![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | → | Archive 25 |
Is this my imagination, or is this a circular definition ?
Reliable sources are credible. Reliable sources are reliable. Reliable sources are trustworthy (and authoritative)
"Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative"
So, then, how do we know someone is credible ? Trustworthy ? Authoritative ? -- InnocentsAbroad2 ( talk) 02:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
For population numbers, would it be worth mentioning that the reliable resource is the census data, even if this may be considered a primary source, possible even more than the same numbers misquoted somewhere else? -- User:Docu
Depends where you are. Nigerian census figures are wildly inflated by tribal competition. Peter jackson ( talk) 17:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
For the music related articles, many a times user add pulsemusic.proboards.com as reference. It is generally a forum where a member called bks posts the Billboard Hot 100 chart way early than the magazine publishes it. IT also has the week to week sales of albums and singles. But the question is won't this lead to copyright vio? I request that users don't add information from this website untill and unless it is confirmed as a reliable source. --Legolas (talk2me) 08:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
For example, is Oxford English Dictionary a secondary or tertiary source? I cant find "dictionary" in WP:RS. Phoenix of9 ( talk) 04:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
It's in Fascism. I added the OED definition into the lead (without deleting anything) "The principles and organization of Fascists. Also, loosely, any form of right-wing authoritarianism." but it was deleted by Collect and others, claiming it wasnt a RS.
Now this is both an issue at hand but its also about the policy. There are eg's such as "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, for example the Washington Post in the United States and the Times in Britain, as well as widely used conglomerates such as the Associated Press." Cant we add OED as an example of a RS? Phoenix of9 ( talk) 16:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Policy doesn't need changing or clarifying - it already covers this situation just fine. It doesn't matter whether OED is classed as secondary or tertiary - read what policy says about tertiary sources. That covers any reasonable use of a dictionary, including the one that sparked this debate. Rd232 talk 17:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Blueboar, you are right. However, if OED is a secondary source, mentioning that in the policy would have saved me from listening to lots of nonsensical arguments in Fascism. Dougweller, just like other sources, I guess there are reliable dictionaries and unreliable ones. I've never heard of Chambers 21st Century Dictionary, to be honest. Phoenix of9 ( talk) 18:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
"Quotations should be cited to the original source if possible; when secondary sources are used, those that cite the original source should be preferred over those that don't. Hostile secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion if they lack neutral corroboration."
Should this perhaps be "Partisan secondary sources..."? It's not just the hostile ones that mangle and misattribute quotes - one common form of appeal to authority is to attribute a supportive quote to a well-respected figure. -- GenericBob ( talk) 00:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Since this is a topic that pops up with regular frequency here (ex. above), I think we should add a section or paragraph to deal with this (next to or as a part of the "Extremist and fringe sources" section, perhaps, or to the Wikipedia:Reliable source examples?). Here's my proposed paragraph:
Sources published under totalitarian or autocratic regimes can be reliable, but should be treated carefully, particularly if they touch upon an area of known bias or likely to be affected by censorship or party-line propaganda (for example, Nazi sources will not be objective on the Jewish issues, and Soviet sources will have a pro-Marxist bias). Those problems are discussed in dedicated articles on national historiographies (see Category:Historiography by country). If in doubt whether a particular fact is reliable, this fact should be discussed on relevant article's page, and if it is agreed that the fact is controversial, it should sourced with non-communist era works, as exceptional claims require exceptional sources. If a particular publication or an author is in doubt, critical reviews need to be presented before the book or an author are deemed unreliable; it is recommended that those critical reviews are also mentioned in the article's on those authors or publications (see example one, example two).
Comments appreciated.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 09:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Longtime contributor to RSN here with an complaint about overemphasis on "third party" sources in the guideline. Our guideline says articles should rely primarily on third-party sources, which is fine, but the nutshell and one of the other paragraphs leaves out the "primarily". Some editors only read the nutshell and then argue that press releases and other primary sources from an article subject can never be cited in a WP article. Recommending that "third-party" be removed from the nutshell and the first paragraph of Overview. We already discuss third-party in the bolded second paragraph of the lead and in the "primary sources" section. Squidfryerchef ( talk) 14:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
OK... I have been bold and changed it to "based primarily" instead of just "based". Blueboar ( talk) 20:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Is CBS.com a reliable source? For example, an unaired miscellaneous task in The Amazing Race from a forum. I'm sure the part is from a CBS website. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 06:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
As far as CBS.com goes, the over all website contains individual sub-pages that are reliable and individual sub-pages that are not reliable. For example, the "recaps" sub-page is reliable as that is authored by an employee of CBS, the photo gallery sub-page (photos are not sources) and the "fans/forums" sub-page (authored by anyone) are not reliable. Blueboar ( talk) 15:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to have to put out a motion that Examiner.com not be allowed as a viable source for linking to articles. There are a number of Wikipedia articles that cite Examiner.com, and there's a bit of problem with this because the Examiner.com model is based on paying writers for page views. Anyone can sign up to be a writer there, put down some information, and then get paid for getting mass amounts of page views. This, in my opinion, creates great conflict with the idea of NPOV. Rustydangerfield ( talk) 05:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
It's my understanding that we should, under no circumstances, cite a newsgroup. Then why do we have a newsgroup citation template that's used on at least 100 articles? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 11:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Is the Electronic Intifada a reliable source? I don't see why it is not, but user:ShamWow has removed it from Haneen Zoubi's article as not reliable, citing here. Thoughts?-- TM 18:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
A source currently being used at Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth - a featured article - contains text that looks to have been copied verbatim from WP itself. The WP content is older, giving rise to the question of the source's reliability. An editor has suggested that the inclusion of the WP material (not credited in the paper) constitutes, in effect, a peer review of the WP content, and thereby makes the paper usable as a source, and has also suggested that the topic be brought here. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_35#Is_a_resource_still_acceptable_if_it_contains_sentences_taken_verbatim_from_WP_itself.3F. Novickas ( talk) 20:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I would wonder about a source that tries to pass off Wikipedia as a reliable source, just as I would wonder about a source that tried to pass a supermarket tabloid as a reliable source. However, if a source acknowledged the reliability issues of Wikipedia, and explained why the passage from Wikipedia was sound in some specific instance, I would consider the source to be untarnished. -- Jc3s5h ( talk) 03:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
-- Ihaveabutt ( talk) 04:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I cant find the policy on court documents. Surely the are considered more reliable than newspapers
-- Cogvoid ( talk) 03:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Those interested in policing/updating/quality controlling WP:RS and related policies should take note of the issues occurring in the Michael Jackson article today (note particularly the talk page) in which undeniably reliable sources with editorial oversight -- the Associated Press, the BBC, CNN, etc. -- were being rejected outright as RS with regards to reporting Jackson's death. No less than CNET has even posted a story regarding this controversy here. I can understand the reluctance to go with information originating from the gossip site TMZ, but things got out of hand when the Associated Press was being rejected. I think the conduct regarding RS has set a bad precedent. I'm not pointing a finger at any user on this issue, but it is worth investigating for future updates to the policy. 68.146.81.123 ( talk) 23:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
(speedforceironman1809081389099 00:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC))
Is it appropriate to cite sources in a language other than the one the Wikipedia entry is written in? The problem that arises is that foreign language sources necessarily are less comprehensible by possibly a majority of other contributors. However, in my view, sources written in those languages that are most widespread, like English, Spanish, French or German, should be accepted for citation. Sources written in such languages might easily be verified by other users. -- Hcinmmod ( talk) 19:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
"The existence of a consensus within an academic community may be indicated, for example, by independent secondary or tertiary sources that come to the same conclusion. The statement that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material."
This guideline seems to contradict itself, depending on how you read it. I've always taken it to mean that you should not report a scientific or academic consensus unless someone else (in a reliable source) has explicitly said that one exists. Is this the intent? I think getting rid of the first sentence would fix it, but then that seems to leave a loophole where an otherwise reliable source makes a left field claim for a consensus that doesn't really exist. I'd like to get it clarified one way or another, so if anyone has any suggestions, lets have it. Gigs ( talk) 19:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
How are we judging the comparative quality of newspapers? They all have editors, but they are all obviously not equal.
Tabloids like the Natioinal Enqurier are obviously of inferior quality, but what method are we using to judge this? First, you need some method to determine if something is a Tabloid or simply reports on celebrities a lot (like People). Second, if it isn't a tabloid, you still need to employ some other methods to judge quality as a reliable source.
I think that people are frequently applying personal opinion, for better or for worse, as to what newspapers are more reliable than others, as it's not like there's some database of "editor reliability" and "editor expertise."
The only thing I can think of that's objective is circulation of the newspaper and how often the journalist/editor gets printed, which is an indirect measure of the consensus among journalists and their readers regarding the writing subject.
This is a universal method, because even with scientific journals, we judge how often a scientist gets published, is cited, and accepted within the scientific community.
If we are using circulation (in essence, popularity as a measure of consensus), why can't the same be applied to non-expert websites and blogs? It doesn't make sense to allow popularity of a source as viewed as being reliable for one type of source, but not others.
In other words, if Joe's website is frequently linked to by others as a good source to read (i.e. linking to him because they think the site is good, not bad), it would make sense to use Joe as a reliable source. You'd compare the proportion of recognition from all sources.
The quality as a reliable source would be weighted against other factors, such as whether there were multiple contributors, whether it's equivalent to an "op ed" piece or written in a more professional fashion, what sources they used for their information, etc...
Thus, I think that proportion of recognition as a reliable source (recognition within the relevant population e.g. the scientist population for journal articles) should one of the main indicators for all types of sources. It's not the only indicator, but it's an important one.
- Nathan J. Yoder ( talk) 16:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I should probably have posted this here before. RfC on the reliability of sources such as ESCToday, oikiotimes is open at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#RfC on reliable sources for Eurovision articles. Thanks. Jezhotwells ( talk) 09:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I originally tried to post on this topic in RS/N but it got hijacked by a specific case and didn't attract disinterested commentary, so it might be best discussed here in the broad sense. I reasonably regularly come across ostensibly RS/V sources, for example articles in journals or newspaper reports, however the articles have obvious, glaring factual errors (usually without citation) that are easily disproved through better sources. In journals these usually occur when discussing cross-discipline topics, such as a pyschology journal discussing business. In newsmedia, well they occur all over the place! How should these types of sources be handled? Someone wanting to use them to support some fact can clearly claim they're from an ostensibly RS/V source and want to use it on WP. On the other hand, clear evidence the article is not reliable can not be included in WP as it would be OR. The current guidelines don't seem to address this problem. -- Insider201283 ( talk) 14:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I do not belive that The Washington Post is an excellent example of a reliable source because of its lack of political neutrality. Instead, may I suggest a newspaper which does not have a political leaning such as the Wall Street Journal. I think this website needs to make sure that all articles are neutrally written and neutral sources are cited. Often times i find articles severely edited towards the "liberal" side, and no one seems to revert the edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonked116 ( talk • contribs) 02:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Can we have just two things please?
A: A page for each and every source we ref.
B: On this page some bias codes.
A bias code that both WaPo and WSJ would share would be American, while The Register and The Economist would be tagged with British and Press TV would be tagged with Iranian. Additional tags would indicate government control (Press TV and VOA) and so on.
Also, should we simply exclude all editorial material from all publications? Hcobb ( talk) 18:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I think this page needs something short in lead to repeat Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[nb 1] The source cited must unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article.[nb 2] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books.
I came here first and searched around for what I knew to be true and only after a while did I go back to WP:V. People with less experience might never get there and be ham-swoggled into having to prove that something was NOT verifiable or WP:RS, instead of other way round. Thoughts? CarolMooreDC ( talk) 21:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
what is the bankcode of banco de oro antique, philippine branch? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teresa tj21 ( talk • contribs) 03:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
There has been an attempt to include all kinds of religious opinions as reliable source on 04:33, 4 December 2006. Meanwhile it seems most of this additions have been reverted, however the project page still reads
thereby giving the opinions of science and scholarship the same status as (here even: exlusively Christian) theologie. I don't think this is in agreement with the scientific approach of this encyclopaedic project and have therefore removed the "ministers" from the sentence. -- Schwalker ( talk) 17:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to reopen the discussion on the Examiner: http://www.examiner.com. (Please see Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/archive 21#Examiner.com). For the sake of transparency, I am involved in a deletion discussion in which another editor pointed it out as a source: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reading With Rover.
The basic structure of the Examiner is that amateur writers can sign up and start writing. They get paid per hits (which really isn't a terrible thing since professional writers receive compensation for their work) and do not always use reliable information in their reporting. It is more of a blog and neutrality is not common. It does come up on google news searches.
I have had a few personal experiences with these writers/bloggers/examiner/whatever.
These are only two occurrences but the primary reason for my hesitance to accept it as a reliable source is the fact that these are amateur writers (bloggers) who do not need to answer to any vetting process (i.e. an editor). Some of the information they provide is truly outstanding (the Seattle Sounders guy is usually good even though I know of one instance where he released a tabloid like peice that contained little informaiton but started a buzz) but we should set her standards higher and make sure the information being included is verifiable. Many writings found at the Examiner site simply fail the project's and most journalists' criteria. Cptnono ( talk) 01:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Here's my suggestion for how to handle sources.
First every inline cite gets robotically matched by URL to a source page. So if you ref http://www.nytimes.com/something_or_other it will automatically link to The New York Times. If the robot is unable to match your URL it will leave a red link that can be edited to fit and the robot will pick up this match for future use.
Then on the subject pages for sources we can note the topics for which they are good references and on their talk pages we can indicate where they fall short. (Say Press TV as a source on Human Rights in Iran.)
Finally we simply require that all sources have their own pages.
There will no longer be a need for a single page that judges the ability of every source to report on every issue as the problem is split up into managable bits. Hcobb ( talk) 15:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
But sometimes Iranian state media is our only source. Shall I remove all such refs from WP and all statements that depend on such sources? The real answer is that every source must be judged against its own background, which is best presented as a page. Hcobb ( talk) 03:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Example of when the bot wouldn't work. Imagine our article on Joe Schmidlap, famed for being the tallest man in the world, the legendary "10 foot pole" himself. His wife, Ernestine Schmidlap, in her book, "Life of Joe Schmidlap", page 17, says that he actually wore lifts, and was merely 9' 10". Surely a) this is important and controversial information that deserves a citation; b) she is a reliable source on the subject; c) neither she nor her book deserve an individual article. -- GRuban ( talk) 19:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Should the website Associated Content be considered a reliable source or not? The article says "Associated Content enables anyone to publish their content on any topic" so that makes me wonder. AnemoneProjectors ( talk) 13:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
This article doesn't say anything about whose opinion can be cited, in citing opinions. Presumably, Joe Blow With a Blog is not a source for an opinion on a random political issue. Opinions need to be from relevant or influential people--an expert, or maybe a leader (maybe belongs in the article for that person...). What are the guidelines? Noloop ( talk) 20:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Proposal. Add something like what I've put in italics:
Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers. When discussing what is said in such sources, it is important to directly attribute the material to its author, and to do so in the main text of the Wikipedia article so readers know that we are discussing someone's opinion.
Opinions on a subject should come from experts, such as scholars on the subject or someone likely to have notable insight into it. The opinion of a prominent non-expert, e.g. "Oprah" may be of interest simply because the source is of interest. Consider putting that in the article on Oprah, rather than the article on the subject.
There is, however, an important exception to sourcing statements of opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs (see: WP:BLP#Sources and WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source).
Note that otherwise reliable news sources--for example, the website of a major news organization--that happens to publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be considered to be equally reliable as if it were published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format of a classic news story. However, the distinction between "opinion pieces" and news should be considered carefully.
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Noloop (
talk •
contribs)
16:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Again, I propose the following:
Opinions on a subject should come from experts, such as scholars on the subject or someone likely to have insight into it. The opinion of a prominent non-expert, e.g. "Oprah" may be of interest simply because the source is of interest. Consider putting that in the article on Oprah, rather than the article on the subject.
Again, this would go in the section on sources of opinions. I'm not proposing that general reliable sources have to have expertise. Nor am I saying anything about self-publishing or due weight. Just that when we write "According to [source of opinion], [statement of opinion]", the [source of opinion] should be someone whose opinion matters. There should be an answer to the question: "Why should anyone care about that person's opinion?" Somebody with expertise, standing, or insight. The president of the construction firm, in Will Beback's example above, would probably count. Noloop ( talk) 19:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
My answer is none of the above. An opinion is worth repeating if the opinion itself is noteworthy. First of all, if someone has an opinion about something we don't endorse that opinion. All we can say is that the person holds the opinion. So, for example, we could say "Barack Obama and the head of Harvard's history department both believe Abraham Lincoln to be the best president in history", but we couldn't say Lincoln is widely considered the best president in history with a cite to Obama and the hypothetical professor. Secondly, like every statement of fact, the statement that person X has opinion Y should in most cases be cited to a third party source, rather than the original research implicit in our reading a document as a primary source for evidence of what a person's opinion is or what a person said. Although there is a limited RS exception here that does let us cite opinions for evidence of what a person's opinion is, it's not the best way to go about things because it does not establish weight or relevance. For example, what if Obama, Tom Cruise, the Pope, and the judges on Top Chef Masters all believe that KFC is better than Popeye's. They're certainly notable, or experts, take your pick. But if we source that claim to a random interview here and there, it still doesn't belong on the Popeye's or KFC articles because the opinion itself simply isn't noteworthy. It has no bearing or importance really. On the other hand the opinion of a far less notable person, Michael J. Pollard, that corn is evil, is quite notable because it had a huge impact, as evidenced by the thousands of major reliable sources that report on Pollard having that opinion. Hope that helps. Wikidemon ( talk) 23:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
The proposal that "opinions need to come from notable people" does not accord with common practice in the quality press - for example only guest articles in The Economist have named authors, and many obituaries are effectly the work of several anonymous hands, as the media update bios of famous people constantly in order to be ready with an obit immediately it's needed. Like most of WP:RS, this is a futile attempt to reduce assessment of reliability to robotic rules. -- Philcha ( talk) 20:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
But all orbits are examined by newspaper employees who are experts in their field (due to working in that area for a while, not dying themselves). Hcobb ( talk) 14:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
IMNSHO, every source needs to be notable enough to justify its own page, which needs to be linked from every reference that uses that source. Then sources can be dealt with using standard WP practices. We could have a robot march through and adjust cites to link to source pages with simple URL matching, and leave red links where the matching fails. Hcobb ( talk) 15:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Dudes and dudesses! You are highjacking my thread. This thread is specifically for the discussion of how we source opinions. I'd like to make headway on that, specifically defined, topic. A lot of the initial confusions came, I think, from my lack of specificity. I think that's been clarified now, and I wonder if there are any objections. If we say "Joe Schmo expressed the opinion that..." there should be a reason we care about what Joe Schmo thinks. Joe should be expert or involved in some way. Agree? Noloop ( talk) 17:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Thus we can remove the use of letters from Joe Blogs, or words to that effect. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Where are we in terms of this discussion and proposal(s)? I believe that the questions/objections are already handled by the existing policies and guidelines. A letter to an editor is reliable for the author's opinion per WP:RS. The significance of any opinion is determined by WP:WEIGHT. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 15:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, I think that it's already covered by the existing policies and guidelines. Instead of modifying these, how about we add something like the following to WP:Reliable source examples:
"Are letters to the editor reliable sources? Letters to the editor are largely not acceptable, though may be used in limited circumstances, with caution. If a letter to the editor is published by a reliable source such as a respected newspaper or magazine and is written by an established expert on the topic at hand who has been previously published by reliable, third-party publications on this topic, it is reliable for that person's opinion. If the author is a non-expert such as a celebrity, it is also reliable for that person's opinion. However, it should be noted that if the non-expert's opinion is significant, it would have been covered by third-party, reliable sources. Either way, WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP still apply." A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 22:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Good. I think I need to clarify that by "opinion" we mean POV, not opinion about a factual matter (e.g. not the "opinion" that global warming is caused by human activity). The guideline isn't restricted to fringe theories, or cases where there is a WP:WEIGHT problem. Making these changes, can we add the proposed text? Noloop ( talk) 16:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
WP:NPOV is about the POV of an entire article. I'm not talking about omitting a POV from an article, I'm talking about who is a valid source of a particular opinion/interpretation/POV that is to be cited. It's kind of interesting that after this enormous volume of text, you still don't understand what is being said. Noloop ( talk) 16:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
In the somewhat long discussions on "Opinions need to come from notable people" above we breifly addressed the idea of using the most reliable source for any give statement... I think there is strong consensus that we should always use the best sources possible for anything... but the guideline does not actually say anything about this. We should probably address that. I would suggest adding something along the lines of the following (I am not wedded to this particular language):
thoughts and comments? Blueboar ( talk) 19:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
There is someone at
Talk:Harriet Harman trying to assert that a news source cannot be used if the comments to the main article contain material insulting to the subject. Specifically, the WP article claims that Harman earned a particular nickname because of her feminism. The article cites a Spectator Evening Standard piece that says her feminism earned her the nickname. Like many news sources, members of the public are allowed to leave comments at the end of the article. After this particular article is a comment stating that Harman is mental and should be institutionalized. The other editor involved in this dispute keeps removing the source on the basis that the source contains "slanderous material". He has even gone so far as to try to say this somehow implicates
WP:BLP. -
Rrius (
talk)
23:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Rogan from Irving comments .. This female is basically mad and should be sectioned under the mental health act. Off2riorob ( talk) 19:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
There are two different things here: the citation and the link. A citation should always have enough information that someone could go to a physical archive and find the article. A link is provided for convenience. As this is about the link rather than the citation, it has nothing to do with reliable sources. I suggest the BLP noticeboard. -- NE2 01:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Please ref: Talk:Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh)#Thompson quotation...
I have been asked to check here with RS editors if it would be appropriate to cite the following article, which holds a quote that is in the Osho article in this section. Can this website, enlightened-spirituality.org, and its contributor, Timothy Conway, PhD, be considered a reliable source?
Also, please consider this website and this website as other possible reliable sources for the same quotation.
The quotation is as follows:
I am not a disciple and I do not consider Osho my master, but I cannot hide my admiration for the old man. I think his contribution to expanding human awareness has no parallel in human history. There have been other masters, but no one has been so effective in reaching so many people during his lifetime as Osho did. Also, his insistence on laughter, enjoying life and humor as religious qualities makes him stand alone in the world of mystics. Finally, he helped to liberate, sexually and from social conditioning vast quantities of spiritual seekers that would have, otherwise, ended up ranking with some ascetic, repressive guru, and thus contributing with more repression and self-torture to this world.
— Anthony Thompson, Ph.D.
— .`^) Paine Ellsworth diss`cuss (^`. 14:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Rob & Paine, please state the distinction you make between the Thompson item and the Calder SP item that is being rebuked. I take it you have no problems also detailing Calders claims then? Or detailing further Hugh Milnes experiences? or the other sources Calder refers to in his item? Contrary to the other commentators cited in the Osho appraisal section, most of whom are published academics, Thompson is a non-notable individual and is not published by a reliable third party source;
Semitransgenic (
talk)
17:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be valuable to discuss the issue of anonymous submission and double-blind peer-review in journals, and emphasize that in general, journals using such a review process ought to be preferred as sources to those that do not. I would also recommend including mention of factors that can lead to bias in acceptance/rejection when submission and reviewing is not anonymous. I also think it might be relevant to discuss related issues such as publication bias, especially when it comes to avoiding undue weight.
Here are some articles that discuss the importance of these concerns:
What do others think? Do people generally agree? The arguments against double-blind submission do not seem to hinge on the quality of the work (see the book by D. Shatz) and thus, from a perspective of reliability, I have not found any compelling arguments against them. What do you think would be the best way to mention these sorts of issues in WP's guidelines?
What about adding a sentence like "Publications in journals using anonymous submission/double-blind peer reviewing are preferred to those in journals."...or does anyone have any other suggestions or ideas? And what is the most widely accepted word or phrase to use here? Anonymous submission? Blind submission? Double-blind reviewing?
I think it might also help to link to a wikipedia page on the issue--I was unable to find one--and it surprises me there isn't one so if I am just not searching in the right way and someone could point this out that would be great too. Cazort ( talk) 18:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Please add bn interwikilink [[bn:উইকিপিডিয়া:নির্ভরযোগ্য উৎস]] for bn:উইকিপিডিয়া:নির্ভরযোগ্য উৎস. - Jayanta Nath ( Talk| Contrb) 11:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Pardon me (this topic might have been covered many times before) but I wonder why an article subjects own posts about his doings are often cited as the truth on wikipedia? I would think that the subject's own statements are inherently biased and self-serving thus not having the reliability of secondary sources on the subject. On the other hand, the subject's posts against his interest (negative type information) are more reliable as who would post such about themselves unless it's true.
Example 1: If I was a famous person with a website and I posted on there "I am pregnant!" then this information would often be added to my wikipedia article with my own statement as the source. I don't think this is reliable.
Example 2: If i posted on there "I just pled guilty to DUI and will be serving 10 days in jail," that statement is much more reliable as it is a statement against interest.
Any thoughts? Torkmann ( talk) 22:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
(Discussion copied here from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Adult industry) MichaelQSchmidt ( talk) 22:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
In interpretation of
WP:RS, what adult publications might be considered as authoritative on the adult field? I am not asking if
Playboy,
Penthouse,
Hustler or others of that ilk be considered as authoritative on world politics... only if such publications are accptable as generally reliable and authoritative in context to sourcing articles dealing with aspects of the adult industry... films and stars and authors and such.
MichaelQSchmidt (
talk)
19:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Are biographies such as this at Hustler.com a reliable source, and if so, can they be used to establish notability? Are they independant of the subject seeing as the models work for the magazine? Epbr123 ( talk) 08:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Should rumors of future events confirmed by reputable news sources be included? For instance, Joe Schmoe (popular guy) is rumored to be the next Defense Secretary of the United States and the rumor is confirmed by Time magazine, but not confirmed by the White House. There are a range of options ranging from ludicrous to restrictive. Should he be listed as the current Defense Secretary based on Time's confirmation even though it is not factually correct? Or should he be listed as the prospective Defense Secretary with the rumor cited? Or neither until the White House confirms his nomination? Or not until he is actually sworn in as the Defense Secretary? Sandcherry ( talk) 03:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts. Here are articles that serve as examples. The Saturday Night Live article shows Nasim Pedrad and Jenny Slate as current cast members based on a rumor confirmed by TV Guide (but not confirmed by NBC, their potential employer) that they will be hired for the new season starting later this month. The Nasim Pedrad and Jenny Slate articles state they have been hired based on the same rumor. Therefore, all three articles are stating as a fact something that may or may not happen. They do cite TV Guide's report stating the magazine has confirmed their hiring rumor, but NBC has not. Should editors revise such articles stating the hiring is rumored, delete the factually incorrect information, discuss the issue with the contributor on the talk page, or leave it alone as it is relatively trivial and will be confirmed (or not) shortly? I would appreciate your opinions. Sandcherry ( talk) 04:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Elemo qiltu, the founder of OLF shek Bakri Saphalo, the founder of Oromo alphabet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.174.237.130 ( talk) 07:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
"Extremist" or "fringe" relative to what? To the social norms of the contemporary, English speaking, relatively wired Wiki community of users, of course. I suggest putting that in explicitly so that the norm enforcers who cite this policy to support their purging are more self-conscious about what they are doing. If Wiki were around in the 17th century a Wiki user wouldn't have been able to cite Galileo in an astronomical article (ie. in an article other than an article about Galileo or his deviant heliocentrism) because somebody would revert saying the source was "extremist" or "fringe". How is one supposed to argue against that? If the project were somehow restricted to 1930s Germans it would likewise look entirely different, as the conventional wisdom of that time and place was again quite different from today's. I should think that we should aspire to the project NOT looking entirely different as political and cultural trends change. That's what "neutral" ought to mean: independent of culturally or politically situated POVs. Why aren't "fringe" or "extremist" sources that employ rigorous, scientific, and logical processes in coming to their conclusions OK? Ideally constructed Wiki policies should be able to screen for unreliable sources using universal, abstract principles; ie. without requiring a contingent test for particular popularity. Bdell555 ( talk) 08:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I've been stuck in a rut vis a vis the article Nibiru collision. For those of you not in the know, the Nibiru collision idea is causing a lot of people around the world a lot of anxiety, because it posits that we're about to be hit by a giant planet in 2012. Roland Emmerich is making a movie about it. Problem is that, despite its growing impact, it has not been dealt with in any detail by the mainstream "respectable" media. Scientists as a rule have not touched it with a ten foot pole, and most news coverage of it has been glib at best and inaccurate at worst. The only person who has been resolutely covering it and dealing with the impact is NASA's chief astrobiologist David Morrison, who had the grace to credit my work in The Skeptical Enquirer. That page is worth reading, actually, because it sums up not only the global notability of this issue but also our mutual frustration in finding notable information on it.
To my surprise, I have not seen much evidence that other scientists or skeptics are concerned about this growing outbreak of pseudoscience. ... A few news blogs such as Yahoo also provide truthful answers, but these are drowned out by the 2012 hysteria. I give credit to Wikipedia, which has several entries on Nibiru, including a very good overview of the pseudoscience under “Nibiru collision.”
As a result of the mainstream media's basic ignorance of this concept, I have been forced to scavenge, using the blogs of respected scientists and occasional pseudoscientific sites as references. Case in point: Mike Brown, the discoverer of the dwarf planet Eris, has a blog in which he makes specific scientific counterclaims against the Nibiru collision. One, that no object's magnetic field could possibly have the effect on Earth described, and that such an object would have been expelled from the Solar System by Jupiter within one million years. Compare that with the typical article in an Australian newspaper:
Concern is building again over a hoax that first appeared - to my knowledge - in 2002, about a planet called Nibiru that will supposedly wreak havoc on the Earth. It's all a load of rubbish! I first became aware of this hoax in early 2002, when I received inquiries about a planet that had supposedly been discovered on an extremely elongated orbit that was to bring it into the inner Solar System. According to the information being circulated around that time, it was heading in the vicinity of the inner planets and would pass between the Earth and the Sun about May 2003. Apparently, its 'magnetic' effects were predicted to do all sorts of nasty things to the Earth, including stopping its rotation. But the authors go on to say that the rotation will start again afterwards. Let me assure you that no laws of physics could allow any of this to happen.
First of all, the author of this quote gets his dates wrong; the idea started long before 2002. Second, while he does mention that the laws of physics would not allow such things to happen, he doesn't say why. So, which do I use? A "reliable" source that gives inaccurate information (as most "reliable" sources do on this topic), or an "unreliable" source by a world-renowned astronomer which gives a cogent and specific scientific rebuttal to a pseudoscientific claim?
Another problem I have is that the Nibiru collision originated on a website called Zetatalk, which is a forum for people to talk to a crazy old woman who thinks she can speak to aliens. Since most of the claims made about Nibiru originated on Zetatalk, I don't really have a choice but to cite Zetatalk as a source.
Also, as the story grew, it became entwined with the 2012 doomsday prediction, which originally had nothing to do with the Nibiru collision. The Nibiru collision was supposed to happen in 2003, but when that failed, the old woman who came up with the idea changed it to 2010. Other writers, looking for an angle, have changed the date to 2012, and that is the date most people read when they encounter this on the web. So how do I cite it? None of the books or websites that mention 2012 and Nibiru would ever be called reliable sources. And again, the media tends to get things mixed up about this.
I don't know what to do. Serendi pod ous 13:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
A NASA employee writing on a NASA website, and authorized by NASA to answer questions from the public, is a reliable independent source (unless he is secretly an illegal alien from Nibiru, in which case he wouldn't be independent). I don't use the term "third-party" because "third-party" comes from contract law, and so far as I know, no nation on earth recognizes the ability of extraterrestrials to enter into contracts. -- Jc3s5h ( talk) 16:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Can we use a self-published book for citing as sources to Wikipedia articles. The content is related to population of Non-indigenous ethnic groups in a specific country. As far I know, population of a particular ethnic group obtained respectively from their diplomatic missions and I don't think so, it is a sort of original research. Please comment. Wikipedia:VPM#Book -- Gaikokujin talk 19:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I am noticing confusing and inconsistent text in Wiki guidelines regarding second and third party sources. Can we amend these guidelines so that they are consistent? Here are some examples (bold added by me for clarity):
WP:SECONDARY “Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias or other compendia that mainly summarize secondary sources. For example, Wikipedia itself is a tertiary source. Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks may also be considered tertiary sources, to the extent that they sum up multiple secondary sources.” “Secondary sources are at least one step removed from an event. They rely for their facts and opinions on primary sources, often to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims.[3][4][5] Our policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims if they have been published by a reliable secondary source.“
WP:RS This page in a nutshell: Information in Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and articles should be based primarily on independent secondary sources.
(and then a few sentences later it says:)
Wikipedia articles[1] should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources”
WP:WELLKNOWN “Well-known public figures: In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.” -- — Kbob • Talk • 15:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks gents, but you are all missing the point, which I guess I failed to make clear (woe is me). So let me try again. My point of frustration is that the Wiki guidelines can't make up their mind which type of source they favor. Sometimes they say articles should use primarily secondary or second party sources and other times they say that articles should rely primarily on tertiary or third party sources. So they are contradictory. That's my issue. Please read my initial post again and you'll see what I mean. Thanks!-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I understand the definition of the terms. But they are used in the guidelines inconsistently. Such as in WP:RS
(and then a few sentences later it says:) Wikipedia articles[1] should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources” Are you saying that third party sources are the same as secondary sources? Even if that is the case (which I don't think it is) why not be consistent in our terminology to avoid confusion?-- — Kbob • Talk • 19:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Kbob, a third-party source isn't necessarily a secondary source. Nor is it necessarily a tertiary source. The two concepts are quite different as I explained above at 17:22. The third party thing is in bold and at the front because it is most important. The secondary thing is mentioned later because it is more of a preference. Yaris678 ( talk) 19:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I've decided to not mention the specific issues that brought me to this point because I think it should be discussed generally.
In my opinion the policy should be expanded to make it clear that translations of foreign language texts are NOT acceptable where the translation was done by Google Translate.
I'd like to see the policy amended as such. Any thoughts? Manning ( talk) 22:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Humans can translate content just as poorly as a machine, so I don't see a compelling reason to specifically ban them. Editors have always had the discretion to find consensus that a translation is so bad it's an unreliable source. This might be worth mentioning. Someguy1221 ( talk) 04:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I can't imagine a situation in which a Wikipedia article should use a machine translation, except for articles that are specifically about machine translation. --Akhilleus ( talk) 17:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I excised a lengthy comment placed here which seemed to be just a cut and paste of an article about the Amityville Horror. I can't see the point of the posting - perhaps the IP would care to explain? Manning ( talk) 00:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Some of the wording runs contrary to WP:WEIGHT. This section states that the "most" reliable sources are "Academic and peer-reviewed publications" and then goes on to quote NPOV UNDUE, however, it adds one word "most" to the statement "doing so in proportion to their published prominence among the most reliable sources." UNDUE does not say "most", and the way this is worded, it implies the prior reference to "Academic and peer-reviewed publications". Based on this policy, it can be argued and is being argued that weight be based on "Academic and peer-reviewed publications" and not the broader reliable sources. Even if we did say "most reliable sources", we define such in another policy WP:NOR differently: "In general the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." I don't see that there is any consensus on basing weight on this smaller subset of reliable sources. Why is WEIGHT being redefined on this policy? Why is it included at all in this policy? WP:POLICY states "Policies should not be redundant with other policies, or within themselves. Do not summarize, copy, or extract text. Avoid needless reminders." Morphh (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm curious if Letters to the Editor in a newspaper can be uses for citations. Off-hand, my assumption is they cannot, but I was simply wondering. Is there situations when they would be reliable and be utilized? I can see an issue here being that normally a newspaper would stand behind it's content, but this is not the case with letters. Is this just a flat "NO...they can never be used"? I was curious. BashBrannigan ( talk) 05:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
A mediation request Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/WikiProject Economics Guidelines has the interpretation of a sentence from this policy as one of the items in dispute. Dmcq ( talk) 13:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Note that otherwise reliable news sources--for example, the website of a major news organization--that happens to publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be considered to be equally reliable as if it were published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format of a classic news story. However, the distinction between "opinion pieces" and news should be considered carefully.
Just so I read this correctly, a source that is published by a journalist on a media website, such as newyorktimes.com, in a blog format is not the same as a typical blog (which tends to be seen as a poor source) for purposes of reliable sourcing? I ask this not in regards to any current editing (such as my recent edit warring on the Roman Polanski page) but more as my desire in future to be able to use legitimate references without fear of being promptly shut down because "its a blog". To be extra clear, I am not asking if "Blog = Reliable source" so much as clarifying that "Blog ≠ Reliable source" is not a valid reason to deny sources. WookMuff ( talk) 05:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Would other editors consider linkedin.com as a reliable source as a reference to a list entry, which require the same level of verification as a BLP entry. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 05:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I tried to add the Ethnic Group Project tag to History of the Jews in the United States but was told I had to prove that U.S. Jews were an ethnic group. I explained that both American Jews and Jew were both part of the WikiProject and that this seemed good enough for me. But I was again told I needed an outside source. Does the policy of not using other articles as evidence still apply when copying Project tags from one article to a related article? Thanks. Aristophanes68 ( talk) 04:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
This article has a bunch of ridiculous references. Are these allowed? They just take bits and pieces of these non-fiction publications and throw them in an article. Skrewler ( talk) 06:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on quotations allow great mischief when someone says something with ironic or sarcastic intent, and their words are quoted in a reliable source that doesn't explicitly mention the possible irony/sarcasm. Editors, intentionally or mistakenly, can use the person's literal words to claim that the person believes them. An example would be if TV personality Rachel Ray would spill some salt on camera and say "I am such a klutz!," and her words were shown on YouTube or reported in a magazine article about her. A foolish or malicious editor could use her words to support a claim that the normally sure-handed Ray is actually a klutz. This could lead to a well-sourced paragraph on klutziness, demonstrating in great detail what Ray, by her own words, admits to. In fact, she is not seriously claiming to be a klutz, but just referring ironically to an accident. Similar things can happen with more important figures. (Substitute a golden glove shortstop for Rachel Ray, for example.)
The problem is that the intended irony or sarcasm isn't mentioned in the encyclopedia article. It can't be mentioned, in fact, unless there is a source that points it out. Typically, there is no such secondary source, since reliable sources are not in the habit of identifying possible irony or sarcasm.
A recent case is where White House official Anita Dunn said that her favorite political philosophers include Mother Teresa and Chairman Mao. It isn't clear whether this was an ironic juxtaposition of opposites or a statement of her actual belief. The problem is that, in similar cases, often involving controversial living persons, editors can take the literal words and conclude that the person literally meant them.
IMHO in cases like this, the person's words are unreliable primary sources. I believe that our content guidelines on quotations as reliable sources should be changed/refined/improved to cover this situation.
Basically, if there is a legitimate chance of ironic intent in a person's words, especially if the person is living, extreme caution should be used in using them as an indication of the person's beliefs, positions, etc. Our policies and guidelines should advocate that caution. Lou Sander ( talk) 14:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I've seen this problem in controversial BLPs. Controversial person A says B with obvious ironic intent. POV-pushing editor C finds B quoted in reliable source D, then puts it verbatim into Wikipedia, saying or implying that person A is obviously hateful (or whatever) because he/she said B. The POV-pushing is allowed to stand, as is the violation of BLP intent, since Wikipedia's policies and guidelines don't deal with irony. The encyclopedia would be better if they did. DCLawyer ( talk) 12:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
According to WP:EoS the subtitle statement "To obtain or provide community input on whether or not a source meets our reliability standards for a particular use, see the reliable sources noticeboard." should be edited to change "whether or not" to whether".
I will do so. Riverpa ( talk) 15:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
The Golden Road to Samarkand by Wilfrid Blunt(Taught at Eton from 1938-1959),Viking Press, New York, 1975, Chapter 8, Pages 138-163. This reference gives not only dates and historical facts, but also lovely color plates of art pertaining to Tamburlaine The Great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.124.189 ( talk) 15:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't secondary sources upon which we primarily rely be in the language of the WP in question (and so in English for this one)?
In other words, is it ever appropriate for the English WP to ever be the only source in English for a given topic? Or must there not be a reliable source in English for coverage in Wikipedia? Perhaps this is more of a question for Notability, so I'll start this discussion at WT:N too. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 21:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
While I won't mention specifics, I think there are times when various reputable news sources publish opinion pieces by individuals which go over the top as far as insulting and accusing individuals of various thought crimes, with no more evidence than allegations. Some wiki articles end up using several of these to lambast the subject of an article. Can't there be some way of discouraging use of such sources? While there can be a thin line between a reasoned expose which should be used and a questionable polemic, sometimes it is quite obvious. Having language in here making clear that overwhelmingly negative polemical opinion piece attacks, even if published in WP:RS, should not be used would be helpful. I think the policy needs to be stated here first, and then copied to WP:BLP. Thoughts? CarolMooreDC ( talk) 13:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | → | Archive 25 |
Is this my imagination, or is this a circular definition ?
Reliable sources are credible. Reliable sources are reliable. Reliable sources are trustworthy (and authoritative)
"Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative"
So, then, how do we know someone is credible ? Trustworthy ? Authoritative ? -- InnocentsAbroad2 ( talk) 02:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
For population numbers, would it be worth mentioning that the reliable resource is the census data, even if this may be considered a primary source, possible even more than the same numbers misquoted somewhere else? -- User:Docu
Depends where you are. Nigerian census figures are wildly inflated by tribal competition. Peter jackson ( talk) 17:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
For the music related articles, many a times user add pulsemusic.proboards.com as reference. It is generally a forum where a member called bks posts the Billboard Hot 100 chart way early than the magazine publishes it. IT also has the week to week sales of albums and singles. But the question is won't this lead to copyright vio? I request that users don't add information from this website untill and unless it is confirmed as a reliable source. --Legolas (talk2me) 08:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
For example, is Oxford English Dictionary a secondary or tertiary source? I cant find "dictionary" in WP:RS. Phoenix of9 ( talk) 04:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
It's in Fascism. I added the OED definition into the lead (without deleting anything) "The principles and organization of Fascists. Also, loosely, any form of right-wing authoritarianism." but it was deleted by Collect and others, claiming it wasnt a RS.
Now this is both an issue at hand but its also about the policy. There are eg's such as "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, for example the Washington Post in the United States and the Times in Britain, as well as widely used conglomerates such as the Associated Press." Cant we add OED as an example of a RS? Phoenix of9 ( talk) 16:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Policy doesn't need changing or clarifying - it already covers this situation just fine. It doesn't matter whether OED is classed as secondary or tertiary - read what policy says about tertiary sources. That covers any reasonable use of a dictionary, including the one that sparked this debate. Rd232 talk 17:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Blueboar, you are right. However, if OED is a secondary source, mentioning that in the policy would have saved me from listening to lots of nonsensical arguments in Fascism. Dougweller, just like other sources, I guess there are reliable dictionaries and unreliable ones. I've never heard of Chambers 21st Century Dictionary, to be honest. Phoenix of9 ( talk) 18:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
"Quotations should be cited to the original source if possible; when secondary sources are used, those that cite the original source should be preferred over those that don't. Hostile secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion if they lack neutral corroboration."
Should this perhaps be "Partisan secondary sources..."? It's not just the hostile ones that mangle and misattribute quotes - one common form of appeal to authority is to attribute a supportive quote to a well-respected figure. -- GenericBob ( talk) 00:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Since this is a topic that pops up with regular frequency here (ex. above), I think we should add a section or paragraph to deal with this (next to or as a part of the "Extremist and fringe sources" section, perhaps, or to the Wikipedia:Reliable source examples?). Here's my proposed paragraph:
Sources published under totalitarian or autocratic regimes can be reliable, but should be treated carefully, particularly if they touch upon an area of known bias or likely to be affected by censorship or party-line propaganda (for example, Nazi sources will not be objective on the Jewish issues, and Soviet sources will have a pro-Marxist bias). Those problems are discussed in dedicated articles on national historiographies (see Category:Historiography by country). If in doubt whether a particular fact is reliable, this fact should be discussed on relevant article's page, and if it is agreed that the fact is controversial, it should sourced with non-communist era works, as exceptional claims require exceptional sources. If a particular publication or an author is in doubt, critical reviews need to be presented before the book or an author are deemed unreliable; it is recommended that those critical reviews are also mentioned in the article's on those authors or publications (see example one, example two).
Comments appreciated.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 09:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Longtime contributor to RSN here with an complaint about overemphasis on "third party" sources in the guideline. Our guideline says articles should rely primarily on third-party sources, which is fine, but the nutshell and one of the other paragraphs leaves out the "primarily". Some editors only read the nutshell and then argue that press releases and other primary sources from an article subject can never be cited in a WP article. Recommending that "third-party" be removed from the nutshell and the first paragraph of Overview. We already discuss third-party in the bolded second paragraph of the lead and in the "primary sources" section. Squidfryerchef ( talk) 14:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
OK... I have been bold and changed it to "based primarily" instead of just "based". Blueboar ( talk) 20:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Is CBS.com a reliable source? For example, an unaired miscellaneous task in The Amazing Race from a forum. I'm sure the part is from a CBS website. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 06:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
As far as CBS.com goes, the over all website contains individual sub-pages that are reliable and individual sub-pages that are not reliable. For example, the "recaps" sub-page is reliable as that is authored by an employee of CBS, the photo gallery sub-page (photos are not sources) and the "fans/forums" sub-page (authored by anyone) are not reliable. Blueboar ( talk) 15:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to have to put out a motion that Examiner.com not be allowed as a viable source for linking to articles. There are a number of Wikipedia articles that cite Examiner.com, and there's a bit of problem with this because the Examiner.com model is based on paying writers for page views. Anyone can sign up to be a writer there, put down some information, and then get paid for getting mass amounts of page views. This, in my opinion, creates great conflict with the idea of NPOV. Rustydangerfield ( talk) 05:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
It's my understanding that we should, under no circumstances, cite a newsgroup. Then why do we have a newsgroup citation template that's used on at least 100 articles? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 11:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Is the Electronic Intifada a reliable source? I don't see why it is not, but user:ShamWow has removed it from Haneen Zoubi's article as not reliable, citing here. Thoughts?-- TM 18:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
A source currently being used at Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth - a featured article - contains text that looks to have been copied verbatim from WP itself. The WP content is older, giving rise to the question of the source's reliability. An editor has suggested that the inclusion of the WP material (not credited in the paper) constitutes, in effect, a peer review of the WP content, and thereby makes the paper usable as a source, and has also suggested that the topic be brought here. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_35#Is_a_resource_still_acceptable_if_it_contains_sentences_taken_verbatim_from_WP_itself.3F. Novickas ( talk) 20:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I would wonder about a source that tries to pass off Wikipedia as a reliable source, just as I would wonder about a source that tried to pass a supermarket tabloid as a reliable source. However, if a source acknowledged the reliability issues of Wikipedia, and explained why the passage from Wikipedia was sound in some specific instance, I would consider the source to be untarnished. -- Jc3s5h ( talk) 03:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
-- Ihaveabutt ( talk) 04:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I cant find the policy on court documents. Surely the are considered more reliable than newspapers
-- Cogvoid ( talk) 03:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Those interested in policing/updating/quality controlling WP:RS and related policies should take note of the issues occurring in the Michael Jackson article today (note particularly the talk page) in which undeniably reliable sources with editorial oversight -- the Associated Press, the BBC, CNN, etc. -- were being rejected outright as RS with regards to reporting Jackson's death. No less than CNET has even posted a story regarding this controversy here. I can understand the reluctance to go with information originating from the gossip site TMZ, but things got out of hand when the Associated Press was being rejected. I think the conduct regarding RS has set a bad precedent. I'm not pointing a finger at any user on this issue, but it is worth investigating for future updates to the policy. 68.146.81.123 ( talk) 23:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
(speedforceironman1809081389099 00:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC))
Is it appropriate to cite sources in a language other than the one the Wikipedia entry is written in? The problem that arises is that foreign language sources necessarily are less comprehensible by possibly a majority of other contributors. However, in my view, sources written in those languages that are most widespread, like English, Spanish, French or German, should be accepted for citation. Sources written in such languages might easily be verified by other users. -- Hcinmmod ( talk) 19:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
"The existence of a consensus within an academic community may be indicated, for example, by independent secondary or tertiary sources that come to the same conclusion. The statement that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material."
This guideline seems to contradict itself, depending on how you read it. I've always taken it to mean that you should not report a scientific or academic consensus unless someone else (in a reliable source) has explicitly said that one exists. Is this the intent? I think getting rid of the first sentence would fix it, but then that seems to leave a loophole where an otherwise reliable source makes a left field claim for a consensus that doesn't really exist. I'd like to get it clarified one way or another, so if anyone has any suggestions, lets have it. Gigs ( talk) 19:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
How are we judging the comparative quality of newspapers? They all have editors, but they are all obviously not equal.
Tabloids like the Natioinal Enqurier are obviously of inferior quality, but what method are we using to judge this? First, you need some method to determine if something is a Tabloid or simply reports on celebrities a lot (like People). Second, if it isn't a tabloid, you still need to employ some other methods to judge quality as a reliable source.
I think that people are frequently applying personal opinion, for better or for worse, as to what newspapers are more reliable than others, as it's not like there's some database of "editor reliability" and "editor expertise."
The only thing I can think of that's objective is circulation of the newspaper and how often the journalist/editor gets printed, which is an indirect measure of the consensus among journalists and their readers regarding the writing subject.
This is a universal method, because even with scientific journals, we judge how often a scientist gets published, is cited, and accepted within the scientific community.
If we are using circulation (in essence, popularity as a measure of consensus), why can't the same be applied to non-expert websites and blogs? It doesn't make sense to allow popularity of a source as viewed as being reliable for one type of source, but not others.
In other words, if Joe's website is frequently linked to by others as a good source to read (i.e. linking to him because they think the site is good, not bad), it would make sense to use Joe as a reliable source. You'd compare the proportion of recognition from all sources.
The quality as a reliable source would be weighted against other factors, such as whether there were multiple contributors, whether it's equivalent to an "op ed" piece or written in a more professional fashion, what sources they used for their information, etc...
Thus, I think that proportion of recognition as a reliable source (recognition within the relevant population e.g. the scientist population for journal articles) should one of the main indicators for all types of sources. It's not the only indicator, but it's an important one.
- Nathan J. Yoder ( talk) 16:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I should probably have posted this here before. RfC on the reliability of sources such as ESCToday, oikiotimes is open at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#RfC on reliable sources for Eurovision articles. Thanks. Jezhotwells ( talk) 09:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I originally tried to post on this topic in RS/N but it got hijacked by a specific case and didn't attract disinterested commentary, so it might be best discussed here in the broad sense. I reasonably regularly come across ostensibly RS/V sources, for example articles in journals or newspaper reports, however the articles have obvious, glaring factual errors (usually without citation) that are easily disproved through better sources. In journals these usually occur when discussing cross-discipline topics, such as a pyschology journal discussing business. In newsmedia, well they occur all over the place! How should these types of sources be handled? Someone wanting to use them to support some fact can clearly claim they're from an ostensibly RS/V source and want to use it on WP. On the other hand, clear evidence the article is not reliable can not be included in WP as it would be OR. The current guidelines don't seem to address this problem. -- Insider201283 ( talk) 14:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I do not belive that The Washington Post is an excellent example of a reliable source because of its lack of political neutrality. Instead, may I suggest a newspaper which does not have a political leaning such as the Wall Street Journal. I think this website needs to make sure that all articles are neutrally written and neutral sources are cited. Often times i find articles severely edited towards the "liberal" side, and no one seems to revert the edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonked116 ( talk • contribs) 02:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Can we have just two things please?
A: A page for each and every source we ref.
B: On this page some bias codes.
A bias code that both WaPo and WSJ would share would be American, while The Register and The Economist would be tagged with British and Press TV would be tagged with Iranian. Additional tags would indicate government control (Press TV and VOA) and so on.
Also, should we simply exclude all editorial material from all publications? Hcobb ( talk) 18:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I think this page needs something short in lead to repeat Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[nb 1] The source cited must unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article.[nb 2] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books.
I came here first and searched around for what I knew to be true and only after a while did I go back to WP:V. People with less experience might never get there and be ham-swoggled into having to prove that something was NOT verifiable or WP:RS, instead of other way round. Thoughts? CarolMooreDC ( talk) 21:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
what is the bankcode of banco de oro antique, philippine branch? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teresa tj21 ( talk • contribs) 03:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
There has been an attempt to include all kinds of religious opinions as reliable source on 04:33, 4 December 2006. Meanwhile it seems most of this additions have been reverted, however the project page still reads
thereby giving the opinions of science and scholarship the same status as (here even: exlusively Christian) theologie. I don't think this is in agreement with the scientific approach of this encyclopaedic project and have therefore removed the "ministers" from the sentence. -- Schwalker ( talk) 17:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to reopen the discussion on the Examiner: http://www.examiner.com. (Please see Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/archive 21#Examiner.com). For the sake of transparency, I am involved in a deletion discussion in which another editor pointed it out as a source: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reading With Rover.
The basic structure of the Examiner is that amateur writers can sign up and start writing. They get paid per hits (which really isn't a terrible thing since professional writers receive compensation for their work) and do not always use reliable information in their reporting. It is more of a blog and neutrality is not common. It does come up on google news searches.
I have had a few personal experiences with these writers/bloggers/examiner/whatever.
These are only two occurrences but the primary reason for my hesitance to accept it as a reliable source is the fact that these are amateur writers (bloggers) who do not need to answer to any vetting process (i.e. an editor). Some of the information they provide is truly outstanding (the Seattle Sounders guy is usually good even though I know of one instance where he released a tabloid like peice that contained little informaiton but started a buzz) but we should set her standards higher and make sure the information being included is verifiable. Many writings found at the Examiner site simply fail the project's and most journalists' criteria. Cptnono ( talk) 01:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Here's my suggestion for how to handle sources.
First every inline cite gets robotically matched by URL to a source page. So if you ref http://www.nytimes.com/something_or_other it will automatically link to The New York Times. If the robot is unable to match your URL it will leave a red link that can be edited to fit and the robot will pick up this match for future use.
Then on the subject pages for sources we can note the topics for which they are good references and on their talk pages we can indicate where they fall short. (Say Press TV as a source on Human Rights in Iran.)
Finally we simply require that all sources have their own pages.
There will no longer be a need for a single page that judges the ability of every source to report on every issue as the problem is split up into managable bits. Hcobb ( talk) 15:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
But sometimes Iranian state media is our only source. Shall I remove all such refs from WP and all statements that depend on such sources? The real answer is that every source must be judged against its own background, which is best presented as a page. Hcobb ( talk) 03:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Example of when the bot wouldn't work. Imagine our article on Joe Schmidlap, famed for being the tallest man in the world, the legendary "10 foot pole" himself. His wife, Ernestine Schmidlap, in her book, "Life of Joe Schmidlap", page 17, says that he actually wore lifts, and was merely 9' 10". Surely a) this is important and controversial information that deserves a citation; b) she is a reliable source on the subject; c) neither she nor her book deserve an individual article. -- GRuban ( talk) 19:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Should the website Associated Content be considered a reliable source or not? The article says "Associated Content enables anyone to publish their content on any topic" so that makes me wonder. AnemoneProjectors ( talk) 13:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
This article doesn't say anything about whose opinion can be cited, in citing opinions. Presumably, Joe Blow With a Blog is not a source for an opinion on a random political issue. Opinions need to be from relevant or influential people--an expert, or maybe a leader (maybe belongs in the article for that person...). What are the guidelines? Noloop ( talk) 20:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Proposal. Add something like what I've put in italics:
Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers. When discussing what is said in such sources, it is important to directly attribute the material to its author, and to do so in the main text of the Wikipedia article so readers know that we are discussing someone's opinion.
Opinions on a subject should come from experts, such as scholars on the subject or someone likely to have notable insight into it. The opinion of a prominent non-expert, e.g. "Oprah" may be of interest simply because the source is of interest. Consider putting that in the article on Oprah, rather than the article on the subject.
There is, however, an important exception to sourcing statements of opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs (see: WP:BLP#Sources and WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source).
Note that otherwise reliable news sources--for example, the website of a major news organization--that happens to publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be considered to be equally reliable as if it were published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format of a classic news story. However, the distinction between "opinion pieces" and news should be considered carefully.
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Noloop (
talk •
contribs)
16:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Again, I propose the following:
Opinions on a subject should come from experts, such as scholars on the subject or someone likely to have insight into it. The opinion of a prominent non-expert, e.g. "Oprah" may be of interest simply because the source is of interest. Consider putting that in the article on Oprah, rather than the article on the subject.
Again, this would go in the section on sources of opinions. I'm not proposing that general reliable sources have to have expertise. Nor am I saying anything about self-publishing or due weight. Just that when we write "According to [source of opinion], [statement of opinion]", the [source of opinion] should be someone whose opinion matters. There should be an answer to the question: "Why should anyone care about that person's opinion?" Somebody with expertise, standing, or insight. The president of the construction firm, in Will Beback's example above, would probably count. Noloop ( talk) 19:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
My answer is none of the above. An opinion is worth repeating if the opinion itself is noteworthy. First of all, if someone has an opinion about something we don't endorse that opinion. All we can say is that the person holds the opinion. So, for example, we could say "Barack Obama and the head of Harvard's history department both believe Abraham Lincoln to be the best president in history", but we couldn't say Lincoln is widely considered the best president in history with a cite to Obama and the hypothetical professor. Secondly, like every statement of fact, the statement that person X has opinion Y should in most cases be cited to a third party source, rather than the original research implicit in our reading a document as a primary source for evidence of what a person's opinion is or what a person said. Although there is a limited RS exception here that does let us cite opinions for evidence of what a person's opinion is, it's not the best way to go about things because it does not establish weight or relevance. For example, what if Obama, Tom Cruise, the Pope, and the judges on Top Chef Masters all believe that KFC is better than Popeye's. They're certainly notable, or experts, take your pick. But if we source that claim to a random interview here and there, it still doesn't belong on the Popeye's or KFC articles because the opinion itself simply isn't noteworthy. It has no bearing or importance really. On the other hand the opinion of a far less notable person, Michael J. Pollard, that corn is evil, is quite notable because it had a huge impact, as evidenced by the thousands of major reliable sources that report on Pollard having that opinion. Hope that helps. Wikidemon ( talk) 23:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
The proposal that "opinions need to come from notable people" does not accord with common practice in the quality press - for example only guest articles in The Economist have named authors, and many obituaries are effectly the work of several anonymous hands, as the media update bios of famous people constantly in order to be ready with an obit immediately it's needed. Like most of WP:RS, this is a futile attempt to reduce assessment of reliability to robotic rules. -- Philcha ( talk) 20:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
But all orbits are examined by newspaper employees who are experts in their field (due to working in that area for a while, not dying themselves). Hcobb ( talk) 14:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
IMNSHO, every source needs to be notable enough to justify its own page, which needs to be linked from every reference that uses that source. Then sources can be dealt with using standard WP practices. We could have a robot march through and adjust cites to link to source pages with simple URL matching, and leave red links where the matching fails. Hcobb ( talk) 15:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Dudes and dudesses! You are highjacking my thread. This thread is specifically for the discussion of how we source opinions. I'd like to make headway on that, specifically defined, topic. A lot of the initial confusions came, I think, from my lack of specificity. I think that's been clarified now, and I wonder if there are any objections. If we say "Joe Schmo expressed the opinion that..." there should be a reason we care about what Joe Schmo thinks. Joe should be expert or involved in some way. Agree? Noloop ( talk) 17:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Thus we can remove the use of letters from Joe Blogs, or words to that effect. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Where are we in terms of this discussion and proposal(s)? I believe that the questions/objections are already handled by the existing policies and guidelines. A letter to an editor is reliable for the author's opinion per WP:RS. The significance of any opinion is determined by WP:WEIGHT. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 15:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, I think that it's already covered by the existing policies and guidelines. Instead of modifying these, how about we add something like the following to WP:Reliable source examples:
"Are letters to the editor reliable sources? Letters to the editor are largely not acceptable, though may be used in limited circumstances, with caution. If a letter to the editor is published by a reliable source such as a respected newspaper or magazine and is written by an established expert on the topic at hand who has been previously published by reliable, third-party publications on this topic, it is reliable for that person's opinion. If the author is a non-expert such as a celebrity, it is also reliable for that person's opinion. However, it should be noted that if the non-expert's opinion is significant, it would have been covered by third-party, reliable sources. Either way, WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP still apply." A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 22:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Good. I think I need to clarify that by "opinion" we mean POV, not opinion about a factual matter (e.g. not the "opinion" that global warming is caused by human activity). The guideline isn't restricted to fringe theories, or cases where there is a WP:WEIGHT problem. Making these changes, can we add the proposed text? Noloop ( talk) 16:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
WP:NPOV is about the POV of an entire article. I'm not talking about omitting a POV from an article, I'm talking about who is a valid source of a particular opinion/interpretation/POV that is to be cited. It's kind of interesting that after this enormous volume of text, you still don't understand what is being said. Noloop ( talk) 16:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
In the somewhat long discussions on "Opinions need to come from notable people" above we breifly addressed the idea of using the most reliable source for any give statement... I think there is strong consensus that we should always use the best sources possible for anything... but the guideline does not actually say anything about this. We should probably address that. I would suggest adding something along the lines of the following (I am not wedded to this particular language):
thoughts and comments? Blueboar ( talk) 19:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
There is someone at
Talk:Harriet Harman trying to assert that a news source cannot be used if the comments to the main article contain material insulting to the subject. Specifically, the WP article claims that Harman earned a particular nickname because of her feminism. The article cites a Spectator Evening Standard piece that says her feminism earned her the nickname. Like many news sources, members of the public are allowed to leave comments at the end of the article. After this particular article is a comment stating that Harman is mental and should be institutionalized. The other editor involved in this dispute keeps removing the source on the basis that the source contains "slanderous material". He has even gone so far as to try to say this somehow implicates
WP:BLP. -
Rrius (
talk)
23:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Rogan from Irving comments .. This female is basically mad and should be sectioned under the mental health act. Off2riorob ( talk) 19:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
There are two different things here: the citation and the link. A citation should always have enough information that someone could go to a physical archive and find the article. A link is provided for convenience. As this is about the link rather than the citation, it has nothing to do with reliable sources. I suggest the BLP noticeboard. -- NE2 01:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Please ref: Talk:Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh)#Thompson quotation...
I have been asked to check here with RS editors if it would be appropriate to cite the following article, which holds a quote that is in the Osho article in this section. Can this website, enlightened-spirituality.org, and its contributor, Timothy Conway, PhD, be considered a reliable source?
Also, please consider this website and this website as other possible reliable sources for the same quotation.
The quotation is as follows:
I am not a disciple and I do not consider Osho my master, but I cannot hide my admiration for the old man. I think his contribution to expanding human awareness has no parallel in human history. There have been other masters, but no one has been so effective in reaching so many people during his lifetime as Osho did. Also, his insistence on laughter, enjoying life and humor as religious qualities makes him stand alone in the world of mystics. Finally, he helped to liberate, sexually and from social conditioning vast quantities of spiritual seekers that would have, otherwise, ended up ranking with some ascetic, repressive guru, and thus contributing with more repression and self-torture to this world.
— Anthony Thompson, Ph.D.
— .`^) Paine Ellsworth diss`cuss (^`. 14:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Rob & Paine, please state the distinction you make between the Thompson item and the Calder SP item that is being rebuked. I take it you have no problems also detailing Calders claims then? Or detailing further Hugh Milnes experiences? or the other sources Calder refers to in his item? Contrary to the other commentators cited in the Osho appraisal section, most of whom are published academics, Thompson is a non-notable individual and is not published by a reliable third party source;
Semitransgenic (
talk)
17:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be valuable to discuss the issue of anonymous submission and double-blind peer-review in journals, and emphasize that in general, journals using such a review process ought to be preferred as sources to those that do not. I would also recommend including mention of factors that can lead to bias in acceptance/rejection when submission and reviewing is not anonymous. I also think it might be relevant to discuss related issues such as publication bias, especially when it comes to avoiding undue weight.
Here are some articles that discuss the importance of these concerns:
What do others think? Do people generally agree? The arguments against double-blind submission do not seem to hinge on the quality of the work (see the book by D. Shatz) and thus, from a perspective of reliability, I have not found any compelling arguments against them. What do you think would be the best way to mention these sorts of issues in WP's guidelines?
What about adding a sentence like "Publications in journals using anonymous submission/double-blind peer reviewing are preferred to those in journals."...or does anyone have any other suggestions or ideas? And what is the most widely accepted word or phrase to use here? Anonymous submission? Blind submission? Double-blind reviewing?
I think it might also help to link to a wikipedia page on the issue--I was unable to find one--and it surprises me there isn't one so if I am just not searching in the right way and someone could point this out that would be great too. Cazort ( talk) 18:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Please add bn interwikilink [[bn:উইকিপিডিয়া:নির্ভরযোগ্য উৎস]] for bn:উইকিপিডিয়া:নির্ভরযোগ্য উৎস. - Jayanta Nath ( Talk| Contrb) 11:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Pardon me (this topic might have been covered many times before) but I wonder why an article subjects own posts about his doings are often cited as the truth on wikipedia? I would think that the subject's own statements are inherently biased and self-serving thus not having the reliability of secondary sources on the subject. On the other hand, the subject's posts against his interest (negative type information) are more reliable as who would post such about themselves unless it's true.
Example 1: If I was a famous person with a website and I posted on there "I am pregnant!" then this information would often be added to my wikipedia article with my own statement as the source. I don't think this is reliable.
Example 2: If i posted on there "I just pled guilty to DUI and will be serving 10 days in jail," that statement is much more reliable as it is a statement against interest.
Any thoughts? Torkmann ( talk) 22:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
(Discussion copied here from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Adult industry) MichaelQSchmidt ( talk) 22:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
In interpretation of
WP:RS, what adult publications might be considered as authoritative on the adult field? I am not asking if
Playboy,
Penthouse,
Hustler or others of that ilk be considered as authoritative on world politics... only if such publications are accptable as generally reliable and authoritative in context to sourcing articles dealing with aspects of the adult industry... films and stars and authors and such.
MichaelQSchmidt (
talk)
19:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Are biographies such as this at Hustler.com a reliable source, and if so, can they be used to establish notability? Are they independant of the subject seeing as the models work for the magazine? Epbr123 ( talk) 08:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Should rumors of future events confirmed by reputable news sources be included? For instance, Joe Schmoe (popular guy) is rumored to be the next Defense Secretary of the United States and the rumor is confirmed by Time magazine, but not confirmed by the White House. There are a range of options ranging from ludicrous to restrictive. Should he be listed as the current Defense Secretary based on Time's confirmation even though it is not factually correct? Or should he be listed as the prospective Defense Secretary with the rumor cited? Or neither until the White House confirms his nomination? Or not until he is actually sworn in as the Defense Secretary? Sandcherry ( talk) 03:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts. Here are articles that serve as examples. The Saturday Night Live article shows Nasim Pedrad and Jenny Slate as current cast members based on a rumor confirmed by TV Guide (but not confirmed by NBC, their potential employer) that they will be hired for the new season starting later this month. The Nasim Pedrad and Jenny Slate articles state they have been hired based on the same rumor. Therefore, all three articles are stating as a fact something that may or may not happen. They do cite TV Guide's report stating the magazine has confirmed their hiring rumor, but NBC has not. Should editors revise such articles stating the hiring is rumored, delete the factually incorrect information, discuss the issue with the contributor on the talk page, or leave it alone as it is relatively trivial and will be confirmed (or not) shortly? I would appreciate your opinions. Sandcherry ( talk) 04:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Elemo qiltu, the founder of OLF shek Bakri Saphalo, the founder of Oromo alphabet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.174.237.130 ( talk) 07:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
"Extremist" or "fringe" relative to what? To the social norms of the contemporary, English speaking, relatively wired Wiki community of users, of course. I suggest putting that in explicitly so that the norm enforcers who cite this policy to support their purging are more self-conscious about what they are doing. If Wiki were around in the 17th century a Wiki user wouldn't have been able to cite Galileo in an astronomical article (ie. in an article other than an article about Galileo or his deviant heliocentrism) because somebody would revert saying the source was "extremist" or "fringe". How is one supposed to argue against that? If the project were somehow restricted to 1930s Germans it would likewise look entirely different, as the conventional wisdom of that time and place was again quite different from today's. I should think that we should aspire to the project NOT looking entirely different as political and cultural trends change. That's what "neutral" ought to mean: independent of culturally or politically situated POVs. Why aren't "fringe" or "extremist" sources that employ rigorous, scientific, and logical processes in coming to their conclusions OK? Ideally constructed Wiki policies should be able to screen for unreliable sources using universal, abstract principles; ie. without requiring a contingent test for particular popularity. Bdell555 ( talk) 08:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I've been stuck in a rut vis a vis the article Nibiru collision. For those of you not in the know, the Nibiru collision idea is causing a lot of people around the world a lot of anxiety, because it posits that we're about to be hit by a giant planet in 2012. Roland Emmerich is making a movie about it. Problem is that, despite its growing impact, it has not been dealt with in any detail by the mainstream "respectable" media. Scientists as a rule have not touched it with a ten foot pole, and most news coverage of it has been glib at best and inaccurate at worst. The only person who has been resolutely covering it and dealing with the impact is NASA's chief astrobiologist David Morrison, who had the grace to credit my work in The Skeptical Enquirer. That page is worth reading, actually, because it sums up not only the global notability of this issue but also our mutual frustration in finding notable information on it.
To my surprise, I have not seen much evidence that other scientists or skeptics are concerned about this growing outbreak of pseudoscience. ... A few news blogs such as Yahoo also provide truthful answers, but these are drowned out by the 2012 hysteria. I give credit to Wikipedia, which has several entries on Nibiru, including a very good overview of the pseudoscience under “Nibiru collision.”
As a result of the mainstream media's basic ignorance of this concept, I have been forced to scavenge, using the blogs of respected scientists and occasional pseudoscientific sites as references. Case in point: Mike Brown, the discoverer of the dwarf planet Eris, has a blog in which he makes specific scientific counterclaims against the Nibiru collision. One, that no object's magnetic field could possibly have the effect on Earth described, and that such an object would have been expelled from the Solar System by Jupiter within one million years. Compare that with the typical article in an Australian newspaper:
Concern is building again over a hoax that first appeared - to my knowledge - in 2002, about a planet called Nibiru that will supposedly wreak havoc on the Earth. It's all a load of rubbish! I first became aware of this hoax in early 2002, when I received inquiries about a planet that had supposedly been discovered on an extremely elongated orbit that was to bring it into the inner Solar System. According to the information being circulated around that time, it was heading in the vicinity of the inner planets and would pass between the Earth and the Sun about May 2003. Apparently, its 'magnetic' effects were predicted to do all sorts of nasty things to the Earth, including stopping its rotation. But the authors go on to say that the rotation will start again afterwards. Let me assure you that no laws of physics could allow any of this to happen.
First of all, the author of this quote gets his dates wrong; the idea started long before 2002. Second, while he does mention that the laws of physics would not allow such things to happen, he doesn't say why. So, which do I use? A "reliable" source that gives inaccurate information (as most "reliable" sources do on this topic), or an "unreliable" source by a world-renowned astronomer which gives a cogent and specific scientific rebuttal to a pseudoscientific claim?
Another problem I have is that the Nibiru collision originated on a website called Zetatalk, which is a forum for people to talk to a crazy old woman who thinks she can speak to aliens. Since most of the claims made about Nibiru originated on Zetatalk, I don't really have a choice but to cite Zetatalk as a source.
Also, as the story grew, it became entwined with the 2012 doomsday prediction, which originally had nothing to do with the Nibiru collision. The Nibiru collision was supposed to happen in 2003, but when that failed, the old woman who came up with the idea changed it to 2010. Other writers, looking for an angle, have changed the date to 2012, and that is the date most people read when they encounter this on the web. So how do I cite it? None of the books or websites that mention 2012 and Nibiru would ever be called reliable sources. And again, the media tends to get things mixed up about this.
I don't know what to do. Serendi pod ous 13:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
A NASA employee writing on a NASA website, and authorized by NASA to answer questions from the public, is a reliable independent source (unless he is secretly an illegal alien from Nibiru, in which case he wouldn't be independent). I don't use the term "third-party" because "third-party" comes from contract law, and so far as I know, no nation on earth recognizes the ability of extraterrestrials to enter into contracts. -- Jc3s5h ( talk) 16:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Can we use a self-published book for citing as sources to Wikipedia articles. The content is related to population of Non-indigenous ethnic groups in a specific country. As far I know, population of a particular ethnic group obtained respectively from their diplomatic missions and I don't think so, it is a sort of original research. Please comment. Wikipedia:VPM#Book -- Gaikokujin talk 19:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I am noticing confusing and inconsistent text in Wiki guidelines regarding second and third party sources. Can we amend these guidelines so that they are consistent? Here are some examples (bold added by me for clarity):
WP:SECONDARY “Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias or other compendia that mainly summarize secondary sources. For example, Wikipedia itself is a tertiary source. Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks may also be considered tertiary sources, to the extent that they sum up multiple secondary sources.” “Secondary sources are at least one step removed from an event. They rely for their facts and opinions on primary sources, often to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims.[3][4][5] Our policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims if they have been published by a reliable secondary source.“
WP:RS This page in a nutshell: Information in Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and articles should be based primarily on independent secondary sources.
(and then a few sentences later it says:)
Wikipedia articles[1] should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources”
WP:WELLKNOWN “Well-known public figures: In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.” -- — Kbob • Talk • 15:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks gents, but you are all missing the point, which I guess I failed to make clear (woe is me). So let me try again. My point of frustration is that the Wiki guidelines can't make up their mind which type of source they favor. Sometimes they say articles should use primarily secondary or second party sources and other times they say that articles should rely primarily on tertiary or third party sources. So they are contradictory. That's my issue. Please read my initial post again and you'll see what I mean. Thanks!-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I understand the definition of the terms. But they are used in the guidelines inconsistently. Such as in WP:RS
(and then a few sentences later it says:) Wikipedia articles[1] should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources” Are you saying that third party sources are the same as secondary sources? Even if that is the case (which I don't think it is) why not be consistent in our terminology to avoid confusion?-- — Kbob • Talk • 19:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Kbob, a third-party source isn't necessarily a secondary source. Nor is it necessarily a tertiary source. The two concepts are quite different as I explained above at 17:22. The third party thing is in bold and at the front because it is most important. The secondary thing is mentioned later because it is more of a preference. Yaris678 ( talk) 19:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I've decided to not mention the specific issues that brought me to this point because I think it should be discussed generally.
In my opinion the policy should be expanded to make it clear that translations of foreign language texts are NOT acceptable where the translation was done by Google Translate.
I'd like to see the policy amended as such. Any thoughts? Manning ( talk) 22:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Humans can translate content just as poorly as a machine, so I don't see a compelling reason to specifically ban them. Editors have always had the discretion to find consensus that a translation is so bad it's an unreliable source. This might be worth mentioning. Someguy1221 ( talk) 04:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I can't imagine a situation in which a Wikipedia article should use a machine translation, except for articles that are specifically about machine translation. --Akhilleus ( talk) 17:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I excised a lengthy comment placed here which seemed to be just a cut and paste of an article about the Amityville Horror. I can't see the point of the posting - perhaps the IP would care to explain? Manning ( talk) 00:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Some of the wording runs contrary to WP:WEIGHT. This section states that the "most" reliable sources are "Academic and peer-reviewed publications" and then goes on to quote NPOV UNDUE, however, it adds one word "most" to the statement "doing so in proportion to their published prominence among the most reliable sources." UNDUE does not say "most", and the way this is worded, it implies the prior reference to "Academic and peer-reviewed publications". Based on this policy, it can be argued and is being argued that weight be based on "Academic and peer-reviewed publications" and not the broader reliable sources. Even if we did say "most reliable sources", we define such in another policy WP:NOR differently: "In general the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." I don't see that there is any consensus on basing weight on this smaller subset of reliable sources. Why is WEIGHT being redefined on this policy? Why is it included at all in this policy? WP:POLICY states "Policies should not be redundant with other policies, or within themselves. Do not summarize, copy, or extract text. Avoid needless reminders." Morphh (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm curious if Letters to the Editor in a newspaper can be uses for citations. Off-hand, my assumption is they cannot, but I was simply wondering. Is there situations when they would be reliable and be utilized? I can see an issue here being that normally a newspaper would stand behind it's content, but this is not the case with letters. Is this just a flat "NO...they can never be used"? I was curious. BashBrannigan ( talk) 05:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
A mediation request Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/WikiProject Economics Guidelines has the interpretation of a sentence from this policy as one of the items in dispute. Dmcq ( talk) 13:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Note that otherwise reliable news sources--for example, the website of a major news organization--that happens to publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be considered to be equally reliable as if it were published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format of a classic news story. However, the distinction between "opinion pieces" and news should be considered carefully.
Just so I read this correctly, a source that is published by a journalist on a media website, such as newyorktimes.com, in a blog format is not the same as a typical blog (which tends to be seen as a poor source) for purposes of reliable sourcing? I ask this not in regards to any current editing (such as my recent edit warring on the Roman Polanski page) but more as my desire in future to be able to use legitimate references without fear of being promptly shut down because "its a blog". To be extra clear, I am not asking if "Blog = Reliable source" so much as clarifying that "Blog ≠ Reliable source" is not a valid reason to deny sources. WookMuff ( talk) 05:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Would other editors consider linkedin.com as a reliable source as a reference to a list entry, which require the same level of verification as a BLP entry. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 05:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I tried to add the Ethnic Group Project tag to History of the Jews in the United States but was told I had to prove that U.S. Jews were an ethnic group. I explained that both American Jews and Jew were both part of the WikiProject and that this seemed good enough for me. But I was again told I needed an outside source. Does the policy of not using other articles as evidence still apply when copying Project tags from one article to a related article? Thanks. Aristophanes68 ( talk) 04:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
This article has a bunch of ridiculous references. Are these allowed? They just take bits and pieces of these non-fiction publications and throw them in an article. Skrewler ( talk) 06:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on quotations allow great mischief when someone says something with ironic or sarcastic intent, and their words are quoted in a reliable source that doesn't explicitly mention the possible irony/sarcasm. Editors, intentionally or mistakenly, can use the person's literal words to claim that the person believes them. An example would be if TV personality Rachel Ray would spill some salt on camera and say "I am such a klutz!," and her words were shown on YouTube or reported in a magazine article about her. A foolish or malicious editor could use her words to support a claim that the normally sure-handed Ray is actually a klutz. This could lead to a well-sourced paragraph on klutziness, demonstrating in great detail what Ray, by her own words, admits to. In fact, she is not seriously claiming to be a klutz, but just referring ironically to an accident. Similar things can happen with more important figures. (Substitute a golden glove shortstop for Rachel Ray, for example.)
The problem is that the intended irony or sarcasm isn't mentioned in the encyclopedia article. It can't be mentioned, in fact, unless there is a source that points it out. Typically, there is no such secondary source, since reliable sources are not in the habit of identifying possible irony or sarcasm.
A recent case is where White House official Anita Dunn said that her favorite political philosophers include Mother Teresa and Chairman Mao. It isn't clear whether this was an ironic juxtaposition of opposites or a statement of her actual belief. The problem is that, in similar cases, often involving controversial living persons, editors can take the literal words and conclude that the person literally meant them.
IMHO in cases like this, the person's words are unreliable primary sources. I believe that our content guidelines on quotations as reliable sources should be changed/refined/improved to cover this situation.
Basically, if there is a legitimate chance of ironic intent in a person's words, especially if the person is living, extreme caution should be used in using them as an indication of the person's beliefs, positions, etc. Our policies and guidelines should advocate that caution. Lou Sander ( talk) 14:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I've seen this problem in controversial BLPs. Controversial person A says B with obvious ironic intent. POV-pushing editor C finds B quoted in reliable source D, then puts it verbatim into Wikipedia, saying or implying that person A is obviously hateful (or whatever) because he/she said B. The POV-pushing is allowed to stand, as is the violation of BLP intent, since Wikipedia's policies and guidelines don't deal with irony. The encyclopedia would be better if they did. DCLawyer ( talk) 12:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
According to WP:EoS the subtitle statement "To obtain or provide community input on whether or not a source meets our reliability standards for a particular use, see the reliable sources noticeboard." should be edited to change "whether or not" to whether".
I will do so. Riverpa ( talk) 15:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
The Golden Road to Samarkand by Wilfrid Blunt(Taught at Eton from 1938-1959),Viking Press, New York, 1975, Chapter 8, Pages 138-163. This reference gives not only dates and historical facts, but also lovely color plates of art pertaining to Tamburlaine The Great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.124.189 ( talk) 15:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't secondary sources upon which we primarily rely be in the language of the WP in question (and so in English for this one)?
In other words, is it ever appropriate for the English WP to ever be the only source in English for a given topic? Or must there not be a reliable source in English for coverage in Wikipedia? Perhaps this is more of a question for Notability, so I'll start this discussion at WT:N too. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 21:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
While I won't mention specifics, I think there are times when various reputable news sources publish opinion pieces by individuals which go over the top as far as insulting and accusing individuals of various thought crimes, with no more evidence than allegations. Some wiki articles end up using several of these to lambast the subject of an article. Can't there be some way of discouraging use of such sources? While there can be a thin line between a reasoned expose which should be used and a questionable polemic, sometimes it is quite obvious. Having language in here making clear that overwhelmingly negative polemical opinion piece attacks, even if published in WP:RS, should not be used would be helpful. I think the policy needs to be stated here first, and then copied to WP:BLP. Thoughts? CarolMooreDC ( talk) 13:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)