issue that disappears if we change "another source" to "other sourcing". Formerip (talk) 13:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

@Kmhkmh: The guideline only refers to "reputation for fact checking", not "the overall (reputation for) reliability or accuracy", which is far broader in scope.

Also, with respect to any edits, WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT always apply, as they are essential to maintaining the balance of POVs represented in RS to produce NPOV content.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC).

I don't believe we need a separate section for state owned and/or operated news agencies, but I do believe we need to clarify the existing one a bit. A suggestion to the first paragraph:

Change from:

News organizations News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. Most newspapers reprint items from news agencies such as BBC News, Reuters, Agence France-Presse or the Associated Press, which are responsible for the accuracy. The agency should be cited in addition to the newspaper that reprinted it.

to:

News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. Even though all news organizations sometimes make errors, factual reporting from well-established news organizations is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact. Factual reporting from less-established news organizations is generally considered less reliable. Most newspapers reprint items from news agencies such as Reuters, which are responsible for the accuracy. The agency should be cited in addition to the newspaper that reprinted it, as in this reference.

Changed:

• Used News organizations instead of outlets for clarification.
• Used a clear language (if my english is bad, feel free to fix it).
• Do not list the agencies. One example is enough to get the point. Some users believe this excludes agencies that are not listed.
• Include a correct use of the Cite News Template as an example.

Erlbaeko (talk) 19:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

No offense, but i kinda had to laugh reading this one. I guess after changes the policy according to you suggestion, you then intend to go back to the other discussion claiming RT is a "well established" news organization.

So to be clear I consider your suggestion as unacceptable, in particular the removal of the examples that outline what the policy had in mind. More importantly it simply ignores all the factors for assessing reliability that were mentioned in the various discussion regarding this issue.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

No offense, but since you mention it. The direct cause of that change is this edit. I guess some users agree with you. I don't. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it will help. Also, using citation templates is optional. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe not much, but it is only ment to clarifiy the first paragraph a bit. It is not meant to solve the whole problem. Erlbaeko (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

@Kmhkmh: I can't see I have removed anything other than the list of agencies. What do you mean with removing "factors for assessing reliability"? And also, can you clarify what you mean with "outline what the policy had in mind" with regards to the list of agencies in the News organizations section of the guideline? Erlbaeko (talk) 13:35, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• This discussion came out of the one about Russia Today on RSN here. In that discussion some sought to show that Russia Today is essentially equivalent to other government news agencies like the BBC and thus RT suffers no more from bias than the BBC. However RT goes beyond just mere bias, they actually fabricate stories to push their agenda, and have be caught out doing so here and here. This article[1] discusses the way RT fabricates stories, which has led to high staff turnover by journalists who are confronted with the way RT operates. This proposal by Ubikwit seems essentially an attempt to lend legitimacy to RT by equating it to highly regarded government news agencies like the BBC or VoA. --Nug (talk) 01:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I agree with Collect; the argument as phrased by Ubikwit doesn't really exist. The Reliable Sources Noticeboard was never about calling Russia Today/RT not reliable for anything, that's a straw man that Ubikwit is creating, no one holds that position. It was about whether it is equally reliable with non-state-controlled newspapers and media outlets. If someone wants to discuss that, fine, but then the question should be phrased that way, not the way that no one is backing. --GRuban (talk) 02:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Fyi, the OP of the Is RT considered a RS? discussion holds that position, or at least he did a couple of month ago. Ref. diff. Erlbaeko (talk) 05:17, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

@GRuban: I disagree. There a a number of people trying to complete relegate RT as non-RS in that thread (and a previous one to which I linked), and at least two (Thargor Orlando, Nug) here on this thread thus far. This RfC is framed to address the overarching issue of state owned/operated media in general in part to avoid such a narrow particularist focus. The RS/N thread is highly representative of the "energy sink" problem that needs to be addressed. Here is a comment left at that thread by Erlbaeko

Echo that. ;) Is there a way to establish a consensus on this issue? I am slightly fed up of users undoing revisions with a short "RT is not an RS." comment. Erlbaeko (talk) 09:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[my emphasis]

And here is a link to a revert by User:Volunteer Marek (see his first post above in this thread) deleting a quote attributed to the Russian PM in Voice of Russia that used exactly the same sort of completely dismissive edit summary VoR is not reliable..., and which led me to start the [[earlier RS/N thread] with respect to which I asked you to comment and you replied [here], arriving at a diametrically opposite conclusion to VM.

@Nug: You cite sensationalist sources like Buzzfeed and Gawker and a Ukraine news service to make claims about mistakes the likes of which @Viriditas: has pointed out in some detail on the RS/N thread. But let me just add one here related to fact checking and sensationalist reporting in the West. That would be the case of the blog cited by many Western news outlets at the beginning of the crisis in Syria, a fabricated blog by an American and his wife living in Scotland A gay girl in Damascus, such as this piece from the Guardian.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:22, 07:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

A news agency's journalists being duped by a source that fabricated some story, as in the case of the Guardian you cite, isn't the same as a news agency actually coercing journalists to knowingly fabricate a story regardless of what a actually source says, as happens in the case of RT. There is no equivalence here. --Nug (talk) 07:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's put it another way. Poor fact checking by numerous Western news media outlets led them to use a fabricated online blog as a source that served as a major portion of the coverage of the biggest armed conflict in the world at present.

You haven't substantiated your allegations about RT, either, and it is basically irrelevant, because Wikipedia uses such sources until their reporting in any given article is revealed to contain factual inaccuracies.

That is the same for all "News organizations", as far as I can tell from the Guideline.

The assertion that Western news organizations are acting in good faith and therefore deserve to have the option to make recourse to plausible deniability when they fail, whereas RT and other state-controlled news organizations are conspiratorially criminal disinformation organizations that are going to deceive Wikipedia editors and the reading public and therefore should be banned from use on Wikipedia embodies a conspiracy theory that doesn't stand up to the light of reason.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 08:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Your repeated hyperbolic misrepresentation of what other people are actually arguing and constant attempt to frame the issue as a "west" versus Russia problem don't stand up to the light of reason.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid you lost me there. Please translate into plain English. What exactly do you mean by accusing me of repeated "hyperbolic misrepresentation"? WP:NPA.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 08:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

That was about as "plain English" as it can get. Perhaps you should get that wax out of your ears.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe Ubikwit is arguing very well, but I am sorry, I do not understand the phrase "hyperbolic misrepresentation" neither. Can you explain it? Erlbaeko (talk) 12:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

FWIW: Dictionaries generally include "exaggerated" as a definition for "hyperbolic" derived from "hyperbole." Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

arbitrary break

I think that the proposals above contain ideas that lead in the right direction, but I would think some more explicit statement(s) might be warranted to forestall the energy sink this issue causes. I think adding the underlined paragraph below might further the discussion. The Guideline already covers a portion of that in the "Biased and opinionated sources" section, so I've linked to that section in order to minimize overlap.

News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. Even though all news organizations sometimes make errors, factual reporting from well-established news organizations is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact. Factual reporting from less-established news organizations is generally considered less reliable.

Wikipedia does not distinguish between government controlled news sources and privately controlled news sources. As described in Biased and opinionated sources, bias does not make a source unreliable. Policies such as WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT play an important role in balancing the POVs represented in reliably published statements on a given subject.

Most newspapers reprint items from news agencies such as Reuters, which are responsible for the accuracy. The agency should be cited in addition to the newspaper that reprinted it, as in this reference.

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a bad idea to foreclose inquiry into a potential COI like that -- we should use independent sources where independence is called for. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it is accurate to characterize state owned/operated media outlets as having a COI. They do have an interest in ensuring that the POV of the government is disseminated, and that is a given.

The rise in the number of such English language news sources from countries like China and Russia is to help inform the reader in the West of the position of the respective government, as a balance against the POV presented in Western news media sources. Clearly that is in line with notions like internationalism and globalization. To equate such activity with a COI strikes me as off base.

One could go even further to question the characterization of "independence", because all news media in the West, for example, are dependent for advertising revenue for their very existence, so they have an editorial bias that favors the interest of their sponsors. That is a well-studied studied topic, and if you want to read a serious book that addresses the issue, see Jurgen Habermas' "The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere", for example.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course, state owned or operated media have a COI concerning the state, and your argument to the contrary is absurd, and then is refuted by your own second paragraph. As for "independence", that just means independent of the COI identified. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the point. There is a difference between a POV/BIAS and a COI defined in terms of the policy governing editor contributions to Wikipedia.

What does the POV/BIAS of a state owned operated news organization have to do with COI editing on Wikipedia?

I may be missing something, but it seems that you are trying to apply a COI editing policy for editors of Wikipedia to the journalism of a news organization. Perhaps I entertained that notion too much by discussing Habermas and advertising, but if you know of a specific COI policy that applies in the case of news organizations, please cite it. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 13:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

No. If I were discussing WP:COI, I would have referred to that. I am discussing COI. POV and Bias are effects of COI, and concerns regarding them arise from the appearance of COI. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

In that case, the concern seems to be misplaced. There is no corresponding Wikipedia policy.

Regarding the statement "POV and Bias are effects of COI", the introduction of COI into the equation is also inadmissible, because WP:BIASED address bias without reference to a COI. That is part of the Guideline under discussion here. Regarding bias in general, I suggest that you check the section Biased editing of the Wikipedia COI policy. Bias does not necessarily involve a COI, even when applied to Wikipedia editors, let alone professional journalists.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:00, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

No. All our editing policies require examination of sources in context. As to your second point. There is nothing "inadmissible" about it. The section you quote concerns "context" -- in this context, we are discussing state owned/operated media reporting on the state. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

All our editing policies?

It sounds like you are taking "context" on Wikipedia with respect to sourcing out of context with respect to the big picture.

The guideline context matters reads

The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.

That does not seem to admit to the application of a meta-analysis related to bias, for which there is a separate guideline, as a means to dismiss a source.

Rather, it seems geared toward a specific content and the applicability of the specific source to the specific content.

Meta analysis have their own problems, such as agenda driven bias. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The proposal is what's attempting to induce a meta-analysis: Wikipedia does not distinguish between government controlled news sources and privately controlled news sources. Of course, we distinguish sources by who published them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The proposal is a clarificatory statement, not an "attempt to induce" a meta-analysis. I see no where in policy where Wikipedia differentiates between state controlled news organizations and privately controlled news organizations. It is only in POV-pushing at RS/N, where there is no administrative mechanism for a determination of consensus, where the distinction has been made in an attempt to dismiss a source wholesale in order to eliminate the competition in a content dispute. The page listing awards and the like received by RT for excellence in journalism has already been linked to here, and the unsupported allegations otherwise being made about RT while media bias and error in the West is attributed to plausible deniability is another form of POV pushing.

In other words, the assertion that "we distinguish sources by who publishes them" is hollow without application to a specific source in a specific context. There is no list of sources that are reliable, only types of sources, one of which is "news organization".--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The proposal is poorly a worded way to avoid contextual analysis and to uncritically accept state propaganda and therefore should be rejected. Sure, it appears you have an agenda to bless a particular publication, RT, but this guideline is not about RT and guidelines should not be used to give RT some blessing you cannot get others to accept in your content dispute. Least of all in a way that exempts all state media. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If you say the proposal is poorly worded, and then give a reason without trying to make a new proposal, then it begins to look like it is you, not me that has the agenda.

There is nothing in the proposal that tries to "avoid contextual analysis", that is why BIASED, DUE and WEIGHT are included. Those trying to avoid contextual analysis are those that continue to try and dismiss RT (Xinhua, etc.) as not RS, but I digress.

You also accuse me of "uncritically accepting state propaganda, but I've done nothing of the sort, and you haven't produced a single incident of that, so your rhetorical flourishes are becoming personal attacks. Obviously you haven't taken the time to read either of the RS/N threads to which I've linked, yet you persist in making derogatory comments while pontificating on policy, yet resorting to ad hominems and being evasive when specifics are examined.

The title of the RfC, in case you missed it, states "state owned and/or operated news agencies", not solely RT, so your assertion that I'm trying to "bless RT" is not only groundless, it is yet another gross misrepresentation of what I've said. The content dispute I was involved in (earlier RS/N thread) has won support, basically, even from the people trying to deny it in that thread, because it was no more than an attributed quote of the Russian PM. I introduced that as an example of POV-pushers trying to dismiss a source wholesale in order to win a content dispute. The second RS/N thread was on a more general question related to RT being RS as a whole.

At least you could take the time to read what it is you purport to comment on so that you don't waste other editors' time.

WP:NOTFORUM, WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:NPA.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

You're the one who is not listening. I reject the proposal because it is vague, ambiguous and overboard, and contrary to WP:SOURCE. I did not accuse you of that, I accused the proposal. As for your apparent agenda with RT, it's because you keep bringing up RT, but the proposal is about all state media, so stop talking about RT, and it will no longer appear like you have an agenda with respect to RT. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

While I get what you are driving at, I don't think the formulation "Wikipedia does not distinguish between government controlled news sources and privately controlled news sources" really nails it, firstly because it suggests there are two types of news sources (the BBC, for instance is neither controlled by the government nor privately) and secondly because I'm not sure it is strictly true. There may be some circumstances where it would be right to make this distinction - the real issue is that the line of accountability of a news organisation is not a reason to reject it as a source. We could say something like: "In general, no news source is unusable merely on the basis of its governance structure or its accountability to an owner, organisation or government." Formerip (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

My response to FormerIP is "yes, but". I think it's a bit more complicated than that. For example, HP has a corporate news publication (a magazine). It's definitely not "unusable", but it should not be handled in exactly the same way that one would use an article from The Times, precisely because of its owner. I'm concerned that writing "it's not unusable" will be misunderstood as meaning "it's exactly as usable as any other source". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I tried to account for that by using the word "merely", but maybe it would be better to tag on something like what I suggested half a mile up the page: "Consideration should be given to whether a potentially biased source's coverage of a particular event or issue is slanted or overblown, to such an extent that it should be either excluded or balanced using other sourcing." Formerip (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that characterizations like "slanted or overblown", in themselves highly subjective, only beg the question as to whether or not a given reliably published POV meets WP:DUE, and if so, how much weight it deserves to present an NPOV text on a given issue. You don't exclude a piece because it is biased, you present the POV in context. It will obviously appear as biased if presented in an NPOV text when contextualized according to WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT. Wikipedia does not censor a given POV for being "biased" or "opinionated".--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

That's hitting the nail on the head and my main issue with various suggestions by Ubikwit, which always seems to drive towards "treat them all the same", i.e. treat new outlets like RT, Press TV or Xinhua exactly the same way as BBC, AP or Reuters. Exactly that is no-go from my perspective and be the analogon of your treating HP's magazine and The Times as the same in your example.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps that's worthy of a direct question: Ubikwit, imagine that I have two sources about, say, a senior Ukrainian politician. Both are long newspaper stories. Both are written by experienced journalists who specialize in Russia-related political news. One is published in The Times and the other is published in RT. They agree with each other on some points, disagree on other points, and each contains some information that the other doesn't (which is all pretty typical for two sources that are completely independent of each other).

How would you advise me to handle these sources? Should I treat both of these sources the same? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Insofar as there is no representation of fact that is considered to be a misrepresentation of fact in the RT article (or the Times article, for that matter), I would advise treating them both the same, as articles from well-established news organizations. Considering that it is unusual for a misrepresentation of fact to be discovered by a Wikipedia editor before a professional investigative journalist, that would basically equate with simply treating both sources the same, per "News organizations".

With regard to the overlapping material with respect to which both articles are in agreement, I would think that could be used with or without attribution as straight factual news reporting (it is likely that such reportage would be found elsewhere as well).

With respect to the points of difference, insofar as they meet DUE, I would cite them with inline attribution (as editorial material, basically) in accordance with the respective weight of each point of difference. Material contained in one source but not the other would have to be considered in context and attributed inline in the appropriate context. It might be the case that some of the material not included in one but included in the other was related to a point of difference, for example. In that case, it should be cited together when describing the point of difference as corroborative material.

Given your hypothetical scenario that both articles

"are written by experienced journalists who specialize in Russia-related political news",

I've assumed that WP:FRINGE and the like shouldn't be an issue.

It just dawned on me that one other point we might want to bear in mind that I would assume (not being an attorney) that RT, for example, operating out of Washington DC, is subject to the same laws governing journalism in the USA as the Washington Post, for example.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

RT America is Washington based, RT News however is not, it is Moscow based instead.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, fair enough.

One other point I should have made in response to WhatamIdoing's question was that with respect to WEIGHT, it might be the case that "The Times" statements should be slightly prioritized in terms of order of presentation or the like, as I assume that it would be a more "well-established" news organization than RT, which would still be a "well-established" news organization. The same would hold for assertions related to contentious issues, though I don't think such were included in the hypothetical.

In short, though I am not even that familiar with RT and don't read it regularly, some other editors have tried to equate it with FOX News. I'm inclined to think that FOX would be even more questionable on some topics, such as domestic politics in the USA, due to its highly partisan bias. The guideline does make a distinction between "well-established" and "less-established", a distinction that might become contentious at some point. I would think that sites like Buzzfeed and Gawker would definitely qualify as "less-established"--if they are considered "news organizations" at all--but perhaps it is harder to categorize news organizations like FOX and RT, which, though less established than the NYT, etc., are not exactly upstarts. I only raise this with respect to determining WEIGHT.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 13:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The equation of Fox to RT is really disingenuous. Fox, problems aside, is an independent reputable outlet with adherence to fact-checking and editorial standards. It may be biased to the right, but that does not change what it is any more than MSNBC being biased to the left doesn't change its existence as an independent reputable outlet with adherence to fact-checking and editorial standards. The problem with RT is that it is not an independent outlet, it is not considered reputable by the world in general, and it does not have any sort of journalistic standards it adheres to. That it has a United States bureau is irrelevant, as it's still run by the Russian government, a government that is not kind to press freedoms. If we want to contrast its biases, we should be looking at sources like Alternet and Truthout, which are ideologically similar and, while independent, suffer from the same lack of reputable journalistic standards and adherence to the facts. A right wing analogue might be WorldNetDaily or NewsMax, who have the same problems. RT is a poor source for any claims, controversial or not, because of its reputation. That's why we need to really consider whether we can identify it as reliable at all. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually while we probably agree with regard to RT, but I'd dispute that Fox is a "an independent reputable outlet with adherence to fact-checking and editorial standard". Similarly to RT there is quite an amount of evidence that suggest otherwise as far as reputation, fact checking and editorial (or journalistic) standards are concerned. It is of course independent of the government nevertheless. Whether that means that Fox is overall "as bad as" RT, I don't know, but personally I wouldn't touch neither RT nor Fox for contentious content.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

You can dispute it if you wish, but the facts won't be on your side. The difference, really, is that Fox isn't really reporting anything significant that other reputable agencies aren't. Meanwhile, RT is publishing whatever its government would like it to publish, much like WND or Truthout is going to publish what serves its agenda rather than what is actually happening. The "Fox or RT" debate is a distraction from the true issue of actually contentious sources. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the facts are on my side actually. The problem here however is the assessment and weighting of those facts. There are enough sources about tinkering at Fox which are rather similar Rosie Gray's article about RT at buzzfeed for instance. However I agree that the discussion is a bit of distraction. Personally I find it bad enough that some people might use Fox for contentious content, but I certainly don't want see RT being used that way as well now (nor down the road Press TV or Xinhua).--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

outdent

It's probably worth pointing out here that disputes over Fox News (which I point out encompasses more than a dozen separate shows, which need to be evaluated separately) is the primary reason that WP:BIASED was written. So if the argument is that RT and Fox News should both be rejected on grounds of political (or financial) bias, then the argument is invalid and against policy.

Based on the comments here, my view is developing like this:

RT is not unusable. (See the /FAQ: no published source is unusable, although some of them can be used only for nearly pointless statements, like "This source contains the following words".) RT can probably be used (like any normally reliable source) for statements of uncontentious facts, although if another, more generally accepted source is handy, then I'd choose that instead. RT can be used with INTEXT attribution for statements of opinion and for contentious facts. When RT represents a relevant minority POV (e.g., when it probably represents how the Russian government disagrees with the entire Western media about what Russia is saying or doing), it probably should be included, with an INTEXT attribution, to reduce the pro-Western systemic bias in our articles and provide a complete summary of all POVs per WP:NPOV. However, when RT differs from all other sources, and it's not really related to Russia, then it should probably be omitted.

This is fundamentally a question of DUE weight for the (semi-)official Russian POV, not just a question of reliability. The reliability issue is not "is it reliable for everything?", but "is it reliable for what it presents, which is the Russian POV on news and events". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: That seems like an accurate encapsulation of the issues.

Do you have any thoughts as to the wording of the Guideline?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 04:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

What about this?

I have included some text borrowed from the WP:5 page and changed the 2th paragraph a bit. I have also added some text to the 3th paragraph. The rest of the News organizations section is included unchanged to see it in context.

News organizations

News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. Even though all news organizations sometimes make errors, factual reporting from well-established news organizations is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact. Factual reporting from less-established news organizations is generally considered less reliable.

Wikipedia strive for articles that document and explain all major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their importance in an impartial tone. Even if some news sources may be biased, we does not distinguish between privately controlled news sources and government controlled news sources. As described in the section Biased and opinionated sources below, bias does not make a source unreliable. Policies such as WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT play an important role in balancing any article on Wikipedia.

Most newspapers reprint items from news agencies such as Reuters, which are responsible for the accuracy. If the article is a reprint, the agency should be cited in addition to the newspaper that reprinted it, as in this reference. If the article not is a reprint, the agency can be left blank as in this reference. It is recommended, but not mandatory to use the Cite news template when referring to news articles.

Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

• When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact. Reviews for books, movies, art, etc. can be opinion, summary or scholarly pieces.
• For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports. News reports may be acceptable depending on the context. Articles which deal in depth with specific studies, as a specialized article on science, are apt to be of more value than general articles which only tangentially deal with a topic. Frequently, although not always, such articles are written by specialist writers who may be cited by name.
• The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate. Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors.
• Some news organizations have used Wikipedia articles as a source for their work. Editors should therefore beware of circular sourcing.
• Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article will be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
• Some stories are republished or passed along by multiple news organizations. This is especially true for wire services such as the Associated Press. Each single story must only count as being one source.
• News organizations are not required to publish their editorial policy or editorial board online. Many major newspapers do not publish their editorial policies.
• One signal that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy is the publication of corrections.

I also believe the News organizations section should clarify the policy regarding questionable sources (with regards to news organizations). Erlbaeko (talk) 07:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• No. If there are so many problems with RT, why are we drafting a policy which makes no distinction between reliable independent news agencies and propaganda? 109.94.137.1 (talk) 10:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• I'm not sure that this will help. 109.94, the "problems with RT" appear to be in how editors are trying to use it, not with the reliability of the source itself. Erlbaeko, we do distinguish between reputable independent sources (news or otherwise) and non-independent sources (like government-controlled news outlets). Both can be reliable. Whether thy are reliable depends on what you're trying to say. RT is going to be reliable dor a statement like, "The Russian politician, Polly Politician, said that the Moon, being made of green cheese, is a strategic food resource for Russia." It would not be reliable for the statement, "The Moon is made of green cheese". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree to that. Do you have a concrete text to suggest? Maybe change the sentence "Even if some news sources may be biased, we does not distinguish between privately controlled news sources and government controlled news sources." a bit? Erlbaeko (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

But at least depending on the use/context we do distinguish between private and government controlled news outlets. I'm still not convinced that there is a need to change the current text at all, at least all suggestions so far are not really an improvement from my perspective.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing The statement above seemed a little more nuanced, but can you point to the passages where the distinction is made? I did find this essay Wikipedia:Independent_sources, but that is not a guideline/policy, and I am skeptical about applying it to nation states.

I'm not sure we need to go there, but considering that the same dispute about RT has apparently been recurring since 2009, the Guideline would seem to need some adjustment so as to forestall the rehashing of the same question. Introducing the distinction at the most general level seemed like a feasible route.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:Five pillars isn't a policy or guideline, either. WP:INDY is widely accepted. (See WP:PGE.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed this essay as well Wikipedia:Potentially_unreliable_sources#News_media.

I don't think it is helpful, as it contains statements of the sort to which the disputants that have been dismissing reliable articles and statements from RT have made recourse.

Evaluation of the source cannot be made on a meta-criteria in the case of state-controlled media, as it can in the case the tabloid press, which is not a "news organization".

I maintain that all "news organizations" should be treated equally, with more WEIGHT being given to more "well-established" news organizations, and minority opinions (i.e., that of their respective governments) expressed in state-controlled news media be cited with inline attribution where they meet DUE. We cannot have editors trying to win content disputes by repeatedly issuing the "RT not RS" edit summary, for example.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

If you're giving more weight to one than the other, then you are not (by definition) treating them equally. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

That's a given, but rests on the distinction between which source is more "well-established". In the case of newcomer sources in the USA, for example, say the Huffington Post, there could be a point of contention there.

At any rate, the focus should be on modifying the policy in a way so as to prevent the type of back-and-forth still ongoing at the RS/N thread (now in the "dead horse" section).

I don't see a problem keeping the distinction between "well-established" and "less-established", but it is probably the case that the guideline should emphasize that news organizations need to be evaluated almost exclusively on the basis of criteria such as the factual reporting to prevent POV-warriors from shouting "propaganda", etc., impeding the creation of content on relevant articles.

And I know I've said this before, but it bears repeating that editors have been arbitrarily deleting material such as the "moon is green cheese" attributed statements by Russian officials published in RT and VoR. This is not a trivial matter, and is different than the case of FOX, which seems to relate to financing (i.e., money and politics vis-a-vis the media) as opposed to state-control. One basically exists within the confines of domestic US politics, the other spans the globe and involves multiple news organizations outside the US.

It seems that a distinction has been posited here in relation to the fact that FOX and, Xinhua, for example, differ in that according to a Wikipedia essay, one is considered to be "independent", while the other is "state-controlled", and therefore not independent. I don't think it is possible to demonstrate that FOX is less biased than, for example RT, on the one hand, or more independent than, for example Xinhua. There are inherent systemic biases in both capitalist and communist systems with respect to new reporting. To the extent possible, Wikipedia needs to negotiate those with respect to the Guideline in a manner that prevents editorial strife and energy sinks that detract from content creation, while maintaining the integrity of content in relation to the sourcing. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I see the statement

Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (no potential for personal, financial, or political gain from the publication).

in the INDY essay, and I'm afraid that it simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny in many cases. Advertising and government connections often dictate news content in the United States. Viriditas has provided ample examples of that, and there is even a Wikipedia article on Media bias in the United States. Asserting that the essay is widely accepted doesn't convince me of anything. I pointed out the study by Habermas, and I am fairly well acquainted with the issues. It's almost equivalent of adopting a neo-liberal stance on the freedom of the press under capitalism.

For all intents and purposes on Wikipedia, there is a negligible difference between FOX and RT with respect to ideological presentation of news, and therefore of reliability. Accordingly, it is necessary that the Guideline be further adapted--as was the case regarding FOX, resulting in the addition of WP:BIASED--so that POV pushers ideologically aligned against RT can't arbitrarily prevent it from being used even for the types of statements with respect to which you have openly admitted RT is reliable.

From where I stand, it makes no sense for Wikipedia to discriminate between different types of bias with respect to news organizations, because DUE and WEIGHT enable COI discrepancies to be dealt with as such or at the very least be treated as minority viewpoints.

If there are no alternative wording proposals to the denial of a right to discriminate between so-called independent sources (like FOX, cough cough) and state-controlled sources, then I'm going to go back to work on that.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused. Do you think that the definition at INDY is wrong, or do you think that some sources that are commonly called independent by editors might not be truly independent? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The short answer to that is, 'yes'.

Aside from the advertising revenue angle analysed by Habermas, Chomsky has analyzed NYT editorials that relate to controversial US foreign policy (Iran-Contra 1980s), for example, and found basically a 100% bias toward the government position in all editorial content, which amounts to denying the public access to alternative, competing POVs that NYT not only new existed, but knew might be more factual than the US government version.

To a certain extent, that neutralizes the argument that "editorial independence" equals more reliable. The notion of editorial independence is feeble.I won't go so far as to say that the NYT is not more reliable than RT/VoR for factual reporting, but when it comes to issues that are important to the government of the USA, the NYT is to be trusted no more to represent the "truth" than RT is regarding issues that are important to Russia. In that regard, NYT is equally as biased as RT.

Regarding the "independence" vis-a-vis advertising "not dictating content" assertion in the INDY article, it is a prima facie error that there is no financial COI in relation to advertising revenue. The profit incentive is the basis of media business, not altruism. Profits come from providing the service of advertising, not from subscriptions, even if the subscribers are interested in the truth. That essay needs to be modified, but is not a prioty like this Guideline is.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so if the definition at INDY is wrong, then a publication can be 100% independent even if the advertisers dictate the content? I don't think so, but that seems to be what you're saying. Perhaps you meant to say something else, like "the definition at INDY is completely correct, but I don't think that any ad-accepting publication can meet that standard"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

proposal three

OK, here is a reworked working version, with the scope restricted to "News organizations".

News organizations

News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. Even though all news organizations sometimes make errors, factual reporting from well-established news organizations is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact. Factual reporting from less-established news organizations is generally considered less reliable.

Editorial control and a reputation for fact checking are primary in considering whether a news organization is a reliable source. For the purpose of identifying news organizations as reliable sources, Wikipedia does not distinguish between government-controlled and privately-controlled organizations.

For the purposes of presenting factual reporting in Wikipedia articles, precedence should be given to more “well-established” news organizations. State-controlled news organizations are always considered to be reliable for reporting of official statements and the government POV of the respective country of the news organization.

As described in Biased and opinionated sources, bias does not make a source unreliable. Policies such as WP:YESPOV and WP:DUE play an important role in helping editors balance the POVs represented in reliably published statements on a given subject in order to present the POVs in a neutral manner.

Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

Most newspapers reprint items from news agencies such as Reuters, which are responsible for the accuracy. The agency should be cited in addition to the newspaper that reprinted it, as in this reference.

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is now reaching the point where "tendentious" is an understatement. This discussion has been rehashed at great length, and no matter how many "proposals" you give, the result will be the same, so verb sap applies -- which is "stop beating a dead horse" as so many others have stated. Will someone hat this entire discussion, please? Collect (talk) 17:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure I like the sentence "Editorial control and a reputation for fact checking are primary in considering whether a news organization is a reliable source.". The policy states "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest.", but it also gives some examples. "Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion." I belive the sentense may be changed to something like:

Some news sources may have a poor reputation for fact checking. Such sources includes news sources expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or news source that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinions.

Erlbaeko (talk) 12:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

With regard to "Questionable sources", it seems that the only point that might apply to news organizations would be the potential for a COI. The difference between "independent" and "state-controlled" is purported to lie in "editorial independence", but that is a flimsy distinction that doesn't hold up well under the scrutiny of scholarship. Since news organizations without a reputation for fact checking aren't reliable, and editorial control is what prevents wildly inaccurate stories from being printed, I left out the COI part, as the so-called attribution of "editorial independence" is of questionable significance for Wikipedia's purposes.

Second, I can't think of any successful news organizations with a poor reputation for fact checking. Do you know of any?

Recall that state-controlled news organizations have very strong editorial control, making fact checking easier for them, to some extent.

I made an initial attempt at prioritizing "more well-established" news organizations for factual reporting, as it seems that generally speaking, on the English Wikipedia, we want to use RT/VoR for the POV of the Russian government or statements by Russian officials, not general news reporting. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I guess there are some tabloids in that category. I would prefer to prioritize "well-established" news organizations for factual reporting, and only use the more subjective "reputation for fact checking" to rule out some poor sources. Erlbaeko (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, but tabloids don't count as news organizations.

At any rate, I think we basically are aiming at the same objective, and we have a little time before the RfC closes, so let's keep brainstorming the wording.

Prioritizing "well-established" was intended to appease those that might fear the aim of the proposed wording was to displace standard sources with English language versions of state-controlled news sources. That's not the objective, obviously, but we need to account for the concern, which is valid.

I see the prioritization issue as secondary, however, to the question as to the establishment of reliability per se. The objective is to make it a violation of policy to issue a blanket dismissal of state-controlled news organizations as not RS.

So editorial control seems important. Fact checking is related to that, so we should be able to come up with a text that integrates these points.

I want to watch a little of the World Cup now!--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't know tabloids didn't count as news organizations.

I do see editorial control and fact checking as important. It is more the "reputation" part I find to be too subjective. It may be enough to replace "reputation" with "good routines" or something like that.

Regarding conflict of interest; I am not sure it should be included, but some news sources may have a potential conflict of interest. A possible text, mostly copied from Note 8 in the verifiability policy, may be: "A potential conflict of interest does not make a news source unreliable with regards to factual reporting, as a conflict of interest is not considered to be misconduct in research. The definition for misconduct is currently limited to fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism." Regards. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the term reputation seems problematic. I even mentioned it at the RS/N, but the point was that since it is qualified by "for fact checking", it's scope is limited to that. Also, there is the question of who assesses fact checking and how, and I guess that comes down to accuracy over the years. Viriditas provided this link in relation to RT, for example. Who would evaluate "good routines" would become another point of contention. One more point I see relates to the footnote. News organizations don't necessarily conduct research (except in some forms of investigative journalism), so the verifiability policy footnote may be geared at other types of publications. There was an editor above who raised the COI question, and it is raised on the INDY essay and I saw it one other place as well. I agree that we shouldn't introduce that because for our purposes, it is a nebulous characterization to make solely on the basis of whether the organization is commercially controlled or state controlled. State controlled news organizations are definitely reliable sources on Wikipedia for certain statements, such as the government POV and pronouncements/statements by government officials. I think if we minimize the scope to achieving that goal there might be a chance of success.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. Erlbaeko (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Tabloid news is still news. Also, gossip columns are "news", and they wouldn't be possible if fact-checking was enforced. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I see your point. There is nothing in the Guideline at present about tabloids.

At any rate, assuming that tabloids fall under the news organization umbrella, then there would be an area of overlap with "Questionable sources".

Any thoughts on whether a distinction should be made under "News organizations", or tabloids mentioned explicitly under "Questionable sources"?

Note that there were attempts to write RT off as a tabloid/"yellow journalism" in the RS/N thread.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 02:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

proposal 4

I've integrated some basic changes according to the preceding discussions, as per the underlined portions. I added a remark on tabloids that might necessitate making mention in the "Questionable sources" section if deemed appropriate.

News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. Even though all news organizations sometimes make errors, factual reporting from well-established news organizations is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact. Factual reporting from less-established news organizations is generally considered less reliable.

Editorial control and a reputation for fact checking are primary considerations in evaluating whether a news organization is a reliable source. For the purpose of identifying news organizations as reliable sources, Wikipedia does not distinguish between government-controlled and privately-controlled organizations.

As described in Biased and opinionated sources, bias does not make a source unreliable. Policies such as WP:YESPOV and WP:DUE play an important role in helping editors balance the POVs represented in reliably published statements on a given subject in order to present the POVs in a neutral manner.

For the purposes of presenting factual reporting in Wikipedia articles, precedence should be given to more “well-established” news organizations. State-controlled news organizations are generally considered to be reliable for attributed statements of government officials, the POV of the respective government, and uncontroversial statements, but should be used with caution in relation to controversial events as they unfold.

Unlike tabloids, state-controlled news organizations with a reputation for fact checking and editorial control are not considered to be questionable sources.

Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

Most newspapers reprint items from news agencies such as Reuters, which are responsible for the accuracy. The agency should be cited in addition to the newspaper that reprinted it, as in this reference.

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 08:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I fear you will not gain consensus here even at proposal 2001 with such a basis. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Even if not, it is a worthwhile exercise considering the energy sink that this issue represents. Someone else might revisist it later.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 13:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Translated scientific news are reliable?

Hello, I would like to ask a question about notability and reliability about a certain kind of newspaper articles.

On May 15, 2014, the world could read the following information: A potent dose of engineered measles virus has been shown for the first time to have completely wiped out a woman's cancer. The original news is posted in Mayo Clinic Proceedings (peer-reviewed scientific journal) here and then broadcasted by Agence France Presse and also by Reuters. And then, Gândul — one of the top 5 newspapers in Romania, translates the news as they get it from Agence France Presse into Romanian language and publishes it here. Instead of Gândul it can be Adevărul, Evenimentul zilei, or even BBC or LiveScience (without the translation thing, of course).

Now my question is: can I use the article published by Gândul as a reference to add the information (a woman was cured of cancer using a virus) in a Wikipedia article? Does such a translated article pass the notability and reliability test?

If I add the information on the ro:Cancer Wikipedia article, using the Gândul article, is it ok for someone else to suppress both the information and the reference with the justification that Gândul is not a reliable source? Because I think the information pass the notability test and, in the "worst" case, the reference should be replaced by the original article published in Mayo. I think the best solution is to just add the Mayo article as a reference, instead of replacing the Romanian reference? For the Romanian readers it's best to have a translated article too - at least that's what I think.

If I just notice the other editors about the information in this news article (the one in Gândul) in the ro:Cancer Wikipedia article talk page (ro:Discuție:Cancer), is it ok if someone else comes and deletes what I said there, based on the claim that Gândul is not a reliable source, and maybe even claiming that such news are junk? —  Ark25  (talk) 09:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Stay as close to the original souurce as possible. See Chinese whispers. 80.194.85.132 (talk) 10:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but while your advice is good, it doesn't answer to my specific questions. —  Ark25  (talk) 11:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

You need to ask questions about sourcing for Romanian Wikipedia on Romanian Wikipedia. Formerip (talk) 13:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

In this case please consider that instead of Gândul is BBC in english. Can I use the BBC articole, if BBC quotes AFP, wich in turn quotes Mayo? If BBC translates into English a news article from AFP which in turn quotes a French scientific peer reviewed journal, is it ok to use the BBC article as a reference? —  Ark25  (talk) 15:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be asking about what you can do on the one hand on en.wp and on the other about what you can do on ro.wp. Questions about en.wp are the only ones that can get properly answered here. The language of the source isn't the issue. Formerip (talk) 15:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Each language edition of Wikipedia sets its own rules. The Romanian Wikipedia rules might be very different from the English Wikipedia rules. We don't know what their rules are, so we can't tell you what's permitted there. If you want to know the Romanian rules, then you will need to ask the editors at the Romanian Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes I was wrong to ask a question about Romanian Wikipedia here on English Wikipedia. But I don't want to translate the English Wikipedia rules into rules for Romanian Wikipedia. I just want to know how such an issue would be handled here. Please forget about Romanian Wikipedia. So, Mayo publishes a study. Then AFP and Reuters broadcast it. And then a well known English language newspaper or site publishes that information - Daily Mail or Time.com.

If I add the information on the Cancer Wikipedia article (or into other related article, like for example Oncolytic_virus), using the Daily Mail (or Time.com) article as a reference, is it ok for someone else to suppress (i.e. remove) both the information and the reference with the justification that Daily Mail (or Time.com) is not a reliable source? Say the original information (in Mayo Clinic Proceedings) is in Spanish or French. Does it make any difference? And how about noticing the information on a talk page?

I already have such a discussion on the Romanian Wikipedia I just want to know how such cases would be treated on English Wikipedia, in order to learn something new. —  Ark25  (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes.

There are special rules for biomedical content, which are outlined at WP:MEDRS. One main reason for the restriction is that, with millions of sources available, it's very easy to cherry-pick sources that happen to agree with your personal ideas, or to give WP:UNDUE attention to whatever was in the news today.

Also, just for context, Daily Mail might be "well-known", but it's best known for being unreliable, especially for medicine-related content. One joke told about the Daily Mail is that its true purpose is to classify every known substance into something that either causes or cures cancer.[2] WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

But the information is notable since it's published in Mayo, isn't it? The Daily Mail article even points to the original research (The findings appear in the journal Mayo Clinic Proceedings). Isn't it just better to replace the reference instead of removing the information along with it's (Daily Mail) reference? My question is nothing about sources that agree with my ideas. In this cae we are talking just about using a re-published research originally presented in a secondary source (peer reviewed journal). I don't agree that negative temperatures can exist for example, but I think that the claims of achieving negative temperatures should be added into Wikipedia article(s), since it was published in a secondary source - [3] (and it's already added into Absolute zero#Negative temperatures). I am not for favoring information that "pleases" me or for suppressing information that I do not agree with. By the contrary, I am very much pro for highlighting the claims that I find strange, if they have notability. I am not editing Wikipedia in order to convey any „scientific ideology”. I am just for adding notable information, regardless of it being cool or stupid from my point of view.

And how about noticing the other editors about the information quoting Daily Mail in an article's talk page? Is it ok if someone else removes the discussion I start just because I quote Daily Mail? (My question is about particular cases like this one, not about any Daily Mail article). —  Ark25  (talk) 03:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

A peer-reviewed journal is not always a secondary source. A review article, which has nothing to do with peer review, is a secondary source. An academic article that publishes results from an experiment is a primary source.

I like "strange" findings, too. They just aren't always WP:DUE. If it's important, a review article will cover it later this year, and also give us the benefit of analyzing it and placing it in context. Then we can use the review article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

But then, how do I know if I may add the information or not? How do I know if it passes the notability and reliability criteria? You said not always - that means sometimes they are and sometimes they are not a secondary source. How can I be sure that the results published in this particular Mayo article are reliable source (secondary source) or not and how can I be sure that the article about negative temperature (which is also about an experiment) in the Nature journal is notable and reliable?

Trachea contains two references from CNN and BBC, which really do not look like they are coming from review articles. Vaginal transplantation contains references from NHS, USA Today and BBC - not exactly review articles. Why are they notable and reliable then? Or aren't they? —  Ark25  (talk) 03:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

An academic article that publishes a study is a primary source too? Or there's a significant difference between studies and experiments, which makes experiments primary and studies secondary source? —  Ark25  (talk) 04:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's try to address several of these points:

1. Any source (academic or not, peer-reviewed or not, any source at all) that is the first source to publish a piece of information (for example, the results from a clinical trial) is always a primary source.
2. An academic journal is permitted to publish primary sources. An academic journal is permitted to publish secondary sources. An academic journal is permitted to publish tertiary sources. To find out whether this article is primary, secondary, or tertiary, you need to look at this article, not at the whole journal.
3. Unless you are trying to create a whole article on the subject—unless you want to start a brand-new article called Effect of white bread consumption on obesity—then you do not care whether the paper is WP:Notable. "Notable" means "gets an entire article exclusively dedicated to that subject.
4. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a lousy reason to add poorly sourced material to an article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Nice explanations, thanks!

By the way, the statement you made An academic article (even peer-reviewed) that publishes results from an experiment is a primary source. should be included in this guide, I think. And the guide should also contain the definition of primary, secondary and tertiary sources, like WP:MEDRS does. It would make things much more clear for people like me.

Just for me to make an idea: how many of the academic journals (in percentage) in the USA or in the UK are peer-reviewed?

I will be very careful about medical topics, not to add information presented in primary sources into Wikipedia articles. In case of the Absolute zero#Negative temperatures article though, I would have added the information from the experiment presented in Nature, in order to present the claim of the scientists who made the experiment, and I would not have added the information as a scientific fact. How much is acceptable or unacceptable such an edit? Sorry to bother with so many questions. —  Ark25  (talk) 08:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Nearly all academic journals say they are peer-reviewed; most really do it. (A few have a fake "peer-review" system, like comments on blog posts.)

The primary/secondary/tertiary stuff is officially at WP:PRIMARY. I think that WP:USEPRIMARY and WP:Party and person are more practical.

Statements that they claim to have achieved a negative temperature are much easier to support than claims that it's a scientific fact. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing: I really think that your last sentence should be added to this guide, with a focus on non-medical science. It seems there are many editors who don't make the difference between adding claims of achievements into articles and adding statements of (generally accepted) scientific facts. They simply dislike any claim of scientific achievement that was not confirmed. Water-fuelled car is full of such claims and there is no problem to add them into an encyclopedia. —  Ark25  (talk) 08:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

What do other people think about this? Where would you all add this? It's related to the caption at WP:QUESTIONABLE, but I don't think that would be a good place for it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem with claims of achievement is imho, that very often they are simply not appropriate for an encyclopedia. They often fail notability as content (most individual claims are simply not notable, unless they received significant coverage by serious media) and are often abused by POV pushers, who blur the distinction to established knowledge for their own reasons.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the best place for that statement is in the section that talks about primary sources: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources - after the sentence rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. I changed my opinion: the focus should not be reduced to non-medical science. Just mention that more attention is needed on medical topics. If a notable singer like MiaoMiaoCiaoCiao claims he can fly, that claim can be mentioned into the article.

@Kmhkmh: The history of Science is full of claims and speculations that proved to be just speculations and WP has articles about them. Many (or most?) of them are notable or relevant. Some speculations were very important steps for the advancement of science, because they opened important debates and others had an effect of slowing the advancement of science. I agree that many of the fancy speculations and claims made today might not deserve attention. However, I, as a reader, I'm quite interested to know how many times (and especially since when there were) people claimed that they can transform led into gold, how many times the washing machines that don't need water or detergent were invented, and so on. Knowing such things makes me, every time when I hear such news, to feel less naive and makes me feel better prepared in front of all kind of future fancy claims. Where to draw the line, I don't really know. But honestly I prefer to know all of them, if possible. Maybe WP articles can have „Claims” sections? The talk page of each individual WP article should be used in order to discuss which claims deserve to be mentioned in the article. However, whenever I can, I mention such claims into talk pages of WP articles, although that makes more and more people to claim that I'm a spammer - en:Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#Adding external links to talk pages. —  Ark25  (talk) 23:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I will also consider about opening a new Wikia project dedicated to all kind of fancy claims :)

Anyways, the fact is that some of the fancy claims like those in the Water-fuelled car article can be added into WP articles and sometimes it's a very a good idea to mention them into encyclopedic articles. —  Ark25  (talk) 16:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Kmhkmh, unless you're trying to write an entire article about the claim, then it doesn't matter if it's WP:Notable. I have no problem with including claims (supported by an independent source) that something has been said or done. Statements like "XYZ, Inc said that they achieved suborbital flight in 2013 with their recoverable pigeon technology" or "Dierdre Doctor said she transplanted an appendix at Charity Hospital in 2014" doesn't need a gold-plated academic source behind it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of notable: Until 8 days ago when you made it clear to me, I was also calling "notable" the statements or sections that deserve to be part of articles. But notable is a term just for articles. By the way, many people make this confusion? What's the right term for statements/sections? Relevant? —  Ark25  (talk) 00:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Usually, people mean DUE, as in giving WP:DUE weight to appropriate encyclopedic information. But that's also jargon. Relevant is also a reasonable synonym. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Scientific research presented at a congress

I found the following information: Eating White Bread Puts You At A 40% Higher Risk Of Obesity: Study - the research was done by a team, Miguel Martinez-Gonzalez is one of the team members. The new study was presented in may 2014 at the European Congress on Obesity - [4] [5] The research was not published in a peer reviewed journal.

My question is: does such a study satisfy the notability and reliability criteria?

Is it ok to use a translation in another language (like this) of such a study as a reference in order to mention the information in a Wikipedia article?

If I mention the study in the talk page of the Obesity article, is it ok if someone else supresses it (removes) it on sight?

Thanks. —  Ark25  (talk) 11:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

It does not meet the WP:Notability criteria; therefore, we should not have an entire encyclopedia article about that study.

Obesity (a large and actively studied area) should be written based on WP:MEDRS-compliant secondary sources. This is a primary source and therefore should not be used. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, but how about the talk page? I think it's good to know that such study exist and to let others know about it. —  Ark25  (talk) 18:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

You can post a note about it on the talk page, but the only practical result will be editors telling you to wait until it's confirmed or rejected by secondary sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't speak to that particular conference, but conference proceedings are generally not reviewed; even for those conferences which have only invited presentations, the content of the presentation is not reviewed in advance, nor is any attempt at accuracy used in determining which presentations are published. I don't think they can be considered WP:RS except under WP:SPS, considering the expertise of the author(s), or if also published in (actually) peer-reviewed journals. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)