Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 15

message: Can a controversial statement be concerned a fact by Wikipedia standards if it is supported by one reliable source, while other comparable sources fail to mention it? An editor recently wrote on Template talk:History of Manchuria: "Wikipedia requests proof from reliable sources, but has no requirement on number of reliable sources." I'm not sure how well this matches the intent of this policy page.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 17:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The editor may have been referring to Wikipedia:Verifiability The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Jeepday (talk) 17:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This guideline says nothing about the number of reliable sources... all we say is that a source must be reliable.  WP:V seems to indicate that one reliable source is all that is needed.  However, you should note that there are other policies that come into play on this issue.  The Undue weight of WP:NPOV would apply if the "fact" is not a commonly held view. Blueboar 21:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many sources are required? 

message: Press releases are often the basis of news articles about a subject, particularly when it relates to announcements (e.g., Joe Smith is New VP, Mary Jones to Release New Album, etc).  Is it appropriate to link directly to the press release (which often has more complete information) as a reference source, instead of just the news articles that excerpt it?  Risker 19:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bit on primary, secondary, and tertiary sources at WP:NOR provides some guidance.  For basic facts such as you describe they're probably OK.  For uses beyond such straightforward info one has to recognize that press releases often contain puffery, so it's better to rely on secondary sources that cover them when possible. Raymond Arritt 20:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The information in a press release used as a source by a reliable newspaper is reliable, but the reliability depends not upon the press release, but upon the authority of the newspaper. The newspaper article should be the one cited. The article may have omitted some material which it thinks less reliable (such as praise of the subject), or added some of its own. This is an exception to the general rule that the original source is better, because the original source has no independent editorial control and the newspaper does.,DGG 20:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I was thinking specifically of fact information (graduated from..., names of performers on albums, etc.) that would be relevant to the article but may not be interesting or important enough for a brief news report.  The puffery part, I absolutely agree upon. So would I be correct in interpreting this to mean that factual information MAY be acceptable, but should be included with caution and other sources sought to replace/support the press release?  Risker 20:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that's a reasonable conclusion. The more basic and unambiguous the facts in question, the better -- e.g., "XYZ Corp. holds its Annual Meeting on 25 June" would be OK, but "XYZ Corp. is the leading manufacturer of pocket diaper steamers" would not. (What does "leading" mean, for a start?) Raymond Arritt 21:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's about right, but with some caveats re BLP information. In BLP material, where all reliable secondary sources have left out specific information about a relatively unknown person, given in press releases and similar primary sources, the information is not supposed to go into the article (see WP:BLP#People who are relatively unknown). WP:BLP#Well known public figures prohibits the use of e.g. material from public records that has not been presented by a reliable secondary source; I'm not sure how this translates to press releases. AvB ÷ talk 21:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about we create Wikipedia:Verifiability/Examples? Different people have different learning styles.  I for one prefer examples. Jehochman  Talk 01:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Press Releases - RS? 

message: The section that was agreed on above has now been repeatedly removed by users SlimVirgin and Crum375 with the explanation that this contradicts the WP:Verifiability policy.
The proposed, consensus addition:
:The most reliable material is published by scientists, scholars, and researchers, particularly publications in peer-reviewed journals and academic presses. These sources are preferred in subjects such as medicine, natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities. However, alternative reliable sources are used if scholarly publications are not available - which may sometimes be the case in topics such as popular culture or current events.
The policy it that it is thought it might contradict:
:Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made.
What is the contradiction? Tim Vickers 18:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The contradiction is that V and NPOV do not prioritize scholarly sources, and indeed make clear that all majority and significant-minority published views must be represented, within the limitations laid down by V and NOR. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words, a story in a local newspaper carries the same weight as a paper in the Physical Review? Raymond Arritt 19:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say that either. This discussion is taking place at WT:V, by the way, so I won't be commenting again here. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, this is a guideline, and as such must follow the policies, not contradict them. Secondly, our primary goal is to follow WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, while adhering to verifiable sourcing per WP:V. We need to prioritize mainstream publications and mainstream views, not 'academia' vs. news media, which could run afoul of NPOV. We also prioritize well-vetted published sources vs. minimally vetted ones, which is a core component of WP:V. But we cannot blindly promote 'scholarly' over 'non-scholarly' for example, as that could easily violate our core NPOV and V policies. Also, we must focus on the publishers and their vetting mechanisms, not on the individual authors. Crum375 19:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec) OK, so  a story in a local newspaper does the same weight as a paper in the Physical Review. This needs to be more prominently noted, because many contributors assume otherwise. Raymond Arritt 19:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Scholarly publications, such as peer-reviewed journals and academic publishers, are well-vetted published sources, to an even greater extent than news media.  There is no contradiction to say "The most reliable material is published by scientists, scholars, and researchers, particularly publications in peer-reviewed journals and academic presses." --Aude (talk) 19:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the problem is that people read "The most reliable material..." as saying that this is the only reliable material. This is not the case, all this says is that this is the most reliable material and, as a result it is "preferred" in the subject areas listed. I think this statement is true for these subjects - peer-reviewed sources in the sciences etc are indeed usually the most reliable and they are indeed preferred as a result. This is of course completely different from saying that you cannot use non-peer-reviewed sources, all it says that if peer-reviewed and scholarly sources exist, they are usually the most reliable. A guideline cannot contradict a policy, all it can do is expand and clarify such policies. Tim Vickers 19:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Please let's keep this discussion in one place at WT:V, where it matters more. Marskell 19:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Types of source material 

message: Discussion of changes to this article is under way at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Sources.  This is mentioned within above comments above.  (SEWilco 23:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No discussion of change to this page is under discussion there. It's a proposal to change that page that's being discussed. What this page says is largely irrelevant, because V is the policy. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of changes under way 

message: My understanding is that this guideline has been deprecated in favor of WP:V and WP:NOR.  This page in current form is mainly a signpost to direct users to the appropriate place.  I am wondering why there are ongoing discussions here, when these discussions seem like they should move to those policy pages instead.  Jehochman  Talk 23:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's certainly nothing on the page that indicates that it's deprecated. That should be fixed, because almost everyone I've interacted with thinks that it's still in effect. Raymond Arritt 23:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I would certainly be in favor of redirecting this title to WP:V. The phrase "reliable sources" is referred to a lot, but that's because WP:V, which is the policy, uses that phrase, so people get mixed up and think this page is the policy. It would be good to redirect it so that the misunderstanding stops. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  For the sake of simplicity and consistency we should remove this redundant guideline. Jehochman  Talk 23:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  I fully agree - this should be redirected to WP:V. Anything else causes constant confusion. Crum375 00:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It seems the "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" part is the only thing not fully redundant to WP:V, and there seems no reason that could not be added there. 2005 00:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree; the only thing of value in it is the phrase "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources", which should be moved to WP:V. The rest either duplicates policy or contradicts it. Jayjg (talk) 00:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It's in V, second sentence in the Sources section.  SlimVirgin (talk) 00:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand corrected; then there's nothing of value in it that is not already found in WP:V. Jayjg (talk) 01:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: There's more emphasis about the fact we expect reliable sources to be cited when we refer people to a page called "Reliable sources".  It's useful to detail what we mean by reliable sources when we say that in WP:V and elsewhere.  People still often refer to this page and it's certainly still active. --Aude (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People refer to this page because they get mixed up. It doesn't actually say anything. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't say anything, because the passage about reliable sources and scholarly sources keeps being removed.  The page needs to explain what we mean by reliable sources, what's generally expected for articles on scientific topics and other topics and what's generally not acceptable.  Of course, we have WP:IAR for exceptions.  But this page needs to be meaningful and elaborate/support WP:V.  It's handy to refer people to this page, with the page title also meaningful. --Aude (talk) 01:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The page title would still exist; the suggestion is to redirect it, not delete it. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood.  But, it's more helpful for people to come to a page with this title, and not a redirect to another page.  The word reliable is important, and this page can discuss what we mean.  What reliable means may be one thing for scientific articles, something else for biographies, pop culture, and many other topics.  But, it's an important idea-- important enough that it can't hurt to give extra emphasis, reiterate, and discussion of it here.  The WP:V page would be helpful to keep short, simple, and more concise. --Aude (talk) 01:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This page is needed to give guidance on what are reliable sources and what is not and provide expansion on the policy summarised at WP:V. At present, the WP:V policy only states that reliable sources are "third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" This is clearly insufficient for new editors unsure of what this might mean. However, although more specific examples will be useful for the reader, there will always have exceptions, so any such general guidance would be inappropriate for policy. Hence, this clarification needs to be done in a guideline.  Tim Vickers 01:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Aude and Tim; the problem exists because most of the needed content here was removed months ago (around November 2006, I think) during the writing of ATT.  The solution is to restore and rework the lost content hre.  We need a guideline that expands on the policy, as we had before the ATT situation.  WP:V lost too much of WP:RS, and it was never replaced here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly agree with SG here. The old RS page was tremendously helpful, whereas WP:V is so vague that it invites a lot of edit warring. But I think the solution is to improve WP:V instead of having two different pages that can drift out of sync. Raymond Arritt 02:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I, too, strongly agree with SandyGeorgia. I was very upset to discover some critical content missing, and I am hardly alone.Proabivouac 02:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that the page needs to be redirected to WP:V.  It's too confusing to have two pages that cover the same ground.  At the same time, WP:V in its present state is hopelessly inadequate and needs to be revised so that it gives useful guidance. Ideally we would have a single, useful page rather than two poor ones. Raymond Arritt 01:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We tried to have one for a while, Raymond; see WP:ATT, and it worked very well, but then it was overturned. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. WP:ATT also folded WP:NOR into the mix, a huge difference. Raymond Arritt 01:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It is rather confusing to have two pages, and seems a bit pointless. I too would be happy with a redirect. ElinorD (talk) 01:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never thought of it this way before, but Aude's rationale for keeping the  page with this title seems a very good one: Reliable sources. And i agree with Tim that we need this to explain things adequately.DGG 02:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if WP:V is to legitimize the liberal resort to junk sources, we should still provide a reliable source guideline to aid those editors who want to produce serious quality articles anyway.Proabivouac 02:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. We need to keep policy brief.  An FAQ would be extremely helpful.  Would this address your concerns, SandyGeorgia?  Jehochman  Talk 05:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Started. Of course, it means we'll still have a page to watch. The FAQ format may be preferable though. Marskell 09:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why an FAQ?  The title of this page, "Reliable sources" is more to the point.  We should work material that used to be in the WP:RS page, back into it and make it a useful guideline. --Aude (talk) 12:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: "Reliability is a spectrum, and must be considered on a case-by-case basis. Typically peer reviewed publications are considered to be the most reliable, with established professional publications next. Government publications are often reliable, but governments vary widely in their level of reliability, and often have their own interests which will explicitly allow for withholding of information, or other motives."
Saying this in the WP:RS guideline would be helpful.  More of what use to be in the guideline is at User:Aude/Reliable sources, which may have other useful bits that need to be worked back into the guideline. --Aude (talk) 12:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Certainly WP:V should talk about reliable sources, but expanding on it and addressing people's questions in one place such as WP:RS is very helpful.  We should build this page back up, to something better than what was here before.  But, some of what used to be here may be worth including.  And discussion of sources on those other pages could be covered here. --Aude (talk) 14:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support Aude's position. There is no need to be averse to having two pages that relate to one another: WP:V should be primarily about dealing with why we verify material (like it says in the "nutshell" box) and WP:RS should be primarily about what sources to use. There was a lot of good content here once. I do not know if the removal was an attempt to cater for short attention spans or something, but that sort of thing is neither necessary nor desirable. Whatever we need to include in order to provide a detailed guideline with good coverage, we should not shy away from that. If V and RS were to be merged/redirected, it would do nothing positive for their content, intention, or usability. Adrian M. H. 16:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I like that idea, but the bottom line is that it should be EASY for a user to find information on 'what is reliable', with examples like 'are blogs/newspapers/journals/etc. reliable?'. I have spent countless hours engaged in discussion of whether a given source was reliable or not because we lack answers to simple questions like that. As a content creator, I'd be much happier if people editing those policy pages would stop highly theoretical arguments about semantics of some WP:V wording, and instead ensured we have policy/guidelines answering basic questions asked by content creators.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  13:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:RS Guideline Deprecated? 

message: Some people wished to delete this section as there was "no consensus" to include it. I moved it to my user space, feel free to comment on it here. What exactly does this guideline overlook or say wrong? Do you want to include it or not? Let's try to build consensus here. SalaSkan 14:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has two parts; a list of definitions, which seem quite reasonable, and a list of specific  unreliable, or often unreliable, sources, which is a grabbag. I would support inclusion of the definitions, in some form; the list of examples seems both arbitrary and controversial. (I largely agree with it; but stigmatizing Urban Dictionary and deprecating the scientific content of the Bible both need discussion.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Examples are out of place, particularly considering we have Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Examples - which was split off exactly because discussion of specific examples was unbalanacing this page. PS. But for the record, I am definetly in favor of keeping the well designed sections on what is reliable and unreliable sources, the reliability issues seem like the biggest achievement of the ATT fiasco.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  13:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  User Wrad and myself recently discussed a project to assess reliability of frequently used references   here.  It looks like there is room for combining towards a single goal. Jeepday (talk) 01:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: there are probably some sources you will be able to specify as being accepted almost unconditionally, but almost all are accepted to a greater or lesser degree, and i am not sure how a template will do it. Septentrionalis's examples are very much to the point. DGG 00:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just thinking out loud here, but maybe a rating system based (very) loosely on the example Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Quality_scale.  Even if you begin by just listing the areas the source would be considered primary for and the giving a rating of it's known fact checking as a secondary and/or tertiary source. Jeepday (talk) 14:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just start with People magazine as being most reliable, as that's where it will get moved to.  Repeatedly.  (SEWilco 15:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Generally unacceptable sources 

message: :: User Wrad and myself recently discussed a project to assess reliability of frequently used references   here.  It looks like there is room for combining towards a single goal. Jeepday (talk) 01:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: there are probably some sources you will be able to specify as being accepted almost unconditionally, but almost all are accepted to a greater or lesser degree, and i am not sure how a template will do it. Septentrionalis's examples are very much to the point. DGG 00:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just thinking out loud here, but maybe a rating system based (very) loosely on the example Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Quality_scale.  Even if you begin by just listing the areas the source would be considered primary for and the giving a rating of it's known fact checking as a secondary and/or tertiary source. Jeepday (talk) 14:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just start with People magazine as being most reliable, as that's where it will get moved to.  Repeatedly.  (SEWilco 15:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: a project to assess reliability of frequently used references

message: I think we should overhaul the "why use" section.  At the moment I think we could be clearer about the important negatives that RS are important for (RS help us not violate NOR and NPOV and various bits of NOT).  More importantly, however, the positive seems left more or less unstated: RS help us make a better encyclopedia.   semper fictilis 15:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you could write a new draft for review?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Will do.  I'll get started later tonight.   semper fictilis 22:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why use a reliable source section 

message: For the record.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Good point.  I've squeezed the first of the two points ("support assertions") into the first part, and copyvio to the end.  And I've added WP:V to its own sentence.  WP:CITE, which is about mechanics, I think should be brought up later in the article.   semper fictilis 02:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's better.  I've fixed a typo or two. Also: (1)  I've struck "by definition worthy of inclusion", since that could be used for mischief and any argument about that question should be referring to WP:V and WP:UNDUE, not here.  (2) I suspect the order could be more effective. semper fictilis 16:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current version 

message: Heres a draft.   semper fictilis 02:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Good point.  I've squeezed the first of the two points ("support assertions") into the first part, and copyvio to the end.  And I've added WP:V to its own sentence.  WP:CITE, which is about mechanics, I think should be brought up later in the article.   semper fictilis 02:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's better.  I've fixed a typo or two. Also: (1)  I've struck "by definition worthy of inclusion", since that could be used for mischief and any argument about that question should be referring to WP:V and WP:UNDUE, not here.  (2) I suspect the order could be more effective. semper fictilis 16:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Draft

message: Does that show count as a reliable source? Corpx 09:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please ask questions about specific sources at the noticeboard.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  10:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Short answer is... it depends ... it depends on what article you are using it in (a quote from the show itself is a reliable source in the article about the show), and what you are trying to say in that article.  to give any further advice we would need specifics... and as Piotr has noted, the best place for that is the noticeboard. Blueboar 12:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliability of [[Best_Week_Ever]] 

message: Is this change  objectionable for some reason? If not, why was it reverted over? Tom Harrison Talk 14:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many changes were recently reverted, without any explanation on talk. This is indeed a worrying development in policy/guideline discussion :( -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  14:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:BLP applies to all materials about living persons and not only on specific articles, as explained in the policy itself. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly it does, which is why I changed and in biographies of living people to and material about living people. Why did you revert that change I made? Tom Harrison Talk 15:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The change is definitely appropriate, to reflect what BLP applies to - not just biographical articles but any material. --Aude (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  I have no problems with the re-write, although I do not think it is necessary. The revert was done on the context of reverting to the stable version before the last round of edits. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You seemed to think it was necessary just above, when you told me how blp works, and gave me a link to the policy. In the future I hope you will read my edits, assume I have some idea what the hell I'm doing, and don't revert my changes if you don't object to them. Tom Harrison Talk 15:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biographical material about living people 

message: Old lead:
I think the new lead, which is shorter, has better (non-redirect) links and doesn't repeat parts of WP:V nor of Template:Guideline is better:
Any comments?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  14:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This page explains what sources are considered reliable I do not think this page does that, Piotrus. The only piece of information that is not already available in policy pages is the section about "extraordinary claims", that IMO needs to be moved to WP:V. The rest is wikilinks to existing policies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words, you are saying that "Reliable sources" page does not address the issue of reliability? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I would suggest that you put your excellent copyediting skills at work at WP:V/FAQ, where they will be put at better use... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that only makes the editors confused which page to check; that material should be moved here.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.Hornplease 23:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  How can you say that? V, NOR and BLP are official policy of Wikipedia. This page is a guideline. A guideline can only provide guidance on existing policies, not create new ones. The aspects of reliability of sources are already described in these policy pages, this being only a convenient place to link to these aspects in existing policies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I misunderstood Piotr's proposal. I was objecting to the creation of a FAQ subpage of V instantly without a consensus here about what it would contain. I hope that makes my position clearer. I do not think that we should start by assuming that RS is merely a series of links. If nothing else, that would seem to contradict an eventual goal of a subpage of V.Hornplease 06:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  What is confusing, is that editors refer to WP:RS as if it was a policy when actually it is not. The policies that discuss sources and their reliability are V, NOR, NPOV and BLP, as explained in the lead: This page is a guideline, not a policy, and is mandatory only insofar as it repeats material from policy pages. The relevant policies on sources are Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:RS is referred to in many places throughout Wikipedia, so it's understandable that people believe it carries some weight. (See WP:GACR, WP:FACR, even WP:NOR.) What needs to be done is to go through all these places and replace the references to WP:RS with WP:V given that (a) WP:RS isn't policy and (b) over the past few months WP:RS has been essentially gutted of any meaningful content. Raymond Arritt 02:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even in the current form, RS tells the editors more about reliablity then V. V, for content editors, is mostly useless, it is more of a peace of 'Wiki philosophy'. RS is extremly needed, and whether it is explained here or moved to V FAQ, explanation of 'what is reliable' is what will be constantly referred to in content discussions (hence the noticeboard issue - go ahead and create a WP:V noticeboard and see if anybody ever uses it...).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  10:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  The main issue, I believe, is that people refer to RS without the necessary context (i.e. V, NOR, NPOV, BLP, etc.). The reliability of sources is not an aspect that stands alone: sources must be evaluated in the necessary context, always. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course, but this only means we need a more detailed explanation on this page - something that both the 'unreliable and reliable section', and WP:RSEX, are trying to do. Splitting the reliability issue among a few policies is a worse solution then having a dedicated page for its discussion. Btw, my main problem with WP:V/FAQ is that /FAQs and generally /slashed subpages are not common on Wikipedia.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  13:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree that the key problem is that most editors are not experts in Wikipedia policy and lack context for many things.  For that reason, some redundancy between guidance articles is a good thing, because it increases the chance that editors will see the key ideas.  So long as the redundant material is consistent across multiple uses, I see no problem with it.  I view the proliferation of policies, guidelines, and FAQs on Wikipedia as a serious problem.  Buddhipriya 15:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead changes 

message: I propose the removal   of "material with no sources or unreliable sources may be removed at any time" from the lede. This is a part of WP:V. (I'm not 100% sure it commands unqualified agreement either, considering the way it has been used with what some people may think excessive zeal.) I think simply referring to WP:V will prevent possible duplicate argument. DGG (talk) 02:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I replaced that sentence with the wording used in the policy page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *I think that's better 02:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed at any time 

message: In Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia we read: 
Also in Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia we have: 
I think it should also be reflected on this guidline. One way is to confine to adding a link to the above two giudelines. Another way (which I prefer) is to also add a statement which has the same message in it.
I have added a section to this giudeline, here. If you think it is not appropriate (or not enough) I'd be glad to have your comments. huji—TALK 09:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is more reliable than some newspapers that we sometimes cite. But the point of attributing accessable (published) reliable sources is to a minor degree to provide further information, which we also do with internal linking which would not make sense if it was to a page with unreliable data. But mostly it to enhance credibility which can not be done by citing ourselves: "See here is further evidence that I am right, I agree with myself." WAS 4.250 11:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: additionally, it would seem perfectly legitimate for a summary article in WP to rely on the sourcing of the detail articles--I have sometimes seen this challenged, though I cannot think why (assumingthe detail articles are themselves adequately sourced).  It might be good to say something about this--the routine bio facts in the principle article about someone should be sufficient for mention of them in other articles. DGG (talk) 01:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In principle this should be OK, but care has to be taken that the two articles do not drift out of sync so that we end up with unreferenced statements. Someone may edit the detail article without realizing that other articles depend on it for references. I'd tend to err on the side of duplication.  This is especially a concern when WP:BLP issues are at stake. Raymond Arritt 02:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reasonable indeed given the nature of Wiki, though as a matter of style, I tend to leave introductory summary paragraphs to longer cited sections, or introductory statements linking to other sourced articles, footnote-free unless specifically asked to provide a citation. Sometimes it seems to be a bit of an overkill leading to unnecessary redundancy, but after interacting with other editors who too freely place  tags to statements that may be referenced in the very next paragraph, I try to make it a habit as often as reasonably possible. In the end, it is probably better to err on the side of duplication than to have legitimate material removed. Don't know how this should reflect on the guideline though. — Zerida 06:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree with WAS 4.250's statement — Wikipedia is less reliable than any newspaper. It cannot be reliable, because it is subject to change at any moment. It is often more accurate than some reliable sources. It's important not to confuse the two. Reliable sources do not guarantee accuracy, but are merely our best substitute for for something that cannot be achieved in human-collected and -reported information. And it largely works, too. Ironically, what makes Wikipedia so useful to readers is its surprising amount of accuracy for such an unreliable publication. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it all depends on reliable for what purpose. The current version can not be relied on to not change, but any specific dated version can be relied on to not change. And wikipedia can be relied on in general to be accurate as you just said. As noted below, even court documents can be inaccurate. WAS 4.250 14:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. For the record, RS had a statement about Wikipedia and wikis in general being unreliable, but it was removed together with other clarifications - see my comment in the section below.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  10:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It is also noted that in support of the submissions concerning the unreliability of the web site, reference was made to a newspaper article critical of the parent site namely Wikipedia. The article apparently appeared in The Age newspaper on 8 March 2007 under the title, "Wikipedia ‘expert’ admits: I made it up". The article involved a person purportedly claiming to be an editor of Wikipedia and who had been incorrectly referred to as a "professor of religion with a PhD in theology and a degree in cannon law" serving his "second term as chair of the mediation committee" which purportedly rules on disputes over information posted on the web site. The article reveals that the person holds no advanced degrees and in fact is a 24 year old from Kentucky. It was submitted this demonstrates the unreliability of the material.(source : http://www.austlii.edu.au//cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/FMCA/2007/975.html?query=Refugee%20Review%20Tribunal )
The court itself make the mistake of saying Armeniapedia was "a branch of Wikipedia". Inaccuracies can be found in even the best of sources! WAS 4.250 14:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Jeff Q probably just isn't aware of how often newspaper are wrong - the Pullitzer Prize winning journalist Dave Barry summed up the problem nicely, who noted the problem with American newspapers is that while you can be fairly sure what you're reading is false, you really can't rely on it - unless it's a weather forecast, economic outlook or horoscopes, all of which are consistantly false.  Hell, where I work the usual joke is that anything printed in Nature must be wrong ... although the occasional correct article probably does slip through.  WilyD 14:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This, I believe, is more of a WP:V discussion: we don't care about right or wrong (truth or untruth). We care about verifiability. Newspapers are sometimes wrong, sometimes correct. So are wikis. Most newspapers, however, are written by pros, not amateurs, and have some editorial checking.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  14:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia as an unreliable source 

message: Didn't this guideline previously contain advice about later studies superseding earlier research? Can't seem to find that now in the policies and guidelines. I thought it was useful. TimidGuy 17:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It did, but some users decided there is no consensus to include such examples, although they had not provided detailed rationale. Please see #Generally acceptable and unacceptable sources and #Examples section. Feel free to comment there or restore the points you liked. See also WP:RSEX.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: As a frequent editor of WP:RSN I can attest that having explain something on Day A using part of the guideline that is disputed on Day B is not a pleasant experience :( I look forward to reading your other comments.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated scientific research superseded by by more recent research 

message: There's a section in the Randall Flagg article detailing the fans' controversy over his appearence in his last book. Would in this case topics and opinions from thedarktower.net count as a source?--CyberGhostface 01:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I would say no, because anyone can say anything on forums, with no editorial oversight.   Corpx 17:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Fora are not reliable sources in themselves. You may be able to report what was written on a forum, as you would report what someone said in an interview, but you should not use that to enforce a point of view or verify a claim. Adrian M. H. 17:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forums 

message: Does using this violate WP:RS ? This is Professor Trawicks home page. This has been disputed in the Prawn farm massacre article. Thanks Taprobanus 17:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conference proceedings 

message: *Tehelka, an investigative paper in India, has been cited as the source for claims that a suspected terrorist identified the Indian gov't and not Sikh separatists as being behind the worst act of aviation terrrorism prior to 9-11. See new content added to Air India Flight 182 and Talwinder Singh Parmar. Does anyone have perspective on whether it is a reliable source? The theory had in the past been discredited, but if reliable sources are examining it, I guess we have to cover it. Canuckle 00:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I would say hold off on it until other sources are reporting their own findings (as opposed to reporting what Tehelka found).   WP:RS says "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" and I would say that this would need more verification.  Corpx 01:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is something covered and discredited in multiple reliable sources, the best route for inclusion would be to mention the paper said X, but that this theory has been generally discredited. Be sure to cite mentions of the theory being widely discredited from reliable sources. To present the theory as potentially accurate, multiple reliable sources would need to be available as mentioned by Corpx. Vassyana 01:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tehelka is a 'notable' source, but I dont think it can be called a 'reliable' source, especially in sensitive and controversial issues.  Tehelka is known for sensationalism and its promoters and journalists themselves have been the subject of several legal/criminal investigations.  So, anything they say has to be taken with truckloads of salt.  Sarvagnya 01:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks all for ther reassurance. I'll go see what I can do about the content. Canuckle 06:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tehelka on terrorism 

message: As a user-contributed source, should IMDb be considered a reliable source for biographical information (i.e. an actor's full name, DOB, etc)?  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 12:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because the information is not verifiable... we don't know who contributed or what their qualifications are. Blueboar 12:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IMDb? 

message: Do these meet WP:RS? They don't appear to, from my understanding, but wanted to get a third opinion. Kyaa the Catlord 21:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Wikinews definately is not a reliable source.   It looks to me like firefox news is user-submitted articles, so I'd say it does not either.   I might be wrong on that Corpx 14:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikinews, Firefox news, other user created news sites 

message: Hey, WP:SUMMARY says you're supposed to leave at least a paragraph in  sections.  Who took out everything and just left links?  This page sucks for searching now. ←BenB4 19:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a quibble ... but WP:SUMMARY applies to Article Space, not Policy/Guideline Space.  That said, I don't see any harm in summarizing the other Policy and Guidelines pages that relate to this one... as long as we do so accurately. Blueboar 12:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: the above line used to be the section header ←BenB4 07:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I support the restoration of this material. I understand that there are two schools of thought on this, that some feel simple, broad, general guidelines are best and that the more detail there is, the more it leads to wikilawyering. But I believe that it's good to spell things out for people. I've seen many editors who use very poor judgment in regard to sources and who have benefitted from this greater detail in the past. TimidGuy 15:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind having the material back... but one of SV's criticisms was that the material at times contradicted what was said at WP:V and WP:NOR (and thus WP:ATT)... if we are to keep the material we need to carefully go through and check each bit against the Policy in question. Blueboar 15:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Blueboar. I could put in a little bit of time each day -- up to a half hour. Could you help? And Ben? TimidGuy 16:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a problem:  I copied the sections when applicable from WP:V and preserved the  header at the top of those sections.  Only when the section was not available from other policies did I use the text from the early April version. ←BenB4 20:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work. Maybe invite SV to take a look? Would be nice to have her on board. TimidGuy 20:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who took out everything under see-SUMMARY sections? 

message: I believe I have brought the missing sections of this guideline back to their pre-WP:ATT-promotion state.  This guideline was positively eviscerated by SlimVirgin in April while she was trying to build consensus for the WP:ATT policy merge.  This version is the result of my effort.(diff) ←BenB4 07:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the restoration of this material. I understand that there are two schools of thought on this, that some feel simple, broad, general guidelines are best and that the more detail there is, the more it leads to wikilawyering. But I believe that it's good to spell things out for people. I've seen many editors who use very poor judgment in regard to sources and who have benefitted from this greater detail in the past. TimidGuy 15:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind having the material back... but one of SV's criticisms was that the material at times contradicted what was said at WP:V and WP:NOR (and thus WP:ATT)... if we are to keep the material we need to carefully go through and check each bit against the Policy in question. Blueboar 15:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Blueboar. I could put in a little bit of time each day -- up to a half hour. Could you help? And Ben? TimidGuy 16:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a problem:  I copied the sections when applicable from WP:V and preserved the  header at the top of those sections.  Only when the section was not available from other policies did I use the text from the early April version. ←BenB4 20:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work. Maybe invite SV to take a look? Would be nice to have her on board. TimidGuy 20:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I put them back 

message: User:Iknowyourider recently added (returned?) a footnotes section.  I (sort of) object...  Not to the content of the footnotes, but to having footnotes at all.  This is a styalistic thing...   I don't think policies and guidelines should have footnotes. If something is worth including in this guideline, it should be in the main text and not stuck down at the bottom of the page in a footnote.  We can argue about the specifics of what these particular footnotes say later... first, let's see what the consensus is on having such a section at all. Blueboar 17:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  footnotes 

message: I just noticed that somebody has added a box with a number of standard links to a great number of pages on personal names. One of the links goes to a website called http://www.behindthename.com/. It seems to be a pretty low-quality amateurish and non-academic website, which cites no sources in itself. Is it really acceptable to spam a link such as this one on all pages on personal names? 
If sources are needed for these pages (even though most are basically just lists of people with a certain name), there are real, academic onomastic dictionaries for various languages or cultures. Most are probably not on-line, but will be found on a reference shelf in your favourite research library. Olaus 07:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've certainly got the right idea. Check out our pages about external links and spam. The good people over at the spam WikiProject might be able to help you out with individual cases or get feedback. If a particular site is problematic or a particular user repeatedly spams, you may wish to report the incident so it can be handled. Hope this all helps. Cheers! Vassyana 08:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I went to Wikipedia talk:External links and discovered that there had already been a discussion about this very website there a few weeks ago, but with few comments and no clear conclusion reached. I added my view there. Olaus 08:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spam of on-line "source" for personal names acceptable? 

message: I my mind it is not, since the summaries carry the biases of the one that summarized them. Also for quotes, the context is missing... What do you think?--Alexia Death the Grey 16:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on what you are using the source for. Blueboar 17:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For this. Comments are welcome.--Alexia Death the Grey 18:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is a collection of article summaries hosted at a third party site a reliable source? 

message: I'd say no, given that the content of a wiki can change, but what do others think?--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 09:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not relevant. Opinions change over time. Reliable sources of knowledge die eventually. The paradigms that govern our perceptions shiftover time, etc.etc. See Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Wiki is invaluable because it does constitute an intimately meticulous record of the way general judgements are constituted over time, unlike most reliable sources which present one with a single-frame snapshot of a field that has limited temporal validity Nishidani 10:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can a wiki ever be a reliable source? 

message: Is the personal website of a family member considered a reliable source for an article's subject? We're facing this issue at Antoni Dunin where a number of people keep resisting removal of stuff that is sourced to the subject's granddaughter's personal website. WP:RS says specifically:
:For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.
I have stressed the point that we cant use personal websites like this as sources for an article or to assert notability, and this is what is being done here. Any feedback from uninvolved editors would be appreciated. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 12:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have weighed in at the article... but will repeat here.  Basically the answer is "no", it is not reliable.  It would be a reliable source in an article about the family member who owns the website (and I would say a statement in another article about that family member) but not as used. Blueboar 13:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal website of family member, a reliable source? 

message: I've been slightly worried, I think needlessly, but I am not expert on these rules, about possible objections to my using Michael Neumann as a source for a remark on Raul Hilberg as a life-long Republican voter. He wrote an 'In Memorian' article in Counterpunch recently. Michael Neumann is, for some (not myself) a controversial figure: Counterpunch is attacked as an, intrinsically, 'unreliable source'. But . .Michael Neumann happens to be the son of Franz Neumann, who was Raul Hilberg's Phd supervisor, and oversaw the drafting of that historical masterpiece. There's a family connection, in short. If someone out there thinks this questionable, I'd appreciate a note.Nishidani 14:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please post this at WP:RSN. ←BenB4 08:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using [[Michael Neumann]] as a source for remark on [[Raul Hilberg]] 

message: Is TV Squad a reliable source? - Peregrine Fisher 03:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[TV Squad]] 

message: I've removed the recently-added material concerning primary and secondary sources. This material was previously at WP:NOR, and was moved here despite a major controversy concerning it on the talk page. Clearly, there is no consensus as to this section, and in any event, it would be redundant, as there already is a link here to the disputed section. COGDEN 20:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit summary (link here) indicates that this material used to be a part of RS and was removed when WP:ATT was promoted (unsuccessfully).  Was this removed by consensus at the time?    If not, shouldn't there need to be consensus to remove it, not add it? R. Baley 21:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. Policy and guideline articles aren't like normal Wikipedia articles, where consensus has a kind of "inertia". Policies and guidelines must reflect and describe present consensus and usage. See WP:Policies and guidelines. They are very conservative, since they have a potentially damaging coercive effect across the whole Wikipedia. If something is controversial, it doesn't belong in a policy or guideline, unless Jimbo or the WP:Arbitration Committee make a ruling. COGDEN 22:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: No, it isn't. Jargon serves a purpose. And in any case, the primary/secondary divide is very important to spell out. I am restoring that divide, at any rate. Hornplease 21:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hang on, I've just seen the edit comment that removed it. Can the reason its not here be explained futher? Is it now enshrined permanently in WP:NOR as policy, or is, as it used to be, a guideline? In which case it should be here? Hornplease 21:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed, I see that it's still present in WP:NOR; however, the mess that I described here above is - happily - absent, as far as I can see. So it's become quite harmless now. Harald88 20:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary/Secondary sources 

message: I have conducted an interview with an individual on his product.
The interview is posted on a site, which also happens to be a forum.
There are further articles in the same area of interest, often with research, references, etc.
The site bares a valid Health On the Net Foundation logo, and abides by it.
Could the interview be referenced and considered as reliable source?
If not, what are the criteria for reliability for web-published interviews?
--Libertate 13:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interview article on web site 

message: Over on WP:V, there is a discussion going on under a section with the same title as this one, it's worth checking out.  I suggest that the discussion be geared towards both arguments for/against full separation of WP:V and WP:RS; AND essays on what the new WP:V and WP:RS pages should contain.  I'll include my own essay concerning a revamped WP:RS below. -Nathan J. Yoder 03:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you please stop carrying this grudge onto other pages?  You're not debating this like you said you would, you're just restating your view for the millionth time (argumentum ad nauseam).  Please defend your views and don't just circularly define them to be right.  I'm confused about your statement concerning strictly defining sources, since you're taking a very pro-prescriptivist stance, which by definition includes using strict definitions and requiring that users never violate those strict definitions (which you've shown strong support for yourself).  -Nathan J. Yoder 05:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not the only user who has tried to use unusual sources in an article. Nor the first who has demanded policy far and wide on every aspect of a disagreement. This isn't a problem which is restricted solely to the article you're currently working on. In fact I probably can't even count the amount of times I've had to deal with users who try to use unreliable sources in articles. This is a problem far and wide in many articles, as such I believe these sources have to be strictly defined for that reason. Having them defined in a policy with instructions for how to handle sources that fall outside of that (e.g. via a special discussion board, or how to go about proposing them on article talk pages) would nip many edit disputes in the bud. As Vassyana pointed out, there is a long standing bond between WP:V and WP:RS and while we've made the effort to strictly define when reliable sources are made, we haven't made the effort to strictly define those sources. Defining those is important for several aspects of WP:NOT. As well WP:NOTE relies on RS to define those sources which are considered reliable to help establish notability another important aspect of article creation.--Crossmr 21:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop harassing me.  All you've been doing is repeating yourself here and on WP:V.  We get it, you disagree.  You're basically commenting to everyone who agrees with me to get them to disagree.  We know your stance.  Vassyana misunderstood my stance and all you're doing is simply using their name to perpetuate this sillyness.  Unless you're willing to actually debate your premises, instead of just repeating them, please don't comment.  If you're going to assert that using vague definitions is a good idea and somehow leads to LESS abuse, support it, because as I see it, it leads only to confusion by the nature of what it means to be vague. -04:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't interpret Yoder's proposal as completely divorcing verifiability from reliable sourcing. I think his point is that WP:RS can contain the "detailed guidance" you're referring to, while WP:V contains the cut-and-dry rules as to what verifiability means. The verifiability policy can say with certainty a bright-line rule for when attribution is required to a reliable source. But the definition of reliable source, which is an issue more appropriate for a guideline, can be found in WP:RS. COGDEN 02:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I pointed out above. The moment you move something from policy to guideline you're changing the dynamic. Keeping and making additional clarification on sources policy prevents things like WP:SOAPBOX. Otherwise "it's not a policy" rings aloud which I've heard many times.--Crossmr 02:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop repeating yourself and stop this harassment.  Nothing is being moved from policy to guideline, they are all staying as they are.  You are so clearly just using this as an excuse to accuse me of soapboxing.  -Nathan J. Yoder 04:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:OWN you own neither articles nor discussion pages. This is a policy discussion page and changes are being debated. I'm free to debate those.--Crossmr 04:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If only you were debating the issue instead of just repeating your original propositions (read argumentum ad nauseam, seriously).  Where did I claim I owned it?  I asked you to stop harassing me, which is not only reasonable, but it is also against the rules to harass users.  It's sad that you have to make up ridiculous claims that I'm OWNing anything in order to justify your presence. -Nathan J. Yoder 04:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you're willing to actually debate your premises, instead of just repeating them, please don't comment. Seems like you're trying to dictate who can and can't comment and how they can comment in a page you're editing.--Crossmr 04:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, using "please" makes it sound like I'm trying to own it instead of requesting that you engage in the debate.  Next time, I will not request that anyone engage in the debate. Can't you just admit that that was a dubious accusation? -Nathan J. Yoder 04:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Vassyana, I'm not proposing getting rid of either of them, nor preventing verifiability from emphasizing the use of reliable sources.  The point is that defining WHAT a reliable source is should be left only to WP:RS and WP:V should rely stricitly on verifiability and how it ties in with reliable sources, along with the need for both, but without defining WP:RS. -Nathan J. Yoder 04:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize for the misunderstanding. I think we're actually mostly in agreement. Vassyana 22:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Sure, reliable sources should include precise examples, but it should defer to the general definition as the ultimate determiner.  In other words, the examples as such shouldn't be stated as if they were (nearly) set in stone. -04:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distinguishing [[WP:Verifiability]] from [[WP:Reliable sources]] 

message: DRAFT v 0.5 beta
Summary of verifiability changes
I believe that WP:V should remain as is with the criteria for what constiutes an RS removed.  It should simply state that reliable sources be used with the relevant exceptions concerning when a reliable source need not be used and it should outline a distinction between verifiable sources (i.e. something that can be looked up by anyone, regardless of quality--a set that includes the set of reliable sources--most often this applies to primary sources) and reliable sources, but I won't go into detail about those here since this is about the new RS, not the new V.
Policy
*Pro: Strict, rigid and as such less prone to abuse via overly broad interpretation.
*Con: Slow to change due to consensus taking longer to form.  Being rigid, oversights and changes are more difficult to account/compensate for.
Guideline
*Pro: Flexible, allowing more interpretation and built-in allowance for exceptions not previously conceived.  Consensus is garnered more quickly, allowing changes to account for oversights and changes. 
*Con: Flexibility allows for more abuse due to overly broad interpretation.
Arguments for status as policy/guideline
V is a general, abstract concept and can be easily understood as such and there are no exceptions as to where a verifiable source shouldn't be used.  Because of this, it's possible to to apply it much more consistently and objectively by Wikipedians.  This means changes to it are much less likely to occur, making it ideal as a policy.
RS entails various general concepts, but can also become onerous when dealing with new, less traditional media (due to evolving media and technology).  Changes in application are much more frequent due to divergence from traditional sources (both in terms of new quality sources arising and traditional sources being less likely to give adequate coverage to new niches of a technical [not necessarily technological] nature) and oversights are much more likely due to the large number of potential quality sources.  The nuances of the various types of sources requires a more descriptivist (as opposed to prescriptivist) approach.  This makes it ideal as a guideline.
How reliable sources should be changed 
WP:RS should be about what it means to be reliable, not a list of DOs and DON'Ts. So what is the essence of reliability? What makes a source reliable from Wikipedia's perspective and is it possible to judge reliability without making judgments of veracity of the source material?
Isn't a source being judged as 'reliable' against the spirit of NPOV policy? Suggesting that a source is 'reliable' means making a judgment call on how accurate the source is...an assertion of veracity of the source included in the content. From WP:NPOV: "None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth."'
The spirit of RS should be 'what do people consider to be reliable', in line with NPOV's spirit of 'what proportion of the population holds a given view' when determining its 'due weight.'
The number of people in the relevant population (e.g. scientists for scientific journals) that consider the source reliable (relatively speaking) within the context that it's being used in. In terms of contexts, its possible a source may be considered reliable for certain things and for those it could be used, but for many others it could be considered horrible and it wouldn't be used for those.
e may also consider 'hypothetical reliability' instead of 'known reliability'--that is, instead of just going by a source that the population already knows about, you may consider sources that the population is less aware of, but would consider reliable if they encountered it.
This is a measure that can be enforced consistently, without passing judgment of veracity, by users who have any type of view. Most traditional sources (e.g. print newspapers) are very notable and would do well, so that's not an issue. This would have the added advantage of including non-traditional sources that many would consider reliable in technical and other types of niches that the general population isn't as directly aware of.
-Nathan J. Yoder 03:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Njyoder]]'s new [[WP:RS]] essay 

message: I agree, and think this is a good move. I do see a meaningful distinction between WP:V and WP:RS, the former being a policy, the latter being a guideline, and they are really about to distinct issues. The respective pages should focus on what they are about and not simply duplicate each other. COGDEN 23:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you please stop carrying this grudge onto other pages?  You're not debating this like you said you would, you're just restating your view for the millionth time (argumentum ad nauseam).  Please defend your views and don't just circularly define them to be right.  I'm confused about your statement concerning strictly defining sources, since you're taking a very pro-prescriptivist stance, which by definition includes using strict definitions and requiring that users never violate those strict definitions (which you've shown strong support for yourself).  -Nathan J. Yoder 05:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not the only user who has tried to use unusual sources in an article. Nor the first who has demanded policy far and wide on every aspect of a disagreement. This isn't a problem which is restricted solely to the article you're currently working on. In fact I probably can't even count the amount of times I've had to deal with users who try to use unreliable sources in articles. This is a problem far and wide in many articles, as such I believe these sources have to be strictly defined for that reason. Having them defined in a policy with instructions for how to handle sources that fall outside of that (e.g. via a special discussion board, or how to go about proposing them on article talk pages) would nip many edit disputes in the bud. As Vassyana pointed out, there is a long standing bond between WP:V and WP:RS and while we've made the effort to strictly define when reliable sources are made, we haven't made the effort to strictly define those sources. Defining those is important for several aspects of WP:NOT. As well WP:NOTE relies on RS to define those sources which are considered reliable to help establish notability another important aspect of article creation.--Crossmr 21:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop harassing me.  All you've been doing is repeating yourself here and on WP:V.  We get it, you disagree.  You're basically commenting to everyone who agrees with me to get them to disagree.  We know your stance.  Vassyana misunderstood my stance and all you're doing is simply using their name to perpetuate this sillyness.  Unless you're willing to actually debate your premises, instead of just repeating them, please don't comment.  If you're going to assert that using vague definitions is a good idea and somehow leads to LESS abuse, support it, because as I see it, it leads only to confusion by the nature of what it means to be vague. -04:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't interpret Yoder's proposal as completely divorcing verifiability from reliable sourcing. I think his point is that WP:RS can contain the "detailed guidance" you're referring to, while WP:V contains the cut-and-dry rules as to what verifiability means. The verifiability policy can say with certainty a bright-line rule for when attribution is required to a reliable source. But the definition of reliable source, which is an issue more appropriate for a guideline, can be found in WP:RS. COGDEN 02:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I pointed out above. The moment you move something from policy to guideline you're changing the dynamic. Keeping and making additional clarification on sources policy prevents things like WP:SOAPBOX. Otherwise "it's not a policy" rings aloud which I've heard many times.--Crossmr 02:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop repeating yourself and stop this harassment.  Nothing is being moved from policy to guideline, they are all staying as they are.  You are so clearly just using this as an excuse to accuse me of soapboxing.  -Nathan J. Yoder 04:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:OWN you own neither articles nor discussion pages. This is a policy discussion page and changes are being debated. I'm free to debate those.--Crossmr 04:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If only you were debating the issue instead of just repeating your original propositions (read argumentum ad nauseam, seriously).  Where did I claim I owned it?  I asked you to stop harassing me, which is not only reasonable, but it is also against the rules to harass users.  It's sad that you have to make up ridiculous claims that I'm OWNing anything in order to justify your presence. -Nathan J. Yoder 04:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you're willing to actually debate your premises, instead of just repeating them, please don't comment. Seems like you're trying to dictate who can and can't comment and how they can comment in a page you're editing.--Crossmr 04:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, using "please" makes it sound like I'm trying to own it instead of requesting that you engage in the debate.  Next time, I will not request that anyone engage in the debate. Can't you just admit that that was a dubious accusation? -Nathan J. Yoder 04:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Vassyana, I'm not proposing getting rid of either of them, nor preventing verifiability from emphasizing the use of reliable sources.  The point is that defining WHAT a reliable source is should be left only to WP:RS and WP:V should rely stricitly on verifiability and how it ties in with reliable sources, along with the need for both, but without defining WP:RS. -Nathan J. Yoder 04:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize for the misunderstanding. I think we're actually mostly in agreement. Vassyana 22:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Sure, reliable sources should include precise examples, but it should defer to the general definition as the ultimate determiner.  In other words, the examples as such shouldn't be stated as if they were (nearly) set in stone. -04:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: I just had an occurrence of finding a wikipedia article cited as a supporting source.  I reverted that, and explained my reversion on the article's talk page.  However, I had to jump through hoops to find a spot in the guidelines where it says clearly that Wikipedia (and other open wikis) are not reliable sources.  I see this often enough that I am convinced that this guideline needs to be made more visible.  Accordingly, I have revised the "Generally unacceptable sources" subsection to explicitly list Wikipedia in particular, and other open wikis in the explanation of that as a generally unacceptable source.  My intention is to wait a few days to see what discussion of this develops here, and then make similar changes in WP:V and, possible, in WP:CITE. -- Boracay Bill 07:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw your change Diff it looks appropriate. Jeepday (talk) 14:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With the disclaimer that wikis are a type of self-published source, and so in certain cases they may be appopriate, I do agree that on average, their reliability is very low - and I do think that we had (have?) a rule of 'Wikipedia articles are not suitable references for other Wikipedia articles).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If such a statement has gotten lost in the shuffle, we need to re-add it.  That has long been the rule. Blueboar 17:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: See above #Generally unacceptable sources ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that specific examples can be removed, there is no consensus for them - they belong to WP:RSEX anyway. But the sections themselves are extremly useful, we need that level of detail for this policy to be actually useful for content editors.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  13:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I concur. --Coolcaesar 07:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is already obvious in policy. See WP:SPS ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open wikis, including Wikipedia as unacceptable sources. 

message: Are PhD thesises considered a reliable source? In some instances when I am hunting sources they are cited (in journal articles and other scholarly works). While arguably self-published, it isn't like they aren't given serious scrutiny by experts (my own thesis defence is still three years away and already I dread it!). Sabine's Sunbird  talk 02:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I consider them "semi reliable". I would trust them for factual claims, less so for opinions. Often the key points appear later published in a peer-reviewed paper, which is certainly reliable. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Depends - many are published by the relevant University Press, and they're at least "quasi-reviewed" - i.e. the defence. WilyD 13:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed in the past. A PhD dissertation undergoes a considerable amount of peer review -- perhaps more so than a published article. There are typically five committee members who are specialists in the field. The committee also usually includes someone from outside the department or the university. Dissertations are regularly cited in academic journals. I think they can be cited as bona fide scholarly work. TimidGuy 15:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I generally think otherwise, at least in science. first, they are often almost unavailable--in the case of many UK theses, literally unavailable without the consent of the author. Second, anything good in them would normally be published in a peer reviewed journal. Third, at least in my experience on both sides of things, the level required is nowhere near as high as an article. In the humanities, theses are sometimes cited. I would not accept it as a reference unless it had been cited by another worker in a peer reviewed article, or if there were special circumstances. They're just too iffy.  US theses are never' published by the university press in the usual meaning of publication--if they appear to be, it is either a case of a book based on the thesis having been published by the university press, or the university being listed as the publisher--which is another matter entirely of much lesser authority--the university publishes all sorts of things, press releases included, or they are printed by the university press--that also is the case in Europe sometimes. Basically I agree with CBM on this. DGG (talk) 01:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks, DGG. Good points. Let's say I wanted to cite a Harvard dissertation. Which guideline or policy would disallow it? TimidGuy 10:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would discourage the use of theses in general, especially if they are not on the university’s normal accession lists.  The whole purpose of sourcing is allow other editors and readers to readily confirm what has been written in an article.  If the source is accessible with only the greatest difficulty – or not at all – then it’s really rather useless.  Worse, it becomes a venue to insert someone’s POV in a nearly unverifiable way.  If the thesis is of fundamental interest to the specialized community, then it will likely be further developed and find its way into a peer-reviewed publication or book.  Perhaps we should best think of them as “proto-reliable sources.” Askari Mark (Talk) 16:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I had the same thought -- that compared to other types of sources cited in Wikipedia, such as a local newspaper, dissertations would be a good source of expert information. And it seems like they're relatively easy to access, either via interlibrary loan of via purchase through ProQuest. But it may be that Wikipedia should at some point address the issue raised by DGG and Askari that relative accessibility may be a consideration. Right now the impression I've gotten from earlier discussions is that if the source is, in theory, available, then it's acceptable -- even if that means traveling to a special collection in a distant city. TimidGuy 15:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I tend to agree with the last two. In the humanities, I'm dubious that articles, let alone non-academic books necessarily have more reliable opinions - dissertations tend to be more cautious I would think. On accessibility, one of the leading members of the Good Article Review team (Homestarmy) doubted that the British Museum Catalogue of Illuminated manuscripts was an acceptable source because, though fully available online, the site didn't always work! Johnbod 03:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Or reviewed in a reputable journal, I presume? Olaus 11:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Isn't this more an issue of giving due weight to sources or views (I have seen a policy on "undue weight" somewhere). A recent dissertation on some minor or previously untreated topic should be perfectly fine to cite for that topic, while a recent dissertation presenting a bold new answer to some significant long-debated question should not be used as the main source for that subject until it has gained a following. Olaus 11:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PhD Thesis