Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 8

message: This article is an absolute mess.  It provides no coherent well sourced definition of a Black person and just rambles on and on about various people who were labled Black in different times, places, and languages, and tries to merge them all together as a coherent ethnic group.  It would be like trying to merge Native Americans and people from India into a coherent article called Indian people. It makes no sense. We had requested mediation and the mediator said we should use the census as our source. Here's what the U.S. census says:
A Black is “ a person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as "Black, African Am., or Negro,"or provide written entries such as African American, Afro American, Kenyan, Nigerian, or Haitian.”  
Black Africa is a synonym of sub-Saharan Africa and all of the non-African groups mentioned (i.e. African-Americans, Haitains) are descendents of the recent African diasporas.  And yet we still have editors insisting that South Asians be given equal weight in the article and be considered Black.  These people provide no cited definitions or census classifications to defend their assertions, instead they cherry pick from different sources in different countries for examples of South Asians being labeled Black, often in different languages.  But by the same logic, I could argue that the Black Irish are Black.  The point is the people editing that article need to be forced to adheare to a coherent sourced authoritative definition of a Black person, or the entire article should just be deleted as POV and unencyclopedic.
Dictionary.com[],  the free dictionary online[].,  the U.S. census[],  and the British census[] all emphasize the idea that Blacks are of African origin-in fact it is against the law for a dark-skinned person of South Asian or Australian origin to claim to be black in the census.  An article by the BBC makes a clear distinction between Blacks and the dark skinned people of South Asian ancestry[].  This article about race in biomedicines says “The entities we call ‘racial groups’ essentially represent individuals united by a common descent — a huge extended family, as evolutionary biologists like to say. Blacks, for example, are a racial group defined by their possessing some degree of recent African ancestry (recent because, after all, everyone of us is out of Africa, the origin of Homo sapiens)."[].  I really need help getting the editors of that article to stick to a coherent definition, instead of just pushing their own POV. Editingoprah 06:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like you have quite a number of reliable sources that you can use.  I'm not sure what more you are asking us to do. Blueboar 16:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reliable sources are useless if the people editing the article refuse to follow wikipedia policiy and simply give their own personal opinions more weight than authoritative references.  As a person of African ancestry I'm disturbed that my ethnic identity is being watered down and misapplied to people who are not defined as Black by any reliable source, but more importantly, as a fan of wikipedia, I don't wish to see this encyclopedia's credibility destroyed by POV warriors.  The article has been hijacked by a bunch of people who all share the same POV and so I'm trying to get new editors who are familliar with wikipedia policy to examine the article from a "Reliable Sources" and "no undue weight" point of view.  I feel the article is being used as a soap box to REDEFINE what Black means instead of accurately and PROPORTIONALLY reflecting what it means to be Black.  The people who are editing the article are too passionate and ideological to apply wikipedia policily objectively.  The article needs new editors to question the assertions being made, remove uncited statements, and it needs moderators who will get in their face and force them to not violate no undue weight rules.  I've tried to remove uncited statements and replace them with census, scientific, and dictionary definitions and my edits are constantly reverted.  I need help from as many people as possible.  You don't have to be Black to participate in the article, you just have to have an understanding of wikipedia's no undue weight rules and a preference for RELIABLE SOURCES. What the article needs most are outsiders who can look at it from a neutral perspective.  The people editing now are too emotionally invested in the topic to do a good job.   Editingoprah 17:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I may say so, I think you're taking a rather America-centric (and Africa-centric?) view of it. The line you quoted from the US Census applies, obviously, to the US. But what about south-east Asia or Australasia, where peoples such as the Papuans, Negritos and Aborigines have skins at least as dark as any black Africans? The article needs to be referenced better at a number of points, but its basic premise - that the concept of "blackness" is merely a social construct - seems to be reasonable enough. -- ChrisO 17:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if anyone can find an official or reputable definition calling South East Asians and Australoids Black then I have no problem including them but I don't believe the census of even their own countries defines them as Black and no dictionary I have ever read has explicitly mentioned them.  Arbitrarily drawing a color line and subjectively deciding that certain groups are of the Black ethnicity because their skin happens to be dark seems unencyclopedic to me.  And just because Black literally means "very dark" does not mean that's the definition of the term in a racial ethnic context.  For example, Northern Chinese people have lighter skin than many Europeans, but that doesn't mean they're considered "White people".  Now you might argue that based on logic they should be considered White, but wikipedia isn't based on logic, it's based on verifiable authoritative sources. Now it's easy to find examples of almost anyone being called Black in one time or place or another including the Black Irish, but an encyclopedic article about Blacks should be based on a well sourced DEFINITION.  The long term integrity of wikipedia depends on our ability to consistently enforce clear standards. Editingoprah 19:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Australian aborigines have certainly been called "blacks" for a very long time - at least 200 years. There was even a conflict called the "Black War" between Europeans and native Tasmanians. There's a number of black peoples in south-east Asia called the Negritos, Spanish for "little Blacks". People don't generally call northern Chinese "white", despite their being whiter than (say) southern Europeans, simply because the whole concept of race is largely a cultural artifact in the first place. I suggest you read chapter 26 of Richard Dawkins' book The Ancestor's Tale, which I think you might find quite enlightening on the question of classification. You might also like to register with books.google.com and do a search for "black people australia". There are a lot of results! -- ChrisO 23:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could also read the book "How the Irish became White" and we could also google "Black Irish".  The point is you can always find examples of different groups being called by the same name but that doesn't mean they should be lumped into the same article.  Should Native American Indians and Indians from India be lumped together in one article just because they've both been called Indian?  It makes about as much sense as grouping the black Australoids in with Black as defined by African ancestry or for that matter the swarthy Black Irish who for years were regarded as low class.  The problem I have with the Black people article is that they're taking a very well understood definition of Blackness that is backed by official census records in more than one country, dictionaries, and science articles, and mixing it with several less common uses and confusing the issue in the process.  Peoples of African ancestry are completely different culturall, socially, and genetically from Australoids and negritoes, and the fact that we all happen to look alike, and have historically been confused with one another, does not mean we're all one of the same and should be discussed jointly.  We let Native American Indians and Indians from India have separate articles.  Editingoprah 00:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Please... this is not the place for arguing for or against any particular definition.  If you have a question about a particular source, or about a category of sources, please ask it.  Otherwise, move back to the talk page at the article.  Blueboar 01:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I didn't mean for this to turn into a debate.  If Chris O has anything more to add he & anyone else is welcome to continue this debate on my talk page.  Editingoprah 02:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Desperate help needed at the [[Black people]] article! Please get involved!!

message: I thought there was a proviso on here about not using blog sites, but can't find it now, admittedly I skimmed, but anyway, question is, for an article reporting current events, is the drudgereport a RS? Article in question is a new one posted: Jordan Edmund -- I found it doing New Page patrol and tagged it with some relevent tags at the time, and this link to the drudgereport just got added. --plange 19:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not convinced of Drudge's reliability by itself, I have therefore deleted the article for now per WP:BIO. JoshuaZ 19:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It just got re-created - I tagged it for speedy --plange 19:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I deleted it, I don't remember what the template is to protect a page (haha) against recreation, but I will try and find it and put it there. If anyone thinks that this is the wrong thing to do at the moment let me know and I'll restore the version sourced from Drudge. JoshuaZ 19:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  — TKD::Talk 19:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article was ok and based on a news report from Oklahoma, but then some other editor added that link but added no more data. But I don't really care if it exists or not, especially for something so current-newsy... --plange 19:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drugereport reliable? 

message: I must take exception to User:Sean Black's edit to the "Popular culture and fiction" section; the new version would allow personal websites, wikis, and posts on bulletin boards, if they are the best source available. Sorry, but if there are no quality sources, just don't write about it. --Gerry Ashton 02:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, the referenced Arbcom decision is much less explicit. In fact, I would accept nixing the subsection altogether. Film and other art criticism are an academic pursuit, and even mere "popular culture" reviews in print media are reliable secondary sources. Self-published sources are fraught with reliability issues and the lack of better sources does not mitigate them; merely point to the difficulty of substantiating these facts. The referenced arbcom decision was fairly pointless, too; there are reliable sources that state Dean was a bisexual, and an amass of internet blogs is not an appropriate substitute.--Mmx1 03:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence speaks directly to this issue.  "If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." Robert A.West (Talk) 16:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Popular culture and fiction II

message: Proposed:
Reliable sources refers to sources upon which may be based footnoted findings of fact. This can also include a representation of someone else's opinions, for example, "Deconstructionists believe…," where the author is an acknowledged authority on the history and beliefs of deconsructionists.
Notable sources are not necessarily reliable sources of fact; rather, their POV is notable because the soures themselves are notable, for example, "The Dalai Lama claims that Tibet…", and should always be presented with explicit attribution in the text of the articles.
Often, reliable sources contain significant elements of subjective opinion in addition to findings of fact within the authors' fields of acknowledged expertise.  In these cases, care should be taken to distinguish expert findings of fact from non-expert or extraneous opinion.  Esteemed scholars can be notable sources of opinion, but like other notable sources, this opinion should be explicitly attributed rather than footnoted.Proabivouac 06:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who will decide that when reliable resource is giving its expert opinion or subjective opinion? It will mess up thing all over the wikipedia and will promote new edit wars. You proposal is not realistic and acceptable. --- ابراهيم 10:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is that if Stephen Hawkings says, "Black holes are really cool, and Bush sucks" it doesn't mean we can write, Black holes are really cool and Bush sucks Hawkings 1999 simply because his is an acknowledged expert opinion in his field. It has become a game in some quarters to search favorable reliable sources for POV to include in articles, and then speciously accuse those who bring it down to earth of marring the wisdom of the sources, or even vandalism. We're not obliged to reflect every psychological tic and prejudice of expert sources, only to reference findings of fact based upon their expertise. That's no more "original research" on our part than is agreeing upon which sources are reliable to begin with. The text of my proposal is entirely negotiable; I am only trying to prevent the wikilawyering of WP:RS to evade WP:NPOV (in fact, the inverse is a bigger problem, but as we're on this talk page rather than that of NPOV...), based upon an intuitive framework in which reliablity is qualitatively distinguished from notability.Proabivouac 10:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: if Stephen Hawking says "Bush sucks" then it violates the "beware false authority" clause, as Hawking would only be relevant for referencing opinion on (astro)physics. i think it's important for editors to note the intended spirit in which the reliable source makes a statement, if it by doing that reflects an opinion of the author which is questionable then sources which opine differently can be used to balance it out. when there will be opposing POV's on an issue, it is especially important to make sure the opinions are properly attributed. this adds more depth to an article over stripping it of everything an editor may deem to be "subjective", which in itself may be a subjective analysis. ITAQALLAH 16:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliable sources, Notable sources and [[WP:NPOV]]

message: As requested, an inventory of the flaws in this page. I hope you will see that the flaws are deeply rooted, affecting the organization and goal of the page. Not only is this an inadequate guideline for sourcing, it is an inadequate foundation for a guideline. David is correct - this needs to be rewritten from the ground up.
There are three basic flaws of this page, and they'll recur throughout the below.
#The page arbitrarily attempts to rule out subjective judgment in some cases while mandating it in others. The cases where it mandates it are often masked as didactic guidelines that depend on phrases like "reliable X," "common Y," or a mushy definition of fact. These phrases could be defined in the same way that "reliable source" has been, but such definitions would necessarily run into the same problems of subjectivity. It's turtles all the way down.
#The page is, at numerous points, clearly written for a narrow range of topics. When applied to other topics, it ranges from the merely unhelpful to the completely wrong.
#Sections flatly contradict each other.
(Moved to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Flaws)
That's all I've got. Phil Sandifer 17:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A somewhat interminable list of flaws

message: Are unpublished Ph.D. dissertations considered reliable sources? On the one hand, they certainly are widely cited in academic writing; on the other hand, the fact that they're unpublished can make them extremely difficult for nonspecialists to get hold of for verification. And what about papers published in conference proceedings? These too are widely cited in academic writing, but in most cases they haven't been peer-reviewed. Angr 08:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One must remember that this guideline is a sub-page of WP:V... Verification is key.  Since an unpublished dissertation can not be verified, I do not think it should be used as a source on Wikipedia.  Papers published in conference proceedings, on the other hand, are often posted on the website of the organization hosting the conference... thus "published" and verifiable.  I would say these can be used, but should be treated as primary sources for the thoughts of the author. Blueboar 12:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't say unpublished dissertations can't be verified at all, just that they're difficult to verify. Most universities libraries keep copies of dissertations submitted there, and often have copies of dissertations submitted at other universities too, so in a pinch you can find some there. You can order copies made from microfilms of any dissertation submitted to American universities can be ordered. Printed book-form dissertations are often available from the university department where they were submitted. More recent dissertations are often available in PDF format online (mine is, for example). But they don't have ISBNs and can't be ordered through Amazon. Angr 12:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PhD dissertations are highly reliable sources. They are all "published" by their universities (and in USA by Dissertation Abstracts, which makes it very easy to buy a copy.) More important they are all vetted by a dissertation committee who actually sign the title page to legitimize the quality of the contents. Rjensen 12:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hold on ... I am confused... I would call what Angr and Rjensen are talking about: "Published"... I thought we were talking about pre-submission versions of dissertations (essentially drafts that have not been submitted to peer review.)  I think we need clarification on what consitutes an "Unpublished" disseration. Blueboar 13:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By unpublished I meant not published by an actual publisher, complete with ISBN number and the like. I wouldn't think of citing a dissertation that hasn't been submitted yet. My own dissertation was submitted and accepted by the Cornell University Graduate School in 1997, but it's never been published by a publisher, so I consider it unpublished. Angr 14:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dissertations are available through the usual channels (UMI, interlibrary loan); if anyone wants a copy they can get it. As for them being reviewed, I find that Wikipedia overrates peer review and underrates the informal post-publication review, the "invisible boot", as Broad & Wade call it. Dr Zak 17:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The finished dissertation is validated by an official committee of scholars, and is officially made available by the university library. In USA they are (almost) all published by a company, UMI that will sell you a copy today of 1.6 million titles see  That's publication on demand and it's for real. Rjensen 15:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, a finished dissertation is "published" and verifiable, and therefore a valid source. I would also say that any Master's Thesis that also goes through the same vetting and publication by their university is also valid. --plange 16:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having read Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Flaws, I suspect that User:Phil Sandifer would object to using Ph.D. dissertations as sources on the grounds that they're academic sources on paper. Can't have that! Angr 18:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Angr, PhD dissertations are published by the university in the sense of being made available to any member of the public who asks for them, so they count as valid sources, although I'd say we should generally avoid them in favor of more widely published material, but that's a matter of personal preference. However, I think I'd strongly oppose using an M.A. dissertation. Are they also published as a matter of course? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends a lot on what you're working on. I'm working on improving Irish phonology right now, and so far I've succeeded in not citing any dissertations, but doing so is definitely cramping what I want to say about it. Angr 22:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'd say go ahead and cite them if they're relevant and if you're having difficulty avoiding them. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course I wouldn't say that. Phil Sandifer 22:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dissertations 

message: How about a contest for who can produce the best replacement for WP:RS? 4.250.132.226 19:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The best thing for it, in my view, is deletion. We already have WP:V, which is the policy. This page, if it's needed at all, should only provide advice to people about where to find good sources, but it shouldn't go over issues that are covered by the policy; at best, it'll be repetitive and at worst contradictory. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: WP:V wouldn't reference this guideline ideally, Engineer, and the two are not at all entwined. I can't think of a single thing we'd lose by deleting RS. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Engineer, I like what you're written, but please try to help get this page in order rather than create an almost identical fork, which will only add to the confusion. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: WP:V is not identical to what usually is meant with reliable sources: even unreliable sources should be cited to verify that they indeed state what the article claims that they state (see for example Holocaust denial). However this distinction is obscure in the policy. Harald88 20:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The distinction is clear in the policy, Harald. Sources of dubious reliability may be cited in articles about themselves; therefore, Holocaust deniers may be cited in articles about the theories of Holocaust deniers. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you're saying - and indeed, I agree with you that Holocaust denial has no place in, say, Holocaust. On the other hand, this, to my mind, requires a more subtle judgment than you seem to be willing to give credit for. A judgment no less subtle than many others that need to be made, and that we currently frown on making. Phil Sandifer 00:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  Sure - sources that are deemed reliable about themselves may be cited in that context, without any suggestion that they are otherwise reliable. I just don't think that this is sufficiently clearly explained. Harald88 22:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Harald88 I agree what you are say about WP:V dealing with a seperate issue than WP:RS.  Verifiabilty is much more basic than reliabilty.  One of the main points at WP:V is "Verifiabilty, not truth".  This guideline is about the next step after verifiabilty, and should be more restrictive.  For example any editor can remove an unsourced statement per WP:V, the burden is not on the remover.  I do not believe any editor should be remove all statements sourced from X indie rock magazine because they don't believe it reliable.  They should have the burden of proving the magazine unreliable before making wholesale removals of the edits in that case.  This is why WP:V needs to be seperate, as it places such a strong burden on good-faith editors it needs to remain limited to verifiabilty alone. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 22:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Birgitte, this page and V actually should say the same thing, and do make the same point (insofar as the point on this page can be worked out). The point is that edits must be "verifiable" in relation to reliable sources. "Verifiable" is actually a poor choice of word; what is meant is simply that we must attribute edits to reliable sources. What do you see the difference as between this page and RS? I'be interested to know as I think this page only serves to cause confusion. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SlimVirgin, I do see the difference. Verifiability focuses on the requirement that there should be a traceable source for what is written for which there seems to be little grey areas. This article focuses on the quality of sources. This article has an enormous amount of grey area. Assessing sources and applying this article requires a lot of common sense and knowledge of the subject and knowledge of the literature/sources of a subject. Andries 23:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: [Edcon] A veriable source is one that we can be reasonably assured represents the opinion or belief of some person or body.  A reliable (authoritative) source is one that we can further assume accurately represents the state of the world.  On some topics--many things involving politics, religion--truly reliable sources are probably not possible; thus we fall back to verifiable ones, and (per WP:NPOV) attribute beliefs to sources in prose.   On others--science, for instance--we can find sources which are both verifiable and reliable (authoritative), and we often present claims based on that type of source as fact.  (We don't write "According to Alan Turing, the halting problem is undecideable on a Turing Machine"--presenting what has been mathematically proven as an opinion).  In the field of pop culture, we depend (unfortunately) on much which is reliable, but not very verifiable.  The concepts of verifiability and reliablity address different issues.  We can have V without RS if we attribute per NPOV: we should not accept sources IMHO which do not pass V (or the "acceptable sources") proposal outlined above. --EngineerScotty 23:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Engineer, there's no difference between a "verifiable" source and a reliable one, in the way the terms are used on Wikipedia. The belief/fact distinction you're trying to make is not one we can observe. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I would disagree.  Many political polemics are verifiable in that they represent their author's views.  Few of them should be quoted as representing any more than that.  On the other hand, a computer science paper published in Communications of the ACM, containing proofs of some proposition X, can reasonably considered firm evidence that X is indeed true.  A grey area, which you are no doubt familiar with, is when scholarship and polemics collide, as they do all to frequently--often times academic principles suffer at the hands of political principles; and it's damn hard to tell the real research from the propaganda.--EngineerScotty 00:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, look, all the policy says is that material has to be "verifiable" with references to reliable published sources. Forget the word "verifiable." It's a bad choice of word, inherited from years ago. We just mean that material has to be attributable to reliable sources. True, false, belief, opinion, fact, or feeling: we don't distinguish. It just has to be attributable to reliable published sources. It must have been published by a reliable source, in other words. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Contest

message: After reading Phil's analysis, the thing that I have come to realize is the main flaw of this guideline is that it believes sources are either reliable or not.  When like most things in this world, sources vary in their reliabilty within a large spectrum.  Of course now that Phil has pointed out how it is problamatic to force a broad white line, I feel it very obvious this guideline should about two things.  
1) How to evaluate the reliabilty of a source and find the most reliable source possible on a subject.  There is an interesting post on foudation-l on evaluating the authority of sources which is few steps ahead of us here, but something to keep in mind.
2) When the sources available are not as reliable we would like, how can we mitigate this problem.  This may involve having multiple sources where, if they were more reliable only one would be needed.  Or it could involve a subject specific assesment of sources with the idea what would quallify as a "Grade A" source on the subject of buffalo nickels, would not even be considered for assement on the subject of global warming.  
I think an important thing for everyone to remember is that a piece of information must pass several different evalutions before someone can say it is suitable for an article.  Some material unsuitable for an article qp10qp 14:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nowhere does this policy state or imply that there's a firm line between a category called "reliable sources" and another category called "unreliable sources." Of course it's a spectrum. Surely we don't have to state things as obvious as that? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We do state that reliabilty is a spectrum actually.  Unfortunately it is not until halfway down the page, instead of in the introduction.  A paragraph on this concept would be a much more appropriate introduction than what has currently been copied over from WP:V.  Don't you think this guideline should open up discussing the variety in the quality of sources rather than the whole responsibility of finding sources being on the editor who want to add . . .  schtick? --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 03:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: This guideline tries to be prescriptive by going in my opinion into tedious, contradictory, and vague detail. It's largely a waste of words because article editors are better off not worrying about micropolicy; so long as they grasp the basic principle, they should go ahead and edit their articles; the chances are no-one will object to their methods (and if they do, matters normally resolve themselves at the article). I don't think guidelines should be seen as the little brothers and sisters of policies; they should instead, in my opinion, work as a sort of helpdesk FAQ resource, which readers may scan till they find their own circumstance. If that was accepted, we could worry a lot less about this page and concentrate instead on the policy pages. At the moment it's a dog dressed up for a weddiing. --qp10qp 14:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well put. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This policy in general terms 

message: Links to this page are being removed from other Wikipedia policies.  Should this be disscussed centrally here?  Or somewhere else instead?--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 03:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This page and wiki mail indicate a lot of people don't think it should be a guideline. In particular there is circular thinking that it should be a guideline because policies link to it and policies should link to it because it is a guideline. For now, it should be de-linked and allowed to find its place on its own. When what it is is settled, the linking can be reconsidered. There is growing momentum to delete it altogether; thinking WP:V is fine without it. WAS 4.250 05:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would definitely support this not being a guideline anymore. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaning 

message: Isn't this just one huge argumentum ad hominem?  A group can be considered "extremist" by the mainstream and yet be COMPLETELY correct - 50 years ago agitators against Female Genital Mutilation would have been considered "extremists", but they were (and still are) absolutely correct.   I don't see how wikipedia considers argumentum ad hominem a valid objection to a citation. Lordkazan 20:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes i think "groups known to be dishonest" would be a MUCH better terminology - because in some of the articles I edit the term "extremist" gets thrown out about any minority group that disagrees with the practice Lordkazan 20:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: You might advance the above on Wikipedia talk:Attribution--an active policy proposal to replace WP:RS.  --EngineerScotty 20:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: If the term "extremist" is so vague and debatable then does it make sense to use it in policy? When writing about e.g. religions, I am not aware of any person, scholar that does not have biases. I do not have a solution for all of this. Andries 11:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Extremists" 

message: You are welcome to check the work-in-progress of a proposed policy that attempts to consolidate WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:RS, into one policy. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:ATTRIBUTE]] 

message: Where can I get up to speed on Youtube as a source?  I've never actually watched a Youtube clip, don't understand all the excitement, don't know what it's about, but I'm cleaning up a lot of references in election articles and need to understand:
#Is it a WP:RS?
#If an upload violates copyright, how can it be a WP:RS?
#If it is a WP:RS, how is it cited in a footnote?
#Do we have a page, guideline, description anywhere?
I need to know whether Youtube is reliable source for critical content in a BLP, and how to cite it.  Thanks,  Sandy 21:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Youtube

message: Though the current text says, "Wikipedia articles may not cite Wikipedia as a source, because it is a wiki that may be edited by anyone and is therefore not reliable", does anyone actually have a problem quoting an essay on Meta written by User:Larry Sanger as evidence of what Larry Sanger thinks?  It can be linked to a diff or static verison to avoid the "anyone can edit" problem.  A particular user is using that part of RS to justify removing certain relevant material from Jimmy Wales.  Dragons flight 02:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The parallel issue in this particular case is that the information is being used to add negative information to a biography of a living person, who is not the author of the opinion. I don't believe something from Meta can be cited as reliable, but if it could, it would be a self-published source, which can only be used as a primary in the author's bio, but not to add negative information into a third party's bio. Crockspot 02:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is preposterous to me that you argue the statement "Sanger referred to himself as the co-founder of Wikipedia as early as January 2002" shouldn't be sourced to Meta material Sanger wrote in 2002.  Beyond that, the dispute was already sourced to the Boston Globe and Wired, and could easily be sourced to other places as well.  I'd add more sources (like The Register, The Times, etc.) but I'd like to first resolve the dispute over the ones we have.  Dragons flight 03:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Rewritten 09:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has grown a bit, I'm thinking about putting the text above on a page called Wikipedia:Don't use internal sources for verification, an essay. Feel free to comment. --Francis Schonken 11:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing Wikipedia - an exception to the rule? 

message: (edit conflict, making this a subsection of conflicting edit, since related)
I am recommending that the section be changed from:
Wikipedia articles may not cite Wikipedia as a source, because it is a wiki that may be edited by anyone and is therefore not reliable.
to:
Wikipedia articles in the main namespace may not cite Wikipedia as a source, because it is not reliable.
I believe the existing sentence is intended to help us understand why Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but some editors use it as a loophole to allow diffs to be used in articles as reliable sources, or comments made on user pages as self-published sources. I feel that this contravenes the spirit of the policy, and that it should be worded in no uncertain terms. Wikipedia should never be used as a source, not diffs, not articles, not user pages. The only possible exception that seems usable would be official pdf legal documents of the Foundation, for example, quoting the Wikimedia Foundation By-laws to source a statement of fact about the Foundation or its officers. The policy should probably also clarify any other sister wikimedia projects that are or are not considered reliable. I have seen cites of emails from the mailing list, cites from meta.wiki, and cites from the wikimedia website. I do not know how reliable these other projects are, but I would presume that they should also be off limits as RS for main namespace articles. For a real time docudrama of this issue in play, see Talk:Jimmy Wales#BLP Noticeboard response. The "main namespace" addition is because diffs are used routinely in the WP namespace for administrative purposes, as they should be. Perhaps other namespaces would need to be specified. - Crockspot 02:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using Wikipedia as a source 

message: Adapted from Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/archive6#Using long passages from an article in another article:
----
;Content displayed in Main namespace
It should generally be avoided to use one Wikipedia page for the verification of the content of another Wikipedia page. Some principal reasons for that are:
#Wikipedia content is not above all suspicion reliability-wise: there was a relative success with the report published in Nature late 2005, but errors in Wikipedia are still legion. One of the tactics against systemic errors is not basing one part of a system on another, possibly erroneous, part of the same system: in that case an error might be reproduced within the same system, which would be turning a one time error into a systemic one.
#Wikipedia:Avoid self-references: Self-references should be avoided for various reasons, one of these reasons is countering systemic bias. Systemic bias can be initiated, for instance, by circularity, that is articles referring to each other for some information, without support from external sources. In other words: circularity might make it difficult to uncover de facto original research.
Stabilising and improving Wikipedia's content by verification or attribution is done by basing Wikipedia's content on reliable and published external sources, not by basing it on other content in Wikipedia. Even if at some point in the future Wikipedia would be 99,99% error-free, self-referential sourcing should still be avoided in order to avoid that 0,01% errors would be multiplied into systemic errors. This doesn't mean that content can't be copied from one article to another. However, for any content on a page in main namespace (including transcluded content visible on that page) the verifiability of that content depends on the external sources indicated on that same page. Using external sources is instrumental in the avoidance of systemic errors. Or at least the systemic error won't be Wikipedia's but the external source's.
This also doesn't mean that the content of one Wikipedia article shouldn't be compared to the content of another article. On the contrary: avoiding POV forks by syncronising the content of articles (see for instance the  template) or by merging the content of articles is also a way to improve the encyclopedia. The point is that for each individual page, whether syncronised or merged or whatever, compliance to Wikipedia:Verifiability or Wikipedia:Attribution can only be achieved by the external sources presented on that page. 
An overview:
* Wikilinks and Interwiki links effectuated with double square brackets, and visible in main namespace, play no role in the verification or attribution process for main namespace content.
* In main namespace, links to content of Wikimedia projects in external link format should generally be avoided (use Wikilinks or Interwiki links instead) and thus also play no role in the verification/attribution process. The only exception to that is data retrieved from accredited Wikimedia research projects in articles on covered Wikimedia projects. And even there such internal information should be used sparingly, but it is, for instance, allowed to use certain statistical data about Wikipedia in the article about Wikipedia, insofar as such data are covered by the Wikidemia project. But that's an exception, not the rule: if external data (for instance Alexa's) can be used that is largely preferred.
* When copying, moving or translating content from whatever wiki page governed by the Wikimedia Foundation to whatever other page with content appearing in Wikipedia's main namespace, a copyrights-related attribution of the source needs to be given in the edit summary (see for instance Wikipedia:Summary style#Always mention in the edit summary when splitting). If the edit history of the source page is obliterated (which usually happens in a transwiki process), at least a number of principal authors need to be mentioned on the talk page of the target article (see for instance m:Help:Transwiki#Procedure). Such attributions in edit history or on the talk page are no main namespace content and play no role for the compliance to Wikipedia's core content policies. Such attributions only relate to copyright obligations and the application of the Gnu Free Documentation License. The compliance to Wikipedia:Verifiability or Wikipedia:Attribution can, depending on case, be achieved by copying, moving or translating references together with the content, or by providing references to more appropriate or additional sources supporting the content on the target page.
* Avoid circular sourcing via external sources. An external source may be based on the content of a WikiMedia project. Such "recycled" content has no value in a verification logic. For example, a publication discussing Wikipedia only has value as a source for Wikipedia's encyclopedia entry on Wikipedia for that part of the content of that external publication that is not a repeat of what can be found in Wikipedia itself.
;Other namespaces
Other namespaces follow the same rules regarding avoidance of relying on internal sources as main namespace, apart from these exceptions:
* Content visible in category namespace: usually, items listed in a category take their references (that is, external sources that justify the inclusion in the category) from Main namespace. So the reference is external, but accessed via Main namespace, not directly from Category namespace.
* Image namespace: the author and/or copyright holder of an image may be a Wikipedian: in image namespace that is usually indicated by a link to User namespace. Some Image namespace content is sourced to a page with the same name at Wikimedia Commons.
* Talk, Project, Help and User namespaces: in these namespaces there are legion verification links. For example if an article was listed for deletion, and the decision was "keep", a link to the page with that deletion discussion will be displayed on the talk page of the kept article.
* Template namespace and transcluded content: Generally, verification is operated according to the verification rules of the namespace where the transcluded content is displayed. For instance, the  template (intended for use on pages in talk namespace) contains a link to a page in Project namespace where it can be verified that the related article was indeed a featured article. A limited exception to the rule that the namespace where the transcluded content is displayed defines the rules is contained in Wikipedia:Avoid self-references: some templates may contain internal links that play a temporary role in verification, in namespaces where this usually would not be allowed (for instance, a link from main namespace to a related talk page from the  template can be used to "verify" whether there is indeed an ongoing dispute over the article's content: when there is none, or the dispute has been resolved, the template should be removed from that page in Main namespace).
* Media, Special and MediaWiki namespaces: have a completely different ruleset: they are highly self-referential (e.g. Special:DoubleRedirects is nothing but links to internal content) and rarely contain external references (Some do: e.g. MediaWiki:Sorbsreason contains a reference to http://www.sorbs.net).
----
Anyone having a problem with that? --Francis Schonken 09:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rewritten 09:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has grown a bit, I'm thinking about putting the text above on a page called Wikipedia:Don't use internal sources for verification, an essay. Feel free to comment. --Francis Schonken 11:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Using Wikipedia as a source (continued)

message: On Oct 10 there were 67 postings to this discussion page.  Something is wrong here.  WP:RS has been used to resolve innumerable editor disputes.  Quoting WP:RS has been useful by a number of editors over a long period of time.  It may not be perfect but it has been useful.  And, in addition, this discussion page has served as a platform where editors come to resolve difficulties.  The difficulties of what exactly a reliable source is will happen.  Editors will need to resolve them.  Whether that is done here or done on some other page, such conflicts of opinion and difficulties will continue and need a discussion page such as this one to discuss.  Why are we going to lose this page?  Who or what happened which caused so much difficulty that issues can not be discussed ? Terryeo 22:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the difficulties is that we're not even able to copy edit the page, even though the writing is not good and the contents confusing. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: We're not going to lose this page; it's just that there's no consensus for it to be a guideline anymore.  Furthermore, blindly quoting WP:RS instead of thinking for yourself causes problems too because the content of this page is so problematic.  See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Flaws, which  Phil mentioned above, for some examples.  JYolkowski // talk 23:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Terryeo, which parts of RS have been used to resolve disputes that aren't in V or NOR? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: How does it have no value?  It is opperative until a replacement comes along.  And an essay have very little value as it is simply an opinion.  What do you have against leaving it in place while the replacement is drafted? Blueboar 01:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: If it carries the disputed tag it measn that it is not operative, as its validity is disputed. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: not operative=blatantly ignored. SchmuckyTheCat 02:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: For what it's worth, Wikipedia needs a policy like this, please save it, changed as necessary, but do not demote. In particular, the policy on self-published sources is extremely valuable.  --Uncle Bungle 04:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uncle Bungle, what is in here on self-published sources that isn't in WP:V or WP:NOR, which are policy? SlimVirgin (talk) 09:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Self published secondary sources. As I understand it, a self published source (such as a website), even if it cites primary sources, can not be used as a source of information in an article. --Uncle Bungle 22:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's in the policies. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Some other sections I've found useful are: false authority and non-english sources. --Uncle Bungle 22:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Non-English sources used to be in the policy but someone moved it. False authority isn't something that can be policy; it's just advice. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I also have found this page useful in informing my edits. I agree that there are some problems with it overall, but some have come lately and made sweeping and brusque changes, as well as tried to demote it to an "essay" which as far as I know strips it of any authority. These are attacks on the page itself which I find to be unwarranted. The best thing to do, like I think some have said and worked on, is to build a replacement draft, then seek consensus (for instance with a straw poll) to replace RS with the draft. DanielM 09:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm jumping in the discussion a little late, and I've tried to read all the comments above, but please do forgive me if I have missed a point or rehashed a statement (as there was a lot to read).  In my mind this page has helped make Wikipedia better.  If I look at my edits over my wiki-lifetime, after reading this article, I've striven to use better sources because of this page.  It has also helped greatly in combating POV warriers, who either do not cite material, or cite material of dubious value.  I've just skimmed this article, and it is bloated, but I would say, let's either take out the portions that are disputed right away, and work on them, and then bring them back in, or let's work on a new page while this one remains a guideline, and then replace it once there is consensus.  I would hate to lose a page that has helped, in my mind, Wikipedia become more authoritative.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 14:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something wrong here 

message: The use of a humour book being used as a reliable source for a neologism is being discussed in a current AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dyke_tyke. It would be appreciated if those who've been thinking about the appropriateness of pop culture sources might comment there (or here.) --LeflymanTalk 03:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable Sources in AfD for neologism 

message: "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to historical events or politically-charged issues." -- A contradiction here -- if a claim fulfills these criteria then doesn't it cease to be exceptional?
:No. Blueboar 12:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what user blueboar is trying to say is just because multiple people claim something, it doesn't mean it isn't exceptional. For example, if I were to state George Bush is gay, it is pretty exceptional. If I evidence of him going away with a guy for a long time, and this guy is alot younger and thought of to be homosexual, and had evidence for this (along with a few other people who agree), it is still exceptional. By providing multiple sources, Wikipedia avoids slander, stating "These people claim this", rather than "this is a fact".-- ¢² Connor K.   15:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exceptional claims 

message: I started a new proposal, Wikipedia:Use of primary sources in Wikipedia, relating to some of the recent and ongoing developments re. WP:RS, WP:V, WP:ATT, etc. Comments and contributions welcome! --Francis Schonken 12:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal on Primary sources 

message: Hey gurus,
Can I get a judgment call on whether Wired News stories are likely to be reliable sources?  The debate centers around a Wired News article regarding Clint Curtis.  For the cite, see this diff, or the talk page starting here.  Thanks, TheronJ 19:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is 0 doubt that Wired, a major magazine, is a reliable source. JBKramer 20:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you go to the New York Times web site and search on "Wired News" (include the double quotes) you will find numerous citations to Wired News articles. --Gerry Ashton 20:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is [[Wired News]] a reliable source? 

message: I have got a question about non english sources. I am writing an article about Czech cross country skier Kateřina Neumannová. There are some English sources about her late career when she won olympics and maybe lists of results. But most of these sources will not provide any details and there will be no sources for her early carier when she did not belong among top ten. So most of my sources will be in Czech. How are these sources viewed. I ask especialy concerning potential peer-reviews as I hope that one day the article will get there (now it is just a mere stub). Having an in-line citation for every fact is a hard work and I will probably do not go through it, when peer reviewers will just say they do not understand cited newpaper. --Jan Smolik 21:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is an adjuct to Verifiability.  If the information is verifiable from a foreign language than it is verifiable.  The only question is if the sources are reliable and if they are major media, respected sports statistics generators, etc, then the answer is an unqualified yes without any regard to their language. SchmuckyTheCat 21:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However, as this is the english version of Wikipedia, and (shamefully) most native english speakers (Englishmen, North Americans and Australians alike) do not speak other languages (and for those who do, Czech is unlikely)... if you can provide a translation for any of the material it would be appreciated.  Also, if you include any quotations in the main text of the article, a translation should be a must (for authenticity and verification of the translation, I would also have the original Czech in a foot note with the citation). Blueboar 01:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the replys, it is much clearer for me now. --Jan Smolik 13:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non English sources 

message: hello? where is the discussion? i'm lost. please help me. outside, there was - like this big sign saying that something is disputed here, and there is a discussion? can you help me? it would be very nice.-- ExpImptalkcon 20:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a fair bit of discussion above, probably under a section heading entitled "Guideline" or "Essay vs. guideline" or something like that (can't check right now as I'm editing the article (-:  )  I don't think we ever came to an agreement so the disputed tag is still here.  If anyone can suggest a way of moving forward, that would be cool, but it's kind of hard to do so because several people (myself included) want to junk the guideline completely while others want to keep it as-is.  JYolkowski // talk 20:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks, but reading that was not satifying. i think "We need sources for any edit that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and for quotations. Period." is really all you need to say. isn't it?-- ExpImptalkcon 00:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  Because some sources are better than others; and some sources are completely unreliable.  For example, I might state that "atomic radiation is good for one's sex life" on my personal webpage.  However, since I am not an expert in the field of atomic radiation (I am not even a scientist) you should not use my statement to back such a claim in any wikipedia article. Blueboar 00:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But i can use your statement to back up the claim "Blueboar believes atomic radiation is good for one's sex life". Thats all we need, or am i missing s/th here? I don't care if you are a scientist or not, i care for a source... And i beg to differ that "some sources are better than others". -- ExpImptalkcon 13:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ok, granted, we can't include your view into the article on Ionizing radiation, we need something to distinguish sources as to their reliability. but, i believe the most straightforward way to solve that problem is searching for multiple sources: if two independent publications claim s/th it seems to have at most a marginal probability of being outright fabrication.-- ExpImptalkcon 14:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And precisely what do you think should be the standard for verifying that two publications that claim the same thing are actually "independent"? In my experience, so-called independent publications very often repeat each other's claims without deigning to spend any effort on independent verification.—DCGeist 06:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: See the proposal at WP:ATT. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks quite good. Thanks.-- ExpImptalkcon 13:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DISPUTED-tag