Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 1

message: Todo:
* Fix internal links (done)
* Write "Common knowledge" section (done)
* Write "Science" section (done)
(I have specific ideas for the latter two; the first, I or someone else will just need to RTFM. -- Beland 08:43, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good wark, Beland! JFW | T@lk 01:21, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial comments

message: Another aspect of reliability of sources, that is their availability, started in a new section on the page;
the section What to do when a reference link "goes dead" imported from wikipedia:cite sources, seems more on its place here than in that style guideline.
The corresponding section on the talk page of that guideline read:
=== Dead link details ===
Perhaps much of the details at Wikipedia:Cite_sources#What_to_do_when_a_reference_link_.22goes_dead.22 should be in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links), Wikipedia:External links or Wikipedia:Footnotes.  The summary in this article should kindly remind DON'T DELETE DEAD LINKS and point at the details of restoration methods.  (SEWilco 04:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That material is in WP:CITE. There's no need to repeat it here, and the English was hard to understand in places. WP:CITE is about when to use links and where to put them. This is about quality of sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Availability/stability of sources 

message: Perhaps much of the details at Wikipedia:Cite_sources#What_to_do_when_a_reference_link_.22goes_dead.22 should be in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links), Wikipedia:External links or Wikipedia:Footnotes.  The summary in this article should kindly remind DON'T DELETE DEAD LINKS and point at the details of restoration methods.  (SEWilco 04:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That material is in WP:CITE. There's no need to repeat it here, and the English was hard to understand in places. WP:CITE is about when to use links and where to put them. This is about quality of sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link details 

message: In theory, the policy of quoting reliable sources makes sense. As the policy so eloquently states, you don't rely on the advice of a plumber for dentistry. However, the definition of a reliable source is often in the hands of the rich, the powerful and the well-educated. We take it for granted that scholars are more objective than used car sellers, that teachers know more than students, that the young know more than the old (or is it the other way round?)
You see the problem?
Are we taking it for granted that the 'experts' have the authority? Would that the real world was so simple and straightforward.
Take this example. Once, a scholar made a translation of the New Testament that was roundly condemned by some of the most learned scholars of the day. In fact, he was accused of wilfully mistranslating the holy text. He was finally captured by church authorities, strangled and burnt at the stake. His translations were bought up by the clergy and destroyed. 
Yet that man was William Tyndale. His translation of the Bible is acknowledged to be pivotal in setting the standard for later translations. Some of his translation choices that were so contentious at that time are now accepted by all.
Or, let's take a contemporary example. The policy as it stands says that Hamas should never be relied on. Really? Is this plain commonsense or is it evidence of a particular world view? 
Michael Glass 10:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree with much of the above, but I do wonder about the mention of Stormfront, Hamas, etc. as essentially uncitable on anything but their own opinions. Wouldn't it be OK to cite them, for example, on the death date of one of their own members? -- Jmabel | Talk 03:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Groups like Stormfront may be used as primary sources about themselves, just not as secondary sources about anyone else, and even when using them as sources about themselves, it has to be done with caution. We don't repeat every wonderful thing they might choose to describe themselves as, for instance, even if we were to attribute it. The date one of their members died could be said to be about them, so I wouldn't see a problem with using them as a source for that. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Rather than a binary "reliable" vs. "unreliable", perhaps it would be better to think of sources in a spectrum, where each individual source has other sources that are "more reliable" or "less reliable. For example, this "a general ranking of sources, starting with the most desirable". (Perhaps there's a better illustration of the idea that "conventional experts aren't always right" -- such as those Guglielmo Marconi proved wrong, or "There is little doubt that the most significant event affecting energy is the advent of nuclear power ... a few decades hence, energy may be free -- just like the unmetered air...." -- John von Neumann, scientist and member of the Atomic Energy Commission, 1955.) --DavidCary 22:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What is a ''reliable'' source?

message: There's a proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#References_title_misread_as_non-web_External_links to change the References header to "Sources", and External links to "Further reading". So far, the proposal has been accepted by all the editors on the page, but because Wikipedia:Verifiability is a policy page, I'm putting it out for further discussion before changing it.
The reason for the proposal is that using "References" and "External links" is confusing. Sources are supposed to be listed under References, and any further reading is listed under Further reading or External links. But many editors think that any external links, whether used as sources or not, should go under External links, so then they list any material that isn't online, like books, under References, even if not used as a source. To cut through all this confusion, the proposal is to change the headers to Sources and Further reading, which are self-explanatory, and don't make the online/offline distinction. Comments would be welcomed. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: References/external links name-change proposal

message: An RfC has been opened recently concerning an editor who has spread fringe theories and original research over a wide array of articles (>100) making clever use of cross- and self-referencing, thus making his contributions looking reliably sourced and verifiable to editors who assume good faith. Finding a solution to this problem is of imminent importance to Wikipedia's future reliability and verifiability. Please weigh in at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Roylee. — mark ✎ 14:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important RfC: please weigh in 

message: One of the very last headlines is don't be lazy. This is an inappropriate exhortation in Wikipedia. It implies that editors have a duty to expend a certain effort on Wikipedia and that some may not fulfill this duty. This assumption is not correct. Any person chooses completely feerly how much time and effort she donates to Wikipedia. The instructions and rules can only concern how this work is done. --Etxrge 08:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see this as only one step removed from "first, do no harm". -- Jmabel | Talk 20:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Don't be lazy

message: What about the case of two authors who wrote published books on a certain subject that they now vehemently reject on their respective homepages. Can I cite the book, but not their homepages on which they give reasons for the rejections of their books? See Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba#Abuse_of_referenced_links Andries 22:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What about a book now rejected by the authors on their homepages?

message: Someone recently pointed me to Wikibooks:errata. Sounds like something that may be of interest to many people who watch this page. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikibooks:errata 

message: One thing that has come up a couple of times is people citing "orphan" scientific papers (that is, ones that have never been cited anywhere else) on various topics, for instance on Nuclear power (see the edit history), or perhaps the canonical example of Traumatic masturbatory syndrome.  Would it be worth specifically noting that orphan papers don't generally count as reliable sources? --Robert Merkel 06:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly orphan papers should, at best, be used with caution. I'd say this is much more of a rule in the sciences than elsewhere, and (to state the obvious) should be a pretty serious warning flag in a much written-about subject matter area like nuclear power. I'd be less worried about citing, for example, an "orphan" dissertation about (for example) a commune in rural France; it might simply be the only academic writing on the (obviously legitimate) topic. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphan journal articles 

message: I've recently rewritten the above page, and there is currently discussion on the talk page regarding the viability of certain websites as reliable sources.  Comment would be appreciated. Hiding  talk 16:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Notability (websites) 

message: How does this apply to foreign media used as primary sources ? Secondary sources ?
The article "Flying humanoids" was sourced from Jeff Rense's website, which has cited Mexican media sources for sightings of these creatures in Mexico, and used Texas media as sources for material reported in sightings of these things in the US, mainly in Texas. Martial Law 21:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I understand your question. The criteria for reliable sources are pretty much the same regardless of what country the media are from ("foreign" is all a matter of where you are standing). The only clear exception is that one would be wary of media from a country with a highly censored press. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Foreign Media

message: Is a company's official web site a "reliable source", especially for basic details of the company such as when it was founded and their primary product lines?  I realize that sources independent from the company may be better, but often the best source of information is the company itself.  -- Kaszeta 16:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally, yes. It's certainly not a reliable source for how their product compares to other products, of course, but the kind of things you are listing, yes. It's important to cite clearly, though, on anything where there might be a matter of controversy. For example, a claimed founding date is sometimes the founding date of the oldest of several merged companies. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, as a more specific case, I've had a disagreement about Flying Buffalo with another editor who insists that the "No Original Research" tenet should keep me from using Flying Buffalo's own web site as references and removed the citations.  Since it's a somewhat obscure (but notable nonetheless) company, their own site is probably the best resource.  They do make claims on their site that could use verification (like being the first computer-moderated play-by-mail company), but getting basic facts like the company's history and product line should be reasonable, no?  -- Kaszeta 14:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems to me that Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Personal websites as primary sources is a pretty close analogy. You can use their web site for information about the company but probably not about anything else. It looks to me that is just what you want to do. However, things are more subtle, as you say. What if they say they were the first compamy to do so-and-so? Is this a statement about themselves or about someone else? I think the "great caution" bit is far too cautious and there shouldn't be a problem unless the actual content quoted is genuinely in some doubt. Anyway, if you say "the company's web site says "...", surely you can't go far wrong. But I'm not an expert! Thincat 15:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In terms of things like a listing of their products, this should be uncontroversial, to the point where it is hard to imagine a good-faith objection. In terms of anything else, if there is any doubt the text can make it clear that this is the company's own claim. - Jmabel | Talk 22:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Company web sites 

message: I'm having some trouble with unreliable sources around... and while I know they're true, I admit they aren't all that reliable, so I can't back it up. It's quite frustrating. After thinking a lot about it, I came up with a question that is all about its implications... Is Wikinews reliable? If not, will it ever be? • Ekevu • ♥ • ★ 16:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikinews 

message: A number of times I've noticed that someone cited a court case to support a particular fact: for example, "Lynchburg Circuit - Criminal - CR91003195-00." I've been unable to find anything on WP:RS stating that this is acceptable or that this is unacceptable. Thoughts?
Seems to me that this should not be acceptable. This material is not available online; in most cases cannot be ordered online for the corresponding courthouse; in some cases, it can be ordered for money. However, in most cases, one needs to actually go down to the court - in this case, Lynchburg, VA - and physically file a request to see the court records. That makes verifying the material virtually impossible for any editor not living in the locality. --Pierremenard 19:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Court cases? 

message: It seems to me that some people add information to a page without knowing if their information is correct or common knowledge; they don't even know if any experts or a majority of the population believe it to be true.  They might even acknowledge it's a myth that a lot of people are mistaken about.  But they take a "one-person survey" -- themselves -- and rationalize that if one person believes it is true, they cannot be the only one.  Considering the millions of people there are in the country, or in the world, surely, there must be many people with the same opinion.  So, they add their statement and qualify it with the introduction, "Many people believe that...", thinking that whether it is true or not, it is an important statement about society that many people believe it. GUllman 19:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could someone please comment on this?  Is this a valid way to contribute to an article -- adding your own ideas and then waiting to see if anyone deletes or adds support to it.  In a way, it could be considered original research -- surveying the Wikipedia community to see how widespread an idea is, without having to cite an authority or a reliably performed survey.  (Sometimes, there is none for those topics that no other encyclopedia covers.)  This page should mention this type of edit, and whether it is a reliable source or not. GUllman 20:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is definitely a problem, and it's why Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words is a guideline. -- Beland 04:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am a crowd 

message: The current version states
:"Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources.
:This is because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them."
This sounds in some specific cases as excessively skeptical: some people have a prominent internet presence under their real name and there can be no reasonable doubt about their identity. What about people who list e.g. their own yahoo groups on their homepage? In those cases there can be no reasonable doubt about the identity of the posters. Andries 13:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What if we are talking about websites or software? What the admin of the site posts should be pretty reliable. WP 10:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bulletin boards

message: I disagree strongly with much of the section "Sources in languages other than English". I started some of this discussion a few weeks back on WP:V; my issues were generally not addressed there; instead, the material seems now to have been moved here, so I will start over on this page. I will try to confine myself to my major issues with this; the following list could easily be tripled in length.
Much of this section seems to me to be part of a process of dumbing down. Much as when people object to particular sources on the grounds that are not universally available either online or at the average public library, ease of verifiability is deemed to trump scholarship and accuracy. To me, the section reads like it was put forward by someone who does not do much research with non-English-language sources. It is weighted entirely to the convenience of a monoglot English-speaker who feels that language should never be an obstacle to checking all sources for him-/herself. 
* "… English-language sources… should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources." Should people who read Arabic prefer to use a translation of the Qu'ran to the original? Should I prefer the (often hideous) quasi-official translation of a Romanian government document to the original? I think not.
* "For example, do not use a foreign-language newspaper as a source unless there is no equivalent article in an English-language newspaper." Two questions (both rhetorical, I'm afraid): 
*#Many of our contributors, especially on matters outside the English-speaking world, do not have native English. Are we actually telling them that not only do we expect them to write in English but to track down their research sources in English? 
*#Does this mean that if I translate an article from Catalan or German I am expected to re-do all of the research rather than assume good faith on the part of the original researcher? 
* "Readers may not be able to read source materials in other languages…" and readers may not have access to a particular book you cite, and readers may not be familiar enough with the subject matter to judge correctly handle a generally but opinionated source, and so on. Such is life. Not all sources that can be successfully used by a capable researcher reasonably expert in the topic can be successfully used by everyone who walks in off the street. Learn to live with it.
As I said, I could go on. If enforced, these rules will discourage a lot of good work that has been going on. - Jmabel | Talk 06:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely. No serious academic community would ever have a rule like this - I think it makes the English Wikipedia community look incurious and ill-read. As a practical matter, Wikipedia's extraordinary linguistic diversity means that an editor who has questions about a source written in a language they don't understand can probably find someone who can help them here or on another Wikipedia. This guideline should go. CDC (talk) 06:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Jmabel. I'd recommend following standard academic practice as it applies to the topic of the article. If there is an important primary source in a foreign language, it should be cited, along with pointers to English translations if they exist. (The idea behind the recommendation to use "English sources" also misses the point that English itself has changed considerably during its recorded history, and the reader cannot be assumed to understand even early modern English well enough either.) --MarkSweep (call me collect) 08:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I support the new version. Good job. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 01:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, that makes no sense. Sources should be consulted primarily on the basis of their reliability and relevance. It would make little sense to write, say, an article about 17th century European philosophy without mentioning primary and secondary sources in French, German, etc. Of course, whenever English translations are available, those should be cited as well. For recent events, there may not be any high-quality English sources available. In that case it would make no sense to insist on using a low-quality English source instead of a high-quality non-English source. In other words, the proposed requirement to prefer English sources should at most hold ceteris paribus, when all sources can be considered to be of comparable quality. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 07:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources in languages other than English 

message: I notice in the section of "Personal sites as secondary sources", the sentence is "Personal websites and blogs should not be used as secondary sources".
Does that mean personal blogs, or does it mean all blogs? The context, to me, implies the former.
Is there a valid distinction between personal blogs (e.g. "hey, here's my blog") or a more focused topical blog, ranging from Slashdot to BoingBoing to Google Sightseeing and even to Daniel Drezner's personal but extremely economics-focused and heavily-traveled blog  ?
- Keith D. Tyler ¶ 20:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blogs == personal blogs only? 

message: Someone wants to cite a FAQ that was written by people unqualified to comment on the subject --just written by various Joe Blows on the internet. I strongly believe it's not a credible source. What do I do? Is it arbitration? What's the procedure to contest the credibility of a source? (The policy should say something about FAQ's, actually). RJII 21:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citing a FAQ - FAQ's not credible sources unless written by credible authors

message: I don't think that Wikipedia meets its own guidelines for reliability of sources; yet editors are encouraged to wikify their articles.  The topic deserves mention in the main page as a notable exception to the guideline.  -ikkyu2 (talk) 05:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how it could be a reliable source, since the editors have no apparent qualifications to editorialize. Whereas normally, papers are written by named persons with academic qualifications, there is no reason to trust the editorial judgement of Wikipedia writers. I would think that citing the editorial content from Wikipedia in a scholarly article would be laughable. RJII 19:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any difference between wikification of a word in a Wikipedia article and citation of an off-site link, for the purposes of sourcing?  -ikkyu2 (talk) 04:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what wiki-links have to do with sources.  Obviously one wiki article can't use another one as a source.   But making a link (be it internal wikilink, or external link) is not the same (necessarily) as citing a source.  Some sources don't even involve links at all.  --Rob 22:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Wikipedia a reliable source? 

message: It says "Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources." but I want to use a blog as a source. The situation is that the blog is used by an individual to publish his criticism of politics. In that case, I think it is perfectly acceptable to cite the blog as a source for the views of the owner. Would anyone object to my updating this article to cover this?Eiler7 19:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it already covers that. Blogs may be used as primary sources for the opinions of their writers. -Will Beback 23:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The wording could be improved. It says "A personal website or blog may be used only as a primary source, i.e., when we are writing about the subject or owner of the website." but it would be better to say that "when we are writing about the opinions of the owner". If that change were made, then the next sentence should be removed. Eiler7 10:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blogs 

message: I realize now that I did not understood what Geogre was saying. This is where I disagree:
:A tertiary source is one that is an analysis, compilation, and narrative of secondary sources.  When we say that Wikipedia is a tertiary source of information, we mean that it is not only autonarrative but also that it is not a simple review.  -Geogre
On the contrary, if you do your own analysis of the secondary sources (an analysis that goes beyond understanding and organizing them) instead of reporting (and organizing) the analysis that is already provided in the secondary sources, then these secondary sources are not really used as secondary sources. By definition, if you use something as a secondary source, you must respect the interpretation or analysis that is provided in that source. You cannot take a viewpoint on it as if it was raw material to analyse and interpret. Indeed, you must restrict yourself to a summary or review and an organization of these secondary sources.  Otherwise, if you take a novel viewpoint on the 
content of these secondary sources (including their analytical or interpretative content), you are actually using these secondary sources as if they were primary sources. Also, a tertiary source cannot ignore the interpretation or analysis that is provided in the secondary sources and build its own novel interpretation or analysis of the primary source material that is contained in these secondary sources. A tertiary source such as Wikipedia can only report on secondary sources. Of course, it can cite the primary sources that are used by these secondary sources, as long as it does not do some novel work that analyses or interprets these primary sources, which is what a secondary source does. -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 16:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However, the distinction I wish to draw is those things that are secondary to the event and those that are secondary to accounts of it.  What is important is the fact that we are talking about being secondary to a narrative of the primary experience, rather than whether we are in relation to a previous iteration. [...]  Any analysis of other things written about is tertiary to the act or event (the verb of literature, the totality of the accident as event, the report of the accident).  -Geogre
My understanding here is that Geogre considers that the value of a tertiary source is that it uses material that already contain some evaluation and judgement. He must have in mind a student that would directlty write about a movie without consulting secondary source materials, which often result in a less thoughtful analysis of the movie. The analysis is likely to be more complete, etc. if the students use secondary sources. This is a very valuable viewpoint, but it is not at all the purpose of the requirement that we only report on secondary sources. On the contrary, the idea is that we cannot add any novel interpretation of primary source material in Wikipedia. If a student writes a tertiary source about the movie, it would have to restrict himself to only organize and report secondary sources. This might not be what the professor expects, but it is what Wikipedia policy requests. However, to add some flexibility, the WP policy allows for exceptions, and an article about a non controversial movie might be one of these exceptions.  -Étincelle (formerly Lumiere) 16:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More on primary/secondary sources Vs No original research

message: Might I suggest a more atomistic approach? Some websites can quite adequately describe the organization they talk about, most particularly if the organization itself would be considered a reliable source. An engineering institution (my background) would be a good example. They are definitively a reliable source (they publish academic journals, professionally accredit people etc) but their inner workings are not reported anywhere since they are uninteresting to the media at large, and even to the technical media. Some of the detail is useful to Wikipedia though. I think it would be ok to cite the webpage they offer that says "here is how we are structured" and be quite sure that the information was verified, and reliable.
If the people/organization running the website is/are not a reliable source, then it seems only natural that the website they produce on themselves is not reliable either. So I'm inclined to think this is a case-by-case issue, rather than one of over-arching definitive philosophy. Judge the reliability of the webpage on the reliability of the source publishing it. And temper this with a need to retain a neutral pov and no advertising. Thus a blog site that says "we hvae trhee thousdan membres" and they started last week would not be a reliable source anyway, and their claim to 3000 members is not reliable either. -Splashtalk 18:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, I was answering Brenneman's orignal questions. I didn't invoke any guidelines, I said what I personally would regard as a good way to do things. I agree that it is reasonable to say "Source X says Y", but not to rely on an unreliable Source X to verify itself. I am getting at relying on RandomForum's home pages attesting to their massive notability and cultural influence when plainly they are an unreliable source in the first place. Which I think is what Aaron had in mind. It's not really a Point of View that "my forum has 3000 members", it's a claim of actual fact that we should not rely on an inherently unreliable source to provide about itself. (Disclaimer: Not all forums/blogs are inherently unreliable. I'm just using an oft-occuring example.) -Splashtalk 21:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Globalized/localized interpretations

message: Does anyone here have any opinion about external links to articles on the arxiv e-print server (http://arxiv.org/)? My position is that this doesn't count as a reliable source, except in rare circumstances. This has come up quite a few times for me lately. Dmharvey 03:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  what about the arXiv? 

message: With regard to opinions on movies or the history of a particular movie, it occurs to me that a DVD audio commentary track is comparable in many ways to a print source.
a) DVD's are published, are fairly readily obtainable by anyone wishing to verify a citation--as obtainable as a book.
b) The people speaking on commentary tracks are usually fairly authoritative and, the important part, usually famous enough that a reader can make a judgement on their reliability.
c) I've suggested that a reference to movie content could be made by citing a DVD's publisher, date, ASIN number, and the number of minutes into the film. Aaron Brenneman has objected (cogently) that such a citation is really not comparable to a print reference because cinema DVD content is not directly quotable (in words), and that different observers can sometimes have widely diverging interpretations, and hence descriptions, of what is seen on the screen. 
However, this objection doesn't really apply to spoken content—commentaries, and, for that matter, spoken dialog in the movie itself, does it? It should be possible to transcribe spoken dialog accurately, fairly, and neutrally—in most cases.Dpbsmith (talk) 11:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DVD spoken content, e.g. commentaries--and how to cite it? 

message: The issue of archival materials (which are often unpublished) as a reliable source has come up on Hopkins School's FAC, and I have listed the issue for public comment. Please post if you have an opinion, hopefully WP:RS policy can be slightly altered if a decent amount of the community agrees. Staxringold 19:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archival materials?

message: I agree with the policy that Wikipedia shouldn't use itself as a source (along with the clarification that wikilinking doesn't create a "source" relationship, so wikilinking is OK despite this).
However, I think the reason needs clarification.  Wikipedia is, on many subjects, approaching the quality of mainstream brick-and-mortar encyclopedias.  A blanket claim of "wikipedia is unreliable" isn't appropriate--if it were unreliable--and always doomed to be so--why bother working on it, or reading it?   
Better reasons to consider:
* As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is best used as a tool for further research.  When at all possible, we shouldn't be citing any encyclopedia as a source, especially as the only source for a topic.  Primary/secondary sources should be preferred for numerous reasons.
* It is somewhat incestuous for Wikipedia (or any encyclopedia) to cite itself.  This creates far too much opportunity for circular reference and other flaws in citation.  
Note that citation of Wikipedia articles should be considered inappropriate even after WP 1.0 is published (and even if it is deemed by all and sundry to be the gold standard for encyclopedias), for both of the above reasons.  
An exception, which is commonplace in current practice but might merit discussion:
* When Wikipedia writes about Wikipedia, it's OK to cite the Wikipedia namespace, especially articles of an official nature (such as policy).  As the Wikipedia namespace is not considered part of the encyclopedia itself; this escapes the objections above.  Stuff in the Wikipedia namespace probably shouldn't be used as a source for any topic unrelated to Wikipedia or its operations.  Likewise, if we write about the Encyclopædia Britannica, the best source is the EB itself.
* User pages might be an acceptable source when writing about notable Wikipedia contributors (much as the blog of a notable individual could be considered an acceptable source when writing about that person).
Thoughts?
--EngineerScotty 23:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia as a source, part 2

message: I have used  as a source to support the comment that social anarchists are the majority of anarchists, on the article An Anarchist FAQ (which is what that source is). RJII argues that it should not be used as it is self-referential, and removed it.
He claims the FAQ should not be used as a secondary source because it is biased. However, the statement which is supported by the source is a purely factual comment, that "social anarchists are in the majority" and is not affected by any bias. 
Also, RJII has not provided any sources opposing the statement, yet I have provided two sources supporting it. (The other source is a historical source which is a separate part of the statement.) Could someone comment on this? -- infinity0 17:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not true that I say the source shouldn't be used because it's "biased." A biased source can be fine depending on what information you're sourcing from it. The reason it can't be used as a credible source is because it doesn't meet Wikipedia policy standards on a credible source. It's not published. It's not written by anyone with any academic qualifications.  And, infinity is using it as a secondary sources for an article about the FAQ itself which is doubly improper. He's using An Anarchist FAQ as a source for a claim made in An Anarchist FAQ. It's ludicrous. (Also, if the FAQ is used in other articles it should only be used as a primary source, not a secondary one). RJII 18:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source appropriate? 

message: Following a discussion in a FAC then an RFC the following proposal has been organized. Obviously if you have an alternative proposal, please voice it, and vote no matter what if you have an opinion. Basically the proposal includes 3 slight alterations to allow archives to be used as source on Wikipedia provided that additional information is included in the citation to prove the archives existence, public accessibility, and reliability. Staxringold 00:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:ARCHIVES]]

message: I have seen a couple of arguments recently that attempt to dismiss secondary sources on the basis that those secondary sources use bad primary sources.  Two cases in point that have come up in the last couple of days.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radical integer: Article is sourced partly by a reference to Mathworld by Eric Weisstein, but that website has also been published as a book.  Some editors dismiss this source, citing that the book uses, as a source, discussion on a mailing list and little else.  (Concerns that Weisstein's work is error-prone are also raised, but not the issue I'm interested in here).
Talk:The Game (game): A new source has been found for The Game, a newspaper article in De Morgen.  Some users dispute the use of that source, as it may have been based partly on a previously deleted Wikipedia article.  
I don't think we should get into the specifics of these cases here (there are other discussions for that), but I would like to say that I think the following caveats should be added to the WP:RS page.
Judging secondary sources based on their sources
* Secondary sources should not be considered unreliable for not disclosing their sources.
* Secondary sources may be considered unreliable for being based on (or probably based on) sources that are known to be faulty or grossly unreliable.
* Secondary sources, generally, should not be considered unreliable because their sources aren't as reliable as this policy expects.
* However, secondary sources that are based mainly on sources Wikipedia would not consider reliable should be used cautiously.
My reasoning: first of all, it is not our job, nor a good idea, to try to vet the contents of every secondary source we want to cite.  It is good to consider the quality of our secondary sources, and considering the quality of their sources is a good thing.  However, if the source in question is published, we should trust that someone knowledgeable considers the source's sources to be adequate, and we should defer to this unless we have information to the contrary.  Secondly, we cannot demand the same quality of sourcing in the sources we use as we require for Wikipedia articles, or in principle nothing would be reliable.  We really have to defer somewhat, and I think we should defer as long as we don't know of any specific problem.
As an example, if a newspaper article claimed that (say) Gwynneth Paltrow had dyed her hair blue, and the newspaper was reputable, we could use it to add a claim to Gwynneth Paltrow that she dyed her hair blue.  If we find out the article was based on the claims of an anonymous person in regular contact with Gwynneth, we defer to the article's judgement that the source is reliable, but it would be appropriate to hedge and say "The Washington Post reported that Gwynneth Paltrow died her hair blue," not endorsing the source, but using it.  If it turned out that the anonymous person was lying, we could then consider the newspaper article unreliable.  What do people think?  Mangojuice 19:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Judging secondary sources from ''their'' sources