Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 11

message: **Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Encyclopedia of Earth `'mikka 23:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only problem that I see with it is that this guideline states that "Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking."  (bolding is mine)... Encycl. of Earth seems to be another wiki. Blueboar 02:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encyclopedia of Earth 

message: Are those neo-nazi/holocaust deniers quotable? After the discussion here last July  I had the understanding that they were only notable if quoted by reliable sources, (e.g.David Duke's "views would be regarded as noteworthy if reliable sources quoted them, in which case the publication, not Duke, is our source".)
However, there has been/is an editwar over at Naeim Giladi about wheather to include references to National Vanguard and Adelaide Institute sites (and they are, IMO, possibly less important/well known/noteable than David Duke). Some editors argue that WP:RS does not apply here. Does anybody here have any advice about this?  Regards, Huldra 08:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing wrong with quoting either of these sources if it is appropriate within the context of an article, say if it was about Vanguard or a member of Vanguard or an event in which Vanguard participated. I would suggst that Vanguard is not a RS but I'm not familiar enough with the Adelaide Institute to really say one way or the other. For example you could say that Vanguard has claimed/said "Blah blah blah" but you could not put forth "blah blah blah" as in an in text fact and then source Vanguard. See the difference? NeoFreak 15:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much for your reply. However, I´m not sure it address my specific issue. I raised the question last July here: , and then I got the reply "David Duke's views would be regarded as noteworthy if reliable sources quoted them, in which case the publication, not Duke, is our source." This sounds sensible to me. However, take a look at Israel Shahak and Use by Neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers. Now, no " reliable source" (say; E.U. Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia,  Anti-Defamation League, Stephen Roth Institute, American Jewish Committee, Southern Poverty Law Center,    Political Research Associates,) have found it important enough to note the "praise" by these "widely acknowledged extremist views". Still, some editors now insist that we refer directly to them. Basically, I see it as both Poisoning the well and a violation against WP:RS. And possibly a violation against WP:NPOV#Undue_weight and, (for Naeim Giladi), a violation of WP:BLP. And it is most certainly not in accordance with what I was told  last July here:, Regards, Huldra 18:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[National Vanguard]] and [[Adelaide Institute]];  +[[David Duke]] & [[Ernst Zündel]]

message: "Wikipedia articles may use primary sources, so long as they have been published by a reliable source, but only to make descriptive points about the topic." Can anyone give me a real example of this, like a specific primary source and what it can be used for and not? Sethie 03:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Provide a direct quote from the source, with quote marks, and an inline citation, and you're fine. Once you start paraphrasing or otherwise "adding value" to the quote, you're venturing into a gray area. Wjhonson 16:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Descriptive Points about the topic

message: In articles on actual events people cite Reuters and AP all the time and refer to yahoo news or newspapers websites where the original news feed of Reuters/AP is showing up. It should be pointed out that those sources are not reliable therefore, since they're gone for good after 60 days went by. --213.155.224.232 19:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the point is covered under the header of persistence of the source, but it could be that clarity is required around the use of media feeds.ALR 20:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are services that archive those feeds such as Lexis-Nexis.  Not everyone has access but a good library should have a subscription.  Therefore, citing the feed should IMHO be considered a persistant source with the link to a website viewed as a convienience link. --Selket 00:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be noted that while a media (such as a newspaper or Yahoo) might use AP or Reuters as a source and cite them as such, they often rewrite, cut out or otherwise change the original Reuters/AP news feed. So, if there is reason to suspect, one should be careful with assuming that all articles/news cited as Reuters/AP are in their original form. Cheers Osli73 18:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reuters and AP 

message: Are dictionaries considered reliable? I say that the main ones are. The question is whether they are "tertiary sources" or whether they are themselves independent scholarly works. WP:RS is being discussed on Talk:Marriage to this effect. MPS 22:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The OED is a secondary source by any standards.  It quotes primary sources, showing where they agree and differ. Wjhonson 19:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To some extent it depends on the dictionary and the edition... Dr. Johnson's dictionary of the 1600 - 1700s could probably count as a primary source.  I agree with Wjhonson that the OED should be considered a secondary source.  And many modern dictionaries (especially those on-line) are tertiary in that they simply copy other dictionaries.  As to how reliable... except a few obviously biased ones ("The Neo-Nazi Dictionary" would probably be an example if it exists) I would say they are reliable.  Blueboar 20:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dictionaries as tertiary sources

message: I've been reviewing the article on Steven Hassan and I noticed that of 30 references, 24 of them are directly from his own website. Is it just me or does that raise a few flags re balance and/or notability? --Insider201283 15:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-published articles on articles about themselves 

message: I've encountered two good examples of sources that are very much in conflict. In both cases, it is mostly websites (and sometimes an encyclopedia) versus a published book(s). One is German scientist Otto Wallach. The Jewish Encyclopedia as well as some other Jewish websites put him as being of Jewish origin. However, the publication Otto Wallach, 1847-1931 : Chemiker und Nobelpreistrager describe most of his and his family background and none are described to be Jewish. The book is the only one of its kind available to German resources. I have not found a book in English of Wallach. There are Lutherans and Catholics and others but no mention of Jewish relatives or converts from Judaism. Should Otto Wallach be continued to be categorized as a German Jew? What is the best way to go about solving this problem? 
Along similar lines, a German mathematician Georg Cantor has many websites concluding him to be a German Jew, and even a few books, but several other books write "Cantor was not Jewish" so I am stumped as to what to do concerning these two Germans. The latter is looking to be very controversial judging from long arguments on the discussion pages but Wallach is a new conflict not dissected yet. 
What to do? Should they be kept from the lists and categories because these conflicts exist? What can be judged as more reliable? Thank you.Mehmeda 00:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not up to us to determine if people are Jewish, Christian or Whatever... All we can do is report what other people say.  State that there is debate on whether these men are Jewish or not. Present both sides of the debate in a NPOV manner, citing the sources (double check the websites, make sure that they are reliable, and not personal sites). As for the lists and categories... all of these should probably have a section for "debated" or something, where you can list people like this. Blueboar 14:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What happens when two places say the opposite thing?

message: I'm not sure if this is really a reliable sources probem or just tangentially related. On several articles, including Queens Surface Corporation, I used , a city webpage about the bus companies from several years ago, for some information, including the number of buses they operated. The operations were taken over by the MTA in 2005 and 2006, so that page will not be updated. According to BWCNY, the number changed between when that page was published and the MTA takeover, and he gave  as a source. I don't doubt that that source is correct, but it's certainly not reliable. What do you suggest I do? I feel that it is useful to give the number of buses, since it gives an idea of how large the company was, so removing the number isn't a good option. --NE2 07:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that geocities site is surly not a reliable source... are these companies publicly traded? ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 07:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: This self-published information might be good enough for non-controversial claims:  ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 08:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately that's for the current public company, which is a consolidation of the operations of the seven private companies. --NE2 08:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm this info might be hard to find.  You could always give the company a call, explain who you are and make a request for any news-stories they might be aware of. A lot of times industry publications will carry that kind of detail but are hard to find using google. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 08:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the companies are around any more... would it be acceptable to say "about foo" and round to the nearest 25 or so? Or would that be original research, choosing to round because you believe the numbers to be wrong? --NE2 08:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a NYC resident, I can vouch for the fact that the companies are not around any more... they were indeed taken over by the MTA.  My suggestion would be to contact the MTA for updated info.  While adding any information they gave you would indeed constitute original research, I doubt it would be challenged.  This seems to be a perfect example of why WP:IAR exists. Blueboar 14:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bus number issue

message: Is the PRR Chronology a reliable source or just "good enough until we find a reliable source"? Each entry is cited; he details this in the introduction. --NE2 11:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Without knowing the details of how you wish to use the site, I would say it looks reliable. The site is hosted by Pennsylvania Technical and Historical Society, which indicates a certain degree of fact checking and competence.  I am not sure who Christopher T. Baer (the author) is, or whether he would count as an expert or not... but I am not sure that is needed.  If there is debate about it's acuracy, you should find corroborating sources.  If they exist, you should present alternate opinions in the article. Blueboar 14:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like he's written at least one book:  In theory one could "transparently" use the PRR Chronology, instead citing his sources, but some of them are pretty hard to come by. --NE2 15:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: By the way, the "how" is for citing facts, for instance in Long Island Rail Road. --NE2 15:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks quite reliable to me... again, if inclusion is debated, see if it can be corroborated.  Perhaps the LIRR site? Blueboar 16:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: PRR Chronology

message: RS says: "When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications."  Am I correct in assuming that even if a professional journalist is published by say, the New York Times, any info he puts on a blog should still meet the rest of RS to be included as a source?  Over at Talk:Barrington Hall‎, someone seems to be arguing that once a journalist is published by credible, third-party publications, anything they write anywhere qualifies as a reliable source, and that once that one criteria is met, nothing else in RS can disqualify it as a source.  Is she misinterpreting RS?  Wikilawyering it?  Is RS clear enough on this point?  Opinions would be welcome, thanks.  --Milo H Minderbinder 21:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not intended to be a tick list of things to achieve reliability, but the list of issues to consider need to be taken in the round.  With that in mind I would agree that the source should be otherwise reliable.  My position is that I don't see the NYT as inherently reliable so just being published there isn't an automatic endorsement.  The wording of the caveat would also need the journo to be writing within their area of expertise and of course the ongoing issues with Blogs would come into play as well.ALR 21:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the response, it brings up a related issue.  Does "writing within his or her field of expertise" apply to researchers and journalists?  The current wording makes it sound like it may only apply to the researchers.  --Milo H Minderbinder 21:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally speaking, bearing in mind I'm not one of WPs academic fetishists, then I'd say that it depends.  Some Journos, such as John Keegan, who have a recognised authority and write for an otherwise reputable publication then it could be debated that they're included.  Someone writing for something like the News of the World then I'd be a lot more sceptical about their expertise.ALR 21:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Even bearing in mind that I may be considered one of WP's' academic fetishist's, I agree it depends on the journal and the journalist, and no clear rule can be written. WW, mentioned below, was perhaps noted for unreliability, but can certainly be used to establish existence of something within his scope. . WL, or WC are, but in the field of public affairs. I would not rely on either of them for fine arts or for science. WS is sometimes considered a little biased. DGG 02:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may want to find a clearer example. Sir John is a lot more than a journalist. Do you mean Walter Lippmann, Walter Winchell, or Walter Cronkite? Christopher Hitchens? William Safire? Scotty Reston? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the expertise of a journalist consists of collecting, evaluating, and organizing information. For some journalists, this would be general information, while others might specialize in a certain field. But the reading public usually accepts that journalists may lean on the expertise of the experts they interview or otherwise collect information from. For example, if a journalist with an expertise in science reports that a new climate model makes certain predictions about global warming, the fact that the journalist is not capable of running the climate model herself does not detract from the story. On the other hand, if a climate expert makes the same claim, we might expect that the expert can indeed run the climate model herself. --Gerry Ashton 23:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well it looks like my glance over there has been overtaken by events.  The blog in question didn't actually appear to have any significant content earlier today and it's now been deleted from Blogspot anyway.  FWIW I am unhappy about the use of this commentary on the guidance, I don't believe that the argument was supported by this discussion.ALR 18:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed... a comment made on one talk page should never be used to support an argument on another article's talk page.  Doing so takes the comment out of context. If a conversation on one talk page has relevance to some other article's discussion, simply post a link the page.  That way all the comments are in context, and the reader can see the entire conversation.  Blueboar 19:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification requested - blogs of published journalists 

message: Can I include my opinions on current events on wikipedia by starting hipocritesstatmentsforinclusiononwikipedia.blogspot.com, getting into a LOT of blogslapfests, and then tacking "according to hipocritesstatmentsforinclusiononwikipedia.blogspot.com, Hipocrite believes George Bush is (the antichrist/the second coming?). On February 2, 2007, Hipocrite blogged that he had unique evidence of George Bush's (divinity/antichristhood). Criothip responded on February 3, 2007 at hipocritesstatmentsforinclusiononwikipediaareshit.blogspot.com that Hipocrite was obviously wrong - he posted an animated gif of Hipocrite morphing into (John Kerry/John McCain) as proof?" Obviously not. How is that any different than what is going on here, except that motive isn't implied? Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be removed, because it's not worth mentioning in the article, by applying something called common sense. Now if we had an article on said "blogslapfests", then it would be fine for that article if it's relevant. Your question is like asking "what will keep me from mentioning that the right-of-way of State Route 237 is 20 feet at mile 2, 21 feet at mile 3, and 20.05 feet at mile 4, given plats that clearly show those dimensions?" Our actions and choices are not solely determined by what our policies and guidelines say. --NE2 16:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So you're saying it common sense that if something can only be sourced to blogs, it should not be mentioned, but you're unwilling to have that inserted in a guideline because? Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not see it that way--if something IS only sourced to blogs when it is normally the sort of thing that  can normally  be sourced in more reliable places, then the use of the blog would not be correct. the question of how to  deal with things that CAN only normally be sourced to blogs is a more difficult one, I think we will probably end up by changing the rules to accept some blogs that are produced by an authoritative source--it seems to be transitioning into a method of general communication,  particularly in academic settings. (I did not say that I liked this development)DGG 05:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: No, I'm not saying that anything that can be sourced only to blogs should be removed. In an article about said "blogslapfests", your comments from your blog should be allowed even if not specifically mentioned in press coverage. --NE2 13:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, here's my own example: we have a clearly reliable source like a newspaper article stating that "The blogslapfests began when Bum Bum Blogger posted disparaging remarks about Willy Weblog, and this dispute ultimately caused Hubba Hosting to restrict registration." Then there shouldn't be a problem with saying what said remarks actually were, sourced to Bum Bum's blog, in the articles about the "blogslapfests" and "Hubba Hosting". --NE2 20:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A thought experiment 

message: I have run into an application of this guideline which troubles me. vojska.net is a personal website belonging to someone whom, looking at the contents, seems to me to be a NPOV serious hobby historian (WWII, Yugoslavia, and yes, I looked at POV). Dozens of Wikipedia editors have taken over a lot of factual content (so non-copyright) from this site and continue to do so. Everytime a stub is started people link to the site article, use it to check facts and, once there is a complete article, the link stops meeting WP:EL because a personal website is not WP:RS as a source and people have basically "adopted" all the factual content. So I just took 30 of the 54 article links out because the site page was no deeper than the article page and it wasn't good enough to be a reliable source. I feel very bad about doing this: in fact you could argue we should go and delete all the articles because the content has been added with no reliable sources except the WP editors on all these pages (I haven't ever editted any of them) have used it and appear to trust it. In these circumstances I am inclined to go back and say if diverse article editors in a wide area are consistently using this as a reliable source I should accept it as such and leave the links in (even though there is the personal website aspect which doesn't meet the guideline). Can anyone agree or disagree (thoughtfully please) with this one? If you suggest going and deleting all the articles please offer to bring a lot of mates with you ;) --BozMo talk 16:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... I took a look at some of the articles in question (by going through BozMo's contribution history) and I immediately noted a serious issue with some of these articles ... They appear to be quite good articles, and I would hate to AfD them... but none of them contain any citations or references at all.  On some of them the vjska.net site is linked as an External Link, but is not listed as a reference to back any statement.  I think the correct way to go with this would be to slap a "this article needs references" tag on them, put a brief explanation of what the problem is on the talk page, and see what happens. Blueboar 16:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blueboar has hit the nail on it's head.  Also any particularly *contentious* statements should get their own  tag slapped on them, but don't overdo it since that can lead to edit warring.  Probably best to take a conservative approach at first and see what happens. Wjhonson 17:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. The site gives a bibliography:  but its mainly out of print. --BozMo talk 08:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what libraries are for; that it's mainly in Croatian is a more serious problem. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advice please 

message: This is being discussed at great length at  WP:CSDUA, Wikipedia:Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles. The name is a misnomer--it was established very early that speedies in the normal way would not be practical--and might get he whole proposal quickly annulled. Current thought is 7 to 10 days, though a word to replace "speedy" has not been decided on.  It also became clear that this would have to apply to new articles only--that any attempt to apply it to existing articles would destroy WP--or, more likely get the whole project cancelled. (there's precedent  for this--when the copyright permission criteria for images was tightened, it did not apply to the existing ones in articles). Discussion since has been along the same lines as discussion here. (And I've been saying more or less what I do here, is that the RS guidelines need to  be a good deal more flexible for it to work. DGG 21:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: related discussion

message: Here is an interesting question... I have come across a source (reliablility is seriously questioned) which mentions a specific Lodge of Freemasons (St. John's Lodge in NYC)... the source is over at least 142 years old, but the lodge still exists.  To Masons the source is disparaging.  My question is... 1) do specific chapters of a larger organization fall under the provisions of WP:BIO? ... and 2) can something said in a source that is 142 years old be a violation of BIO if the person (or group if the answer to question 1 is yes) it disparages still is living?  Note that this is really an accademic question... I don't think I would question inclusion in the article on BIO grounds (there are better and far firmer grounds to challenge it)... I am just curious. Blueboar 02:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disparaging is not the same as libelous.  An organization, imho, would fall outside the area of WP:BIO, and by that standard, you could suppress anything negative or controversial about an organization forever.  I don't think you can follow the logic to its end. Wjhonson 20:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't think so either.  But it does raise another issue... is there a statute of limitations on BIO ... what if a truely libelous source from say 70 years ago is added to a page about someone who is 90 and still living?  (I suppose I should really ask this a the BIO talk page. But as this is really a hypothetical... )  Blueboar 20:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're out on a limb now :)  If someone did something when they were 20 and they are still worried about it when they are 90, then I'd say they have other issues going on as well.  That's an awful long time to not have collected material to *counter* anything perceived as libelous, and for other writers to not come up with any published defense.  I'm going to have to push the "show me the money" button on that hypothetical, I just don't think you can find a case like that. Wjhonson 00:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well there is the example of.... um... Ok, what about... er... well it could happen!  :>) Blueboar 00:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The only problem with articles on organization about BLP is when they contain remarks about individuals. They frequently do. & mention of them is just the same as an article about them specifically. We all know this, but it's good to repeat it once in a while.DGG 00:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  142 year old sources and WP:BIO 

message: I have realized one reason why there is so much confusion about this guideline ... What do we mean when we use the term source?  In some cases we talk about term as being the medium in which the material being cited is found (books, accademic journals, websites, etc.). In other cases we seem to be referring to the material itself (the text found in the book, journal or website). In yet other cases we seem to be talking about the person who said or wrote it (the author of the material)?  Each of these three meanings for the term "source" has aspects that can affects reliability, but they are different.  
I think we need to clarify this... but I am not sure how to start.  Blueboar 20:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  defining "source" 

message: I have posted this comment at WP:V... but it has reliability aspects as well, so...
How accessable does a document have to be to be considered reliable? For example, consider a rare or even unique document that is housed the archives of the Library of Congress. Anyone can go to Washington D.C. and read it. It is accessable to the public, and thus "verifiable" in a way ... but traveling to Washington may be the only way to verify that the document says what it says. Is a document that is "available to the public", but only at one location, accessable (and thus reliable) enough? Blueboar 15:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Assume good faith could be taken to mean we trust people in these circumstances? --BozMo talk 15:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems reasonable--in practice, ones publicly posted would be accessible as copies or facsimiles, especially in forthcoming years with the many project to release such documents on the web.  Ones not so available in archives etc should count--a suiitbly qualified person should be able to verify, and anything likely to be controversial is likely to have been discussed by historians. DGG 21:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is the definition of the word "published".  If you recall Blueboar, some time back we'd discussed whether the "Secret Meeting Notes" of the Masons, deposited in manuscript form in a library would be "publishing" them.  I think we'd come to the conclusion that libraries don't "publish" and aren't "publishers" so depositing a work in one isn't "publishing" it.  You need an agent who does the act of publishing before it can be wikicited. Wjhonson 16:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very rare or unique doucments. 

message: unsure why it was removed.   —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.68.7.90 (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  reinserted company and organizational websites. 

message: Can someone please inform me why the above-named section has been removed from the article?  I always found it helpful in discussion about whether a source was reliable or not.  Thanks. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is still quite a bit about the subject, what was it in particular that you were after?ALR 09:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mainly, this paragraph Do the sources have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? Remember that conflicts of interest are not always explicitly exposed and bias is not always self-evident. However, that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it, although editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like Stormfront.org or Al-Qaeda. Groups like these may be used as primary sources only as sources about themselves or about their viewpoints, and even then with caution and sparingly. The current version only mentions this in regard to blogs, or personal websites, but it the questions should be asked of all sources. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of the topic specific material was removed to a sub-page, there is no consensus as to the most appropriate approach, note the discussion above.  Mind you, I think the point is already covered in the guideline.ALR 22:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Evaluating Sources

message: The article on Wikinfo is predominantly sourced directly to editable pages on Wikinfo itself (some of which are protected). In Ref 9, there is also sourcing to an editable Wikipedia page. This brings up two issues over the sourcing: first, can these sorts of details be verified by a primary source; and two, can an editable wiki be used as a primary source, or at all? As I was the nominator in the 3rd AfD for this article, which closed as no consensus, I would welcome other opinions to ensure my judgement isn't clouded. Thanks. Trebor 13:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are correct regarding the problems associated with the Wikinfo article. Obviously I can edit even the protected pages there. However, I don't see the article remaining as a blot on Wikipedia. As a fork, it is notable to us, if not to the larger community. Fred Bauder 14:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes we can verify details by primary sources.  What I would suggest is that you try to find secondary sources as well to add to the article.  I'm sure there are some, there are over a half-million google hits, some of them have to be non-trivial, and secondary. Wjhonson 17:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a few quality hits. The thousands are just articles (mostly imported from Wikipedia) and mirrors. Fred Bauder 00:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Primary sourcing to wikis

message: I'm curious as they are often heavily cited back by a variety of broadcast, paper and digital media on various topics and stories. Thanks. - Denny 00:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi... could anyone help me on this? Boing Boing is often cited by other sources, so I'm inclined to say yes. It's a notable online news source these days. Can someone clarify for me? thanks. - Denny 18:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ask at WP:ATT —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blueboar (talk • contribs) 18:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks, I will. - Denny 18:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Boing Boing.net RS as a secondary source? 

message: Is Wikipedia itself a reliable source?  I suggest that it is not, and that Wikipedia articles should not source or link to other Wikipedia articles for the following reasons listed in this very policy:  
Clearly, Wikipedia articles cannot be reasonably claimed to always possess Attributability, Expertise, Bias, they clearly lack Editorial oversight, are often missing a comprehensive Declaration of sources, they often contradict other articles and therefore lack Corroboration, they lack Recognition by other reliable sources, and while archived history is available, they lack Persistence.
OK, I am being a little facetious about not linking to other Wikipedia articles.  But I am very concerned that the Reliable Sources policy is an attempt to destroy what has made Wikipedia great - the involvement of tens of thousands of individuals outside the framework of the publishing industry.  I particularly object to the near-blanket prohibition on using Internet sources.  In particular, Hipocrite is going around deleting large sections of information that he thinks are sourced from blogs, without any effort to ascertain whether the information is correct or not, or even if they are actually sourced from a blog.  This amount to a form of censorship of knowledge based upon the source.  It appears that for the most part, only information published by the press, academicians or printed books or journals will be permitted and the rest of the human race will not be allowed to contribute to the terrific amount of knowledge that is being accumulated here on Wikipedia.
In looking through the history of this article, it appears that only 14 people have put together a radical policy for the rest of the membership.  I cannot agree with this policy of choosing the "correct" sources over what should be the goal: correct information.Kevinp2 01:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct that articles in wikipedia should not be used as a source or reference (footnote) within an article.  However, in-line linking to other articles, for ease-of-access is not the same as sourcing to those articles to support the article you're reading.  On your other note, are you sure you've read *all* the archives as well?  I'm sure there's many times more then 14 unique names. Wjhonson 07:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Wikipedia a Reliable Source? 

message: For reasons that follow, the SPLC should not be considered a reliable source for who is and who is not a 'hate group'.
1.) USA Today reported that "... in a recent report on arsons at black churches in the South, his Klanwatch newsletter included five 1990 fires in Kentucky. The article doesn't mention they were set by a black man."Andrea Stone, "Morris Dees: At the Center of the Racial Storm," USA Today, 3 August 1996, A-7 
2.) Stephen Bright of the Southern Center for Human Rights describes Dees, the SPLC leader, as " a fraud who has milked a lot of very wonderful well-intentioned people. If it's got headlines, Morris is there."Andrea Stone, "Morris Dees: At the Center of the Racial Storm," USA Today, 3 August 1996, A-7 
3.) The Montgomery Advertiser has said that from 1984 to 1994 the SPLC received almost $62 million in contributions but spent only $20.8 million on its anti-poverty and anti-discrimination programs.Montgomery Avertisor, Feb. 13-14 1994
4.) Harpers Magazine has said that most alleged 'hate' groups on the SPLC's list are non-violent.^ Ken Silverstein, "The Church of Morris Dees," Harper's Magazine, 1 November, 2000, No. 1806, Vol. 301; Pg. 54 ; ISSN: 0017-789X. Text can be viewed at the Federation for American Immigration Reform website here (scroll down). Harper's article verified in D.F. Oliveria, "Dees can Buy Poverty Center a New Name," Spokesman Review, Feb 12, 2001.[1] 
5.) The American Institute of Philanthropy gave the center one of the worst ratings of any group it monitors
6.) David Horowitz of Front Page Magazine writes, "The effect is to multiply the number of racial hate groups, to scare well-meaning citizens into the belief that mainstream civil rights organizations like the Center for the Study of Popular Culture are really fever swamps of hate that deserve to be lumped alongside the Ku Klux Klan. The purpose of this fear-mongering is transparent. It is to fill the already wealthy coffers of your organization by exploiting unsuspecting donors into helping you promote leftwing agendas under the guise of civil rights"http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/Readarticle.asp?ID=9830
In short, the SPLC is to social work what Robert Tilton is to televangelism.  Using it's statements to mar other groups with the label "hate group" is indefensible.  However, in many articles on Wikipedia it has been used for just this purpose and attempts to point out its dubious legitimacy have been systematically shot down.  It should be noted somewhere on Wikipedia that the SPLC is not a reliable source when it comes to what is a hate group.  I should also point out that because it has been used on several different articles, one RfC for one article isn't sufficient. (UTC)-Psychohistorian 12:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The  unreliability of that organization is demonstrated by the fact that it has changed its name in 06 to "David Horowitz Freedom Center"--see the WP article. This may make it somewhat easier to demonstrate its worthlessness for any purpose except showing the personal view of DH. DGG 06:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are a bit confused. DHFC (which is, absurdly, currently a subject of AfD) changed its name from "Center for the Study of Popular Culture", CSPC not SPLC. CSPC is the old name of David Horowitz's umbrella organization. SPLC published an article by Chip Berlet accusing DHFC of "support[ing] efforts to make bigoted and discredited ideas respectable", exactly the kind of behavior Psychohistorian points to as showing that SPLC isn't a reliable source. My own position on this is that SPLC isn't a reliable source for the statement of fact that an organization is a "hate group", but that it (or Chip Berlet) calling an organization a "hate group" (nb:has it ever used those exact words?) would be a notable fact about the target, suitable for a NPOV mention in a Criticism section. Which is what I gave it in writing the current version of David Horowitz#Allegations of bigotry, which I think is both NPOV and indicates pretty strongly the probability that Berlet and SPLC have their heads up their butts. Which you can confirm by reading the citations for yourself. Andyvphil 10:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, the SPLC is widely recognized as the most thorough and valuable source of information.  It makes fewer mistakes than its critics--the "reasons" given above for distrusting it are pretty thin gruel.  So yes it is reliable --is it perfect? --hardly (the list of perfect sources for Wiki is reather short.) The wonderful thing about Wiki is that we can use multiple sources and test their reliability in particular cases. Rjensen 11:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "yes, the SPLC is widely recognized as the most thorough and valuable source of information."  Do you have a source for that claim or is it just something you made up?-Psychohistorian 16:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Made it up? No it's citedas a reliable source by the mainstream news media. A check at google turns up 7000+ newspaper and magazine reports citing the Center -- eg Philadelphia Inquirer, Chicago Sun-Times, Denver Rocky Mountain News, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Greensboro News and Record, Salt Lake Tribune, West's Encyclopedia of American Law , NPR,  School Planning and Management,  Florida Bar News, Gerda and Kurt Klein Foundation, Jet Magazine, Razorfish, Inc. (NASDAQ: RAZF) (a corporation), Palm Beach Daily News, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, New York Times, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel,  Buffalo News, Salon -etc etc. As for scholarly sources: SPLC is cited in scholarly papers in refereed journals including: American Behavioral Scientist, Journal of Social Issues, Social Forces, The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, Political Geography,  The Urban Review, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Information & Communications Technology Law, Public Administration Review, The Sociological Quarterly, and  Justice Quarterly etc etc. Rjensen 18:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you believe that rather twisted bit of logic, then (since "Nazi" gets 8000+ hits) you must believe that Nazis are more reliable than the SPLC as a source.  The number of hits that you get when searching a group on Google News is orthogonal to whether that group is a reliable source.-Psychohistorian 19:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Twisted logic??? How nasty. Fact is that the leading scholarly journals and many newspapers and magazines cite the SPLJ reports as reliable. For an in-depth look at the issues better read the leading sociology journal's major article on the topic: "Hate Crime Reporting as a Successful Social Movement Outcome," by Rory McVeigh; Michael R. Welch; Thoroddur Bjarnason American Sociological Review, Vol. 68, No. 6. (Dec., 2003), pp. 843-867. online at JSTOR Rjensen 19:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pointing out that your logic is twisted isn't nasty.  Nasty is a personal attack like if I were to call you "stupid".  But what you have done is base your argument on an article which is inaccessible (it requires a JSTOR account).  I'll go to the library and look it up if you can assure me that you aren't waisting my time.  Tell me straight out that this article you are citing states "the leading scholarly journals and many newspapers and magazines routinely cite SPLC reports as conclusive evidence of which groups are hate groups."  If you can't do that and don't have a better sources, then you must be just making it up.-75.179.159.240 23:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: User 75.whatever can be assured that I read the entire Am Soc Review article and found it useful. The authors certainly found the SPLC data valuable and integrated it fully into their study. I also looked at citations from all the scholarly journals I listed above and each one uses data from SPLC and treats it as reliable.  If the scholars, the specialists and the editors say "reliable" then we can agree with them, or we can go along with the non-citations to non-scholarly stuff provided by non-nasty anonymous User 75.whatever Rjensen 23:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Quite right my acronyms got mixed up--my comments were in fact about CSPC, a thoroughly unreliable source for anything except its own opinion (& I voted keep on the article, by the way, as truly notable bigotry; so did most others.) SPLC is another matter entirely and a RS, keeping into account even its limitations--e.g. if we are NPOV we have to cite the "wrong" side as well. Thanks for the fix, Rjensen. DGG 22:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is the SPLC a reliable source on the identification of hate groups?

message: There has been some debate on the talk:Gillian McKeith page about the use of the British newspaper The Sun as a cited source. Some people are claiming that is is NOT a reliable source. Although The Sun is given to sensaionalism and stories about celebrities and cannot be given the epithet of a quality journal it does not trade in outright fabrication like The Daily Sport and some American supermarket tabloids and shouldn't be tarred with the same brush. I think a lack of understanding of the nature of the British newspaper industry can lead some people fail to recognise that The Sun can carry, a least on occasion, genuine and reliably sourced information. I have debated this with RadioKirk on User talk:RadioKirk. Jooler 19:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The main issue with the Stun is that whilst they do carry out quite reliable research, their representation of the outcomes of that research can be extremely biased.  I would not consider the Stun to be a reliable source with respect to the topic under discussion, merely reliable with respect to what the Stun says about the topic.ALR 22:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The specific instance here is a quote. Jooler 22:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is certainly reliable to say "According to The Sun: 'Quote'", but I would avoid using it as a source to back a conclusionary statement. Blueboar 01:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One problem with citing The Sun is that someone would have to subsequently check for retractions or apologies for misleading and false statements (should they occur, especially about people) and adjust the article accordingly. This has the further problem that The Sun tend to lend less weight to apologies (hiding them away in the middle pages, two square column inches max), so could go unnoticed. Bubba hotep 14:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Sun

message: On Bat Ye'or we have an example of commentary about her book being a quote from a well known historian on the cover of her book.  Can it be considered reliable if it is only one setence and by virtue of being on a book cover was chosen specifically to praise the author? gren グレン 02:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, remembering that "reliable" does not mean truthful, neutral or mundane.  If you want to contrast the quote, I'm sure you could find a book review that disparages the book as well. It's always better to have more citations, then fewer ones. Wjhonson 07:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should, however, be sourced as: "Book cover, quoting..." Any quotations on a book cover may be assumed to be taken out of context, and to represent, if at all possible, a more favorable view than the reviewer actually holds. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book Cover 

message: When claiming that the article's subject won an award, are the subject's Web site or press/promotional info appropriate as a citation? I am speaking in particular about Society of Seven. The article claims the subject won an award from a magazine but does not cite the magazine or explain when, and I have been unable to find a source. Another editor has cited the group's site and promotional information about one of their shows, but I feel neither is reliable in this instance because anyone can claim something like this. --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 00:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Their website is certainly reliable for the fact that they claim to have won an award.  I would discuss it with proper attribution... "According to their website, Society of Seven won an award from a magazine (although the website does not state details such as which magazine or when it was awarded).group's website where the claim is made" Blueboar 16:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation for award? 

message: Let’s take a step back for a moment from the disputations in Is the SPLC a reliable source on the identification of hate groups?.  Before we ask whether a group is a “reliable source”, we need to ask whether it is “partisan” — not so much regarding the issue it focuses on, but rather on its worldview or political orientation.  If we neglect to do this, we become subject to identifying those whose orientation we are sympathetic to as “reliable” and those opposed as “biased”.  Furthermore, partisan organizations tend, over time, to attract to their leadership individuals who are the most zealous in their orientation — to wit, the very people who have the hardest time being neutral.  That is why we consider academic sources (on average) to be more desirable than sources that are advocacy groups.  Academic standards call for more self-criticism than the latter, which tend to emphasize emotional engagement.
Can advocacy groups provide useful and reliable information?  Certainly, but they also have a greater inclination to emphasize the supportive and obscure the contradictory; sometimes their zealotry may even lead them to make mistakes.  This is why Wikipedia rightly calls for representing contentious issues from multiple viewpoints:  write it NPOV and let intelligent readers decide for themselves.  If we are to rely on advocacy sources, then to be fair we need to provide the criticisms of those whose partisanship lies with an opposing perspective since they are more likely to hold the other “accountable” (and vice versa).  Perhaps we should reserve the moniker “reliable sources” for neutral and academic sources, and identify partisan sources as “semi-reliable sources”.  In any case, when we use a partisan source, we should identify the nature of its partisan orientation.
Prejudice and hate-mongering are certainly not limited to any particular race, religion, political orientation, etc.; in fact, they seem to be a sad commonplace among all groups comprised of human beings.  In modern times it has finally become a serious accusation and one that stings, so it needs to be applied judiciously so as to not water it down through mis-use.  If a group only brands organizations that advocate a different perspective as members of a “hate group”, we need to be suspicious.  (Keep in mind that the Nazis branded Jews as what we would call a “hate group”.)  However, even if they so label a “fellow traveler” as such, caution is still required.  The intense mutual disparagement between the Stalinists and Trotskyites, for instance, was due to their being competitors. 
 
My recommendation regarding the use of advocacy organizations and leaders as sources for assigning a condemnatory label to another group — besides caution — is to identify them as such and to include criticisms of their identifications from opposing viewpoints.  My first preference would be to draw upon multiple, independent, neutral (i.e., non-advocacy) sources before Wikipedia presents any organization as accused of belonging under such a hateful label, unless (like the KKK) they don’t serious dispute their prejudice (albeit denying the “hate group” label, per se, because of its legal implications).  
In this regard, the SPLC should be considered a “semi-reliable” source.  It is decidedly an advocacy group, and therefore its listing of “hate groups” must be treated with care.  It is possible that some of those it so labels are on its list because those organizations disagree in their political or pursuasive orientation or perhaps even have simply incurred the personal ire of certain leaders of the former.  The criticisms identified by  Psychohistorian — and raised in the Wikipedia article on the SPLC — should not be summarily dismissed.  Harpers Magazine is hardly a bastion of neoconservatism, nor would the Montgomery Advertiser’s investigation have become a Pulitzer Prize finalist if it were mere tabloid journalism.  
Wikipedia also needs to be very careful in its description of “hate groups”.  For instance, I do not believe the current article makes a very clear distinction between groups that advocate violence and those that others characterize as hate groups.  The former are fairly easy to identify with relative assurance, while the latter are not.  At what point does the opposition of one group to an agenda by another (usually oppressed) group qualify them to be legitimately portrayed as a “hate group” — and how do we differentiate from mere “political” demonizing? 
Askari Mark (Talk) 16:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Users interested in this may also wish to review This RFC. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Before we ask whether a group is a “reliable source”, we need to ask whether it is “partisan” — not so much regarding the issue it focuses on, but rather on its worldview or political orientation.  If we neglect to do this, we become subject to identifying those whose orientation we are sympathetic to as “reliable” and those opposed as “biased”. 
This causes problems, because all sources in certain fields are partisan. For example all governments in representative democracies consist of members of political parties and all political parties by definition are partisan. Any NGO which takes a political position, like for example Amnesty International, are partisan. This is also true of those in international organisations like the United Nations who argue that the U.N. should have a larger budget. However most people would consider all these sources to be reliable. Further one has to look at "we" in the light of 
Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias article. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Systemic bias, while a problem in of itself, is most often a passive, circumstantial bias and its partisanship is derivative.  The partisan bias I am referring here to is the active sort that focuses on advocating single-issue or political position agendas.  Those participating in active partisanship are more likely to promote skewed information and less likely to recant from it than those whose passive “partisanship” derives mostly or entirely from a lack of exposure to information derived from other viewpoints or a broader range of sources.  To wit, the latter are “educatable” while the former “want to make their opinion yours” (or at least dominant). Askari Mark (Talk) 20:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliability of partisan and advocacy groups as sources 

message: Slim Virgin recently removed the link to the "Examples" page because that page has been marked as being "inactive".  Her edit was the correct thing to do (we shouldn't link to an inactive page) ... but why is the examples page marked as being inactive in the first place?  It is a sub-page of this quite active guideline - designed to give the reader further examples of reliablility and unreliability as they relate to specific subject matters and topics.  If this guideline is active, shouldn't any subpages related to it be active as well? Blueboar 13:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to see it remain active -- and a part of the guidelines. It's been very useful. TimidGuy 15:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only should it be active, but it should really be expanded and considered the framework for what's considered reliable.  I hadn't looked at this before, but this is almost exactly what I was considering proposing for subject-specific reliability. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Now would be a good time to propose this -- since everything is in flux and wp:rs is being merged into WP:ATT. Of course, there's been a lot of debate about how specific the guidelines should be, so there may be some resistance. Still, we really need guidance in this area. It's almost as if there are two Wikipedias -- and two audiences for the guidelines. The first comprises the simple, straight-forward articles, and simple guidelines that help users understand that they're supposed to use sources rather than write original material. The second comprises the contentious Wikipedia, and the audience in this case consists of editors desparate for direction in regard to what kinds of sources are acceptable. Seems like in the long run, simply stating, for example, that scientific studies should be peer-reviewed would save a lot of time now being spent on disputes. TimidGuy 16:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/examples]] 

message: There are multiple definitions of self-published in WP:ATT and WP:RS (plus the ones still at WP:V and WP:NOR). I created WP:SPS to point to one definition, and found that WP:SELFPUB points to another. I don't want to inject a merger of these definitions into this merge discussion now, but when the dust settles, we need to address this too. Dhaluza 02:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have notice this as well... it stems from having competing guidelines and proposed guidelines, and editors who change what they each say to fit their POV on the issue.  To my way of thinking we need to first make sure that WP:V and WP:NOR agree (as they are offical Policy)... and then make sure that WP:RS conforms to them (as this guideline is essentially a sub-page of those two policies).  Since WP:ATT is not yet offical, I am less worried if it says something different... when/if it becomes policy then we can and should conform to what it says. Blueboar 14:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiple definitions of Self-published

message: Since I do not know when WT:ATT will have calmed down enough to suggest change to that policy, I created an essay on this.  Please feel free to go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Self-published sources User:Armedblowfish/Self-published sources to suggest changes or whatever.  —  Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 20:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggested on Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Another_suggestion, so feel free to add your opinion, whatever it is.  That said, I am seriously considering just giving up for now.  —  Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 03:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Created essay 

message: On the Global warming controversy there has been some POV questions.  One thing that would help a sliver of those problems is help with an explanation about which of the following are reliable and unbiased:
* Mother Jones
* Exxon Secrets
* NewsMax
* World Net Daily
* Congressional Members' pages (for text not relating to that member's viewpoints)
This is a short list of sources on the page that are in constant conflict.  Assistance would be great. --  Tony of Race to the Right 14:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At the moment, no blogs are reliable, and that would include the ones you link to ... There is however, some consensus to say that there are two exceptions: 1) those of well known journalists posting what are essentially op-ed pieces in blog form on the web page of a sponsoring (and reliable) newspaper and 2) those of experts hosted on an accademic website (such as a departmental accademic website).  The argument for making these exceptions runs as follows: The instututions hosting the blog are essentially lending their reliability credentials to the blog... they are "backing" the blog.  The consensus is growing... but as yet not there are enough people who disagree with this argument that it will be a while before such sources are definitively considered reliable.  in any case, I do not see that your sources properly fit into these exceptions. Blueboar 20:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: RealClimate, a blog run by identifiable (and in several cases notable) academics, has been used as reference material for years in some climate related articles.  Dragons flight 22:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Blueboar has a different reading of the exceptions to me. Besides which, the factsheets at Exxon Secrets cite reliable sources, so cite those instead.  The rest I can see a case for using opinion, I'd be wary about facts, I would imagine at the very least you would have to make any facts sourced a direct quote, i.e. World News Daily said: "this". They all have a bias, but then so do most newspapers, but with facts it's working out if they have fact checked or not. Hiding Talk webcomic warrior 22:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: As it goes, I can get hits on Mother Jones, NewsMax and World Net Daily at google scholar, so other people are citing them.  That would lead me to think we can too. Hiding Talk webcomic warrior 22:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "...can get hits at google scholar..."; That simply means people are citing them for their own purposes, not that they are reliable sources, correct?  Scholarly texts on lobby groups would cite what would otherwise be unreliable sources, correct? --  Tony of Race to the Right 19:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I kind of agree with you Tony (shock). Also academics are terrible at being lazy and using poor secondary sources rather than the original. With Newsmax I think we need to distinguish between when they are acting as a newswire and their own editorial material too. --BozMo talk 19:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which of these are considered reliable sources 

message: I found a glaring oversight in the guideline, so I was WP:BOLD and fixed it. Government officials often self publish without editorial oversight, and are actually the best sources for this type of information. For example an elected official communicating with constituents through press releases, web postings, or blog entries. As long as they use official channels, the source is relatively certain.  
:I added the following passage (touch-up or discuss as necessary):
::Government officials self-publishing within the scope of their official duties, and using official government channels, but without editorial oversight, are also acceptable primary sources for reporting on the official acts of that person or group. 
--Dhaluza 22:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; I was thinking of putting something like that in myself. Chief executive officers such as presidents and governors self-publish by definition when they communicate through government channels, because no one has the authority to exercise editorial supervision. --Gerry Ashton 00:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  On the one hand, they sort of fall under the "expert" exception.  Also, the process by which they became officials could be considered a very limitted peer review process, although not as good as peer review applied to their actual works.  Also, note that many of them have aides, who may act as uncredited editors.  The main question is what they are experts on, but you seem to have chosen a suitably limitted answer to that.  —   Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 00:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An interesting aspect of the phrase "official government channels" occured to me. Many states require towns, cities, and other agencies to designate an official newspaper, and buy advertisements in those newspapers to post official notices about various topics (like the time and place of a town meeting). So that is a case where a newspaper would be an official government channel. --Gerry Ashton 07:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, but in this case, the newspaper is not exercising any editorial oversight, they just post it as-is. This bring up another good point, which is that open letters and other such items of advertising, while published in a RS are not to be used as a secondary source. Dhaluza 12:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You probably need to think about a distinction between elected officials speaking on behalf of government as a political entity and non elected professionals within government who maintain government as the administration of the state, since the two have very different motivations for communicating with the public.  Elected politicians have a political message to communicate whereas crown/ civil servants haven't (or at least shoudn't have).ALR 12:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we have a similar situation here in the US with NASA scientists' like James Hansen on global warming. But I don't see that the distinction makes a difference, because the limitation is "within the scope of their official duties" which should cover both cases, no? Dhaluza 02:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Government officials self-publishing 

message: Over on Barbara Schwarz, there's a dispute about whether autobiographical claims by the article's subject should be included in the article as background to the activities that make her noteworthy. Specifically, Schwarz makes the claim that she was born around 1956 in a submarine village beneath the Great Salt Lake in Utah, where she lived until she was kidnapped and taken into Germany at age 4 by Nazi agents. She says that she later married a prominent Scientologist, Mark Rathbun, whom she says was imprisoned on the false charge of having killed her. She cites these assertions as her reasons for pursuing a campaign of making a record-breaking number of requests under the United States' Freedom of Information Act, in pursuit of information from the US Government that would prove her claims. Her claims have been made in an article in the Salt Lake Tribune and in a self-written 92-part autobiography that she has posted to Usenet.
The disputants argue that the claims should not be mentioned because her "delusions [are] not supported by any RS whatsoever". While it's certainly true that the claims aren't believable, they're central to Schwarz's reasons for mounting her FOIA campaign in the first place, and omitting them will leave the article without any explanations for her activities. Are dubious autobiographical claims citable in these sort of circumstances? -- ChrisO 22:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and no... You can certainly use the Salt Lake Tribune article to back the fact that she makes these claims, as that is (I presume) a reliable newspaper.  Her 92 part autobiography posted on the usenet can not be used... since usenet posts are not considered reliable.  I would also point you in the direction of WP:FRINGE... if the only thing about Schwarz is that she is a looney who made lots of FOIA requests, I am not sure that she is really article worthy. Blueboar 00:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had some initial concerns about her notability as well, but the article has been developed considerably over the last few months and I think it now falls on the right side of the line. It certainly meets the notability criteria. As for Usenet posts, WP:V says that "self-published books, personal websites, Usenet postings and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources" (note my bolding) because "we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them". In this case, however, we definitely know that Schwarz has written the 92-part series, because she's acknowledged it plenty of times, including in the Salt Lake Tribune article. I note that Usenet is cited uncontroversially in other articles such as Linux, where a lot of the early development work was coordinated through Usenet. -- ChrisO 02:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember that policies and guidelines do not care how a source is being used in a particular article, or whether the source is beneficial to the article or not... all we care about is whether a given source or type of source is considered reliable.  Long standing consensus is that Usenet posts are not reliable.  So... according to this guideline, and the policy it is intended to augment, you should not cite to a usenet post.  It is that simple.  Now, if you feel that the article really NEEDS to have the citation in question, you can always invoke WP:IAR.  That's what that guideline is for.  Have fun. Blueboar 15:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotability of dubious autobiographical claims?

message: Historiography and nationalism are something we must address by stressing that modern, Western (free speech) and academic sources are preferable to old, politicaly motivated and non-academic. Particulary we should have a clear answer why Nazi, Soviet, imperial (Russian, German...) and such historiography should be approached with caution. I propose we add a section stressing that a scholar from country A writing about a matter concerning country A is less likely to be objective then scholar from country B (assuming country B was not significantly involved in affairs of country A), and that historiography becomes much less reliable when academia in a given country is subject to political censorship (totalitarian regimes being the most evident case). A tip of the iceberg of this is discussed in Marc Ferro, The Use and Abuse of History: Or How the Past Is Taught to Children, Routledge, 2003,  . -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think that these are already cautioned under "Partisan, corporate, institutional and religious sources"... and even to a degree under "Extremist sources".  Also, we have to remember that "old, politically motivated and non-academic" sources are not always unreliable as we define the term here. Their age and bias is not necessarily a reason to exclude them.  For example, you would have to discuss Nazi propaganda in an article on the Nazi Party.  While such propaganda is likely to be factually incorrect, the fact that it existed and said what they said is certainly reliable.  As for general "Historiography"... if such sources are used, the article can point out how more recent scholorship contradicts the old source.  It really all depends on how the source is being used in the article.  Finally, I would disagree with the idea that modern sources are automatically less politically motivated... perhaps the motivation is less extreme, or one that the majority of people agree with, but it does exist.  Blueboar 13:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those sections (which are relativly new) don't mention anything about state-enforced historiography. For example, under Nazi or Soviet (or under today's Chinese, North Korean, Cuban and such) regimes nothing that does not fit the party line gets published, what gets published is censored and may often coinain propaganda. We should make it clear that such sources are not reliable. Of course, they may be discussed in special circumstances, and they often may contain reliable research - but on average one should not equate works of let's say Mikhail Pokrovsky or Walter Frank with modern academics like Norman Davies or Marshall Poe. I have seen - and still see - arguments along the line 'so he worked and published in Soviet Union? But he worked at University of Kiev! He was a notable Soviet academic! That does make him unreliable in any way!' (and so on, with the Soviet academics being the most notoriously cited). This must be clearly addressed, or such arguments and unreliable references will continue to disrupt Wikipedia.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Certainly a lot of research published in totalitarian (or similar regimes) was of good quality. The problem is with 1) obvious POV (ex. Marxist views in communist research potrayed as 'the only way' instead of one of several possibilities) and 2) slighlty less obvious (especially for outsiders) bias designed to produce 'the right history' - ex. eliminations of references to Polish-Russian conflicts in Eastern Bloc historiography, designed to create an impression of 'eternal friendship' between members of the Bloc (going as far as to erase inconvinient facts, and insert false ones: ex - no 'Polish-Russian wars', no 'Soviet-German cooperation', or 'Polish officers escaped to Manchuria'...). We must stress then there are cases where such research is simply 'guilty until proven innocent'.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  14:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historiography, nationalism and reliability 

message: I have posted the following at the Village Pump, and on the talk pages for WP:V, WP:ATT and WP:NOR... as it relates to this guideline, I thought I would post it here as well:
:I gather that WP:ATT is now considered Policy... a merging of WP:V and WP:NOR.  I have no problem with this, but I do have a concern with how this is being done.  At the moment all three Policies are up and running... and this is going to lead to confusion and argument.  The three policies do not completely agree with each other (or to put it more exactly, they agree with each other in surface substance, but they differ in greatly in tone and emphysis).  This is especially noticable in the area of reliability of sources (especially Self-published sources - a frequent area of controversy) and how they are dealt with.  Look at them side by side: WP:V#Sources, WP:NOR#Sources, WP:ATT#Reliable_sources.  
:As a frequent contributer at WP:RS... a guideline that is supposed to help explain this particular aspect of Policy... I am seeing this conflict of tone writ large.  Many of the questions we are asked involve parsing Policy statements and intent.  Those of us at WP:RS agree that we need to conform what is said there to what is stated in Policy, but right now there is confusion as to which policy we should conform to.
:I would therefore request that, if WP:ATT is indeed confirmed as Policy, we redirect WP:V and WP:NOR to that page.  If not, please move WP:ATT back to "proposed" status until the community can reach consensus.  I don't care which, but we need clarity and not confusion.  I have posted this request at the Village Pump Policy Page as well.  Thank you. 
One thing that we should note... the tags that are on those pages, announcing the merger, are also claiming that this guideline will be demoted to a FAQ.  I would disagree with that proposal.  Assuming WP:ATT ends up being the active Policy page that determines what is said here, I still think there is a good reason to continue this page as a guideline.  Reliability is a very contentious issue, and it helps to have a guideline that will further explain what the Policy page is talking about, and give guidance to editors dealing with the more complex issues that are involved.  This page should certainly be conformed and edited to make sure that we are not in conflict with the intent of the guiding Policy (in this case WP:ATT) ... but I don't think we need to demote it from being a guideline. Blueboar 15:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict between Policies 

message: Please note that WP:V and WP:NOR have been merged and replaced by WP:ATT.  While I support the merger, I am not completely happy with how this was done.  It is apparently coming as a bit of a surprise to the larger community.  Given the importance of these two Policies the proposal should have been shouted from the roof tops.  So be it.
This does mean that we will have to make some adjustments here... pointing to WP:ATT as the overarching Policy being the first.  We should also make sure that what we say is inline with both the substance and the intent of WP:ATT (I think it is, but we do need to make sure). 
That said... I am disturbed by comments made by a few of the editors who worked on WP:ATT when I raised the issue of conflict (see above).  Apparently it is the intent there to do away with this guideline as well... replacing it with a FAQ.  The problem that I see is that doing this will be a step backwards.  In recent months we have worked hard to shift this guideline's tone and structure: from being an "on/off" hodgepodge of rules and exceptions into a true guideline - focussed on discribing the range of reliability and giving guidance to editors on how to determine where in that range a given citation falls.   This has not been reflected at WP:ATT.  Blueboar 18:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blueboar, I respect and appreciate the work that you and others have done on WP:RS. These guidelines are crucial to those who are involved in contentious articles because they help to maintain certain standards. Just yesterday a very experienced editor and admin suggested that Usenet newsgroup postings could be cited in an article. TimidGuy 18:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: For the record, I agree with Blueboar that WP:RS should remain a guideline.  —  Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 18:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOTE:  [[WP:V]] and [[WP:NOR]] have been replaced with [[WP:ATT]] 

message: Relgious dictionaries contain many mistakes, in my experience, because the religious scholar cannot be an expert on all religions. Religion movements, even the newer and smaller ones, are in most cases worlds on their own. Andries 19:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And your point is? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Andries is probably saying that religious dictionaries are not the most reliable sources.  Of course, a religious dictionary could have multiple scholars who edit it.  —  Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 20:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is my point Yes, they do have 5 editors who write entries for 200 cults. Clearly these entries can never be all of good quality. I have bad experience with such religous dictionaries. Andries 20:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: How a religious scholar can be an expert on more than >50 religious movements is beyond me. Andries 20:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do  not think that anyone is arguing that, Andries. Dictionaries and encyclopedias, both of which are tertiary sources, are based on secondary sources. In my research, I found that most, if not all Dictionaries of Religion, have footnotes and references to secondary sources, such as peer reviewed articles, books, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How does my addition contradict policy? Andries 21:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By placing your viewpoint about these sources in the guideline. Scholarly sources are regarded as the most reliable for Wikipedia articles (See WP:ATT#Reliable_sources), and your viewpoint about these scholars being experts or not in a specific religion is just your opinion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, of course, the right scholar in the right kind of publication. My edit emphasized that and that is in complete accordance with policy. Andries 21:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Also note that there is no point in  adding material to this guideline, as it is being superseded by WP:ATT and WP:ATT/FAQ ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Replacing this guideline has not been well-advertised or agreed upon. — Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 21:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  I know, but eventually we will get there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looking back at this dispute, I think it's a wonder we can all agree on the page enough to keep it as a guideline.  I really don't think we could get a strong enough consensus to promote parts of it to policy on anything but the most general statments.  —  Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 21:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Exactly. That is why there is an effort to replace this with WP:ATT/FAQ. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Being a FAQ attached to a policy is almost the same as being policy, isn't it?  —  Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 21:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, it is not. The idea is to make ATT/FAQ into a guideline. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's nice to know. Still, WP:RS provides extensive guidance, and combining all of that with other material would result in a rather large guideline FAQ. Also, I am not sure if RS is suitable to be explained only in question/answer format. — Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 22:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: RS does NOT provide "extensive guidance." It (a) repeats the policies, or (b) contains meaningless or trivially true waffle, or (c) contradicts itself and the policies. If there is any good guidance among all this, it certainly isn't "extensive." Seriously, the people who are defending this page need to get a grip, because it's causing a lot of confusion. It should never have been created in the first place. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Religious scholars are not reliable on all religions

message: The second sentence states "This page is a guideline, not a policy, and is mandatory only insofar as it repeats material from policy pages.", yet this is true of all guideline pages and similar qualifications are already stated in the large guideline tag right above it. Why is this necessary or proper for this page? —Centrx→talk • 18:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This page no longer represents consensus. That is why the disputed tag. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then revert it back to the last stable revision and the new changes can be proposed and considered on the talk page. What exactly is the problem with this guideline? Also, this doesn't address the original question that is the subject of this talk section: Why is there this further qualification on a page that is already tagged as "only" a guideline? —Centrx→talk • 20:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish there was a "last stable version", Centrx. There isn't. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: This page is messy, contradicts or re-invents policy in many areas, and has been the source of a lot of aggravation.  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is highly active page, but there have been weeklong periods in which there have been no edits, and much longer periods in which there have been no disputes. "Stable version" does not mean "Version you agree with"; if there are problems with the page, they should be discussed and fixed, they do not throw the status of the entire page into dispute. —Centrx→talk • 21:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There are two reasons that the second sentence was added... the first is that this particular guideline has (in the eyes of some) taken on the aspect of a pseudo-policy. Even though it is only a guideline (and always has been only a guideline), some feel that it is viewed as having the authority of a policy.  The second is that there is a movement to subsume this guideline into the new policy WP:ATT and its attendant FAQ.  Repeating and highlighting the fact that this is ONLY a guideline, can be seen as a way to weaken the arguments of those who wish to keep this as a guideline. Blueboar 20:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Jossi... please point out where this page contradicts and "re-invents" policy? Blueboar 20:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see that you have made a recent attempt to make it conform with policy, by referring to the current formulation of WP:ATT, that is great, Blueboar. But there is wording that it is confusing or not described in policy elsewhere (i.e. "Partisan, corporate, institutional and religious sources", or text such as "The reputation of the self-publisher is a guide to whether the material rises to the level of notability at all", the "Scholarly" section, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Of course we changed the article when WP:ATT became the guiding policy... this guideline was a sub-page of WP:V and WP:NOR... so when those were merged into ATT, this guideline had to reflect that merger. It now should be seen as a sub-page of ATT. As for the confusing wording and things not described in policy... do you feel that these contradict the policy? (and if so how?) Or are they simply things not discussed elsewhere?  (and if so, do you think they are wrong?)  Blueboar 21:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second sentence 

message: Didn't this guideline once spell out explicitly that Wikipedia articles themselves are not considered to be reliable sources? 
Am I mistaken? Or is this now addressed somewhere else, and if so, where?
(In another venue, someone has cited Wikipedia as if it were a reliable source, and I'd like to point out that Wikipedia itself does not accept Wikipedia as a reliable source... but can't find what to point to). Dpbsmith (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it did.... quite enphatically too.  Please see WP:ATT, which is the over-arching policy that controles this guideline now.  If it is not mentioned there, ask on the policy talk page and they can tell you why it was removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blueboar (talk • contribs) 21:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia articles as sources

message: It has been pointed out that nearly everything on this page is also covered in the policy for Attribution and/or its faq page. It has also been pointed out that we have so many policy/guideline pages that it gets confusing to new users. Hence, the intent is to double-check that this page has basically become redundant, and merge/redirect it into WP:ATT. Comments on this are welcome. >Radiant< 08:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this merge.  Among the ideas that have been expressed at WP:ATT is the idea of (eventually) changing the FAQ page from being a list of examples into a broader "advice" page discussing things like how to assess the reliablility of sources (focusing more on what IS reliable, and under what circumstances), the different ways a reliable source can be used (and misused), explaining statements of opinion vs. statements of fact, etc.  The hope is that such advice could eventually end up as a guideline.  I like this idea... It actually sounds a lot like what some of us were trying (unsuccessfully) to do here with the re-write.  Blueboar 16:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If "nearly everything" is included, could someone point out what the few things are that aren't included?  --Milo H Minderbinder 16:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: No one has been forthcoming with that, Milo. I would suggest we merge and fine tune ATT/FAQ as per Blueboar. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only things that I find discussed here that are not (yet) in ATT are the discussion of tertiary sources, and the section on convenience links.  I think the first should be added to ATT in some form, and the second works better in the FAQ.  Other than those, I don't see much difference. The big difference between ATT and this page is tone and emphysis.  After the recent re-write this guideline stressed more the fact that judging reliablility was not always an "on/off" thing (ie "this" is always reliable and "that" is always not reliable) ... we harp on the fact that there is often a range of reliability depending on how one wants to use a source.  This discussion, too, is more appropriate to discuss in a broader "advice page" type of FAQ or guideline than on a "rule based" guideline or policy such as this was (and ATT is). Blueboar 17:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge notice 

message: :bg:Уикипедия:Благонадеждни източници Thank you, --Vanka5 02:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The page is not protected. —Centrx→talk • 02:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to add Bulgarian interwiki 

message: Could we add a specific sentence or two about user-submitted content in general? It comes up a lot in discussions about online topics. Something like "User-submitted content has no editorial oversight and is not reliable- this includes wikis, weblogs, and user review websites". I think this would fit well under WP:RS#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet --Wafulz 02:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to know that this guideline is probably going to be merged into WP:ATT.  You really should raise this issue there.  Blueboar 13:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: User-submitted content

message: Is Urban Dictionary a reliable source? Should it never be used? Christopher Connor 10:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An interesting question... In some ways Urban Dictionary is like a wiki (which we consider unreliable) as it is compiled through user contributions.  However, suggested entries are reviewed and voted upon prior to publication... the question is if this review can be equated to a true peer review/fact check process.  My personal view is that it is a borderline case that falls just on the side of reliability... others may disagree.  Ask about this at WP:ATT. Blueboar 13:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Urban Dictionary reliable?

message: Grateful if people could express an opinion on mercator.net which is being used as a single source for criticism of The Economist, based on what appears to be an OpEd piece.
TIA
ALR 22:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ALR... ask at ATT. Blueboar 13:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mercator.net

message: May I cite partially ? TIAJPhG972001955 (talk) 02:48, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classified information [& unique] from an anonymous open source.