Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 14

message: On the Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan) article an editor is using the "exceptional claims" provision to exclude information that was published in Metropolis (English magazine in Japan). The removed claims are here:  Talk about the claim is here: . In this case my position is that the removed claims support the major claim that Baker lied to the public, and that the removed claims are not exceptional claims in their own right. Another way to put this is: do supporting claims on a BLP also need multiple sources?
I have had some confirmation that these claims are not exceptional before but the issue keeps coming up and I would be very grateful some more advice and comments. Thank you. Sparkzilla 06:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This item has been moved to an RFC on the article's talk page. Talk:Nick_Baker_%28prisoner_in_Japan%29#Request_for_comments I appreciate your comments. Sparkzilla 02:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan)]] exceptional claims 

message: The past two days have seen some pretty strange editing on List of groups referred to as cults in government reports with different editors giving different reasons why this is not a government report:
Cover Page CRS Report No. 79-24 GOV 1/23/79
Addendum II CRS-45 and why the
...FBI and GAO don't write Government Reports... I'm sorry but that is a very odd statement, on top of odd logic implying it was my idea to remove them. I've been asking this editor and some others to explain why CRS a division of the LOC isn't WP:RS or WP:V. Can someone explain why it isn't a RS? (Granted it should not be used to imply that all groups in the report are still even in existence and those that are may have changed so it needs to be qualified.) I realize WP:V is discussed on that page,  so I'm not bringing it up except to say that they are pretty easily verfied. Anynobody 09:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldn't read much of it without my eyes glazing over. Seems to me like much ado about nothing – an inability to distinguish between a "government report" and a "Government Report". I've read a great many U.S. "government reports" of a wide range of types, but I cannot recall ever coming across one called a "Government Report", per se. Usually if it is produced by a U.S. government organization or agency or employee (writing at the direction of a government official) and printed by the GPO, it's considered a government report. Perhaps those arguing against the contested "government reports" being "Government Reports" can provide a link to a U.S. Govt. site that defines what is and what isn't a formal "Government Report". All that nonsense aside, it's hard to credit the CRS and FBI as not being "reliable sources" as WP:RS defines them. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I have dealt with the CRS from time to time. They are not a "private" arm of the LOC; more like they're the "dedicated" research arm of the Congress. They are supposed to be non-partisan, and their analytical products are certainly more respected than, say, those of the GAO. You are correct that the three branches of the U.S. government publish separately. I've never heard of an imprimatur for the U.S. government. I've only heard of the Roman Catholic church using it. We're a democracy, so we don't need to have such a thing. If there were, then there would be a formal government organization tasked with the duty to prepare, vet and promulgate a document reviewed and approved by all three branches, as well as to maintain the "official version". If the critics you're dealing with cannot identify this organization and provide a link to its website that confirms its charter, then it doesn't exist. End of story. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Government Reports are reasonably reliable sources, from any branch. I would not say that CRS is more respected than the GAO, but if either of them were less respected, the lesser respected service would still be a reliable source. There should be no problem using them as sources. --Blue Tie 03:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: There are good reasons to doubt its REAL reliability SOMETIMES, but from WP:RS perspective, there is no reason to doubt it. If someone objects, they probably do not like what it says.  In that case NPOV comes into play and they can find another source that presents a different perspective.--Blue Tie 04:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think that there is no agency of any sort that provides a report of the position of the whole government.  They provide reports of the position of that agency.  These are still government reports.  But I do not think there is such a thing as a report from the whole government. The US has 3 branches of government and sometimes reports from one branch are intentionally created to counter a report from another branch.  This does not make either of them unreliable for purposes of RS. The FBI will issue a report that is contradicted by the CIA.  Which one represents what the "Executive Branch" says?  Maybe neither.  But they are still government reports. --Blue Tie 01:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would argue that calling these "government reports" is misleading to our readers. The obvious connotations for a reader would be that a "government report" represents the view of the government, or an official commission appointed by it, particularly when such documents are placed alongside other documents from other governments reports (such as from France, for example) that are indeed official government reports. That is the dispute, Blue Tie. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, somebody messed up trying to undo a move... A suitable article name for its contents is surely the way out. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Next! :) - Crockspot 01:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Do I disagree that a 28-year-old report by an agency that does not speak for anyone has been cherry-picked to be included as something that appears to be the position of the United States government? Especially when it specifically is NOT the position of the United States govenement as regards Scientology, my area of interest. Well, yes, I guess I do disagree. And there is little point in renaming to "documents" as we already have the more general article. So what is the point? But we will sort it out. Your'alls help is welcome. --Justanother 02:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Attacking the source as outdated is a different ball of wax, and one you may have better luck arguing. Views do change over decades. - Crockspot 02:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue Anynobody wants it to be is whether CRS writes WP:RS. The real issue is the definition (or implication) of government reports. A government report, (at minimum suggests that it), represents the view or opinion of a government, or an official sub-section of a government which is authorized to release reports and opinions. The Congress would write and release Government reports for that sub-section of the Unites States government. The CRS works for the Congress and per an email from the CRS, it is not authorized, without specific statutory mandates, to write official government reports. The only question is whether or not the wiki-LIST implies the word official. I submit that a goverment report implies official. Lsi john 02:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem I see with interpreting the above e-mail in this way is that it suggests that, essentially, there is no such thing as an official government report, other than via direct legislation.  This is clearly a meaningless distinction; if a phrase is being used without specificity and it can refer to two different things, one of which is exceedingly rare, I would say interpreting it in the broader sense is usually the correct thing to do.  Specifically, the sense of "official government report" used in the e-mail above is a very restrictive one.  The e-mail even goes so far as to suggest that the term isn't a particularly useful one.  Why we should then interpret another term as meaning it by implication is beyond me. JulesH 10:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: These emails are unverifiable and therefore completely moot to the article and the argument.  I would think Jossi you'd be the first one to point that out.  The arguments based on the emails would, if used to modify the article in any way, go against our policy. If the agency were willing to *post* their responses to their own verifiable website that would be a different situation.Wjhonson 19:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Curious question. Would it be considered WP:V if they wrote an email to wiki staff, objecting to the use of their report being cited as a government report? I have no idea if they would do this or not, I'm just curious, mostly for curiosity sake. Lsi john 20:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The essence of verifiability is that any editor *could* independently confirm that the attribution is accurate.  None of us can confirm that wiki staff got an email.  Just like none of us can confirm that you did.  And none of us can confirm who sent it.  Any of us however *could* confirm public records, newspapers, books, etc.  Sometimes it might not be easy to do, but we could.  However with private emails we cannot. Wjhonson 04:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The verifiability or otherwise of the e-mail is not an issue.  It is not suggested that it be included in the article, as far as I can tell, so I fail to see where WP:V (which applies only to articles) comes into it. JulesH 10:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  If the...''FBI and GAO don't write Government Reports''... who does? 

message: CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and other news sites regularly have online votes on a whole range of issues. Although these news sites are generally considered reliable sources, these online votes are completely unreliable. The news sites even state that they are unscientific polls. The problem is that online voting contains very significant self-selection bias. Some political campaigns specifically email supporters and ask them to go the the news sites and "vote for candidate X" after a political debate. I believe Wikipedia needs to clearly state its policy regarding the use of unscientific online voting. These unscientific poll results are already being used in the some of the articles about Presidential candidates. --JHP 07:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We are discussing deprecating "how to create policy", because frankly, we don't. Instead, just discuss with people. In the case of these polls, if there are no better sources, you may have to make do with those polls, but you should attribute them. People can probably decide on the reliability themselves, though you could add a note or so if you want to be really sure. --Kim Bruning 21:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Misuse of online voting

message: I invite comments from expert members on this forum about defination of reliable source in context of forced divorces there is a discussion about a blog of a person who has stated that he was forcefully divorced by a cult group, this however is not accepted as reliable source by some editor's. Wiki say's clearly that blogs are accepted incase they are from reliable source, can anyone explain who can be a reliable source incase of forced divorces other then the person himself ?
--Shashwat pandey 09:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, I think you are not correct on blogs... blogs are generally considered unacceptable.  There may be rare exceptions, but this does not sound like one of them (an expection for noted journalists and experts in an accademic field has some consensus... but is not yet part of Policy).  Second, you definitely should be hesitant to use someone's personal blog... Such a source clearly falls under the "Self-Published" clause of WP:V and WP:RS... it might be useable in an article about the person claiming to have been forcibly devorced, but not in a general article on the topic.  What I think you would need is a reliable third party report, such as a newspaper, that repeats (and has fact checked) the person's claim. Blueboar 12:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: If neo-nazi forums are unacceptable, why do we have an article on Stormfront? Because not everything with an article is an RS. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliable Source

message: Would infromation from another wiki (not from Wikimedia) be considered a reliable source or not? Ashura96 19:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on who the author is. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the vast majority of cases, no.--tjstrf talk 23:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I just wanted to make sure. Ashura96 23:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other wikis

message: I am currently involved in what is becoming an increasingly tiresome and long running edit-war with user:Dark Tea over material related to the mid 20th century anthropologist Carleton Coon, whose works DT seems to hate with a passion. I would be glad of some input, since DT keeps quoting WP:RS regarding Coon. It is worth nothing that some editors do treat Coon as a current "reliable source" on racial categories (see Nordic race for example). This is problematic to say the least, but the issue concerns inclusion of his work in accounts of the history of racial theories, as for example on the Australoid article. DT seems to want to delete all reference to the history of the theory (except, oddly Thomas Huxley) on the grounds that early theorists are not Reliable Sources. As far as I am concerned this is as barmy as deleting all references to Aristotle in accounts of the history of physics or biology, because Aristotle is no longer a reliable source on these subjects. Paul B 15:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that such a rationale is "barmy". I would think that early theorists would be the most reliable sources on what they believed/wrote. Imagine writing an article on Mein Kampf without being able to refer to anything it says. Editing out unpalatable or unfortunate "history" does not make it "go away" and is itself nothing more than trying to make and enforce a particular point. However, perhaps you could encourage Dark Tea to take the issue to the talk page, instead of both of you continuing with edit-warring and personal attacks. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate that my comments on Australoid may seem intemperate, but I have been over this in detail with Dark Tea on the Talk:Mongoloid race page. When she can't answer, she goes silent then repeats the same claims on another page. I'm not trying to scapegoat here, I just want some consensus to be established. Paul B 21:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just looked into her edit history and she seems to be calling anyone who doesn't have a politically correct view on race a racist and using this as an excuse to remove them from wikipedia.  Sounds like an extreme case of POV pushing to me. Carleton Coon is most certainly a reliable source by any definition of the term. Now certainly some of his views may seem obsolete decades later but all scientific view points get revised over time and there are certainly experts today who still believe in a lot of his ideas. And the notion of removing him from a historical discussion of human races is ludicrous.  Secularrise 14:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.  While I would add the caveat that references to Coon and his views should always be placed in historical context, the fact that he is obsolete is no reason to exclude him. Blueboar 16:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: That's right. I'm also not aware that too much research has been done since along the lines of Coon's - instead it seems to me (I'm no expert, so correct me if I'm wrong) that the whole line of investigation was dropped as politically suspect. What is current is population genetics, which using a different methodology, addresses the same underlying questions. That the word "race" is unmentioned or even attacked is superficial response to politically poisonous but intellectually insubstantial line of criticism.Proabivouac 20:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: His theories are so thoroughly irrelevant that I do not think he is a RS except in an historical context: I am not sure you could find any current mainstream support. DGG 07:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I gather, that is how he is being used... in an historical context.  As such he is reliable. Blueboar 12:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dark Tea/Carleton Coon

message: For articles about web topics, many of the most reliable sources are published online.  Online magazines often call themselves "blogs," even though they have paid editors and reporters.  We should not be biased by the publication media; our criteria should be editorial review and fact checking.
We do allow self-published sources for experts commenting in their field of expertise.  We also allow self-published sources as primary references.  As such web forums and personal blogs can sometimes be reliable sources, in some situations.
My concern is two-fold:  (1) Can we improve our policies and guidelines so people understand these fine distinctions?  (2) User:SandyGeorgia suggested that I start a thread here to draw more attention to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Search engine optimization, a situation that needs comments on the reliability of online sources. There is a concern about promoting this article to WP:FA because it relies on web sources, but those are the best available sources for this topic.  How do we resolve this? Jehochman  ☎ / ✔ 16:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jehochman, I'm going to be very busy IRL over the next few weeks, and may lose track of this; please ping me if you get any resolution.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've moved this over to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for further discussion.  Jehochman  Talk 01:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blogs and web forums as reliable sources? 

message: We could use a weigh in at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/University High School (Los Angeles, California).
The article in question is protected after an edit war and we're now attempting to get consensus on whether or not school newspaper articles are RS.  Until such a time...  Miss Mondegreen  talk  00:42, May 24 2007 (UTC)
:I have restored this discussion after seeing User:Will_Beback incorrectly (imho) chastise Miss Mondegreen for Spam and canvassing, and after he pointed out that this RFC is already at WP:AN/I.  I feel that is inappropriate.  RS issues are discussed here, not an AN/I.  A user should be quite free to post RFC's on RS issues right here and not be attacked for doing so.  That is one of the main reasons for this discussion page. Wjhonson 02:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  School newspapers reliable ?

message: Per #A reliable source committee?, and to answer questions just as that above, I would like to create Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, where editors could post questions about whether given source(s) are reliable, and editors interested in reliability would answer. In essence it would be a non-binding RfC for reliability and a place to gather all discussions about specific sources, freeing this talk page to more theoretical discussions.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea; might help solve an old edit war or two that flare up every now and again. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also like the idea.  I've created the page with your nutshell statement of it's purpose.  It would be good if you could add a link from the main article directly to that page, and also we should put a link at the top of this Talk page as well. Wjhonson 02:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliability noticeboard 

message: This useful page - linked from here - seems partially forgotten, and has no clear status, I have labelled it with 'proposed'. See also my comments at relevant discussion page.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Also a good idea.  If this is an orphan page, it should be linked from the main page and also linked at the top of this Talk page as well I'd think. Wjhonson 02:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for the record... much of RS/Examples page was copied and merged into the WP:Attribution FAQ... not all of it, but a large chunk.  I see that there is a proposal to (sort of) "undo" that merge and bring the material back to the RS/Examples page.  This is fine with me if that is consensus, but personally I think it is useful to have duplication of the examples in both pages. Blueboar 12:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blueboar I'd recommend linkifying the examples off WP:Attribution FAQ to the RS/Examples page. That way we don't have competing example-wars. Wjhonson 13:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As opposed to competing policy/guideline wars? Perhaps what we need is a single joint examples page, that both RS and ATT point to. Blueboar 14:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Make it so! I refrained from saying "Pikachu I choose you!"Wjhonson 14:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear status of [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/examples]] 

message: Do not include the "tag" characters "<" and ">" in your comments.  I just archived a piece of this page and those characters were in it, and totally whacked out Wiki when followed by something I suppose vaguely looked like a command or ambiguous expression.  Well by "totally whacked-out" I just mean it cut off the rest of the page and threw-up some weird error in the text body.Wjhonson 14:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone know exactly where I can report something like this to the Wiki-coding-monsters so maybe they could find a way to Wikifix the Wikimachine? Wjhonson 14:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not to do

message: Do we consider Conservapedia a WP:RS?  I've noticed it's been used in some articles (e.g., ). My instinct tells me a tertiary source -- especially one that is self-declared as having a non-neutral point of view -- should not be considered a RS for objective information. Raymond Arritt 00:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say no, Conservapedia is not a reliable source. I should note, though, that both of those article links listed Conservapedia under external links, not as a citation. --Alabamaboy 01:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikis are not considered reliable sources. The main reason for this is that one can never predict what one will get when they load a page. A reader could get a page that had been vandalized a few seconds earlier. As for the EL issue, WP:EL states in "links to be avoided, #12, Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. I can't think of another open wiki besides WP that I would consider qualifying by this criteria. Certainly not conservapedia, dkospedia, or any other wiki that has an openly POV editorial policy. - Crockspot 01:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed... I would not even put WP in this category.  But it comes down to this... Conservapedia is not a reliable source. Blueboar 12:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pot calling the kettle black and blue--RCT 17:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Of course, it's not a reliable source by any normal standard.--Svetovid 13:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to ask whether it is possible for any wiki to be considered a reliable source here.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 09:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conservapedia?

message: Another question: What about using the Opie & Anthony radio show, in the context of the "Criticism" section of Tucker Max?--Samiharris 18:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Opie & Anthony 

message: I'm pretty sure that reliable, published sources are necessitated for compliance with WP:V ("Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.") and WP:NOR ("Articles should only contain verifiable content from reliable sources without further analysis."), but the question of what constitutes a reliable source is left up to guidelines to decide.  I think the lede of this piece should be changed to point out that reliable sources are mandatory, though this is only a guideline on what constitutes one. Am I missing something? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The long-term resolution of this issue is presently under discussion. — Sebastian 06:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need for reliable sources\ 

message: Is there any possibilty of there being made a list of sites that are "unreliable", thus making it a rule not to use them? What I'm aiming at is that many history-related articles are propaganda-infested by sites with a clear inclination towards Historical revisionism, far right attitutes and so on. As it stands, anyone can simply write some massacre didn't happen and then link to a far right source that confirms that claim. Shouldn't there be a mechanism to prevent this?
-The Spanish Inquisitor 09:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No... because the same site might be perfectly valid in the context of some other article we can not make a list of "unreliable sites" based on their content.  Unfortunately, you need to battle these citations out article by article.  The first thing I would suggest is that you insist on text attribution... ie that the article states something along the lines of "According to the revisionist history site www.pseudohistorynutjobs.com the massare did not happen". This at least lets the reader know who is making the claim.  Beyond that, there are several other guidelines and policy statements that can be used to cut the really fringe stuff ... If you have not already done so, I would suggest that you familiarize yourself with WP:V, WP:NPOV (especially the section on Undue Weight), WP:FRINGE and WP:NOR. Blueboar 19:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A list of unreliable sites? 

message: The relevant discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation#Fact Checking on Station Opening Dates. http://nycsubway.org/ has opening dates for all stations, but many of them are incorrect. Can it be cited for other stations where we don't have another source? --NE2 22:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you have numbers? How many out of how many checked dates were incorrect, and how far off were they? — Sebastian 23:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd guess about 1/2 to 2/3 of the dates before about 1915 are off; it's a lot more accurate after that. --NE2 00:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Is it possible to ask the website owners which sources were used to cite the dates? Tinlinkin 03:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that the site can be used for those situations where no other sources for a station opening date are available ... however you might consider adding a text foot note to the reference citation, cautioning the reader that the source is known to contain occasional errors.  Obviously, if a more reliable source is eventually located you should then replace it. Blueboar 13:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: nycsubway.org

message: I recently tried to trace down the sources of some dubious statements in an area that I know something about -- the history of medieval astronomy.  After spending some time on line, searching the bibliographies, and getting books at the library, I identified what seems to be a common factor underlying such dubious claims.
These dubious claims tend to cite tertiary sources written by people with little historical expertise -- sometimes web-based articles, sometimes popular printed books, sometimes books and articles published by little known publishing houses and journals.  The replies to the claims tend to be by qualified historians and usually appear in well respected, extensively documented books and articles published by well known publishing houses and scholarly journals with well-established reputations.
The key here is that we can find an indicator of the dominant scholarly opinion by comparing the quality of the rival sources.  What I'm getting at is that when there's nothing better, we have to rely on whatever sources are available.  However, when there is disagreement among the sources, the "best sources" carry more weight.  At some times we can even use the "best sources" to justify dismissing the fringe point of view presented in sources of lesser quality that might formally qualify as "reliable sources".
Shouldn't this article -- or a related one -- address the concept that meeting some technical standard of reliability isn't always an adequate criterion for inclusion?  There are a lot of sources out there; we're writing an encyclopedia; so we should use the best available sources.  --SteveMcCluskey 01:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may want to read the Undue Weight section of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view as well as WP:FRINGE - both make a stab at dealing with this issue. Blueboar 16:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find the same as SteveMcCluskey; but I am not sure how the guideline can cover that. The Verifiability page says that verifiability is the threshold, and I take that to mean that verifiability is just the start and that verifiable information can be superseded by superior information from superior sources. Good editors will use the best sources and avoid the worst; but the difficulty is that for popular subjects—say, the history of the Holy Grail legend—the bad sources can outnumber the good ones and put high-quality editing at a premium. I fear that we don't have enough academically trained editors to make sure that any more than a minority of articles are comprehensively discerning about sources. At the moment there is much scope for people, in the best of faith, to add information and say, "Look, it's sourced; job done". qp10qp 15:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Best sources, not just Reliable sources 

message: Wikipedia:Don't use MySpace as a source redirects here, but there's nothing in the guideline that says so directly.  Could this be changed? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My first thought was that the implications should be obvious. On reflection, if someone is foolish enough to even consider using MySpace as a source they probably need it to be spelled out. Will try to think of something. Raymond Arritt 04:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, what SatyrTN is pointing out is a growing problem: increasing numbers of celebrities & other people are preferring to open a MySpace account & maintain a presence there over creating their own website. Grrr -- why can't these people recognize that MySpace is a cesspit & stay away from it? That would make our article-writing much simpler. -- llywrch 19:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any way to verify that the person on MySpace actually is who they claim to be?  Someone claiming to be e.g., George Bush or Angelina Jolie couldn't get away with the ruse for long.  On the other hand, might it be possible for someone to fake the identity of a minor celebrity? Raymond Arritt 02:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would assume that the person in question told the public (in a manner that was hopefully verifiable) that the MySpace page was their home page. For example, a band who otherwise qualified under notability, & the back of their album states that their web presence is a page on MySpace. (Not where I would have my web page, but then I'm not a 20-something performer.) The problem comes when the only proof that could be offered is that numerous people heard the subject state in an ephemeral form (e.g., heard on the radio) that the celebrity created the MySpace account. -- llywrch 21:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: That policy was created to combat the claim that a person can claim notability by having a MySpace account -- which is not what I am saying. What I'm saying is that there is a problem when the most reliable source for a person who is otherwise notable is their MySpace account, & that this problem will be growing in the near future. (Or do think that any given person is entirely unreliable about all details concerning him/herself, including date & place of birth, education, & marital status?) My comment about MySpace is based on my (admittedly subjective) impression of a series of radio interviews I've heard over the last few weeks: people who want a web presence are turning to MySpace in increasing numbers. I find this development disturbing, because I'd prefer that we maintain the status quo & not link to MySpace at all; however, denial is not a permanent solution for this problem. -- llywrch 21:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't like this.  But, if we do start chipping away at the "No MySpace" rule... I would suggest being very strict and demand a double citation... first a citation to a reliable source that establishes that the subject of the article indeed created the MySpace page, and then a citation to the MySpace page itself.  Also such citations should definitely be restricted to "articles about themselves" situations. On the other hand... there is the argument that anything notable about someone will have been reported by a reliable third party source, and so there is no need to cite to the MySpace page. Blueboar 12:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds really dumb.  If there is a problem with a bogus myspace account, remove anything cited by it.  Don't make people jump through procedural hoops because some bad sources exist, just remove the bad sources. SchmuckyTheCat 22:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: On this topic, we've run into a dispute on the Talk:Cloverfield page.  Cloverfield is a film in production that is using a viral marketing campaign.  Several of the character's names have been revealed on the official website.  The characters can be found on myspace; their pages were created and updated before the names were released, making it reasonable to assume that the pages were created by official sources.  Furthermore, there are numerous pictures (not seen anywhere else) that undeniably identify them (same people seen in the trailer).  Because of the secrecy of the whole marketing campaign, it makes it impossible to ensure that information is 100% "official," and causing verifiability disputes. --ElectricZookeeper 14:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MySpace 

message: Is Newsmax considered a reliable source?  I'm not familiar with them.  They've been used in some articles, and whenever I've followed up the references their coverage often is strongly slanted. Raymond Arritt 02:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, maybe we need to insist that for each cite from Newsmax there has to be one from Mother Jones, and vice versa... only half-joking here. It would indeed be nice to segregate common sources into reliable, reliable but partisan, etc. with caveats for each category, but as you say there would be lots of contention over which source belonged where. Thanks for your response. Raymond Arritt 03:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Newsmax

message: At ,  added a bunch of awards and accomplishments for La Toya Jackson (see this edit) with the sources being a bunch of scans and photos to Imageshack.  How does this stand in terms of reliable sources?  I removed them because I don't feel that they are too reliable, especially since you can barely read some of the awards in the photos.  In my opinion, these are not reliable sources and that these statements should be sourced with some sort of news coverage or press release of the organization giving the award that states she received it.  Thoughts? Metros 13:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imageshack images as sources 

message: If you want to have some fun cleaning up an article, take a look at the "references" at the Royal Rife article! -- Fyslee/talk 12:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's clearly full of Google refs, which presumably you know is not allowed. So, why haven't you removed them? Lsi john 12:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did it for him. Blueboar 16:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Google as a RS??? 

message: I just removed the following sentence "When sourcing, be careful not to attribute a statement to a source that may have itself originally taken the same information from Wikipedia (either with or without acknowledgement). This applies especially to self-authored third-party websites;"  the sentence was recently added by anon IP 86.136.194.161 without any discussion on this page.  While I agree with the sentiment, I have no idea how an editor is supposed to avoid this "circular sourcing," so I think the sentence obfusctates more than it clarifies.  Any efforts at a clearer guideline are welcome. UnitedStatesian 13:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What if we expand it a bit... something like: "When sourcing, be careful not to attribute a statement to a source that may have itself originally taken the same information from Wikipedia.  A source that credits Wikipedia among its sources for the information in question should never be used.  If no credit is given, such "circular referencing" may be more difficult to determine. One good indication would be if the language used in the source is substantially similar to what appears in Wikipedia articles related to the topic.  If you suspect that a sourced statement contains a circular reference to a Wikipedia article, you should raise the issue on the article talk page." Blueboar 14:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I originally added this. As Wikipedia itself becomes used more and more as a source this is a potential danger. Many articles were originally written with no references or inadequate references. There now seems to be a drive to tighten this with many "citation needed" tags appearing. The temptation is to look for web references via Google as they're easiest to find, but there is a danger that the information on the web page that you find was itself taken from Wikipedia. I fear a kind of circle of bogus validation. I think it's worth alerting people to this problem, just so it's in the back of their minds, even if we can't give a foolproof way to tell. Matt 01:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence removal 

message: Lots of fancy flags have already been deleted, but the problem has surfaced again. :Image:GokturkFlag.png is taken from an unreferenced Flags of the World page purporting to depict flags of the "Sixteen Great Turkish Empires", the vast majority of which are fanciful and uncited. No scholarly reference is given for this flag. I have a hefty monograph on the Gokturks which mentions in passim that the war standard of the Gokturks contained the image of the golden she-wolf, but this data is not referenced as well. Briangotts nominated the image for deletion on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 June 11. The discussion has been inconclusive so far, but User:Quadell suddenly removed the ifd tag from the image with the edit summary "not deleted", claiming on his talk page that the picture is "sourced". I would welcome input from those people who understand our RS policy better than I do. --Ghirla-трёп- 14:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern flags of early medieval countries 

message: Some Roman Catholics say AlterNet is not a reliable source and keep reverting edits. What do you think? --BMF81
::Like other sources, it depends on what they are used for. They are a politically oriented news source, and they admit it, and you can therefore figure out what to accept. I'd be reluctant to accept their word as definitive about any controversial situation, but I wouldn't be at all reluctant to cite them for their opinion. That's about what I feel about most other sources too.  This can be discussed more usefully with the actual questioned material.DGG 03:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AlterNet

message: The discussion above has been useful, but Wikipedia:Verifiability is the actual policy page. It's disconcerting that the words "peer reviewed" appear nowhere on that policy page, much less the relevant merits of peer-reviewed and non-peer reviewed sources.  To all who have been involved in this discussion, shall we continue continue at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability? Raymond Arritt 01:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea; we'd get more eyes on it, for one thing. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Time to relocate?

message: I added a new section to this page: Frequently used sources that do not qualify as reliable. Feel free to edit it, improve on it, or remove it and discuss it here. Cheers. SalaSkan 11:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about ranking sources from least to most reliable, as an example?
# Anything the average Joe can edit: (wikis, blogs, discussion forums)
# Poorly written or constructed websites that don't site their sources
# Tertiary sources which summarize material such as encyclopedias, Sparknotes, etc.
# Primary sources are excellent unless cited to support original research
# Secondary sources discussing primary works are excellent, especially those coming from academic, peer reviewed sources
Something like that. Most people don't know what is and isn't reliable.  We should explain it.  This is just a start. Wrad 15:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section 

message: The idea of including wikiprojects is a good idea.  But in practical terms how do we see this developing?  Presumably the guidelines will develop on a wikiproject page or subpage.  But once it reaches consensus, how would it be linked back to WP:RS?  semper fictilis 12:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  wikiprojects and subject specific reliability guides