Wikipedia talk:Acceptable sources

message: Great start. Can quickly be converted into a guideline if others make no objections. I have however one comment and a question. If the reader in a letter to the editor make an important statement of fact (not an opinion) then this may be suitable for inclusion. Another question is, I have a reputable book that cites a person interviewed anonymously about a public figure. Does this mean that this the testimony cannot be cited? Andries 23:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Two answer your questions--no, and maybe.  Letters to the editor shouldn't ever be cited for factual claims.  If the letter contains a fact which is indeed true, better references no doubt exist for it.  If not, than the claim fails WP:V.  (If it's a manifest truth like "the sky is blue", no citation is needed for that in the first place).  I'm assuming that the letter-writer is an average Joe; not an authority on the subject--even then, the fact should be published in a better forum then the letters to the editor.  Regarding the second question--depends on the claim being made, and on the person.  Is the person an anonymous witness to an event--a primary source, in other words, and one who has legitimate reasons for maintaining anonymity?  Or is the person just giving an opinion or repeating what he has heard elsewhere.  If the former, then maybe--proceed with caution, and carefully describe--in prose--the nature of the source.  Discuss on the talk page.  Otherwise, I'd say no.  Journalism generally frowns on anonymous sources; and we--as a community who mostly aren't trained journalists--should take a position which is even more conservative than that.  But that's my $0.02.  --EngineerScotty 00:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The person is anonymous witness to an event and has at least some good reason to remain anonymous. Andries 00:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: A related but different remark is that victims of certain crimes (e.g. sexual abuse) are nearly always anonymously cited by reputable sources, at least in the country where I live. Andries 00:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the named publisher/author (the named entity) is reliable, I'd go ahead.  After all, we're trusting the named reporter/researcher to be truthful.  I would describe your edit on the talk page, and phrase it like this: "According to author, the event was witnessed by an anonymous individual, who described it as description."  (Using whatever citation format is appropriate; I prefer cite.php myself). --EngineerScotty 00:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

message: Why are foxnews.com,heritage foundation, cato, american enterprise and other sources funded by special interests allowed? These sources should be banned from wikipedia. These outlets are paid to find/report whatever the donors tell them to find and report.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.169.66.28 (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased sources 

message: You mentioned that it is not required that a source be available at no cost. However you also said it must be available without any restrictions or disclosures. What about online sources only viewable by subscription? Texaseliz (talk) 19:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources available only by subscription