Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 4

message: CTSWyneken, The last dozen posts to the subject of list archives have been in the section immediately above and is titled, "Further Revision of Electronic mailing list archives", which is a subsection of "Revised proposed text" which in turn is a subsection of "Proposed text on Electronic mailing list archives."
Now you create new headings, reframing the discussion from that of "revisions of proposed text" to all comers versus your version, that you falsely and repeatedly claim is the "consensus" and "original" version. Against your alledgedly accepted version, you deridingly call Doright's  a "unilateral version," which can have no effect other than to "poison the well," and to make the casual reader think your position carries greater authority.  This is shabby rhetoric and a waste of our time.  If you want to join in the discussion, please feel free, but don’t create POV forks, they are a nuisance.  Other editors and admins pointed out this kind of behavior in your failed attempt to become an admin.  Please stop it.
-Doright 17:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CTSWyneken, please stop this corrosive rhetoric.--Doright 17:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CTSWyneken's Summary of Discussion 

message: (title clarification added by Doright)--Doright 17:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CTSWyneken's Alternative adjusted version 

message: Written by Doright, unilaterally substituted for the original version. 
:CTSWyneken, please stop this corrosive rhetoric.--Doright 17:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed alternative 

message: Electronic mailing list archives are collections of email messages related to a given topic. If such a list is moderated or hosted by a reputable organization (e.g., H-Antisemitism), that confirms the identity of its contributors, they may not suffer from the above stated identity problem of Usenet. Therefore, they can be cited and carry the authority (if any) of the person being cited. As with all sources, it is incumbent upon the editor to ensure that the person being cited is notable. All citations must include the name of the person being cited, the message subject line, the archive or forum name and date. --CTSWyneken 11:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Electronic mailing list|Electronic mailing list]] archives

message: Electronic mailing list archives are collections of email messages related to a given topic.  If the contents of a list are available on the web in an archive or forum so that they can be verified, they can be cited and carry all the authority (if any) of the author.  Citations must include the name of the author, message subject line, archive or forum name (and URL) and date.  A good faith effort must be made to ensure that the named person is in fact associated with the email address used, and as always, that they are notable. Al 12:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Electronic mailing list|Electronic mailing list]] archives

message: (title clarification added by Doright)
NB:  This summary is misleading and skirts many issues.  I'm not interested in having a meta-debate over CTSWyneken's Summary.  I advise interested editors to read the appropriate section for themselves and to respond, if desired, at the appropriate location.  The below is a POV fork. --Doright 20:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CTSWyneken's Summary of discussion so far 

message: Please cease characterizing my opinions, misstating facts and attacking people. --CTSWyneken 21:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doright Attacks Again 

message: Since there are a few new editors in on the discussion, let me once again try to summarize the issues here. 
====The current version ====
The current version has been contributed to by more people than your so-called “consensus” that you slammed into the article. I suggest interested editors not rely upon these summaries. 
CTSWyneken, Please cease characterizing my contributions, misstating facts and attacking people.  I view this summary like your last, as biased.  They take up more space in the table of contents on this page than any other single topic.  Perhaps you might consider not making a new heading in the TOC each time you attack me, like here and here 
--Doright 02:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't seen Doright spell out what problems he has with the black box warning that he so avidly removes either. (In fact I'd prefer to have it in.) Dr Zak 00:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trying to Clarify Issues, Once Again 

message: The current version has been contributed to by more people than your so-called “consensus” that you slammed into the article. I suggest interested editors not rely upon these summaries. 
CTSWyneken, Please cease characterizing my contributions, misstating facts and attacking people.  I view this summary like your last, as biased.  They take up more space in the table of contents on this page than any other single topic.  Perhaps you might consider not making a new heading in the TOC each time you attack me, like here and here 
--Doright 02:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The current version 

message: Three of us at least believe these sources to be of lesser quality than formally published works, especially those formally juried. 
#One of us argues the fact that electronic sources are easily faked, hacked and are backed up, if at all, on unreliable media. 
#My argument is that emails tend to be written more quickly than typical publications, tend to be less well researched and do not have the formal review that goes into journal articles and books.
Because of this, we put "last resort" language into the article.
So far, the new folk have yet to reply to the original guideline. So, may I ask, what do folks find unacceptable in it? 
It is:
Electronic mailing list archives
 	
Electronic mailing list archives are collections of email messages related to a given topic.
If such a list is moderated by a scholar or hosted by a reputable organization (see the venerable H-Net: Humanities and Social Sciences Online, they may be cited and quoted with care. Cite list archives only after making a good faith effort to determine that no other sources of superior reliability exist. All citations must include the name of the person being cited and the subject line of their message.
Treat Electronic mailing list archives with the same level of reliability as you would a television interview of the scholar. Very rarely are posts juried or edited by a scholar's peers. Cite list archives only when no other source is available. --CTSWyneken 00:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't seen Doright spell out what problems he has with the black box warning that he so avidly removes either. (In fact I'd prefer to have it in.) Dr Zak 00:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues 

message: Rather than contiuing to revert Doright's unilateral text insertion, I have revised the text currently on the page to add the concerns of Coolcaesar, SteveMcCluskey, Dr Zak and I. The reasons why we feel this way are outlined above. If anyone objects, please explain why here so that we can discuss it. --CTSWyneken 19:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision of Doright Version 

message: The heading WP:CITE# arXiv preprints and conference abstracts could be read to apply to arXiv preprints and all conference abstracts, or it could be read to apply to arXiv preprints and arXiv conference abstracts. Which is intended?
Perhaps someone will think I'm being pendantic, but that is not my intention. Online access to official full-text journal articles usually costs money, while access to abstracts is often free. Access to arXiv is also free. Thus I think some people might lump arXiv preprints together with all abstracts from all sources, since they all are often free. Gerry Ashton 20:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Does arXiv section refer to all conference abstracts?

message: I made several small changes in the article.  Feldspar reverted them without discussion.  Why?  None of them were large changes, they seem to me to more accurately state the situation than the present edit does. Terryeo 11:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What article, or is this a misplaced private conversation? --SteveMcCluskey 12:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:RS, here on 6 June Terryeo 16:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  OPPS. The link is this difference , sorry.  That link to the Dianetics article, please ignore, my mistake. Terryeo 21:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for, once again, as with every opportunity which you reply, for recognizing my special status, User:Fahrenheit451.  You might notice the subject of the discussion and reply to it ? The discussion about the article, "Reliable Sources" which is the discussion page to, you see? Terryeo 21:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It is inaccurate to describe them as "small" changes, since you have previously indicated (for instance, on Talk:Dianetics, as F451 mentioned) how you intend to interpret the phrases you inserted into the article, and those interpretations represent very large changes in policy.  For instance, as has been pointed out to you, under your interpretation of "Published means 'published to the public'", Wikipedia could never mention anything about the contents of the Pentagon Papers, since the Pentagon did not make the choice to "publish them to the public".  Frankly, some of your changes don't even make sense.  "A secondary source is composed of published information which has viewed the primary source information."  How does information view information?  No, I don't think your changing definitions such that a person, rather than a person's statement, is now considered to be the "primary source", is "more accurately stating the situation".  Frankly, I think it's introducing inexactitudes into the article, inexactitudes which the unethical could then try and crowbar further away from the spirit of the rules to create loopholes.  Not that you should presume I am accusing you of deliberately trying to create loopholes; I merely point out that people who like to wikilawyer to serve their agenda also like to introduce unnecessary changes into policy which they can then misrepresent to speciously claim support for the changes they wish to make. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You didn't reply to the question I raised.  I asked why. 
* I call them "several small changes" because they were a word or two here and there in the article.  Their total might be something like 20 or 25 words.  Not all of them had to do with "published to the public"  Yet you simply looked at what I had created and removed every word of it.  It appeared like more like a personal issue than a content issue.  
* I simply don't understand what you are talking about with your mention of "F451" and the discussion on the Talk:Dianetics page.  Certainly a talk page is the place to talk about how guidelines and policy apply to a particular article, there is no better place to discuss such issues.  What are you talking about?
* You use an example of "published to the public" where the creater of the domuments did not intend they be published. But Wikipedia could not include such documents, nor citations to the actual documents unless those documents had been previously published to the public.  Which is why my modification to WP:RS spells out more explictly in a single phrase, Previously published to the public.
* My statement, "A secondary source is composed of published information which has viewed the primary source information." is not a good one but this statement would be: A secondary source is composed of published information which has been created by someone who has viewed the primary source information.
* I ask you why you revert without discussion and you reply by accusing me of wikilawyering.  Previously published to the public is already present policy.  WP:V states, ..already been published by ...  It is not something new that I am suggesting.  I did create that particular phrase but that idea is already present in WP:V as a first statement.  The reason I would like to have WP:RS use it as a phrase is because a number of editors, in a number of articles do not understand that personal websites can not be used as secondary sources of information in articles.  User:Fahrenheit451, whom you see has posted my status without replying to the issue raised, in Patter drill is presently insisting on 4 cites to personal opinions on personal websites.  A well written WP:RS would prevent such insistance by an editor. Terryeo 21:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I see, once again you are unwilling to say anything about the issue I raise without stating my status.  I am attempting to tell you, Fahrenheit451, that the present Wikipedia Policy is that Personal websites of personal opinion are not published.  There are verifibable, they are attributable (sometimes) but they are not published.  This is not my personal attempt to change any policy, nor any guideline.  This is simply a statement of long existing, Wikipedia Policy. Despite your particular definition from the Oxford Dictionary which is 100% accurate, that definition is the not the definition which Wikipedia uses. Terryeo 03:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Revert without discussion, Feldspar? 

message: A difference of opinion has arisen at this discussion.#Proposed text on Electronic mailing list archives Additional opinions are requested. --CTSWyneken 18:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion requested on this issue 

message: I have come across several articles that contain citations to other on-line encyclopedias - encyclopedias that, in some cases, simply copy Wikipedia articles under GNU Free.  The Guidelines say we should not cite to Wikipedia, as it is not a reliable source... so how can anyone justify citing to other encyclopedias if they simply copy what we say here?  Blueboar 20:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I too have seen that sort of citation.  In particular there is a Wiki which presents information in the Scientology articles which I am active in.  I think the Wikipedia policy to apply is "Previously published by reliable and reputable sources".  If our Wikipedia (which has fairly good standards) doesn't meet those standards, how can another wiki (some of which have even lower standards) meet them?  WP:V. Terryeo 01:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Self-referencing is not an accepted practice. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 03:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other wikis? 

message: The question is the reliability of the publisher. I can't recall ever seeing a disputed situation where the publisher was unknown and the copyright holder was known. Junk has copyright too, and a copyright holder. Rjensen 21:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  copyright holder not useful 

message: Does the policy on excluding blogs as sources for quotes apply in case it is explicitly stated that the quote is an opinion of the writer? If this is the case, then many political articles on wikipedia will require change, since so much of what is political argument in the United States now takes place in blogs. --CSTAR 21:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea of blogs as not being reliable sources needs to be adjusted, if not otright changed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For what reason? Do you have any effective rebuttal to all the arguments given above and in other parts of Wikipedia that blogs, like personal Web sites, are inherently unreliable as sources for anything other than the personal views held by the author? I doubt it.  --Coolcaesar 20:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the guideline needs some refining.  Look at these articles for instance: Ben Domenech, Cindy Sheehan. I'm sure we can pile on more examples. These articles mirror political controversy in the United States where blogs are now playing a more important role. If we enforce the no blog guideline, many of these articles are largely reduced.  I'm fully aware of the dangers here. But this needs some thought.--CSTAR 21:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification needed 

message: There has been an edit war going on about the section covering arxiv and related sites. As the  purpose of this guideline is to give advice on how to ferret out proper, credible sources it's not helpful to declare preprints selfpublished sources (which of course they are). Rather what is needed is some words on the purpose of such sites.
There is a growing number of websites that carry preprints and conference abstracts, the most popular of these being arXiv. Such websites exercise no editorial control over papers published there. Any material downloaded from such a site must be considered self-published and should should be approached with extreme caution. See the section above on self-published sources. 
Researchers may publish on arXiv for different reasons: to establish priority in a competitive field, to make available newly developed methods to the scientific community while the publication is undergoing peer-review (a specially lengthy process in mathematics), and sometimes to publish a paper that has been rejected from several journals or to bypass peer-review for publications of dubious quality. 
On the other hand, editors would do well to remember that scientific ideas are not accepted because they have passed peer-review; they are accepted because they are part of the scientific consensus. Therefore, if any editor wishes to present a statement in a preprint as accepted fact s/he won't use the preprint as a source; instead s/he won't have trouble finding a credible third party citing that preprint.
Dr Zak 17:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't WP:V, previously published by reliable and reputable sources completely blanket and cover such presentations?  They aren't actually published, the are merely presented, thus WP:V prevents using such presentations as secondary sources?  Though of course such a presentation could be used about a particular author, in an article about the author, as a primary source.  Isn't that right? Terryeo 05:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are we arguing (again) about the definition of "published"? A paper uploaded to Arxiv is published, since it is available to the general public. Also, the fact that an idea has gained acceptance in the scientific community should make the source (the paper!) "reliable and reputable". Dr Zak 15:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The meaning came accross that such "publication" is actually seeking acceptance from the scientific community and that is why it is published in that manner.  "Reliable and reputeable" are what such a paper stands to gain (from what you said) and not what such a publication has already achieved? Terryeo 23:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is a fundamental (and widespread) misunderstanding how science is actually done. Any publication, be it in a refereed journal or informally as a preprint on a website is seeking acceptance. Once the results have found acceptance the statements made become part of the body of knowledge.  Dr Zak 00:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a difference between self-published material on arXiv and material published by a serious journal. The rule-of-thumb question is always: are there people standing between the writer and the act of publication? In the case of arXiv, there aren't (as I understand it), which is why it's problematic. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the question that we should be asking is: do we have assurance that the material in question represents the state of knowledge. Peer-review is one way of assuring that; indications that the publication has received an equivalent degree of scrutiny is another. Dr Zak 19:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  arXiv, part three 

message: It looks as if the section on "Self-published sources in articles about themselves" was originally drawn up to assist with statements that individuals make about themselves. The advice in that section isn't so suitable for self-published scientific literature and could do with some improvement.   Dr Zak 00:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it covers any self-published material. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   Self-published sources in articles about themselves 

message: @SlimVirgin: I appreciate your efforts to get this guideline a bit cleaned up. It needs it badly. But IMHO not the way you're going at it, seems like you're loosing it completely.
First you undermine the status of truly non-negotiable policy, wikipedia:neutral point of view, which has, for as long as I know: "By fact we mean a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute". The definition of fact you re-inserted reads like a definition of "truth", and, as we all know Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth (so you're bringing down the stature of another non-negotiable policy, wikipedia:verifiability, too). Wikipedia is about recording facts in the meaning the NPOV policy gives to facts.
Then you remove the definition of "self-published" that has been in this guideline for I don't know how long ("self-published, ... means ... not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking")  (edit comment: "[...] completely wrong"). Then half an hour later, you re-insert this definition in another place . Was it no longer "completely wrong" then?
:It was the section that I moved to talk that I said was completely wrong, as the diff shows; not that one sentence, which I simply moved elsewhere. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Playing "tit-for-tat" because your attempts at policy re-write were rejected is not a good example of the collaborative kind of work we should be doing here.  The guideline has gotten filled up with junk, and SlimVirgin and Jossi are cleaning that up.  Please don't be obstructive, Francis. Jayjg (talk) 01:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, saying that someone, at a fundamental level, is messing with Wikipedia's core content policies WP:NPOV and WP:V is not a "tit-for-tat". I'm going to remove the current inappropriate "fact" definition, and refer to the relevant WP:NPOV section, without copying the definition given there to this guideline. --Francis Schonken 03:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is not WP:NPOV and this is not WP:V, but a guideline.  This is not a "core policy" but a guideline interpreting those "core policies".  It is by concensus that WP:RS comes into existence, not by decree.  And your tone, User:Francis Schonken is more argumentative than seeking of cooperation. Terryeo 08:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem you are dealing with is that "Self-published" has a defined meaning in academia, but is not as defined to the general public.  This is why a separate category is needed to deal "personal websites".  Yes, these are "self-published",  in that they are uploaded onto the web by the person or entity who created them... but they are not "self-published" in the academic sense, as some "personal" websites (specifically corporate and organizational websites) undergo extensive legal and factual checks before being uploaded onto the web.  They would pass the academic standard of "peer review".  They are "personal", in that they reflect the POV of a single entity (the organization or corporation).  Please return the differentiation.  Blueboar 02:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't mean biased. We mean self-published. What is the academic definition you're referring to? SlimVirgin (talk) 02:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not being an accademic (except in amature fashion), I caviat that I may get this slightly wrong... but "not subject to an independent form of fact-checking and peer review" and "not published in an academic journal, but instead published by the author" come to mind. Blueboar 02:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, published by the author. A self-published source is, as a rule of thumb, one where nothing stands between the writer and the act of publication. That isn't the case with large corporations, or even quite small companies. They all have to watch what they write legally; and they have staff to look out for factual and other errors. It's when you're dealing with tiny businesses that you might run into problems, but I think it's a matter of common sense rather than something we can define to cover all eventualities. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning efforts 

message: Would you please resolve your edit war... I have a codicil to add about corporate and organizational websites and need to figure out whether to place it under "personal websites" or "self-published websites"... there is a difference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blueboar (talk • contribs) 03:03, 23 June 2006.
Woops... sorry about that...yes, that comment was by me. Blueboar 02:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Corporate and organizational websites have a great deal of oversight; corporations can be sued for anything they state which is inaccurate, by shareholders, or even by governments.  Moreoever, they actually have the financial resources which would make suing them worthwhile.  They are nothing like "personal" or "self-published" websites, and should not be included in those categories. Jayjg (talk) 02:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Blueboar, I can see what you're getting at, but I think it's dealt with under "partisan sources." A large corporate website isn't self-published in the sense of having no editorial oversight. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some do, and some don't... IBM might have oversight, and the Boy Scouts of America may have oversight... but Joe Blow, Inc. and Nut-job.org don't.  It depends on the corporation and organization.  That is why I was hoping to put them under "personal" webpages... as they reflect the views of a single entity that can be considered a "person". I can not do this while you are revert waring that section in and out of the guidelines. Blueboar 02:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that you wrote wasn't entirely accurate. Corporate websites are not personal websites, and are not self-published, unless you also want to call the NYT self-published. It's not a question of how many people's views are reflected as such, but whether there's any kind of editorial oversight, in terms of fact- and libel-checking. That will vary from company to company. It's going to boil down to common sense on the part of the editor. I would say if you want to add something, it's better to do it in the part that talks about partisan sources rather than self-published ones. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: But do they really count as "partisan"?... they are not necessarily pushing an agenda or a POV the way a religious or political website will.  They are often simply informational... "this is what the entity is".  Where they do have an agenda ("our product is the best"... or... "this is what our organization stands for") it could be dealt with under the "personal websites" category as far as referencing them goes... the entity says "this" about its self.  They don't fully fit either category, but they fit "personal website" better than "self-published". Blueboar 02:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Well... again, I would not really call them "parisan", which has negative conotations, but it does accurately discribe how we should treat such sites... And I suppose the same could be said for Organizational websites (in that, while the organization is a good source of information about itself, caution should be used)... I would change the wording to "...it could have an obvious bias..." or something along those lines - The "American Association of Wigit Manufacturers" is obviously interested in promoting the use of wigits, but the "Loyal Order of Lemmings" might not have any bias or agenda, other than eating a good dinner and collecting money for charity. I suppose it depends on the company or organization.  Perhaps we should put the statement just above the === Partisan websites === line as it's own category? Blueboar 12:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. It would be a good idea to come up with some wording, and I agree we could have it as part of that section but separate, so we don't imply they are partisan (though they are, in the non-pejorative sense). SlimVirgin (talk) 09:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Blueboar, I added something here. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal websites? 

message: What would all of you think about this "in a nutshell" proposal:? (I'd have written "authored by authoritative authors" if that weren't such an alliterating alliteration - even "published by reputable publishers" is maybe not too ideal in that sense)
If such "in a nutshell" formulation would be a good idea, are we satisfied with this definition of "reputable publishers": published by scholarly presses [...] carefully vetted for quality control (derived from the present "secondary sources" definition)? --Francis Schonken 10:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The material doesn't have to be written by authoritative authors. If it's published by a reliable publication, we can use it no matter who writes it. Also, if it's written by an authoritative author, it can be used even if written on his own website, so long as he is a widely acknowledged expert in the field we're using him for, so the publisher doesn't always have to be reputable. Finally, a reputable publisher doesn't have to be a scholarly press. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The "nutshell" will not work, I don't believe.  The moment "authoritative" is used to define what can be used editors will begin using personal websites whose "publication" editors believe to be "authoritative".  Clambake.org, Dave Tourensky's personal site (bad spelling, Dave is a University professor who publishes anti-scientology junk).  The KKK is "authoritative" and "official", the White Supremist movement is "authoritative" in its views.  The problem with "authoritative" is that it means to use a definition something like this: Having or arising from authority; official: an authoritative decree; authoritative sources. and puts the judgement of what official is into the hands of editors.  One editor considers Clambake.org to be the official view of anti-scientologists and the next editor considers the KuKluxKlan to be the official view of the white race.  The reason why is because Authoritative = Wielding authority; commanding: the captain's authoritative manner.  Anyone who commands any group or individual is an authority.  Authority is based on the idea of commanding others, as well as based on the idea of providing law, organization and government.  I don't believe that particular word will work. Terryeo 12:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  No one need listen to me, but here is what I think.  Policy is broad statements of intent, it is to be followed.  Guidelines are broader than orders (such as pick up that nail and put it in the basket), but guidelines are interpretations of policy.  Guidelines need specific editor directions, such as, No personal websites may be used as secondary sources and Past newsgroup posts may not be used except in reference to themselves and re-typed HTML duplications of court documents on personal websites are not acceptable secondary sources.  I hope you see what I mean.  Specific, exact examples.  For 2 months I have seen editors slightly misunderstand and greatly misunderstand how WP:V applies to specific "publications".  I believe this guideline page requires clear, specific direction, with examples and definitions of where Wikipedia's acceptable bar lies.  I believe it is asking too much of the broad range of editor backgrounds which Wikipedia editors have, to not be specifically directed by guideline.  Some barely speak English, others have a flame hot point of view.  I don't believe a guideline in a nutshell is going to work. Terryeo 14:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposing "in a nutshell" formulation 

message: I thought primary sources were preferred over secondary sources. Or have I missed something?   Blueboar 14:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Secondary sources are preferred to primary ones, for the most part, although not always. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was under the impression a mixture of both was preferred. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 20:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The best option is to use excellent secondary sources, because we're not supposed to draw on our own intepretation of primary sources, but on other people's. If good secondary sources are not available, then good primary ones may have to be used, and sometimes it's good to use them, sometimes not. It depends on the subject, context, quality of sources, and whether the editor knows how to use primary sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Secondary sources are often biased. If so, they are great for finding information about a particular point of view/interpretation. They also provide a good summary, often. However, primary sources simply are what they are. If you are writing an article about Book X, then Book X is a reliable source (at least regarding the content of Book X), since it is what it is. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 20:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I do understand the need to support any interpretive statement with secondary sources (actually, we should not be interpreting sources in the first place, we should simply report what they say) ... but when you want to include something that Mr. X says in an article, shouldn't you cite to where Mr. X actually says it, as opposed to article where Ms. Y claims that Mr. X says it.  I would call Mr. X's statement a primary source while Ms. Y's article is a secondary source.  Blueboar 20:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If a newspaper reported someone's statement in full, you could regard it as a primary source, but for the most part newspaper articles are secondary sources, at least for us. In hundreds of years time, a newspaper article from 2006 will be a primary source for this period. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If a newspaper reporter is on the scene and talked to the key people, it is considered a primary source by historians. Rjensen 21:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If a reporter witnesses an event he's a primary source, or is in some other way very close to it, but otherwise not. It depends how he writes the story and what he includes. If all he does is arrive ten minutes after the car crash and collect a few statements about what happened, his article is a secondary source. It's all about proximity to the event relative to your own position. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose I am looking at this from the point of view of the articles I tend to work on.  I tend to work on articles about organizations. My fellow editors and I tend to think of citations to things like published bilaws and constitutions, or policy statments taken from the organization's official web-site, as being more "authorative" (about the organization) than secondary sources discussing the organization. Blueboar 22:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I suppose anything other than copying verbatim could be called "original reasearch". However, if we are that strict about original research, then we become Wikisource, and we can only use free-licensed sources. However, WP:NOR states, Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 22:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Blueboar, you're probably right that the primary sources are best in those cases. It's where the information has to be interpreted that the problems can creep in, or where they're used to draw conclusions or bolster arguments. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Depends on what you consider "interpreted". Does summarizing/pulling out key parts count as "interpreting"? (As for bolstering arguments, of course all of those should cite whatever parties support those arguments, and generally attempt to follow WP:NPOV.) Could you give examples of interpreting? Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 22:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm ... hard to think of examples offhand. You mentioned writing about books. An article I've written about a book is Night (book). In the intro, it says: "Wiesel employs a sparse and fragmented narrative structure, with frequent shifts in point of view, a fusing of fact and fiction, lending the structure of Jewish folklore to that of the modern novel." The sentence is sourced, but I could probably have gotten away with writing that without a source, because anyone reading the book, and knowing a bit about Jewish folklore, will see that in it. (Even so, another editor could still have objected and asked for a source.) Another sentence in the intro is closer to OR: "In telling his story, he seeks redemption, reflecting the healing power Judaism attaches to the power of the word." This also has a source, but if it didn't, it would be more likely than the previous sentence to count as original research, because I'm attributing motive to the author, which without a source would be my speculation. So the key to determining whether an interpretation goes too far is whether what you're writing is very obvious from the text, or whether another reasonable person might disagree with you. If it's the latter, you probably need to find a source. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Slim, in the case of your Night (book) example, couldn't you have attributed the statement by writing: "According to critic <source name> 'Wiesel employs....'" ?  Then we as editors are not interpreting, but simply reporting the source's interpretation.  Blueboar 23:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's exactly right, and I did in effect do that by citing the source after the sentence in the form of a footnote. I was giving those sentences only as examples, imagining they were unsourced, and whether they'd be too interpretive and would count as OR if unsourced. By guess is that I could get away with the first, though only just, but not the second. But you're right: it's always better to have a source, either cited after the sentence, or attributed within it ("according to ..."). SlimVirgin (talk) 23:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  When it comes to critics, I'd reccomend both an inline citation and a within-sentence attribution. (Being a critic, it is a fact that they thought that, but not a fact that they are right.) Anyways, at a glance it looks like a well-referenced article, good job! Looking at the failed FAC, it seems the objection was lack non-synopsis discussion, which seems to have been fixed. Have you considered taking it to peer review and then back to FAC? Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 23:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. :-) The first time it was nominated, someone did it without telling me, and I was still writing the article, so it was a completely unfinished piece. Not that anything ever is finished on WP, but you know what I mean. It's better now, but I think it still lacks some analysis. There's one passage in particular I'd like to write more about: the child hanging on the gallows, which is an important moment in the novel. Once I've added that, I might consider resubmitting it. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Primary/secondary sources

message: Something like this occurs in a WP article: According to the column "Blog Corner" in QQQ Magazine, blogger X said "Bush is ...." and  blogger Y said "Bush is ..." .   Does this violate WP:RS even though QQQ is a reliable (if partisan) magazine? Precis 06:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I followed your advice, quoting a blog at The Israel Lobby at time 23:13 14 July,  2006 Precis 00:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually this is not true.  Normal citation practice is to quote *your* source, not *their* source, so the citation to the blog is the accurate cite, also citing the underlying source, if in fact that is where the editor got their own information from. Wjhonson 23:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indirect referencing of blogs