Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 6

message: Cited in the article Catholicism and Freemasonry... more on the Kadosh degree claims (see above) After we point out that the claim was dropped from the 1913 edition of the catholic encyclopedia, was added:  "...although it was made in the Arlington Catholic Herald in 1996." The cite is this: here It is another example of criticism through indirect citation.  It does not cite the Arlington Catholic Herald, but a web page that says it copies it ("courtesy of" this page0.  I have no idea if this is a true copy or not.  So is it a reliable source or not?Blueboar 03:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an instance (as usual) where reliability is a scale, not yes/no. Frankly, the Arlington Catholic Herald is less than excellent as a source on Freemasonry, although it is a primary document for the opinions of Catholics on Freemasonry; a copy of the article is worse, a second-hand copy through another website is much worse. Try inserting a description of the actual link into the article, and see if it is still fought for. Septentrionalis 20:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this reliable 

message: Can anyone give an example (hypothetical or otherwise) of information that Wikipedia would deem reliable but not verifiable?  Or does reliability always imply verifiability in this context? Precis 10:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you read the question a bit too fast, because I don't see how your link provides an example of information Wikipedia deems (by consensus) reliable but not verifiable. My personal observation is that information deemed reliable is necessarily deemed verifiable, but I'd be interested to see if there are examples to the contrary. As for motivation, I ask probing questions to better understand the wording.  But feel free to imagine whatever sinister motives may pop into your mind. Precis 12:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  lol, while from my view, information which is published to the general public is verifiable.  When there is a cost of copy associated with publication (print, film, DVD, tape) the publisher doesn't publish nonesense; when the medium is bits on a hard drive, on the internet, it is immediately verifiable.  The next threshold, reliability is not good all by itself because several organizations reliably copy and distribute information internal to their workings.  Such privately distibuted information is unpublished, but reliable to the organizaiton.  (Masons, Church of Scientology, CIA). Terryeo 16:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  does reliability imply verifiability? 

message: I have a real world problem. First the background. The term "swiftboating" is roughly defined on wikipedia as a partisan attack against critics of the Bush administration. However, on most conservative blogs, the term is generally defined as "exposing lies and deceit". I attempted to add this alternate definition to the Swift Boat Vets article, using blog citations, and was told that blogs are not RS. OK, so I worked with the other editor, and I found an alternate definition by Ted Sampley, and someone else selling T-shirts on Cafe Press with the alternate definition. The editor I was working with chose to use the Cafe Press link as a source, and compromised by adding the definition to the article. Now a third editor has removed the definition, citing WP:RS. This led to a mini edit-war, as I provided all of my sources, and the editor still insists that none of them comply with WP:RS. So my question is, how does one include a definition for a word that is widely used in the blogosphere, when all the sources are by definition, blogs? It seems that Wikipedia is lessened by the scrubbing of this information, simply because the sources do not meet an arbitrary WP guideline? The term "swiftboating" is used in two different ways, depending on your political alignment, but Wikipedia, because of its own rules, will only recognize one of them. How does one remove himself from the horns of this dilemma? Crockspot 20:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems to be clearly stated, Crockspot.  As I understand WP:NPOV, the idea is that the most widely published point of view gets presented.  In this one instance, it appears that one point of view is published and the other point of view is just below the threshold which Wikipedia calls "published" i.e. blogs and personal website? (or at least not a widely recognized publisher).  But I gotta respect that you state the situation clearly. Terryeo 04:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For an example of how terms in the blogosphere can be properly sourced, see Fisking.  C, as you use non-notable bloggers as sources, your case is very weak.  Moreover, looking over your edit history, I see that you refer to reversions of your edits as vandalism.  This shows a misunderstanding of WP:VAND, where the difference between vandalism and content disputes is clearly spelled out. Precis 13:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A dilemma re: blogs as sources

message: I objected to the UK SWP getting lumped in with white supremacists as "extremist," at the time the UK SWP website was promoting worker pensions, hardly an extremist position. They were removed but someone stuck them back in in the last few months, now as part of the "partisan websites" mini-section. Now the problem is more multifaceted, Aryan Nations and Stormfront.org are not political parties as far as I know, and this applies even if they have some group of five losers writing up flyers in their basements and claiming to be one. Hamas is a political party with a wing that conducts suicide bombings. Is it proper to lump UK SWP in with this motley crew? I don't think so. Another problem in my view is that the mini-section is really conflating "extremist" with "partisan." If you want to have a section on partisan sourcess, then sure put UK SWP in there along with the French leftist parties but also the UK's Labour and Conservative parties and the American Republicans and Democrats, and Greens worldwide and so on really. And then you can break off the extremist sources like white power groups and Al Qaeda and so forth somewhere else. DanielM 14:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The way you have stated your post, it sounds like you are saying that the text which contains the phrase which you titled this subsection with might or might not be a fair description and a good communication, but instead, your objection is to the use of a term "UK SWP" in a context next to some other terms which are more extermist in view ? Terryeo 17:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you, makes sense, now. Terryeo 19:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Aryan Nations, Hamas, and Socialist Worker Party as "Partisans"?

message: I have noticed, and participated in one of, two conflicts regarding whether blogs are reliable sources. These disputes seem to overlap in discussions over WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NOR. It seems to me, that there seems to be, a widespread, elitist refusal to accept any blog as reliable, regardless of who publishes, and I do mean publish, the blog.
The case I point to is a recent dispute at The Guardian. When I added criticism and cited three blogs, the content was removed and I was chastised for adding "unreliable sources."
The sources in question are the following:
* This post at AtlanticBlog.
** The writer: William Sjostrom, senior lecturer, teaching economics, at
Centre for Policy Studies National University of Ireland, has affiliate faculty status at the University of Haifa and Bar-Ilan University in Israel. Served on the editorial board of the International Journal of Maritime Economics. Seved on the steering committee of the Ports and Maritime Transport Group of the World Conference on Transport Research Society. Learned economics at the University of Washington and the University of Chicago, and has worked in the past at Northern Illinois University and the Port of Seattle. For his bio, see here.
* This post at Mideast Dispatch Archive.
** The writer: Tom Gross, former Jerusalem correspondent for the Sunday Telegraph of London and for the New York Daily News. In addition, he has written news reports, features, articles, editorials and reviews for a broad range of other publications. These include the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, the National Review (USA), the London Daily Telegraph, the New York Post, the London Evening Standard, the Spectator (UK), Ha’aretz (Tel Aviv), the Jerusalem Post, the Jerusalem Report, the Jewish Chronicle, Harper’s and Queen (London), Italian Elle (Milan) and Cosmopolitan magazine (London). He also worked as a staff writer and editor at the Jerusalem Post for two years. For his bio, see here.
* This post at Jihad Watch
** The writer: Robert Spencer, writer and researcher who has written six books, seven monographs, and well over a hundred articles about jihad and Islamic terrorism. His latest book is the New York Times bestseller The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) (Regnery). He is also the author of Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World's Fastest Growing Faith  (Encounter) and Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West (Regnery). He is coauthor, with Daniel Ali, of Inside Islam: A Guide for Catholics  (Ascension), and editor of the essay collection The Myth of Islamic Tolerance: How Islamic Law Treats Non-Muslims (Prometheus). His next book, The Truth About Muhammad, is coming October 9 from Regnery Publishing. For his bio, see here.
Despite the fact that all of these sources are clearly reliable, they are not allowed under the illogical rule of thumb that all blogs are bad. Interestingly, several users incompetently stated that blogs are unpublished. If that were the case, which it is not, one wonders why actual articles published by former writers at The Guardian were reverted under the pretext that they were "original research". While it is now clear that the few users in question who tried to peddle this nonsense were doing so out of malice, they seem to have convinced a few other users that their arguments werent baseless and they are acting in good faith. Any thoughts? (User:Tchadienne) 4.249.189.162 22:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Easy there, buddy, easy there.  Information on the internet whisks past at the speed of light.  While we can count on books and CDs to have the same information today as yesterdays, the internet is not as dependable.  Wikipedia policy is pointed toward becoming a solid source of reliable information. Terryeo 18:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Blogs and "professional" writing

message: This is an evolution of a discussion from Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Statement_of_Gerry_Ashton.27s_proposed_definition proposed by User:Gerry_Ashton:"To make available in documented form (e.g. paper, CD, web page) to the interested public without active restrictions (e.g. non-disclosure agreements), with the exception that non-free publishers may apply restrictions to ensure payment for a publication."--Fahrenheit451 23:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The number of editors involved in that discussion, that agree to a look for a narrow definition of "published", does not warrant a change in this or other guidelines and policies. Me and other editors assert is that there is no need to define what is already defined and widely accepted, and so far no one has been able to explain why there is a need for a definition that is different. All the discussions so far have been about finding a definition, and not about the need for a definition.  We have a dispute resolution process in which users can resolve content disputes when there is a dispute about a published source. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 02:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is already overloaded and time-consuming, by the way.  I filed an arbitration proceeding (recently accepted) against User:Ericsaindon2 to keep him from further messing up the Orange County articles.  Although it was a pleasure to get that situation under control, gathering the evidence for the arbitration took an hour which I could have spent making substantive contributions to the encyclopedia.  We need to keep the trivial disputes to a minimum and keep everyone focused on legitimate disputes like how to neutrally cover the Israel/Gaza mess (which I understand was just filed before the Arbitration Committee).  --Coolcaesar 03:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: We do not need narrow interpretations of these terms, just because there are some crackpots out there that abuse the system. In my experience, "Hecha la ley, hecha la trampa", (Spanish: "When you make a law, you have made a way to break it"). No matter how much policy you define and how narrowly you define it, there will always be these that will seek to bypass it. Human nature, I guess. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 04:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  lol ! Terryeo 15:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  en boca cerrada no entran moscas, in a closed mouth flies don't come in Terryeo 15:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the advantage of having an narrower definition is that it's easier to identify when someone is acting in bad faith (that is, trolling) by presenting evidence for their position that clearly doesn't fit that definition.  Then we can skip the hassle of arbitration and get them permanently banned right away.  --Coolcaesar 18:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Jossi is right, 'published' has been sufficiently defined at Wikipedia for a very long time; recent attempts here to redefine this and other terms are fatally flawed and will never pass muster and make into canon. Broad, flexible definitions are better. FeloniousMonk 04:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed definition of Publish

message: Is www.ifamericansknew.org considered a reliable source? --HResearcher 11:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The site is not attributable, there is no name or known organization taking responsibility for the site. A post office box is given as a contact point.  Thus, the site fails a first test of reliability, attributability.  Terryeo 23:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong.  See   Precis 23:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  TY, don't know how I missed that. Terryeo 07:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: My first impression is that I do not think it meets the criteria of WP:V that require reputable and reliable sources be used for factual information.  This means that I don't believe that statements in Wikipedia articles should be solely attributed to comments that are made on this site.  The website appears to be self-published and unedited by any party that is concerned about reliability (such as a publishing house or an known organization with an attorney providing guidance).  It is not clear who the author of the website is at all.  However, there are exceptions that can be made to the guideline of WP:RS, since it is merely a guideline and not a policy.  Also, there are exceptions to be made if the site is being used to reference a statement about the organization itself in an article about itself (which I doubt is happening in this particular case, but it is a notable exception).  Also, if the website is being used to show information that is readily available and verifiable from other sources, then it might be acceptable to be used as a convenience link to information that can't be found online elsewhere.  For example, if something is properly sourced to the "Bethlehem Times", but a link is provided to the exact same text that is conveniently online at this site, then most people think that is acceptable.  If there is reasonable doubt that the original text has been faithfully reproduced, then it should not be used at all, anywhere.  Vivaldi (talk) 11:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Might it be worth our while to write a guideline which would guide editors when they examine websites?  The website mentioned is a good example.  Do we have a guideline that guides an editor to sites of good repute and helps him recognize sites which are unuseable as secondary sources, of poor reliability? Terryeo 15:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: So Terryeo wants a website guideline written.  I wonder what websites he wants to discredit?--Fahrenheit451 04:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have politely asked several times to stay on purpose. This page is to discuss possible improvements to this guideine. Taking your personal disputes elsewhere would be highly appreciated. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 04:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  www.ifamericansknew.org 

message: how is this policy to be interpreted in the case of a national newspaper using anonymous/unattributed quotes?
Justforasecond 16:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The information in the newspaper is published.  It can be used. If the national newspaper is reliable, reputable, then it can be used as a secondary source in articles.  When quoting the anonymous quote, state it was an anonymous quote.  Quote the newspaper exactly and insert the reference. "quoted text"  National nNewspaper, Aug 3, 2004 article name by John Doe and then flush the reference out in a subsection tited References with a single  for all of the references. Terryeo 18:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Justforasecond 02:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  unattributed quotes in reliable sources 

message: I just noticed that an editor, who's been doing an admirable job of supplying sources for List of bisexual people, has been referencing quite a few of them to http://www.nndb.com . This is very convenient, because this database seems to include a simple entry on "sexual orientation" for everybody, e.g. Pat Califia: Sexual orientation: Bisexual, but on looking at the site I can find out very little about how they compile their information. They certainly don't cite sources. 
On the other hand, they don't seem to be a wiki, a forum, or an Urban Dictionary.
What do people know about the reliability of this site? I see our own article, NNDB, doesn't have much to say. "Readers may suggest additions or corrections which are later vetted by an NNDB staff member" but I couldn't actually find this on the site, and it's certainly not clear what the "vetting" process consists of. Dpbsmith (talk) 09:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exploring the site leads to nothing.  Absolutely no one is attributed.  Even "contact" doesn't lead to an email address.  It is a completely anonymous site, its content is completely unattributable.  It is less than a personal website.  It approaches a newsgroup where every editor doesn't even take a screen name.  As a Wikipedia source, it could at most be an "exterior link" or "further sites of interest". It certainly can not be used as a secondary source of information. Terryeo 22:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That website cannot be considered a reliable source for the purpose of this project. In addition, given that sexual orientation is frequently a contentious issue and particularlly in biographies of living people I would say reject that source. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 00:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed, it's not even a personal website, and certainly not a reliable source. Jayjg (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there some kind of template like [Better citation needed]? The List of bisexual people was in terrible shape and this editor has been working very hard at supplying references. They're not all from nndb by any means. I tend to think almost any reference is better than no reference at all, and rather than removing the nndb references or replacing them with the standard "citation needed" tag, I'd prefer to leave them in while indicating clearly that the source doesn't meet our guidelines. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there's , but it doesn't seem to be quite what you're asking for.  I threw together ; if you think this would be a good tool to have around, feel free to post it to Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes or wherever such things live.  Anville 17:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Much of NNDB is based on fan-submitted trivia, like much of IMDB. In the absence of other contradictory sources, it is often used as a reference for neutral information such as birthdates simply because it is online. It has unfortunately been the source of edit conflicts over some birthdays, and perhaps something about these sites should be mentioned on the policy page. Gimmetrow 19:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't meet most of the list of criterion for reliable - it isn't multiply checked, it isn't sources, the means by which the evidence is gathered isn't revealed, there is no effort at corroboration, it isn't reviewed by other news sources. In short, it is rumor and gossip. It might be a source for the existence of a rumor - for example "it is rumored that XYZ had a bisexual affair with ABC", but that is a far cry from asserting "XYZ is bisexual". Stirling Newberry 04:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is NNDB a reliable source? 

message: Now that Dpbsmith and I have thrown it together, would anyone object to mentioning  in this guideline?  It sticks the notation [better citation needed] into an article and should be used in cases like the NNDB concern mentioned above.  Anville 16:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Theres an easily followed logic to that.Terryeo 22:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New template 

message: Is a web site, or publication in general, an acceptable source as to what is it's stated goal ?
I ask this because of the Anarchopedia article, that has been nominated for deletion. So far, the article is a stub, and the only information in there that needs to be verified is it's stated goal.
Though I do not consider that anarchopedia is a reliable source for nearly any matter (or at least not one that complies with Wikipedia's standard) it seams obvious (to me) that there can't be a better source for it's own stated goal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cold Light (talk • contribs) 
:If there is no other reliable source about this subject, then this article may not be suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 18:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  sorry, but did not understand. Do you mean that "as there is no other reliable source about the goals" the article shoud be removed, or "as there are no other reliable source about anarchopedia ...". I mean to improve the article with other information from other sources, but before, i need to know if the sources it has are good enough to verify it's stated goal Cold Light 18:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think Jossi is saying that if the only source of information about the bats in John Smith's belfry is the hand typed flyer on the village lamp post, then an article about the bats in John Smith's belfry isn't appropriate for Wikipedia.  Which would imply that Anarchopedia, having no other publication about it could be nominated for deletion.  However, the article is about itself and its link, to itself, and the idea isn't badly presented and I would rather the article stand than be deleted. Terryeo 14:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The question was:"Is a web site, or publication in general, an acceptable source as to what is it's stated goal?"  The editor has restricted his question as to whether or not a particular source can be used as a reliable source for its own stated goal. WP:V would apply in this case. The simple answer is Yes.--Fahrenheit451 15:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stated Goal 

message: I'd like to take issue with one of the criteria for use of sources written by the article subject.  I'm working on Michael Ignatieff, and there's an editor there who has been calling alot of basic facts into question - including the existence of Mr. Ignatieff's spouse, and other basic biographical details.  These facts are best available in the biography at Ignatieff's website (he is an elected official), and yet we face the criterion: 
"relevant to the person's notability, or, if the material is self-published by a group or organisation, relevant to the notability of that group or organisation"
These basic biographical details are not controversial, but nor are they inherently relevant to his notability.  And yet we cannot reasonably exclude the man's biography from consideration as a source.  Might we change the policy wording here? -Joshuapaquin 02:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly his own web site is a reliable source for this sort of information. To pretend otherwise is sophistry. This page is intended as a guideline, not a straitjacket. - Jmabel | Talk 01:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wholehartedly agree.  So what is the value in this statement at all?  -Joshuapaquin 02:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  Yeah, the guy says he six foot tall and prefers peas over string beans, well, big deal.  Take his word for it.  On rare occassion there could possibly be some quibble regarding a controversial datum.  "Where was he at 8 PM on Wed, 2001" or something.  In those sorts of situations, then cited sources are important, but for general interest, human interest things, an elected offical's site reflects the degree of responsibility he means to serve his job with.  Certainly, for general interest information the man's website is plenty good enough. Were he a criminal, publishing from a jail cell, perhaps different standards would be applicable.  But a man going for election?  His website is reasonably good information. Terryeo 02:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Trivial attributions should be treated trivially, that is they don't require iron sources.  A resume is a sufficient source for "worked at company x", but it's not a sufficient source for "was abducted by aliens and became the Emperor of Xenu".  For that you should cite the Washington Post article. Wjhonson 03:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Published by subject - relevant to notability? 

message: Is AHBL considered a reliable source? --HResearcher 15:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a bit difficult to answer that without knowing the context of how you wish to use it... In general terms, just looking at the site, I would say it is reliable ... at least as a primary source on the organization itself and what it claims.  It really does depends on what you are trying to say in the article.  To be on the safe side, I would make sure to attribute statements in the article text (by saying "According to the web site AHBL.org...") as well as simply adding a citation... ie, make it clear who is making any claims you wish to include. Blueboar 15:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The website is a business' website.  The business maintains 2 offices, tells of its affiliations, how long it has been in business, etc.  I would say, therefore, the quality of the website included the elements of attribution, legal responsibility and so on that would allow it to be used as a secondary source of information in an article. Terryeo 03:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is being used as a source for negative material on a biography of a living person: Barbara Schwarz. --HResearcher 08:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AHBL.ORG 

message: would this be considered a reliable source?  http://berkeleyinthe70s.homestead.com/
it was written by someone that "was there" and is probably the most detailed source on berkeley, california 1970's politics available.
Justforasecond 15:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an interesting read.  It is published and verifiable (my opinion).  However it would appear to be a personal webpage.  The bottom of the page says, Questions, Complaints, Corrections, Suggestions, or Comments?  E-mail me at: davidmundstock@msn.com. An article about "davidmundstock@msn.com" could use that information but an article about Berkley could not.  Because "personal websites can not be used as secondary sources".  (my opinion). Terryeo 16:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The author is a relatively well known local character in Berkeley. It could certainly be cited as "according to David Mundstock". It has been linked to by The Berkeley Historical Society and other work by the same author has been linked to bey commercial sites as About.com. There are personal web sites and personal web sites. Check who has linked to a web site to determine the level of credibility. Sites without links from reliable sources, are probably not reliable enough to be used. Sites with lots of reliable citations, probably have met the test of reliabilty, because they are treated as reliable. Note that use by wikipedia and its mirrors wouldn't count, but use by publications certainly would. Stirling Newberry 04:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Note: Web links are a subjective assessment of merit or interest. Inclusion does not imply endorsement by the Berkeley Historical Society. Links are updated or added frequently. Send comments, corrections, or suggestions for additional links to Web editor Nelly Coplan." That would imply that they might not look at each link they add that thoroughly. On the other hand, it might just be a disclaimer to cover them if they make a mistake. Being linked to from a few other reliable/respected websites would help. Saying "according to David Mundstock" would help, but there is still the concern of whether or not he is in fact David Mundstock. But hopefully, if the real David Mundstock was an expert on Berkeley, but was not the creator of the website, he would notice and tell the Berkeley Historical Society. (Pseudonyms are okay - stealing someone else's name isn't.) WP:RS#Self-published_sources discusses this. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 12:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  reliable? 

message: Obtaining a patent requires a long and expensive examination process.  Further,  there is no point in patenting anything that doesn't work and there are all sort of legal penalties enforcing veracity in patent applications.  All these make the published patent literature a pretty reliable source.   Certainly at least as reliable as the published scientific literature.   Also,  many commmercially viable developments appear in the patent literature long befor the scinetific or popular literature. I suggest patents be incorporated formally as "Reliable sources". Pproctor 06:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay with me, but I can come to you in order to translate them? heh. Terryeo 23:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Even though some junk slips through the examination process, the process is certainly as rigorous, or more so, that many publications that would be considered reliable for Wikipedia purposes. However, I'd much rather rely on an article in Science than a patent. --Gerry Ashton 00:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I am OK with this as long as the texts (and possibly images) of such patents are verifiable, as in the United States Patent and Trademark Office at http://www.uspto.gov/ ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur.  Patents are essentially privately composed documents that undergo a huge amount of scrutiny and editing (similar to peer review) before they are approved by a government official and published.  Although some junk does get through, most patents are reliable.  --Coolcaesar 06:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, someone from a pretty large international electronics company (no names here) admitted to me that with his semiconductor technology, it's pretty easy to get a patent because it's sufficient to show they might work, not that they actually do work reliably in application. Basically, if it looks like it works a couple of times, you can patent it. There's scores of patents that rot in drawers because while they establish proof of principle, they don't really show that it would make sense to use the patented technology. So no, I would definitely not say that patents are as reliable as scientific literature. As reliable as SOME scientific literature, sure. But I recommended rejection of a manuscript submitted to a scientific journal myself because the method didn't live up to the promises of the author with positive results not crossing the threshold he established himself and significant controls missing. With parts of the results, he might have submitted a patent application, but for a scientific publication, I didn't find the method to be publishable in this shape -and the second reviewer agreed with me and the manuscript was consequentially rejected. --OliverH 11:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Patents are reviewed mostly for originality.  Inventions certainly don't have to work to be patented.  A patent is not a reliable source for anything other than documenting what the inventor claimed and when. --Ronz 00:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know exactly what the patent examiners look for when granting a patent, but I have personal experience with several patents that were applied for on the basis of computer simulations with software similar to SPICE, without having been built at the time of the application. I don't recall whether they had been built by the time the patent was approved, but there was no process for notifying the patent office that they had been built. As for OliverH's comparison of scientific literature with patents, remember there are sources that are less reliable than scientific literature and yet acceptable for Wikipedia. --Gerry Ashton 01:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Patent literature as a reliable source

message: I am having a debate at Catholicism and Freemasonry.  It relates to the section entitled "Non-Catholic discouragement of Freemasonry" that says: 
*A number of Protestant and Eastern Orthodox denominations discourage their congregants from joining Masonic lodges, although this differs in intensity according to the denomination. Churches that, in some form or other, discourage membership of Freemasons include:
This is followed by a long bullet point list of various denominations.  This in itself is not the problem... the problem is in the verification.  In quite a few cases, the citations are to articles and websites that have no connection to the denomination they are being used to support.  For example, the Church of England is listed, but the citation is to the website of an Australian evangelical Church that quotes a statement from the C of E out of context. 
The debate is this:  Can an article or website tied to Church X be used as verification to say that Church Y says something about Freemasonry.  My contention is that in this case you should either find a statement directly from Church Y, or you need to attribute the statement to Church X.  The other editor says the citations are OK.  Comments?  
Please pop over to the article, take a look at the section, take a look at the sources and comment. Blueboar 18:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Or if you can't quote official church policy, at least find a reasonably distanced and neutral statement about that church, not one from another denomination or religion, or other source that has a fair likelihood of being biased against denomination X. --Svartalf 20:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC 

message: Does H2G2's Edited Guide count as a wiki for the purposes of Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Bulletin boards, wikis and posts to Usenet? Could use some clarification on that. Captainktainer * Talk 00:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  H2G2? 

message: At what point does a website change from being a personal website to an organizational website?  In this case I am talking about "Personal Ministry" and "Church" websites.  Does the website of a "church" consisting of five people and a minister count as a "Personal" site (which would not be reliable under WP:RS), or is it an "Organizational" site (which is somewhat reliable, at least as to statements of the Church's own beliefs)?  And where do you draw the line between these two categories?  How big does a Church have to be to have its website be "organizational"?  This is the site that raises the question... It looks to be a small evangelical church, but we are not sure how big it is and thus how WP:RS relates to citing something said on the website. Blueboar 18:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be hard to set a number, you would always have arguement and exceptions. I'm not sure there is an easy answer for this one. --Crossmr 18:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that in situations where the size or importance of the organization is not clear from its own site, the safer route would be to exclude the organization from Wikipedia until other verifiable sources become available.  For example, if a charismatic minister fresh out of theology school founded his own church, which then became a megachurch within five years, and started getting extensive press coverage, then we could cite the press coverage to show that the new church is important and notable.  But we need to avoid relying solely on the Web sites of very small organizations as the primary source about them, or else Wikipedia will become Cultipedia!  --Coolcaesar 19:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which makes sense, but we also have to avoid assuming bad faith about people and setting up a standard that implies that everyone is lying about themselves and no one is to be trusted. Unless an organization or individual has a history of misleading people or making false statements, we probably shouldn't just assume the information they provide is unreliable.--Crossmr 19:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Often mentioned here on the discussion page, but never spelled out explicity on the article page are the elements which would graduate a website from "unreliable" to "reliable".  Since all websites may be considered published (I think) and verifiable (I think) then the last remaining element would be "Reliable" (I think).  If the Guideline could present the elements which together compose reliable, it could be useful.  "Legal responsibility" would be one.  "Fact checking by experts" might be another.  "A motiviation toward being reliable" (such as Ford Motor Company serving their stockholders) yet another. Terryeo 20:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The fact checking by experts sounds good, but what procedures are used for fact checking and do these procedures ensure that the purported facts are true? What criteria would establish expertise? What criteria would comprise legal responsibility?  A motivation toward being reliable is very dicey:  Corporations have been known to mislead stockholders, so Terryeo's example is shaky.--Fahrenheit451 23:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If my statement communicates something to you, then by all means come up with an example which is never "shaky".  I will continue to maintain that corporations, generally, mean to inform their stockholders rather than to mislead their stockholders.  When they mislead their stockholders they become subject to applicable laws which punish the people involved in the crime.  That action is unlawful.  Rather than to suspect every corperation of unlawful conduct and thus eliminate altogether every corperation from being used as a source of information because they are "shaky" because in the past a handful have been proven to have broken the law and misled their stockholders, I am suggesting normal, good faith.  Thus, I suggest that Ford Motor Company has a motivation to serve their stockholders, presenting good information on their site.  Terryeo 11:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Threshold for "Personal website" 

message: On United Kingdom Special Forces I requested a citation for the structure of the Special Air Service Regiment, ie one regular regiment and two territorial regiments.  This has been presented as a reference, although it doesnt actually satisfy the citation request it does state the two TA regiments, elsewhere on the site it highlights the regular regiment so overall the site answers the question although the reader has to do some work.  That's about the only accurate bit on the page and whilst I realise that WP requires verifiability, not accuracy, I'm loathe to accept it.  It strikes me that there is no independent refereeing of the content, particularly that which is inherently unverifiable in any case, being Special Forces related.  TIA.ALR 07:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if SOC.com can be called reliable... I can find no indication of who runs the site, so it probably sould be considered a "personal website".  Do we know if it is run by an expert in the field, or just by some fan of weapons and special ops? If the site gets a significant portion of other facts wrong, I would say you should err on the side of it being unreliable.  If it is simply a matter of difference of oppinion in interpreting accepted facts, then you might allow it, but with attribution. Blueboar 13:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: To me it looks like a partisan website. So you could cite it for a) information about itself (if you were writing about SpecialOperations.com) or b) the opinions on the website (stated with attribution as opinions, not facts). If there was something significant on there, you could state it with attribution, but if it's really worth writing about, a more reliable source will probably have done so. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 17:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The website offers up 2 email addresses, one to webmaster of that site and another to an individual.  You might email both and ask them about their source of information, that might lead you to the citation you seek. Terryeo 23:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That would help - of course there's the question of writing the email in the way least likely to offend them. ("Wikipedia doesn't consider your site a reliable source, could you tell us where you got X information?" isn't very nice. "I'm a researcher, and I was interested in X that you mentioned on your website, and I was wondering if you could tell me where you got that information so I could learn more," sounds better.) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 00:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review request 

message: (NB:This gets quite long, but for the clarity of future readers, please make any comments at the end)
Over on WP:NOR, there has been a quite heated debate over the use of primary sources. In attempt to be definative about the matter, I wrote quite a long post on the matter. What follows are my thoughts on the use of primary sources, and an attempt to define how a primary source can and cannot be used:
----
There is often some confusion over what the primary source for a subject is. For example, when referencing a song, I have seen people attempting to use YouTube as a reference. However this is not the correct reference - the recording of the song itself that is depicted in the sample is the reference. If a politician makes a speach, it is the speach that is the reference, not the politician (although the speach is a work by the politician). The original painting is the reference for the painting, not a photograph of it. However the photograph of the painting is a reference for the photographic work of the photographer.
This confusion continues into the realm of secondary sources. here, however, it gets more difficult as we have to consider the purpose that a reference is being used for. For example, let us return to that photograph of a painting. it certainly does class as a secondary source for the existance of the painting - for the photographer has documented it. However it may not be used as a secondary source for the evaluation of the painting, as the photograph makes no attempt to do this. It is interesting to note that when an expert evaluates something, they become a secondary source on something, but also a primary source for their evaluation.
Finally, come come onto the crux of the matter. In my opinion, based on WP:VERIFY, WP:RS and WP:NOT (the intent of, rather):
* Primary sources may be used for referencing:
*# That a statement was made or something does exist within the reference. For example, that...
*#* ...a book contains a character
*#* ...a recipe contains an ingredient
*#* ...within a speech, a politican said the quote "Education, Education, Education"
*# That something exists within a work that can be determined by observation not analysis and is entirely non-contentious. This must be something that can be determined through casual observation. For example, that...
*#* ...A painting contains the colour blue (this is not definate existance, as colour is to an exent subjective)
*#* ...A note was hit within a song (this requires identification of the note, but in clear cases there is no debate over this)
*#* ...A person within a photograph has red hair
*#* ...Within a song, the chorus is sung significantly louder than the verses
*#* ...A politican said "Education" many times within a speech
*#* ...A politican said "Education" more than "Healthcare", when it is casually observable that only a single refernce to "healthcare" was made in a speach about school reforms.
*# With respect to statements by people, that they hold an opinion
* Primary sources may not be used for referencing:
*# That something exists within a work that can be determined by observation not analysis, but there is any reasonable doubt over the observation. For example, that...
*#* ...A note was hit within a song, but it is unclear which of two notes it is
*#* ...A person in a photograph has black hair, but they could just as easily have dark brown or purple hair
*#* ...A shape within an abstract painting represents a house (by definition in this case, the shape is abstract)
*#* ...A person within a video is running slowly rather than jogging
*# That a non-trival count of something exists within a reference. By non-trivial, I refer to both the ease of counting and the number to count. For example...
*#* ...A politican said "Education" exactly 12 times within a speech. Given that a speach normally features more than just a single word, it is hard to casually count the use of a specific word (due to the separation between instances), making this non-trivial.
*#* ...Noting that a painting has 11 hot-air ballons depicted is reasonable, however if the number was significantly higher it would not be (as counting would then become non-trivial)
*# That any element within a work is, on a non-trivial level, bigger, quieter, higher, than any other element within the work. Such a non-trvial statement implies a prolonged analysis quite different from allowable casual observation. For example, that...
*#* ...The highest note reached within a recording of a song was E6. This implies a comparison between all the notes within a song, which is clearly a major undertaking
*#* ...Within a painting, the hot-air ballon 5cm from the left hand edge and 37cm down from the top is the smallest. If a short description cannot be used to locate something, there is a strong possibility that it was a non-trivial venture to find it and it is not casually observable
*#* ...A speaker said "Education" more than "Healthcare" witin a speech about education and healthcare reforms (hence featuring both words regularly)
*# That a narative is predominantly of a certain type. For example, that...
*#* ...A character in a book is 'surly' or 'brash', but no third-person description of the character exists describing them as this.
----
At this point, I ran out of steam, and hence decided to stop. The key idea with the above is to allow trivial observation of primary sources to be used as a reference. Whilst this is not ideal, it is often the case that trivial details, such as the a note reached by a singer or the colour of someone's hair, are not actually explicitly detailed by a secondary source, as they consider these things to be implicit within the primary source. LinaMishima 19:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lina take a breath ;).  In general I agree with you on the notions of "observation not analysis" and on the notions of "trivial / non-trivial".  However I vehemently object (after coffee) with your statement that a direct observation must be "non-contentious".  If a primary source says "Bush is a wimp" then we can certainly quote that source wherever appropriate, for example on Bush's own page, the author's page, the source's page, a page about what this source thought of various presidents, etc.  To attempt to restrict primary source quotations to only what is non-contentious, is to neuter them.  I'm sure you didn't mean to do that. Wjhonson 19:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think Lisa's guidelines forbid that.  If you could find the primary source, you could say "Bob Dole once remarked that 'Phil Graham is like a cockroach.  You can step on him and step on him, but you just can't squish him'", but you couldn't say "Phil Graham is like a cockroach Bob Dole, Observations on Phil Graham, 08-18-96." TheronJ 19:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: By non-contentious, I did not mean the material being observed but rather the observation itself. No-one can argue that if a politian insults someone on the record, that they have insulted someone. However where an observation can be reasonably questioned, such as if the speech was mumbled, this cannot be used as a reference. Finding a sensible wording for this is hard. LinaMishima 01:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course, what constitutes trivial analysis depends on the form of the primary source. If it is on-line text, it is trivial to count how many times a word or phrase occurs. --Gerry Ashton 21:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Automated processing would create a new secondary reference, which should instead be used. Trivial should really mean what can be casually done by a human with little thought. But yes, a good point non-the-less. LinaMishima 01:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lina it's a slippery slope to say that if someone "reasonably questions" a primary source on an issue that they view as "contentious" that that is enough to disqualify it from being used here.  I think that the standard to use here is more regarding the *who* who is speaking, rather than the *what* they say. Wjhonson 02:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Also I agree that what they said is what they said, but I truly think Lina was trying to get at the issue of preventing contentious things from being said.  It is the content of the quote that is contentious.  Wikeditors are always prevented from expressing their own point-of-view so that is a non-starter.  So without that, there is no reason to limit contentious quotes. Wjhonson 02:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that people are repeatedly failing to understand my point. Contentious material have never been an issue, and nothing I have written says otherwise. Contention over what is or is not contained within the material is a problem, however. the first is with respect to the material itself, the second is with respect to the observation of the material. Take, for example, the image on the right. It is clearly not Contentious material (unless you have a question over the existance of cats). However in observing the image, I could say that it depicts a cat stretching. Another person may contest this, and suggest the cat is play-fighting. Clearly, the issue of what is depicted is Contentious, whilst the content is not. Does this help you understand? LinaMishima 03:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But that point isn't relevant.  You, the wikeditor cannot state "this is a funny cat" or "this is a pretty cat" or any other evaluation of the cat.  You could state "here is a picture of a cat".  Any opinion, evaluation, etc by a wikeditor is invalid for wikinclusion.  That is why I failed to see your point.  I believe you are suggesting that we can post our own opinions or observations into the articles and that's just not so.  We report what other primary and secondary sources have stated, and we can make simple inferences, but we cannot make judgements of the material in our own words.  We can however summarize judgemental works of others, "He claimed to be a very important person, however John Brown, noted psychologist, stated in his own work that 'this man is loony'".  In this example, I am not added any of my own opinion or evaluation, I am stating what the primary and secondary sources state themselves. Wjhonson 07:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It appeared to me to be the point you were arguing. In most cases, what you say is entirely and utterly correct. However go up and read the examples for can-1 and not-3 again. These examples attempt to deal with the case of trivial knowledge within the source that secondary commentator may often assume as known facts, and hence a secondary reference for these does not exist. An example of this can be easily formed. The following word is blue: Word. As long as I've got the hex code correct, this is obviously the case, and I'm sure all observers would agree this is a fact, not an observation - even though we have had to observe this and determine ourselves if the colour matches the definition of 'blue'. The following word is red: Word. This statement, however, will probably be contested, since magenta, as most people refer to this hue as, is often seen as pink or purple, not red. Obviously, this is a trivial problem when html is involved, as you can get the hex code and answer it that way. But for books, paintings, photographs, etc this is a valid point. Much like hair or eye colour. I am currently involved in a debate over sourcing for a catagory, and although it turns out notes themselves are not an applicable means to test for inclusion, editors have been wanting to reference the note a singer reaches within a recording. However finding a reference for this is next to impossible, as secondary sources consider notes to be an obvious and un-notable aspect on the whole. Due to the human nature of most secondary sources, there will always be things that they choose to not cover as they are firm enough in their conviction that everybody knows it. LinaMishima 13:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, if we quote too much, we cross over into the realm of copyright violations. Sourcing is good, but unless its a freely-licensed work compatible with the GFDL, we do need to be vaguely original. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 17:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we are using a non-fiction work we can quote 500 to 1000 words with no copyright problems. the issue is: do we damage the sale value of the quoted work. That is unlikely (unless--unless it is a brand-new newsworthy story.) Rjensen 17:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  See Wikipedia:Fair_use#Text. Also, it's my understanding of fair use that it's generally more fair use if you provide your own commentary (especially for some types of images). Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 17:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Rjensen that exact quotes never violate copyright fair use (up to 500 words say), and I don't see any value in the phrase "more fair". When in doubt, quote exactly.  When challenged, quote exactly.  Instead of getting in an edit war about whether cats are smaller than dogs, quote your source, with a citation and be done with it.  The other side can then quote their source with a citation.  If they can't provide a citation then the sourced side has the more useable information. Wjhonson 16:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't have a problem with a limitted number of quotes, but if we fill an article with quotes because we are afraid to paraphrase or summarize, we could raise questions about copyright. I guess I'm not really sure which Rjensen is suggesting. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 21:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Primary sources...