Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Indirect pushing of a POV through refs and quotes

Just read Sander's notes above here on how a quote from a well-known person talking about themselves - the Rachel Ray example - can be abused 'cause the irony or jokiness of the words cannot be WP sourced from another RS, so it gets used to make over-the-top or malicious statements here. The example is very good, it doesn't matter that it's a bit trivial, but it struck me that sometimes the point or the judgment which the editor wants to drive home is a bit more indirect. In The Lives of John Lennon Albert Goldman gave a portrait of Lennon that was both admiring on some counts and abrasive about many sides of the man. One of his allegations was that Lennon was a closet gay or bisexual, that he carried on a long affair with Brian Epstein and probably mixed with other men, sometimes indulged it, sometimes fought the impulses, and as a consequence at times he became homophobic. Goldman tried to make his case by people who recalled John Lennon getting physical, by references to things he'd said and so on. Now, anti-gay banter was an accepted part of talk back then, certainly between males, so it wouldn't have to mean that the guy was a hardline gay hater; clearly he embraced the ideas of sexual openness and toleration of his age, and for a few years he was one of the torch bearers of the hippie/sexual lib era. But Goldman wanted to use bio facts to show that Lennon was at least half gay himself, and in denial. This provoked a lot of angry reaction from fans at the time, in the late 1980s.

You might ask why that was sensitive. Lennon accepted gays and wanted to rid the world of the shutting-in of sexuality so why would this matter so much, when there's no suggestion that his wives were put off? But the point Goldman seems to be arguing with this (and other elements of his book) is that Lennon was dishonest and didn't speak the truth about himself (in interviews he made this explicit, more so than in the book). And the duty to speak the truth and not to make any difference between your public and private self was a cornerstone of the hippie/late 60s ethic; Lennon was closely identified with that attitude, more than most '60s rock stars.

So AG's POV - which could be supported after a fashion by quotes and then entered into WP on the strength of that Goldman, and those who repeat him, are reliable sources, isn't really about Lennon's sexuality but about a wider assessment of the man. And as such it would be almost impossible to refute or to describe as "just another opinion" because there would be no way to "source" the opposite. Lennon wasn't in the habit of saying "I am honest" and he clearly would never have said "I am not gay". Why should he when he didn't need to and when such a statement would seem very embarrassing or dumb at the time? This kind of thing is not that uncommon in debates today, because it can be very hard to hit back at that kind of flimsy allegation. /Strausszek (talk) 17:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

'Should not have an article on it' being used to argue for deletion, rather than improvement, of articles

if an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

This is really strong language and seems to be being used (for example) to argue for going straight to deletion on an article that lacks citations or has only minor media references (as might any topic on the sidelines of mainstream/pop culture). Are the authors of this guideline truly intending for it to be used as a basis to supercede the processes of flagging an article for notability and needing citations, and to encourage editors to go straight to arguing for deletion? Doesn't that, on the one hand, overload our queue of articles to consider for deletion with articles on notable topics that could be made worthy instead of deleted and, on the other hand, potentially discourage editors who put work into articles that they deem notable but may not have references of sufficient general recognizability to be considered "reliable" by other editors not familiar with the topic area? Netmouse (talk) 04:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If reliable sources cannot be found with reasonable effort, odds are the subject is not very notable. If it is notable after all, then its creators or proponents should be able to find reliable sources. The bottom line is that we need reliable sources to establish notability and if we can't find them, then the article does not belong here. Crum375 (talk) 04:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If a topic is notable but there are no reliable sources (not sure that this can ever happen, but let's pretend it's possible), it would be absurd to keep an empty article. The problem is that if we have no reliable sources there is nothing we can write without relying on unreliable sources or original research in the technical sense. Hans Adler 10:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I could not find "if an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plan 9 Publishing. Netmouse, please provide the exact words about which you are concerned.

However I've noticed "delete" votes being made without thorough discussion of whether there are sources that could be cited. WP:BEFORE requires a reasonable attempt to find sources. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plan 9 Publishing the nom Google and found nothing. The editor then listed some sources that show that Plan 9. This is a good example of how difficult it may be for an "outsider" to find the right sources, especially as the first 10 pages of anything on Google and other search engines are dominated by sales pages.

I'm not an all-out inclusionist, as far as I can see the great majority of articles at AfD are unredeemable. But this creates a trap - "delete" voters sometimes run on automatic, and are sometimes reluctant to recognise that someone may later had found a relevant sources. --Philcha (talk) 11:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Editors who "run on automatic" should be identified and persuaded to do otherwise, not used as straw men in arguments over notability AfDs (no offense).

As for the root problem, the simple fact is that notability is not some trap sprung on editors after they've taken the time to create an article: it's an important consideration which should be made clear when people are writing articles in the first place. I'm not a prolific article starter by any means, but when I do take the time to start one I first gather enough sources that I can be sure that the article isn't going to be PRODded by the first person who comes across it. Yes, this increases the burden of effort for people writing new pages, but in the end that effort is going to have to come from somewhere, and better that we ask it from people who are enthused anough about a subject to write an article on it than from J. Random Wikipedian who happens to stumble across an AfD. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Chris Cunningham (not at work). I'd agree that in an ideal world one should have a few sources ready, and I also have 2-4 ready even for a stub. However we all start as newbies and WP cannot alienate, other it will run out of editors in a few years time (the average working of an editor is about 3 years). We need a newbies guide that is concise, prioritised and practical, rather than the bureaucratese grey goo that WP generally hands out.

We also have a backlog problem. The average B-class article does not meets the current standards on WP:V and WP:N, and I suspect there plenty of problems in old GA and FA articles that have not have a reassessment in the last 2 years. --Philcha (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that we're losing articles

I think I'd better go away and get some proper references for the Floor article otherwise someone might delete it ;-) I have some problems with some quite everyday things where there is very little written down in books though there may be some websites about it. Floor cleaning is an example where there is a large body of knowledge but little written down, and as for any peer reviewing well um that's an interesting concept. Anoither problem that websites that actually do deal with things like this are in the main commercial websites pushing a product. Dmcq (talk) 12:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that that's a problem. Topics like floor or egg slicer should be notable regardless of the availability of sources. I guess that sources exist in most of these cases, but that they have very low circulation and are extremely hard to find. Moreover, these topics are uncontroversial and easily understood, so perhaps we should have an explicit exemption from WP:NOR and WP:RS for such articles? Hans Adler 16:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that such articles are actually being deleted. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not... NOR is a core policy and no article is exempt. RS is a key part of WP:V, another core policy. That said... remember that the threshold for inclusion is Verifiability, not actual Verification (unless challenged or likely to be challenged). In other words, as long as it is possible to cite reliable sources for a topic, the threshold has been met... for something like Floor or Egg slicer reliable sources do exist, even if none are currently cited. Blueboar (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed solution

This issue seems easy to resolve... just change the wording to:

• ...if no reliable sources can be provided for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

This removes the "no reliable sources are currently given" argument, and shifts it closer to "no reliable sources exist on this topic... at all". Blueboar (talk) 16:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

That would probably make the policy clearer to many people. This meaning is already what the policy already intends: "article topic" doesn't refer to the article itself, it refers to the topic (subject) about which the article is written. It is perfectly possible for there to be many sources on the article topic, but no sources provided in the article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Consider Location of Osama bin Laden. The subject is clearly notable, and the article covers in some matter that would likely not find a place in any other article - but is this really a topic where it is possible, today, to find and cite any reliable sources on his location - not for speculations about where he might be staying or whether he is dead? Much of the article is about news stories that seemed to indicate that he was alive at the date concerned but nothing precise is said about where he might be living. If the subject is his location, not "post-2001 rumours of bin Laden", then it really seems to fail when it comes to WP sourcing and verifiability. But in that respect it's not unique, and a hardline policy "don't bring up anything, anytime, where there are not hard, implacable facts stated as such in your sources" would sweep out many articles because many topics can't be described or discussed simply by a string of naked statements. /Strausszek (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you're approaching that one right. Location of Osama bin Laden is not, like, a nickname for Minneapolis or something: the article is more about the deduction of the place than the actual place itself. It is trivial to find reliable sources which cover the speculative process. Furthermore, it survived its sole AfD, so I don't think it's a good example of why we need to slacken our guidelines. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The key is that we should not include our own speculation on where Bin Ladin might be... instead, we should report on the speculations of reliable sources (the mainstream media, intelligence reports, etc.) and those we can (and should) cite. Blueboar (talk) 13:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Consultable PhD theses as RS, impact

Wotcher, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kairosis was deleted primarily because PhD theses were not RS, and couldn't establish Notability. I've informally requested an undeletion at User_talk:Mangojuice#Informal_deletion_review_of_Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FKairosis. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Jon Corzine

Is listed as the former governor of New Jersey. The article accurately states that he was defeated in his bid for re-election, his term has not yet expired, and he currently remains the governor of N.J. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.95.53 (talk) 23:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Change the article yourself or put that on its talk page. See WP:5P - be bold you can't destroy wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 23:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Using an image as an inline cite?

I hope I am in the right place and that someone has an answer. My problem is that in a particular article I have used an external link to an image of an item in a museum as an inline cite to verify its location. The image has clear written details that confirm what the item is but not where it is, the location is included in the file name however and clicking back one page shows a series of images taken at this museum with the name of the museum as a header. It has not been disputed but I suspect that it would be at WP:FAC. Is there a guideline on using images as a source? I have looked here (also through the archives of this page) and at WP:IMAGE and can not find anything for or against this. I would of course use a written, published source as a cite if I could find one, which I can not at the moment (only a forum link that led me to the image).

On a related thought, if you took your own similar photo, uploaded it to Commons and then placed it next to uncited text would this be acceptable or is that original research? I have seen discussions where an uncited fact has been questioned but an image next to the disputed text is clearly providing the answer. Many thanks. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I have a problem with using any image as a citation... they are far too easy to manipulate or misinterpret. Images can illustrate facts, but they can not verify or prove facts.

That said... I am also not sure if this is something that needs to be cited ... the statement that an item is located in a given museum does not strike me as being something that is "likely to be challenged". If it has been challenged, and you must provide a source, I would look for a written source such as a museum catelogue or a news article on the item that mentions where it is. Blueboar (talk) 14:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is not an ideal situation, I also agree that stating that a given object is in a certain location is not particularly contentious but it is my experience that we are moving towards a 'cite everything' culture and {{cn}} tags get added for the daftest things. The referencing requirement at WP:FAC is rightly strict, I am pre-empting a possible problem. A reader/article reviewer could ask 'is the item at the museum now'? If the image was taken some time ago or has no date stamp then I would have to say that I can't confirm it. With no apparent written reliable source available for the object I am thinking of I could travel to the museum myself and take a picture, this was the drift of my second paragraph, it appears that I would have a wasted journey though.

I might be trying to 'reinvent the wheel' but it does seem to me that there could be occasions where an image could confirm a fact that is difficult to find a written reference for. We could confirm for instance that the Boeing 777-300 has 12 main landing gear wheels using this image File:Emirates.b777-300.a6-emv.arp.jpg as it says 'Boeing 777-300' on the nose and clearly has 12 main wheels. Not a contentious fact, and probably written down somewhere but it illustrates the principle. True that images can be doctored, an editor doing that though to prove a point or cite an unreferenced fact would not be acting in good faith IMO. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying... but I still feel strongly that images should be used to illustrate, not to verify. Blueboar (talk) 15:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Well it's a thought that I've had for a while and I'm not advocating for a change in policy, just thought that there might be exceptional circumstances. The no-choice alternative to uncited but apparently otherwise obvious accurate information is to remove it from an article which I don't believe is particularly constructive. Another way to deal with the problem possibly is to link to the image in 'External links' but that could be construed as 'gaming the system.' It just occurred to me that people are often convicted or cleared in law courts using a combination of written and photographic evidence, presumably the qualifications of the photographer is the 'reliable' part of 'reliable source'? CCTV footage and speed camera evidence is often used, I suppose that could be doctored as well thinking about it. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

For something that isn't contentious and where the illustration makes it blindingly obvious I guess it's okay. Better if the picture is in a reliable source. Really somebody else should have noticed the fact first though, why would one put it in if nobody is interested? However if it isn't someone doing original research it shouldn't normally cause problems. Have you got an example where somebody has been putting fact tags on things where an illustration shows it to be so? I think there is a name for people who go around sticking fact tags onto everything in sight and causing trouble with the policy. Dmcq (talk) 16:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If the fact is not contentious (and in this case, the location of where the original painting is located), then only two things change: that sourcing may or may not be required (but as noted, can be challenged), and that the source itself does not need to be a secondary, third-party, reliable source - it still needs to be reliable, but we can fall back to primary and first-party sources. So, as suggested, if you can find even a brochure from the museum that says the painting is there, that is going to be at least reasonably traceable compared to an image that attempts to show the same thing. --MASEM (t) 16:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Not immediately to hand, I've certainly seen it happen though and remember discussion in the aviation project that will be in the archives somewhere. This revision [1] of the Pitts Special article may be over the top with with {{cn}} tags, a little reluctant to link to it as they were added by a fellow aviation editor and friend, also noting that the article was completely unreferenced at the time and that he did insert reference cites to fill his own tags. I use 'cn' tags myself on an article that I am working on as a reminder but they are not there for long and I will add them sparingly to other articles where it is very obvious that a cite is needed. I only discovered recently that it is not necessary to provide cites in the lead of an article as long as the fact is cited in the main text which makes perfect sense to me, still we get editors adding 'cn' tags in leads and have to explain why they are not needed. Another problem I have seen and experienced at GA and FA level is that by citing almost everything the uncited paragraphs stand out and are pounced upon without regard to the content, i.e., it looks like I forgot to add a cite. Does not always happen but it is frustrating when it does and I then have to justify why it is not cited and am often forced into adding one. It all hinges on what is deemed 'contentious' by different editors I suppose. Also throws the good faith of the researching editor out of the window!! It's all good fun and I will continue to navigate the occasional 'stormy seas' with my Sou'wester on! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Although I note that specific cases should be discussed on the noticeboard it might be helpful to clarify my problem, the item is an old aero engine, mentioned as one of three 'survivors' on display here, the first two engines were relatively easy to cite, the third one not so easy. An image of it is here [2] which shows the serial number, one page back shows that it is part of a particular museum's collection [3] and the hosting website is here [4] where the owner expresses his wish to share information. This appears acceptable 'proof' of its existence (at least at the time the image was taken) but I know that a popular question asked at FAC is what makes this website a reliable source? Should also note that I am referencing information that was added by another editor quite a while ago (pasted in uncited from his own dying website). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

As I see it, the problem with using File:Emirates.b777-300.a6-emv.arp.jpg to confirm an assertion that the B777-300 has 12 landing gear wheels is not that it is an image but rather (1) that it is hosted on an open wiki.and (2) that wiki is WP (WP:SPS, WP:CIRCULAR). If the image appeared in a NY Times article, it seems to me it would be OK, and as reliable as text in the article speaking of 12 wheels. It seems to me that Landing Gear Footprint (Page 5, Section 7.2, "LANDING GEAR FOOTPRINT, MODEL 777-200,-200ER, -300"), in 777-200/200ER/300 Document D6-58329 (Revision C, December 2008) at Boeing: Commercial Airplanes - Commercial Aviation Services - Flight Operations Support - Airport Technology - 777 Airplane Characteristics for Airport Planning would be a better source to confirm that assertion, even though it is a primary source.

Images are by definition always primary sources, and we should use secondary sources. So if only for that reason we should always look for better references. On the specific subject of finding a reference for a given aircraft configuration, unless said aircraft was built by cavemen based on blueprints scratched into the sand, there should always be technical documentation somewhere. And on the third point, yes, taking a picture yourself and using it as a reference is by definition original research. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Did you mean specifically photographs here? I think plenty of non-photo images would count as secondary sources. --GenericBob (talk) 04:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Sorry about that. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

In response to thumperward's statement "taking a picture yourself and using it as a reference is by definition original research", that's debatable, but irrelevant for this discussion. An object available for public inspection in a museum can be cited itself, if the Wikipedia editor saw it in the museum. It is no different from citing a one-of-a-kind manuscript in the special collection of some library. --Jc3s5h (talk) 04:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The one-of-a-kind manuscript is itself a secondary source, though. For our purposes, most of the time an object in a museum isn't. To put this into context, if such-and-such a tribe are said to have created a certain type of pot, and you see one in a museum (which happens not to be accompanied by a plaque explaining what it is), then it would arguably be original research to say "oh yes, the X tribe made that kind of pot, I've seen it". It depends where you draw the line between observation of primary sources and interpretation of them I suppose. But this is all off-topic. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Some manuscripts are considered primary, others are considered secondary... it depends on the manuscript (and also the accademic discipline that studies the manuscript). As for images... there are many factors to consider... Take for example a photo of Joe Person standing next to Richard Nixon. Can this be used to cite the statement "In 1970 Joe Person met with President Richard Nixon"? Perhaps... but perhaps not. It could have been manipluated (as was done for the movie Forest Gump.) or it could be real... we don't know. We have to examine further... a lot depends on where the photo comes from, and whether we trust that source... ie does the photo come from a reliable source or not? If so, then we can use the photo as an acceptable (primary) source for the fact that Joe Person met with Nixon, if not then we can't use it. In other words... the source isn't the photo, but where we got it.

Note... To my mind this is a different determination than whether we can use the photo as an illustration in an article. If we have a written source that says Joe Person met with Nixon, then we can illustrate that verifiable fact with an image depicting this meeting (any image... even a created image... although I do think a created image should be disclosed with an accurate caption such as "Created image depicting Joe meeting with Nixon"). The key difference is that, when using an image as an illustration, we are not making claims about its accuracy, when using it as a citation we are.

I think making this distinction between source and image would clarify what is said at WP:NOR#Original images... a user created image can be used as an illustration of what is said in reliable sources... but it would not be a reliable source itself (as a typical wikipedia editor is not a reliable source). Blueboar (talk) 16:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

How to deal with potential error by reliable source?

I'm hoping this talk page is a good spot to look for guidance on this. As described here the Grunge article uses a documentary film as a reliable source (with good reason). However, an anon editor has made a strong case that an individual quoted in the film and the article is credited incorrectly. The editor who added the quote originally seems pretty certain that the name given in the film is "Heather Dawn" (and this editor I consider highly reliable/trustworthy), yet all the circumstantial evidence is that her real name is "Dawn Anderson". It seems most likely an innocent error on the part of the filmmakers, but I am at a loss as to how we should address this. The nature of the source makes finding another reliable source on this detail extremely difficult, and 1) leaving "as is" something we know is probably wrong, 2) ignoring reliable source guidelines to change to the most likely name of the person, and 3) simply stripping a good, trenchant quote from a featured article... all these seem like troubling options to me. Surely other reliable sources have gotten some detail wrong before. What is the best way to deal with this? --CAVincent (talk) 03:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

What about just omitting the name? e.g leaving it at "The Seattle fanzine Backlash recalled..." or perhaps "A reporter in the Seattle fanzine Backlash recalled..." It doesn't seem like the sort of thing that we're obliged to put in the article. It would be nice to put the correct name in, but that does unfortunately look a bit too much like OR. --GenericBob (talk) 04:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Question about third parties

Is there agreement that this is an accurate statement about third parties?

If in an article about Scientist A, who claims to have produced cold fusion, a statement is made by Scientist B denying the claim and asserting that Scientist A is a “crank,” then Scientist B is not considered a “third party” for purposes of restricting rebuttal by Scientist A.--Swood100 (talk) 14:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

"Third party" is a term from contact law. It does not apply to this situation at all because there are no contracts. --Jc3s5h (talk) 15:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I am referring to the sections of WP:RS and of WP:SELFPUB that restrict statements by extremist, fringe and self-published sources that involve statements about third parties. --Swood100 (talk) 15:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This question has already been put on the reliable sources noticeboard which is the more appropriate place. It doesn't have to go onto 10 other talk pages. Dmcq (talk) 15:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's address it there.--Swood100 (talk) 16:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Definition of "Secondary source"

This article prvides some examples of primary and tertiary sources, but never states what is and what is not a "secondary source." A clear definition is needed. We are supposed to use them, but they there is no standard or definition. A listing of some examples is an improvement but still not a definition. "Secondary source" is not a term found in my Shorter Oxford English Dictionary or in my Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. I never heard the term in many years of university study. Edison (talk) 16:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Secondary source defines it quite adequately, though I agree it could be more explicit - or at least linked - on the project page. Barnabypage (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Different fields have different definitions, and the same source can be primary or secondary. Thus the word " secondary" isn't all that useful in deciding on which sources are reliable for Wikipedia purposes. --Jc3s5h (talk) 16:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Reliable source for fact quoted?

Hi. Is it ok for me to quote two books as indicated here for purposes of the statements presented? Editor YellowFives is saying no, but I think they are fine for the purposes used. Would appreciate input, as this is a time-sensitive issue. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The source looks fine to me, but you should avoid stating it as fact. Attribute the opinion to the author of the book. Also be aware of WP:UNDUE weight. The source may be fine, but if the viewpoint is a tiny minority, then it should not be included. Morphh ^(talk) 13:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the wrong venue for this discussion. Use WP:RSN. Hipocrite (talk) 20:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

TV.com and IMDB

moved to WP:RSN - this is the project page. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Scary

Normally I expect publications found through Google Book Search to be reliable enough for use as Wikipedia sources, but the other day I came across a "book" -- http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=iKSSa6gU-BAC&pg=PA360 -- that sources vast chunks of its content to Wikipedia. Very scary! 86.152.242.40 (talk) 15:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC).

This is why a Google Books search is not a reliable source... it is a tool that helps us find reliable sources. You still have to examine the hits (ie the books themselves) to see which are reliable and which are not. Blueboar (talk) 15:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, I know that. The point of my post was to highlight the pervasiveness of Wikipedia-sourced information on the Internet, and the fact that it's getting harder and harder to be sure that references aren't just pointing to something lifted from Wikipedia in the first place. 86.136.194.122 (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC).

Not only does the book you cited use Wikipedia material, but apparently it has no relation to the original Webster's dictionary. See Philip M. Parker. The name "Websters" is now in public domain. I discovered this when another editor removed one of my own citations. BashBrannigan (talk) 18:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Page move

I've made this a subpage of the policy, WP:V, which people have been discussing doing for some time. That should help to avoid repetition or contradiction. The policy is for general principles, while the purpose of this page should be to spell out what's meant by "reliable source" in different contexts. People adding to this page should be careful not to contradict the policy. SlimVirgin 22:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Why? The subpage titling is a deprecated method of organization. Did you propose this to the community via normal procedures to see if there was opposition to this? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

People have been talking about it for years; I don't think I've seen an objection, because it makes perfect sense. Not sure what you mean by "deprecated." This page is for disentangling what the policy means. It's a guideline. SlimVirgin 22:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem over the years of having two pages is that editors who didn't realize the policy existed expanded this one to contradict the policy; then other editors would arrive to fix it, which meant it was more or less identical to the policy; then others would arrive to expand and contradict again. Rinse and repeat.

The direction the page needs to take, and has recently started to take, is as an expansion of the policy, with discussion of particular types of sources that the policy can't get into, while being careful not to expand in a way inconsistent with the policy. Having it as a subpage is most likely to achieve that. It doesn't affect its status as a guideline. SlimVirgin 22:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

This definitely should not have been moved without discussion and indeed solid consensus; I will move the page back and initiate an RfC barring any objections within the next couple hours. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I have never seen anything but solid consensus for it, Julian. Can we wait and hold a discussion here, or have a RM straw poll? SlimVirgin 22:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Where are examples of said consensus? I agree to moving back immediately, per BRD. You just don't move high profile pages without any (recent) discussion and agreement. Majorly talk 22:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The people who regularly edit this page will remember the discussions. The objections seem to be coming from people who've never or almost ever edited it (Majorly 3 edits in 2007, Schmucky one in the same year, Julian none). Not that it matters; this is a wiki. It's just a little odd. :) SlimVirgin 23:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm objecting based on principle, not on the merits - I couldn't care either way. But you know very well that moving a high-profile page suddenly will generally not be a good idea - it needs discussion, then move if there's consensus. (I only came across this because it was posted on AN/I. I'm surprised I have any edits at all to it :]) Majorly talk 23:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

If you don't care either way, then please don't object, because that's a little POINTy. It makes no sense to have these as two unconnected pages. It has caused the editors who maintain the pages (not you, Julian, or Schmucky) numerous problems over the years, which is why it has many times been suggested that this be made a subpage of the policy. I'm surprised that anyone would object, frankly. SlimVirgin 23:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not seeing how I am disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. I am seeing how you were BOLD, now there's been objections, so time to discuss. There isn't any obvious current discussion going on, so it's not appropriate to say there's consensus for it. Majorly talk 23:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

This talk page has 19 pages of archives. Could you be a bit more specific and link to the seemingly countless, unanimous discussions about this move? Per WP:BRD this should be moved back. Then we can start a WP:RM straw poll. --Conti|✉ 23:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes I'd like to see that consensus, I'd have placed a reference to it here first. Though I must admit if it is proposed I'll vote that it should be moved here as it is a guideline based on verifiability. Dmcq (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I've moved it back as per WP:BRD and the general agreement here; as Majorly said, such a major change that breaks countless associated links and redirects and has a great potential for confusion should have strong recent consensus. No prejudice towards moving it back to SV's title, of course, if consensus to do so arises. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou Julian. This is where it should be until we have consensus for a move. I think that discussion should be held on a higher trafficked page though. HJMitchell You rang? 23:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Just noting that I broke the move a couple times due to a database error-thing, so don't mind the extra null log actions. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

Unfortunately I have to revert the massive edits of SlimVirgin done without discussion in the alk page. While I agree with some her actions as commented in her edit summaries, I disagree with others.

Serious rewriting of such a fundamental guideline without seeking a consensus is not a good idea, especially coming from a seasoned wikipedian and admin. Mukadderat (talk) 02:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a not a fundamental guideline. The policy on sourcing is WP:V. This page has to be entirely consistent with it, and people not familiar with any of the content policies keep adding their own preferences to this page, making it contradict the policy. I therefore removed anything that did that. Please don't restore it. SlimVirgin 02:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I may believe that over time the page deteriorated and require cleanup, but revert war without talk is unbecoming of an admin. Mukadderat (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It is a fundamental guideline, frequently cited, used and misused. It was in this state for long time, no rush to have 2-3 hours of talk. Mukadderat (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I will be happy to restore separately your particular edits which fix the discrepancies with the policy. Mukadderat (talk) 02:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

You are demonstrating the problem right here. WP:RS as a shortcut is often referred to, but this page is not. V is the policy. This page almost never says anything different from V.

What is it exactly that you see here as different, valuable, not inconsistent, and needs to be kept? Please be specific. My guess is you don't know. I'm sorry if that sounds rude, but we have a real problem here, with this page existing only because people not familiar with the policies think it says something important. But it doesn't and never has. SlimVirgin 02:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is not a policy, and this is why I have just edited the first sentence while you were typing this text. And sorry, I disagree that it says nothing important. And saying "sorry it sounds rude" does not change the fact that you were rude, especially in your "My guess is you don't know". I do know, but I cannot type 2400 bpm. Please have patience and good faith. Mukadderat (talk) 02:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Mukadderat, if you examine the differences, you will see numerous contradictions between RS and V. Since V is the policy and RS is only supposed to help explain V, these contradictions will only add confusion. I suggest if you have specific points that you think need changing in the current RS version, and that you think are not contradicting V, you should update RS to include them, or bring them for discussion here. Crum375 (talk) 02:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I may agree that I may have approached to the edits from wrong direction. However in addition to numerous contradictions there were numerous problematic edits, starting from the very first sentence. OK. I will deal item by item. Mukadderat (talk) 02:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Issues raised by Mukadderat

After looking into edits of SlimVirgin one by one, I see that this page has much more problems than SlimVirgin claims. I will take some time to present a coherent list of objections and suggestions for improvement. Judging from the amount of edits of SlimVirgin I agree with, it seems that the page was neglected for quite some time. In some other wikipedia instructional pages questionalbe edits, such as directly contradicting a policy, are reverted on sight. Mukadderat (talk) 02:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• General comment: Our goal should be to make life easy for editors looking for guidance relating to sources. The current WP:SOURCES section of WP:V, which is policy, does a fair job of classifying and explaining sources which are acceptable for WP. I believe that in policies (like laws or rules in general), the simpler and shorter the better. The more specific you get, the more room there is for confusion and misinterpretation. So I would start with WP:SOURCES and try to identify anything crucial which is a) missing, and b) can't be added to WP:SOURCES. The list of such items, if any, should be in this guideline. Crum375 (talk) 03:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with "the shorter the better" fo policies. Guidelines is an accumulated condensed WP:COMMON. They may grow huge, if you look at WP:NOTE and its ramifications. I will sure do look at the policy itself and talk in its talk page. Below are just a couple major issues with the guideline I'd like to see commented on. Mukadderat (talk) 03:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Title

My first smaller issue is with the artice title: it is misleading: judging from the content, its title should be Wikipedia:Reliability of sources (WP:ROS/WP:RS), since it disusses both reliable and non-reliable sources. Mukadderat (talk) 03:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

agreed, noting that it is a spectrum of reliability. I think this may not be minor--it may clarify use of the guideline to a considerable extent. DGG ( talk ) 22:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Coverage of sources in policies

My second, major, issue is that the topic of sources is split between two policies: WP:V and WP:NOR. IMO all policy related to sourcing must be in a single page, for easy reference. Mukadderat (talk) 03:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree 100 percent. Our attempt to do just that is a sad story in its own right. More tomorrow (see below). :) SlimVirgin 04:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Arguably WP:V does cover part of WP:NOR butI think WP:NOR is better off being a separate policy. Original research just occurs so often as a separate identifiable problem from iffy sources like local newspapers and blogs. Also people try to stick straight text which is original research in and saying it is original research is just a far better description than that it isn't sourced. Synthesis is better described as original research - their sources may be perfectly okay. I think the three of verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view all overlap in areas but are pretty much distinct ideas. Dmcq (talk) 13:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The reason why there is such overlap is that all of these policies evolved from the same one (I think it was NPOV)... so they are all talking about the same concept from different angles. And yes, as SV mentions, we have tried to merge them all back into one policy before... and the attempt was not successful. Blueboar (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

RS refers to other things than just V. In any case, the matter is too complicated for one page. The discussion of copyright, or notability is similarly spread out over many pages. DGG ( talk ) 22:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

A guideline is a guideline is a guideline

My third, major, issue is that a guideline must not duplicate the policy: it must comment on a policy:

• a more verbose explanation, with rationales, considered and rejected alternatives, etc.
• strictly-policy use cases
• community practice applicability in particular cases.

Clear structuring in this way and highlighting (italicizing, quoting) the phrases which are policy will deal with the problem of duplication mentioned by SlimVirgin. Mukadderat (talk) 03:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a problem with direct quoting in that the policy can change and people might think they are quoting policy seeing it. If direct quotes are done I'd very much prefer RS was a subpage so there is much greater force keeping them in line. I'd prefer references and quick summary that people will know isn't a quote of policy. This is a difficult problem and I'm not sure what the best solution is. Dmcq (talk) 13:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

My problem with moving this to a subpage is that policy subpages are neither fish nor fowl. People think of them as being "not part of the policy" and ignore them. What ever happens, we need to use one of the two accepted terms... either Policy or Guideline. Blueboar (talk) 14:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

RS is not Truth

Quite often RS may be mistaken or outdated, or otherwise "not truth". I've seen quite a few edit conflicts which essentially around this issue. A guideline is a good place to explain how to handle this issue. This was not done clearly and in full, with the exception of drawing the distinction between "fact" and "opinion". Mukadderat (talk) 03:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Mukadderat, I agree with practically everything you say, but there's quite a bit of background you're missing. A lot of what you suggest has been tried before and has been rejected. I was about to write up the history for you and others, but I've just realized I'm too tired to do it justice tonight, so I'd like to wait until tomorrow, if that's okay. SlimVirgin 04:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I know of an editor who keeps on about what proof is there that these are reliable sources and 'usually' doesn't apply to their area and it is a logical fallacy to extend it from usually in Wikipedia to a particular field. I try explaining that it is consensus and needs no justification from studies and applies everywhere in Wikipedia; that what it means is that if there is a source not satisfying the consensus criteria then they have to invoke ignore all rules and explain carefully why it should be an exception. Can't say I've been very successful. Dmcq (talk) 14:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Question

Would it be possible for those editors who feel that RS is not a direct subset of WP:V, and should not be subsumed by it, to list below the specific items they feel belong in RS and do not belong in WP:SOURCES? Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 13:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Obituaries

I would like to propose mentioning *obituaries* as sources which should be used with extreme caution. Obituaries are often used in Wikipedia as "Reliable Sources". I have recently seen many edits introducing superlatives and peacock terms about a deceased individual by treating his obituary as a RS. It is quite obvious that they should not be used as RS, but it would be better to mention them specifically as this is a common mistake . Marokwitz (talk) 12:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This was discussed very recently and the consensus seemed to be that they can be RS - indeed, sometimes very good ones. Barnabypage (talk) 12:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

They are sometimes RS with regards to specific facts, but great caution should be used when using them, at very least they should be treated as editorial , since they are heavily biased towards praising the deceased individual. Obituaries more often than not say things such as "He was a wonderful person loved by all", and should only be taken as an opinion, not as a fact. What I meant was to add a caution, not to rule out their use completely. Marokwitz (talk) 13:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the crucial issue here is the distinction - made in the discussion I linked to above - between "death notice" or "in memoriam"-type items submitted to newspapers by families of the deceased, which aren't really RS (though they're probably factually accurate on simple things like birth dates), and obits produced and edited by a newspaper/magazine/journal itself, which are as reliable as anything else in that publication. Barnabypage (talk) 13:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree . "In Memoriam" is probably a better term . Would you agree that we should caution WP editors to treat "In Memoriam" notices in a similar way to "editorials" or "opinion articles" ? Marokwitz (talk) 13:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I would go further than that and say that they are probably even less likely to be RS than editorials or opinion pieces - which at least are written by journalists or experts in their field, who will usually give some acknowledgment to opposing views, and argue a case rather than simply stating it. By contrast, the family "in memoriam" is very unlikely to ever contain anything negative or controversial about its subject. Having said that: is there really a need to burden the guideline with this? I would have thought it was so obvious that they are unreliable, that if anyone tries to use them, other editors are going to pick up on it immediately... Barnabypage (talk) 13:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Evidently it is not so obvious. Take a look at my edit history. By searching for common phrases such as "he was loved by all" and "he will be remembered by" I have hunted down and removed HUNDREDS of those (though most were un-sourced) in the last week only. Marokwitz (talk) 13:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Are these generally articles on notable people? Quickly skimming your contributions list, it looks very questionable whether a lot of those articles where you've identified peacock language, for example Lee Ann Kim and Peter Letsos, should be on Wikipedia at all. Barnabypage (talk) 13:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a good question. I'm mainly tidying things up to be at least neutral at the most basic level, but obviously we have a problem here. Everyone wants to commemorate their loved ones on Wikipedia. Marokwitz (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

List of reliable sources, and Twitter

It's been awhile since I've looked at this page ... has anyone ever compiled a list of potential sources with designations as to which are acceptable/unacceptable, and perhaps links to archived discussions? It seems like this would prevent many redundant discussions.

On a related note, I was going to cite Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published sources (online and paper) when removing a Twitter reference as an unreliable source, but was hoping someone here could direct me to the related discussion. I was wondering if anyone had talked about situations in which an individual (celebrity) makes announcements on their own Twitter. For that matter, I'm not sure what the current guideline is regarding MySpace or Facebook pages self-published by celebs. Again, a detailed list of sources would help in this regard. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 21:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No, we have not... because reliability often depends on how the source is used. Almost every source can be reliable in some context, so we can not make a blanket determination on a list of "this source is always reliable" and "this other source is always unreliable". We can make a few broad statements... but almost always with exceptions. As for a Twitter post... I would treat it like any Self published source... generally unreliable in most situations... but reliable in certain limited situations. Blueboar (talk) 02:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I have. It's a work in progress and please note the disclaimer. The URL is http://www.google.com/cse/home?cx=010426977372765398405:3xxsh-e1cp8&hl=en. For some reason, Wikipedia is blocking the URL. So either copy and paste the URL or type it in manually. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I do realize how absurd it might sound at first to create a reliable sources search engine, and at the beginning of my side project, it took a lot of work. I started by adding peer-reviewed academic journals and gradually added major newspapers (such as the Washington Post) as well as major magazines (such as Time magazine). Since then, I've added/removed sources based on the various discussions on the WP:RSN. Although not perfect, it works surprisingly well. As of now, it currently covers over 600 reliable sources, and I've tried to be careful to filter out opinion pieces and other sources which aren't reliable for statements of fact. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Quest, your search engine is a great resource, thanks! Blueboar, I get that there isn't necessarily a cut-and-dry "yes or no" for a given source, but certainly a guiding phrase would be helpful (e.g. Twitter: Generally unreliable as a self-published source, potentially acceptable in rare cases.) Although I'm sort of wondering what you think the exceptions might be in which Twitter or IMDb would be acceptable.— TAnthony^Talk 20:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

German historical science of the Nazi era reliable?

Are German sources published between 1933 and 1945 considered reliable? I'm not sure how to deal with a source which covers the history of just one town. Karasek (talk) 17:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Per previous discussions on this issue, generally "only usable as an example of Nazi claims and propaganda, not as a source for anything factual". Radek

One old discussion is here, another is here. We need an article on German historiography, with a section on the Nazi era (I never finished my research on that subject, but just read a few bios: on one spectrum, Nazi star historian, Walter Frank, in the middle, Karl Haushofer, who "admits that after 1933 much of what he wrote was distorted under duress", and on the other, Hermann Oncken, persecuted by the Nazis...). Long story short, there were probably reliable works published in Germany at that time (Oncken's work on Cromwell from 1935 is probably a good example); but anything remotely controversial is likely to be affected by propaganda and Nazi ideology. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Such a source would a priori be reliable for information such as when the incorporation of a village into a the town occurred, or when elections occurred and who became mayor. Perhaps also for the number of inhabitants. If it's just about one town then it may be hard to find out how much of it can be trusted. But the greatest part of the information in books from that era should be taken with a few hundred grammes of salt. Hans Adler 21:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Number of inhabitants is probably fine, but I'd trust the source on ethnic breakdown. If any votes were reported, those would be the official results - but likely not the real results. Any claims about which group has the rights to those territories would be even more suspicious. And so on. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

BBC

The BBC has started including (not just using uncited) Wikipedia content. I found a copyvio of ours mirrored on their site. Rich Farmbrough, 17:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC).

Which page? I noticed this too, but they had a notice that the content came from Wikipedia.[5] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

RfC on page move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page not moved. @harej 02:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:Reliable sources → Wikipedia:Verifiability/reliable sources — Should Wikipedia:Reliable sources be moved to Wikipedia:Verifiability/reliable sources to become a subpage of the sourcing policy, WP:V? There would be no change in either page's status: the policy would remain policy, and RS would retain its status as a guideline. SlimVirgin 23:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments/votes

• Support for the reasons I outline below. SlimVirgin 23:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• I'm unsure as to the merits of this proposed move. The guideline itself won't change, its relationship to WP:V won't change. It will just become harder to type out in the address bar. Protonk (talk) 23:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• It would still be WP:RS. :) SlimVirgin 02:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. It is not a subsection of the policy, it is a guideline, and subpaging will bring a confusion regarding the degree of enforcement. Mukadderat (talk) 02:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with Mukadderat. However the very top of the page should say that this guideline is subordinate to policy/ies. At present there is a big box of blah blah, then how to find the noticeboard. Then, at last, the 2nd sentence: "The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability." That's way too late and not strong enough. For newbies it can take some time to realize that "guideline" and "policy" are not synonyms. - Hordaland (talk) 06:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Seems potentially confusing (esp. to newbies) and of questionable impact. Slap a {{main}} or {{see}} template on WP:RS if need be. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose RS stands along from V as a concept; there is a lot of overlap of RS with V, but there's also similar overlap of RS with WP:N, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:COI, etc. There is a distinction between V and RS; the former is the concept of what verification is on WP, while the latter is how to judge the merit of sources. If there's a bad overlap, that may imply there's too much of RS in V, instead of the other way around. --MASEM (t) 06:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support I agree with SlimVirgin that this would make the relationship to WP:V much clearer and help stop people keeping trying to put stuff into WP:V that should go in WP:RS. No trouble with references WP:RS and full name will explain things better too. Dmcq (talk) 10:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
• Support per Dmcq, although the correct solution is for RS to be subsumed into WP:SOURCES. If anything important is left over which cannot be added to SOURCES, then it should be in an amplification/explanatory subpage, which I support as second choice. Crum375 (talk) 12:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, for reasons above - WP:V is a policies while WP:RS is a guideline, and the two should not be confused; sub-paging blur the distinction and make it harder to find for those who didn't fluent WP-jargon and acronyms; and WP:RS is as important to WP:N as to WP:V. --Philcha (talk) 12:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. A drive occurred two and a half years ago to bundle existing policies into Wikipedia:Attribution. This RfC appears to be tied with a renewed effort to raise ATT to official status.[6] Prior to "essay" that page had been called various things, including rejected proposal and historical proposal and its own special compromise template due to edit wars over its status. There isn't any overwhelming benefit to the idea, and confusion would arise if thousands of site discussions that treated the concepts separately suddenly got redirected to an omnibus page. So let's just call this not worth it. Durova³⁶⁹ 20:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• This has nothing to do with ATT. What makes you say this is an effort to raise ATT to official status? SlimVirgin 22:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Isn't a desire to bundle content guidelines/policies operative? There is considerable overlap IMO and the arguments for and against are basically the same. Further discussion at SlimVirgin's user talk page. Durova³⁷¹ 18:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. – ukexpat (talk) 22:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose as policies and guidelines should be short and sharp, and I see no benefit to be had by bloating WP:V. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose as contrary to best practice. Unless and until RS is made part of V, it would appear the talk pages should also be apart. Collect (talk) 11:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose moving to a sub-page... RS is a crucial concept to Wikipedia, and it needs a status that is clear and unambiguous. Policy sub-pages are neither fish nor fowl... not seen as being officially part of the policy, but without the status of a guideline either. I would Support merging into WP:V itself (as an expansion of WP:SOURCES), or leaving it as a guideline and pruning out the parts that either contradict or duplicate WP:V Blueboar (talk) 15:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose moving to a sub-page. I don't think we need to have a hierarchical organization chart for policies and guidelines and can't imagine what problems this move would solve. Instead, it would introduce a number of futile and unimportant discussions regarding what page goes under which top-level policy. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 21:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, for many of reasons listed above, especially mixing of policies and guidelines. Moogwrench (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we can safely say that the consensus is against. Blueboar (talk) 01:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Discussion

• I have proposed moving this to Wikipedia:Verifiability/reliable sources, because WP:V is the policy on sourcing. Having two entirely separate pages, this one a guideline and the other a policy, has caused innumerable problems over the years. Editors not familiar with the policy arrive here to expand this page in ways not consistent with policy. Other editors then arrive to tweak it back, so that it ends up being almost identical to the policy. Repetition is useless and contradiction worse than useless.

  What would be best is for this page to retain its guideline status, but to become a subpage of the policy, expanding on the notion of "reliable source" and "verifiability". It could go into the kind of detail that the policy can't allow, while being careful not to contradict the policy it's attached to. The move wouldn't diminish this page—on the contrary, it would place it on a more solid footing by binding it to a policy page. SlimVirgin 23:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Question: Is this RFC solely on the location of the page, or also the recent additions, deletion and changes to the guideline ? Abecedare (talk) 23:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Just the location. :) SlimVirgin 02:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Question. I have no strong opinion on where this page ends up, as long as there's consensus, which, hopefully, this will achieve. However, I wonder if SlimVirgin or anybody else could explain exactly how the new location of the page would solve the problems that are alluded to above? HJMitchell You rang? 00:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
• I completely agree with SV's summary of what the problem is ... but I don't see how renaming the guideline will resolve the problem. We will still have two pages that cover essentially the same topic (from slightly different angles). Editors not familiar with the Policy will still edit the "sub-page" in ways not consistent with the Policy. To me, the only way to avoid the problem is to completely merge RS back into WP:V (not as a "sub-page", but as a distinct section of the main WP:V Policy). Blueboar (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• The drawback to doing that is that there would be little room for growth. Editors want to write about their ideas of what's reliable. It makes sense to provide a page for them to do it on. I would like to see RS become part of V, but I think if it did, a new page would soon spring up (Wikipedia:How to identify reliable sources or some such). So my thinking is to compromise by having it as a guideline that's a subpage, where people can write as much as they want, so long as it doesn't directly contradict policy. SlimVirgin 02:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• • I agree with Blueboar. I think the root cause of the RS vs. V conflicts is that they are essentially overlapping, which causes constant conflicts and confusion for everyone. As Blueboar says, the correct solution is to merge RS into V. I am not sure there is going to be any meaningful leftover. Crum375 (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
• How does moving the page change anything? Same guideline, different URL. So what? Fences&Windows 00:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• It would clarify to people not familiar with V (which includes new editors, and others who don't read the policies—which, let's face it, is a fair number), that they're editing a page that must be consistent with the policy. With separate pages, that's less clear to people, and making sure the two pages stay in sink is a lot of work. I agree with Blueboar and Crum that the ideal thing would be to have one page only, but that option has been rejected so many times, I didn't even bother suggesting it again. Next best thing is to have it as a subpage. SlimVirgin 01:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Mukkaderat, could you explain your comment, please, that "subpaging will bring a confusion regarding the degree of enforcement"? How is RS currently enforced, and how would subpaging change that? SlimVirgin 02:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Slim, I think Mukkaderat is referring to the fact that information can be removed from articles based upon what WP:RS says. The problem with policy sub-pages is that they are neither fish nor fowl... they don't have any sort of "official" status... they are often dismissed as being "not part of the policy". They fall between the cracks and end up being little more than essays. The concept of RS is crucial to Wikipedia... as such it needs to have a clear and unabiguous status that everyone understands. Blueboar (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• we refer to RSs for Verifiability purposes; but we also use the same term in a different sense to mean sources sufficient to confirm Notability. (Some simple illustrations A a novel itself is a RS for what the plot of it is, but certainly not for the notability of the book; B a person's official CV is a RS that he got the degrees the article says, but not for whether or not he is notable; C a Church's published creed is a RS for what the Church believes as its doctrine; it is not a RS for what it may say about the facts of the church's history or relationship to other religions. ) the concepts of RS and V are different. some of the confusion was caused by an earlier misconception, still reflected in this guideline, that sources were either reliable or not--sources are I think now generally acknowledged to be reliable to various degrees, depending on their purposes. And, in a development long after this was written, a RS for negative facts about a living individual has a particularly high standard. Perhaps SV intended to remove the concept of RS from confusion with the concept of notability by linking it more closely with WP:V, but this will need some considerable discussion. DGG ( talk ) 06:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with the point raised above that it should be made clearer that RS is a guidline and verifyability is a policy. Yaris678 (talk) 13:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Subscription required links

I was gathering sources to confirm films were made in the 1940s for the article 1940s in film. I found several original New York Times movie reviews from the time of the film's release in the 40s. The links worked for a couple of days but then I suppose they "expired" as the links sent you to a page requiring a subscription. I don't really want to link to a page where you have to pay to see the content. I am wondering if it enough to provide the newspaper name, the date, the headline and the author, or is a link needed? Do other people on the Wiki need to be able to access the sources I provide for them to be valid?

Another question, do people think an editorial review from a 1940s edition of The New York Times is a reliable source to confirm that it was a film from the 40s? Sam Barsoom 01:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I see the {{cite news}} template, it takes a url but I am not sure if it a optional or not. Sam Barsoom 01:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You should cite it where you saw it. If you read the web version, cite the web version. If you read a paper or microfiche version, cite that. When citing the web version, include all the information a person would need to find the paper or microfiche version (author, page, date). --Jc3s5h (talk) 01:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but in this case I am finding the web version but the web version is using software to prevent me from linking to it. Is it acceptable to take The New York Times web version and use it to construct a reference to the original article when I am prevented from supplying a link? Sam Barsoom 01:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Given that the on line archive is created by scanning of the old print article, my poinion is that you can cite it as if you had done your research the old fashioned way, by going to a library and looking at printed versions of the newspaper... Just cite: <ref>The New York Times, Date, Page</ref>

In answer to your second question... It depends on what you are trying to cite it for... movie reviews are reliable for some things but not for others. (for example, a 1940s review of Casablanca might reliable for the statement: "The New York Times called Casablanca 'the best movie ever'" but it would not be reliable for the statement "Casablanca is the best movie ever". )Blueboar (talk) 01:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful and quick answer. In this case the only fact I am trying to support is that it was a film made in the 40s(This may seem like a petty thing to cite, but I have already found 1 movie that was really made in the 30s and that was before getting past the "A"s). Sam Barsoom 01:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

If you saw the web version in the past, and you can no longer access it because the NY Times changed their web, your subscription expired, or whatever, cite a web page where a subscriber could get to the article. The cited url does not have to take the reader directly to the article; the reader might have to supply some information, such as the date and page. Also cite the information to get to the print version. Normally, newspaper websites provide information about the date and page where the article appeared in print, and this information should be cited.

Also, as for a NY Times review being a reliable source that a movie was released in the 1940s, usually it would be, because the review will normally give some indication that the review was published around the same time that the movie came out. --Jc3s5h (talk) 01:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

In this case the original reviews mention the date of the showing. Pointing the user to the search page and providing all the information needed to find the article is a good idea that had not occurred to me. I will do that. Sam Barsoom 01:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Using an image as a source

I have frequently expressed my view that we should use images to illustrate information that is discussed in the text of an article (information which should be cited to reliable sources), and not as a source for information. However, there are those who think this goes too far. This may be true... but if so I have to ask: under what circumstances can information be cited to an image? What makes one image reliable and another not? ie When is an image a reliable source (Note: "image" includes photographs, charts, graphs, maps, videos, etc.) Blueboar (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

An image is, at best, a primary source. As such, it should be used extremely carefully, and only if reliable secondary sources refer to it in the context of a broader view of the subject matter. Also, since we allow Wikipedians to produce their own images, this type of primary source should be used even more carefully than a published one. Crum375 (talk) 14:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

If the image is a picture of text, and is otherwise reliable, then it is a reliable source for whatever the text says. For example, this image is a reliable source for the statement "In most chronology, or time reconing, the basic unit is the day." Also, individual numbers could be read from a graph. For example, this graph is a reliable source for the statement in AD 500 the difference between the actual and mean dates of the vernal equinox according to the algorithm of the Alfonsine Tables was about 4 days.

Crum375's contention that images are necessarily primary sources is incorrect, as demonstrated by the preceding examples. --Jc3s5h (talk) 14:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. The image is not the reliable source in that case - the paper is. In the second example, the graph is not a reliable source, the paper (that it is figure 3 of) is. Hipocrite (talk) 14:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The images are reliable (at least for those who don't think the moon landing was faked) because the Astrophysics Data System developed by NASA and operated by the Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics can be depended on to provide a faithful image of the original. The images are the source because that is what I viewed, not the original book. --Jc3s5h (talk) 14:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually the issue in this case is whether it is proper to analyze the graph to justify the conclusion. I think this discussion is going to get out of hand very quickly because the variety of analyses is going to swamp the issue of whether the images used are accurate depictions. This is really an WP:OR problem, for the most part, unless we're talking pictures of UFOs. Mangoe (talk) 14:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the issue of using images as sources also relates to WP:NOR... and indeed it was questions that were raised there that made me ask here (I think before we can discuss the issue of whether pulling information from an image is OR, we need to agree on the broader issues of reliability.) Blueboar (talk) 15:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I routinely use mapping service images and nautical charts to verify the locations of structures, and in some cases to get locations for structures where my usual print sources do not supply latitude and longitude. As a rule I think it is reasonable to consider these as reliable sources of images, and in the case of nautical charts, to consider NOAA's on-line chart service to be considered a reliable source of images on the charts. I suppose some wikilawyer could consider working the location of a feature from a navigational chart to be some sort of original research, but doing exactly that is what the charts are for, and anyone can repeat the process to verify the accuracy of what I've done; it's an entirely mechanical operation requiring little subjective evaluation. Likewise the techniques I use with the mapping services are objective. I suspect, though, that this isn't the kind of usage you may have had in mind. Mangoe (talk) 14:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this would come under routine calculations... but let's save the issue of Original research for another discussion, and focus on the reliablility issues for now. Blueboar (talk) 15:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Another class of reliable images would be documentary films produced by reliable publishers, such as PBS, BBC, etc. In many cases these would be based on a review of the material published on the subject, in which cases they would be secondary sources. --Jc3s5h (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. What we typically end up with when such citations are made on potentially controversial points is a user's assertion that "I saw it on TV" or somewhere, usually not even followed by a useful reference link; the effective message is "watch it yourself and see." Such sourcing does not satisfy the purposes of WP:V ad should be avoided. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I am getting the impression that we may have a consensus that an image can considered a reliable source if it, in turn, was created by a reliable source. (as a matter of practicality... this would mean that the citation should include that reliable source, and not the image on its own). Yes? Blueboar (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

In the fairly unusual case where an image is both reliable and public domain, it would not be sufficient to copy the image to commons and link to it with no description of where it came from. It would need full bibliographic data on where it came from, and that would have to be a reliable source. The image would have to be published, so that anyone willing to possibly spend some money could verify that it came from the reliable source. --Jc3s5h (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that... but you preface the remark by saying "... both reliable and public domain"... so I am asking what makes it reliable? Blueboar (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, reliable for what? If you're looking at soviet-supplied photographs as evidence of whether Trotsky was at this or that function, I suggest that they would have to be deemed unreliable. I think we would need reference to some secondary source as to the value of the images if the source were not considered prima facie reliable. Mangoe (talk) 16:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The process of evaluating the reliability of images is the same as for other media; published by a publisher with a reputation for honesty and fact-checking, or verifiability supplied by a journalist or expert who has published in the same field in reliable publications. I mentioned public-domain because if it wasn't public domain, it normally wouldn't get separated from the web site, video, book, etc. that it came from (absent a copyright violation) so there would be no question of its reliability. --Jc3s5h (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

That gets us into the provenance question: are we seeing an accurate representation of the original image? To take a fairly nasty case: a few years back I had a dispute about the interpretation of a painting. That painting itself has a poor provenance: it seems to come out of nowhere at the end of WW II. Comparison with other works more surely attributed to the same artist would, I think, cast doubts upon the painting's attribution because there were obvious discrepancies of style. I didn't pursue the point because I'm not an art historian and therefore not a reliable source on such matters, but when we're considering PD works which are so because they have aged out, we need confidence that we are seeing an accurate representation of a real work. NOw, I suspect that in practice such confidence is easy to come by, but still it can occasionally be contested. Mangoe (talk) 19:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

OK... next question... could a user-created image ever be considered reliable? Blueboar (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Only if the user was also a journalist or expert and acknowledged his Wikipedia userid in some reliable place, like a newspaper column. --Jc3s5h (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that in some cases, a video is a reliable source. Where it provides direct, very strong (often incontrovertible or nearly so) evidence, even if the source is not published. I'm looking for feedback on whether to proceed toward an edit of RS to reflect this view. Example: I haven't looked at the video, but I'll bet that this edit is backed by the referenced video. Assuming it is, the edit should not have been reverted for violating RS (and should probably stand). Thanks for your feedback.--Elvey (talk) 08:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
BTW, is there an official policy or guideline on how to modify policy?--Elvey (talk) 08:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Unless it can be shown that the videos mentioned by Elvey were produced by reliable sources, there is no way to determine if they were taken with an iPhone, nor is there any way to know if the effect shown is really known as the "rolling shutter effect". --Jc3s5h (talk) 08:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I watched the youtube video. This specific video seems to be taken by the producer (or a motivated affiliate thereof) of a product designed to fix a problem it alleges to demonstrate, and doesn't provide direct, incontrovertible evidence, I don't think it meets RS. On the other hand, I do still think a video is a reliable source where it provides direct, very strong (often incontrovertible or nearly so) evidence, even where the source is not published. Thanks for your input. --Elvey (talk) 08:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Rfc/Reliablity of sources and spam blacklist

There is a discussion regarding the spam blacklist and the reliability of sources here. Your input is solicited. Gigs (talk) 15:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

La Salle Family Article

Hello,

I have been trying several times to post an article under La Salle... but it is being deleted every time; the information in the article is verifiable :

http://books.google.fr/books?id=NVcoAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA14-PT1&dq=jacques+collinet+de+la+salle+saint+germain#v=onepage&q=jacques%20collinet%20de%20la%20salle%20saint%20germain&f=false

Here is the article I wrote if you could please check it and post it in the La Salle article and making it undeletebale in the futur. Thank you and my best regards, Alexandre.

• Jacques Collinet de La Salle, Lord of Saint-Germain and Commander of the Musketeers of Lorraine. Family ennobled by Nicholas II, Duke of Lorraine in 1655, then by Charles IV, Duke of Lorraine. Nobility titles confirmed at Nancy in 1699 by Leopold, Duke of Lorraine and by Francis I, Holy Roman Emperor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by La Salle Family (talk • contribs) 16:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there an inconsistency between WP:V and WP:RS about opinion pieces?

I think I might have noticed an inconsistency between WP:V and WP:RS. WP:RS draws a distinction between news articles and opinion pieces. According to WP:Reliable_sources#Statements_of_opinion, opinion pieces are only reliable for the opinions of their authors, not for statements of fact. I checked WP:V, and it doesn’t seem mention anything at all about whether opinions can be used for statements of fact.

For example, can an editorial from Nature, a highly respected, peer-reviewed academic journal be used for a statement of fact? WP:V seems to say, given Nature's stature, yes. WP:RS says no.

Assuming I’ve correctly identified an inconsistency, how do we resolve it? Do we need to change WP:V or WP:RS? If so, how? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence of WP:V is "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source". So it would seem that WP:RS is effectively included in WP:V. Besides, there would be no point in having two pages that say the same thing. My only issue is that the words reliables sources do not link to WP:RS, they link to the Sources section of WP:V. Yaris678 (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No conflict... Opinion pieces are verifiable (ie we can verify that the opinion exists, and what the opinion says). However, opinion pieces are not always reliable.

Opinion pieces are generally considered reliable for an attributed statement as to what the opinion is and who holds it, but they are not necessarily reliable for a statement of fact... (ie the facts stated in the opinion ... that depends on the reputation of the opinionator, the nature of the publication where the opinion is published, the level of fact checking, and a host of other factors). Yes, an opinion piece published in Nature and written by a respected scientist is likely to be reliable... but since it does not undergo the same level of fact checking that a feature article in the same journal, "likely" is not good enough. We must phrase what we say as a statement of opinion as opposed to a statement of fact. (ie we can phrase it as: "According to noted scientist X, blah blah blah is true<cite>" as opposed to: "Blah blah blah is true<cite>".) Blueboar (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you're talking about something slightly different from what AQFK is referring to. An opinion piece or op-ed by a single named individual is different from an editorial, particular in the case of a leading academic journal. An opinion piece represents an individual opinion, while an editorial represents the collective view of the editorial board of the journal in question. It is, so to speak, an institutional viewpoint rather than a single person's opinion, and as such carries far more weight. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that an editorial opinion carries more weight than an individual opinion ... but the fact is both are opinions, and should be presented in an article as such. I still don't see how this is a conflict between V and RS. Blueboar (talk) 00:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

House season 6 article dispute

Hello all,

There is many house fans that keep posting this site for proof of airdate but there unwilling to accept that it is unrealible. However i am also getting told that to leave the article the way ti is with teh source for the epsiode broken as two parts i either accept twitter as realible or not

here is the page http://twitter.com/GregYaitanes

can someone please tell me how to go about this?--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes... Delete the article... or at least merge it the article into the main House article... there is no need for an article on each season of any TV show. Furthermore, If you can resist the temptation to put trivia (like the air date of episodes) into the article in the first place then there is no need to find a source for it. Blueboar (talk) 21:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

mmm so you are saying the wikiproject television should go and delete thousands and thousdand of season articles i think you will find there a lot oppposaiton as theey are notable, i was asking for advice on the source of twitter for the producer of th show sicne all the fans keep saying it cna be used--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yup, that's what I am saying in a nutshell... I never said my opinion was popular. Blueboar (talk) 22:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't things like this be discussed on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard? Dmcq (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

And by th way somebody's blog is definitely not a reliable source Dmcq (talk) 22:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

yes it should i jsut lost the page ill move it there now, oh and that wha ti thought but there to many fans on teh article determine to use it--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 23:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

there is no reliable source because the only practical proof of a source is its falsification!

wiki-deciders, please go into yourselves and meditate deeply about what you are stating. there is no scientific validity in the idea of a reliable source. in science, sources are only held for being reliable because of the practical problem of otherwise not being able to work on. this is an unspoken convention rather than a belief. it is neither a truth nor held for being a truth in science. there is only struggle about the reliability of sources, mainly to dismantle 'highly recommended and cited' sources backed by interest parties.

there is no reliable source! there are only generally believed to be quotable sources. but these have proved to fail more than once. and, one of the most 'quotable' sources, the 'nature' magazine, is in critique as one of the major causes of today's 'monotheism' in science.

to be short: it is not scientific in any way to 'find' reliable sources (try to 'search' for them and you will learn that one can only 'find' them!) it is rather scientific to quote the existing - or a discussion-covering spectrum of - sources the respective way. in other words: it is not all about the references but all about the measuring of your writing: treat all sources with care and attribute them appropriately by balancing your wording!

come back down to the real problems. are the articles weighted? do they carry enough sense and argumentation to provide a useful imagination? is the reader informed enough to discuss or 'proof' 'reliability' himself? for example, the article about the wayland display driver 'needs' more 'reliable' sources, from your point of view. however, the article is about a very young software project. what do you expect? the primary address is actually the best address to get a useful imagination for now. and, if the 'new york times' had interviewed the project maintainer for the very same statements as written on the project page, would that be more 'reliable' then? this is weird thinking! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.222.132.21 (talk) 09:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Feel better now? The concept of RS is fundamental to Wikipedia, and is something that is unlikely to change ... If you can not accept it, then you should probably look for some other website to contribute to. Blueboar (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The page is not asserting that some sources are absolutely reliable in the general sense. Rather, it is defining a technical term: "reliable source". As defined, a "reliable source" is a source that is sufficient for the purposes of Wikipedia. Sources that meet the criteria laid out on this page are defined to be "reliable sources", that can be used as citations. Sources that do not meet the criteria may well be reliable in the general sense, but are not "reliable sources", and cannot generally be used in citations on Wikipedia.--Srleffler (talk) 20:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources=both reputable and relevant sources?

I don't know if others share this impression, but it seems to me some editors have some confusion about what is meant by "reliable sources." I see a reliable source as being a source that is both (1) reputable: "checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing", etc. and (2) relevant: "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made." The NY Times is given as an example of a reliable source. I'd say it's better described as a reputable source whose relevance, and thus reliability, "depends on the context." There wouldn't seem to be such a thing as a "reliable source" for all purposes; saying "X is a RS" is a blanket statement probably best avoided or specifically qualified by saying "in this case, X is a RS for Y." The lede contains the statement "Reliable sources may therefore be [1] published materials with a reliable publication process; they may be [2] authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject in question; or they may be both." The first thing, as currently worded, is a reputable source only, while the second is a reputable and relevant one. Possibly things like these, taken out of context, foster some of the confusion about RS? There are some terms used on other WP: namespace pages that might be good to include on the RS page: "significant coverage" (from the General Notability Guideline in WP:Notability) and its opposite, the "trivial mention" or "passing mention" found in WP:N and specific N guidelines and perhaps elsewhere. "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made" is an alternate definition of "significant coverage," to my mind. Шизомби (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, though some sources are both reputable and relevant to everything - heavily-staffed, world-class, generalist newspapers like The New York Times or broadcasters like the BBC being perfect examples. At the other end of the scale, yes, while Tunnels and Tunnelling is reputable, it is not relevant to the subject of (say) opera, and so if it happens to make some observation on that subject in passing it may not be reliable.

But even then, there are wheels within wheels. If Tunnels and Tunnelling reports that Acme Tunnels sponsored a production of Aida, it probably is reliable on that. If it says Aida is Verdi's greatest opera, it likely isn't reliable - but what if it has brought in a renowned opera expert to write the piece? Then it is (because we trust the expert, and we trust Tunnels and Tunnelling to have a competent and professional editing process that won't distort his words).

So really, the whole generic question of "is X a reliable source" is most useful in quickly excluding those sources that are never (or hardly ever) reliable on anything, such as 14-year-old Billy Blow's MySpace page. The decision to say that a source is reliable comes down not just to the reputation and relevance of the journal/broadcaster/Website/whatever, but to the particular statement, its context, its author, etc. Barnabypage (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

One is likely to be able to find a specific article or broadcast by the NYT or BBC, etc. with significant coverage that would serve as a RS for many different topics, true. But one couldn't say (and I don't think you are, but some do) that anything published by the NYT mentioning X is going to be a RS for X; it's going to depend on additional factors of reputation and relevance. Шизомби (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

CliffNotes, Sparknotes, MonarchNotes, Ophah, and shmoop reliability

I've been reading in vain for 20 minutes for opinions about whether CliffNotes, SparkNotes, MonarchNotes, and shmoop[7]] are considered reliable references.

Looking at For Esmé – with Love and Squalor, I was concerned that an external link had been added to shmoop. The writing isn't especially good, using informal language. ("life goes on in some places", "untouched by battle", "manage to hide away", "its optimistic message still tweaks the heartstrings after all this time".) The only references provided were for the trivia; of the three one was broken, one to a band's page,[8] and one to a Salinger Wiki example page(!?).[9] shmoop, in particular seems too weak as a reliable reference.

There are other concerns affecting all four. Should Wikipedia encourage external linking to a study site? Which? Before I changed it, Anna Karenina had links to Sparknotes[10], shmoop,[11] and Oprah's book club.[12]. These sites all seem to have in common a lack of authorship, writing date, and inline references.

I gravitate toward removing all links to CliffNotes, Sparknotes, MonarchNotes, Ophah, and shmoop placed in the "External links" sections. In particular, it seems that the links should not be added without explanation, as this editor did on several occasions for shmoop.[13] Thoughts and direction would be welcome. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 10:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I recommend keeping them: they are useful and have material that is otherwise hard to find. As for their quality, well, I believe teachers have a higher opinion of them than they do of Wikipedia! (All are vetted by professional editors and depend on the reputation for sales in college bookstores). I just checked some Cliffnotes at random. They all list an author--for example, the guides for "Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland" and "One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest" were written by a professional writer who has been a professor of literature and academic writing at University of Detroit Mercy. bio Rjensen (talk) 11:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the researched, swift answer. Cliffnotes, yes, those seem to be the cream of the crop. shmoop seems to be at the opposite end of the spectrum. I guess I would ask the broader question then: how many literary critiques does Wiki need as external links? Should every Cliffnote, Sparknote, MonarchNote, Oprah, shmoop, and any other published professional literary critique be added to the External Links section? Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 11:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I've seen some links to shmoop being added recently, I think there might be a campaign to add them. I thought shmoop looked pretty unreliable. If there's no good reason to refer to it, blacklist it? Fences&Windows 22:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless it is clear that there is a real spam problem, I don't think we should blacklist. The recent RFC indicated that lack of reliability should not be a sole basis for blacklisting, but the rough consensus is that it can be considered as a factor. Gigs (talk)

WP:RS' lede

Most WP pages be they in the articlespace or WPspace start by briefly defining what is meant by the title of the page, whereas this one starts by saying what it is not: "This guideline discusses the reliability of various types of sources. The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability. Where there is a conflict between this page and the policy, the policy takes precedence, and this page should be changed to reflect the content of the policy." It seems like another place could be found for that, either further down in the WP:Lede, in an indented italicized WP:hatnote or in a boxed WP:Template message. I'd also recommend that "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" be stated as concisely in the lede as it in in the overview prior to being discussed in more detail and would recommend bolding "fact-checking and accuracy" which seems to my mind to deserve as much emphasis as "Sources should directly support the information" currently gets. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 04:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is sometimes a primary source

It seems to me that the article space of wikipedia is explicitly tertiary, and talk pages are self-published, but it's self evident that the policies of wikipedia are at the very least primary sources for what the wikipedia's policies are/were.

Similarly arbcom decisions and the software database about who is/isn't an administrator and such like, these are primary sources also. There's no sense that arbcom decisions are self-published, they don't pay to be published, they're published by another party (the wikimedia foundation) and they're essentially sort out by that party to do that.- Wolfkeeper 21:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is a primary source in rare cases. It's usually tertiary though. I think that distinction is probably too subtle and minor to note in the guideline text though. Gigs (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

are advocacy groups a RS? notice of active discussion

Hi, there is a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Advocacy groups exclusions & academic requirements regarding the reliability of advocacy groups. One side of the argument is that they publish too much material not to be used. Another side suggests they should meet the scholarly works requirement or can be included similar to op-ed pieces.

I am adding this note here because I am not sure if the discussion was started in the right place. If you feel this is not a good place to note the existence of this discussion, please delete this section. 0¹⁸ (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Missing the Irony in Sources

There is a lot of material that make bogus statements for the purposes of exaggeration, humor, irony, or ridicule -- but no source to "prove" the statement's intention as such. For example, if a Wikipedia editor cites a magazine interview in which Jim Carrey jokes that he broke his leg while contorting his face, that editor has found a "reliable" source for Carrey's anecdote. This opens up the possibility of editors arguing about Carrey's intended meaning, as the intended humor is obvious to one editor and denied by another. That's just a hypothetical example, but consider: Leslie Nielsen's autobiography, full of falsehoods, makes a note on its copyright page that the book only pretends to be autobiography, but is really just a work of fiction; satirical comments by Mark Twain would not be so transparently satirical to many of today's readers. Are there any Wikipedia guidelines or policies for such disagreements and misunderstandings? Minaker (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen this before. It's especially bad when it's self-deprecating humor. The bottom line is that there has to be common sense when using reliable sources. You can file for a third opinion which will hopefully inject some reason. Gigs (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have experienced this. A certain established Wiki editor added a somewhat off-topic rude critical quote about an award-winning book. The quote was from a famous comedian, and so could be assumed to have a twist. The editor refused to listen to discussion, simply responding that it was a quote from a reliable reference. The problem is much deeper, however. Just because a critic, for example, has a column in a popular teen-centered magazine, doesn't mean they have a notable opinion. Wikipedia is too lax defining reliability of sources. It may be convenient to quote something that's available in 30 seconds of Googling, but convenient does not = encyclopedic. Piano non troppo (talk) 09:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Help me out a bit...

I have previously read something which states that an article can be considered acceptable, despite the fact that a website may request payment to view that article. Is that point correct? It may be a slight variation of what i said, I can't find it exactly. --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 12:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Possibly WP:V#Access to sources. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly it, thank you. --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 18:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Tiny stubs question

The sentence "Consider not adding this template to extremely short articles," in the Template:Unreferenced documentation would seem to imply that stubs do not need to have references, or at least the Unreferenced tag should not be added to them. This is not how I interpret the guidelines but I'm currently in discussion with another editor who routinely removes the tag when it appears in a stub. Should the template documentation be updated or does the fact that an article is already marked as a stub mean that reliable sources tags do no apply? I've already posted this question at Template talk:Unreferenced but received no response.--RDBury (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Even a tiny stub needs to be based on reliable sources. Tagging an unreferenced stub is quite appropriate. Looking for sources yourself and expanding the article is even more appropriate. Blueboar (talk) 16:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the template doc should be rephrased then. As for adding references myself, I do that when I have time and the article appears to be worthwhile. But if it looks like it's the kind of article that only exists because no one wants to go to the effort of doing an AfD then I say tag away. Hopefully the article's creator, who is actually responsible for adding refs, will get the message and do so.--RDBury (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well.... it does not say "Don't add this template to stubs" it mearly says to consider not doing so. But then again the only situation where I would consisider not adding the tag is if I could fix the problem by adding sources myself... and the language already points that out as an alternative approach.

I am going to be bold and cut the line. Blueboar (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. You're right that it doesn't say 'Don't', and that's not I interpreted it, but apparently it can be interpreted that way. I'll take a second look at the doc myself to make sure the t's are crossed.--RDBury (talk) 15:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion seems to have moved back to Template talk:Unreferenced for anyone interested in following up.--RDBury (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

RS can be unreliable

I just read a reliable source, CNN, that is unreliable.

See this CNN link

The former Alaska governor is calling on President Obama to fire his notoriously coarse top aide after a report in the Wall Street Journal last week quoted Emanuel as referring to liberal groups in August who attacked the president's health care plan as "F-ing retarded."

This reliable source is wrong. What actually happened was the Wall Street Journal Europe reported that Emanuel said that after liberal threatened to attack more conservative Democrats in Congress by running ads against them, not against President Obama or his health care plan. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The fact that it is 1) a "blog" post on CNN, meaning that it is a on-the-spot report as to one that is well researched, and 2) based on a facebook page post that refers to another article that describes the response of someone to a specific report (literally a he-said-she-said-he-said... bit of telephone game mutations of information) implies that we'd have to question the source in the first place. Just because "cnn.com" appears in the URL doesn't not equate to being an RS. Only that we'd likely presume cnn.com is a reliable source to start with and then question the reliability of specific articles, compared with some unknown cite where we'd assume it is not an RS to begin with and then consider if a single article on it may be reliable. --MASEM (t) 16:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)