Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 7

message: To recap:  Terryeo object to a citation in the R2-45 article onWP:RS grounds.  That citation (shown as footnote 4 of this version) contains a cite to (1) a google groups message that claims to be a transcription of (2) a 1974 article from Maclean's magazine, which in turn includes (3) a quote from an unnamed Vancouver radio show..  By posting today, the original poster, Raymond Hill, says that he hasn't read the original Maclean's article, but is looking for it.  That raises a couple more thoughts:
# Technically, WP:CITE states that editors should not include citations to materials based on non-RS materials, such as a google groups posting.  Still, that's far from the worst offense in the scientology pages, and it's hard to see the harm in giving Raymond some time to find the original.
# The bigger concern is that the "convenience cite" is an apparent copyright violation, and I can't believe I didn't think about it sooner.  It is helpful to readers to be able to read the original article, and I'm sure the link is in good faith, but Wikipedia doesn't link to cites that post copyrighted material without authorization.  Raymond, I don't question your good faith, but it looks like best practice would be to take out the "convenience cite."
# Assuming I'm right, the policy of not linking to potentially infringing copies of copyrighted works might kill most of the "convenience cite" issues.  Does anyone want to take a crack at writing a "convenience cite" paragraph for WP:RS, or want me to write one up for discussion?
Thanks, TheronJ 21:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The faulty reference was removed a few hours ago, right after I posted my answer here. Raymond Hill 22:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great, now can we write a "convenience cite" paragraph and get on with production ? Terryeo 00:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: On second thoughts, after reading the above wording, I came to realize that if we just keep it to "the convenience link must be hosted in a website that is considered a reliable source in its own right", that on its own will take care of the copyright issue, as a reliable source would not be one in which we should find copyvios.... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That wording makes sense to me Terryeo 07:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Blueboar 13:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that you three believe the convenience link host must meet the same reliable source guidelines as the original source, but I'm not convinced that a broad consensus has been reached on that point--are you?  I'd say the first two sentences about copyright are fine, but the third one--which, applied literally, would dramatically alter established practice on wikipedia--needs to be singled out for consideration by the largest possible group of editors before being placed on the page.  BTfromLA 17:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: One more opinion on the Maclean's cite

message: Proposed wording below. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thoughts, after reading the above wording, I came to realize that if we just keep it to "the convenience link must be hosted in a website that is considered a reliable source in its own right", that on its own will take care of the copyright issue, as a reliable source would not be one in which we should find copyvios.... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That wording makes sense to me Terryeo 07:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Blueboar 13:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that you three believe the convenience link host must meet the same reliable source guidelines as the original source, but I'm not convinced that a broad consensus has been reached on that point--are you?  I'd say the first two sentences about copyright are fine, but the third one--which, applied literally, would dramatically alter established practice on wikipedia--needs to be singled out for consideration by the largest possible group of editors before being placed on the page.  BTfromLA 17:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed wording

message: * All of Mozart's piano sonatas are in three movements. I expect Wikipedia to be not wishy-washy about that, and do away with the myth that all sonatas are in four movements. Based on whatever sources, but the list of Mozart sonatas would work as good as any other type of source to demonstrate that.
* Schubert had this thing that he created some ambiguity about calling some of his multi-movement piano works "sonata", and others, without much of a formal distinction "Fantaisie" ("fantasy"). I expect Wikipedia not to be wishy-washy about that, and signal both Schubert's original designation, and the later interpretation in music history. E.g. the Wanderer Fantasy kept its name as fantasy following Schubert, while the Fantaisie D.894, has been named and numbered as a sonata, from the first time people started numbering Schubert's piano sonatas. All this is neatly explained at List of compositions by Franz Schubert#Piano solo. The sources for this are as well Schubert's music (this goes without saying), as the later editions of this music.
* Domenico Scarlatti's famous series of sonatas are mostly in one movement, and were grouped under the name essercizi ("exercises") by the composer. History decided otherwise, and called them all sonata (including all the one-movement ones). Again, I'd like Wikipedia not to be wishy-washy about this, and mention both Scarlatti's original designations (based on his own descriptions - manuscript or not - and editions), and the "reception history" that changed the common practice regarding the naming. --Francis Schonken 08:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sonata examples

message: Again here I'd rather take for instance the Musical Offering as an example than the Art of the Fugue. In the Musical Offering Bach wrote "Ascendenteque Modulationis ascendat Gloria Regis". I expect Wikipedia to translate that ("may the king's glory rise like the ascending modulation"), and then also explain that this is a musical riddle, for which musicians have found diverse solutions. For what Bach wrote himself (the riddle), of course Bach's own publication is the ultimate source (and yes, he paid for this publication himself, it is a "self-publication" from whatever angle one looks at it - he didn't submit his riddles for "peer review" or whatever prior to publication); for the (possible) solutions of the riddle: Bach didn't provide any afaik, all solutions exclusively come from secondary sources. This clearly demonstrates that, in this case, both have their function: the self-published source can't be done away with (I want to be able to check always what *exactly* Bach wrote, and whether that wasn't deformed in secondary sources, by translation or otherwise - if facsimiles of Bach's original publication exist I don't want these to be "re-doctored" or transformed in any way as the result of a "peer review" or whatever, I want to see *exactly* what Bach self-published); AND I want to learn about the enigmatic nature of Bach's words, and the possible solutions of that enigma, for which *exclusively* secondary sources exist. --Francis Schonken 08:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bach examples

message: Could the guideline state whether fan sites could be used as sources in articles or not? CG 13:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly do you mean by "fan sites" (perhaps you could give an example?) ... they may already be covered under "Self published sources" such as personal websites, blogs newsgroups postings, etc. Blueboar 13:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Popular_culture_and_fiction is rather vague about this. However, I guess my personal opinion would be that it would depend on the fan site, and what you were using it for. For opinions (not facts), you could probably use any of them with attribution. For hard facts, the primary source (the media) would probably be just fine, but WP:OR#Primary_and_secondary_sources places restrictions on the use of primary sources. So for any analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, you would need to find a secondary source. Beyond the primary source (the media), you would probably have to choose from official sites / publications (the producers or broadcasters or whoever) and fan sites / critical reviews. The official sites are fairly reliable, but may offer limitted information (like leaving out the ending with teasers), and are even more biased than the fan sites because they are trying to sell you the material. Fan sites may be of varying quality - they are less reliable than the official sites, but may offer more material and be slightly less biased. You should look for fan sites run by more fans rather than fewer (or worst yet, just one). Avoid fan sites, or areas of fan sites, that let just anyone add information without going through the editing process (although polls are okay, if you attribute them properly). Having good relations with the producers/recorders/actors/singers/whoever is also a plus (e.g. if they get their own interviews). In short, fan sites are not the most reliable references, but since there really isn't that great a selection of references for media topics, you should try to evaluate them relatively. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 03:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fan sites 

message: There is a bit of an issue at the moment on some of the UK military related articles, it may in part be vexacious but the point raised is valid.  The main source for some editors on these topics are the [www.army.mod.uk Army] and [www.Royal-Navy.mod.uk Navy] wesbites, both of which are woefully out of date with respect to organisational issues and are clearly marketing documents aimed at the recruiting market.
Military tactical doctrine moves very fast, far faster than the official publications can keep up, in fact as the author of some of it in the past I can say it's well nigh impossible to reflect current thinking in an official document.
However, what is accurate is that which in the Harvard reference system would be described as unpublished; namely internal documents and most pertinent the course notes for students at the various military schools and the Defence Academy.  The documents I'm on about are from my own course at Joint Service Command and Staff College where the mid seniority officers and warrant officers in all three services conduct their post-graduate training.  Is there any way to factor these in as acceptable sources?  The ones I'm thinking of are not themselves protectively marked but are clearly not on general release.  Some are available on the www.mod.uk site but they are at a very strategic level and don't go into the detail needed on individual tactical concepts.  The MA on the course is certified by Kings College London so the notes have been through their vetting process.
Is there any way to consider course books published by an academic institution for internal use as acceptable sources?
ALR 20:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They sound reliable to me... properly vetted and approved by a governmental agency and an accademic institution. Blueboar 14:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources on military tactics and doctrine 

message: I have a dispute with an editor who wishes to keep a passage that is cited as a short article written by one person on a personal website, belonging to a person other than the one who wrote the article. My point is that the website is personal and the cited content is a short article.  It is not an affidavit, court deposition, or a scholarly article that cites references. I contend that the passage fails WP:RS.--Fahrenheit451 09:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The way you discribe it, it certainly seems to fail.  However, I think we would have to see it to make a firm decision.  Could you provide a link? Blueboar 13:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request Comment 

message: Hi. I have been working on getting numerous articles on poker players up to the Good Article standard. Part of doing so has required me to reference much of the content of the article, including specific tournaments won.
I have been using The Hendon Mob poker database to do so, and 3 articles using this as a reference have been agreed to meet GA status. However, the reviewer of a recent GA-candidate poker article disagrees with the validity of those having already been granted GA status due to the references to the database, and has asked me to seek advice here on its inclusion.
The database works in the following way:
# Results are sent to the person that manages the database by an observer of the tournament (the primary source), i.e.: the tournament director, tournament reporter, or an assigned delegate.
# The Database administrator (a poker expert himself), performs a baseline check on the content itself, to ensure there is nothing glaringly incorrect, inappropriate, inconsistant, etc. This also prevents the inclusion of non-significant tournaments (e.g.: I couldn't play a home game with friends and have it entered in; it needs to be a casino tournament/ televised event, etc.)
# That information is then entered into the system by the DBA.
As the database does not directly collate information on the results of an event, I believe that this makes it a secondary source and therefore a suitable reference point for Wikipedia articles. 
A bit more information on the credibility of the database: the contents of the Hendon Mob DB are recognised as the most complete and accurate poker results database on the internet, as they are the only one to include the bulk of European tournament results - the majority of which are ignored by the databases at www.cardplayer.com and www.pokerpages.com. They have since been used by the majority of poker professionals in both America and Europe; by ESPN, Challenge, FSN, Five, Sky Sports and GSN television broadcasts; and by Poker Player Magazine. Furthermore, due to the number of poker tournaments that happen on a regular basis, there is unlikely to ever be a print alternative to use as a reference to them.
I would be interested to hear your thoughts as to whether links to this database meet the Reliable Sources criteria. Thanks. Essexmutant 10:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this clearly meets the conditions established for a reliable source.  It is as reviewed as any newspaper article on many local political/sports issues, which we regularly rely on for such results.  For many results, it can be compared to other sources, making its claims independently verifiable.  In particular, it clearly meets criteria 3 and 4 (in the "establishing reliability of online sources").  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 01:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Just to clarify, the database has not been used to reference any personal details - just tournament results and the total winnings line. I would also add that Mike Matusow is not related in any way to the group or database. Essexmutant 06:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a comment.  I took a look at the article in question, and while no direct facts are being taken from the Hendon Mob page, it certainly looks like it's being used to support some.  For example: "Vaswani's first major tournament win happened at the HFl 5,000 LIDO tournament at the Master Classics of Poker tournament in Amsterdam in 1999."  The page cites the Hendon Mob for that.  I click on the link and see the results for that tournament.  Nowhere on the page does it say it was his first win.   There's a similar situation where Hendon Mob information is being used to support Vaswani being the first to sit at three final tables, none of the following cites specify that he was the first.   It may not be the intent of the article's authors, but without following each and every reference down, it's impossible not to know that important fact of the sentence is not what's being substantiated.  --- The Bethling(Talk) 04:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I would also like to clarify that I do not believe the Hendon Mob's website is a personal website. A personal website would be a website belonging to a person, such as Ram Vaswani. In fact, the Wikipedia article on personal website indicates that it cannot be for commercial purposes, whereas The Hendon Mob site is. The primary source is the results submitted from the tournament director as described above. As a result of this, the database becomes a secondary source as it has gone through a check in the interim. As secondary sources meet the criteria, I think this should be okay. Essexmutant 17:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is not meant as an attack or critique of the information in the database, but how does the Hendon Mob's site differ from, say the Drudge Report.  There people send him information about an event, he checks to see if the event seems plausible, and then publishes the information.  He's not the one doing the investigating, which makes him a secondary source - one that's used often in certain political circles.   Yet, from what I've seen in the RS archives, he's not considered a RS from Wikipedia standards. --- The Bethling(Talk) 04:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliable sources in poker articles

message: I've seen this problem occur a lot, especially with current events.  See Ukrainian_pyramids for a recent example: There are few sources available and the available sources are very poor.  The obvious impulse of any editor is to correct the information from the sources when it is used to write the wiki article.  The problem with making these corrections is that it now makes the article to appear to be derived from better sources than it actually is.  Any suggestions besides keeping track of the sources and noting the quality level in the Talk page? --Ronz 01:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your sample article appears fairly well (appropriately) written, given the sources. I find myself with similar reservations when I read either. If this is a serious archeological find, the literature will reflect it in a year or two. If it is tourism promotion, the literature will be negligible & this can be appropriately dispositioned (deleted or moved to hoax) later. Seems to be a good example of what one should do when your sources are not impeccable; cite them honestly.  Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 03:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What to do when all your sources are less than reliable?

message: Is it acceptable to use a Usenet post as a reference, when you're discussing events that take place on Usenet?
There's been an edit war taking place on Derek Smart for quite a while, over the inclusion of an external link that documents Derek's participation in flamewars. It's my opinion (Shared with several others) that it's the flamewars more than his status as a game developer that makes Smart notable enough to be in the encyclopedia. The problem is that the external link is quite biased in it's commentary. I think we could work out some neutral wording and just describe the flamewar ourselves, if we could just use the Usenet postings as primary sources.
It's my opinion that Usenet can safely be used to document things that happen on Usenet. But when very similar situations have arisen on other articles, I've seen people argue vociferously that Usenet references are never appropriate under any circumstances. Thoughts? Would it be possible to get consensus to add an exception for Usenet referencing Usenet to this guideline? - Ehheh 18:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you know that Derek Smart really wrote the Usenet posts that have his name on them, or that it is the same Derek Smart that the Wikipedia article is about? You shouldn't believe the signatures in Usenet posts. --Gerry Ashton 18:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Smart has never disputed that the posts are his, and he's commented on the flamewar a couple of times in interviews and such. A few times his replies have even incorporated photographs of himself. - Ehheh 18:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, how do you know. What source published the interviews? Was it a reliable source? Is it possible there are flamewar posts from him, and also flamewar posts from imposters trying to make him look bad? --Gerry Ashton 19:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interview. - Ehheh 19:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems to me that a point has been missed in some replies: the question is really, when documenting a usenet phenomenon or event then usenet must be a reliable source. Usenet as a source about an individual is not reliable, but usenet as a source about itself certainly must be. Mikademus 22:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usenet describing Usenet 

message: Is the Urban Dictionary a reliable source? Thinking of general slang, such as . --ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally, no; anyone can edit the Urban Dictionary.  Which is also true of Wikipedia; but here we try to have some authority.  I have no idea of the editorial practices at UD.  --EngineerScotty 23:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Which raises an interesting question - where does one find reliable sources for colloquialisms/slang? Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 00:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The same place you would for anything else. Basically, if a columnist for the Times has noticed that a word is in use, then it must be very widely used. Grace Note 01:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Possibly. However, if a Times sports reporter happens to use a non-sports-related slang word, it could be argued that it is outside the reporter's area of expertise, since the reporter is neither a linguist nor an expert in the field in which the slang word is used. (Of course, a Times reporter reporting outside his or her area of expertise is still better than some forum.) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 22:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: This is an interesting question, however, as Urban Dictionary has had a published book.  One would think that the book might be considered reliable, which might also open a rather large can of worms. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You just have to use your common sense, Jeff. Ask what lengths UD went to to verify its content. It's not book=reliable. It's likely to be reliable=reliable. The likeliness increases with publication by a major publisher, that's all. Grace Note 01:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urban Dictionary 

message: At the language reference desk someone asked about translating a Wikipedia page to another language and putting that translation in the Wikipedia in that language. But this article says Wikipedia cannot cite itself as a source, s ois that allowed? She (I think) plans to specify that it is a translation, but does that solve it? DirkvdM 06:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think mearly translating an article and posting it on a different language version of Wikipedia should be considered using the original as a source.  It is the same article, just in a differnt language.  One would not cite the original.  However, any citations, sources or footnotes that appeared in the original english article should be included in the translation (in both the original english and with a translation provided). Blueboar 12:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Depending on various things, a full translation of a foreign language source could be a copyright violation. In general, it would probably be safer to only translate a small, key portion. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 19:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article tranlation 

message: I think there needs to be some regulation of POV sites that do not provide citations for their arguments and rely upon ad hominem arguments or strawman arguments. In my opinion, it weakens Wikipedia's overall credibility and continues the propaganda or distortions of the underlying source. Reliability in my book means having a shred of underlying verifiable truth.--68.45.161.241 18:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since most extreme POV sites are personal websites, we already regulate them.  Blueboar 19:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sites relying upon strawman/ad hom arguments

message: I would appreciate if everyone could give me some concrete points I could use to evaluate a "vanity press"--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 20:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pointers on indentifing vantiy presses 

message: Let's say a site, otherwise dedicated to say Bush-bashing, also has a page, which is nothing but a transcription of a speech he made.  The page gives no commentary, its just a full-quote of the speech typed out.  That the transcription is accurate, and verifiable, is not in question, but merely that the site itself is questionable as a reliable source for its own research.  Can the page be used as a source ? Wjhonson 23:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the site is too partisan to be considered reliable as a secondary source. However, if you actually found a transcript from a reliable publisher, but it was less than easy to access (e.g. offline, requires subscription), then, as long as you verified the material based on the reliable version, you might be able to include a link to the online version as a "convenience link". (By "might", I mean there isn't really a consensus about whether or not that would be acceptable.) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 00:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However in the case of a transcript, the site is not a secondary source.  What they are instead is a publisher.  That is, a transcript is not commentary upon a primary source, its merely the republication in another form, of a primary source.  Republishing does not constitute the making of a secondary source, in my opinion. Wjhonson 00:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The speech itself is the primary source. A transcript is a secondary source. (Tapings and videos are more debatable, but with all of the technology available to tamper with them, should probably be considered secondary sources.) In any case, the publisher (the partisan website) is providing information other than information about itself (e.g. their own opinions). Since they are providing information other than information about themselves (their own opinions), it is necessary for them to be a reliable/reputable publisher, which is not the case if they are partisan. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 00:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Which is why I distrust "convenience links" hosted on otherwise unrliable sites ... unless hosted on a reliable site, there is too great a chance that the text quoted is not accurate.  But this is an old arugument, and one that the majority dissagrees with me about.  As to the question of the specific site in the querry... I would see if the speach is available on some other (reliable) site before I used the unreliable one as a link.  If you do link to the unreliable source, make it clear in your citation that you are using it as a convenience link for the speach only. Blueboar 12:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The transcription of the speech is available in whole or in part on multiple sites.  However I have the feeling the jpgordon would not accept any of those transcriptions as "reliable" simply because they are hosted on sites with extreme points-of-view.  I on the other hand, feel that a transcription, which is verifiable simply by listening to the audio, is a fairly simple case where the site hosting it is irrelevant.  If there is a question about whether they transcribed it accurately, you can listen to the MP3 of the speech (which is also linked) yourself.  In that sort of case, the bar is lowered awfully low, and if the only sites available to read the text are objectionable to one person, we are still better served by having something rather than having a gaping hole in the process.  Would jpgordon be satisfied, if I transcribe the speech myself and post it to wikisource? Wjhonson 06:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so -- but I'm not sure it wouldn't run afoul of WP:NOR. That's a whole different issue, though. We do not link to nutcase sites as sources except in articles about those nutcase sites. This has been discussed and argued before. Please attempt to gain consensus before using those sites as sources; repeatedly asserting that you are correct is not consensus. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly "transcribing" is not research in any case.  Transcribing is a purely mechanical process of turning audio into text, there is no research involved.  A court stenographer is not conducting research when they type what goes on in a courtroom.  The question really turns on whether you, jpgordon, who are the only person with the issue, are going to pursue it further, should I, take the time to re-transcribe the speech and post it to wikisource.  If you are, then it's pointless for me to go through that effort.  The second issue, is that a transcription has nothing whatever to do with the site it's posted on.  If you can verify that the transcription is accurate, which you can, it could be posted to werecompleteloons.com and it's still a reliable transcription.  This is completely different from a page on werecompleteloons.com speaking about something that have experience in.  The issue of transcriptions falls outside the scope of an-issue-based-on-the-sites-reliability.  To treat every case identically is a pedestrian reading of the spirit of the policy. Wjhonson 05:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really have an opinion the relationship transcriptions (or translations, a similar issue) and WP:NOR. That's why I said "I'm not sure", because I'm really not sure; I could make a strong argument in either direction. It's not an important issue to me. What is an important issue is keeping totally unreliable sources -- in particular, holocaust denial websites -- from being used as sources for any information whatsoever. Even if vho.org (for example) has a page correctly asserting a fact, that fact cannot be used in Wikipedia unless a reliable source provides the same information (and, hence, renders using vho.org unnecessary.) I'll admit this makes the task difficult; in the case of Benjamin H. Freedman, very little biographical information appears to be available, at least online, other than from otherwise unacceptable sources. Perhaps in a case like this, some sort of header could be plugged onto the article  saying that critical information in the article is from unreliable sources, but they are the only sources of information found so far? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transcriptions on site with extreme points-of-view 

message: In "Self-published sources in articles about themselves", it is claimed that the text should be, among other things, "subject to verification by other sources".
However, that can't be correct. Probably those rules are intended to be about assertions-of-fact and not about opinions. The information of a notable author about his/her opinion from that person firsthand is certainly useful with correct attribution, while it just as certainly can't be verified by other sources. Thus I propose to improve the text accordingly. Harald88 00:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, mostly. But we should also note that the lack of discussion by a secondary source may be an indication of lack of importance, and that we should be careful not to give minority views undue weight (except of course in articles dedicated to those minority views). The only problem is that that section of WP:NPOV links to WP:RS, so if we linked to it, we would be begging the question. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 00:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think that's a problem: the linking is not circular, and this guideline doesn't need to elaborate on NPOV issues - we already have a guideline for that. Harald88 01:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are correct that the guideline is focused on assertions of fact.  The difficulty comes when statements of opinion are phrased as statements of fact.  When discussing opinions (assuming that inclusion of the opinion meets other guidelines such as discussed above) it is vital that it be made clear in the article that you are stating a particular opinion, and not stating that this opinion is fact.  Your best bet is to include a direct quote from that person or persons who hold the opinion and then cite a reliable source where they state it.  A personal website can (in some cases) be a reliable PRIMARY source for such quotations. However, care should be used if the opinion is at all controvercial. Only use the primary source if there is no reliable secondary source that discusses it. Blueboar 12:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right - and all that is policy anyway. Except for the last point: primary sources must be used to verify the reliablilty of secondary sources which usually are less reliable for primary information - the copy-error problem. Harald88 13:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  I don't think quoting everything is necessary (we aren't Wikiquote, after all) — the important part is that we a) state it as being someone's opinion and b) attribute it specifically to who said it (see WP:AWW). And then of course there's WP:NPOV, with a very long discussion about how to be neutral, such as avoiding undue weight. I don't think we need to avoid primary sources in every instance where there's a reliable secondary source. The secondary source does give some indication of how important the view is, but it may also go into less detail, and, if they are against the view (which is probable in the case of extremist views), could be guilty of the straw man fallacy. There are certainly different degrees of reliability in primary sources, though. A large partisan website that represents a large number of adherents to an opinion can be used as a source for more general statements than the personal website of a single adherent. ("Many Xists on site Y say..." rather than "Z, and Xist, says...") Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 14:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think we are agreeing as to the general issue here and only arguing the details... so to sum up... it is better to find a reliable secondary source, but when discussing an opinion a personal website is (sometimes) acceptable.  As this is not the first time we have had this discussion... I have a proposal to make (see below)... Blueboar 18:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  problem with self-published info 

message: I like it!
--Light current 00:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Block layout 

message: "Look out for false claims of authority. Advanced degrees give authority in the topic of the degree. ... Use sources who have postgraduate degrees or demonstrable published expertise in the field they are discussing. The more reputable ones are affiliated with academic institutions." I would add here: "Look out for people with advanced degrees affiliated with academic institutions who say things in pop articles, speeches, etc. that they have not written in peer reviewed journals." That means they cannot defend their positions by academic standards. Fourtildas 01:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought I added something to this effect, but I don't see it. Perhaps I forgot to click on "Save Page"? Fourtildas 06:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beware false authority 

message: Moved from Proposal: Sources above to its own heading for general comment... -darkfred
It might be nice to have something like this in wikipedia space article form. I think the primary problem now with WP:RS is a lack of focus, and confusion between different types of information. Personally I would fork it into the different types of sources, scientific, biographical, historical, news, popular culture etc. Everyone seems to be arguing from a completely different definition, so it will never get resolved as it is. But in some case (science) there is already a concensus. --Darkfred Talk to me 14:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with 'forking'. Present policy is confusing. Sounds sensible idea to me. 8-)--Light current 14:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Just for the record WP:RS would still be the main policy page, but it could be more concise and simply point to the policy sub page on each source type. --Darkfred Talk to me 15:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes this  sounds a good idea. THen depending on the sort of article one is writing, one could easily find the pertinent info rather than try to interpret whats there ATM. Clearly, each filed should have its own notice based on what you have done above.--Light current 15:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. Also, multiple policies covering the same topic, sources, the application and relevancy of each depending on the article's subject, is simply a not a good idea. FeloniousMonk 18:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree that "forking"" is not a good idea. Since different editors would probably participate in the development of the various forks, the forks would tend to be come contradictory. --Gerry Ashton 20:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The policy is already contradictory, just look at the arguments above. Plus how could a rule which is applied to claims of scientific authority contradict a rule which is only applied to biographical sources? --Darkfred Talk to me 14:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forking 

message: I don't understand this:
" Personal websites, wikis, and posts on bulletin boards, Usenet and blogs should still not be used as secondary sources."
Surely that should be "primary" sources, should it not? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 06:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No... it means what it says.  Such sites are not considered reliable for use as a secondary source.  While such are considered generally unreliable for use as both primary and secondary sources, they can (in some cicumstances) be used as primary sources.  For example, a blog can be used as a primary source in an article about the blog itself. The same would be true for a personal website... it might be used as a primary source for citing the opinion of the person who owns the website, in an article about that person, but should not be used as a secondary source. Blueboar 14:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular culture and fiction 

message: Would a local newspaper be a reliable source according to this policy if their country was at war or about to go to war? I've just been told as much at Talk:2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, but I can't honestly believe that's the policy of this encyclopedia. My opinion was that such a source must be taken cum grano salis, am I wrong? This person implies that once a reliable source, always a reliable source, no matter the cricumstances. If that's really the case, I'll give up on this project immediately. -- Kendrick7 07:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To some degree, this depends on the reputation of the local newspaper. I would say that a local newspaper could be a reliable published source under our guidelines. If it has a reputation for accurate reporting in general and, more importantly, for fact checking and editorial oversight, I would allow it (this relates to the "once reliable, always reliable" concept)...  however, in a war time situation, it may also become a biased source (which is a different issue all-together). Remember, bias does not automatically rule out reliablility.  Reliablility does not always mean "true". It simply means that the source has a reputation for a certain degree fact checking and accountability.  A biased source may be reliable in that it accurately reflects a particular view or oppinion.  Of course using such a source may also lead to violations of WP:NPOV if the bias is extreme, and if the article is worded improperly. Blueboar 14:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: You can be within NPOV if you attribute the statememt to the source and give context, as in "The Jerusalem Post, in an article published during the Lebanon war, reported that...." ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: No. Firstly, a reliable source may only be a reliable source on the topic(s) on which it has expertise. Secondly, a fact is only a fact, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, if all of the experts and scholars working on it agree. If not, it becomes an opinion, and should be stated and attributed as such, and the article should strive for the neutral point of view. — Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 23:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One additional comment here... looking at the talk page of the article in question, you are discussing Haaretz... I am not sure you can really call this a "local" newspaper.  It seems to be affiliated with the International Herald Tribune... this leans me towards saying that it is solidly reliable under wikipedia rules.   Blueboar 12:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  With a Grain of Salt? 

message: Since last I looked in this page, it became bloated with various "yes you can". I have a strong suspicion that various POV pushers are trying to squeeze their favorite sources here. 
IMO is is time to revamp the guideline starting from some sound assertions: reputable is reputable is reputable when it is proven to be reputable in some way or another. The rest should be a corollary and elaboration. Now the page is a sectioned chaos.
The first and foremost filter to be applied to the whole current text is the title of this section. 
*One Can Be Reputable only in the Area of One's Established Expertise
*:Corollary: Being a rocket scientist does not automatically grant the person an authority in gay rights. 
I fixed two sentences in the text in this respect. Please think more. `'mikka (t) 17:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have one question on your comments... How does "reputable" relate to "reliable"?  In your opinion, are they the same or different, and if the latter how so? Blueboar 18:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK  the term reliable. is secondary to reputable in the context of our topic here. How do we know a source is reliable? Because it has a reputation of not cheating, rarely making mistakes and readily admitting/correcting their mistakes. `'mikka (t) 00:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  One Can Be Reputable only in Area of Established Expertise  

message: GeorgeLouis just changed the guideline to read
For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.
Exceptions to this may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material within the area of their established expertise. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own names, or known pen names.  + Exceptions to this may occur when a well-known, professional researcher writes within his field of expertise or a well-known professional journalist produces self-published material within the area of his established expertise. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as the work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications [emphasis added]
The boldface word in the phrase "so long as the work" used to say their. In this context, their means that the researcher or journalist has been published by reputable publishers in the same field as the material to be cited in WP, but the material to be cited was self-published. The, on the other hand, means the exact same material that is to be cited in WP was not only self-published, but also published by a reputable publisher. So if we use the word the we effectively ban self-published material by professional researchers and journalists in their field of expertise. --Gerry Ashton 21:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not my point. If you say a researcher's self-published writing may be acceptable as long as their work has been published by a reputable publisher, it means that the researcher should have established his or her reputation in the field by publishing something through a reputable publisher. If you say a research's self-published writing may be acceptable as long as the work has been published by a reputable publisher, the work refers to the self-published writing. But if the self-published writing were also published by a reputable publisher, we could just cite the edition by the reputable publisher, and we would not even need this passage. --Gerry Ashton 00:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, you seem to miss the reason of the addition: It seems to be including the "formally unpublished" and only self-published works of a reputable person. Still, I have to agree that you have some point here. I don't know about journalists, but in scientific community self-publishing often serves as a means of inviting of peer review, for scrutiny before serious publishing. As you imply, a reputable person should have no troubles in finding a reputable publisher. Therefore self-published sources must be somehow restricted. For example, if someone announces a break-through, then it IMO is deserving. But if someone discusses some old stuff, I agree, there should be no difficulty in finding "solid" references. `'mikka (t) 22:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I understand you correctly, then I would take the opposite view of what self-published material should be acceptable. I don't think new breakthroughs in science and technology that are announced only in self-published sources should be in Wikipedia. On the other hand, self-published material about older work by established professionals can sometimes be included; it man not be possible to publish the material because publishers usually prefer to concentrate on new material. --Gerry Ashton 01:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: the vs. their

message: I changed the following weasely phrasing
:Note that Wikipedia itself does not currently meet the reliability guidelines; however, nothing in this guideline is meant to contravene the associated guideline: Wikipedia:Build the web. Wikilink freely.
to a more concrete:
:Note that Wikipedia itself does not currently meet the reliability guidelines. However the purpose of wikilinks is to  build the web of knowledge within wikipedia, i.e., to interconnect various pieces of information, rather than to verify it. Wikilink freely.
Any objections? `'mikka (t) 00:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I object to these rapid changes, without even thinking about the merit of the proposed change. --Gerry Ashton 00:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I object to trolling and policing. If you have to say something, spell it, otherwise buf off. You are not the owb]ner of the page. `'mikka (t) 21:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverted though your idea may now be, you are essentially right. I don't think your wording is perfect at all, but the existing wording is terrible. It is the single most obtuse passage on the page and fails to give the blindingly obvious reason why Wikipedia doesn't meet the reliability guidelines, which is that it largely links to itself. I think we could refine Mikka's proposed wording and improve the existing passage drastically, starting by making it actually mean something to the reader.qp10qp 02:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia linking 

message: Sorry to bring us back to this issue, but I've just had a slow reaction to the "Professional researcher exception" in Self-published sources.
:Exceptions to this may occur when a well-known, professional researcher writes within their field of expertise or a well-known professional journalist produces self-published material within the area of their established expertise. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as the work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications and the writer is using their own name or a known pen name.
I don't see the need for this exception.  If Jane Doe has published her work in a credible third-party publication, and then summarized the same results in her web page or some other self-published source, there is no good reason why an editor shouldn't do a bit more research and cite the proper third-party publication.  I suggest deleting the whole exception and the parts of the subsequent paragraphs that relate to it.  --SteveMcCluskey 00:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are being confused by a very recent change that was not discussed on the talk page before the change was made. See the section "the vs. their". --Gerry Ashton 00:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Besides objecting to the lack of discussion about a change, let me point out a concrete case where self-published sources by professional researchers may be useful. Errata are often provided; ideally the errata is on the web site of the publisher, but sometimes it is only available on the web site of the author. A case in point is Anchel and Troop's The Film Developing Cookbook published by Focal Press. --Gerry Ashton 00:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-Published Sources -- Again 

message: : "Wikipedia cannot cite itself as a source"
Does this include other-language Wikipedia articles?  What about the non-normative information in Wikipedia:Citing_sources/example_style#Other-language_wikipedias? —Philip N.✉ 19:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikis in general are not considered reliable, as they are subject to change at any time Blueboar 19:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification regarding interwiki citing 

message: Could http://www.discoverychannelasia.com/martial_arts/south_asia/muay_thai/index.shtml be described as reliable? I've been arguing with people that claim that there's never been glasses in rope gloves in Muay Thai, and that it was just invented by the Jean Claude van Damme movie, Bloodsport. Shouldn't discovery channel be pretty reliable, or?--NoNo 20:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know anything about this subject, by I would argue that the site is a reliable source. You can attribute a statement to that site, rather than make an assertion of fact, in particular if the statement is disputed by other reliable sources. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this site reliable? 

message: I just recently became aware of this line on this page: Wikipedia articles may use primary sources only if they have been published by a reliable publisher e.g. trial transcripts published by a court stenographer, or historic documents that appear in edited collections. We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a reliable publisher -- I've been using letters, journals, memoirs available at archives (Duke University or National Archives) to contribute to articles (See John W. Johnston) as I thought it was allowed, since it is verifiable (it's not a document in my own possession or in my great aunt's attic); a reputable repository has approved its provenance, etc. (I'm not using documents deposited at a small local history museum, for instance). I'm not doing any OR as I'm only reiterating events chronicled in there and am not generating any interpretations or assumptions. What is the reasoning for this line in the guideline? --plange 23:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is too close to original research, which consists of creating a narratibve from primary sources. Better use scholarly secondary sources that other users can evaluate The use of archival sources that very few readers can get access to are inherently suspect--they have not been edited by professional editors for example, and may have been selected primarily by the POV of the researcher. Wiki is NOT a place for original publication of research findings.  I don't see any problem with OR in John W. Johnston so keep it up. Rjensen 23:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, but this just confuses me further. If I didn't violate OR, then is it okay that I used an unpublished document? I also don't see the difference between a letter accessible from a reputable archives and one that's published - they're identical and will not prevent someone doing OR. In fact OR can occur from use of secondary sources. Edited letters and memoirs actually becomes a secondary source since it's now passed through the lens of the editor who published them and could have edited out parts that didn't fit with their POV. That's why primary sources are so important in historical research. Believe me, I'm definitely on the "no OR" bandwagon, I just don't see how this prevents it from happening? The 'no OR' rule should stand on its own regardless of whether a person uses primary or secondary sources. It doesn't belong here period, I agree. --plange 23:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that documents that are housed and listed (cataloged) in a publicly accessible archive are verifiable, and thus reliable primary sources. You could even argue that by cataloging them the archive has "published" them.  I would equate citing such documents to citing a rare, out of print, (but published) book ... of the type that can only be found at a large public library.  The real issue is how you use them.  It is that use that may or may not constitute Original Research. The document by itself is not. Blueboar 12:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The use is subject to the same rules as usage of secondary sources: No OR. But the main page of this guideline explicitly states it must be published, hence my question. Should we clarify that documents housed in a reputable public repository are allowed? --plange 15:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think what Rjensen and Blueboar are saying is that, although you are not violating WP:OR, it is very easy to accidentally do so when using primary sources. But I would say that yes, your sources are reliable. As for editors who don't have access to said documents, I would say this is a good reason to allow convenience links, but that is controversial. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 15:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I'm just saying that I should be corrected for the policy on OR not RS, if that ever came up, but as it's written now, if an editor chose to, they could say I'm violating RS (even though I'm not violating OR) because of the way the guideline is written. I guess I shouldn't worry about it, I just wanted clarification as I didn't want to be violating any guidelines or policies :-) --plange 15:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Just thought you all might be interested in the same question posed at WP:V and WP:OR since this intersects these areas -- Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Reliable_source_question (go to bottom of this as first part was about a different scenario) and Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Only_published_primary_sources.3F --plange 16:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  primary sources must be published? 

message: Certain users claim that the works of 19th century racial theorists constitute reliable sources for the Mongoloid and Caucasoid articles. I have already removed the information they added citing various white pride and religious websites, but am at a bit of a loss about what to do about "more reliable" sources, such as the works of Thomas Huxley or Egon_Freiherr_von_Eickstedt theorizing on the possible origins of such peoples or that certain peoples would be more or less evolved than others. Because their views are generally not accepted by the scientific community today, and have been largely superseded by modern genetic research, can I just get rid of it, or are we obligated to include the views of discredited and controversial theorists from over 100 years ago?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pravit726 (talk • contribs) 
:These are things which should definately be included in the article.  However they should be in a secion on historiography, not in the area dealing with modern thought on the subject.  Unfortunately, Wikipedia oftens lacks the encyclopedic information on historical development of thought on a subject.  BTW such opinions were not contraversial 100 years ago. See s:The New Student's Reference Work/Yellow Race, The --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 14:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea, are there any examples of historiography sections on WP I could use as a model? Also, I feel this source: http://christianparty.net/benjaminfreedman.htm is unreliable for information on Khazars. The source appears to be unscientific and biased. The source is cited in the section on Osteuropids in the Mongoloid article. -Pravit 21:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mongoloid and Caucasoid are physical types.  These physical types were accurately measured by the 19th century anthropologists.  Genetic information does not disprove the physical similarites among the people included in these racial categories.--Dark Tichondrias 22:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I never said genetic information disproved anything, but the current Mongoloid page reads like a scrapbook of every loony theory from 19th century racial theorists and Geocities pseudoscientists. Are we obligated to include every single opinion that you can find on the internet? The section on "South African Mongoloids" cites this page: http://www.stewartsynopsis.com/backwards.htm as its source. Yes, in the article, it is stated as the authors opinion, but I find it irrelevant as it is an extreme minority view. You can find hundreds upon thousands of people on the net with different ideas; should we really include all of them? -Pravit 23:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The genetic section should read:Races formed by physical type are not concordant with races formed by genetics due to different parameters for definition.  Although Mongoloid is a craniofacial type, Cavalli Sforza has borrowed the term to refer to the East Asian genetic group.  This has not been the historical usage of the term..
I would recommend two steps, of which I will take the first. The section on Carleton S. Coon, for example, is undue weight on an old-fashioned view, and includes no hint that Coon's views -on this subject- are no longer widely held. This is non-neutral and should be so marked. 
The second, and much harder, step is to find sources for the modern deprecation of Coon, and include them in the article. When this is done, the mention of Coon will be neutralized, and it shouldn't be back. Septentrionalis 17:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  19th century racial theorists 

message: Somewhere in the middle of Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Some_fan_sites_are_better_than_others, we started talking about convenience links. Anyways, having talked about it a lot here on WT:RS, I'm guessing many of you will want to say something about it. Cheers, Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 02:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Convenience links on [[Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Some_fan_sites_are_better_than_others|WT:EL]] 

message: IMDb comes up often as a "source". The current locus of dispute is the article on Anastacia. Essentially all newspaper articles say she was born in 1973, following the official Sony bio. (The article lists 5 sources saying 1973 all of which should count as WP:RS.) Most fan blogs seem to take 1968 for granted as the truth based on personal communication, and they are quite possibly correct. However, the only non-blog references given so far for 1968 are a vague and dubious reference to a Stern interview, and IMDb. Trivia on IMDb is user-supplied, and the editorial oversight seems to be limited to filtering vandalism and gross errors such as a year of birth 20 years off. While it is possible to see IMDb as a "convenience link" for certain trivia like uncontroversial birthdates, this doesn't seem to me to satisfy WP:RS. I would like to add the following to  WP:RS#Bulletin boards:
: The same reasoning applies to trivia on sites such as IMDb or FunTrivia.com, where the degree of editorial oversight is unknown. (However, film credits on IMDb are provided directly by the Writer's Guild of America and can be considered reliable.) 
See also #IMDb_and_fan-submitted_trivia_sites_again above. Gimmetrow 02:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IMDb 

message: Cats, meet pigeon. User:David Gerard/Process essay mentions WP:RS and is likely to be applied to it by a well-meaning reader when finalised. Oddly enough, it's not an attempt to piss people off. So please criticise in detail on the talk page - David Gerard 13:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Process essay

message: I reverted the following addition as it does not seem fitting:
Beware that some people will use their advanced degrees and academic affiliations to give credibility to advocacy pieces that they could not get published in peer-reviewed journals or textbooks.
The above sounds a bit like advocacy for something else; and it's not entirely clear if that advocacy is exactly in line with policy. To stress the problem: we could just as well write,
Beware that some people without advanced degrees or academic affiliations will use their published ideas in peer-reviewed journals or even books to give credibility to advocacy pieces that they could not push otherwise.
Harald88 19:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, giving that advice in a Wikipedia guideline seems to contradict WP:AGF. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 20:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Beware"? 

message: I have been editing a rather controversial article that has previously been deleted but is back up on deletion review and one of the points that is brought up very frequently is that the sources do not meet WP:V and WP:RS. I'd rather not say what the article is, because I'd like to get unbiased feedback. The two (what I view to be) primary sources consist of a university newspaper and an article from Brand Republic; Digital Bulletin.
According to Haymarket Publishing, Brand Republic is UK's leading website for news and jobs from the advertising, marketing and media industries. It is also the home of Campaign and Marketing magazines online.  The Marketing Society says With over 150,000 articles from 12 leading industry magazines, Brand Republic also contains more than 1,000 jobs, book reviews, industry data and reports. . A not for profit company ABC Electronic has audited BrandRepublic for traffic and it has established that it is indeed a high traffic site with over a million page impressions over the period of 30 days.   To me it sounds as if this is an established UK marketing website.
Now I can see some controversy regarding the student newspaper but I believe that it is held in good regard in not only the community but the state as evidenced by . It has been established for 25 years and has an established record having won at least 32 awards for journalistic excellence in state along with the National Pacemaker Award  amongst others. I admit that the article does need more sources but it seems like the ones that are added are immediately shot down all citing WP:V and WP:RS. I am curious as to others' unbiased opinions regarding these sources as this seems to be the primary reason for deletion votes. Thanks, I really appreciate it. --ImmortalGoddezz 19:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the student newspaper, probably not. The awards make it arguable for sure, but that's the typical standard. As for the Haymarket, since they offer so many articles, could you simply cite the magazine that it's reproducing as opposed to Haymarket itself? That'd probably solve that problem, and perhaps make more sources at the same time. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I figured that the newspaper would be arguable. As for the Brand Republic article the writer is on staff and wrote it for Brand Republic instead of BR importing it from another article. --ImmortalGoddezz 20:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

text: After a quick glance they both look reliable to me. Any one disagree? Blueboar 19:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinions regarding 2 specific sources? 

message: Would http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/ be considered a reliable source? It's a right-wing political activist website that claims to be a 'guide to the political left'. It's run by David Horowitz, who has been known to make unfounded assertions and false accusations against his political opponents. The site has been been widely criticized, including here and here. - Valarauka(T/C) 22:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reliable for what, exactly? It sounds like it might be a reliable source for the views of David Horowitz, the individual article authors, or the organization the runs the site. It also may be an interesting place to find topics to research; a politician's opponents are more likely to remember negative information than supporters, and that can be useful in seeing how balanced an article here is. But as an organization that examines topics where they have a declared and prominent viewpoint, I don't think they would be a good source for the factual, WP:NPOV information that should make up the bulk of a Wikipedia article. William Pietri 01:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The context is the article for the MSA, which is currently very POV, basically consisting of a bunch of allegations of terrorism etc. all sourced from DTN. DRK has started a poll on the DTN talk page, I'd appreciate comments/votes there. Thanks! - Valarauka(T/C) 22:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/ reliable? 

message: It was pointed out on WP:CITE that the entreaty against using Wikipedia and a source and a section in Wikipedia:Summary style are in apparent conflict. I added a short parenthetical sentence and a link stating that this is not the case. –Joke 00:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-reference/Summary style 

message: This page is getting quite long... can we archive some of it?
I would do so myself, but I am not good at it and some stuff might get lost if I tried. Blueboar 14:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I've also tidied the archive stuff up a bit. It would be great if on the archive table of contents somebody could add some info about what subjects are discussed. That will make it easier for well-meaning editors to avoid repeating discussions. Thanks, William Pietri 16:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: I have added the following to "issues to look out for":
* Live news footage during disasters and major incidents are primary sources that often contain highly speculative reports and commentary, some which may later turn out to be false; Such sources should be corroborated with other reliable sources, such as newspaper reports that have gone through editorial process and review.
On articles relating to the September 11, 2001 attacks, as well as on the Oklahoma City bombing, I have seen people try to use live news footage clips on YouTube as sources.  Such clips and footage contain highly speculative reports, commentary, and guesses as to what's happening by the reporters.  I think it's obvious what I'm talking about (e.g. car bombs at the State Department on 9/11), but here's footage from CBS news where Dan Rather makes such speculative remarks. I don't think these should be used as sources, without corroborating them with later published sources such as newspapers which put the initial reports into context.  (e.g. we can say there were reports of car bombs at the State Department, but should be accompanied by mention that these reports later turned out to be false ). 
If anyone objects to this addition, I'm open to discussing it here. --Aude (talk) 21:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or feel free to tweak the wording. --Aude (talk) 21:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Live news footage as sources